Okay, so my playoff watching has not gone particularly well thus far. Washington put up a great fight after getting themselves down 3-1, and it was a highly entertaining series, but at the end of the day, the fact remains that the hated, hated Flyers have gone through. *sigh* The fact that this was followed up by the Flames' self destruction was kind of the icing on the hockey cake yesterday.
The first round is always my favorite. It's the one that tends to be filled with the most intrigue, the most potential. Honestly, I think I was completely burnt out by the time the Stanley Cup finals hit last year (although the fact that it was the Senators and the Ducks may also have had something to do with it).
Anyways, next round we've got:
(1) MONTREAL vs. (6) PHILADELPHIA
(2) PITTSBURGH vs. (5) NEW YORK RANGERS
(1) DETROIT vs. (6) COLORADO
(2) SAN JOSE vs. (5) DALLAS
Interesting how that worked out. Both 1-2, both 5-6. Fascinating. Anyways, I could see Dallas pulling the upset over San Jose. Actually, I could see Colorado doing it too, especially if the goaltender shakiness continues in Hockeytown. I'm rooting for Montreal and Pittsburgh, but Pittsburgh/Philly for the EC final would be ridiculously intense. Montreal/Pittsburgh at least has the "Sid playing his team growing up" angle to it, and as the last remaining Canadian team, I will give them my support. Well that, and I'm a fan of Price.
Let's break it down this way:
Montreal in 6
Pittsburgh in 6
Colorado in 7
Dallas in 7
Other predictions? For one, Avery discovers a wholly new and innovative way to annoy everyone, until Laraque rearranges his face. Crosby grows three whole beard hairs (or "wisps"). Montrealers find a new and innovative way to celebrate victory...and manage not to set fire to it. Detroit and Colorado remember that they absolutely hate each other.
Oh, Mirtle posted this earlier today. Seeing the fans chuck bottles at Carter is pretty disappointing (as is the YouTube video when someone pelts Lupul with a pizza box). I know your team got beat and you're pretty broken up about it, but there's that whole "appropriate way to express your displeasure" thing.
Should be posting more often...been getting distracted by the end of term push, preparing for conference, and getting back into the swing of things now that my knee is healed (YAY!). WIll try to make a point of it. I'll definitely say something about the AO-laden issue of THN that just showed up at my door, particularly because I'm very happy to see him on the cover. :)
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Sweeeeeeeeep!
The first team to make a statement: the Pittsburgh Penguins. Sure, they probably didn't have the hardest opponent in the sinking-like-a-stone Senators, but they definitely deserved every win they got. The fact that they're the only team that has managed a 4-0 in this first round says something too.
Also, I'm hoping that with a week off, Crosby might be able to work on growing something that doesn't resemble the mustache of a 14 year old boy...
One Toronto enemy down. Now I wish a similar fate upon Philly.
Also, I'm hoping that with a week off, Crosby might be able to work on growing something that doesn't resemble the mustache of a 14 year old boy...
One Toronto enemy down. Now I wish a similar fate upon Philly.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Avery = Giant Douche
Did you know that you get 164 hits for Googling the search string "Sean Avery is a douche"? The things you learn.
I'm all for intensity. I'm all for ingenuity. But there's this line - and moderately intelligent/sane people seem to be able to see it - between being passionate and innovative, and being an unsportsmanlike jackass.
There's a reason we've never seen anyone else screen the goalie by facing them and waving their stick in their face. It's dumb. It's also incredibly unsafe. Where do shots typically come from on the PP? Oh yeah, the point. At approximately what, 70-85mph (I'm assuming they can't shoot quite as fast in game time situations as the optimal conditions produced in skills competitions). Depending on where you get hit by the puck you cannot see coming (ankles, SPINE) you could really do some damage. There's also the whole high stick part of the deal (though I think the play would be equally ridiculous with Avery dancing in front of Brodeur with his stick on the ice). It's a hockey stick...not a pitchfork.
Honestly, I'm less concerned about Avery injuring himself, or about high sticking, as I am about the fact that it's textbook unsportsmanlike conduct. There are just things you...don't do. Things that end up on the news as "*shakes head* And here's the latest from the NHL...isn't this ridiculous?" tend to be unsportsmanlike. I'm not surprised, nor am I against the fact that the league has amended the unsportsmanlike conduct rule to assert that this type of play is not acceptable.
Again, I think he looked like an absolute idiot doing what he did, but it was within the rules as they were written, and he wasn't penalized for it. The league has reacted, and ensured it doesn't happen again. Good on them.
In other news - my Capitals jersey is now 1-2. I'm not sure if that means I shouldn't wear it for game four, or give it a chance to get back up to .500.
I'm all for intensity. I'm all for ingenuity. But there's this line - and moderately intelligent/sane people seem to be able to see it - between being passionate and innovative, and being an unsportsmanlike jackass.
There's a reason we've never seen anyone else screen the goalie by facing them and waving their stick in their face. It's dumb. It's also incredibly unsafe. Where do shots typically come from on the PP? Oh yeah, the point. At approximately what, 70-85mph (I'm assuming they can't shoot quite as fast in game time situations as the optimal conditions produced in skills competitions). Depending on where you get hit by the puck you cannot see coming (ankles, SPINE) you could really do some damage. There's also the whole high stick part of the deal (though I think the play would be equally ridiculous with Avery dancing in front of Brodeur with his stick on the ice). It's a hockey stick...not a pitchfork.
Honestly, I'm less concerned about Avery injuring himself, or about high sticking, as I am about the fact that it's textbook unsportsmanlike conduct. There are just things you...don't do. Things that end up on the news as "*shakes head* And here's the latest from the NHL...isn't this ridiculous?" tend to be unsportsmanlike. I'm not surprised, nor am I against the fact that the league has amended the unsportsmanlike conduct rule to assert that this type of play is not acceptable.
Again, I think he looked like an absolute idiot doing what he did, but it was within the rules as they were written, and he wasn't penalized for it. The league has reacted, and ensured it doesn't happen again. Good on them.
In other news - my Capitals jersey is now 1-2. I'm not sure if that means I shouldn't wear it for game four, or give it a chance to get back up to .500.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Confused Now...
Being in Toronto until the week-end, I decided I should try to take in a Marlies game. I went to my first one when I was home for Christmas and enjoyed it. Ricoh is a pretty intimate environment, and the tickets are pretty cheap (especially when compared to the Leafs). The Marlies are also enjoying a great season, have clinched their division, and are two points back of Chicago (whom they decimated last night, 8-2) for first overall. When I combine the cheapness and the success factors, I find it pretty irritating that more people don't wander on down to the Exhibition grounds to take it the games, but I think Toronto is rife with professionalism and most "hockey fans" can't be bothered to/don't know anything of teams and leagues that aren't the Leafs.
Now, this isn't what confusing me at the moment. What confuses me is what purpose the Marlies' dancers (or whatever their official title is) serve. We were sitting behind the net in the end the Marlies' attacked twice, so we got to see a lot of the ladies. The short skirts and hiked up Toronto FC jerseys annoy me enough, but then I noticed how many young boys get the women to sign their hats, jerseys, and other paraphenelia. I don't get it. How is this any different than getting attractive women on the street to sign things for you? I can at least understand the people who get their picture taken; if nothing else you have one of those 'hey hey! I'm with hot chicks!' conversation starters, but autographs? Yeah, don't get it.
It also makes me wonder about what we're teaching these young boys. I always find it fascinating that the Marlies - a team marketed towards families - employ dancers. To me, this shows these children from a young age that women should act as cheerleaders for men. This imagery conflicts with stuff like the Timbits hockey held in the first intermission, which is probably half little girls. If I was those little girls, I think I'd be confused. Here I am, being told I can play, and yet the only "grown up" role models that I have in the arena are the dancers, not players.
There was a set of young boys, probably 13 or so, who came down from their seats to sit in front of us (and closer to the dancers). They were half making fun of the women, and half sitting there "to be closer to the girls" (I heard one say this). This was another one of those things that made me raise an eyebrow. If I had been born a boy, and my mom saw me doing something like that, she would have killed me. I just feel like it really serves to reinforce stereotypical behaviours that we're supposedly moving further away from in a more equal society. Of course, I think that equality is largely a fallacy regardless, but examples like this that punctuate this belief for me do make me sad.
On another note, Jiri Tlusty had four points last night for the Marlies. I really wish the Leafs would have let him play the whole season (or at least a good chunk of it) in the AHL this year. I can't see how play 2:00-5:00 minutes per game in the NHL helped his progress like playing time might have.
Now, this isn't what confusing me at the moment. What confuses me is what purpose the Marlies' dancers (or whatever their official title is) serve. We were sitting behind the net in the end the Marlies' attacked twice, so we got to see a lot of the ladies. The short skirts and hiked up Toronto FC jerseys annoy me enough, but then I noticed how many young boys get the women to sign their hats, jerseys, and other paraphenelia. I don't get it. How is this any different than getting attractive women on the street to sign things for you? I can at least understand the people who get their picture taken; if nothing else you have one of those 'hey hey! I'm with hot chicks!' conversation starters, but autographs? Yeah, don't get it.
It also makes me wonder about what we're teaching these young boys. I always find it fascinating that the Marlies - a team marketed towards families - employ dancers. To me, this shows these children from a young age that women should act as cheerleaders for men. This imagery conflicts with stuff like the Timbits hockey held in the first intermission, which is probably half little girls. If I was those little girls, I think I'd be confused. Here I am, being told I can play, and yet the only "grown up" role models that I have in the arena are the dancers, not players.
There was a set of young boys, probably 13 or so, who came down from their seats to sit in front of us (and closer to the dancers). They were half making fun of the women, and half sitting there "to be closer to the girls" (I heard one say this). This was another one of those things that made me raise an eyebrow. If I had been born a boy, and my mom saw me doing something like that, she would have killed me. I just feel like it really serves to reinforce stereotypical behaviours that we're supposedly moving further away from in a more equal society. Of course, I think that equality is largely a fallacy regardless, but examples like this that punctuate this belief for me do make me sad.
On another note, Jiri Tlusty had four points last night for the Marlies. I really wish the Leafs would have let him play the whole season (or at least a good chunk of it) in the AHL this year. I can't see how play 2:00-5:00 minutes per game in the NHL helped his progress like playing time might have.
The only time of year I *sort of* wish I was American
...Because I'd love to get tickets to a playoff game.
We are in the Calgary Flames ticket draw. There are 600 tickets available this way. Between me, my partner, and my parents, we have four chances. How many people do you think are signed up? I actually wish they would release that data as I would truly like to know. I'd estimate at least, I dunno, 10,000?
Anyways, I decided to see what playoff games I could get a hold of.
The first place I checked was the Flames' first round rivals, San Jose. I pretty much had my pick of tickets for game two, which goes tomorrow.
I then went through the Western conference.
Detroit - Tonight, Section 116, Row 17, Seats 1-2, $105. Since I'm more of an upper level person, I checked that, too - Section 210, Row 11, Seats 1-2, $75.
Minnesota - SOLD OUT
Anaheim - ...first, why is there a note saying that a large block of tickets has been released in sets of one and three? All this time, I thought two and four were more popular. Anyways, I specifically looked in the $55 range for tonight's game - Section 411, Row S, Seats 1-2. There's also a building charge in Anaheim, and convenience and building come out to $9.60 (or 17% of the cost of a ticket). Damn. But still, ticket's to tonight's game...available.
Dallas - Apparently sells through their own website. Went there. Next Tuesday, 327, K, 8-9, $44 apiece.
Colorado - Next Monday, 322, 9, 19-20, $49. At 20 hours away, I believe Denver is the second-closest playoff hockey city to us, beating Minnesota by an hour.
Nashville - Next Monday, 307, C, 10-11, $49.
So essentially, the only place in West (not in Canada) that I can't find tickets is Minnesota. Glove tap to them.
EASTERN:
Montreal - SOLD OUT. I don't even know why I bothered to check, really. That was a given. Apparently they were sold on TM only by auction? There's a minimum bid, but I can't seem to find a maximum. Was it a sky's the limit kind of thing? Crazy. I guess the others were sold through the French equivalent of TM. Regardless, so very, very, SOLD OUT.
Pittsburgh - Friday, C5, G, 8-7. $125. This surprised me, actually. I think this is the only price point available, though...I tried others with no success.
Washington - SOLD OUT? Seriously? Cool.
New Jersey - SOLD OUT.
New York - SOLD OUT.
Philadelphia - SOLD OUT. (I think...)
Ottawa - SOLD OUT.
Boston - Couldn't find $50 ones, but $176.50 showed up (CLB137, D, 15-14).
So, six of eight in the East are sold out, compared to two of eight in the West. Interesting. The West is the "better" conference...but at least people in the East are there to watch the game...
We are in the Calgary Flames ticket draw. There are 600 tickets available this way. Between me, my partner, and my parents, we have four chances. How many people do you think are signed up? I actually wish they would release that data as I would truly like to know. I'd estimate at least, I dunno, 10,000?
Anyways, I decided to see what playoff games I could get a hold of.
The first place I checked was the Flames' first round rivals, San Jose. I pretty much had my pick of tickets for game two, which goes tomorrow.
I then went through the Western conference.
Detroit - Tonight, Section 116, Row 17, Seats 1-2, $105. Since I'm more of an upper level person, I checked that, too - Section 210, Row 11, Seats 1-2, $75.
Minnesota - SOLD OUT
Anaheim - ...first, why is there a note saying that a large block of tickets has been released in sets of one and three? All this time, I thought two and four were more popular. Anyways, I specifically looked in the $55 range for tonight's game - Section 411, Row S, Seats 1-2. There's also a building charge in Anaheim, and convenience and building come out to $9.60 (or 17% of the cost of a ticket). Damn. But still, ticket's to tonight's game...available.
Dallas - Apparently sells through their own website. Went there. Next Tuesday, 327, K, 8-9, $44 apiece.
Colorado - Next Monday, 322, 9, 19-20, $49. At 20 hours away, I believe Denver is the second-closest playoff hockey city to us, beating Minnesota by an hour.
Nashville - Next Monday, 307, C, 10-11, $49.
So essentially, the only place in West (not in Canada) that I can't find tickets is Minnesota. Glove tap to them.
EASTERN:
Montreal - SOLD OUT. I don't even know why I bothered to check, really. That was a given. Apparently they were sold on TM only by auction? There's a minimum bid, but I can't seem to find a maximum. Was it a sky's the limit kind of thing? Crazy. I guess the others were sold through the French equivalent of TM. Regardless, so very, very, SOLD OUT.
Pittsburgh - Friday, C5, G, 8-7. $125. This surprised me, actually. I think this is the only price point available, though...I tried others with no success.
Washington - SOLD OUT? Seriously? Cool.
New Jersey - SOLD OUT.
New York - SOLD OUT.
Philadelphia - SOLD OUT. (I think...)
Ottawa - SOLD OUT.
Boston - Couldn't find $50 ones, but $176.50 showed up (CLB137, D, 15-14).
So, six of eight in the East are sold out, compared to two of eight in the West. Interesting. The West is the "better" conference...but at least people in the East are there to watch the game...
Monday, April 7, 2008
Eastern Conference Predictions
Montreal (1) vs. (8) Boston
Questions to be Answered:
- Is Carey Price a less offensive second coming of Patrick Roy?
- Can Boston overcome their stellar record against Montreal this year?
- How did Montreal go from a predicted 13th to 1st, and if they keep winning, do we keep being surprised?
I may be a Leafs fan, but I’m not completely anti-Habs. I’m actually pretty impressed by how they’ve managed to beat everyone’s early season expectations and have claimed first overall. I loved Carey Price when he was with the Canadian Juniors, and I love his story, the whole “winner at every level” angle. I do wonder if a kid his age can kick ass and take names at the NHL level, but if anyone can do it, it’s him. Obviously the organization has faith in him (or an abject lack of faith in Huet), so hey, let’s see what he can do.
Honestly, I don’t see Boston getting very far in this series. In my opinion, they are (by far) the weakest playoff team. I know people turn it up when the second season hits, but honestly, if the Bruins (0-7-1) couldn’t beat the Habs in eight tries, I don’t see another seven helping very much.
PREDICTION: Montreal in 5.
Pittsburgh (2) vs. Ottawa (7)
Questions to be Answered:
- How do Pittsburgh’s lines shake down with everyone back in the line up? Do the Pens use Hossa, Crosby and Malkin on one PP line or two?
- When, exactly, does Ottawa remember how to play hockey? Or put another way, just how big a fluke can a 15-2 start really be?
Let’s put this bluntly – Ottawa has been horrendous lately. In terms of teams who limped into the playoffs, if they’re not at the top of the list, they’re pretty close. As Matt at BoA demonstrates their fourth quarter is good enough for 12th in the conference and tied for 7th worst overall. The only bright spot for the Sens (3-1-0) is that they experienced a modicum of success against the Pens this year. Not having Alfredsson, however, is going to hurt.
On the Pittsburgh side, Fleury is a question-mark for me. Conklin, while successful this season, has been…less than great…in the NHL playoffs. Malkin has thrown this team on his back in Crosby’s absence, and I’m curious what having both Crosby and Hossa in the line up with him is going to do for him. Does it make the offense even more potent, or do they struggle to all play together?
PREDICTION: Pittsburgh in 6.
Washington (3) vs. Philadelphia (6)
Questions to be Answered:
- What gear does AO put it into come playoff time?
- Are the Capitals burnt out from their push to just make the playoffs?
- Who gets suspended, who gets injured, and on what type of dirty play?
I think that the Flyers’ last game against the Pens was evidence that neither team really wanted to have to play the other in the first round of the playoffs. If I were the Flyers, I wouldn’t really want to face the Capitals, either. Their fourth quarter was the best in East (30 points) and the team is absolutely on a high after claiming the South(L)east from the Hurricanes in their final game. While sure, finishing up the way they did could cause a fizzle/burnout effect, I just don’t see that happening on a team with Ovechkin. Honestly, I think if he could play 200 games a season, he would not only do it, but love every second. This kid is what hockey is all about. If every player had his passion, the game would be a very, very different one.
The season series is even (Washington 2-2-0; Philadelphia 2-1-1), and the dirtiness/pseudo-grit factor goes to the Flyers. Secondary scoring is a big question mark for the Caps. Philly is similarly handicapped with one of my favourite playoff enigmas, Danny Briere. Honestly, I think this is going to be a really entertaining series (and hopefully not too dirty – yes Flyers, I’m looking at you), and I could see it going the distance. Unfortunately, I can also see it NOT going the distance, which leaves me not entirely certain how to call this one.
PREDICTION: Washington in 6.
New Jersey Devils (4) vs. New York Rangers (5)
Questions to be Answered:
- How does playing in 77 games in a season affect a 35 year old goalie?
- Who steps up for both teams?
- Will there be a more boring series than this one?
In this series, we are presented with two of the lowest scoring teams who also happen to give up very few goals. Can we say barnburner or what? Honestly, I’m still bitter that I picked Jagr in my playoff pool two years ago, only to have the Rangers go four and out against the Devils (of course, last year they proceeded to sweep the Thrashers and JJ had 11 points in 10 games, but I remain distrustful of him forevermore).
The Rangers (7-0-1) have been absolutely dominant over the Devils (1-4-3) this year. The bright side? Yeah, no shootouts in the playoffs. There’s also the Marty Brodeur factor. Is he tired from the 77 games he played in this year? Who knows. I like to think he’s geared up for the long haul, but I guess we’ll see.
PREDICTION: New Jersey in 7.
Questions to be Answered:
- Is Carey Price a less offensive second coming of Patrick Roy?
- Can Boston overcome their stellar record against Montreal this year?
- How did Montreal go from a predicted 13th to 1st, and if they keep winning, do we keep being surprised?
I may be a Leafs fan, but I’m not completely anti-Habs. I’m actually pretty impressed by how they’ve managed to beat everyone’s early season expectations and have claimed first overall. I loved Carey Price when he was with the Canadian Juniors, and I love his story, the whole “winner at every level” angle. I do wonder if a kid his age can kick ass and take names at the NHL level, but if anyone can do it, it’s him. Obviously the organization has faith in him (or an abject lack of faith in Huet), so hey, let’s see what he can do.
Honestly, I don’t see Boston getting very far in this series. In my opinion, they are (by far) the weakest playoff team. I know people turn it up when the second season hits, but honestly, if the Bruins (0-7-1) couldn’t beat the Habs in eight tries, I don’t see another seven helping very much.
PREDICTION: Montreal in 5.
Pittsburgh (2) vs. Ottawa (7)
Questions to be Answered:
- How do Pittsburgh’s lines shake down with everyone back in the line up? Do the Pens use Hossa, Crosby and Malkin on one PP line or two?
- When, exactly, does Ottawa remember how to play hockey? Or put another way, just how big a fluke can a 15-2 start really be?
Let’s put this bluntly – Ottawa has been horrendous lately. In terms of teams who limped into the playoffs, if they’re not at the top of the list, they’re pretty close. As Matt at BoA demonstrates their fourth quarter is good enough for 12th in the conference and tied for 7th worst overall. The only bright spot for the Sens (3-1-0) is that they experienced a modicum of success against the Pens this year. Not having Alfredsson, however, is going to hurt.
On the Pittsburgh side, Fleury is a question-mark for me. Conklin, while successful this season, has been…less than great…in the NHL playoffs. Malkin has thrown this team on his back in Crosby’s absence, and I’m curious what having both Crosby and Hossa in the line up with him is going to do for him. Does it make the offense even more potent, or do they struggle to all play together?
PREDICTION: Pittsburgh in 6.
Washington (3) vs. Philadelphia (6)
Questions to be Answered:
- What gear does AO put it into come playoff time?
- Are the Capitals burnt out from their push to just make the playoffs?
- Who gets suspended, who gets injured, and on what type of dirty play?
I think that the Flyers’ last game against the Pens was evidence that neither team really wanted to have to play the other in the first round of the playoffs. If I were the Flyers, I wouldn’t really want to face the Capitals, either. Their fourth quarter was the best in East (30 points) and the team is absolutely on a high after claiming the South(L)east from the Hurricanes in their final game. While sure, finishing up the way they did could cause a fizzle/burnout effect, I just don’t see that happening on a team with Ovechkin. Honestly, I think if he could play 200 games a season, he would not only do it, but love every second. This kid is what hockey is all about. If every player had his passion, the game would be a very, very different one.
The season series is even (Washington 2-2-0; Philadelphia 2-1-1), and the dirtiness/pseudo-grit factor goes to the Flyers. Secondary scoring is a big question mark for the Caps. Philly is similarly handicapped with one of my favourite playoff enigmas, Danny Briere. Honestly, I think this is going to be a really entertaining series (and hopefully not too dirty – yes Flyers, I’m looking at you), and I could see it going the distance. Unfortunately, I can also see it NOT going the distance, which leaves me not entirely certain how to call this one.
PREDICTION: Washington in 6.
New Jersey Devils (4) vs. New York Rangers (5)
Questions to be Answered:
- How does playing in 77 games in a season affect a 35 year old goalie?
- Who steps up for both teams?
- Will there be a more boring series than this one?
In this series, we are presented with two of the lowest scoring teams who also happen to give up very few goals. Can we say barnburner or what? Honestly, I’m still bitter that I picked Jagr in my playoff pool two years ago, only to have the Rangers go four and out against the Devils (of course, last year they proceeded to sweep the Thrashers and JJ had 11 points in 10 games, but I remain distrustful of him forevermore).
The Rangers (7-0-1) have been absolutely dominant over the Devils (1-4-3) this year. The bright side? Yeah, no shootouts in the playoffs. There’s also the Marty Brodeur factor. Is he tired from the 77 games he played in this year? Who knows. I like to think he’s geared up for the long haul, but I guess we’ll see.
PREDICTION: New Jersey in 7.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Washington Clinches!
I can't help it. Watching AO jump around and celebrate automatically makes me smile. I don't care about traditionalist notions of hockey and how its players should be stoic and all that in victory. Jump into the boards, pile onto the goal scorer, show your emotion...I love it. I love seeing just how excited this sport makes him. And I absolutely cannot wait to see what he does in the playoffs.
As for my desired match-ups, Montreal indeed beat Toronto and Washington beat Florida, but Buffalo beat Boston. This means that Ottawa cannot finish 8th and thus, I need to alter my match ups.
(1) Pittsburgh vs. (8) Philadelphia
(2) Montreal vs. (7) Boston
(3) Washington vs. (6) Ottawa
(4) New Jersey vs. (5) New York
This means that Pittsburgh needs to beat Philly (an outcome I vastly prefer cheering for than my previous hope). The Rangers and Devils can do whatever they want; I really don't care who gets home ice in the series.
In the West, Colorado can still overtake Calgary (boo). If Colorado wins and Dallas loses, they finish with the exact same record, and I'm not entirely certain who takes it (tied in wins, tied in season series, so it goes to goal differential? Is this right? Dallas is +33, Colorado +9. So by my understanding, Dallas wins a tie breaker?)
Anyways, match ups as I would like to see them (essentially, as the standings are now. I'm cheering for Calgary, and I think their best match up is Minnesota):
(1) Detroit vs. (8) Nashville
(2) San Jose vs. (7) Colorado
(3) Minnesota vs. (6) Calgary
(4) Anaheim vs. (5) Dallas
This means:
* Colorado loses to Minnesota
And the rest of the teams can pretty much do whatever they want.
I'm also very torn right now. I was going to purchase a Jarome Iginla jersey online, as Calgary is my Western team. This would run me about $175 (since I missed the free shipping window and coolhockey.com :() and it takes about 7-10 business days to ship. Potentially, the Flames could be out of the playoffs by the time I received said jersey. Or, I could pick up the Ovechkin jersey that I saw at S+R in my travels through Kingston this week-end, for $169.99+tax ($192 with taxes...man, I'm not used to having to pay GST anymore!). Of course, I could also take the third option, not purchasing a jersey at all, but that one is a little less appealing. I need to decide whether the benefits of having a jersey in my hands for the playoffs is worth the added expense...decisions, decisions.
As for my desired match-ups, Montreal indeed beat Toronto and Washington beat Florida, but Buffalo beat Boston. This means that Ottawa cannot finish 8th and thus, I need to alter my match ups.
(1) Pittsburgh vs. (8) Philadelphia
(2) Montreal vs. (7) Boston
(3) Washington vs. (6) Ottawa
(4) New Jersey vs. (5) New York
This means that Pittsburgh needs to beat Philly (an outcome I vastly prefer cheering for than my previous hope). The Rangers and Devils can do whatever they want; I really don't care who gets home ice in the series.
In the West, Colorado can still overtake Calgary (boo). If Colorado wins and Dallas loses, they finish with the exact same record, and I'm not entirely certain who takes it (tied in wins, tied in season series, so it goes to goal differential? Is this right? Dallas is +33, Colorado +9. So by my understanding, Dallas wins a tie breaker?)
Anyways, match ups as I would like to see them (essentially, as the standings are now. I'm cheering for Calgary, and I think their best match up is Minnesota):
(1) Detroit vs. (8) Nashville
(2) San Jose vs. (7) Colorado
(3) Minnesota vs. (6) Calgary
(4) Anaheim vs. (5) Dallas
This means:
* Colorado loses to Minnesota
And the rest of the teams can pretty much do whatever they want.
I'm also very torn right now. I was going to purchase a Jarome Iginla jersey online, as Calgary is my Western team. This would run me about $175 (since I missed the free shipping window and coolhockey.com :() and it takes about 7-10 business days to ship. Potentially, the Flames could be out of the playoffs by the time I received said jersey. Or, I could pick up the Ovechkin jersey that I saw at S+R in my travels through Kingston this week-end, for $169.99+tax ($192 with taxes...man, I'm not used to having to pay GST anymore!). Of course, I could also take the third option, not purchasing a jersey at all, but that one is a little less appealing. I need to decide whether the benefits of having a jersey in my hands for the playoffs is worth the added expense...decisions, decisions.
Friday, April 4, 2008
A to the O
So, with a single point tomorrow, the Capitals can oust the Hurricanes from the playoffs and take claim of third place and some sweet sweet home ice advantage. All this time, I've been hoping that the Caps would accumulate enough to somehow squeak into eighth, so this is certainly a welcome surprise. I love that they have their fate in their own hands; I can only hope that they seize the opportunity, down Florida, and sail softly into that sweet, sweet playoff light.
I actually find it really funny that it's either third or ninth for the Caps. Beyond being the difference between playoffs/not playoffs, that's just...well, six whole places (hooray for my mathematical skills).
I also love how, with one game left to play, pretty much nothing is decided in the Eastern conference. Both Pittsburgh and Montreal can still place first, New Jersey and the Rangers can still place fourth, Philly could place sixth. Ottawa could sink to eigth. One game left to play (with the exception of the Sens, who are done) and there's just so much potential movement.
Let's talk ideal playoff match-ups. For me, they go something like this:
Montreal (1) vs. Ottawa (8)
Pittsburgh (2) vs. Philly (7)
Washington (3) vs. Boston (6)
NJ (4) vs. NYR (5)
So, in order for this to happen, I'm:
* Hoping that Montreal beats Toronto (I feel dirty)
* Hoping that Philly beats Pittsburgh (I feel even dirtier)
* Hoping that Washington beats Florida (YES)
* Hoping that Boston beats Buffalo
From what I understand, in this particular scenario, the Devils and Rangers can pretty much do whatever during their game and maintain 4-5, so yeah. Go nuts.
I actually find it really funny that it's either third or ninth for the Caps. Beyond being the difference between playoffs/not playoffs, that's just...well, six whole places (hooray for my mathematical skills).
I also love how, with one game left to play, pretty much nothing is decided in the Eastern conference. Both Pittsburgh and Montreal can still place first, New Jersey and the Rangers can still place fourth, Philly could place sixth. Ottawa could sink to eigth. One game left to play (with the exception of the Sens, who are done) and there's just so much potential movement.
Let's talk ideal playoff match-ups. For me, they go something like this:
Montreal (1) vs. Ottawa (8)
Pittsburgh (2) vs. Philly (7)
Washington (3) vs. Boston (6)
NJ (4) vs. NYR (5)
So, in order for this to happen, I'm:
* Hoping that Montreal beats Toronto (I feel dirty)
* Hoping that Philly beats Pittsburgh (I feel even dirtier)
* Hoping that Washington beats Florida (YES)
* Hoping that Boston beats Buffalo
From what I understand, in this particular scenario, the Devils and Rangers can pretty much do whatever during their game and maintain 4-5, so yeah. Go nuts.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Turris to the 'Yotes
So, Kyle Turris signed with the Coyotes on Monday, leaving the University of Wisconsin-Madison pretty much right after the Badgers lost in the final eight.
I always find this type of movement fascinating. I think part of it has to do with the completely different climate that surrounds college hockey in the US compared to Canada. I mean, for 99% of CIS athletes, there's really no chance of them making the NHL (UofA Golden Bear Harlan Anderson has an amateur tryout agreement with the Springfield Falcons but this seems to be the exception more than the rule. Aaron Sorochan from the Bears received an amateur tryout agreement when Roloson was sidelined with the flu in December, but I think that was more about it being easier to get Sorochan to sit on the bench and back up Garon as opposed to bringing someone up from the Falcons). I've known a few players that have gone over to Europe following their CIS careers, and I assume some play ECHL/AHL/etc., but you don't really see hot prospects lacing 'em up for Canadian University teams. Then you have US colleges. For guys like Turris (or Kyle Okposo, who signed with the Islanders in December - how do you abandon your team mid-season?!) college is nothing more than a place to develop their hockey skills, and on the school's dollar no less.
As someone who scratches, claws, and generally prays for funding every semester, I find full rides for future NHLers (or NBAers, or NFLers) very offensive. Okposo leaves midway through his sophomore year, Turris his freshman year. Turris, because of his scholarship, will be returning to Wisconsin, probably after the Coyotes last three games, to finish up his coursework. I'd applaud this as evidence of his dedication to academia, but, let's be realistic. Is he ever going to come back and finish up the last three years? And really, what did he even take this year? Honestly, it doesn't matter. What matters to me is that the NCAA loves to put out all these commercials, especially during March Madness, about how their athletes are going places outside of sport. This article touts that 63% of athletes (2% more than non-athletes) graduate within a six-year window of beginning college. What they bury within the article, however, is that:
Among the more notable findings over a four-year period were that female athletes earned diplomas at a significantly higher rate, 71 percent, than their male counterparts, 56 percent; and that blacks (53 percent) and Hispanics (58 percent) continued to lag behind other ethnicities when earning diplomas.
Go figure, female athletes are propping up the men. 56%. Only a tiny bit more than half. What I find even more disconcerting? That "The NCAA considers any rate above 50 percent, a standard adopted by the privately funded Knight Commission on college sports, to be good" (from here). I could go on about the many problematic graduation statistics in the NCAA, but the most problematic ones are in basketball and football and less so in hockey, so I'll move on from here. The point I'm really trying to make is that when players come into college, I would argue that the reason why for a large percentage is "play sports" and not "get a degree". Something that I find really unfortunate for an academic institution.
I really don't feel like an education should be a "fringe benefit" of playing sports at an academic institution. High school students with really good averages can't get full ride scholarships, whereas someone who can shoot a puck, toss a ball, or score a goal and maintain a mediocre-to-ok average rolls on in on the athletic gravy train. I'm not saying it's every player, because it isn't. But it is a trend, and it is one I find problematic. I don't wish ill on Turris; I just think this situation really highlights what I find to be problematic about the athletic/academic system.
I always find this type of movement fascinating. I think part of it has to do with the completely different climate that surrounds college hockey in the US compared to Canada. I mean, for 99% of CIS athletes, there's really no chance of them making the NHL (UofA Golden Bear Harlan Anderson has an amateur tryout agreement with the Springfield Falcons but this seems to be the exception more than the rule. Aaron Sorochan from the Bears received an amateur tryout agreement when Roloson was sidelined with the flu in December, but I think that was more about it being easier to get Sorochan to sit on the bench and back up Garon as opposed to bringing someone up from the Falcons). I've known a few players that have gone over to Europe following their CIS careers, and I assume some play ECHL/AHL/etc., but you don't really see hot prospects lacing 'em up for Canadian University teams. Then you have US colleges. For guys like Turris (or Kyle Okposo, who signed with the Islanders in December - how do you abandon your team mid-season?!) college is nothing more than a place to develop their hockey skills, and on the school's dollar no less.
As someone who scratches, claws, and generally prays for funding every semester, I find full rides for future NHLers (or NBAers, or NFLers) very offensive. Okposo leaves midway through his sophomore year, Turris his freshman year. Turris, because of his scholarship, will be returning to Wisconsin, probably after the Coyotes last three games, to finish up his coursework. I'd applaud this as evidence of his dedication to academia, but, let's be realistic. Is he ever going to come back and finish up the last three years? And really, what did he even take this year? Honestly, it doesn't matter. What matters to me is that the NCAA loves to put out all these commercials, especially during March Madness, about how their athletes are going places outside of sport. This article touts that 63% of athletes (2% more than non-athletes) graduate within a six-year window of beginning college. What they bury within the article, however, is that:
Among the more notable findings over a four-year period were that female athletes earned diplomas at a significantly higher rate, 71 percent, than their male counterparts, 56 percent; and that blacks (53 percent) and Hispanics (58 percent) continued to lag behind other ethnicities when earning diplomas.
Go figure, female athletes are propping up the men. 56%. Only a tiny bit more than half. What I find even more disconcerting? That "The NCAA considers any rate above 50 percent, a standard adopted by the privately funded Knight Commission on college sports, to be good" (from here). I could go on about the many problematic graduation statistics in the NCAA, but the most problematic ones are in basketball and football and less so in hockey, so I'll move on from here. The point I'm really trying to make is that when players come into college, I would argue that the reason why for a large percentage is "play sports" and not "get a degree". Something that I find really unfortunate for an academic institution.
I really don't feel like an education should be a "fringe benefit" of playing sports at an academic institution. High school students with really good averages can't get full ride scholarships, whereas someone who can shoot a puck, toss a ball, or score a goal and maintain a mediocre-to-ok average rolls on in on the athletic gravy train. I'm not saying it's every player, because it isn't. But it is a trend, and it is one I find problematic. I don't wish ill on Turris; I just think this situation really highlights what I find to be problematic about the athletic/academic system.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Flames/Oilers - "Just Wait Until Next Year!"
Just wait until next year. This is a saying I've grown very accustomed to hearing, being from Toronto and all. In fact, I do believe it's something I get made fun of for fairly frequently. Given this, it provided me with an odd sense of satisfaction for it to be one of the first things I overheard leaving Rexall last night - "just wait until next year!"
Yes, the Oilers have officially been eliminated from playoff contention, after putting together a pretty impressive run (10-4-1 in March - rather similar to my Leafs' 8-5-0 too-little-too-late-lose-at-inopportune-times post-deadline spurt). We were at the game, way up in the top corner, right around the goal line. I was actually pretty happy with this sightline - I think it's better than the view we've had with tickets behind the net...and a lot cheaper too. We were prepared for a bit of "controversy", what with us being decked out in our Calgary finest. The people up in our section were actually pretty good about it - a few boos here and there, but at least we weren't beat up for cheering for the other team . Good natured ribbing, yes. Beat down? Not so cool. Anyways, it was good to get out there and see another game, and the fact that fate smiled on us and made it a super-intense one with implications for both teams was all the better.
I have to admit, there were a couple montages on the big screen that made me laugh. They were the of the typical overly melodramatic (complete with ominous, though moderately adrenaline pumping music) 'the team needs you' variety, and made me laugh. There was also no Kiss-Cam, which left me disappointed. It's always good for a laugh.
Instead of having the Timbits play in the first intermission, they had a breakaway relay featuring some players from an area girl's hockey team. I wish I could remember their name (I'm kicking myself that I can't), but I know what stuck out for me was that before insert-animal-name-here, there was "female". This is always something that makes me want to beat my head against a table. Are the guys ever the "Male Tigers"? I mean, (i) why is it so important to ensure that the sex of a hockey team is made perfectly clear right off the bat; and (ii) more to the point, how is it not problematic that men always get to be the standard, while women are made into the "female team". I remember when I played minor hockey, and we played against the London Devilettes and the Brampton Canadettes. Honestly, if the name isn't feminized, does it suddenly butchify the entire team or something? I mean, from a theory perspective I can postulate why this happens, but from a practical perspective it just makes me sad. And annoyed (I also hate when "Ice" is thrown in front of some type of animal/thing to make a hockey team name - such as the Niagara Ice Dogs, or again from my minor hockey days, the Kingston Ice Wolves. Last I checked, neither of these actually exist in nature...)
Flames need one more point to clinch. Give'r.
Yes, the Oilers have officially been eliminated from playoff contention, after putting together a pretty impressive run (10-4-1 in March - rather similar to my Leafs' 8-5-0 too-little-too-late-lose-at-inopportune-times post-deadline spurt). We were at the game, way up in the top corner, right around the goal line. I was actually pretty happy with this sightline - I think it's better than the view we've had with tickets behind the net...and a lot cheaper too. We were prepared for a bit of "controversy", what with us being decked out in our Calgary finest. The people up in our section were actually pretty good about it - a few boos here and there, but at least we weren't beat up for cheering for the other team . Good natured ribbing, yes. Beat down? Not so cool. Anyways, it was good to get out there and see another game, and the fact that fate smiled on us and made it a super-intense one with implications for both teams was all the better.
I have to admit, there were a couple montages on the big screen that made me laugh. They were the of the typical overly melodramatic (complete with ominous, though moderately adrenaline pumping music) 'the team needs you' variety, and made me laugh. There was also no Kiss-Cam, which left me disappointed. It's always good for a laugh.
Instead of having the Timbits play in the first intermission, they had a breakaway relay featuring some players from an area girl's hockey team. I wish I could remember their name (I'm kicking myself that I can't), but I know what stuck out for me was that before insert-animal-name-here, there was "female". This is always something that makes me want to beat my head against a table. Are the guys ever the "Male Tigers"? I mean, (i) why is it so important to ensure that the sex of a hockey team is made perfectly clear right off the bat; and (ii) more to the point, how is it not problematic that men always get to be the standard, while women are made into the "female team". I remember when I played minor hockey, and we played against the London Devilettes and the Brampton Canadettes. Honestly, if the name isn't feminized, does it suddenly butchify the entire team or something? I mean, from a theory perspective I can postulate why this happens, but from a practical perspective it just makes me sad. And annoyed (I also hate when "Ice" is thrown in front of some type of animal/thing to make a hockey team name - such as the Niagara Ice Dogs, or again from my minor hockey days, the Kingston Ice Wolves. Last I checked, neither of these actually exist in nature...)
Flames need one more point to clinch. Give'r.
A Brief Notice
Okay, this has sat empty for far too long, primarily due to my own laziness and apparent lack of desire to post in more one place. Given however, that I post in my regular blog about hockey anyways (I'm sure to the joy...or boredom of that readership) I might as well toss those posts up here anyways. Perhaps this will help motivate me to put into words the many opinions I have that seemed to get spewed at my officemates, my dog, and various other avenues.
Anyways, I have backdated recent hockey-related posts from my other blog to here to provide a foundation of "genius" for me to build on. Hopefully this motivates me to get some of the things I spend a ton of time thinking about out of my head and onto paper.
Anyways, I have backdated recent hockey-related posts from my other blog to here to provide a foundation of "genius" for me to build on. Hopefully this motivates me to get some of the things I spend a ton of time thinking about out of my head and onto paper.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Tracking Down Crosby...
This is going about as well as I expected it to.
I phoned mcgarrybowen in New York to inquire about getting in contact with creatives who worked on the Reebok Crosby ads. I was told that unless I know the names of the people I want to talk to, she can't help me. I've been able to track down names for the Gatorade ads, as they've actually won awards so there's lots of media releases about them, but I can't find anything about the Reebok ones.
As I've mentioned before, the Gatorade ones were done by Downtown Partners in Toronto, which has since shut down. I have names, and I've left a message with the PR director for Gatorade seeing if she happens to have any contact information for any of them, but I'm not hopeful. Otherwise, I may have home numbers for some of them that I found searching Canada 411, but nothing solid. I've also inquired about talking to Jeff Jackett, the Gatorade marketing manager, but I won't hold my breath.
I think from here, it really only gets sketchier; I don't have any solid contacts for Telus, Tim Horton's, or Upper Deck, and I don't imagine any of them being particularly helpful. I think my chances of talking to Pat Brisson (Crosby's agent) are about in line with my chances of getting hit by lightning. Same with Len Rhodes (VP Marketing for Gatorade).
It sucks, because this would be such a fascinating aspect to my project, but it doesn't seem to be getting off the ground. It doesn't help that phoning all these people makes me want to vomit, and I have the persuasion skills of a dog who has been sprayed by a skunk.
I phoned mcgarrybowen in New York to inquire about getting in contact with creatives who worked on the Reebok Crosby ads. I was told that unless I know the names of the people I want to talk to, she can't help me. I've been able to track down names for the Gatorade ads, as they've actually won awards so there's lots of media releases about them, but I can't find anything about the Reebok ones.
As I've mentioned before, the Gatorade ones were done by Downtown Partners in Toronto, which has since shut down. I have names, and I've left a message with the PR director for Gatorade seeing if she happens to have any contact information for any of them, but I'm not hopeful. Otherwise, I may have home numbers for some of them that I found searching Canada 411, but nothing solid. I've also inquired about talking to Jeff Jackett, the Gatorade marketing manager, but I won't hold my breath.
I think from here, it really only gets sketchier; I don't have any solid contacts for Telus, Tim Horton's, or Upper Deck, and I don't imagine any of them being particularly helpful. I think my chances of talking to Pat Brisson (Crosby's agent) are about in line with my chances of getting hit by lightning. Same with Len Rhodes (VP Marketing for Gatorade).
It sucks, because this would be such a fascinating aspect to my project, but it doesn't seem to be getting off the ground. It doesn't help that phoning all these people makes me want to vomit, and I have the persuasion skills of a dog who has been sprayed by a skunk.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
