The "Old Yeller Complex"

(Shout-out to Alex Hamell, a good guy and faithful reader. He's the reason why I started this one due to a certain tweet.)

Have you ever seen that tear-jerker of a movie Old Yeller? Well, to save about 90 minutes of your time, give or take a few, the dog ends up contracting rabies and the pre-pubescent boy protagonist ends up going to the shed and putting Old Yeller down with a shotgun. Sad, I know. But what's even more sad is when most fans and managers go to the point of figuratively walking to the shed and putting their own players down with the "shotgun." Bam. I just turned it around and made it relevant to sports. Excuse me while I do a dance.
Okay, I'm done.

Aww, they're so cute when they're old...

Anyway, as of late, there have been a lot of guys that have been really testing their wills and the wills of others to keep going. Guys such as Brett Favre, Peter Forsberg, Jamie Moyer, and several others have refused to step down and have decided to continue to share the wealth of their talents among their respective leagues. However, there might be a slight chance that they happened to get bitten with a raccoon filled with injury, age, and the art of being a philanderer during the offseason. So what are managers and teammates supposed to do in a time of dwindling roster spaces for them?

There's always that philosophy of "Survival of the Fittest" where only the ones in best shape will make it through, but there's also the philosophy that "with age comes wisdom" and these old-heads will teach the youth to be as fierce and eternal as they are. As a fan, which would you prefer? See an injury-stricken guy come back to relive the prime and glory days, or a player as a coach to the young guys?
Well, to save some time, I asked this on Facebook a couple of days ago and got some responses. Interestingly enough, most of them came from women. Take that, sports world.

Erin said: "I think that if they retire that should be it. Idk why their teams would let them back. To me it just looks like they are going through mid life crises and are completely desperate."

Andrew (yes, the Andrew that keeps popping up around here) said: "[T]hey have earned the right to play!"

Greg said: "They live their dream and it for most athletes it comes to an end early in life. I think the older ones who want to come back don't see as much to look forward to in their future just because they're dream has already come and gone." 

Bridget said: "I agree with Erin. They decided to retire. Why come back? Favre is a perfect example, he came back wayyy past his prime and ended up not playing like he did when he first started. Surprised? Not really. They aren't the same people they were when they started the sport at maybe 18-20yrs old. If you retire, stay retired no matter how much you want to come back."

Kaitlin said: "I think it can be looked at from both sides really. On one hand they show how much they love the game and how passionate they are about it, which in some cases actually makes the player better or at least more enjoyable to watch. However, on the other hand, they have long past their prime, and being out of the game so long and coming back at a professional level, their bodies are not ready to compete with much younger athletes."

Jennifer said: "If they can perform they should be allowed to play, regardless of age. And they should be mature and professional enough to know when that time is."

Robert said: "[I]f the teams want them than they are performing well my problem is teams paying them above average money just for there name but than again it is a business and jerseys bring in revenue. Brett Farve clearly wasn't past his prime a couple bad passes turned around and people would be saying he revived the vikings as a franchise They provide and experienced view for the team especially during the playoffs, and even better than that the younger players look up to them and will get more motivation from them than just some coach who hasn't really been there and done it." 

The interesting thing among this is, each response is explained with different reasons and some of them even have examples why. This is somewhat of a perennial struggle between what's best for the young-and-upcoming guys and the older-and-wiser guys.
______________________________________________

This is what I like to call The "Old Yeller" Complex. Are these golden boys really doing their full justice by coming back in their later years, or are they poisoning their teams and being unfair to the young men that looked up to them in the past to get a fair shot at what they've trained and practiced to do?

It might sound mean coming from me, but it's truly unfair. As admirable as these guys are, and with the impact that they've already made in the sport, it's rather unnecessary to come back out of boredom or ideas of "unfinished business." It actually sounds rather immature.

There's also the problems with guys being pushed out of lineups due to someone younger and more fit for the job than they are. Many of these guys don't face the music and they automatically jump to conclusions saying "...oh, well they don't need me anymore. I'll just take myself out of the lineup and that'll show 'em who's boss!" Again, it's immature to do that in response. There are times where you shall assume that you can't talk to the coach or whomever is in charge because they will shut you out in the case and they won't compromise with you. Actually, that's 100% possible. Coaches are like your parents; they watch you develop and have another eye in how you're feeling and how you're living up to personal and team expectations. They shouldn't treat you unfairly due to age or injury. If you can do it, then well...just do it.

Arguments like this can go in many ways, and although there are problems in which you may have to incorporate age and hardship and the fact that this guy may be the "team leader," it makes the thought process that much harder to complete. Do you have to take this guy to the back and terminate him? Do you have to tie him down and tell him that "It's time?" I remember telling people to look at the small things that they have accomplished, other than thinking that they haven't won "the big one" or haven't completely finished their job. They as an athlete have to see that they were an influence. If they weren't a champion, they were a teacher, if they weren't the best out of all the rest, they were loved for being an underdog or a rebel to the sport.

The one way to let go of this "Old Yeller Complex" is to stand back and to look at the small accomplishments.

[Much thanks to Erin, Robert, Bridget, Greg, Jen, Kaitlin, and Andrew.]

--AZ

NBA-torade

(In homage to ESPN's Skip Bayless, whom Andrew pretty much got me into.)

Remember that Star Power post I wrote a couple of months ago? Well, let's just say there's going to be a lot less star-driven talent that may be gracing their presence for the rest of the NBA Playoffs.

I read a statistic a few days ago stating that we won't be seeing either Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, or Shaq included in the finals for the first time since 1999. This goes to show who makes it to the big dance often and who ends up dancing quite well. However, a lot of people are scared about whether the NBA Finals will dare to get the ratings and attention that it did last year.

Right now, we have the NBA Conference Finals going on. In the East, you have the Heat (which have the LeBron, Wade, and Bosh) and the Bulls (sans-Michael Jordan but have Derrick Rose, a surefire MVP winner). Then...you have the West. You have the Oklahoma City Thunder (formerly the Seattle SuperSonics) and the Dallas Mavericks. Note how there isn't anything overly special about the two West teams?
Anyway, the past ten-or-so Finals have had at least two major star players that sport-watchers were familiar with. With the way things are going at this point (as of 5/16/2011), the Bulls (and whomever wins the West) may only have viewers coming from their home states.

After watching ESPN a few weeks back, they noted that the 2003 NBA Finals had the lowest ratings in NBA history compared to past match-ups (up until 2007, that is). We had the Spurs, which had a pretty good team, and...the New Jersey Nets. I could make so many New Jersey jokes right here, but I won't do that because it'll seriously cut the flow of the post. Nobody really knew or cared about the Nets, because the Spurs were just so much more well-known and people just assumed right away that the Spurs would win. Same thing as in 2007's finals; again, it was the Spurs, but this time they were facing the Cavs with a not-well-known LeBron James. Because nobody cared (and the Cavs wound up getting swept anyway), the ratings tanked. It's not just that nobody cares about how good the Spurs are, but the Lakers are so heavily stereotyped as "America's basketball team" and are thought that they will reach the finals every blessed year that Jack Nicholson (and now his daughter) sits in the front row at the Staples Center.
Speaking of the Lakers, just think of last year's finals...They were up against the Celtics, one of their biggest rivals. Huge rivalry=huge ratings. Simple as that.

What NBA officials fear is that if the television isn't filled with a familiar name this year during the finals, nobody will care to watch and money will be wasted on coverage. I'll admit just from my viewpoint that now that the big teams like LA are out, I'm dying to see what the new guys on the block will bring to the table. However, it doesn't seem like I'm in the majority of this debate. People will be saying, "Hey, who's that guy," and then turn on Glee or Jersey Shore to see things they're more familiar with. People will not watch a championship unless if there's some controversy, a major rivalry, or if some dangerously good-looking playe--I mean...singer (so butchered) happens to make their presence known during a game. It happens. You can't please everyone; the NBA just needs to please the people who actually do want to watch the game.
_____________________________________________________________

Here's the big issue, however... Can there be a "passing of the torch?" Can we get the spotlight off of the common star-driven teams like the LA Lakers or the Boston Celtics or the San Antonio Spurs and give other teams a chance? Going back to the teams competing in the West: although the Mavericks have taken part in the NBA Finals within the past ten years, they have never won a Championship, and in the Sonics/Thunder franchise, they have won one Championship--in 1979. Although certain games are broadcasted nationally on ABC, there is massive competition between hockey games being shown on NBC and baseball games on FOX during the weekends. My guess is that unless if you've played the sport or if it's a way of life in your area/region, you're more likely to watch basketball over the others mentioned.

Here's the catch though, if you've never played the sport, you might not like the fluctuating transitions between a fast and slow game of basketball; people either want a slower-paced game (like baseball) or a fast-paced game (like hockey)--not a mix. There aren't any statistics supporting this, but from playing the sport myself, it's a game of momentum. Basketball could be a really quick buzzkill and may no longer be fun to watch after the first quarter or so. If there are unknown teams not sharing the wealth in momentum, there might not be a huge chance for them getting any attention or recognition from outsiders regardless of how many commercials are shown on television or seen on the Internet.

If there is going to be a successful torch-passing so to speak, there has to be faith put into the other teams themselves. Glitz, glamor, and advertising are not going to save the league's ratings. Keep the playing grounds interesting, and you're going to get a following. I can't put it any simpler than that. Sure, there are probably other underlying factors that are keeping this problem from being resolved, but if you want to keep things fresh and interesting in the NBA, the league itself has to put their faith in their underrated and under-appreciated teams. Who knows? You're going to find more rising stars like Derrick Rose out there that will bring you attention and more revenue. I don't mean to make this sound like it's all about the money, but don't you want to make an impact in the fans' lives? Don't you want little kids to have as many role-models in the sport as possible? That's what I thought.

Stop drinking the Hatorade on your lowlier teams and PASS THAT TORCH, NBA!

--AZ

Red Whines - Big Brother

While watching the Everton/Manchester United game on April 23rd, there was a quote that: "There's cameras everywhere these days." After my previous blog entry stating that there's often an invasion of privacy involved whether these people are small-scale athletes or professional athletes, there are actually more current stories coming up in lieu of this. Everything they say or do is highly publicized and rarely taken as a grain of salt.

Two prime examples as of late have been Kobe Bryant of the LA Lakers and Wayne Rooney of Manchester United. Since a camera was right on their face whilst saying something questionable (i.e. a homophobic slur) and they get a fine slammed on them. Believe me, if I had a camera on me while I was driving, I don't think I'd have money anymore and I wouldn't be allowed outside of a jail cell. Just because these athletes are at celebrity status doesn't mean that every action they do or word they say should be thrown out into the open. Has anyone ever heard of "human nature" or anything else like that? We're blurring the line again, people! It's absolutely natural for someone to scream large amounts of explicatives and what have you when he or she is angry. There's actually scientific evidence that if you swear loudly when injured (i.e. stubbing one's toe) it'll decrease the amount of pain experienced. It's also normal for someone to hit a pillow (or one's father-in-law, ha ha ha...not) or scream absolute gibberish when one is angry and is trying to get an overall message across. Sometimes it doesn't work, but boy does it feel good.

The point I'm trying to get across is: why do we care about what comes out of athletes' mouths? I guarantee you that not all of it is crucial to our survival and relevant to what we actually care about in our daily lives. Of course some of it isn't very nice stuff to say, but c'mon, don't we all say it to ourselves at some point? If everyone watched us on TMZ on or ESPN, we would all be hated upon and we'd all be getting fines. Homophobic slurs are a very touchy subject, but I bet you as much money in my savings account that there are other athletes, celebrities, politicians, and human beings that say the same (if not worse) stuff than Rooney and Bryant have said in the public eye. It might diminish the idolization by younger children, but does that mean that the people who said the slurs are bad people? No! Everyone makes mistakes. You shouldn't have to shun them along with the fining.

Does anyone remember this?? He got in trouble for it, but does that mean he's a bad person for saying that? He's a humanitarian, for cripes' sake. One f-bomb isn't going to turn him into Bin Laden (ha ha ha, I just made a relevant current event comparison).

Anyway, we're making senseless news stories about extraordinary people making ordinary mistakes. I'm pretty sure people are being forced to care about stuff like this just because it's on the news or something. It really does irritate people like me though. I honestly don't think anyone truly cares about my opinion--nor should people really care about what athletes have to say about an issue unless if they're incredibly familiar with it. Okay, people swear too. They're people. Move on with life.

You people make me want to roll a wheel of cheese down a hill and watch you chase after it.

--AZ

Time for Easter Egg Hunts!

...and this lovely rabbit will help you out.

...for those who have already forgotten, it's John Rocker, the homophobic pitcher.

Happy Easter from The Sports Nut Blogs!

[He is Risen!]

--AZ

Sports and Teen Pregnancy = Sour Mix

I wrote this argument paper for my law & media ethics class over the past week. I thought it was a nice topic to share with all of you.

In sports, there are often particular “barriers” that exist, and over the course of time these barriers have been broken and have opened new opportunities for people who wish to play. However, there are small issues and discrepancies that may often ruin the privileges, and these discrepancies may be brought out into the open for the public to know. In this paper, I will be talking about a case study found in the book Ethics in Media Communications: Cases and Controversies by Louis Alvin Day. This study, called “The Pregnant Placement Kicker,” is about a teenage girl named Judith Watkins from the region known as South Platte who earns a position on the high school football team as a placement kicker. During her tenure on the team she leaves for “medical reasons,” but these reasons are later revealed by a coach and it is found that she left the team because she is pregnant. Since this particular “medical reason” was not mentioned to the local press, many people are confused as to why the girl had left the team during the course of the season and why these reasons are not mentioned. The argument in this case is because she is a minor, and that personal information should not be given to the press for informative or entertainment uses. However, since the high school football team is considered a major “religion” in the town, news like this is taken seriously and people demand to know why the kicker is out of action. The main journalist in this case, Victor Simms, believes that Watkins’ pregnancy and subsequent leaving of the team was highly newsworthy. However, I highly disagree with this statement because of the reality of the matter affecting the young girl. Although I have never been pregnant or broken a sporting barrier in my town, I have a clear woman’s standpoint in the matter and think that a girl’s misfortune should not be taken advantage of and not be blown out to be a huge media cookout.

            In Simms’ argument, he states that because Watkins was a major story in the case that she was considered to earn all-state honors, her sudden leave from the team would be a very hot story and people would want to know why she did so. Also, this leave did not occur at the very end of the season; it occurred right before their matchup with their archrivals, and her absence could play a large role in their future successes throughout the rest of the season. Another argument he brought up was the case of the coach’s mention of her leaving for “medical reasons.” His claim was that this statement was misleading, and that people could take this statement in many ways, such as believing that her grades were poor or that she was romantically/sexually involved with a teammate. In this case, Simms’ approach would be that if they “set the record straight,” people would believe the statement and would be much more informed and less confused about what actually happened to Judith Watkins. In honesty, it is a very reasonable thing to bring up; there is a great deal of ambiguity in the media today, and any sort of statement could be taken in numerous different ways. To bolster his already supportive argument, Simms mentions that since this school is in such a small town that treats their high school athletes like they are professionals due to large amounts of press coverage, this secret of pregnancy will not remain a secret for very long, and that it will only be a matter of time before people in the town find out that she ultimately left the team because she was pregnant. This is a reasonable and often common problem when it comes to any kind of pregnancy among a high school girl in a small town. Unfortunately, many news broadcasts will create mainstream headlines that reach other regions if the condition becomes all too common in the area.

            This argument made me raise my eyebrows because in this day and age, it is somewhat common for girls to break the gender barrier in high schools and play on men’s sports teams. However, in a small area known in the book as South Platte, it is only fair to assume that a concept such as letting a girl play on an all-men’s team would be heavily looked down upon until the action of letting a girl do so was carried out. Not just this, but it would also be seen as crazy especially if this girl were to be unable to keep up with the rest of the boys on the team. Regardless of whether the girl is in the running to be an all-state kicker or is just a benchwarmer, her private life should not be exposed to the rest of the region, let alone journalists who believe that shocking, out-of-the-ordinary happenings should be plastered all over the area and lead to flat-out embarrassing the young girl. The following arguments I will make will defend my claim and express my heavy disagreement against Victor Simms’ argument. In this general argument, I will focus on the fact this news story would be a invasion of privacy and affect the well-being of Judith Watkins, her family, and the football coaching staff.

            First and foremost, Judith Watkins is a minor. You should not have the rights or even the thoughts to release this private information without her permission. It does not matter that she is from a small town and that people will eventually find out—a representative mentioned in the case study that it is still an invasion of privacy and there could be court actions taken if this law is broken. It’s not worth the hassle or the time to try and pry into a minor’s private life just because people are on edge about what’s going to be happening to the football team that she used to play for. People’s priorities when it comes to this are utterly selfish and cruel, and if people really cared, they would leave Watkins in peace during her pregnancy, and they would wait for her to come back after she has her child. In this case study, it is not disclosed whether she ever did return to the team after her pregnancy; however, I am assuming that they would have allowed her to come back and she would be able to explain herself.

            Secondly, allowing a story about teen pregnancy to surface in a small region like that will only open up another can of worms for the whole area involved in the case. Issues such as teen pregnancy and the like will begin piling up and make unnecessary problems for the coaching staff and even the school if the local news stories catch the eye of national newscasts. This ultimately ties back into the concept that Watkins is a minor and that it’s an invasion of privacy. There is a major chance that general public outside of the area of South Platte would take this story the wrong way and see the story that another wayward teenage girl got pregnant and is now a poor example of a small-town school. People who might not even care about high school football might completely ignore the whole fact that she was the kicker on the men’s football team and just assume that she’s a terrible person because she had unprotected sex.

            This brings up another argument in this case: if this story were to make headlines, it would be sensationalized to the point where the whole idea of the story would lose its original context. Although the story would have the undertones that she was the kicker for the football squad, the story would have a massive spin placed on it and newscasts would be drawing conclusions that she was sexually involved with one of her teammates. It would give a bad reputation to the school district and it would also shed a bad light upon female athletes and women’s sports. The reason why women’s sports would be spoiled would be because news readers/watchers would create the stereotype that female athletes are taking advantage of their athleticism to receive fame and sex. Then this small-scale problem would make a mountain out of a molehill—ergo a large invasion of privacy and then a nationwide scandal that would ruin the face of Watkins and the school.

            Finally, where is Watkins amid all of this? If you really want to know what is going on, she should be asked herself and in private whether she would care if people were to talk about this concept anywhere in the media outlets. It’s one thing to have a story, and it’s another thing to go on with a story pitch without her knowing of the whole quandary. It is fitting for Simms to approach her himself rather than going to an assistant coach and grabbing secondhand information. It is unfair and not right for someone to get alternate stories and opinions especially if the facts may not be 100% true.

Before anything, you need to ask yourself certain questions. If you’re a male, there’s a definitive chance that you will never have to ask yourself these questions because you obviously cannot have children. Would you want a large group of people pestering you just because you’re pregnant and you needed to leave your football team because of it? I bet it would be nice to grab people’s attention with it, but I would think that you would want privacy and all the support you could possibly get instead of people shoving cameras and notepads in your face asking you why you are pregnant, why you left the team, and why you made the decision to even have sex when you have something “important” to do in school. Wouldn’t you feel uncomfortable? From a feminine standpoint, I certainly would and more. There is nothing more unnerving than having someone that is not within your personal concern in your personal business, let alone business that very few understand the reasoning and the consequences. Because it is teen pregnancy and everyone is up in arms about why it is so common and why teens aren’t more cognizant of the subject, Judith Watkins will be seen by outsiders of South Platte as a wayward young girl who doesn’t know any better. Who knows? She could have been raped, she could have been drunk; if her pregnancy had surely come up from one of these processes, journalists and other media personnel would be asking a lot more questions. In fact, this story would be a larger bombshell in the area than it already is. However, these possibilities are not in the book and therefore go more off-topic than my argument should progress toward.

            In conclusion, I feel as if my argument is very efficient in noting that Victor Simms is incorrect in believing that the story of Judith Watkins’ pregnancy should make local headlines as it is an invasion of privacy. Also, she is a minor, and her misfortune should not be taken advantage of to make a shocking story known. Even though she broke many barriers in her area by making the men’s football team, which is all she should be known for. After she has her child, her life can return to normal, and she can continue to break barriers on the football team if she so chooses to return. One misstep should not be a reason to blow things out of proportion and sensationalize everything that happens in this girl’s life. How do you think she feels? Do you think she’s proud of what happened to her? At that age, she probably isn’t, since the rest of her life could be in jeopardy. Because of that, would you want to make things worse and have her pregnancy plastered all over the area and make high school football headlines? I certainly wouldn’t think so. The problem with Simms’ argument is that it ignores the vulnerability of the youth, and a process that is completely natural in a woman’s life should not be a victim of shock value in a realm of men’s sports. The grace of the media shouldn’t be spoiled by sneaking, spelunking, and trickery. 

(Oh God, I hope this paper gets a half decent grade.)

UPDATE: I got a 26/30 on this paper, which on an Ivy League grading scale is a B. FFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUDGE!!!!

--AZ

The NHL 2011 Postseason Slant -- EHHH!!

I will admit, this is the first NHL slant I have ever done, and this is going to be rather difficult because I don't follow hockey as heavily as I do baseball and football teams play once a week. However, I watch ESPN enough (my younger brother often turns on the NHL Network on Sunday mornings) and I can draw conclusions about who's in and who isn't.
It's looking like a rough postseason ahead. A lot of rivalries are in this time, and interestingly enough they're being matched up in the first round. This should be a fun, hard-knocking playoff road.

Aside from the formalities...
Seriously, there are so many teams south of the border (as in the Carolina border) this year and it's really weird. I thought the NHL would be more of a northern thing, but since a lot of the Canadian teams folded we have people playing in cities such as Nashville and Phoenix. I guess you can't mess with the South, because a good amount of these teams play where it's nice and warm--a huge contrast, wouldn't you say?

Let us begin!


EASTERN CONFERENCE

1. Washington Capitals (107 Pts) -- Won't lie here, people. You guys have lots of 'splainin' to do after getting your behinds handed to you last year in the first round against the 8th seed Canadiens. You managed to fight back onto the top seed after the Flyers fell apart, and now we're looking to see some revenge on your end. Against the Rangers, I'm pretty sure you can do that unless if your egos get too large again. Hey Ovetchkin, I think now's your time to lead the team into glory. If not, somebody's gotta take charge.

2. Philadelphia Flyers (106 Pts) --After last year's performance, the Flyers have kept their trend of being a major threat and have stayed atop the leaderboards throughout the whole season. However, as of late there have been major setbacks and losses from comebacks and mishaps toward the ends of games. Will they be able to return to the big dance this year and be successful in the finals? My survey says: I wish, but no. Lack of Pronger and a consistent goaltender is going to really weaken the credibility of the Flyers' defenses.

3. Boston Bruins (103 Pts) -- After being a part of embarrassment last year by dropping a 3-0 series in the conference semifinal, we're looking for pretty angry Bostoners. Tim Thomas is an absolute monster in net, and Recchi isn't showing any signs of age. Their front lines are absolute tanks, and they're about ready to scare off any team that they'll be facing in the playoffs. Have fun, Habs.

4. Pittsburgh Penguins (104 Pts) -- Wow, look at these guys. After overcoming loads of injuries, suspensions, and fights, the Penguins have been able to secure yet another 4th seed. They're obviously stacked in many ways, with Mr. Marc-Andre in net, and Mr. Sidney Crosby. Even without Malkin in the lineup, things are looking quite bright. Are they doing it for the Steelers? I think so. Ha ha ha. I made a football joke in a hockey column.

5. Tampa Bay Lightning (103 Pts) -- If you really wanna know what carried the team for a little while, look at the top two guys on the team--Stamkos and St. Louis. Their front lines look really stiff, and they look like they can hold a game together. The defense...not so much. If you're looking for a heavily offensive team, here's our Hitler (as Max Bialystock would say so famously). If you're looking for a defensive team, I doubt that this would be a strong match.

6. Montreal Canadiens (96 Pts) -- Here's another team that's in it practically every year and there's no surprise about it. After blowing big teams away last year and scaring the crap out of everyone since they were an 8th seed. Now they look a little more formidable...will the story be the same this year? With a heavy shooting team high in points, we might see some tricks and turns throughout this team's journey.

7. Buffalo Sabres (96 Pts) -- Aside from my horrible love for Ryan Miller, I have to talk about this team. Problem is, they're not an all-rounded team--there are only a few players that really make some noise when absolutely possible. There have also been injury issues and the like, and they've really turned things up as of late. Do I have faith? They'll definitely give the Flyers a run for their money, and Ryan Miller will be...Ryan "awesome" Miller.

8. New York Rangers (93 Pts) -- After narrowly missing the playoffs last year resulting from a shootout loss, the Rangers fulfilled every technicality in order to get in this year. Good job, guys. The stats all around on this team aren't exactly the best around, but if they can come up in the clutch, they can certainly give people headaches with the way they play. Look at the +/- ratings...you wouldn't expect all that much turmoil on a postseason team, but there you go. No offense, I don't see you guys beating the Caps.



WESTERN CONFERENCE

1. Vancouver Canucks (117 Pts) -- Obviously, they're the winners of the President's Trophy. Losing less than 20 games and having beastly records on home and away ice means that they're a true force to be reckoned with. With consistent [and did I mention rather healthy?] lines, the offense and defense look equally as bulky. Let's not forget Roberto Luongo being a monster as usual in net. He'll be the key factor against the heavy shooting forces that make up the Western Conference.

2. San Jose Sharks (105 Pts) -- Hey, what's up, Antii Niemi? Here's a very well-rounded team that's glad that they probably won't be facing Chicago in the playoffs. After narrowly missing the Stanley Cup Finals last year, they're looking to take a bite out of the competition. Okay, that was a horrible pun. But at any rate, the Sharks have always been a silent threat, and despite the occasional mishaps and hits, they could be the black horse (or shark) to take it all from the President's trophy winners.

3. Detroit Red Wings (104 Pts) -- Could you call a postseason a postseason without the Red Wings somehow making it into the brackets? At first glance, they looked like they had no organization on their lines, but they have really come a long way since the beginning of the year and are really making a name for themselves. Jimmy Howard has been a great tag team partner with the eternal Chris Osgood and he's surprised the crap outta me. Oh heck, who am I kidding, everyone's doing well. Don't they have a lot of Olympic players on there to begin with? That's what it certainly feels like...

4. Anaheim Ducks (99 Pts) -- Say it with me: quack, quack, quack, quack, quack, quack...Oh, forget it. Here's a team that has its few achillies' heels in the injury and lack of playing area, but they've made it far enough to grab a 4th seed in the playoffs. Corey Perry is a machine, and he's going to be a burning thorn in the Preds' sides throughout the playoff round.

5. Nashville Predators (99 Pts) -- lol "Smashville." You make me want to play Super Smash Bros. Here's a mostly defensive team at work. Not one player on the team has scored over 50 points, and their goaltender Pekka Rinne has 2.12 GAA. That's quite the interesting mix. Wall much? The floods and storms are over just so you know, guys.

6. Phoenix Coyotes (99 Pts) -- Like I just said about Nashville, these guys are just as defensive with a hint of more power on offense. I don't necessarily think that they're going to make it all that far because they don't often get the job done and they may not come in the clutch at all. Scratch that...it's more of a hot and cold kind of thing. One good thing is that just about anybody can step up to the plate and give a good effort.

7. Los Angeles Kings (98 Pts) -- Here's a team I would like to call the "I scratch your back one game, you scratch mine the next" team. They have a decent build, but I'm not exactly sure if that'll be enough to make a believable run in the playoffs. The great thing about this team is that there isn't just one or two definitive "stars" on the team--everyone pokes their stick in when needed and they can have some crazy rollercoaster-looking games.

8. Chicago Blackhawks (97 Pts) -- The Stanley Cup champs are back...as an 8th seed. Losing a bit of their momentum as the season went on, their fate was determined in the very last game of the NHL regular season. Way to fool around with fate, boys. You have the hard-hitting Canucks in the first round, and y'all will be looking like fools if you don't bring the force that helped you win the Cup last year. After different personnel changes in the offseason, this revamped squad is going to get a rough first round.


Oh, hockey, how you make it cool to beat the crap out of people and put them on ice.
Alright, I really need to stop the puns.

Have fun watching for the next month and a half, kids.

--AZ

AZ's Slant on Sunday -- No, I Will Not Spend $4.75 for a Bottle of WATER.

This lovely post is dedicated to overpriced ballpark food.

The main culprit...

Last week, I went to Citizens' Bank Park with my family for the Phillies/Mets game. (school-sponsored) Usually on those days I practically starve myself so I can stuff my face with yummy sweet treats at the game. At this point, I'm somewhat questioning this method now. Ever since the Phillies became a dynasty, prices have gone up and the middle class has to pretty much go, "So wait, you want me to pay just as much for food as I did my ticket??"
Grant it, CBP has their "Dollar Dog Nights" which is every college student's dream: beer and unlimited hot dogs that are quickly boiled and wrapped so enough is made for all of the ramen-infested bellies that want more substance in their lives. But aside from that, some of the online food menus that I've looked at over the past day and a half is absolutely crazy, especially when it's done so that the seating prices don't have to be raised to astronomical levels. Just think, you crappy teams out there; because you guys suck, the food is penalized, and people don't eat your stuff because it's not reasonably priced.

But get this: even when the teams are doing well, the prices go up so the city gets more revenue and the organization itself gets more money to throw around for big names and other big things that I can't think of at this moment. It's a rather vicious cycle when you start thinking about it. Just using Philly as an example because I live in the city, ticket prices this season rose $2 overall, and it's not because nobody's coming to the games. Because there are so many people that come to the games day in and day out, the organization is guaranteed money because the people want to see winners and want to go often. I believe that the statistic is that over 3,000,000 people went to the ballpark last year, and the stadium has had about 115 consecutive sellouts give-or-take a few. Does that mean that the food prices have to be so ridiculously high? I say nay to that one, kids. Since the seating prices are high enough, there has to be a halfway meeting with the food.

Last week, I had a hot roast pork sandwich from Tony Luke's [which has the best cheesesteaks in the city--end of aside] and a bottle of water. Grand total of food (not including the rest of my family): $14.25. What. On Earth...? I understand why the sandwich was so much (it was $9.50, and it's Tony Luke's for God's sake) but the water...why??? I could get water from a tap with the same quality as Dasani! Anyway, although some of the prices at the park are reasonable (Chickie and Pete's crab fries are about $6.50 the last time I checked--and that's enough for about two people), the prices of drinks are rather uncalled for.

It's a real sneaky ploy, but it's somewhat unethical. To be perfectly frank (see what I did there?) about this whole thing, you actually need water more than food to survive. You shouldn't ask someone for water that costs $5 in order to either replenish thirst on a hot day or to wash down 20 under-boiled hot dogs that your body just ingested. Be thankful that we even have the money to spend during this recession to do leisurely things like sit down with family at the ballpark and eat and watch the home team be awesome and everything related to that.

I know one post about complaints isn't going to save the world of this problem. If people are hungry or thirsty, they will buy something. After all, you're usually not allowed to bring any foreign food or drink into stadiums. There's also the issue with tailgaters eating [and boozing] before the games in the parking lots so whomever doesn't have that luxury of coolers and portable grills has to find a way to stuff the face while at the stadium. I guess season ticket holders are smart enough to avoid these things every time they go to a game.

How did my inspiration turn for inanimate objects? I just expanded on a complaint about a bottle of water. Man, I guess this means I'm a crazed writer and I'll get a good job someday.

--AZ