Brush with Greatness

Do these past few pages cause anyone else to want to start playing Sid Meier's Civilization again?

Actually, it you take a look at the year, that is for 02-03. The NHL average attendance last season was 16, 532. This however was bolstered by the Heritage Classic, making the average attendance closer to 16, 515. Now that may not seem like a lot from 02-03's attendance of 16, 591 but it actually means 187,000 less fans took in NHL games last year. However, you were right about one part, it is interesting. Also interesting, Boston and Chicago, two hockey cities and original six franchises, were 22nd and 27th respectively in attendance last season. On top of that, Carolina, Chicago, New York Islanders and Rangers, Washington, Montreal, St. Louis, San Jose, Columbus, Dallas, Pittsburgh and Nashville all suffered declines in attendance last season. The only reason that Phoenix is not on this list is because they got a shot in the arm with a new arena. As for Nashville, since joining the leauge in '98, their average attendance has gone from 17, 281 to 13, 177. Healthy the game is not.

Their is a big difference between winning seasons and making the playoffs. A team can play slightly over .500 as much as they want, but if they can't make the playoffs, that is a huge hit, especially in the NHL. The Oilers have only made the playoffs once in the past three seasons, and that was limping in as an eighth seed at that. Even scrapping the arbitration system doesn't work because that is not the main problem. The problem is the money rich teams setting the bar a notch above what the lower tier teams can afford. Again, you can try to use the old supply-demand argument here, however, particularly in the NHL, ticket prices can often be directly linked to player costs. Obviously you don't follow the NHL too strongly or you would have seen this for about the past 10 years. In other sports it may not be as major because of alternate revenue sources. However, as mentioned earlier, the NHL's primary revenue source is ticket sales. Getting an extra 3-6 playoff games is huge for teams, let alone for the teams that make the conference finals and Cup final. This is why teams like Detroit, Dallas, Colorado, etc. had a massive monopoly over the west for so many years. The thing with the salary cap is that it may not create parity, but it does create a level playing field that gives all teams the same opportunity to win. I hear this argument all the time. However, looking at the figures over the past three seasons you have 20 of the 32 teams falling with a record between .400 and .600, which would be considered an average record in football. And of those teams 11 of those teams have records that fall between 21-27 and 26-22. It is safe to say that any teams that fall outside this sphere are likely due to either strong or poor management. The salary cap is not perfect in creating parity because it relies on human judgement. However, every team has the same opportunity. The only difference between New England's success and Arizona's misfortune, is strong management. You can't say that when comparing Detroit to Edmonton in the NHL. On top of that, 22 different teams have made the playoffs in that time span in the NFL (which you could argue is based on the short schedule, however, that was just negated with the previous numbers). Only 3 teams have made the playoffs all three years. In comparison, in the NHL, where they let 4 more teams in the playoffs per year than the NFL (and also have two less total teams) only 23 different teams have made the playoffs the past three seasons. Not to mention the fact that in the Eastern Conference, the eight different playoff spots have been shared by only ten teams the past three seasons, with five teams being left out in the cold all three years.

Ah, the current Edmonton Oilers strategy. Can any Oiler fans tell me what it feels like to be constantly rebuilding, knowing that once your player's hit their prime that they will inevitably be lost via trade or free agency, only to be recylcled again for prospects or picks, who in time, will develop into great players and need to be shuffled off again. Option C basically turns teams (like the Oilers constant situation) into feeder systems for squads like the Rangers, Flyers, etc. On top of that, free agency (albeit restricted) starts at a much younger age, and it is in these years that some players get their salaries jacked up. Guys like Iginla and Theodore a few years ago were examples were the cash was too tight but the teams had to pay the money anyways. How do you explain to your fanbase that you traded away your franchise player? Not to mention the poor qualifying system, where to maintain the rights of the restricted free agent you need to qualify him at an increased salary, no matter how undeservedly so. Or he could always take you to arbitration and seek "market value" where he takes his numbers, compares them to Bobby Holik and says "see, I deserve $10 million a season as well". The team can then either accept the usual monstorous arbitration award or walk away, losing the players rights in the process. I can't believe how blind you are to the weakneess of the current NHL collective bargaining agreement. The old adage, about if the fans are so supportive why are the attendance numbers higher. Let's face it, you need to give the fans something to cheer for. I can't believe some people use this argument and feel that the fans should come out "just because". Fan support only goes so far. If you want the fans to cough up the astronomical ticket prices (driven up in large part by the high salaries) and purchase merchandise, then you need to give them something to cheer for. It's akin to a favourite musician of yours. I'm a Pearl Jam fan. I like Pearl Jam and will support them if I like the music they put out (quality of the product). However, I'm not going to go out blindly and support them if they put no effort into putting a quality product and constantly expect me to buy albums "just because" I'm a fan. Another problem with the current system is that the "market value" system creates a vicious cycle. A few successful seasons and playoff runs leads to increased revenue (thanks to an increased attendance and playoff revenue boost). Now with that money, you can turn around and keep pumping it back into the organization, retaining high priced free agents and acquiring new ones as well. So, the same teams keep driving up the salaries and making the playoffs, just because they were successful in the playoffs before and have the money to do so. Meanwhile, the teams that weren't successful continue to fail to be successful, because the don't have the revenue to compete. Therefore a lack of success for a few seasons results in the team being constantly screwed over year after year. Now, I suppose some would argue that this is what sport is about. However, this gives the lower tier teams virtually no chance to get better. However, with a salary cap, each manager is on the same page. It truly tests out who the better G.M.'s in the league are and awards quality management.

You conveniently fail to mention that most of the teams that are losing money are virtually forced into it. The teams like the Rangers, Avs, Wings, etc. can afford to pay the top tier players 10 million a season. Now, because of the current economic "market value" system (which you appear to be a big proponent of) once Bobby Holik starts making 10 mil, every Holik calibre player (which is virtually half the league) feels he should be entitled to 10 mil. Teams which can't afford to pay their players this amount of money, have the option of a) signing the player(s) and taking a financial hit. However, the fan base is not alienated. So despite still drawing fans, you are losing big money financially b) not sign the player(s). After a while (and this is where we are getting very close to), the low and mid market teams are raided of all their players. This in turn, pisses off the fans, resulting in small gates and again, the team starts losing money financially (albeit likely a smaller amount depending on the circumstances). See Penguins, Pittsburgh. And the thing is, if the team doesn't sign him he will always find a home elsewhere. See Rangers, New York. So, there you have it. Now you may condone this crap in baseball (I'm not sure why), but in hockey, alot of the small market teams are the ones with fans who actually care passionately about the game. So basically, due to the current economics creating a total lack of parity, hockey crazed centres (not to mention two of the most storied franchises in NHL history) like Edmonton and Montreal virtually have no chance of ever winning a Stanley Cup again. I'm not really sure how this "market value" system that baseball uses is a good thing. If you want to look at the popularity of different sports in North America, one stands far and above the rest and a lot of that has to do with fans going into the season thinking that their team always has a shot at winning the championship, if not this coming season then in a few seasons. I don't really see how a salary cap (especially a fluctuating one like the NHL proposed earlier) hurts the NHL, let alone any sport for that matter.

Hell, when did they change the date of the Oscars? I always thought they used to be in late March/early April. Not the end of February for sure.

Our thoughts exactly when we were watching it.

Are you sure Gob says como? Because watching it over a few times it was very difficult to tell.

Unfortunately, prior commitments allowed me to only catch the Baroni-Sell fight and the main. IMO, I thought Vitor edged out Tito in the first round (as well as the second) and by the UFC 10 point must system, Vitor should have won the decision. Now going by any other standard, I thought Tito deserved to win the fight. Indeed though, where do Baroni and Belfort go from here?

Gotta second the Kanye West mention. The College Dropout is an amazing album. Also, before you totally right off Jay Z, check out DJ Danger Mouse's Grey Album. It's lyrics from Jay Z's Black Album with beats from the Beatles White Album. Another great CD. Also, despite being Canadian, I haven't heard K-os' latest album. However, the "Crab Bucket" single is decent, if not for the only reason being that he mentions the Tragically Hip, but I'm really starting to dig his latest single "Back into the man I used to be" which is very heavily influenced by Pink Floyd.

I must admit, having caught only part of an episode half way through last season, and then only seeing one episode in the middle of the season, I wasn't really sold on the greatness of this show. However, nonetheless, I borrowed the season one DVD's from my sister's fiance, and as tough for me as this is to say, this show might even be funnier than Curb Your Enthusiasm (which, along with Seinfeld are my two favourite comedies). The show just keeps getting funnier and funnier. Last night I watched the first episode with the blind prosecuting attorney. The whole sequence where Michael comes back to the house after the attempted one night stand is gold. Gob: I told you to give her a fake name. Michael: I did. I'm Charuth Cutestory, a pirate lawyer, it was air tight. Gob: Boy, you had to really work hard to bag that blind girl, huh?. With the whole scene topped off by Gob's exclamation that "You just won the gold medal at the sexual special olympics. She can't ever find you again. Can't you see that you're so... lucky." Also loved the following sequence: Gob: Hey guy, they tell me you're the one who plays Marta's brother Tio. Actor: Como? Gob: Oh, you're going to be in a coma alright. Narrator: Unfortunately, the actor who played Tio had also starred in a Mexican film about the life of Oscar De La Hoya Michael: Gob, hey, hey, are you alright? Gob: Where am I? Am I in... two-thirds of a hospital room? And I have to agree, Gob may be the greatest character on television.

I'm really struggling as to why the NHLPA can't get a deal done out of this. What exactly is wrong with a fluctuating cap that is based on jointly monitored revenues? How greedy are these guys? Just for the record, seven teams fell below the 32 million dollar payroll last season. So that would be seven teams forced to pay their players more.

So yeah, what will be the Super Bowl result? Also I obviously don't know the difference between "our" and "are".

Anyways, perhaps most of you American's haven't heard of this site but I can vouch for it. There are having a huge MGM/UA DVD sale including Usual Suspects: Special Edition Fargo: Special Edition At $8.88 CDN you have no excuse not to buy these. Also at $8.88 (and I know some of these have also been reduced elsewhere): Princess Bride: SE Bull Durham: SE Manchurian Candidate (original): SE Terminator: SE Spinal Tap: SE And then there are all those "Contemporary Classics" that they release which you can probably find at Walmart for the same price (at least in Canada).

How was he?

Well that's cause Peter Karmanos is losing money out of his ass operating in Carolina where there are lucky to draw an announced attendance of 8,000 a night. Sure, he's probably losing money at the moment but not nearly as much as when the league was operating.

I'm just going with goals that I witnessed live (not actually there, but in real time): John Slaney v. USSR - 1991 - my all time favourite goal. I was nine years old and still remember where I was. One of my favourite childhood memories. Brett Hull v. Buffalo - 1999 - Game 6 - It was a stupid rule anyways and this goal won the cup for the Stars and ensured that my hometown hero Eddie would be bring the cup back to town. Pavel Bure v. Calgary - 1994 - Game 7 - this goal basically won me our draft. Somehow I was able to get a load of Rangers, as was my other friend. I also had a bunch of Canucks and he had loaded up on Flames. The thinking between the two of us going in was that the draft pretty much came down to this series and it turned out to be true. Steve Yzerman v. St. Louis - 1996 - Game 7 - Basically I just loved Yzerman's reaction off this shot. We will leave it at that as the topic is favourite and not most memorable (fucking Lightning, Russians and Americans).

We'll I'm glad Marek Schwarz redeemed himself. I told a friend last June that he should have gone ahead of Montoya and believe that if not for his two games against Canada in last year's WJC he would have. I feel justified now in my conclusion that Schwarz was the best goalie heading into the tournament. I don't think Montoya is as bad as he looked, but hopefully he will stop getting a lot of the undeserving praise he's been receiving over the past year. I guess the two will go head to head in the Bronze game and hopefully Marek holds up. A win there for the Czech should solidify him with the directorate award. As for the final, it is indeed Russia v. Canada. As I said earlier, shortly after their loss to the U.S., was that I still felt that Russia was the team that Canada would have the most trouble with. I was somewhat hoping for a U.S. v. Canada final as the atmosphere live would have been phenomenal, but after hearing about the Russian antics at the end of the semi, even the Americans at the Gold medal game should be rared up. I'm glad Sutter is saying fuck it to rotating the D evenly, and like I noted earlier, going to Weber and Phaneuf for half the game. I don't think those two have been scored on yet (again, don't know why there was the critiscm of the Canadian D earlier- 6 goals in 5 games ain't bad, only 11 s.o.g. against the likely Bronze medalists), and Malkin and Ovenchin should see a lot of those two. Again, it will be up to Glass to prove himself. Canada should have the firepower to win, and I don't foresee the Russian goaltender pulling off some of the saves that Schwarz made. A few other notes: Phil Kessel has impressed me. That kid is exciting and he seems to have a Mike Modano thing going for him. As a late '87, Kessel is a top prospect for the 2006 draft. However, another kid to watch out for then is Jonathon Toews. If Team Western ends up making the World Under 17 Championships, try to sit down and check out the final on TSN Wednesday night just to check him out. Also, I'm potentially looking to make a few signs for the gold medal game if I get around to it, so watch out for either of these... T hank you S anta for no N HL and on the side I will have "Wishlist" with Bergeron, Phaneuf, Carter, etc under it. Other possible sign is "We were in Winnipeg in '99 and we've come for revenge" or something along those lines maybe shortened. Any other suggestions?

Okay, stupid question here, but it's something I've always wondered and it's not worth starting a new topic over, but why, on a missed field goal, is the ball spotted at where the ball is plated by the placeholder? Why not just go from the line of scrimmage?

What time is this tonight? 8 or 9 eastern?

Well, Russia is starting to pull it together in typical fashion as the tournament wears on. Russia first, USA third. Nice. Looks like we avoid either until at least the final, which also means that it should be one of them in the final, which is great because those are our two biggest rivals. It's funny that the U.S. goaltending was touted by so many as the best in the tournament heading into it when I think anyone in the know knew that they were overrated. I wouldn't be surprised to see Finland again in the semifinal as they should put forth a much better effort against the Czechs. Also, bad news as Barker is gone for the tourney. Where this really hurts is on the P.P. Hopefully Seabrook is healthy and can fill the hole. They tried Getzlaf back there today (as well as against the Swiss in Winnipeg) but my concern there is definetly his skating, especially when it comes down to having to face the swift Russians. No way will Getzlaf play a regular shift on D, but I think Getzlaf is too much of a liability on the point to even play powerplay against some teams. Glass still scares me a bit. He drops way too early on shots and doesn't have a strong enough butterfly to compensate for that. Overall, I think Rejean is capable of playing better games, but his biggest problem is consistency. Ever since at least midget he's been a streaky goalie. He also has a tendency to get down on himself after giving up bad goals, so as it is Glass is probably the safer bet.

I don't really ever take the Russians round robin performance seriously. In 2002 when the beat Canada for the Gold, they opened that tournament up with a 5-1 win over France (who Canada ousted a day early 15-0) before following that up with a 2-1 loss to the Fins and a 5-2 loss to Canada. In 1999 when they again beat Canada in the final, they opened with a 4-2 loss to Sweden. But who really knows because other years they'll blow through the round robin 4-0. I figure that when the chips are on the line though, between them and the American's, they are the much better team.

So far, the only team that would potentially scare me is Russia, but I have not seen enough of them to figure if those fears are justified. I don't think the American's can handle Canada at all. No offence, but I until he proves otherwise, I think Al Montoya is vastly overrated. Montoya is in the same boat as Fleury, in the sense that their star was built on one good tournament. It seems these days that if the right goalie gets hot at the right time (that time being the WJC) they are automatically touted as the next big thing. As it is, I think Fleury was overrated going into last years tournament and the same can be said of Montoya and this years tournament. The thing is, after all of these big wins (6-0, 5-0, 7-3, 8-1, 9-0) some credit needs to start being given to Canada, rather than these teams aren't that good. The Swiss proved they are decent against the U.S. and I don't think Finland or Sweden will prove to be all that bad when it comes down to it. I think Canada is just that dominate. They potentially have three number one lines and there is no reason why this team shouldn't score a minimum of 6 goals a game, and that includes against Russia and the U.S. and the defense and goaltending is strong enough that they shouldn't allow more than three to anyone. I also think you'll find the D more stable with the return of Seabrook. If Canada decides to slide Seabrook in permanently with Coburn, that gives them the two best defensive pairs in the tournament, which they can then just roll while throwing in 5,6, and 7 into the mix occasionally.

1. Again, do some research. This is perhaps the stupidest argument yet. "The guy's not on 'roids because he's not jacked." Steroids are not simply a bulking agent. There are numerous performance enhancing drugs out there not aimed at "bulking up" but rather used towards speeding up recovery times or increasing energy levels during workouts. Now, you're telling me Payton was able to train longer and harder without the benefit of any drugs and excel better than all of his peers, many of whom at the time were juiced up? And I'm the one making ridicoulous assumptions? On top of this there was speculation amongst football insiders at the time of his death of steroid use by Payton so I'm not making these allegations up out of thin air. 2. Steroid use has been linked to both tumor growth and cancer in regards to the liver. It has also been noted that steroid use can lead to a rare liver condition called peliosis hepatis. Is it then a ridicoulus assumption that it may have helped to spurn or accelerate Peyton's rare liver disease?

Are you guys serious? Do a little research. Of course steroid use has been linked to liver damage. Now, and this is what Al might be saying, is that it has not been found to directly cause PSC. However, that's not saying it doesn't (or in Payton's case it didn't) but that there is just too little to go upon. With Payton and his PSC, even if he was predisposed to it genetically, I'm saying that steroid use likely accelerated it or helped spurn it on. Perhaps my first statement should have read "Can anyone conclusively believe that Payton wasn't on the juice." However, to the people who blindfully deny it, I still think you are kidding yourselves. And of course it's all based on speculation. However, I feel pretty safe with my assumptions and I think given the full circumstances without actually knowing for a fact, most betting men would go with "yes he was doped up" rather than "no, he was clean". Payton to my knowledge never underwent a drug test at his prime and all we have to go on is speculation. However, that's the same scenario for the majority of professional athletes/wrestlers yet their is adament speculation about many of them. But oh no, not Sweetness.