Jim Tressel has pulled a Pete Carroll, taking his sweater vest and walking away before it all hits the fan in Columbus. I can't say I'm at all surprised by this development. The only thing that's at all upsetting is that he resigned on his own, rather than being forced out like he should've been. Bruce Pearl got fired by Tennessee for a lot less. But, considering the school that he worked for, the fact that he wasn't actually fired wasn't all that surprising.
I can't wait for the NCAA to come down on Ohio State. Hard. The school thinks it's better than everybody else and has this ridiculous sense of entitlement. Seriously, how pompous do you have to be to insist on referring to your school as "THE Ohio State University," then get all pissed off when other people don't say it? (From now on, I'm only going by "THE Joe Brackets.") I have a suspicion that university officials knew exactly what was going on and turned a blind eye. After all, these weren't blatant NCAA violations or anything. How could Ohio State do anything wrong?
Well, here's what the Buckeyes did in a nutshell. Quarterback Terrell Pryor and others traded championship rings, jerseys and other memorabilia to the owner of a Columbus-area tattoo parlor in exchange for free tattoos. Some of them were also selling their Ohio State stuff. These are pretty clear and pretty blantant NCAA violations. Tressell knew about it, but didn't tell anybody so that the players would remain eligible. Well, that was also bad. The NCAA, of course, found out and suspended the players for the first five games of the 2011 season. Tressell's punishment was nothing more than a slap on the wrist: two games and a $250,000 fine. He later had suspension extended to five games so that it would be the same length as the players'. He should've been fired right then and there.
Now let's compare this to the situation at USC. USC got nailed because Reggie Bush and O.J. Mayo accepted gifts from agents. Was that bad? Yes. What made it worse is that then-AD Mike Garrett threw the basketball team under the bus in an attempt to protect the football team. But this was an isolated case involving two players, and everyone involved is no longer at USC (Bush is in the NFL, Mayo's in the NBA, Garrett got fired, and Carroll got out of there just in time and is now the coach of the Seahawks). In fact, all traces of Reggie Bush have been removed from the USC campus. At Ohio State, it's a bunch of players who knew they were breaking the rules and simply didn't care. I'm not sure if the fact that nobody other than Tressell knew anything is better or worse.
My favorite part of this entire Ohio State thing is the wide receiver who came out and point-blank said he knew he was breaking the rules. So you knew you were breaking the rules, but you did it anyway? That's smart. The reason he gave for selling his Ohio State memorabilia is because he needed extra cash to pay for his car and live in Columbus. Here's a plan, if you can't afford a $600 a month car payment, don't buy a car that costs that much! Or why don't you try living on campus, where you won't have to pay rent? What a concept!
In response to this, instead of actually acknowledging any wrongdoing on Ohio State's part (again, how could Ohio State do anything wrong?), the Big Ten bigwigs decided to get together and suggest paying the student-athletes. Not only is this a terrible idea, it'll open up a gigantic can of worms. And create a whole lot more problems than they're trying to solve.
For starters, who's going to get paid? Football and men's basketball players at BCS schools. Not soccer players or volleyball players or tennis players. Even within the football and men's basketball programs, do you want to tell me that the star quarterback and the punter will receive the same "compensation?" I didn't think so. And what about the non-BCS schools that don't have the same kind of money to throw at recruits? These schools don't have the funds to even offer to pay players. So, now you could potentially have a situation where a player is being heavily recruited by two schools, one of which is offering a free ride plus a "stipend" while the other isn't. Hmm, that's really a tough decision. Free tuition plus room & board is more than enough compensation! (Using the rough figure of $40,000 as an estimate for the amount of tuition plus room and board, that means student-athletes are being given $160,000 worth of a free education for their services to the university.)
So, what should be done about the Ohio State scandal? They should be given the NCAA sactions that they deserve. And they should shut up and take them like men! Drop the "holier than thou" crap. You broke the rules and you got caught. Simply being Ohio State isn't going to get you off the hook. And it shouldn't.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Brickyard Centennial
The Greatest Spectacle In Racing turns 100 this year. I always get up for the Indy 500, but this year, the centennial makes the race that much more special. It's NOT the 100th Indy 500 (they didn't run a couple during the war years), but that's a minor detail that can conveniently be ignored this weekend (the 100th Anniversary World Series wasn't the 100th World Series, either). Besides, this is shaping up to be one of the best Indy 500s in recent memory.
The drama all started on Bump Day, the unique Indy 500 qualifying event that is actually a lot more entertaining than it sounds. Basically, the way they do qualifying is this: On the first day, everybody gets four laps. The top 24 make the race, while the top nine then go again for the pole. After the pole is set, the other eight are locked into positions 2-9. Then on Sunday, everybody who hasn't qualified yet goes for the other nine spots. Once the 33-car field is full, you can go back out there and "bump" the final qualifier if you post a faster speed than they did. If you get bumped, you have a total of three runs on the day, so you can try to bump your way back in until the track closes at 6:00.
To add to the fun, it rained on Bump Day. All but one driver had made their qualifying runs and the field was full when it started raining, and they didn't know how long the rain would last. But the person who hadn't gotten the chance to go yet happened to be Danica. Now, try to think of an Indy 500 without Danica Patrick. Fortunately, the inconceivable didn't come to fruition, since it stopped raining early enough for Danica to get out there and end up qualifying pretty easily. Marco Andretti got bumped with about 10 minutes left, and it looked like he might not get a chance to get back in, but he was able to get on the track at 5:59:45. Andretti posted a speed good enough to put himself back in the race, which knocked out his teammate Ryan Hunter-Reay, who couldn't do anything about it. (Hunter-Reay will actually race because of some shady deal between team owner Michael Andretti and rival team owner A.J. Foyt, an Indy legend, that resulted in him getting to drive the car that Bruno Junqueira qualified. I'm still not really sure I understand how that all went down.)
If this year's Indy 500 can be anywhere near as exciting as this year's Bump Day, we'll have a hell of a race on our hands. And with one of the deepest Indy fields in years, I don't see any reason why it won't.
Alex Tagliani will start on the pole after posting a qualifying speed of 227.472 mph. Right next to him is Scott Dixon, the 2008 champion. Dixon is one of five former winners in the race. Defending champion Dario Franchitti (Mr. Ashley Judd) has drunk the milk twice, while Helio Castroneves (the Dancing with the Stars guy) is a three-time Indy 500 winner. The other former champs in the race are Dan Wheldon, who won in 2005 and has been one of the most consistent drivers at Indy throughout his career. Buddy Rice is the fifth former winner. He took it in 2004, the year before Wheldon.
Then there are the ubertalented drivers who've come close, but never won Indy. Let's start with my favorite driver not named Danica, Tony Kanaan. This guy's luck has to improve at some time, right? Kanaan set a record by leading the Indy 500 in each of his first seven starts (2003-08), but something always happened and his best finish was second in 2004. Last year, Kanaan started last and worked his way all the way up to second before finishing 11th. He clearly has the talent to win at the Brickyard. I hope he eventually does. This might be Danica's last dance at Indy if her misguided flirtation with NASCAR takes her to stock cars full-time next season. The only woman ever to lead the race (in 2005, when she finished fourth), Danica finished third in 2009 and sixth last year. In fact, she has five Top 10 finishes in six career Indy 500 starts. This isn't a novelty act. She's talented. She could win. Danica leads a record-tying four! women in the race. Simona de Silvestro was actually the fastest qualifier among the ladies, while Pippa Mann (unfortunately, it won't be this Pippa) and Ana Beatriz are in the back row.
And let's not forget about Marco Andretti, the latest generation in that great racing family. Marco's grandfather, the great Mario Andretti, won at Indy in 1969, while his father (and car owner) Michael, led more laps without winning than anyone else in history. Marco was the last qualifier, but he's in the race, which is really the only thing that matters. Anything can happen in the Indy 500. He finished second by just 0.0635 seconds as a 19-year-old rookie in 2006. Eventually the "Andretti Curse" will be broken. And I didn't even mention guys like Oriol Servia, who starts on the outside of Row 1 (mainly because I don't think he has a chance to win), or Will Power or Vitor Meira or Ed Carpenter. See where I'm going here? There are a lot of drivers who could win the 2011 Indianapolis 500.
Part of what makes the Centennial Indianapolis 500 so intriguing is that unpredictability. I could make something up as to how I think the race will play out, but I really have no idea. And I'm totally OK with that. As long as it's a good race, I don't really care. I'm not going to shy away from making a prediciton though. I really like a number of IndyCar drivers and would be comfortable with any of them winning. My heart tells me either Kanaan or Danica will get it done, but my head likes Dan Wheldon. Wheldon has finished second in each of the last two years and I like his starting position (outside Row 2). If I was placing a bet on the winner of the 2011 Indianapolis 500, he'd be my guy. But I'm smart enough not to bet on this race. Not this year at least.
The drama all started on Bump Day, the unique Indy 500 qualifying event that is actually a lot more entertaining than it sounds. Basically, the way they do qualifying is this: On the first day, everybody gets four laps. The top 24 make the race, while the top nine then go again for the pole. After the pole is set, the other eight are locked into positions 2-9. Then on Sunday, everybody who hasn't qualified yet goes for the other nine spots. Once the 33-car field is full, you can go back out there and "bump" the final qualifier if you post a faster speed than they did. If you get bumped, you have a total of three runs on the day, so you can try to bump your way back in until the track closes at 6:00.
To add to the fun, it rained on Bump Day. All but one driver had made their qualifying runs and the field was full when it started raining, and they didn't know how long the rain would last. But the person who hadn't gotten the chance to go yet happened to be Danica. Now, try to think of an Indy 500 without Danica Patrick. Fortunately, the inconceivable didn't come to fruition, since it stopped raining early enough for Danica to get out there and end up qualifying pretty easily. Marco Andretti got bumped with about 10 minutes left, and it looked like he might not get a chance to get back in, but he was able to get on the track at 5:59:45. Andretti posted a speed good enough to put himself back in the race, which knocked out his teammate Ryan Hunter-Reay, who couldn't do anything about it. (Hunter-Reay will actually race because of some shady deal between team owner Michael Andretti and rival team owner A.J. Foyt, an Indy legend, that resulted in him getting to drive the car that Bruno Junqueira qualified. I'm still not really sure I understand how that all went down.)
If this year's Indy 500 can be anywhere near as exciting as this year's Bump Day, we'll have a hell of a race on our hands. And with one of the deepest Indy fields in years, I don't see any reason why it won't.
Alex Tagliani will start on the pole after posting a qualifying speed of 227.472 mph. Right next to him is Scott Dixon, the 2008 champion. Dixon is one of five former winners in the race. Defending champion Dario Franchitti (Mr. Ashley Judd) has drunk the milk twice, while Helio Castroneves (the Dancing with the Stars guy) is a three-time Indy 500 winner. The other former champs in the race are Dan Wheldon, who won in 2005 and has been one of the most consistent drivers at Indy throughout his career. Buddy Rice is the fifth former winner. He took it in 2004, the year before Wheldon.
Then there are the ubertalented drivers who've come close, but never won Indy. Let's start with my favorite driver not named Danica, Tony Kanaan. This guy's luck has to improve at some time, right? Kanaan set a record by leading the Indy 500 in each of his first seven starts (2003-08), but something always happened and his best finish was second in 2004. Last year, Kanaan started last and worked his way all the way up to second before finishing 11th. He clearly has the talent to win at the Brickyard. I hope he eventually does. This might be Danica's last dance at Indy if her misguided flirtation with NASCAR takes her to stock cars full-time next season. The only woman ever to lead the race (in 2005, when she finished fourth), Danica finished third in 2009 and sixth last year. In fact, she has five Top 10 finishes in six career Indy 500 starts. This isn't a novelty act. She's talented. She could win. Danica leads a record-tying four! women in the race. Simona de Silvestro was actually the fastest qualifier among the ladies, while Pippa Mann (unfortunately, it won't be this Pippa) and Ana Beatriz are in the back row.
And let's not forget about Marco Andretti, the latest generation in that great racing family. Marco's grandfather, the great Mario Andretti, won at Indy in 1969, while his father (and car owner) Michael, led more laps without winning than anyone else in history. Marco was the last qualifier, but he's in the race, which is really the only thing that matters. Anything can happen in the Indy 500. He finished second by just 0.0635 seconds as a 19-year-old rookie in 2006. Eventually the "Andretti Curse" will be broken. And I didn't even mention guys like Oriol Servia, who starts on the outside of Row 1 (mainly because I don't think he has a chance to win), or Will Power or Vitor Meira or Ed Carpenter. See where I'm going here? There are a lot of drivers who could win the 2011 Indianapolis 500.
Part of what makes the Centennial Indianapolis 500 so intriguing is that unpredictability. I could make something up as to how I think the race will play out, but I really have no idea. And I'm totally OK with that. As long as it's a good race, I don't really care. I'm not going to shy away from making a prediciton though. I really like a number of IndyCar drivers and would be comfortable with any of them winning. My heart tells me either Kanaan or Danica will get it done, but my head likes Dan Wheldon. Wheldon has finished second in each of the last two years and I like his starting position (outside Row 2). If I was placing a bet on the winner of the 2011 Indianapolis 500, he'd be my guy. But I'm smart enough not to bet on this race. Not this year at least.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Number 100
Ladies and gentlemen, we've reached a milestone. The day after Mariano appeared in his 1,000th game with the Yankees, we get Joe Brackets post No. 100! When I started this thing, I didn't think it would end up being a sports-only blog, but that's quickly what it turned into. And I've talked about a lot of sports since then. So, now in true sitcom tradition, it's time for the 100th episode clip show.
My first six posts were all about baseball, and that sport has definitely provided me with most of my material. There's been analysis of awards season and the Hall of Fame, as well as a division-by-division preview. I've been philosophical, critical and hypothetical. I've said plenty of things that people probably don't agree with. I've also poked fun at plenty of people. There's also been plenty about my beloved New York Yankees, a subject on which I could devote a blog unto itself.
But I didn't want this to be a blog that's just about baseball, and it hasn't been. I know I'm one of the few people who actually cares, but hockey has provided me with plenty of content. The NFL is always blog-worthy, and the lockout has been a gold mine! I'm also a fan of college hoops, which has given me plenty (even if sometimes my predictions didn't really pan out). Then there's tennis, which might be the only sport I've covered that draws less public interest than hockey! I even did a blog about soccer.
I'm an Olympic junkee, and there's a running joke in my office that I could easily have the "Joelympics" blog, as well (maybe for London, who knows?). It's an odd-numbered year, so there haven't been that many Olympic topics to talk about, but that hasn't stopped me. And don't worry, the Olympic blogs will start to become more and more frequent as the London Games get closer.
A blog is a place to express your opinion, and I haven't been shy about doing that. Some things were good, so I decided to give them their due praise. Then there are the ideas that I think are bad, which I was quick to point out. Nobody was spared. I've jumped all over a guy who makes bad decisions (and has earned his own nickname), as well as the guy who caused a whole lot of trouble for a bowl game and the guy who whined about not getting his way (those guys were just begging me to break my "no college football" rule so badly that I had to oblige them). You aren't off the hook Frank McCourt and Fred Wilpon, I just haven't gotten to you yet.
I've also done a bunch of lists, which might be my favorites of all. It started with my ranking of the Top 10 Games of 2010 then continued with the "Best Uniforms" series (baseball, hockey and football have all been ranked so far, and basketball will surely follow at some point). Some of those lists were inspired by others, while others were just for fun.
It wasn't all fun and games, though. This was my forum to discuss the loss of a legend, as well as to pay tribute to a late friend. And the coincidental timing of a pair of anniversaries that both shook the sports world to its core was too much to ignore. Fortunately, there was a happy anniversary, too, and I got a chance to celebrate the Vancouver Olympics not once, but twice!
Thanks to everyone who's read this blog, especially those of you who've been here from the start. I hope you enjoyed the greatest moments of "Joe Brackets." Rest assured, though, faithful readers. Today's look back is just that. I'm not going anywhere. We'll get to 200, and I'm sure there'll be another 100 after that. I'm looking forward to all the great moments that are yet to come.
My first six posts were all about baseball, and that sport has definitely provided me with most of my material. There's been analysis of awards season and the Hall of Fame, as well as a division-by-division preview. I've been philosophical, critical and hypothetical. I've said plenty of things that people probably don't agree with. I've also poked fun at plenty of people. There's also been plenty about my beloved New York Yankees, a subject on which I could devote a blog unto itself.
But I didn't want this to be a blog that's just about baseball, and it hasn't been. I know I'm one of the few people who actually cares, but hockey has provided me with plenty of content. The NFL is always blog-worthy, and the lockout has been a gold mine! I'm also a fan of college hoops, which has given me plenty (even if sometimes my predictions didn't really pan out). Then there's tennis, which might be the only sport I've covered that draws less public interest than hockey! I even did a blog about soccer.
I'm an Olympic junkee, and there's a running joke in my office that I could easily have the "Joelympics" blog, as well (maybe for London, who knows?). It's an odd-numbered year, so there haven't been that many Olympic topics to talk about, but that hasn't stopped me. And don't worry, the Olympic blogs will start to become more and more frequent as the London Games get closer.
A blog is a place to express your opinion, and I haven't been shy about doing that. Some things were good, so I decided to give them their due praise. Then there are the ideas that I think are bad, which I was quick to point out. Nobody was spared. I've jumped all over a guy who makes bad decisions (and has earned his own nickname), as well as the guy who caused a whole lot of trouble for a bowl game and the guy who whined about not getting his way (those guys were just begging me to break my "no college football" rule so badly that I had to oblige them). You aren't off the hook Frank McCourt and Fred Wilpon, I just haven't gotten to you yet.
I've also done a bunch of lists, which might be my favorites of all. It started with my ranking of the Top 10 Games of 2010 then continued with the "Best Uniforms" series (baseball, hockey and football have all been ranked so far, and basketball will surely follow at some point). Some of those lists were inspired by others, while others were just for fun.
It wasn't all fun and games, though. This was my forum to discuss the loss of a legend, as well as to pay tribute to a late friend. And the coincidental timing of a pair of anniversaries that both shook the sports world to its core was too much to ignore. Fortunately, there was a happy anniversary, too, and I got a chance to celebrate the Vancouver Olympics not once, but twice!
Thanks to everyone who's read this blog, especially those of you who've been here from the start. I hope you enjoyed the greatest moments of "Joe Brackets." Rest assured, though, faithful readers. Today's look back is just that. I'm not going anywhere. We'll get to 200, and I'm sure there'll be another 100 after that. I'm looking forward to all the great moments that are yet to come.
Monday, May 23, 2011
These Games Didn't Make the List
Last night, I watched the finale of MLB Network's "20 Greatest Games", which was tremendous. There aren't many complaints here. Some of the lower games on the list are a little questionable, but you'll get no argument from me about the Top 3. No. 3 was Game 6 of the 1986 World Series between the Mets and Red Sox, No. 2 was Twins-Braves in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series, and the No. 1 game was the Red Sox and Reds in Game 6 of the 1975 World Series. But the countdown also got me thinking about how many great games there were that didn't make the list. So, here, in no particular order, are games 21-30. (The 1994 All-Star Game easily could've made it, but I'll do a separate list of the Top 10 All-Star Games at some point closer to this year's game.)
Mets-Braves, 1999 NLCS Game 5-Pretty much every game in the countdown is known for one particular play. This one is known for the "Grand Slam Single." This game started at 4:00 in the afternoon and didn't end until 9:47. It was tied 2-2 until the 15th, when Atlanta took a 3-2 lead on Keith Lockhart's triple. In the bottom of the 15th, Shawon Dunston lead off with a single, then Matt Franco walked and Edgardo Alfonzo dropped down a sacrifice bunt. After John Olerud was intentionally walked to load the bases, Todd Pratt drew a walk to tie the game. That brought up Robin Ventura. Ventura hit probably the most memorable "home run" in Mets history, a walk-off grand slam to right field, but he only made it halfway between first and second before he was tackled by his teammates. So, it went in the books as a single and a 4-3 Mets win.
Rockies-Padres, 2007 NL Wild Card Game-The only reason this game was even necessary was because of the ridiculous second half the Rockies put together in 2007 (that and the historic Mets collapse). Colorado went 46-29 in the second half and had an 11-game winning streak in September to tie the Padres for the wild card on the last day. The Rockies took an early 3-0 lead before San Diego put up a five-spot in the top of the third. Colorado went back ahead 6-5, but the Padres tied it in the eighth. It stayed 6-6 until the 13th, when Scott Hairston's two-run homer gave the Padres the lead. San Diego then went to future Hall of Fame closer Trevor Hoffman for the save, but he didn't get the job done. Kaz Matusi and Troy Tulowitzki both doubled, then Matt Holliday tripled to tie the game. After Todd Helton was intentionally walked, Jamey Carroll lifted a fly ball to right. Holliday tagged up and was never tagged, so he was called safe, even though he never touched the plate. Colorado ended up going all the way to the World Series. By the way, Holliday still hasn't touched home.
Mets-Braves, 1999 NLCS Game 5-Pretty much every game in the countdown is known for one particular play. This one is known for the "Grand Slam Single." This game started at 4:00 in the afternoon and didn't end until 9:47. It was tied 2-2 until the 15th, when Atlanta took a 3-2 lead on Keith Lockhart's triple. In the bottom of the 15th, Shawon Dunston lead off with a single, then Matt Franco walked and Edgardo Alfonzo dropped down a sacrifice bunt. After John Olerud was intentionally walked to load the bases, Todd Pratt drew a walk to tie the game. That brought up Robin Ventura. Ventura hit probably the most memorable "home run" in Mets history, a walk-off grand slam to right field, but he only made it halfway between first and second before he was tackled by his teammates. So, it went in the books as a single and a 4-3 Mets win.
Rockies-Padres, 2007 NL Wild Card Game-The only reason this game was even necessary was because of the ridiculous second half the Rockies put together in 2007 (that and the historic Mets collapse). Colorado went 46-29 in the second half and had an 11-game winning streak in September to tie the Padres for the wild card on the last day. The Rockies took an early 3-0 lead before San Diego put up a five-spot in the top of the third. Colorado went back ahead 6-5, but the Padres tied it in the eighth. It stayed 6-6 until the 13th, when Scott Hairston's two-run homer gave the Padres the lead. San Diego then went to future Hall of Fame closer Trevor Hoffman for the save, but he didn't get the job done. Kaz Matusi and Troy Tulowitzki both doubled, then Matt Holliday tripled to tie the game. After Todd Helton was intentionally walked, Jamey Carroll lifted a fly ball to right. Holliday tagged up and was never tagged, so he was called safe, even though he never touched the plate. Colorado ended up going all the way to the World Series. By the way, Holliday still hasn't touched home.
Yankees-Red Sox, July 1, 2004-No, this wasn't a postseason game. But it was the most amazing regular season game I've ever seen. We all know what happened at the end of the season, and this game might've set some of those wheels in motion (Nomar sat on the bench the entire game). If you don't remember it, look at the box score of this game and see why it's here. This game is probably better known for Derek Jeter's dive into the stands (aka, one of the defining plays of his career). Here's the abridged version of what happened. It was 3-3 in the top of the 12th. With runners on second and third and two out, Trot Nixon hit a popup to no-man's land in shallow left. Jeter made the catch, then sacrificed his body on the dive. He was due to bat in the bottom of the 12th, but obviously couldn't, so the Yankees had to get creative defensively (A-Rod at short, Gary Sheffield at third, drop the DH). Manny put Boston in front when he led off the 13th with his second homer of the game. With two out in the bottom of the 13th, Ruben Sierra singled, then Miguel Cairo ripped an RBI double. Up next was the pitcher in Jeter's spot, so backup catcher John Flaherty, the only guy left on the bench, had to pinch hit. And Flaherty delivered a game-winning single to left center.
Braves-Indians, 1995 World Series Game 6-I always talk about Jack Morris' Game 7 in 1991 as the greatest World Series pitching performance I've ever seen, but this one is a close second. Tom Glavine was simply dominant in giving the Braves their long overdue World Series title. He pitched eight masterful innings, giving up just one hit, a bloop single by Tony Pena in the sixth. The only run of the game came on a solo home run by David Justice in the bottom of the sixth. As Marquis Grissom clutched Carlos Baerga's fly ball in the top of the ninth, Bob Costas proclaimed, "The team of the '90s has its World Championship."
Angels-Giants, 2002 World Series Game 6-This was the best game in a highly underrated World Series (nine years later the all-wild card matchup is still the last World Series to go seven). The Giants led the series 3-2 and had a 5-0 lead in the bottom of the seventh in Game 6. After starting pitcher Russ Ortiz gave up back-to-back singles to Troy Glaus and Brad Fullmer, Giants manager Dusty Baker brought in Felix Rodriguez. As he was warming up, the Rally Monkey came on the scoreboard and the fans went nuts. The first batter Rodriguez faced, Scott Spiezio, hit a three-run homer to right. That was the turning point of the game, and the series. Darin Erstad hit a solo homer leading off the bottom of the eighth. Anaheim put two runners on and San Francisco closer Robb Nen came in, but Glaus doubled over Barry Bonds' head in left to knock in both runs. The next night, the Angels won Game 7 by a score of 4-1. The Giants, of course, would finally win their first World Series in San Francisco eight years later.
Astros-Braves, 2005 NLDS Game 4-I remember being at work when this game started, but I was home long before it ended (it took almost six hours!). Atlanta led 6-1 before Lance Berkman's grand slam in the bottom of the eighth. Brad Ausmus then homered in the bottom of the ninth to send the game into extra innings. But nobody scored. Houston was out of players by the 15th, so Roger Clemens had to pinch hit. Clemens then came in to pitch, marking just the second time in his career he pitched out of the bullpen (the Astros were also out of pitchers). Finally, in the bottom of the 18th, Chris Burke homered to end it, sending the Astros to the NLCS. Houston would go on to beat the Cardinals and reach the World Series for the first time in franchise history.
Cardinals-Mets, 2006 NLCS Game 7-Pick your favorite moment from this game. There are plenty to choose from. The Mets took a 1-0 lead in the bottom of the first, but our good friend Ollie Perez gave it right back in the second. Then in the top of the sixth, Endy Chavez made one of the most amazing plays I've ever seen. With Jim Edmonds on first, Scott Rolen hit a deep fly to left center. The ball was over the fence, but Chavez climbed the wall and made a remarkable snow-cone catch. He then threw to first and doubled-off Edmonds, who was halfway to third! In the top of the ninth, Yadier Molina hit one to the same spot, but a little bit higher, giving the Cardinals a 3-1 lead. However, the Mets loaded the bases in the bottom of the ninth. That's when Adam Wainwright froze Carlos Beltran on an 0-2 curveball to send St. Louis to the World Series.
Yankees-Braves, 1996 World Series Game 4-Another game that easily could've made it onto this list was Game 2 of the 1995 Yankees-Mariners ALDS when Jim Leyritz hit a walk-off home run in the 15th inning, but I'm going with the memorable Leyritz home run in this one. The Braves led 6-0 after five, but the Yankees cut the deficit in half with three in the sixth. In the eighth, Bobby Cox went to his closer, Mark Wohlers. Wohlers gave up singles to Charlie Hayes and Darryl Strawberry. Atlanta then screwed up an easy double play, which brought up Leyritz. After six pitches, he hit a monster shot to left to tie the game. In the 10th, the Braves had to bring in a starter, Steve Avery. Avery proceeded to walk Tim Raines and give up a single to Derek Jeter. He then intentionally walked Bernie Williams to face Andy Fox, but Wade Boggs pinch hit for Fox. And Boggs drew a walk to give the Yankees the lead. They added another one, then John Wetteland shut the door in the bottom of the 10th to finish off the 8-6 victory.
Mets-Diamondbacks, 1999 NLDS Game 4-Yes, I'm being a bit of a homer, but I think the two New York teams were greatly underrepresented on the MLB Network list (although the Mets did have two of the top five games and the Yankees were featured more than any other team). The surprising Diamondbacks won the NL West in just their second year of existence, while the Mets beat the Reds in a one-game playoff to earn the wild card. Al Leiter pitched a shutout in that game in Cincinnati, so this was his only start of the series. The Mets led 2-1 after six, but Jay Bell's two-run double in the eighth put Arizona in front 3-2. However, the Mets tied the game on a pinch hit sac fly by Roger Cedeno in the bottom half of the inning. It went into extras and John Franco retired the side in order in the top of the 10th. In the bottom of the 10th, Todd Pratt ended it with a solo homer just above Steve Finley's outstretched glove in center.
Royals-Cardinals, 1985 World Series Game 6-Finally, we have the infamous "Don Denkinger game." The Cardinals were one game away from winning the World Series for the second time in four years and took a 1-0 lead into the bottom of the ninth in Game 6. That's when the "fun" begins. The leadoff batter, Jorge Orta, hit an easy grounder to Jack Clark at first. Clark flipped to pitcher Todd Worrell, who clearly beat Orta to the bag. However, Denkinger called him safe. Steve Balboni then hit a popup that normally would be an easy play, but Clark had to hold the runner on and was late getting to the ball, which fell foul. Balboni then singled. Worrell got Orta at third when Jim Sundberg tried to bunt, but the runners moved up anyway on a passed ball. The Cardinals intentionally walked Hal McRae to load the bases, then pinch hitter Dane Iorg singled to right. The tying run scored easily, and Sundberg got in just under the tag to give the Royals an incredible 2-1 victory and force a Game 7. Game 7 was an anticlimactic 11-0 Kansas City win that gave the Royals their first World Series title.
There's my list. Plenty of others could've been on it, but these 10 were simply too memorable to exclude. Which has to make you think, "If these 10 didn't make the MLB Network list, the games that did must've been pretty good." They were. So were these.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Parlez-Vous Tennis?
Congratulations! We all made it! The world didn't end yesterday! Phew, I was really worried about that. Anyway, in my quest for a silver lining, I've found this: the world not being over means Joe Brackets will continue.
With that being said, it's time to preview this year's second Grand Slam: the French Open. Since the French Open officials decided they wanted to be different, they decided a couple years ago that the tournament was going to start on a Sunday instead of a Monday (like every other tennis tournament in the world). That means Day 1 of the tournament is already over as I write this, but since I think the Sunday start is incredibly stupid, I choose not to acknowledge it.
As I suspected, the complete ineptitude of American tennis has finally come full circle. With both Williams sisters missing the tournament, not a single American woman is seeded in Paris. On the men's side, there are only two seeded Americans: No. 10 Mardy Fish and No. 24 Sam Querrey. Andy Roddick would've been the No. 11 seed, but he withdrew because of an injury last week. To make matters worse, John Isner, who just missed being seeded, drew Rafael Nadal in the first round. It's not like any of that actually matters, though. This is the French Open. Americans never win here. That wasn't going to change this year.
This year's French Open is about three men. Not surprisingly, they're Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer. Nadal is the No. 1 player in the world and he's lost a grand total of ONCE at Roland Garros in his career. But this year, amazingly, he's not the overwhelming favorite. In fact, he might not even be the favorite at all. In my opinion, that role has to go to Novak Djokovic. Djokovic, the winner of the Australian Open, is undefeated this year. If he wins the French Open, he'll break John McEnroe's record for longest winning streak to start a season in ATP history. Clearly the best player in the world right now, he beat Nadal in the finals of clay-court warm-up tournaments in Rome and Madrid (after having never beaten him on clay before).
Nadal and Djokovic certainly seem on a collision course for the finals, but don't count out the 2009 French Open champ. Roger hasn't won a Grand Slam since his record-setting 14th at 2009 Wimbledon, and he hasn't even reached a Grand Slam final since last year's Australian Open. His free-fall began here last year, when he was knocked out in the quarters. Now, Roger enters the 2011 French Open with a weird-looking number next to his name (a 3). Even still, I think most people join me in thinking that Roger isn't done and will eventually get his head screwed on straight again. Maybe that happens here. Don't count Roger out. He's probably the only guy not named Rafa or Novak with a chance of winning this thing.
The women's tournament is an entirely different story, though. It seems like pretty much anyone who picks up a racket (unless they're American) has a chance. The situation was somewhat similar last year after Justine Henin abruptly retired weeks before the tournament started, and Francesca Schiavone came out of nowhere to unexpectely win her first Grand Slam title, beating the equally unlikely Samantha Stosur in the final. Both of them are proving not to be one-Slam wonders, using the French Open to propel them into the Top 10, and they have to both be considered contenders this year, but I don't see either getting back to the finals.
Second-ranked Kim Clijsters has won the last two Grand Slam tournaments (the 2010 U.S. Open and 2011 Australian Open) and has been a finalist here twice, but she'll have to overcome an ankle injury that kept her out for a while and she only came back from a week or two ago. Because of that, I don't see her being able to win seven clay-court matches in two weeks. We've been waiting for No. 1 Caroline Wozniacki's coming out party. She's a big match player and should've been in the finals in Australia, where she served for the match twice in the second set before losing in three to China's Li Na. Did she learn anything from that collapse?
Svetlana Kuznetsova has won two Grand Slam titles, including one here in 2009, so she has to be considered a threat. The same has to be said about Ana Ivanovic, who won the 2008 French Open en route to a No. 1 ranking before a complete free-fall. Her career seems to be back on track (she seeded 20th), so she might be a player as well. (Side note, any Grand Slam tournament that features a deep run from Ana Ivanovic is a good thing.) Then there's Vera Zvonareva and Victoria Azarenka. They're ranked third (Zvonareva) and fourth (Azarenka), and they both have the talent to win a Grand Slam. Maybe that happens here.
Then there's Maria Sharapova. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think Maria has a really good shot of winning the French Open. She's won the other three, but has never played well here, and clay is clearly her weakest surface. Then she won the warm-up tournament in Rome, establishing herself as a definite contender to win the title. When healthy, Maria's one of the five best players in the world. She appears to be healthy. But Sharapova also has a tendency to lose early in Grand Slams when she's expected to do well. She'll either do that or make a deep run. (Like Ivanovic, a deep run by Maria Sharapova in a Grand Slam is never a bad thing.)
Time for my predicitions. I don't see anybody derailing that Nadal-Djokovic men's final, and I love Djokovic's momentum right now. If he hadn't just beaten Rafa twice, this pick would probably go the other way, but I'm taking Novak Djokovic to win his third Grand Slam title. Like I said, the women's tournament is wide open. I have no clue who's going to win, but I'll give it a shot anyway. I like Wozniacki to finally breakthrough and win a Grand Slam title, beating Azarenka in the finals.
With that being said, it's time to preview this year's second Grand Slam: the French Open. Since the French Open officials decided they wanted to be different, they decided a couple years ago that the tournament was going to start on a Sunday instead of a Monday (like every other tennis tournament in the world). That means Day 1 of the tournament is already over as I write this, but since I think the Sunday start is incredibly stupid, I choose not to acknowledge it.
As I suspected, the complete ineptitude of American tennis has finally come full circle. With both Williams sisters missing the tournament, not a single American woman is seeded in Paris. On the men's side, there are only two seeded Americans: No. 10 Mardy Fish and No. 24 Sam Querrey. Andy Roddick would've been the No. 11 seed, but he withdrew because of an injury last week. To make matters worse, John Isner, who just missed being seeded, drew Rafael Nadal in the first round. It's not like any of that actually matters, though. This is the French Open. Americans never win here. That wasn't going to change this year.
This year's French Open is about three men. Not surprisingly, they're Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer. Nadal is the No. 1 player in the world and he's lost a grand total of ONCE at Roland Garros in his career. But this year, amazingly, he's not the overwhelming favorite. In fact, he might not even be the favorite at all. In my opinion, that role has to go to Novak Djokovic. Djokovic, the winner of the Australian Open, is undefeated this year. If he wins the French Open, he'll break John McEnroe's record for longest winning streak to start a season in ATP history. Clearly the best player in the world right now, he beat Nadal in the finals of clay-court warm-up tournaments in Rome and Madrid (after having never beaten him on clay before).
Nadal and Djokovic certainly seem on a collision course for the finals, but don't count out the 2009 French Open champ. Roger hasn't won a Grand Slam since his record-setting 14th at 2009 Wimbledon, and he hasn't even reached a Grand Slam final since last year's Australian Open. His free-fall began here last year, when he was knocked out in the quarters. Now, Roger enters the 2011 French Open with a weird-looking number next to his name (a 3). Even still, I think most people join me in thinking that Roger isn't done and will eventually get his head screwed on straight again. Maybe that happens here. Don't count Roger out. He's probably the only guy not named Rafa or Novak with a chance of winning this thing.
The women's tournament is an entirely different story, though. It seems like pretty much anyone who picks up a racket (unless they're American) has a chance. The situation was somewhat similar last year after Justine Henin abruptly retired weeks before the tournament started, and Francesca Schiavone came out of nowhere to unexpectely win her first Grand Slam title, beating the equally unlikely Samantha Stosur in the final. Both of them are proving not to be one-Slam wonders, using the French Open to propel them into the Top 10, and they have to both be considered contenders this year, but I don't see either getting back to the finals.
Second-ranked Kim Clijsters has won the last two Grand Slam tournaments (the 2010 U.S. Open and 2011 Australian Open) and has been a finalist here twice, but she'll have to overcome an ankle injury that kept her out for a while and she only came back from a week or two ago. Because of that, I don't see her being able to win seven clay-court matches in two weeks. We've been waiting for No. 1 Caroline Wozniacki's coming out party. She's a big match player and should've been in the finals in Australia, where she served for the match twice in the second set before losing in three to China's Li Na. Did she learn anything from that collapse?
Svetlana Kuznetsova has won two Grand Slam titles, including one here in 2009, so she has to be considered a threat. The same has to be said about Ana Ivanovic, who won the 2008 French Open en route to a No. 1 ranking before a complete free-fall. Her career seems to be back on track (she seeded 20th), so she might be a player as well. (Side note, any Grand Slam tournament that features a deep run from Ana Ivanovic is a good thing.) Then there's Vera Zvonareva and Victoria Azarenka. They're ranked third (Zvonareva) and fourth (Azarenka), and they both have the talent to win a Grand Slam. Maybe that happens here.
Then there's Maria Sharapova. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think Maria has a really good shot of winning the French Open. She's won the other three, but has never played well here, and clay is clearly her weakest surface. Then she won the warm-up tournament in Rome, establishing herself as a definite contender to win the title. When healthy, Maria's one of the five best players in the world. She appears to be healthy. But Sharapova also has a tendency to lose early in Grand Slams when she's expected to do well. She'll either do that or make a deep run. (Like Ivanovic, a deep run by Maria Sharapova in a Grand Slam is never a bad thing.)
Time for my predicitions. I don't see anybody derailing that Nadal-Djokovic men's final, and I love Djokovic's momentum right now. If he hadn't just beaten Rafa twice, this pick would probably go the other way, but I'm taking Novak Djokovic to win his third Grand Slam title. Like I said, the women's tournament is wide open. I have no clue who's going to win, but I'll give it a shot anyway. I like Wozniacki to finally breakthrough and win a Grand Slam title, beating Azarenka in the finals.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Have a Bench, Please!
With the 2011 edition of Interleague Play upon us and last night's 15-inning Yankee game still in my mind, it's time for me to rant about something that came to the forefront during that game. Michael Kay was freaking out because Baltimore was playing that game with only two guys available off the bench, one of whom was the backup catcher, who you can't use. Then the Yankees got into a situation where A.J. Burnett had to pinch run.
First, it probably makes sense for me to set the scene for those of you who missed it. The Yankees were up 1-0 in the bottom of the ninth, so they put their better defensive lineup in (they replaced Andruw Jones in left with Brett Gardner and Chris Dickerson replaced Nick Swisher in right). Derek Jeter was DHing, so Eduardo Nunez was already in the game. After the Orioles tied it, Russell Martin, the regular catcher, pinch hit for Francisco Cervelli. That left just Jorge Posada on the Yankee bench.
Now let's fast forward to the 15th inning. Dickerson was hit square in the head by a pitch from Michael Gonzalez. He went down to first base, but Joe Girardi didn't want to take any chances and took Dickerson out once he got there. Gonzalez was ejected after hitting him, so there was a long delay while the Orioles warmed up a new pitcher. Anyway, Posada was the only guy available. That's where the problem came in. Posada's 38 years old and slow. You're not going to have him pinch run for somebody. You're also not going to put him in right field. Nunez holds his own in the outfield, so the defensive switch that made sense was the one they made. Nunez went to right, Jeter went to short and they dropped the DH. That's another reason they couldn't use Posada. They needed somebody on the bench to pinch hit for the pitcher when and if that spot came up again. That meant the only remaining option was to have a pitcher pinch run, which Burnett did.
This kind of stuff happens a lot, especially in National League games. National League pitchers pinch run and pinch hit all the time. Remember that 20-inning Mets-Cardinals game last year? Or the 16-inning Division Series game between the Astros and Braves a couple years ago where Roger Clemens pinch hit? I'll give Michael Kay a little bit of slack because you don't normally see it in American League games, but all he kept saying during the entire time Burnett was on the bases was, "They have to be thinking about Chien-Ming Wang." Wang, of course, got hurt running the bases during an interleague game in Houston in 2008 and was never the same. But, Michael, Burnett used to be in the National League. He used to run the bases all the time! He even hit. And you know what, he'll have to do it again in a couple weeks when interleague play gets into full swing.
Anyway, now I'll finally get to my point. Chris Dickerson has played a grand total of two games in a Yankee uniform. He was only called up when reliever Rafael Sorinao went on the DL a few days ago. When Eric Chavez , an infielder, made his yearly trip to the DL a week earlier, the Yankees decided to call up a pitcher to replace him on the roster for some reason. That gave them 13 pitchers (and just 12 position players, three of whom are "catchers") on the active roster! I don't need to tell anybody that 13 pitchers is a few too many.
I've made my peace with 12-man pitching staffs, especially in the American League where you don't need to pinch hit as much and can get away with four bench guys, but 13 is incredibly unnecessary. Seriously, why do you need an eight-man bullpen? If your relievers can't get people out, they should be in Triple A. If you think they need a day off because of too much work, tell your starter to actually make it through six innings. Or stop having them throw to just one or two hitters!
In September they expand the roster from 25 to 40 and you can call up as many guys as you want. That makes things even worse. Last year, the Yankees and Rangers played a game where Texas used 11 different pitchers! Four of those guys threw 0.1 innings, three of them faced two batters each, and one lefty came in for the sole purpose of facing Robinson Cano, then came out of the game. The fact that the game in question went 13 innings didn't help matters, but there was a 22-inning game in the NCAA Tournament either last year or the year before where one of the team's closers threw 10 innings of relief.
You're only allowed to have 25 guys on a Major League roster. Take out five starting pitchers, eight starting fielders (nine in the AL) and a backup catcher, and that leaves you with just 10 or 11 spots left. If you're an American League team and you waste eight of them on relievers, that's two guys. Now put yourself into a position like last night's Yankees-Orioles game and you'll see why that eighth reliever (who's probably a long guy that pitches once a week at most) is completely unnecessary. And it only makes things worse when you get deep into extra innings and can't make any moves because you don't have any non-pitchers.
First, it probably makes sense for me to set the scene for those of you who missed it. The Yankees were up 1-0 in the bottom of the ninth, so they put their better defensive lineup in (they replaced Andruw Jones in left with Brett Gardner and Chris Dickerson replaced Nick Swisher in right). Derek Jeter was DHing, so Eduardo Nunez was already in the game. After the Orioles tied it, Russell Martin, the regular catcher, pinch hit for Francisco Cervelli. That left just Jorge Posada on the Yankee bench.
Now let's fast forward to the 15th inning. Dickerson was hit square in the head by a pitch from Michael Gonzalez. He went down to first base, but Joe Girardi didn't want to take any chances and took Dickerson out once he got there. Gonzalez was ejected after hitting him, so there was a long delay while the Orioles warmed up a new pitcher. Anyway, Posada was the only guy available. That's where the problem came in. Posada's 38 years old and slow. You're not going to have him pinch run for somebody. You're also not going to put him in right field. Nunez holds his own in the outfield, so the defensive switch that made sense was the one they made. Nunez went to right, Jeter went to short and they dropped the DH. That's another reason they couldn't use Posada. They needed somebody on the bench to pinch hit for the pitcher when and if that spot came up again. That meant the only remaining option was to have a pitcher pinch run, which Burnett did.
This kind of stuff happens a lot, especially in National League games. National League pitchers pinch run and pinch hit all the time. Remember that 20-inning Mets-Cardinals game last year? Or the 16-inning Division Series game between the Astros and Braves a couple years ago where Roger Clemens pinch hit? I'll give Michael Kay a little bit of slack because you don't normally see it in American League games, but all he kept saying during the entire time Burnett was on the bases was, "They have to be thinking about Chien-Ming Wang." Wang, of course, got hurt running the bases during an interleague game in Houston in 2008 and was never the same. But, Michael, Burnett used to be in the National League. He used to run the bases all the time! He even hit. And you know what, he'll have to do it again in a couple weeks when interleague play gets into full swing.
Anyway, now I'll finally get to my point. Chris Dickerson has played a grand total of two games in a Yankee uniform. He was only called up when reliever Rafael Sorinao went on the DL a few days ago. When Eric Chavez , an infielder, made his yearly trip to the DL a week earlier, the Yankees decided to call up a pitcher to replace him on the roster for some reason. That gave them 13 pitchers (and just 12 position players, three of whom are "catchers") on the active roster! I don't need to tell anybody that 13 pitchers is a few too many.
I've made my peace with 12-man pitching staffs, especially in the American League where you don't need to pinch hit as much and can get away with four bench guys, but 13 is incredibly unnecessary. Seriously, why do you need an eight-man bullpen? If your relievers can't get people out, they should be in Triple A. If you think they need a day off because of too much work, tell your starter to actually make it through six innings. Or stop having them throw to just one or two hitters!
In September they expand the roster from 25 to 40 and you can call up as many guys as you want. That makes things even worse. Last year, the Yankees and Rangers played a game where Texas used 11 different pitchers! Four of those guys threw 0.1 innings, three of them faced two batters each, and one lefty came in for the sole purpose of facing Robinson Cano, then came out of the game. The fact that the game in question went 13 innings didn't help matters, but there was a 22-inning game in the NCAA Tournament either last year or the year before where one of the team's closers threw 10 innings of relief.
You're only allowed to have 25 guys on a Major League roster. Take out five starting pitchers, eight starting fielders (nine in the AL) and a backup catcher, and that leaves you with just 10 or 11 spots left. If you're an American League team and you waste eight of them on relievers, that's two guys. Now put yourself into a position like last night's Yankees-Orioles game and you'll see why that eighth reliever (who's probably a long guy that pitches once a week at most) is completely unnecessary. And it only makes things worse when you get deep into extra innings and can't make any moves because you don't have any non-pitchers.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Best Football Uniforms
Today our friends at ESPN.com gave me inspiration for a blog once again. They ranked the top 10 helmets in the NFL. But that's not the way I roll. The helmet's only part of the ensemble, and there are 32 teams! So, in Part III of our series, I present from 32-1 the best uniforms in the NFL:
32. Cincinnati Bengals-I'll go on record as one of the few people who actually likes the tiger-striped helmets. However, the ridiculous number of jersey/pant combinations are a little too much. And the tiger-striped B logo is nowhere near as cool as the tiger head logo they used to have.
31. Denver Broncos-Remember the orange jerseys? I miss them. The logo's cool, but the uniforms are ugly. I'm really not a fan of that blue-blue combo. Plus, they're the team that started the whole stupid stripe that's not the same size coming up from the back of the helmet thing.
30. Atlanta Falcons-I like the red jerseys. That's about it. The throwbacks are nice for a change, but the red helmets on those are ugly.
29. Buffalo Bills-I love the Buffalo Bills, but their uniforms are one of their many problems. There are way too many stripes in the middle (it's almost like they couldn't pick a color), and of the four different colors, only white and blue are actually in the logo. And the Bills have an all-blue home uniform, which is not a good combo. Especially with a red helmet.
28. Tennessee Titans-The logo's nice, but there are way too many uniform combinations. Of those, the light blue jerseys with dark blue pants are incredibly ugly. So are the white jerseys with light blue pants. Then there's the helmet stripes that stop halfway.
27. Jacksonville Jaguars-The Jaguars had cool jerseys until they decided to change them for some reason. The new ones just don't do it for me.
26. Seattle Seahawks-The entire NFC West has bad uniforms, but Seattle's are the worst. That blue color they invented is cool, but there's way too much of it. In case you couldn't already tell, I don't like it when the jersey and pants are the same color (except when they're both white). Add a helmet that's also that color to the mix and you get the Seahawks' home uniform.
25. Carolina Panthers-I give the Panthers credit for taking the "electric blue" jerseys that used to be alternates and making them the regular home jerseys. They're better than the black. See "Denver Broncos" and "Tennessee Titans" for my thoughts about the helmet.
24. Washington Redskins-I know what you're thinking, "The Redskins are a bit low." Well, they're the Redskins and they suck, so that's part of the reason. But the real reason for their drop is Mike Shanahan's yellow pants. Burgundy pants belong with the white jersey. And the burgundy jersey-yellow pants combo makes me want to barf.
23. St. Louis Rams-The Rams get bonus points as the innovators who created helmet logos, of which they have one of the best. They also switched from yellow to gold a couple years ago, which looked awesome. But they ditched the awesome gold pants for some reason.
22. New Orleans Saints-Not a fan of the gold alternates. Nor am I a fan of the black-on-black thing they like to do from time to time. But the Saints have a classic helmet, which helps their cause.
21. Miami Dolphins-Another one that might seem low to some of you, but if you've ever seen those ridiculous orange jerseys they wear sometimes, you'll know where I'm coming from. They also lose some points for sometimes doing white-white instead of white-blue, which is their best combination.
20. Baltimore Ravens-In this case, I'm somewhat willing to overlook the helmet stripes not going all the way to the back. The Ravens pull off a purple jersey, and they have a unique number font that's also cool. The black-on-black alternates are a minor thing, and since they only wear them for night games at home, they actually aren't that horrible.
19. Houston Texans-My only complaint with the Texans' uniforms is the ugly red pants that they wear with the red jerseys. They always play well in the red jerseys, which means they wear them a lot, which means we're subjected to red pants a lot. Same thing when they go blue-on-blue.
18. Arizona Cardinals-I don't know why the Cardinals don't get more love in the NFL uniform community. When they redesigned a couple years ago, they made a significant improvement. Just don't do red-on-red, please!
17. Detroit Lions-Rounding out the bottom half of our list is the Detroit Lions. I actually have no complaint with these, there are just 16 uniforms that are better. The addition of black as an accent color was a nice touch.
16. San Francisco 49ers-I'll admit it. I miss the classic 49ers uniforms of the '80s. They've brought some elements of them back, and I like that.
15. Tampa Bay Buccaneers-As ugly as they were, the "Creamsicle Pirate" uniforms were awesome! Who didn't love it when they busted out the throwbacks last season? But thumbs up to the new primaries. Pewter helmets? Check. Pewter pants? Check. Red jerseys? Check. Creamsicle throwbacks? Check.
14. Minnesota Vikings-I love the simple helmets that don't overdo it. The Vikings' helmet definitely falls into that category. My only complaint with their uniforms is the piping up the side of the jersey that creates that awkward arc thing between the shoulder and the sleeve.
13. New England Patriots-Boston sucks. Plus, I hate Tom Brady and Bill Belichick. Now that I've gotten that off my chest, blue and silver good, white and blue good. Helmets good. And they're the only team that's able to pull off a silver jersey, which would be ugly on anyone else. I miss Pat the Patriot, though.
12. Philadelphia Eagles-The Eagles have a cool logo to go with awesome helmets and uniforms. They pull off the black jerseys so well, they might as well be interchangeable with the green ones. I'm not sure anyone would notice.
11. New York Giants-Yes, the Giants didn't make my Top 10. I still love my New York Football Giants, but there are elements of the uniforms that I would definitely change. For starters, lose the numbers on the front of the helmet. And get rid of those ridiculously ugly red alternate jerseys!
10. New York Jets-As crazy as it seems, I'm putting the Jets one notch above the Giants. They switched to the old logo a couple years before the Giants did, and their old uniforms are very nice and clean. I don't like it when they go green-on-green, and those New York Titans throwbacks need to be thrown away. But the Jets still have an overall impressive look. The fact that Woody Johnson is annoying isn't a factor in this decision.
9. Cleveland Browns-The lack of a logo drops the Browns down to No. 9. But they've had the same uniforms for a long time (which is part of the reason why they don't have a logo). And those uniforms fall into the category of "classic." If they hadn't ditched those terrible orange alternates, they would've fallen out of the Top 10.
8. San Diego Chargers-The best uniforms in NFL/AFL history were the Chargers' power blues. A new version has been brought back as an alternate. It's not the same, but it's close. The Chargers pull off all three of their uniforms, and they all go with the white helmets.
7. Kansas City Chiefs-Probably surprisingly high to some of you, but the Chiefs have had basically the same uniforms throughout their entire history and don't seem to have any desire to change them. They only have two colors, so they'll never be tempted to introduce an alternate.
6. Indianapolis Colts-Peyton sure makes these uniforms look good, doesn't he? Like the Chiefs, these haven't changed much, except for maybe changing the pant color from time to time (I wish those ridiculous blue pants could be wiped from my memory). Slight issue with the gray face masks, but that's nitpicking. Please ditch the throwbacks, though!
5. Oakland Raiders-Now we get into the five classic uniforms of the NFL. Silver and black. That's the Oakland Raiders. Even their throwbacks are essentially the same as the current uniforms! Little known fact about the Raiders' uniforms: the numbers on the black jerseys are silver. Which means the only white on the uniform at Raiders home games is inside the logo on the helmet.
4. Dallas Cowboys-A blue star on a silver helmet. I must be talking about the Dallas Cowboys. They've had some misses on the blue jerseys, but those white jerseys have remained pretty much the same since they debuted in 1964. And seeing as they wear white at home, they only wear blue maybe 3-4 times a year (I love it how the Eagles and Giants sometimes wear white at home, but only against the Cowboys, so that Dallas has to wear blue). When they do, the current blue uniforms get the job done very nicely.
3. Pittsburgh Steelers-I know some people love it, but the helmet provides me with the only two issues I have with the Steelers' helmet, which is what keeps it out of the top two. I'm not a fan of the numbers in the front, and I don't get the whole logo only on one side thing. But regardless, these uniforms are classics. And I know better than to mess with Steelers fans.
2. Chicago Bears-Da Bears come in at No. 2. Those rounded numbers just look so good! It was a tough call, but the only thing separating them from their Wisconsin-based archrivals are those hideous orange alternate jerseys. If you want to sell orange jerseys, go ahead and sell them. But please don't wear them on the field. It's hard to believe those home jerseys only date to 1949, but even still, think of the great players who've worn them. And, of course, those uniforms were designed by George Halas. You know, the man who founded the NFL.
1. Green Bay Packers-The Super Bowl champs come out on top of the uniform rankings, as well. Believe it or not, the now classic Packers uniforms only date back to 1950, and the "G" logo didn't debut until Vince Lombardi showed up. In fact, the Green Bay Packers wore blue, not green, for much of their early history. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this uniform, which makes it the best in the NFL.
32. Cincinnati Bengals-I'll go on record as one of the few people who actually likes the tiger-striped helmets. However, the ridiculous number of jersey/pant combinations are a little too much. And the tiger-striped B logo is nowhere near as cool as the tiger head logo they used to have.
31. Denver Broncos-Remember the orange jerseys? I miss them. The logo's cool, but the uniforms are ugly. I'm really not a fan of that blue-blue combo. Plus, they're the team that started the whole stupid stripe that's not the same size coming up from the back of the helmet thing.
30. Atlanta Falcons-I like the red jerseys. That's about it. The throwbacks are nice for a change, but the red helmets on those are ugly.
29. Buffalo Bills-I love the Buffalo Bills, but their uniforms are one of their many problems. There are way too many stripes in the middle (it's almost like they couldn't pick a color), and of the four different colors, only white and blue are actually in the logo. And the Bills have an all-blue home uniform, which is not a good combo. Especially with a red helmet.
28. Tennessee Titans-The logo's nice, but there are way too many uniform combinations. Of those, the light blue jerseys with dark blue pants are incredibly ugly. So are the white jerseys with light blue pants. Then there's the helmet stripes that stop halfway.
27. Jacksonville Jaguars-The Jaguars had cool jerseys until they decided to change them for some reason. The new ones just don't do it for me.
26. Seattle Seahawks-The entire NFC West has bad uniforms, but Seattle's are the worst. That blue color they invented is cool, but there's way too much of it. In case you couldn't already tell, I don't like it when the jersey and pants are the same color (except when they're both white). Add a helmet that's also that color to the mix and you get the Seahawks' home uniform.
25. Carolina Panthers-I give the Panthers credit for taking the "electric blue" jerseys that used to be alternates and making them the regular home jerseys. They're better than the black. See "Denver Broncos" and "Tennessee Titans" for my thoughts about the helmet.
24. Washington Redskins-I know what you're thinking, "The Redskins are a bit low." Well, they're the Redskins and they suck, so that's part of the reason. But the real reason for their drop is Mike Shanahan's yellow pants. Burgundy pants belong with the white jersey. And the burgundy jersey-yellow pants combo makes me want to barf.
23. St. Louis Rams-The Rams get bonus points as the innovators who created helmet logos, of which they have one of the best. They also switched from yellow to gold a couple years ago, which looked awesome. But they ditched the awesome gold pants for some reason.
22. New Orleans Saints-Not a fan of the gold alternates. Nor am I a fan of the black-on-black thing they like to do from time to time. But the Saints have a classic helmet, which helps their cause.
21. Miami Dolphins-Another one that might seem low to some of you, but if you've ever seen those ridiculous orange jerseys they wear sometimes, you'll know where I'm coming from. They also lose some points for sometimes doing white-white instead of white-blue, which is their best combination.
20. Baltimore Ravens-In this case, I'm somewhat willing to overlook the helmet stripes not going all the way to the back. The Ravens pull off a purple jersey, and they have a unique number font that's also cool. The black-on-black alternates are a minor thing, and since they only wear them for night games at home, they actually aren't that horrible.
19. Houston Texans-My only complaint with the Texans' uniforms is the ugly red pants that they wear with the red jerseys. They always play well in the red jerseys, which means they wear them a lot, which means we're subjected to red pants a lot. Same thing when they go blue-on-blue.
18. Arizona Cardinals-I don't know why the Cardinals don't get more love in the NFL uniform community. When they redesigned a couple years ago, they made a significant improvement. Just don't do red-on-red, please!
17. Detroit Lions-Rounding out the bottom half of our list is the Detroit Lions. I actually have no complaint with these, there are just 16 uniforms that are better. The addition of black as an accent color was a nice touch.
16. San Francisco 49ers-I'll admit it. I miss the classic 49ers uniforms of the '80s. They've brought some elements of them back, and I like that.
15. Tampa Bay Buccaneers-As ugly as they were, the "Creamsicle Pirate" uniforms were awesome! Who didn't love it when they busted out the throwbacks last season? But thumbs up to the new primaries. Pewter helmets? Check. Pewter pants? Check. Red jerseys? Check. Creamsicle throwbacks? Check.
14. Minnesota Vikings-I love the simple helmets that don't overdo it. The Vikings' helmet definitely falls into that category. My only complaint with their uniforms is the piping up the side of the jersey that creates that awkward arc thing between the shoulder and the sleeve.
13. New England Patriots-Boston sucks. Plus, I hate Tom Brady and Bill Belichick. Now that I've gotten that off my chest, blue and silver good, white and blue good. Helmets good. And they're the only team that's able to pull off a silver jersey, which would be ugly on anyone else. I miss Pat the Patriot, though.
12. Philadelphia Eagles-The Eagles have a cool logo to go with awesome helmets and uniforms. They pull off the black jerseys so well, they might as well be interchangeable with the green ones. I'm not sure anyone would notice.
11. New York Giants-Yes, the Giants didn't make my Top 10. I still love my New York Football Giants, but there are elements of the uniforms that I would definitely change. For starters, lose the numbers on the front of the helmet. And get rid of those ridiculously ugly red alternate jerseys!
10. New York Jets-As crazy as it seems, I'm putting the Jets one notch above the Giants. They switched to the old logo a couple years before the Giants did, and their old uniforms are very nice and clean. I don't like it when they go green-on-green, and those New York Titans throwbacks need to be thrown away. But the Jets still have an overall impressive look. The fact that Woody Johnson is annoying isn't a factor in this decision.
9. Cleveland Browns-The lack of a logo drops the Browns down to No. 9. But they've had the same uniforms for a long time (which is part of the reason why they don't have a logo). And those uniforms fall into the category of "classic." If they hadn't ditched those terrible orange alternates, they would've fallen out of the Top 10.
8. San Diego Chargers-The best uniforms in NFL/AFL history were the Chargers' power blues. A new version has been brought back as an alternate. It's not the same, but it's close. The Chargers pull off all three of their uniforms, and they all go with the white helmets.
7. Kansas City Chiefs-Probably surprisingly high to some of you, but the Chiefs have had basically the same uniforms throughout their entire history and don't seem to have any desire to change them. They only have two colors, so they'll never be tempted to introduce an alternate.
6. Indianapolis Colts-Peyton sure makes these uniforms look good, doesn't he? Like the Chiefs, these haven't changed much, except for maybe changing the pant color from time to time (I wish those ridiculous blue pants could be wiped from my memory). Slight issue with the gray face masks, but that's nitpicking. Please ditch the throwbacks, though!
5. Oakland Raiders-Now we get into the five classic uniforms of the NFL. Silver and black. That's the Oakland Raiders. Even their throwbacks are essentially the same as the current uniforms! Little known fact about the Raiders' uniforms: the numbers on the black jerseys are silver. Which means the only white on the uniform at Raiders home games is inside the logo on the helmet.
4. Dallas Cowboys-A blue star on a silver helmet. I must be talking about the Dallas Cowboys. They've had some misses on the blue jerseys, but those white jerseys have remained pretty much the same since they debuted in 1964. And seeing as they wear white at home, they only wear blue maybe 3-4 times a year (I love it how the Eagles and Giants sometimes wear white at home, but only against the Cowboys, so that Dallas has to wear blue). When they do, the current blue uniforms get the job done very nicely.
3. Pittsburgh Steelers-I know some people love it, but the helmet provides me with the only two issues I have with the Steelers' helmet, which is what keeps it out of the top two. I'm not a fan of the numbers in the front, and I don't get the whole logo only on one side thing. But regardless, these uniforms are classics. And I know better than to mess with Steelers fans.
2. Chicago Bears-Da Bears come in at No. 2. Those rounded numbers just look so good! It was a tough call, but the only thing separating them from their Wisconsin-based archrivals are those hideous orange alternate jerseys. If you want to sell orange jerseys, go ahead and sell them. But please don't wear them on the field. It's hard to believe those home jerseys only date to 1949, but even still, think of the great players who've worn them. And, of course, those uniforms were designed by George Halas. You know, the man who founded the NFL.
1. Green Bay Packers-The Super Bowl champs come out on top of the uniform rankings, as well. Believe it or not, the now classic Packers uniforms only date back to 1950, and the "G" logo didn't debut until Vince Lombardi showed up. In fact, the Green Bay Packers wore blue, not green, for much of their early history. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this uniform, which makes it the best in the NFL.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Leave Jorge Alone
I'm not sure if you heard already, but Jorge Posada took himself out of the Yankees lineup on Saturday night. Joe Girardi had dropped him to ninth in the order (side note, your DH should never bat ninth, Ever!) and Jorge wasn't happy about it. Then a couple hours later, Posada asked Girardi to take him out of the lineup, which Girardi did.
Yankees brass was understandably unhappy about this, but I think everyone's reaction was a bit much. The questions in the media about what would happen if he continued refusing to play and whether they should release him were completely ridiculous. It didn't help that this happened against the Red Sux or that the game was nationally televised, but still. That shouldn't make a difference. Was it handled in the best manner? Absolutely not. Has Jorge Posada earned the right to be given the benefit of the doubt? Absolutely.
Posada met with the media after the game and explained his side of the story. As he explained it, he needed a day to "clear his head." Case closed. Girardi was fine with that. That's why he let Posada have the day off. Regardless of if he was upset about batting ninth, didn't like DHing, was simply frustrated (who wouldn't be?), that's the reason he gave for asking out of the lineup. Joe Girardi was a very good major league catcher for a decade (in fact, he was the Yankees' starting catcher before Posada). He understands that guys need days off from time to time. Obviously the situation was maginifed because of who the player was, what team he plays for, and who their opponent was. But it got blown waaaaaaaaaaay out of proportion incredibly quickly. This isn't Carlos Zambrano and Derrek Lee throwing punches at each other in the Cubs dugout during a game last season.
Yesterday cooler heads prevailed. Posada realized that he was wrong, apologized to Girardi and apologized to GM Brian Cashman. He talked to Derek Jeter, too. Jeter told Posada that he doesn't need to apologize to his teammates. They've all been in similar situations before, and at least one or two of them probably will be in the future. More importantly, Posada is a leader in the clubhouse and a beloved figure among his teammates. They know as well as anybody how frustrating the first six weeks of this season must've been for him. Posada was simply having a bad day and let his emotions get the best of him. It's happened to all of us. It just so happens that we aren't all Major League ballplayers, so nobody seems to notice when we have bad days.
Instead, let's look at the Jorge Posada situation in the bigger picture. He's not hitting at all. We all know this. But add to the fact that he wasn't there mentally on Saturday night. So, now imagine Girardi doesn't take him out of the lineup. Now you've got an unhappy guy who doesn't want to play who's already not hitting anyway. Is that really somebody you want in the lineup? Granted, whether or not he was in there didn't even matter against Josh Beckett, but my point remains. He wasn't going to help the team, so why all the hullabaloo about taking him out of the lineup? If Andruw Jones had hit a game-winning three-run homer, Posada would've looked like a genius for taking himself out.
The problem is that Posada's got to figure things out as a DH. Russell Martin is now the Yankees catcher. He and Curtis Granderson are the only starters who've actually played well all season, so it's not like Martin's coming out of the lineup. Could the Yankees have let Posada know the situation and asked him if he was OK with being the DH this season during the winter? Yes. But they didn't, and Posada seemed fine with the decision anyway, so that's not even really a point worth making.
He's a beloved player, both in the clubhouse and by the fans. Did anyone else notice the reaction he got when he entered as a pinch hitter last night? (That's the real reason why they can't just release him. Imagine the PR hit the Yankees would take.) Posada's one of the "Core Four" ("Core Three" now). We all remember the five championships and everything he's done for the organization. The average Yankee fan's perception of Jorge Posada hasn't changed at all despite all this.
Who knows what's going to happen the rest of this season? Maybe this gave Jorge the kick start he needed to just go on a tear. And so what if it doesn't. He might hit .220 with six homers and 40 RBIs this year. That's OK too. Jorge Posada is a New York Yankee. He's in the last year of his contract and knows he probably won't be re-signed. He knows that. It's hard to imagine him wearing another uniform, so Jorge probably knows in his heart that this is it and resigned himself to that fact. And if that is the case, don't let this taint his final season. He deserves to go out as what he's been for the last 15 years. A beloved Yankee.
Yankees brass was understandably unhappy about this, but I think everyone's reaction was a bit much. The questions in the media about what would happen if he continued refusing to play and whether they should release him were completely ridiculous. It didn't help that this happened against the Red Sux or that the game was nationally televised, but still. That shouldn't make a difference. Was it handled in the best manner? Absolutely not. Has Jorge Posada earned the right to be given the benefit of the doubt? Absolutely.
Posada met with the media after the game and explained his side of the story. As he explained it, he needed a day to "clear his head." Case closed. Girardi was fine with that. That's why he let Posada have the day off. Regardless of if he was upset about batting ninth, didn't like DHing, was simply frustrated (who wouldn't be?), that's the reason he gave for asking out of the lineup. Joe Girardi was a very good major league catcher for a decade (in fact, he was the Yankees' starting catcher before Posada). He understands that guys need days off from time to time. Obviously the situation was maginifed because of who the player was, what team he plays for, and who their opponent was. But it got blown waaaaaaaaaaay out of proportion incredibly quickly. This isn't Carlos Zambrano and Derrek Lee throwing punches at each other in the Cubs dugout during a game last season.
Yesterday cooler heads prevailed. Posada realized that he was wrong, apologized to Girardi and apologized to GM Brian Cashman. He talked to Derek Jeter, too. Jeter told Posada that he doesn't need to apologize to his teammates. They've all been in similar situations before, and at least one or two of them probably will be in the future. More importantly, Posada is a leader in the clubhouse and a beloved figure among his teammates. They know as well as anybody how frustrating the first six weeks of this season must've been for him. Posada was simply having a bad day and let his emotions get the best of him. It's happened to all of us. It just so happens that we aren't all Major League ballplayers, so nobody seems to notice when we have bad days.
Instead, let's look at the Jorge Posada situation in the bigger picture. He's not hitting at all. We all know this. But add to the fact that he wasn't there mentally on Saturday night. So, now imagine Girardi doesn't take him out of the lineup. Now you've got an unhappy guy who doesn't want to play who's already not hitting anyway. Is that really somebody you want in the lineup? Granted, whether or not he was in there didn't even matter against Josh Beckett, but my point remains. He wasn't going to help the team, so why all the hullabaloo about taking him out of the lineup? If Andruw Jones had hit a game-winning three-run homer, Posada would've looked like a genius for taking himself out.
The problem is that Posada's got to figure things out as a DH. Russell Martin is now the Yankees catcher. He and Curtis Granderson are the only starters who've actually played well all season, so it's not like Martin's coming out of the lineup. Could the Yankees have let Posada know the situation and asked him if he was OK with being the DH this season during the winter? Yes. But they didn't, and Posada seemed fine with the decision anyway, so that's not even really a point worth making.
He's a beloved player, both in the clubhouse and by the fans. Did anyone else notice the reaction he got when he entered as a pinch hitter last night? (That's the real reason why they can't just release him. Imagine the PR hit the Yankees would take.) Posada's one of the "Core Four" ("Core Three" now). We all remember the five championships and everything he's done for the organization. The average Yankee fan's perception of Jorge Posada hasn't changed at all despite all this.
Who knows what's going to happen the rest of this season? Maybe this gave Jorge the kick start he needed to just go on a tear. And so what if it doesn't. He might hit .220 with six homers and 40 RBIs this year. That's OK too. Jorge Posada is a New York Yankee. He's in the last year of his contract and knows he probably won't be re-signed. He knows that. It's hard to imagine him wearing another uniform, so Jorge probably knows in his heart that this is it and resigned himself to that fact. And if that is the case, don't let this taint his final season. He deserves to go out as what he's been for the last 15 years. A beloved Yankee.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Conference Finals
We're halfway there in the 2011 Stanley Cup Playoffs. Eight more wins and either the Bruins, Lightning, Canucks or Sharks will hoist the Cup. The two teams from the West aren't a surprise at all, while I'm not sure anyone expected a Boston-Tampa Bay Eastern Conference Finals matchup. But that's the beauty of the Stanley Cup Playoffs. You never know what's going to happen.
Before I start talking about the two series, a few observations from the second round:
As I've said all along, goaltending is the key to winning in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. The Tampa Bay Lightning are in the conference finals because Dwayne Roloson has literally stood on his head. They have the horses to score with anybody, but they've won seven straight playoff games (against Pittsburgh and Washington no less) because of the play of their goaltender. Roloson has allowed a grand total of 14 goals over the last seven games, including a 1-0 shutout in Game 7 against Pittsburgh. Tim Thomas has been just as good for the Bruins. The Flyers trio looked lost while Thomas was a rock in goal for Boston. It's no coincidence that the Bruins resumed being good when they decided to make Tim Thomas their starting goalie.
The two goalies have the top two goals against averages of the playoffs, which makes you think that scoring might be at a premium in this series, but I don't necessarily think that'll be the case. Remember, each of these teams has had more than a week off while the Western Conference series finished up. The rest is obviously welcome, and it will help the skaters tremendously. At the same time, it'll probably affect the goalies' rhythm. If it goes long, I expect the goalies to again take over, but at least at the start, I think these might be high-scoring games. If it stays high-scoring throughout, the advantage goes to the Lightning and the explosive trio of Martin St. Louis, Vincent Lecavalier and Steven Stamkos. However, Zdeno Chara is a large, scary man wearing ice skates, and he can easily make things difficult for one or all of them. Because of Chara and Thomas, Boston has the edge if the games are low-scoring.
Out West, the Canucks finally played like the best team in hockey for the first three games of the Nashville series. Ryan Kesler single-handedly beat the Predators. I'd have to say that, at this moment, he's probably a leading candidate (along with Roloson and Thomas) for the Conn Smythe Trophy. Plus, they've got the Sedin twins. And Roberto Luongo doesn't get enough credit for how important he is to that team. He can look really bad at times, which his critics love to point out, but when he's on, he might be the best goalie in hockey. Do any Vancouver fans remember Luongo leading the home team to the gold medal on his home ice last year? I don't.
Anyway, Roberto Luongo is better than Antti Niemi. Nothing against Niemi, but the Sharks normally just need him to be good enough for them to outscore you. That worked in the first two rounds, but Vancouver has the firepower to go toe-to-toe with Patrick Marleau, Joe Thornton, Dany Heatley and Co. Don't get me wrong. San Jose's offense is better. It's clearly the best of the four remaining teams. I just think the Canucks have the personnel to counter punch. I also wonder what kind of an effect the seven-game series against the Red Wings will have on the Sharks. Then there's the early start times out West (which are for Eastern time zone viewers), which could be the great equalizer in this series. Which team is going to make that adjustment?
I'm taking the Bruins in six and the Canucks in seven. I can easily see San Jose beating Vancouver, though. Either way, I like the Western Conference champion in the Finals.
Before I start talking about the two series, a few observations from the second round:
- If you have a 3-0 lead, you'd better close it out. The Bruins learned that lesson last season, and made sure they didn't blow it against the Flyers again this year. Same thing goes for the Lightning, who had the added benefit of playing Games 3 & 4 on back-to-back days against a completely apathetic Capitals team. The Canucks had problems with this in the first round against the Blackhawks, while the Sharks were taking to seven by the Red Wings after going up 3-0. Keep playing! The series victory isn't guaranteed, and all you're doing is giving the other team momentum.
- The Canucks and Sharks have both been among the best regular season teams in the NHL for the last few years, but neither one was ever able to get it done in the playoffs. They've both finally put it together this season, though, and one of them will finally go to the Finals.
- I don't remember there ever being a duller pair of conference semifinals than we saw this year in the East. The Bruins outscored the Flyers 20-7, winning three of the games by four goals. Philly somehow managed to reach the Finals with three crappy goalies last season, but that approach clearly didn't work this year. All three played in the series, and all three got pulled. Lightning-Capitals was only slightly better. Washington looked like it couldn't care less during the two games in Tampa.
As I've said all along, goaltending is the key to winning in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. The Tampa Bay Lightning are in the conference finals because Dwayne Roloson has literally stood on his head. They have the horses to score with anybody, but they've won seven straight playoff games (against Pittsburgh and Washington no less) because of the play of their goaltender. Roloson has allowed a grand total of 14 goals over the last seven games, including a 1-0 shutout in Game 7 against Pittsburgh. Tim Thomas has been just as good for the Bruins. The Flyers trio looked lost while Thomas was a rock in goal for Boston. It's no coincidence that the Bruins resumed being good when they decided to make Tim Thomas their starting goalie.
The two goalies have the top two goals against averages of the playoffs, which makes you think that scoring might be at a premium in this series, but I don't necessarily think that'll be the case. Remember, each of these teams has had more than a week off while the Western Conference series finished up. The rest is obviously welcome, and it will help the skaters tremendously. At the same time, it'll probably affect the goalies' rhythm. If it goes long, I expect the goalies to again take over, but at least at the start, I think these might be high-scoring games. If it stays high-scoring throughout, the advantage goes to the Lightning and the explosive trio of Martin St. Louis, Vincent Lecavalier and Steven Stamkos. However, Zdeno Chara is a large, scary man wearing ice skates, and he can easily make things difficult for one or all of them. Because of Chara and Thomas, Boston has the edge if the games are low-scoring.
Out West, the Canucks finally played like the best team in hockey for the first three games of the Nashville series. Ryan Kesler single-handedly beat the Predators. I'd have to say that, at this moment, he's probably a leading candidate (along with Roloson and Thomas) for the Conn Smythe Trophy. Plus, they've got the Sedin twins. And Roberto Luongo doesn't get enough credit for how important he is to that team. He can look really bad at times, which his critics love to point out, but when he's on, he might be the best goalie in hockey. Do any Vancouver fans remember Luongo leading the home team to the gold medal on his home ice last year? I don't.
Anyway, Roberto Luongo is better than Antti Niemi. Nothing against Niemi, but the Sharks normally just need him to be good enough for them to outscore you. That worked in the first two rounds, but Vancouver has the firepower to go toe-to-toe with Patrick Marleau, Joe Thornton, Dany Heatley and Co. Don't get me wrong. San Jose's offense is better. It's clearly the best of the four remaining teams. I just think the Canucks have the personnel to counter punch. I also wonder what kind of an effect the seven-game series against the Red Wings will have on the Sharks. Then there's the early start times out West (which are for Eastern time zone viewers), which could be the great equalizer in this series. Which team is going to make that adjustment?
I'm taking the Bruins in six and the Canucks in seven. I can easily see San Jose beating Vancouver, though. Either way, I like the Western Conference champion in the Finals.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Quite a Fiesta!
Today I'm going to abandon my traditional "no college football" stance in order to talk about something that's just far too interesting to ignore. Something that just displays why the BCS is absolute garbage and that anyone who actually thinks it's a good system is an idiot. As I'm sure you all know by now, the Fiesta Bowl has had some problems. But don't worry, they've been "punished." The Fiesta Bowl has to pay a $1 million fine, but gets to stay in the BCS. Phew! I was worried there would be one less corrupt bowl game out there.
Before I get into the argument about why this makes the BCS look even worse (which didn't seem possible, but evidently could be accomplished), let's go over some of the background with the Fiesta Bowl's problems. In a nutshell, former Fiesta Bowl CEO John Junker is a shady dude. The whole reason for the scandal was misappropriation of funds. Junker and friends spent $1,200 at a strip club, paid for an employee's $13,000 wedding and honeymoon, and threw a $33,000 birthday party for himself--all with the Fiesta Bowl's money. My favorite part is the $45,000 in reimbursements to employees who made campaign contributions to various political candidates, at Junker's urging. (That's illegal, by the way.) Now we know why they call it the "Fiesta" Bowl.
After an "internal investigation" (basically, finding out exactly what went on and announcing it themselves before it came out in Sports Illustrated), the Fiesta Bowl fired Junker and vowed to change. The BCS said it would have to "seriously consider" if the Fiesta Bowl still belonged as a part of its cartel. Meanwhile, the Cotton Bowl, which has always had a much higher profile, actually has a history, and is now played in Jerry's World, is licking its lips at the chance to join the BCS (which it should be in anyway).
Evidently, the changes that were promised were enough to make the BCS bigwigs happy. The Fiesta Bowl's "punishment" was a slap on the wrist, and it's allowed to stay in the BCS (if it wasn't, I'm sure some kind of lawsuit would've ensued). I don't think it'll be too much of a problem for a "non-profit" organization that made more than $15 million last year to pay a $1 million fine. The NCAA still needs to decide if they're going to re-license the bowl, but who are they kidding? If they don't, only 134 of the 142 Division IA college football teams will go to a bowl game, and we can't have that.
If this isn't further proof that the BCS is a complete sham, I don't know what's going to do it. Not only is the entire system corrupt, the individual games are corrupt as well! The powers that B(CS) might want to do themselves a favor and check out what's going on with the Orange, Rose and Sugar Bowls, too. Everybody really needs to see the light and realize that the BCS sucks. I can give you a laundry list of examples why, but everyone already knows all of those reasons. But now you can add even more corruption and total lack of actual management to the list.
Of course, a Utah congressman wants to introduce legislation that looks at the BCS, with the idea to challenge its anti-trust status and force college football to go to a playoff system (you know, like every other sport). I continually find myself asking the question why Congress worries about this stuff instead of actually running the country, but I digress. (The fact that gas is $4.25 a gallon doesn't matter to anybody, right?)
Utah is one of the teams that kept getting screwed by the BCS when it was in the Mountain West, which doesn't have an automatic bid. That's what makes this such a hot-button issue in that state. However, Utah is leaving the Mountain West for the Pac-10 (a BCS league) in July. Now that Utah's actually going to be allowed to have a piece of the pie, will he still care? Or will this be one of those awkward lawsuits where the plaintiff and defendant represent the same side?
Whichever way things come to pass, I hope it leads to the long overdue overhaul of that sham known as the BCS. March Madness is the greatest event in sports. College football has a chance to establish its own version of March Madness, which would be much more profitable than the current bowl system. (What's that I said, BCS athletic directors? More money? Cha-ching!) You could have an actual "National Champion" then. What a concept!
Before I get into the argument about why this makes the BCS look even worse (which didn't seem possible, but evidently could be accomplished), let's go over some of the background with the Fiesta Bowl's problems. In a nutshell, former Fiesta Bowl CEO John Junker is a shady dude. The whole reason for the scandal was misappropriation of funds. Junker and friends spent $1,200 at a strip club, paid for an employee's $13,000 wedding and honeymoon, and threw a $33,000 birthday party for himself--all with the Fiesta Bowl's money. My favorite part is the $45,000 in reimbursements to employees who made campaign contributions to various political candidates, at Junker's urging. (That's illegal, by the way.) Now we know why they call it the "Fiesta" Bowl.
After an "internal investigation" (basically, finding out exactly what went on and announcing it themselves before it came out in Sports Illustrated), the Fiesta Bowl fired Junker and vowed to change. The BCS said it would have to "seriously consider" if the Fiesta Bowl still belonged as a part of its cartel. Meanwhile, the Cotton Bowl, which has always had a much higher profile, actually has a history, and is now played in Jerry's World, is licking its lips at the chance to join the BCS (which it should be in anyway).
Evidently, the changes that were promised were enough to make the BCS bigwigs happy. The Fiesta Bowl's "punishment" was a slap on the wrist, and it's allowed to stay in the BCS (if it wasn't, I'm sure some kind of lawsuit would've ensued). I don't think it'll be too much of a problem for a "non-profit" organization that made more than $15 million last year to pay a $1 million fine. The NCAA still needs to decide if they're going to re-license the bowl, but who are they kidding? If they don't, only 134 of the 142 Division IA college football teams will go to a bowl game, and we can't have that.
If this isn't further proof that the BCS is a complete sham, I don't know what's going to do it. Not only is the entire system corrupt, the individual games are corrupt as well! The powers that B(CS) might want to do themselves a favor and check out what's going on with the Orange, Rose and Sugar Bowls, too. Everybody really needs to see the light and realize that the BCS sucks. I can give you a laundry list of examples why, but everyone already knows all of those reasons. But now you can add even more corruption and total lack of actual management to the list.
Of course, a Utah congressman wants to introduce legislation that looks at the BCS, with the idea to challenge its anti-trust status and force college football to go to a playoff system (you know, like every other sport). I continually find myself asking the question why Congress worries about this stuff instead of actually running the country, but I digress. (The fact that gas is $4.25 a gallon doesn't matter to anybody, right?)
Utah is one of the teams that kept getting screwed by the BCS when it was in the Mountain West, which doesn't have an automatic bid. That's what makes this such a hot-button issue in that state. However, Utah is leaving the Mountain West for the Pac-10 (a BCS league) in July. Now that Utah's actually going to be allowed to have a piece of the pie, will he still care? Or will this be one of those awkward lawsuits where the plaintiff and defendant represent the same side?
Whichever way things come to pass, I hope it leads to the long overdue overhaul of that sham known as the BCS. March Madness is the greatest event in sports. College football has a chance to establish its own version of March Madness, which would be much more profitable than the current bowl system. (What's that I said, BCS athletic directors? More money? Cha-ching!) You could have an actual "National Champion" then. What a concept!
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
A Lot Going On
I can't believe how long it's been since I last posted something. There's a lot going on in my life, just like there's a lot going on in the sports world. First and foremost, I'll now be cheering for Animal Kingdom to snap our 32-year Triple Crown drought. And from the Sport of Kings, we go to a bunch of other sports...
Baseball
Basketball
I still don't care at all about the NBA, but there are two stories in that league that are just too intriguing to ignore.
Baseball
- Andre Ethier's hitting streak is over, and the team he plays for is still a mess. Bud Selig took control of the Dodgers away from the McCourts and Major League Baseball is currently running the team. It's time for the McCourts to stop using the Dodgers as a pawn in their messy divorce and put the team up for sale. That would be in the best interest of the club, as well as Baseball.
- After a month, the best team in baseball is...the Indians?! Meanwhile, the Royals are in second place and the Pirates are above .500! And the Marlins are 21-14. Of the four, I think only the Marlins are for real.
- The year's first two no-hitters are in the books, thrown by Francisco Liriano and Justin Verlander. Liriano's is a little bit of a surprise, but Verlander's certainly isn't. A.J. Burnett had one going for five innings in Detroit the other day, and that's when YES's Bob Lorenz and John Flaherty started talking about it, which, of course, immediately jinxed the no-no. However, he gave up an unearned run in the first, so it wouldn't have counted anyway. I hate it when announcers aren't given that information.
Basketball
I still don't care at all about the NBA, but there are two stories in that league that are just too intriguing to ignore.
- The Lakers got swept by the Mavericks in the second round of the playoffs, including a blowout in Game 4. Were they even trying to win? Just asking.
- The other hilarious NBA story involves the Wizards, who introduced new uniforms with a "retro" look. The Washington Wizards have had the same look throughout their entire existence. The "retro" look being referred to here is uniforms that the Washington Bullets wore in the 70s. Yes, the Bullets and Wizards are technically the same team, but I don't get this at all. The name "Wizards" is stupid. So were their old uniforms. But if you're not going to change the team name back, going to old school uniforms doesn't make much sense.
- They're still in a lockout, but that hasn't stopped Rashad Mendenhall from acting like a jackass on Twitter.
- I'm also still a little confused about why they still had the draft when they can't sign any of the players that were drafted or make any trades. And it's not like the rookies can report to camp, either. Seriously, this lockout is one of the most confusing things ever.
- The Detroit Red Wings being in the Western Conference really causes problems with the playoff schedule. In the first round, every game can't be on national TV. I get that. But you'd think that from the second round on, you would be able to see every game. Except when the Western Conference game is in the Eastern time zone. They do their best trying to stagger the start times, but 8:30 is probably the latest you can start a game in Detroit, meaning that, at best, you're joining that game in progress sometime in the second period after the Eastern Conference game ends. (Same problem with Columbus, but since they aren't good, they don't really matter.)
- After an awesome first round, I thought the second round of the Stanley Cup Playoffs would be equally good. But they haven't been. The Bruins went ahead 3-0 on the Flyers for the second straight year, but this time, instead of blowing that lead, they actually managed to complete the sweep. Same thing with the Lightning, who beat a Capitals team that couldn't have seemed more disinterested. The Predators at least gave the Canucks a little bit of a fight before the better team won. Sharks-Red Wings hasn't been bad, but hasn't been as good as I hoped it would be, either.
- Belgian cyclist Wouter Weylandt was tragically killed during the third stage of the sport's second biggest race, the Giro d'Italia.
- The IOC released its report on the three candidate cities for the 2018 Winter Games. As expected, Pyeongchang, South Korea scored the highest, followed by Munich, and Annecy, France. They won't pick a winner until July, but I'd be very surprised if Pyeongchang doesn't win. More on that as the decision gets closer.
- For the first time in the history of computer rankings, no American is ranked in the Top 10 on either the men's or women's tennis tour. It's entirely possible that there won't be a single American woman seeded at the French Open. That's just plain embarrassing.
- While we're on the tennis front, Novak Djokovic is the man. He's still undefeated in 2011, and he's even beating Rafael Nadal on clay. Roger has dropped to No. 3 in the world, but I'm a little more OK with that if Djokovic keeps beating Nadal. For years, everyone has thought that Djokovic was the only guy capable of regularly beating both of them. It's great that now he's finally doing it. Even if that means Roger's losing.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
May Sweeps
May is one of the best months for television. For the networks, it's a "sweeps" period, the time when they roll out all of their season finales. But it's also a great month for sports on TV. In addition to regular season baseball and playoff hockey (plus playoff basketball for those of you who care about that sort of thing), you've also got the opening weeks of the French Open. Then there's the special events on the May calendar: the Kentucky Derby and the Indy 500.
The oldest continuous sporting event in the country, the Kentucky Derby has been run annually since 1875. This is one of the events that is on that list of "sporting events you must see in person before you die." People who don't give a crap about horse racing make it a point to either watch or go to the Kentucky Derby every year. Even if you don't do that, you're still going to make your bets or at least pick your favorite horse. It's kind of like the NCAA Tournament in that way. Everyone makes a pick, no matter how much or little they might know. And the method for that pick varies from cool name (which is generally my strategy), silk colors, liking the jockey, or trying to be knowledgable and trying to base it on past results and prior earnings.
I must say that the horse names this year are pretty awesome (if not somewhat contradictory). You've got Brilliant Speed, whose speed must not be that brilliant, since his current odds are 30-1. Watch Me Go, the 50-1 longshot, is probably going to watch everyone else go instead. Dialed In must be. He's the current favorite at 4-1. Twice the Appeal comes in at 20-1, so I guess the odds on Once the Appeal would've been 10-1 if that horse was in the race. There's Animal Kingdom, which is an appropriate name, since all horses are members of the animal kingdom. Stay Thirsty, Pants On Fire, you're both 20-1 shots. Will the Derby be a Decisive Moment? Or will there be a Midnight Interlude? A trainer named Michael J. Maker has two horses in the race, and he must be really into the Kentucky Derby. Their names are Twinspired (Churchill Downs is known for its twin spires by the finish line) and Derby Kitten. Then there's Master Of Hounds and Comma To The Top.
I make a Derby wager every year with a friend of mine where we each pick three horses, add up their finishing places, and the lowest number wins. Part of my approach is cool names, but I also look at the odds so that my decision can be somewhat "informed." My trifecta includes Archarcharch, who starts from the inside post, Mucho Macho Man (shouldn't it be Mucho Macho Men?) and Unclo Mo, the second choice at 4.5-1. I'm somewhat concerned with Uncle Mo coming from an extreme outside post position (No. 18), but since I'm an Uncle Joe and Uncle Mo is kinda similar, I'm sticking with that pick.
Part of the appeal of the Kentucky Derby is that it's the first leg of horse racing's "Triple Crown." Only 11 horses have won the Triple Crown, and none since Affirmed in 1978. The current 32-year gap between Triple Crown winners is the longest in history. After the Derby, only one horse can become the 12th, and all the attention shifts that way come the Preakness, which takes place two weeks later. That's part of what makes the Triple Crown so tough to win. But everybody's a Triple Crown contender prior to the Derby. That's why it's so much fun.
Then at the end of the month, you've got the Indy 500. This truly is one of the classic events in American sports. It's called the "Greatest Spectacle in Racing," and I can't disagree with that claim. Indianapolis might be where Peyton Manning plays football, but that's not why it's known worldwide. People know that city because of one legendary race and one legendary racetrack. My viewing of auto racing is almost exculsively limited to NASCAR, but I watch every lap of the Indy 500 every year. Danica Patrick is somewhat responsible for that, but I'd do it anyway. The Indy 500, just like the Kentucky Derby, only happens once a year. So you'd better not miss it.
This year's Indy 500 is even more special--it's the 100th anniversary of the first one. They didn't hold it a couple of times during the war years, so it's not the 100th race, but that's pretty impressive nonetheless. The anniversary will be one of the storylines, but the race itself should provide plenty of its own. Dario Franchitti (Mr. Ashley Judd) is the defending champion. But he's just one of so many big names in IndyCar these days. There's Helio Castroneves (yes, the Dancing With the Stars guy), Dan Wheldon, Scott Dixon, Marco Andretti, Tony Kanaan (my favorite male driver) and, of course, Danica. Can she become the first female driver to win the Indy 500?
The Indy storylines won't play out until later this month, but rest assured, May's got plenty to whet your appetite until then. Starting with the Kentucky Derby on Saturday.
The oldest continuous sporting event in the country, the Kentucky Derby has been run annually since 1875. This is one of the events that is on that list of "sporting events you must see in person before you die." People who don't give a crap about horse racing make it a point to either watch or go to the Kentucky Derby every year. Even if you don't do that, you're still going to make your bets or at least pick your favorite horse. It's kind of like the NCAA Tournament in that way. Everyone makes a pick, no matter how much or little they might know. And the method for that pick varies from cool name (which is generally my strategy), silk colors, liking the jockey, or trying to be knowledgable and trying to base it on past results and prior earnings.
I must say that the horse names this year are pretty awesome (if not somewhat contradictory). You've got Brilliant Speed, whose speed must not be that brilliant, since his current odds are 30-1. Watch Me Go, the 50-1 longshot, is probably going to watch everyone else go instead. Dialed In must be. He's the current favorite at 4-1. Twice the Appeal comes in at 20-1, so I guess the odds on Once the Appeal would've been 10-1 if that horse was in the race. There's Animal Kingdom, which is an appropriate name, since all horses are members of the animal kingdom. Stay Thirsty, Pants On Fire, you're both 20-1 shots. Will the Derby be a Decisive Moment? Or will there be a Midnight Interlude? A trainer named Michael J. Maker has two horses in the race, and he must be really into the Kentucky Derby. Their names are Twinspired (Churchill Downs is known for its twin spires by the finish line) and Derby Kitten. Then there's Master Of Hounds and Comma To The Top.
I make a Derby wager every year with a friend of mine where we each pick three horses, add up their finishing places, and the lowest number wins. Part of my approach is cool names, but I also look at the odds so that my decision can be somewhat "informed." My trifecta includes Archarcharch, who starts from the inside post, Mucho Macho Man (shouldn't it be Mucho Macho Men?) and Unclo Mo, the second choice at 4.5-1. I'm somewhat concerned with Uncle Mo coming from an extreme outside post position (No. 18), but since I'm an Uncle Joe and Uncle Mo is kinda similar, I'm sticking with that pick.
Part of the appeal of the Kentucky Derby is that it's the first leg of horse racing's "Triple Crown." Only 11 horses have won the Triple Crown, and none since Affirmed in 1978. The current 32-year gap between Triple Crown winners is the longest in history. After the Derby, only one horse can become the 12th, and all the attention shifts that way come the Preakness, which takes place two weeks later. That's part of what makes the Triple Crown so tough to win. But everybody's a Triple Crown contender prior to the Derby. That's why it's so much fun.
Then at the end of the month, you've got the Indy 500. This truly is one of the classic events in American sports. It's called the "Greatest Spectacle in Racing," and I can't disagree with that claim. Indianapolis might be where Peyton Manning plays football, but that's not why it's known worldwide. People know that city because of one legendary race and one legendary racetrack. My viewing of auto racing is almost exculsively limited to NASCAR, but I watch every lap of the Indy 500 every year. Danica Patrick is somewhat responsible for that, but I'd do it anyway. The Indy 500, just like the Kentucky Derby, only happens once a year. So you'd better not miss it.
This year's Indy 500 is even more special--it's the 100th anniversary of the first one. They didn't hold it a couple of times during the war years, so it's not the 100th race, but that's pretty impressive nonetheless. The anniversary will be one of the storylines, but the race itself should provide plenty of its own. Dario Franchitti (Mr. Ashley Judd) is the defending champion. But he's just one of so many big names in IndyCar these days. There's Helio Castroneves (yes, the Dancing With the Stars guy), Dan Wheldon, Scott Dixon, Marco Andretti, Tony Kanaan (my favorite male driver) and, of course, Danica. Can she become the first female driver to win the Indy 500?
The Indy storylines won't play out until later this month, but rest assured, May's got plenty to whet your appetite until then. Starting with the Kentucky Derby on Saturday.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
2011 Sports Emmys
As I was writing my blog yesterday, the Sports Emmys were being handed out. I had no idea. Thus, you're forgiven if you didn't know either. I understand these aren't the Primetime Emmys and the potential viewing audience would be significantly smaller, but shouldn't the awards for the best in sports television be, I don't know, on television!? Just a thought. Anyway, since I'm sure nobody knows who actually won, let's go over some of the winners.
We'll start with the individual awards that go to sportscasting personalities. These are the de-facto acting awards of the Sports Emmys. (Let's be honest here, people don't watch the Oscars to find out who won Best Cinematography. They want to see the movie stars.) NBC cleaned up here, taking three of the four awards.
Outstanding play-by-play man went to Mike Emrick, which seemed like a no-brainer. Emrick's brilliance is lost on many since not a lot of people watch hockey, but he's clearly the best in the business. And it showed during the Olympics, when he remained objective during the gold medal game and even showed enthusiasm when Sidney Crosby scored to give Canada the gold over the U.S. Outstanding Sports Event Analyst was another easy choice--Cris Collinsworth. He's widely regarded as the most knowledgeable, unbiased commentator out there. Replacing John Madden was a challenge that would've been hard for any other analyst. Not Collinsworth. The transition was seamless. If they had an award for best announcing team, it would go to Al Michaels and Collinsworth without question.
Speaking of Michaels, he was deservedly given the Lifetime Achievement Award. He can and has done it all in a 35-year career. Of course, he'll always be known for his call of the Miracle on Ice. "Do you believe in miracles? Yes!" Michaels also did baseball, calling three World Series (including the 1989 Earthquake Series), college football and basketball, but he's probably best known as the longtime voice of Monday Night Football. When Monday Night Football moved to ESPN and NBC got the rights to Sunday night games, Michaels made the move to NBC, where he and Madden stayed partners. Now he's teamed with Collinsworth, which, as I already said, is the best tandem around. As an added bonus, now that he's an NBC employee, Michaels is back working the Olympics, serving as the daytime host in Vancouver.
NBC's primetime host for the Olympics is, of course, Bob Costas. Costas grabbed another Emmy in the Outstanding Studio Host category. I'm pretty sure he automatically wins this one every other year, since he's so good in his role as Olympics host. I can't even begin to guess how much work he puts into those two weeks, but it doesn't go unnoticed. Seeing as Bob Costas is the reason why I wanted to get into broadcasting (still waiting for that big break) and my Facebook profile picture is one of me and him (and the fact that I love the Olympics more than the Yankees), I'm probably a little biased here. I don't care. As far as I'm concerned, Bob Costas deserves every award he wins. Plus, his "Studio 42" series on MLB Network is excellent. Oh, and P.S., he works at NBC, which means he's on the Football Night In America pregame show.
The only individual personality award that NBC didn't win was Outstanding Studio Analyst, which went to ESPN College GameDay's Kirk Herbstreit. My boycotting of all things BCS football means I'm obviously not as familiar with Herbstreit's work as the NBC trio, but from what I know about him, he knows his college football. He leaves the shtick to Lee Corso and just breaks down the games. Seeing as Charles Barkley was nominated in this category for some reason (seriously, does he know how to speak English?), I can't really complain about Herbstreit winning the Emmy.
College GameDay also won for best weekly studio show, while MLB Tonight was the best daily studio show. Outstanding Playoff Coverage was awarded to CBS for the NCAA Tournament, Outstanding Live Series went to Sunday Night Football, and the World Cup Final took the honors for Outstanding Live Special. No complaints here about any of those. I watch two of the three series regularly, the World Cup Final is a global experience, and who doesn't watch the NCAA Tournament?
HBO also won seven awards, the most of anybody, for its brilliant work. 24/7: Penguins-Capitals was the Outstanding Edited Special, Hard Knocks won the Emmy for Outstanding Edited Series-Anthology, Real Sports won for Best Journalism (no surprise there, Real Sports is both entertaining and informative), and Lombardi was chosen as the Best Documentary. I don't know what this recent Vince Lombardi kick is all about, but the HBO documentary was fantastic, and I can't wait to see the play!
There were a bunch of other awards, but I think I covered most of the major ones. HBO and NBC both had seven winners to lead the networks. Overall, the World Cup garnered five Emmys, with three going to ABC, one to ESPN and one to ESPN2. The Vancouver Olympics also won five Emmys, three for NBC and two for NBCOlympics.com, but you can really say that's seven since Bob Costas and Mike Emrick's Olympic work helped them both win (Cris Collinsworth was an Olympic contributor, but won his for football, so he doesn't count). That knowledge makes me happy. The two biggest events on the sports calendar last year were the Olympics and the World Cup. It's good to see they were both properly recognized.
We'll start with the individual awards that go to sportscasting personalities. These are the de-facto acting awards of the Sports Emmys. (Let's be honest here, people don't watch the Oscars to find out who won Best Cinematography. They want to see the movie stars.) NBC cleaned up here, taking three of the four awards.
Outstanding play-by-play man went to Mike Emrick, which seemed like a no-brainer. Emrick's brilliance is lost on many since not a lot of people watch hockey, but he's clearly the best in the business. And it showed during the Olympics, when he remained objective during the gold medal game and even showed enthusiasm when Sidney Crosby scored to give Canada the gold over the U.S. Outstanding Sports Event Analyst was another easy choice--Cris Collinsworth. He's widely regarded as the most knowledgeable, unbiased commentator out there. Replacing John Madden was a challenge that would've been hard for any other analyst. Not Collinsworth. The transition was seamless. If they had an award for best announcing team, it would go to Al Michaels and Collinsworth without question.
Speaking of Michaels, he was deservedly given the Lifetime Achievement Award. He can and has done it all in a 35-year career. Of course, he'll always be known for his call of the Miracle on Ice. "Do you believe in miracles? Yes!" Michaels also did baseball, calling three World Series (including the 1989 Earthquake Series), college football and basketball, but he's probably best known as the longtime voice of Monday Night Football. When Monday Night Football moved to ESPN and NBC got the rights to Sunday night games, Michaels made the move to NBC, where he and Madden stayed partners. Now he's teamed with Collinsworth, which, as I already said, is the best tandem around. As an added bonus, now that he's an NBC employee, Michaels is back working the Olympics, serving as the daytime host in Vancouver.
NBC's primetime host for the Olympics is, of course, Bob Costas. Costas grabbed another Emmy in the Outstanding Studio Host category. I'm pretty sure he automatically wins this one every other year, since he's so good in his role as Olympics host. I can't even begin to guess how much work he puts into those two weeks, but it doesn't go unnoticed. Seeing as Bob Costas is the reason why I wanted to get into broadcasting (still waiting for that big break) and my Facebook profile picture is one of me and him (and the fact that I love the Olympics more than the Yankees), I'm probably a little biased here. I don't care. As far as I'm concerned, Bob Costas deserves every award he wins. Plus, his "Studio 42" series on MLB Network is excellent. Oh, and P.S., he works at NBC, which means he's on the Football Night In America pregame show.
The only individual personality award that NBC didn't win was Outstanding Studio Analyst, which went to ESPN College GameDay's Kirk Herbstreit. My boycotting of all things BCS football means I'm obviously not as familiar with Herbstreit's work as the NBC trio, but from what I know about him, he knows his college football. He leaves the shtick to Lee Corso and just breaks down the games. Seeing as Charles Barkley was nominated in this category for some reason (seriously, does he know how to speak English?), I can't really complain about Herbstreit winning the Emmy.
College GameDay also won for best weekly studio show, while MLB Tonight was the best daily studio show. Outstanding Playoff Coverage was awarded to CBS for the NCAA Tournament, Outstanding Live Series went to Sunday Night Football, and the World Cup Final took the honors for Outstanding Live Special. No complaints here about any of those. I watch two of the three series regularly, the World Cup Final is a global experience, and who doesn't watch the NCAA Tournament?
HBO also won seven awards, the most of anybody, for its brilliant work. 24/7: Penguins-Capitals was the Outstanding Edited Special, Hard Knocks won the Emmy for Outstanding Edited Series-Anthology, Real Sports won for Best Journalism (no surprise there, Real Sports is both entertaining and informative), and Lombardi was chosen as the Best Documentary. I don't know what this recent Vince Lombardi kick is all about, but the HBO documentary was fantastic, and I can't wait to see the play!
There were a bunch of other awards, but I think I covered most of the major ones. HBO and NBC both had seven winners to lead the networks. Overall, the World Cup garnered five Emmys, with three going to ABC, one to ESPN and one to ESPN2. The Vancouver Olympics also won five Emmys, three for NBC and two for NBCOlympics.com, but you can really say that's seven since Bob Costas and Mike Emrick's Olympic work helped them both win (Cris Collinsworth was an Olympic contributor, but won his for football, so he doesn't count). That knowledge makes me happy. The two biggest events on the sports calendar last year were the Olympics and the World Cup. It's good to see they were both properly recognized.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
The Best Hockey Uniforms
Today I was asked what I think about the Tampa Bay Lightning logo. I like the primary logo, but I'm not really a fan of that blue lightning bolt they use on the ice. Anyway, a couple months ago I ranked the best baseball uniforms from 1-30 and promised future countdowns in other sports. With that discussion about the Lighning logo on my mind, I decided to continue that series with a ranking of the best hockey uniforms. (In baseball, I didn't really consider the logos since they're not always part of the uniform, but since virtually all hockey sweaters have a giant logo in the middle, I didn't have a choice but to factor the logos into the rankings.)
30. Anaheim Ducks-Like baseball, this was an easy one. The Anaheim MIGHTY Ducks had a cool logo and cool uniforms. The Anaheim Ducks don't have either. Maybe that's what made them mighty.
29. Minnesota Wild-Yes, their name is an adjective. But their logo is kinda cool. However, that awesome logo stands alone only on the road jerseys. The logo's way too small on the home jersey (and stuck inside that big circle that says "Minnesota Wild"), and that jersey happens to be red. The third jersey is just plain ugly.
28. Atlanta Thrashers-I need someone to explain to me why they have "Atlanta" going down the sleeve. The third jersey is red and doesn't feature the logo at all. Again the away jersey is the only redeeming one.
27. Florida Panthers-The Panthers aren't good, and it's not like they have cool jerseys that are popular on the shelves. The panther looks like its flying, and the navy is ugly. I'm not sure why they have powder blue trim on their third jerseys. Or why the logo on them is just the head.
26. Ottawa Senators-The Senators changed their uniforms like everybody else when the NHL went to the Reebok EDGE jerseys in 2007-08. The logo itself isn't that bad, but the home red jersey is really ugly. And the number font is weird.
25. Carolina Hurricanes-I'm not sure what the Hurricanes' logo is supposed to be. I also don't get those red and black squares along the bottom of the jerseys. They're lucky they've won a Cup and made the Finals another time, otherwise the rank would probably be lower.
24. Dallas Stars-Boy are the Stars lucky six teams have really bad uniforms. That's the only way Dallas made it this high on the list. The logo's been the same since they moved from Minnesota, but it's relegated to the sleeves on both primary jerseys. Instead they've gone with the Boston University look, with the number in the middle and "Dallas" arching over it. Basketball jerseys are supposed to look like that. Not hockey jerseys.
23. Vancouver Canucks-"Canucks" is a nickname for Canadians, but their logo is some sort of screaming whale thing. It's kinda cool, it just doesn't make any sense. I'm not a fan of the blue and green color scheme or the arched "Vancouver" above the logo. But this franchise is the Houston Astros of the National Hockey League, and the current uniforms aren't anywhere near as bad as some of the ones they've had in the past.
22. Los Angeles Kings-Like the Canucks, the Kings have had some pretty bad uniforms over the years. The current logo is a vast improvement, but they can't get away from their most recent ugly old logo, which is on their alternate jerseys. I also don't get the obsession with putting your city name on your jersey, which the Kings do with "Los Angeles" along the bottom.
21. Colorado Avalanche-When they moved to Denver, I thought the Avalanche's new logo was so cool. 17 years later, their uniforms are essentially the same, and now I'm getting bored with them. (The fact that Colorado hasn't been that good over the past couple seasons hasn't helped either.) I like the blue color on the alternate jerseys, but I'm not a fan of the diagonal "Colorado" on them. Bonus points for the foot on the sleeves.
20. Phoenix Coyotes-Phoenix's first logo and jerseys after moving from Winnipeg were just bad. However, they redesigned the logo and introduced new uniforms in 2003-04, and these represent a drastic improvement.
19. Columbus Blue Jackets-Their name evidently honors Ohio soldiers in the Civil War (I just found that out on Wikipedia). Now that I know that, the name "Blue Jackets" makes a lot more sense and I like the logo much more. This was already a nice-looking uniform, though.
18. Calgary Flames-There are a lot of good things about the Flames' uniforms. For starters, the decision to make the "flaming C" black instead of white on the red home jerseys was the right call. It was also a classy touch to add the flags of Canada and Alberta on the shoulders. They use their classic uniforms that they won the Stanley Cup in as a third jersey. Hopefully, those ugly throwbacks they wore in the Heritage Classic were a one-game thing.
17. New York Islanders-Life was so much easier when the Islanders had that stupid fisherman logo. It was so much easier to make fun of them while they were wearing that. They went to a darker orange and blue when they went back to the old logo, but have since reverted back to the lighter shades that they used when they were actually good. And I just found this out, but I'm not sure how I feel about taking Brooklyn and Queens out of the Long Island silhouette in the logo.
16. Edmonton Oilers-The Oilers and Islanders are almost interchangeable, since their uniforms are almost exactly the same. Like the Islanders, the Oilers had a darker shade of blue and even changed the orange to copper for a little while before switching back. The Gretzky Era orange thing on the top of the home jerseys belongs back in the '80s, but whatever, that's a small thing. The Oilers aren't the Islanders, so they get the higher ranking.
15. Nashville Predators-They used to have a stupid triangle behind the logo, which they don't anymore. The "Nashville" on top of the logo on the road jerseys is acceptable because it's small. And I really like both the silver sleeves and the number font.
14. Washington Capitals-Like a lot of other teams, the Capitals tried a new logo, fans hated it, and they went back to the old one, albeit a little modified. I like the alternate logo better than the primary logo, but going back to the red, white and blue color scheme was a good call. And they modified that old logo enough to make it cool and modern.
13. Tampa Bay Lightning-The team that inspired this list comes in at No. 13. Like I said, I'm a fan of the current Lightning uniforms and logo, but that might change when they unveil a new logo next season. So for now, I'll enjoy Tampa Bay's current look. The only slight issue I have is the numbers on the front. This isn't baseball.
12. San Jose Sharks-Just like the Lightning, the Sharks changed their uniforms a couple years ago, but didn't really change anything except for updating the logo. The only slight point deduction is for the numbers on the front, but those are gained back for the excellent black alternate jerseys, which might be the best in the league.
11. Philadelphia Flyers-Making their throwback uniforms permanent dropped the Flyers out of the Top 10. They aren't horrible. It's just that 70s throwbacks belong back in the 70s. Everybody who's changed uniforms recently did so because either their logo or uniform (or both) was bad. That wasn't the case with the Flyers. And they dropped the black alternates, which were sweet!
10. St. Louis Blues-The beneficiary of the Flyers' dropping out of the Top 10 is the St. Louis Blues. They've had some bad ones in the past, but the current look is a winner. A navy logo on a blue jersey is something other teams should consider. Because it looks really good.
9. Toronto Maples Leafs-At No. 9, the Leafs have the lowest ranking among the Original Six. The reason why? All the different variations of basically the same exact logo. But it's classic and simple. Such a beautiful look. Of course, the plural of "leaf" is actually "leaves," but they've spelt it wrong for so long I'm willing to overlook it. That might even be the Canadian way to spell it. Who knows?
8. Chicago Blackhawks-If I have such a problem withe the Toronto Blue Jays' primary color being black, why do I think it's OK the Chicago Blackhawks' primary color is red? Because they're named after the Native American, that's why. Every time they've had a black primary jersey, it was ugly. The current one is red and its nice. The old school black alternate jersey is cool for the once in a while diversion that it is. Of course, some people are probably offended by the logo, but I'm not one of them.
7. Buffalo Sabres-When I lived in Buffalo, the Sabres had the black, silver and red buffalo head logo. There was nothing wrong with this look, but fans missed the original colors. So blue and gold were revived with a disgustingly bad new logo. That logo's gone and been replaced by (what else?) a modern version of the original. The Sabres started that whole number on the front thing, but since they're the Sabres, I'll allow it.
6. New York Rangers-The Rangers are the only team that gets a pass on the no logo thing, since they've been doing that diagonal "Rangers" for a long time. There isn't really much to dislike about the Rangers' jerseys. They were the ones who brought back the strings on the collar, which used to be a staple of NHL sweaters and a lot of other teams have adopted since. And the Staute of Liberty alternate might be the best one out there. This is my team, but I can't give them bonus points for simply being the Rangers, since the Top 5 are all better.
5. Boston Bruins-This is the only spot the Rangers possibly could've taken. But I decided to give it to Boston because they have their actual logo in the center, which the Rangers don't. That "spoked wheel" hasn't changed much over the years, but they have had some ugly alternates (does anyone else remember the gold one with the growling bear?). However, the franchise has existed since 1924, so that's to be expected. And they've had more hits than misses, including the current incarnation.
4. New Jersey Devils-It might seem high to some of you, but I love the New Jersey Devils' uniforms. Once they changed the green to black, there really isn't that much to dislike about the Devils' uniforms. And they don't try to overdo it with crazy number fonts or anything like that. Just keeping it nice and simple. They've won three Cups in these and Martin Brodeur, easily the greatest player in franchise history, has worn them for his whole career. Plus, they either haven't felt or have resisted the urge to create a black alternate jersey, which would be a mistake.
3. Pittsburgh Penguins-The Penguins are the highest-ranking team outside the Original Six. They've tinkered with their uniforms over the years, but have settled on a classic look. After switching back to their original logo in 2001, they made the right decision to switch the yellow to gold. And the logo they used in the mid-90s wasn't that bad, either. Bonus points for pulling off the powder blue alternates, which looked so awesome in the Winter Classic.
2. Detroit Red Wings-The only Western Conference team to crack the top seven, the Red Wings are as clear a No. 2 as you can get. The only slight problem with the Red Wings' sweaters is the fact that the "C" and "A" are on the right instead of the left. But that's a minor thing. The Red Wings have as classic a look as anybody.
1. Montreal Canadiens-Like the Yankees, the Canadiens are the gold standard of their sport. This jersey hasn't changed much over the years. You see that red jersey with the blue stripe and the interlocking "C-H" in the middle, you know you're looking at a Montreal Canadien, whether its Georges Vezina, Maurice Richard, Guy Lafleur, Patrick Roy or even P.K. Subban. The franchise was founded in 1909, has used the same basic logo design since 1914, and they're going on 50 seasons of the exact same uniforms. They've won 24 Stanley Cups in these jerseys.
30. Anaheim Ducks-Like baseball, this was an easy one. The Anaheim MIGHTY Ducks had a cool logo and cool uniforms. The Anaheim Ducks don't have either. Maybe that's what made them mighty.
29. Minnesota Wild-Yes, their name is an adjective. But their logo is kinda cool. However, that awesome logo stands alone only on the road jerseys. The logo's way too small on the home jersey (and stuck inside that big circle that says "Minnesota Wild"), and that jersey happens to be red. The third jersey is just plain ugly.
28. Atlanta Thrashers-I need someone to explain to me why they have "Atlanta" going down the sleeve. The third jersey is red and doesn't feature the logo at all. Again the away jersey is the only redeeming one.
27. Florida Panthers-The Panthers aren't good, and it's not like they have cool jerseys that are popular on the shelves. The panther looks like its flying, and the navy is ugly. I'm not sure why they have powder blue trim on their third jerseys. Or why the logo on them is just the head.
26. Ottawa Senators-The Senators changed their uniforms like everybody else when the NHL went to the Reebok EDGE jerseys in 2007-08. The logo itself isn't that bad, but the home red jersey is really ugly. And the number font is weird.
25. Carolina Hurricanes-I'm not sure what the Hurricanes' logo is supposed to be. I also don't get those red and black squares along the bottom of the jerseys. They're lucky they've won a Cup and made the Finals another time, otherwise the rank would probably be lower.
24. Dallas Stars-Boy are the Stars lucky six teams have really bad uniforms. That's the only way Dallas made it this high on the list. The logo's been the same since they moved from Minnesota, but it's relegated to the sleeves on both primary jerseys. Instead they've gone with the Boston University look, with the number in the middle and "Dallas" arching over it. Basketball jerseys are supposed to look like that. Not hockey jerseys.
23. Vancouver Canucks-"Canucks" is a nickname for Canadians, but their logo is some sort of screaming whale thing. It's kinda cool, it just doesn't make any sense. I'm not a fan of the blue and green color scheme or the arched "Vancouver" above the logo. But this franchise is the Houston Astros of the National Hockey League, and the current uniforms aren't anywhere near as bad as some of the ones they've had in the past.
22. Los Angeles Kings-Like the Canucks, the Kings have had some pretty bad uniforms over the years. The current logo is a vast improvement, but they can't get away from their most recent ugly old logo, which is on their alternate jerseys. I also don't get the obsession with putting your city name on your jersey, which the Kings do with "Los Angeles" along the bottom.
21. Colorado Avalanche-When they moved to Denver, I thought the Avalanche's new logo was so cool. 17 years later, their uniforms are essentially the same, and now I'm getting bored with them. (The fact that Colorado hasn't been that good over the past couple seasons hasn't helped either.) I like the blue color on the alternate jerseys, but I'm not a fan of the diagonal "Colorado" on them. Bonus points for the foot on the sleeves.
20. Phoenix Coyotes-Phoenix's first logo and jerseys after moving from Winnipeg were just bad. However, they redesigned the logo and introduced new uniforms in 2003-04, and these represent a drastic improvement.
19. Columbus Blue Jackets-Their name evidently honors Ohio soldiers in the Civil War (I just found that out on Wikipedia). Now that I know that, the name "Blue Jackets" makes a lot more sense and I like the logo much more. This was already a nice-looking uniform, though.
18. Calgary Flames-There are a lot of good things about the Flames' uniforms. For starters, the decision to make the "flaming C" black instead of white on the red home jerseys was the right call. It was also a classy touch to add the flags of Canada and Alberta on the shoulders. They use their classic uniforms that they won the Stanley Cup in as a third jersey. Hopefully, those ugly throwbacks they wore in the Heritage Classic were a one-game thing.
17. New York Islanders-Life was so much easier when the Islanders had that stupid fisherman logo. It was so much easier to make fun of them while they were wearing that. They went to a darker orange and blue when they went back to the old logo, but have since reverted back to the lighter shades that they used when they were actually good. And I just found this out, but I'm not sure how I feel about taking Brooklyn and Queens out of the Long Island silhouette in the logo.
16. Edmonton Oilers-The Oilers and Islanders are almost interchangeable, since their uniforms are almost exactly the same. Like the Islanders, the Oilers had a darker shade of blue and even changed the orange to copper for a little while before switching back. The Gretzky Era orange thing on the top of the home jerseys belongs back in the '80s, but whatever, that's a small thing. The Oilers aren't the Islanders, so they get the higher ranking.
15. Nashville Predators-They used to have a stupid triangle behind the logo, which they don't anymore. The "Nashville" on top of the logo on the road jerseys is acceptable because it's small. And I really like both the silver sleeves and the number font.
14. Washington Capitals-Like a lot of other teams, the Capitals tried a new logo, fans hated it, and they went back to the old one, albeit a little modified. I like the alternate logo better than the primary logo, but going back to the red, white and blue color scheme was a good call. And they modified that old logo enough to make it cool and modern.
13. Tampa Bay Lightning-The team that inspired this list comes in at No. 13. Like I said, I'm a fan of the current Lightning uniforms and logo, but that might change when they unveil a new logo next season. So for now, I'll enjoy Tampa Bay's current look. The only slight issue I have is the numbers on the front. This isn't baseball.
12. San Jose Sharks-Just like the Lightning, the Sharks changed their uniforms a couple years ago, but didn't really change anything except for updating the logo. The only slight point deduction is for the numbers on the front, but those are gained back for the excellent black alternate jerseys, which might be the best in the league.
11. Philadelphia Flyers-Making their throwback uniforms permanent dropped the Flyers out of the Top 10. They aren't horrible. It's just that 70s throwbacks belong back in the 70s. Everybody who's changed uniforms recently did so because either their logo or uniform (or both) was bad. That wasn't the case with the Flyers. And they dropped the black alternates, which were sweet!
10. St. Louis Blues-The beneficiary of the Flyers' dropping out of the Top 10 is the St. Louis Blues. They've had some bad ones in the past, but the current look is a winner. A navy logo on a blue jersey is something other teams should consider. Because it looks really good.
9. Toronto Maples Leafs-At No. 9, the Leafs have the lowest ranking among the Original Six. The reason why? All the different variations of basically the same exact logo. But it's classic and simple. Such a beautiful look. Of course, the plural of "leaf" is actually "leaves," but they've spelt it wrong for so long I'm willing to overlook it. That might even be the Canadian way to spell it. Who knows?
8. Chicago Blackhawks-If I have such a problem withe the Toronto Blue Jays' primary color being black, why do I think it's OK the Chicago Blackhawks' primary color is red? Because they're named after the Native American, that's why. Every time they've had a black primary jersey, it was ugly. The current one is red and its nice. The old school black alternate jersey is cool for the once in a while diversion that it is. Of course, some people are probably offended by the logo, but I'm not one of them.
7. Buffalo Sabres-When I lived in Buffalo, the Sabres had the black, silver and red buffalo head logo. There was nothing wrong with this look, but fans missed the original colors. So blue and gold were revived with a disgustingly bad new logo. That logo's gone and been replaced by (what else?) a modern version of the original. The Sabres started that whole number on the front thing, but since they're the Sabres, I'll allow it.
6. New York Rangers-The Rangers are the only team that gets a pass on the no logo thing, since they've been doing that diagonal "Rangers" for a long time. There isn't really much to dislike about the Rangers' jerseys. They were the ones who brought back the strings on the collar, which used to be a staple of NHL sweaters and a lot of other teams have adopted since. And the Staute of Liberty alternate might be the best one out there. This is my team, but I can't give them bonus points for simply being the Rangers, since the Top 5 are all better.
5. Boston Bruins-This is the only spot the Rangers possibly could've taken. But I decided to give it to Boston because they have their actual logo in the center, which the Rangers don't. That "spoked wheel" hasn't changed much over the years, but they have had some ugly alternates (does anyone else remember the gold one with the growling bear?). However, the franchise has existed since 1924, so that's to be expected. And they've had more hits than misses, including the current incarnation.
4. New Jersey Devils-It might seem high to some of you, but I love the New Jersey Devils' uniforms. Once they changed the green to black, there really isn't that much to dislike about the Devils' uniforms. And they don't try to overdo it with crazy number fonts or anything like that. Just keeping it nice and simple. They've won three Cups in these and Martin Brodeur, easily the greatest player in franchise history, has worn them for his whole career. Plus, they either haven't felt or have resisted the urge to create a black alternate jersey, which would be a mistake.
3. Pittsburgh Penguins-The Penguins are the highest-ranking team outside the Original Six. They've tinkered with their uniforms over the years, but have settled on a classic look. After switching back to their original logo in 2001, they made the right decision to switch the yellow to gold. And the logo they used in the mid-90s wasn't that bad, either. Bonus points for pulling off the powder blue alternates, which looked so awesome in the Winter Classic.
2. Detroit Red Wings-The only Western Conference team to crack the top seven, the Red Wings are as clear a No. 2 as you can get. The only slight problem with the Red Wings' sweaters is the fact that the "C" and "A" are on the right instead of the left. But that's a minor thing. The Red Wings have as classic a look as anybody.
1. Montreal Canadiens-Like the Yankees, the Canadiens are the gold standard of their sport. This jersey hasn't changed much over the years. You see that red jersey with the blue stripe and the interlocking "C-H" in the middle, you know you're looking at a Montreal Canadien, whether its Georges Vezina, Maurice Richard, Guy Lafleur, Patrick Roy or even P.K. Subban. The franchise was founded in 1909, has used the same basic logo design since 1914, and they're going on 50 seasons of the exact same uniforms. They've won 24 Stanley Cups in these jerseys.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)