- 09:12 AM
- 11/21/24
NYR in 6 - I think the Rangers are under rated OTT in 6 - This only goes 6 if Broduer plays really, really well. SJ in 7 - Talk about the worst travel schedule ever for a conference semi. Good grief. VAN in 6 - my upset special. Best PK: San Jose at 89%
posted by camcanuck at 12:54 PM on April 25, 2007
The series isn't over yet, but Edmonton is reeling. I thought Markkanen was okay, but Edmonton looks very much like the Oilers team that played the first 3/4s of the season. It's all about confidence in your teammates. No matter what they all say in the interviews I don't think the players have a 10th of the confidence in either of their available goalies as they had with Rollie. On a positive note for Edmonton Stall has been invisible during the first 2 games. During the first 3 series he was flying... my guess is he is playing hurt. If Carolina is going to win they have to do it right now (ie. in 4 or 5 games). If it goes longer I think they will get worn down and Edmonton will be able to pull out a victory.
posted by camcanuck at 11:59 AM on June 08, 2006
Technically there is no problem recording times down to thousandths of a second. Not only do they do it in swimming, but they also use thousands in bobsled. My understanding is that some sports have not gone to more accurate clocks because there are too many external factors that can effect times to plus or minus thousandths of a second. Differences that small are not repeatable and are chalked up to luck. Especially in the 100m since they try to account for wind which is difficult to measure precisely and it's effect on the runners can vary by size, lane position, venue architecture etc. etc.
posted by camcanuck at 02:01 PM on May 17, 2006
rcade: I've had the unfortunate pleasure of actually having to use one of these and they are truly as about idiot proof as you could make them. In fact the one thing I remember the most from my experience is that I wanted it to give the instructions more quickly. I would argue zero training is required, but I was a lifeguard at the time and had been trained on the device so I might be a little biased. That being said CPR works very well in conjunction with a defib. While CPR will help keep you alive it will almost never 're-start' / 'restore' your hearts normal rhythm. A defib however is designed to do just that. Put the two together and you can really make a huge difference. bperk/Weedy: You should see how many joules a friggin' cockroach can take before it bites the dust.
posted by camcanuck at 03:50 PM on March 13, 2006
What the heck happened in the 3rd period? The one stat that really stands out is the US only had 4 shots during the entire 3rd period in which they also had 2 power plays. The shot totals don't add up so I'm thinking this is a typo... anyone confirm? Either way while I feel bad for the US team this is the best thing that could happen for womens hockey as a whole.
posted by camcanuck at 12:59 PM on February 17, 2006
grum... it's actually called the Pengrowth Saddledome and I'll be there in a couple hours from now. Cheers
posted by camcanuck at 03:54 PM on February 03, 2006
Dudedykstra, I agree people often refer to dirty hits on QB's (see Carson Palmer this weekend for an exmaple of what you said about super slow-mo replays). While you say a receiver is legal to hit why is a puck carrier not a legal hit as well? The hit that Marchment attempted on Allision was while he had the puck. Hockey rules say Allision is completely fair game. I'll conceed the speed issue, but it's pretty rare to see a hockey player getting hit while he is 2 feet or 3 feet up in the air. I'd say that more than makes up for the speed difference. I still don't see much of a difference other fan / player opinion.
posted by camcanuck at 05:41 PM on January 09, 2006
Garfied, yes it was classic Marchment. No doubt about that. I'm torn on the subject though (pardon the pun) because the only way to remove the kneeing issue it to make the big open ice hits illegal. I also find it someone hypcritcal that many people don't see the comparisions to wide receivers in football. No one complains a bit when those guys go up for a pass and end up with a trip in an ambulance to the local hospital. It's part of the game. How is cutting down a wide receiver when he's up the air (and totally defenseless) any different than laying the huge hit on forward with his head down? Both plays could result in nothing more than an muscle ache the next morning, but both plays could also result in serious injury. Yet no one ever complains about how it was a dirty hit in football. The safety doesn't end up with a bad reputation. I've never really understood why in hockey it's different. Chalk it up to the whole 'honor' mentality in hockey which perhaps isn't there in football. BTW, Regehr's got quite the backhand, eh? Yeah for all the time they spent trying the feed Dion Phaneuf for the big shot it's somewhat ironic don't you think? Yet another great game that didn't feature a bunch of goals. It's a shame we won't see the buds here again for 2 or 3 years.
posted by camcanuck at 03:32 PM on January 09, 2006
Full Disclosure: I'm a Flames fan. Marchment has a well deserved reputation. After having watched him play many games this year he always reminds me of a rookie who is far to focused on making the big hit rather than playing sound defense. That said I'll take issue with Garfield's posting. He was not trying to knee Allision. Watching replays it was clear. Allision tried to get out of the way and they hit knee on knee. No doubt it's a dangerous move on Merchant's part, but it was a poor call by the ref which was probably more based on the name on the back of the jersey than what actually happened on the ice. The exact same thing could happen to anyone trying the big open ice hit when the intended targets steps out of the way at the last minute. My guess is that Marchant will have the surgery and then will announce his retirement during the off season. Perhaps I'll still bitter about the absurd officiating during the last Flames game, but I sincerely doubt any player actually tries to knee another. Even Marchment.
posted by camcanuck at 02:44 PM on January 09, 2006
Here is a link to the actual roster. My $0.02... there is no way that Bertuzzi should be on this squad. He hasn't played well at all this year, and isn't well suited to the large ice surface. Big Bert over Spezza or Staal? Are you freakin' kidding me?
posted by camcanuck at 04:55 PM on December 21, 2005
This was a really scary incident. I was watching the Edmonton / San Jose game and I saw the ticker show the Detroit game as 'postponed'. So I started flipping channels to see why, and saw the highlights. It should be noted that what prevented his death (or severe brain damage) was the automated defibrillator. Fisher's heart almost certainly didn't stop. He probably 'arrested' and was in v-fib. His heart was quivering instead of actually pumping. Contrary to what you may see on TV, CPR will almost never 'reset' the heart to get it pumping again. Even though the paramedics have defibrillators the delay in getting them to Fisher would have made a big, big difference. This incident is a prime example of why automated defibrillators are worth their weight in gold.
posted by camcanuck at 01:43 PM on November 22, 2005
Weedy, a) Terry was first. While Terry was first to attempt he unfortunately wasn't able to complete his trip. To contrast I have no idea who the first person was to attempt to climb Mt. Everest, but I think just about everyone knows that Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay were the first to make to the top and back down. b) He freaking died - practically in the attempt. He died as a result of his cancer, not because he ran. While I'm sure you could make a good case that his run didn't help his condition, it's not what killed him. I hate to say this, but in fact his death helped solidify his legacy more because he wasn't around to tarnish it (like Steve & Rick have). Not to say he would have, by all accounts he was a great guy, but the opportunity wasn't there. ...It just gives it more of the underdog feel. This makes the most sense I guess. If there is one thing Canadian's love it's an a guy who works hard, doesn't jump up and down for attention and is an underdog. He just let his actions speak for him. Still in my mind given that he was trying to raise awareness and funds generating attention in any way possible would seem to make more sense. Hence the way Steve and Rick went about their projects. I mind all 3 of those guys are amazing indiviuals. I just think that 2 out of the 3 don't get the respect they deserve.
posted by camcanuck at 11:47 AM on September 16, 2005
There is no doubt in my mind that Terry Fox is probably one of the greatest Canadians, but I've always wondered why Terry gets far, far more press than other equally deserving (based on their physical challenges & fund raising efforts) people. Two that always immediate come to mind are Steve Fonyo & Rick Hansen. They each received their fair share of press at the time, but it quickly disappeared. I predict you'll start to hear more about Rick Hansen as the 2010 Vancouver Olympics get closer, but neither of these guys get anywhere near the adoration from the public that Terry Fox gets. I'm aware that both Steve and Rick had some personal problems (some substance abuse issues & run ins with the law) after their accomplishments, but in my mind that doesn't discount what they were able to do. Just a my 2 cents.
posted by camcanuck at 10:18 AM on September 16, 2005
I don't know if they will actually be able to call that many penalties. Fans will revolt. Which is a shame, because the game will be better because of it. I found it interesting that St Louis's goal against the islanders, which was on the highlight reels for a long time, was used as an example. I don't recall ANYONE ever saying that St. Louis got away with one when he scored that goal. In fact if a ref would have called that a penalty 2 years ago you would have heard the complaining for months. Secondly the no tolerance of cross-checking just lowered Chris Pronger's worth significantly.
posted by camcanuck at 04:33 PM on September 08, 2005
What game is that? I'll take a stab at it... they actually are watching CNN. After all I'm sure everyone was told a CNN crew was going to be filming that day and it would look bad to have Fox news on. The only hockey footage CNN has probably ever shown is the 10 seconds of Big Bert pounding on Steve Moore. Seeing as Bert's re-instatment just happened perhaps it got mentioned on CNN. CNN natuarlly wanted to remind their viewers how brutal the game of hockey really is by replaying the video again. Moore in the middle moving out of the zone, Bertuzzi in the upper right corner. A complete guess on my part, but that is the only thing that makes sense to me.
posted by camcanuck at 01:21 PM on August 10, 2005
I've got to agree with Weedy. I seems quite clear that the owners have learned nothing, and players are already being over paid. See this link. Berard & Lapointe for 2.5mil a year? Dave Scatchard at 2.1 mil a year for 4 years!. Holik for 4.5 mil? Getting Pronger will be a great fit in Edmonton, but the fact they got suckered into a 5 year, 6+ mil per year contract makes me laugh. I know they have a lot of oil sitting in the mud N.E. of Edmonton, but at least to my knowledge money still isn't going on the trees up there. Heck I even think 7 mil a year for Iginla is a little too much. If I'm Toronto I might sign Karia and Lindros to 1 year contacts, and then go on a spending / trading spree next off season.
posted by camcanuck at 03:28 PM on August 04, 2005
I'll second garfields vote. Those of you wondering where all of the teams are going stand in regards to cap space, free agents and just who is going to get bought out should check this link out. A good summary of all the teams.
posted by camcanuck at 02:40 PM on July 13, 2005
Actually TSN televised a few non-Canadian hockey games during the elimination round of the tournament as well. After watching the games it makes me wish the NHL had some way of going to the bigger ice surface. A lot more odd man rushes because of long break out passes. It was quite entertaining. On another note I haven't seen and info on the elimination round, but prior to that TSN was getting good ratings on games even though they were being shown live (8am for example in MST).
posted by camcanuck at 01:43 PM on May 16, 2005
The only sure thing in the NHL playoffs is the Leafs will lose. Usually in the conference finals. Leaf fans and media pundits will point to all the restricted free agents the team acquired down the stretch as the reason for failure. Common... it happens EVERY year. Sigh... I really miss hockey.
posted by camcanuck at 11:52 AM on April 14, 2005
My sentiments exactly Weedy. Yeah I figured it was over because everyone involved sounded really, really, bitter. It had gotten personal. I figured it would be September before the 2 sides talked again. I'm still not sure a 25 - 28 game season is really a good idea anyway. Maybe they can reach an agreement, but agree not to start up until next season (Sept.). That would give the teams a chance to sign their players, get new rules in place etc.
posted by camcanuck at 05:37 PM on February 18, 2005
From here: "Everybody has a different mentality so it's hard to bring everybody together. One of the things that I think took a lot of urgency out of this for the players is the fact that we had over 350 players playing in Europe." (Pierre) McGuire said if the players had stayed in North America, a deal may have been reached by now. I couldn't agree more. The reason that this wasn't resolved earlier is because each side had set aside huge amounts of money, and almost half the players went and got jobs elsewhere (which in my mind was wrong on number of levels anyway). The first thing that should happen in all the upper level guys should be kicked to the curb. Not just Bob & Gary but also guys like Ted Saskin & Bill Daily. They screwed up... big time. Replace them and start negotiating tomorrow.
posted by camcanuck at 01:05 PM on February 16, 2005
I was hoping for something to happen, but it appears it was not meant to be. Those last minute offers now appear to have been nothing more than PR moves for both sides. Who the hell negotiates at the last minute via letters CC'd to major news agencies? They should've been huddled somewhere in secret hammering out numbers. Many years from now I imagine we'll find out this happened because Gary and Bob hate each other and just wanted to spite the other one. Both sides are idotic for not finding a way to make this work. The players will never get anything better, and the cost to the owners of a cancelled season (if not at least half of the next one) is far higher than a less than perfect cap. The owners in my mind are the biggest losers. I am surprised that there was no last minute revolt in the owners camp to accept the players offer (or at least make another counter offer). Ironically the two teams that lose the most from this (Calgary & Tampa) are the teams that could have really used it. On preview: Sportsnet mentioned there will be no 2005 draft, but I don't now how they are going to work out all the messy details.
posted by camcanuck at 12:49 PM on February 16, 2005
As a ski racing fan I feel your pain. However it should be noted that hockey (the NHL) has also been removed from the main tabs list and is now only on the 'More Sports' tab as well. I'm actually surprised that SI appears to be scaling back it's soccer coverage. I thought there had been some good fan growth recently in the States.
posted by camcanuck at 10:31 AM on January 21, 2005
I imagine this meeting will be nothing more than the following: NHLPA: Will you guys accept anything other than a hard cap. We'll even execept a very stiff luxury tax system like the NBA. NHL: Nope, but we'll give you UFA at 27. NHLPA: No thanks. See you in September. Even if they do see some common ground they will be very pushed for time to have the first game of the season on Feb. 22nd. That being said I agree with Fred that the 24 or 28 games would be exciting (but ANY hockey at this point would be...).
posted by camcanuck at 01:36 PM on January 18, 2005
I have this need to run some numbers. I guess I missed my calling as an insurance agent. Does anyone have any stats on how many people have been hurt by pucks? I'm having zero luck trying to find any. To my knowledge the girl in Columbus is the only person who has ever been killed. On average let's say there are 900 games played a season over the last 30 years. (I know there are 1230 games per year now). Let's assume that around 2000 people per game are in 'high risk' areas in the rink. Bascially a 1000 people at each end of the ice. In my mind this seems a little low, but I'll run with it. That gives us 1.8 million people in 'high risk' areas over a season. Over 30 years that's 54 million. A 1 in 54 million chance of being killed at a hockey game (assuming you're sitting in a high risk seat) is a risk I would be willing to take. If a pull a number out of the air, like 50 people hurt per year it gives us a 1 in 36,000 chance of being hurt while at a hockey game.
posted by camcanuck at 04:34 PM on January 06, 2005
How in the world could a jury figure out if the 12ft plexiglas barrier is sufficient protection? Would 13ft have been sufficient? In a way the NHL has shot itself in the foot because by installing the nets at the ends of the rink they are implying the protection from the plexiglas wasn't good enough. The nets are stupid and are absolutely not necessary. They were installed to protect the league from overzealous litigation in the US... period. A warning on the ticket, over the PA & on the score board before and during the games (which they been doing for decades) with the plexiglas is sufficient. We as a society expect to be so insulated from any possible risk that we might as well just never leave the house. filmgoerjuan: They actually have used a dark and light net in Calgary. The dark net is actually much less distracting. That is the one they have stuck with.
posted by camcanuck at 02:41 PM on January 06, 2005
This tournament was a little dull in my mind because the outcome of a game was never really in doubt for Canada. There was never any real tension. Actually watching hockey again was a great thing... heck I was even watched some locked-out NHL'ers playing in the Spengler Cup the other day for a hockey fix. Watching Martin St. Louis play AGAINST Canada was wierd. Ladd did play, and played very well. Both he and Getzlef had an unbelievable tournament. Unfortunately neither of them play with anything near that well day in and day out for the WHL Calgary Hitmen. Glass made the saves he had to against the Russians, but it is very hard to stay sharp as a goalie when you only get 7 shots a game. Phaneuf played very well, dished out (and took) some big hits. His shots from the point had the goaltender(s) ducking. The Canadian team was stacked and is simply in a different league. Mind you if the NHL had been playing this year Phaneuf along with Bergeron, Ladd, Getzlaf would have not been available to this team. Even minus those players I don't think the outcome would have been much different. A couple scouts interviewed after the game said this team could easily be dropped right into the NHL and been one of the better teams in the league. They could be one of the best teams at the World Championships for that matter. I think only 2 or 3 guys will be eligible to return next year from this team so it will be a whole new ballgame next year. As for attendance there is no question it was because of it's proximity to Canada. I really believe Canada is the only country that really cares about the World Jrs. very much. To everyone else it's a nice little tournament for the kids. The fact that the top 3 watched programs on TSN (the Canadian equivalent to ESPN) are all World Jr. games should give some so idea of how much this tourament means to Canada
posted by camcanuck at 10:55 AM on January 05, 2005
Maybe it's just me, but this (cut and pasted from 86's link) seems much, MUCH worse than all of the cases mentioned above: The league suspended Chad Richards for the rest of the year following a violent crosscheck to the head of Hugo Poulin in the same game. Richards continued to apply pressure to Poulin's neck after the hit, leaving him unconscious on the ice. A year long suspension isn't even close in my mind to what he deserves. Here's hoping he gets jail time. I'm not surprsised that Big Bert is cutting a deal. The NHL, the city of Vancouver, and Bertuzzi himself don't need any more bad press than they already have right now.
posted by camcanuck at 01:37 PM on December 17, 2004
succa, sorry I should have clearer. Re-set every 4 years based on the average revenue the teams generate. So if average league revenue over 4 years was 1 billion / year then the players would get 540 million divided by 30 teams (assuming the 54% offer from the league is accepted). If 4 years later the revune had increase to 2 billion / year then the players would get a little over a billion / 30 teams. The only way you would ever get some agreement on league revenues would be bringing in a 3rd party to audit everyone (like they do in the NFL). On preview: Thanks garfield for the link(s)
posted by camcanuck at 04:34 PM on December 15, 2004
garfield, if the NHL doesn't want the books opened, then why did they offer to get a 3rd party to audit the teams in the latest offer? From what I've heard the NHL doesn't (and never did) have a hope of getting an impasse. From that I've got to figure the NHL is assuming the players will eventually cave in. Whlie succa makes a good point about a cap those details could be worked out (ex. cap level is set for 4 years, then re-set based on the average over the last 4 years). I just don't see how a cap is un-fair and I still haven't seen any good argument against it. On Preview: 86, no I wouldn't be keen using the Levitt report as a base, but I would jump at the opportunity to pick a 3rd party to audit all the teams. I also wouldn't paint myselve into a corner by saying a cap of any sort will never be accepted.
posted by camcanuck at 02:43 PM on December 15, 2004
Can someone tell me why the players are so dead set against a cap? The owners in my mind have a decent argument for having a cap, and why a luxuary tax won't work. The players say the free market should set their salaries, but that isn't an argument it's a statement. The only real argument I've heard from the NHLPA was they don't believe the revenue numbers from the teams. Interestingly the NHL in their counter offer put forth the idea that NHL & NHLPA could agree to a 3rd party to audit all teams to determine hockey revenues each year. That would seem to solve the NHLPA's problem. There is no doubt the players are being asked to fix the owners mess, but the players have been living pretty hansomly because of the owners screw ups. The problem is the owners can't control themselves because that would be called collusion, and would end up with the NHL in court. As long as there is signifigant finicial disparity amongst NHL owners a hard cap or a very stiff salary cap is the only way to ensure we don't do this all over again in 4 years. Sigh... as a Flames fan and after just having a taste of what the playoffs are like the first time in 7 years this lockout is gut-wretching. The worst days are yet to come. After the superbowl with no hockey there will be a big sports void that will need to be filled. Perhaps I will watch more Lacrosse. Spring won't be the same without Leaf fans sobing about losing in the 2nd round... again. Perhaps SpoFi should put together a team to compete for Lord Stanley's mug.
posted by camcanuck at 11:57 AM on December 15, 2004
The problem that the NHL as a league has is the financial disparity between team owners. A hard cap or at the very least a very harsh luxury tax is the only thing that will slow the salary escalation. Yes the players are being penalized for bad ownership practices, but what else could the league do? They could let some of the teams fold (which might not be such a bad idea anyway), but the teams that will end up folding aren't the source of the problem. While the players offer to take a 24% pay cut is generous there wasn't anything in the proposal to keep the owners in check. What is there to stop the Rangers for example for making a 10 million / year pitch to the next high profile UFA? The owners assertion that the 24% would be given back in 'a couple years' is a load of crap. It would take at least 3 or 4 years, but it would still happen. To follow up on bill's comment. Mr. Holik is the poster child for not guaranteeing player contracts. What has been lost in all of the 'hard cap' vs. 'luxury tax' talk is the NHL also wants non-guaranteed contracts. The NHLPA has said it would never accept it. Not guaranteeing contracts would go a long way to slowing salary escalation because players who were not performing (Yashin, Holik et al) would be dumped and their salaries could not be used as comparisons during arbitration. I've always thought that teams should be able to fire players who aren't performing or are causing problems in the dressing rooms. Of course the players should get some sort of severance package, but that would still be a lot cheaper than having to keep a player for several years at an over inflated price.
posted by camcanuck at 12:53 PM on December 14, 2004
TSN is reporting that talks are done for the day with little progress made. No plans to talk tomorrow, but they will meet again next week. Can these guys actually drag this out any longer! Arghhh! The NHL has a news conference scheduled at 4:45 EST (about 10 minutes from now) 86, in the old system if a players contract was up he could accept a teams offer (which had to be at least 10% more than he was paided last year) or ask to go to arbitration to get more money. If the player had a bad year he would take the 10% raise because an arbitrator might cut his pay because of his poor play. The owners want the power to force the player to an arbitrator so they reduce what he is paid rather than being forced to give him a 10% regardless of how well he played.
posted by camcanuck at 03:50 PM on December 09, 2004
My thoughts: Other than the fairly strict luxary tax structure the players offer is a bit of joke in my opinion. They may have done that as a bit of a PR move so they can appear to 'giving up more' to get a deal done. # The NHL hasn't flinched from having a hard salary cap, and they arn't going to now. At best the league will counter offer with a luxury tax kicking in at $ 35 million, and a hard cap set at 60% of total league revenue (ballpark it at around $45 million). The players say 'Get bent' and then really the rest of this is acedemic. # The entry level restrictions are useless without including preformace bonuses. NHL will counter with a $1 million / year cap including all bonuses (signing and performace) # A good start on arbitration. The NHL will demand the ability for teams to take players to arbitration. # The rollback the players keep harping on really means nothing to the owners simply because it's a one time deal. If salaries keep climbin' the 10% roll back would be gone in 2 years. My guess is in the NHL's counter they either reduce this or drop it all together. Overall I've not very optimistic about our chances. Here's hoping I'm wrong.
posted by camcanuck at 01:59 PM on December 09, 2004
86, The biggest problem with Gary (and some if not most of the team owners) is he doesn't seem to have a desire to make the game better and by proxy exhibits very few leadship qualities. In the case of the NHL it's going to take someone the fans and the players trust to simply say too bad if you don't like it, this is the way it's going to be because it will improve the game. The only person I could see having that kind of influence would be 'The Great One'. When this whole lockout issue is taken care of it will be time to focus on the game instead of just the buisness.
posted by camcanuck at 03:14 PM on December 07, 2004
86, the owners reaction was simply a mirror of what they saw and heard from the media and (to a much lesser extent) the fans. The media didn't like it so crackdown was given less importance. This really is the largest impeedment to serious change in the NHL. Until the majority of fans & media except that a hook is a hook regardless of when it happens this will not change. Go to a bar and watch a game... err... well wait til Chistmas and then go watch a Wold Junior game at a bar (that may be difficult in the US). If you asked I'm sure the majority of the fans there would say the ref's should 'let'em play'. My comment about how difficult to officate was just meant to emphasise that you can't use the NFL as a example on how to crack down on rules in the NHL. I agree the biggest problem now is that during a game each ref calls a slightly different game. The 2 ref system doesn't work, and only adds to the confusion. The NHL should get rid of it.
posted by camcanuck at 02:15 PM on December 07, 2004
Actually Colby Cosh suggested something like this might happend quite some time ago. He also posted some details on just how the cup came to be in the NHL's hands. If this latest round of talks fail on Thursday watch for real talk about this to heat up in the media. RE: OT v.1 - I believe that the refs in hockey really do get a bum rap. It is certainly one of the most difficult games in the world to officiate. While hockey does set a very bad example when it comes to the rules changing during different points of the game every sport I've ever seen suffers from the same problem. Whether it's the NHL, NFL, NBA, MLS or the MLB if a rule is open to interpretation the way it will be called changes during the game. As for being consistent over the year the original push to crack down on obstruction came from the NHL. The pushback came from the owners who said fans were sick and tired of watching games with 15 - 20 penalties called each game. It broke up the flow, and slowed things down to much. Therefore the NHL backed off. Simple as that. While I think Bettman has done a lot of things wrong with the NHL he doesn't have a dictator's like power over it. Really he is simply a figurehead for the owners.
posted by camcanuck at 01:42 PM on December 07, 2004
Miller didn't just win the downhill on Saturday either. His winning time was almost 1 second faster than second place finisher Antoine Deneriaz of France. In downhill that is an enormous amount of time. On top of that the less technical, more speed orintated course at Lake Louise was not really suited to Miller's stengths. He was simply on fire this weekend, and unless he is hurt this year I don't think he'll have any competition for the World Cup Overall title. While he has now won in all 5 disiplines I still don't think he can be compared to people like Pirmin Zurbriggen or Marc Girardelli yet. If wins the overall title, and competes at this level for a few years then you can lump him in there with the greats.
posted by camcanuck at 10:54 AM on November 29, 2004
The Argos won because of 2 (well maybe 3 reasons): 1) The Argos offence just ran over BC's defence 1a) The BC defence was AWFUL. 2) BC's refusal to kick the damn ball down the field Point #2 can't be overstated and was a huge coaching blunder by Wally. The Argo's offence played really well, but it only gets easier when they got to start with the ball almost at mid-field for every possession of the 2nd quarter. BC was the only team that never gave up a touchdown on a kick off or punt return all year. Now in the biggest game of the year you figure your coverage team sucks? In my mind that is the reason they lost. The officiating was very suspect again, but fortunately it didn't have a huge impact on the game. That missed pass interference call in the end-zone was brutal. 3 officials had a clear view of what happened and none of them called it.
posted by camcanuck at 10:45 AM on November 22, 2004
FYI... Last I heard on local sports radio was the Drillers were going to be playing this season in Calgary. The only issue earlier was whether or not they they would have their house in order in time for this season. The whole concept seems a little fishy though. I heard Joe Newman, the American Basketball Association's CEO on the radio on the way home on Wed. swear that Calgary would play this year. He gave a whole speal on how this league was different that any other. The Coles notes version is... each team keeps all of their money locally and don't have to pay anything to the league. The league level is funded by national broadcasting revenues (99% of that is radio). Therefore if the local teams do what they can to keep costs down then they can make money because there was no huge buy in the get the team (see $10,000) in the first place, and they don't have any revenue siphoned off the top by the league as a whole.
posted by camcanuck at 01:46 PM on November 19, 2004
There is no way in the world the Argos are going to win the Grey Cup. The Al's lost the the East Final more than the Argo's won it. Montreal simply didn't come prepared to play. If Allen gets the protection he needs from his O-Line it might be a close game, but I don't think the Argo defense is up to the challenage. Lions 31, Argos 21
posted by camcanuck at 04:20 PM on November 16, 2004
I don't see any signifigant upsets. BC will have no problems with Sask. (no matter who plays as QB). The Eskimos were the better team on Sunday, but couldn't finish to save their lives. It won't even be close. BC 32 Sask. 14 Montreal will take care of the Argos, but Allen will at least make it interesting. Montreal 28 Argos. 24
posted by camcanuck at 01:03 PM on November 08, 2004
Looks like the Doc. and jasonbondshow know just what they are talking about. Even gspm got it right, even though only one game ever had a hope of being snowy. As for further predictions I don't see any signifigant upsets. BC will have no problems with Sask. (no matter who plays as QB). BC 32 Sask. 14 Montreal will take care of the Argos. Montreal 28 Argos. 24
posted by camcanuck at 11:02 AM on November 08, 2004
Damn... how often is there a CFL thread here and I'm late joining it. Anyway grums scoring summary was really good, but he did miss one key point. Grum@work said: Stop them from leaving the endzone on a punt or missed field goal? That's 1 point. (it does not count on a kick-off) It should be made clear that you can stop a team from leaving the endzone on a punt or missed field goal by kicking the ball out of bounds anywhere within the endzone. For example the game is tied and Team A has 1 last play from Team B's 30 yeard line before time expires. Team A could simply bring out their punter and kick the ball right though the endzone, get the single point and the win. No need to try and get the ball though the uprights for 3 points. Team B's only hope would be to try and block the punt. Surprisingly this happens very rarely, but it could be done.
posted by camcanuck at 01:48 PM on November 02, 2004
I think there are about 1100 players. 900 or so make less than the average annual salary of $1.8 million. I bet if they put a salary cap to a vote that it would receive a majority vote. I'll agree with the Dr. in that I'm sick of the updates when nothing is happening. Judging by the number of responces to this thread.... so is everyone else.
posted by camcanuck at 04:16 PM on October 29, 2004
Skiing athletes don't really get much recognition in North America. Every single person skiing at the World Cup level is as at least as much a athlete as a any top tier hockey, football or baseball player. Not only do you have to be really, really strong, but you must also have amazing balance and great flexibility (which those videos demonstrate very well). It's a pity that these guys don't get the respect they deserve.
posted by camcanuck at 03:48 PM on October 19, 2004
I really, really like grum's proposal. I've always thought that rather than trying to force feed hockey to American's they should take the NHL to where there is already a fan base.... Europe. The only thing I would change is your playoff format. I really dislike 1 game elimination because 1 lucky bounce is all it takes for a lesser team to win. That and Calgary must have a team... why the hell would you pick Edmonton over Calgary! Shame on you. ;-)
posted by camcanuck at 11:06 AM on September 16, 2004
Okay.... stupid question. Why don't we have TV replays in big matches like this? People screw up all the time. It's part of the game. Put a screen next to the umpire and give each player one challange (ala NFL). It only takes a few seconds for the replay of the offending shot to shown on TV. How long could it take for someone to look at it and make the call? 30 seconds? That is the solution to the problem. I don't know why this hasn't happened yet.
posted by camcanuck at 12:47 PM on September 08, 2004
My understanding was the rules will be standard NHL rules (with touch icing etc.), but the European pool will play on the larger ice surface. Watching hightlights from the FIN v. CZE game it was clearly on a larger ice surface. News today that Nabokov has withdrawn from the World Cup. Nothing like leaving your teammates high and dry at the last minute.
posted by camcanuck at 10:05 AM on August 31, 2004
We had all better get our fix now.... Anyone want to pick a winner? While I figure that Team Canada should win this thing I must say after watching highlights from the exhibition games I'm concerned with just how well they are going to do. I really wish that the organizers would let all the teams play on the larger ice-surface instead of just the European pool. I'll bet the most entertaining games will be played on the larger ice-surface. It seems like a disadvantage to me that all the teams in the European pool play on the larger ice surface and then have to play the final on the small (NHL) sized ice. Kind of stacking the deck again them, eh.
posted by camcanuck at 11:02 AM on August 30, 2004
Good grief. The USOC hit the mail on the head with their response. This is not something that Paul Hamm should have to fix. Why is it so hard to change the scores now and officially reverse the decision? They didn't have a problem revising the Russian gymnasts score upwards the other day just to appease the fans. Apparently it's as simple as asking a judge to bump up the score a little. Pure idiocy! A bunch of 5 year olds would do a better job.
posted by camcanuck at 01:32 PM on August 27, 2004
Interestingly this Globe article says '...Colin Campbell selected the officials for the final and [vice-president of hockey operations] Mike Murphy was installed as the supervisor for the final.'. Why wasn't the press all over this during the final? I certainly never heard anything about it. Of course this throws a wrench into the whole Sutter theory where $LOCAL_TEAM_NAME = "Calgary Flames". It will be very interesting to see if Marc Faucette gets his job back in light of this. The Globe article also mentions he 'borrowed' up to $10,000!! First off why the hell does anyone need that much cash? Like Garfield said it could be a gambling problem (hopefully not on NHL games). Secondly who actually has that much cash to loan out? What are they paying refs these days? It's not like you could just run to a bank machine to get that kind of cash.
posted by camcanuck at 10:00 AM on July 14, 2004
gspm: Steve Reinprecht will almost certainly be given 1st line center duties. He only played 40+ games last year and missed all of the playoffs with a shoulder injury. The Flames were very happy with his performance last year when he actually played. The rumour is that Conroy would have stayed in Calgary is they would have extended his contract to 4 years at his current salary of 2.2 mil a year. The Flames have been burned already by some long term deals. You would be foolish to expect all players to except pay cuts like Turek did. A small market team simply cannot expose themselves to that much risk except for superstar players (re: Iginla). I can't blame Conroy for looking for a longer term deal to ensure some financial stability. If another team can afford the risk more power to him. Interesting tidbit on the radio today mentioned the Flames may open their books up this summer. Apparently they didn't make it into the black until the start of the 3rd round of the playoffs. So if every team was run exactly like Calgary 26 of them would loose money every year. A sobering thought....
posted by camcanuck at 03:41 PM on July 07, 2004
Thornton to the Leafs would be a great idea, but Ferguson will never get it done. Besides there have got to be some more 'over-the-hill' unrestricted free agents out there to spend more money on. Thornton won't be going anywhere until a new CBA is done. As long as there is a good possibility that there will be no hockey next year players don't really have much bargining power when it comes to demanding trades. In other news... Conroy has gone to LA (for 12.6 mil over 4 years). The Flames simply don't have the money to match an over like that. The Flames offered 4.4 mil over 2 years. Rumor has it Sutter didn't really want him back, and is looking for some more youth. Conroy is 32. Chelios will be back as a Wing. I thought Chelios was done, but I guess he figures his body will hold out one more year. It will be interesting to see how many performace clauses are worked into the contract.
posted by camcanuck at 10:30 AM on July 07, 2004
NoMich: I don't know why the Blue Jackets took Irbe. I would have to assume that they will negotiate a better deal than 2.5 mil a season for a 37 year old goalie who hasn't played well in quite a while. That's a lot of money to pay a goalie to provide moral support to Marc Denis from the bench. Then again that's exactly what Turek did for the Flames last season.
posted by camcanuck at 01:38 PM on June 28, 2004
This trade will turn out to be a huge bargin for the Blues. To get a goalie of Lalime's calibre for a late draft pick is a steal. Shesh.. now I know why Calgary can't unload Turek. Compare Lalime who would cost ~2.5 million / year against Turek at ~4+ million. Would someone take Turek in exchange for a bag of pucks?
posted by camcanuck at 12:07 PM on June 28, 2004
The people who have to be nervous as hell about this are the NHL and the Canucks. If the main prosecution argument is that the hit was premeditated prior to even the game beginning then it would be a very easy to extend responsibility to the NHL and the Canucks for not diffusing it. It will be interesting to see if Bertuzzi even fights this. He could simply plead guilty, and take a settlement of some sort. I imagine he will be under a lot of pressure from the NHL to do just that. If we have a trial other players and coaches could be dragged into the courtroom to testify. Bad publicity for the NHL, but perhaps a wake up call that threats against players off the ice should never be tolerated by the league or the teams.
posted by camcanuck at 03:30 PM on June 25, 2004
Because I didn't actually see it can anyone comment on whether or not the disallowed goal was a good call?
posted by camcanuck at 04:41 PM on June 24, 2004
I'll second mkn thoughts.... shootouts suck. It's no way to end a team game. That being said.... damn it! If Beckham could've found hit the net all would be good in the world. Now I'm left cheering for the Netherlands.
posted by camcanuck at 04:37 PM on June 24, 2004
Jason Lezak's Unbelievable Freestyle Relay Swim
Don't get me wrong; what Lezak did was amazing. However the ONLY reason he swam such a fast leg is because Bernard allowed him to do so. Bernard broke a cardinal rule in competitive swimming. He swam right up again the lane divider between him and Lezak for almost the entire final 50m. Lezak was smart enough to notice this and drafted off him. Allowing him to easily close the gap while still saving his energy for the final push. Bernard swims in the middle of his lane or on the other side and the French win. I was absolutely astonished to see a swimmer of Bernard's caliber make such a rookie mistake.