It's not too often that I contribute nearly anything at all in regards to baseball discussion, but that's mostly due to the fact that I don't have a clue as to what I'm talking about on the topic. I don't consider myself a baseball fan, but that's not to take away from the sport itself or any fan devoted to America's pastime. I, like a large portion of sports fans, lack the patience for such long games and such a long season. Playoff baseball is a whole different beast; it certainly keeps even the bandwagon fans on the edge of their seats.
But even as a technically "non-fan" of the MLB, the game still provides one of the best atmospheres for attending a game. I personally believe college football tops any atmosphere in all of sports, but it's more of the day-long tailgating and pre-kickoff traditions that really push it in front of the others. Attending a baseball game, though, is just a fantastic experience. Ironically enough, the slow, casual pace of a game is a major positive aspect of being in the crowd. A summer night drinking $9 beers calls for relaxed vibes, which is precisely what a baseball stadium provides.
More than any other sport, baseball stadiums just have an aura to them that makes you want to spend a game at every possible venue. Even the newer stadiums, the non-Fenway/Wrigleys of the world, are a legitimate attraction.
But enough about the intangibles, the thing I love the most about live baseball games is the execution of music. There's nothing worse than the over saturation of sound effects during play of an NBA game. It's awful. College sports have the bands tearing it up with the brass instruments, beating the drums, playing the school's fight song. That's all fine and dandy, but what's tight about MLB stadiums is the personal soundtrack aspect. Songs selected by and tailored to individual players really allows them to reinforce their brand. To assist in creating an identity for each player and his hometown fans.
Which brings me to walk up songs: The ultimate "all eyes on me" moment. I've been trying to contemplate what exactly my walk up song would be, had I not been an atrocious baseball player and made it to the bigs, and it's harder than I thought. So I thought I'd list three, perhaps to switch up between during the everlasting baseball season:
Always a classic, gets the crowd going. However, you can't be some chump with a minimal contract walking up to this. You need to have one of those headlining salaries, letting everyone know how many bands you've got in your multiple mansions.
I'm not entirely sure exactly how long a walk up song plays for before they shut it off, but all I'd need is the intro to this all-time great jam. You'd be the smoothest dude in the league walking up to the plate with this blaring throughout the stadium.
Just an adrenaline rush of an intro. The type of intro that perks your ears up and leads into immediate head bobbing.
What I find to be more intense and personal than walk up songs is a song dedicated to the closer as he makes his way from the bullpen. Only happens once a game, and it's always in the most crucial moment. Now obviously "Major League" crushed this for Charlie Sheen with Wild Thing,
but hands down, no discussion, without a doubt, walking out of the bullpen and tossing a few warmups to Voodoo Child would get a crowd rocking like you've never seen before.
Slowly walking from the bullpen to the mound during the build up of Hendrix shredding would be incredible. Not to mention that closers seem like a bunch of dudes that would be into voodoo practices. Whatever mountain is up to bat across from you, your chopping that sucker down with the edge of your hand. Picturing this really makes me wish I didn't suck so badly at baseball and didn't throw like a toddler playing catch in the yard with his dad.
And while we're on the topic of personal intro songs, I'm sticking by my claim that if I were to ever walk from the tunnel to the UFC octagon, you can bet that I'd stick with a stadium classic/college football tradition in Enter Sandman
So yeah, kind of an odd rant that had very little to do with actual baseball, but still an interesting topic of discussion.
What would your walk up/closer song be?
Thursday, April 13, 2017
Friday, April 7, 2017
Wichita State not-so-shockingly moving to American Athletic Conference
One thousand five hundred and thirty-eight.
That is the number of miles between the Gampel Pavilion in Storrs, Conn. and Charles Koch Arena in Wichita, Kan.
To be totally fair, geography in college athletics is like "wins" or "runs batted in" in baseball - it doesn't matter anymore (according to nerds, anyways). It's not like BC and Miami or Washington State and Arizona or Nebraska and Rutgers are next-door neighbors in their respective conferences.
But what the ACC, Pac-12, B1G and all the other power conferences have is stability. The American Athletic Conference has stability like the National Inquirer has credibility.
Make no mistake about it, despite the absurd traveling distance between UConn and Wichita State, this is a great move for the American - from a basketball perspective.
UConn and Cincinnati - and to a lesser extent, Memphis and Temple - are all legitimate basketball programs. Yes the Huskies were rather horrid this year but any one of those four teams appears on your nonleague slate and you'll at least give a nod of a approval, if not pop your eyes open.
UConn and Cincy will bounce for the ACC or B1G or Big East the first chance they get, no question about it. The next major wave of conference realignment is probably still eight or so years away, when the Big 12's "Grant of Rights" deal expires. In the meantime, the next tier of conferences - the American, the Atlantic 10, the Mountain West, etc. - are the ones to keep an eye on.
Which makes you think...why didn't the A-10 get out ahead of the curve and shoot Wichita State an invite?
The A-10 has taken its share of lumps this decade, but rather than be reduced to a lower-tier conference, it has reloaded quite nicely. Temple, Xavier, Charlotte (and in an abbreviated stay, Butler) are gone, replaced by VCU, Davidson and George Mason. Maybe still a net negative but hardly a death kneel.
There's the whole matter of Wichita not being anywhere close to the Atlantic Ocean but again, geography is irrelevant. You can't exactly skip rocks into the Atlantic from the campus of Saint Louis University.
But wait, Lev, the A-10 would have an odd number of teams! How can you make a schedule with 15 teams?!
The ACC - which just produced the national champion - has 15 teams for basketball.
The A-10 also competed with 13 teams not long ago while waiting for Davidson to arrive.
The A-10 and American have been fairly neck-and-neck in terms of tournament bids received since the American's inception in 2014. The A-10 has earned 15 bids (11 at-large) over the last four seasons, the American has earned 12 (eight at-large).
UConn won the national championship in 2014 and that's clearly a mega counter point. Adding on the Shockers, which have made the tournament six seasons running and are widely expected to be a top-10 team in the preseason next year? The scales they are a-tipping.
If (when) the Big East decides to go to 12 teams for basketball (remember, it's not a football conference anymore), the A-10 will once again have a slew of candidates ripe for the picking. Would Wichita State's inclusion in the A-10 be enough to sway a program like Dayton from leaving for the Big East? Doubtful.
But even then, it could have been a strong preemptive strike to take on the Shockers, who made it abundantly clear they were searching for a new home.
There's also the matter of UMass, which pretty desperately needs a new home for football. Well, just a home period.
With Wichita State in the fold, the American maintains a 12-team football membership (Navy is a football-only member), while it becomes a 12-team league in basketball. Could the island of misfit toys that is the American be interested in adding UMass as a full member - which would no doubt appease UConn a bit?
The "Power 5" are the "Power 5" and the Big East really makes it six in basketball. The American just drained one from the parking lot in an effort to keep up, while the Atlantic-10 may have just clanked one off the rim.
That is the number of miles between the Gampel Pavilion in Storrs, Conn. and Charles Koch Arena in Wichita, Kan.
To be totally fair, geography in college athletics is like "wins" or "runs batted in" in baseball - it doesn't matter anymore (according to nerds, anyways). It's not like BC and Miami or Washington State and Arizona or Nebraska and Rutgers are next-door neighbors in their respective conferences.
But what the ACC, Pac-12, B1G and all the other power conferences have is stability. The American Athletic Conference has stability like the National Inquirer has credibility.
Make no mistake about it, despite the absurd traveling distance between UConn and Wichita State, this is a great move for the American - from a basketball perspective.
UConn and Cincinnati - and to a lesser extent, Memphis and Temple - are all legitimate basketball programs. Yes the Huskies were rather horrid this year but any one of those four teams appears on your nonleague slate and you'll at least give a nod of a approval, if not pop your eyes open.
UConn and Cincy will bounce for the ACC or B1G or Big East the first chance they get, no question about it. The next major wave of conference realignment is probably still eight or so years away, when the Big 12's "Grant of Rights" deal expires. In the meantime, the next tier of conferences - the American, the Atlantic 10, the Mountain West, etc. - are the ones to keep an eye on.
Which makes you think...why didn't the A-10 get out ahead of the curve and shoot Wichita State an invite?
The A-10 has taken its share of lumps this decade, but rather than be reduced to a lower-tier conference, it has reloaded quite nicely. Temple, Xavier, Charlotte (and in an abbreviated stay, Butler) are gone, replaced by VCU, Davidson and George Mason. Maybe still a net negative but hardly a death kneel.
There's the whole matter of Wichita not being anywhere close to the Atlantic Ocean but again, geography is irrelevant. You can't exactly skip rocks into the Atlantic from the campus of Saint Louis University.
But wait, Lev, the A-10 would have an odd number of teams! How can you make a schedule with 15 teams?!
The ACC - which just produced the national champion - has 15 teams for basketball.
The A-10 also competed with 13 teams not long ago while waiting for Davidson to arrive.
The A-10 and American have been fairly neck-and-neck in terms of tournament bids received since the American's inception in 2014. The A-10 has earned 15 bids (11 at-large) over the last four seasons, the American has earned 12 (eight at-large).
UConn won the national championship in 2014 and that's clearly a mega counter point. Adding on the Shockers, which have made the tournament six seasons running and are widely expected to be a top-10 team in the preseason next year? The scales they are a-tipping.
If (when) the Big East decides to go to 12 teams for basketball (remember, it's not a football conference anymore), the A-10 will once again have a slew of candidates ripe for the picking. Would Wichita State's inclusion in the A-10 be enough to sway a program like Dayton from leaving for the Big East? Doubtful.
But even then, it could have been a strong preemptive strike to take on the Shockers, who made it abundantly clear they were searching for a new home.
There's also the matter of UMass, which pretty desperately needs a new home for football. Well, just a home period.
With Wichita State in the fold, the American maintains a 12-team football membership (Navy is a football-only member), while it becomes a 12-team league in basketball. Could the island of misfit toys that is the American be interested in adding UMass as a full member - which would no doubt appease UConn a bit?
The "Power 5" are the "Power 5" and the Big East really makes it six in basketball. The American just drained one from the parking lot in an effort to keep up, while the Atlantic-10 may have just clanked one off the rim.
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
What Makes the Masters So Special?
*Disclaimer: If you are a genuine golf fan, go ahead and enjoy the Masters. If this is the only golf tournament you plan on watching all year, keep reading and let's debate.
With the Masters coverage beginning, I once again am sitting here wondering why in the world people make such a big deal about it. I will admit, I'll be tuning in at various points this weekend to check in on this tournament that I just don't care about. But that's simply due to me being a sheep; I want to be somewhat aware of the action that will be taking over sports chatter for the next four days.
It also should be noted that in no way, shape, or form do I consider myself a golf fan. But that's what really baffles me about the Masters; there are so many people that could not care less about the sport of golf all year, yet the Masters inexplicably gets their juices flowing. Do non-NASCAR fans tune into Daytona (or whatever the most significant race is) annually because of its significance within the "sport?" Not to my knowledge. And don't try and hit me with the "tradition unlike any other" garbage. Just within the sports world the Super Bowl, March Madness, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs are all undoubtedly better traditions in every aspect. Just the fact that it's one of four majors within golf kind of diminishes the ultimate prestige of it.
Many people claim the aesthetic visuals of Augusta truly set the Masters apart from any other golf event. Just Google-image it then or something. There will be thousands, maybe millions, of pictures of this scenic course that you can stare at for however long you'd like. Do you tune into Arizona Cardinals home games simply because they have the nicest turf in the NFL?
And to those of you who claim this tournament simply has a special atmosphere to it:
Atmosphere? At a golf tournament? There is no such thing as differentiated atmosphere in golf, a sport where fans are prohibited from making noise. The atmosphere is consistent: it's quiet, it's boring, and it's repellent for casual fans who are seeking to get into the sport. The atmosphere puts me to sleep, which brings me to another popular argument for casual fans tuning into the Masters:
The old "Nothing better than napping on your couch with the Masters on a Sunday" claim. If there's a movie or show on your TV that puts you to sleep, you categorize it as a terrible production. Yet somehow when it comes to the Masters, that's a major selling point. Anything worth watching should keep you awake and engaged.
And lastly, as the great Happy Gilmore once said, "Gold jacket, green jacket, who gives a shit?" For whatever reason, the champion receiving a green sport coat is an argument for the tournament's greatness. If you really get all hot and bothered about a grown man receiving championship apparel, I've got news for you: it happens in literally every other major sporting championship. In fact, the other champs receive shirts and hats. So, please inform me, what in the world is so special about the Masters for those who don't typically follow golf? Other than these Photoshops I made three years ago and have been recycling ever since:
With the Masters coverage beginning, I once again am sitting here wondering why in the world people make such a big deal about it. I will admit, I'll be tuning in at various points this weekend to check in on this tournament that I just don't care about. But that's simply due to me being a sheep; I want to be somewhat aware of the action that will be taking over sports chatter for the next four days.
It also should be noted that in no way, shape, or form do I consider myself a golf fan. But that's what really baffles me about the Masters; there are so many people that could not care less about the sport of golf all year, yet the Masters inexplicably gets their juices flowing. Do non-NASCAR fans tune into Daytona (or whatever the most significant race is) annually because of its significance within the "sport?" Not to my knowledge. And don't try and hit me with the "tradition unlike any other" garbage. Just within the sports world the Super Bowl, March Madness, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs are all undoubtedly better traditions in every aspect. Just the fact that it's one of four majors within golf kind of diminishes the ultimate prestige of it.
Many people claim the aesthetic visuals of Augusta truly set the Masters apart from any other golf event. Just Google-image it then or something. There will be thousands, maybe millions, of pictures of this scenic course that you can stare at for however long you'd like. Do you tune into Arizona Cardinals home games simply because they have the nicest turf in the NFL?
And to those of you who claim this tournament simply has a special atmosphere to it:
Atmosphere? At a golf tournament? There is no such thing as differentiated atmosphere in golf, a sport where fans are prohibited from making noise. The atmosphere is consistent: it's quiet, it's boring, and it's repellent for casual fans who are seeking to get into the sport. The atmosphere puts me to sleep, which brings me to another popular argument for casual fans tuning into the Masters:
The old "Nothing better than napping on your couch with the Masters on a Sunday" claim. If there's a movie or show on your TV that puts you to sleep, you categorize it as a terrible production. Yet somehow when it comes to the Masters, that's a major selling point. Anything worth watching should keep you awake and engaged.
And lastly, as the great Happy Gilmore once said, "Gold jacket, green jacket, who gives a shit?" For whatever reason, the champion receiving a green sport coat is an argument for the tournament's greatness. If you really get all hot and bothered about a grown man receiving championship apparel, I've got news for you: it happens in literally every other major sporting championship. In fact, the other champs receive shirts and hats. So, please inform me, what in the world is so special about the Masters for those who don't typically follow golf? Other than these Photoshops I made three years ago and have been recycling ever since:
Bruins back in the playoffs
Well what a long, arduous two-year absence it was. By Boston standards that's like 50 years, but the nightmare is over: the Bruins are heading to the Stanley Cup Playoffs.
Amazingly, the black and gold were in danger of having the fifth-longest active drought in the NHL. Which speaks volumes as to just how easy it is to make the playoffs is in that league, and speaks even louder volumes how pathetic it was the Bruins couldn't squeak in, but I digress. The Carolina Hurricanes, Buffalo Sabres, Arizona/Phoenix/Quebec City Coyotes and New Jersey Devils are the only teams with longer droughts than what the Bruins could have faced.
Quite a different world from May 2014, when the B's lost to the Montreal Canadiens in seven games despite having the President's trophy in tow.
Think about it: Donald Trump was over a year away from announcing his candidacy for president,the NFL was roughly eight months away from launching sting operation against the Patriots D'Qwell Jackson was eight months away from intercepting Tom Brady and launching DeflateGate, and San Diego, St. Louis and Oakland still had NFL teams. Oh yeah, I was still in college. Crazy how much has changed.
The 2007-14 Bruins were by no means a dynasty - you kinda sorta need to win more than one championship to be considered as such - but for a seven-year stretch, they were at the very least in the discussion year in, year out on a short list of championship contenders.
Call this a resurgence, call it a rebirth, call it what you will...but is this a new era, or merely the continuation of a stalled run? I'm by no means here to say the B's are going to win the Stanley Cup, but think of how much of a championship pedigree remains here from the 2011 team: Chara, Bergeron, Marchand, Krejci as key players, plus Adam McQuaid as well as Tuukka Rask, who was Timmy Thomas' backup back then.
If you're the Washington Capitals, the core of whom has never been beyond the second round with Alex Ovechkin...do you really want to see the Bruins, seemingly playing with house money, in round one?
Back in the spring of 2008, when the initial run of success began for the B's, they were the No. 8 seed in the east. Montreal won the first round series then, too, in seven games, but it just felt great to have playoff hockey back in Boston after wandering through the abyss for a few years.
In every subsequent playoff run, the Bruins were favorites at the very least in the first round, if not beyond.
Nearly 10 years later, a few of the same players remain, back in the underdog role. Unlike then, however, some of these guys know how to win. Or at the very least win a few playoff rounds.
No matter what happens, there's a bare minimum four nights of appointment viewing coming up. And playoff beards.
Amazingly, the black and gold were in danger of having the fifth-longest active drought in the NHL. Which speaks volumes as to just how easy it is to make the playoffs is in that league, and speaks even louder volumes how pathetic it was the Bruins couldn't squeak in, but I digress. The Carolina Hurricanes, Buffalo Sabres, Arizona/Phoenix/Quebec City Coyotes and New Jersey Devils are the only teams with longer droughts than what the Bruins could have faced.
Quite a different world from May 2014, when the B's lost to the Montreal Canadiens in seven games despite having the President's trophy in tow.
Think about it: Donald Trump was over a year away from announcing his candidacy for president,
The 2007-14 Bruins were by no means a dynasty - you kinda sorta need to win more than one championship to be considered as such - but for a seven-year stretch, they were at the very least in the discussion year in, year out on a short list of championship contenders.
Call this a resurgence, call it a rebirth, call it what you will...but is this a new era, or merely the continuation of a stalled run? I'm by no means here to say the B's are going to win the Stanley Cup, but think of how much of a championship pedigree remains here from the 2011 team: Chara, Bergeron, Marchand, Krejci as key players, plus Adam McQuaid as well as Tuukka Rask, who was Timmy Thomas' backup back then.
If you're the Washington Capitals, the core of whom has never been beyond the second round with Alex Ovechkin...do you really want to see the Bruins, seemingly playing with house money, in round one?
Back in the spring of 2008, when the initial run of success began for the B's, they were the No. 8 seed in the east. Montreal won the first round series then, too, in seven games, but it just felt great to have playoff hockey back in Boston after wandering through the abyss for a few years.
In every subsequent playoff run, the Bruins were favorites at the very least in the first round, if not beyond.
Nearly 10 years later, a few of the same players remain, back in the underdog role. Unlike then, however, some of these guys know how to win. Or at the very least win a few playoff rounds.
No matter what happens, there's a bare minimum four nights of appointment viewing coming up. And playoff beards.
 |
| A sample playoff beard, circa 2011 through two rounds of play. Photo evidence of later rounds is unavailable. |
Thursday, March 16, 2017
Your 2017 NCAA Men's Basketball Champions
You know how the San Francisco Giants had this even-year phenomenon when they'd win the World Series in even-numbered years (2010, 2012, 2014), but not even make the playoffs in the years between?
Reminds me an awful lot of myself and my powers and predicting the champions of March Madness. While no archives exist, since everything was done by actually printing out your bracket and filling it in in ink back then, I correctly predicted the champion in four consecutive odd-numbered years between 2005 and 2011.
The Raymond Felton Tar Heels of '05, the Joakim Noah/Al Horford/Corey Brewer Gators of '07, the Tyler Hansbrough Tar Heels of '09, and lastly, the Kemba Walker Huskies of '11.
What happened to my touch in 2013 and 2015? I couldn't tell you. Things even themselves out.
But I'm here to tell you I'm doing my best to recreate that odd-numbered mojo, and tell you that the University of Rhode Island Rams will be the last team cutting down the nets in Glendale, Ariz. on April 3. So crack open your skunked Gansett's from your moms basement, catch up on the Kardashian episodes with Lamar Odom, and get some takeout from IZone. The tournament runs through Kingston.
PS - UCLA is the pick
PPS - such a shame Providence blew a 17-point halftime lead last night. At least it wasn't 28-3
PPPS - URI will be playing on the second weekend. Creighton is a faux-Big East team and Oregon is possibly the most fraudulent sports program in the country.
Reminds me an awful lot of myself and my powers and predicting the champions of March Madness. While no archives exist, since everything was done by actually printing out your bracket and filling it in in ink back then, I correctly predicted the champion in four consecutive odd-numbered years between 2005 and 2011.
The Raymond Felton Tar Heels of '05, the Joakim Noah/Al Horford/Corey Brewer Gators of '07, the Tyler Hansbrough Tar Heels of '09, and lastly, the Kemba Walker Huskies of '11.
What happened to my touch in 2013 and 2015? I couldn't tell you. Things even themselves out.
But I'm here to tell you I'm doing my best to recreate that odd-numbered mojo, and tell you that the University of Rhode Island Rams will be the last team cutting down the nets in Glendale, Ariz. on April 3. So crack open your skunked Gansett's from your moms basement, catch up on the Kardashian episodes with Lamar Odom, and get some takeout from IZone. The tournament runs through Kingston.
PS - UCLA is the pick
PPS - such a shame Providence blew a 17-point halftime lead last night. At least it wasn't 28-3
PPPS - URI will be playing on the second weekend. Creighton is a faux-Big East team and Oregon is possibly the most fraudulent sports program in the country.
Tuesday, February 7, 2017
Bruins fire Claude Julien
Real quick thoughts while I sit at home watching the Patriots parade rather than attend it, as being 26 and attending championship parades defies logic more than Tom Brady's accolades as a 39-year-old quarterback....
...Claude had used up his nine lives and then some. I couldn't tell you just how many regular season losses were nearly the end of the line for Julien, but I can surely tell you just how close to the edge he's been living for awhile.
Remember when the Bruins blew a 3-0 lead to the Flyers in 2010? Julien didn't exactly have the resume of Joe Torre, an esteemed member of the blowing a 3-0 lead club, at the time.
Had the Bruins lost to Montreal in the first round the following season, that surely could've been curtains for Claude. The B's came back from a 2-0 series deficit and needed OT in Game 7 to survive and eventually win their only Stanley Cup of this generation.
Claude was safe after the B's lost to the Capitals in Game 7 in the spring of 2012, but had the Bruins not gone all Patriots in the fourth quarter vs. Atlanta vs. Toronto in Game 7 of the 2013 Eastern Conference Quarterfinals, that could have been Claude's last stand.
The Bruins won the President's Trophy in 2014, awarded to the team with the best regular season record. Those Bruins would never be confused with the 16-0 Patriots or 73-9 Warriors falling short, but losing a Game 7 at home to Montreal in the conference semis was inexcusable nonetheless.
Then the B's missed the postseason entirely in 2015. And again in 2016. Despite playing win-and-in games in the finale of each regular season.
How many of those losses or near-losses could be pinned on Claude? It's hard to tangibly define. Tuukka Rask's tummy ache in the finale last season isn't Claude's fault, for example.
Claude is the winningest coach in Bruins history. He has more wins (419) behind the Bruins bench than Art Ross (387) -- the man for whom the NHL's Coach of the Year award is named.
I have almost zero issue with moving on from Claude and seeing if former P-Bruins boss Butch Cassidy can work some magic and see if a team that is teetering on the playoff line can catch lighting in the bottle and just make the freaking postseason.
But as I type this and the Patriots parade is underway, as I consider that another team in this town has run merciless smear campaigns against Terry Francona and Jon Lester, just to name a few, in the not too distant past, it's the Boston Bruins ownership group which continues to shatter the mold of tone-deaf incompetence around here.
Good luck Claude, thank you for 2011. For as much as we could harp on Claude's record in Game 7's (4-5, with all but one of those wins coming in 2011 -- not including the regular season finale losses), it's not his fault this roster is in shambles.
...Claude had used up his nine lives and then some. I couldn't tell you just how many regular season losses were nearly the end of the line for Julien, but I can surely tell you just how close to the edge he's been living for awhile.
Remember when the Bruins blew a 3-0 lead to the Flyers in 2010? Julien didn't exactly have the resume of Joe Torre, an esteemed member of the blowing a 3-0 lead club, at the time.
Had the Bruins lost to Montreal in the first round the following season, that surely could've been curtains for Claude. The B's came back from a 2-0 series deficit and needed OT in Game 7 to survive and eventually win their only Stanley Cup of this generation.
Claude was safe after the B's lost to the Capitals in Game 7 in the spring of 2012, but had the Bruins not gone all Patriots in the fourth quarter vs. Atlanta vs. Toronto in Game 7 of the 2013 Eastern Conference Quarterfinals, that could have been Claude's last stand.
The Bruins won the President's Trophy in 2014, awarded to the team with the best regular season record. Those Bruins would never be confused with the 16-0 Patriots or 73-9 Warriors falling short, but losing a Game 7 at home to Montreal in the conference semis was inexcusable nonetheless.
Then the B's missed the postseason entirely in 2015. And again in 2016. Despite playing win-and-in games in the finale of each regular season.
How many of those losses or near-losses could be pinned on Claude? It's hard to tangibly define. Tuukka Rask's tummy ache in the finale last season isn't Claude's fault, for example.
Claude is the winningest coach in Bruins history. He has more wins (419) behind the Bruins bench than Art Ross (387) -- the man for whom the NHL's Coach of the Year award is named.
I have almost zero issue with moving on from Claude and seeing if former P-Bruins boss Butch Cassidy can work some magic and see if a team that is teetering on the playoff line can catch lighting in the bottle and just make the freaking postseason.
But as I type this and the Patriots parade is underway, as I consider that another team in this town has run merciless smear campaigns against Terry Francona and Jon Lester, just to name a few, in the not too distant past, it's the Boston Bruins ownership group which continues to shatter the mold of tone-deaf incompetence around here.
Good luck Claude, thank you for 2011. For as much as we could harp on Claude's record in Game 7's (4-5, with all but one of those wins coming in 2011 -- not including the regular season finale losses), it's not his fault this roster is in shambles.
 |
Perhaps Claude will turn up as the first coach of the new Quebec Nordiques after the Carolina Hurricanes are sold. Either that, or he could find work as my father's body double. |
Friday, February 3, 2017
The definitive guide to the Super Bowl halftime show
Don't get me wrong, these last two weeks beat the hell out of the two weeks prior to the Super Bowl in 2015.
Takes on air pressure and morality and things of that nature were so hot that Mark Brunell's tears could have melted the steel beams at University of Phoenix Stadium, where the Patriots ultimately beat the Seahawks in perhaps the greatest Super Bowl ever.
Had the Patriots lost that game, take a long look at everything that's transpired in the two year's following Malcolm Butler's interception and tell me you'd be able to put up with the continued DeflateGate/SpyGate talk, the Trump/Patriots talk, the "when will Brady and Belichick retire" talk.
The stakes for this game would be exponentially higher. The Patriots would be a loss away from a losing record in Super Bowls in the Brady-Belichick era, with four straight losses after winning the first three. They'd be the 2004 Yankees and 2010 Bruins wrapped up into one long, drawn out agonizing string of pain.
So we don't have to fret about any of that happening, which is nice. The Falcons really just inspire apathy though, since their two most famous players either A) were arrested the night before Super Bowl XXXIII for soliciting a prostitute hours after winning an award for being an outstanding citizen or B) killed dogs.
If you think the Patriots are due for a blowout win (or loss, for that matter) in a Super Bowl, you aren't wrong. Their six trips under Brady-Belichick have been decided by 3, 3, 3, 3, 4 and 4 points, respectively. Reminds me of the Fibonacci sequence from when I took math plus in sixth grade.
No matter how boring the game may or may not be, one thing we know for sure is that the halftime show will be a talking point.
My musical taste has been described as that of a 60-year-old hardware store owner so Lady Gaga isn't exactly in my wheelhouse, but there's no doubt she'll put on a performance for the ages. I'm anticipating all of our favorite jams from 2009 make the cut, such as "Just Dance" and "Poker Face" and maybe, just maybe, "Bad Romance..."
...does that at all feel like a Super Bowl halftime show set list? Of course not. If there's one thing Roger Goodell knows better than botching independent investigations and displacing fan bases nationwide, it's giving fans an odd hodgepodge of Super Bowl halftime performers.
This really isn't a knock on Gaga, who I know many people are goo goo for, but think back to some of the truly great Super Bowl halftime performances of the last 15 or so years. I'm not picking up what's being put down.
Using Super Bowl XXXVI as a cutoff point, here are the top five Super Bowl halftime shows of the modern era. But first, some notables that didn't quite make the cut:
If you don't get chills on chills on chills listening to "Where the Streets Have No Name" with a list of the 9/11 victims scrolling in the background, you're just a character on Lost: you've been dead this whole time.
Future Halftime Shows We Need to See
Takes on air pressure and morality and things of that nature were so hot that Mark Brunell's tears could have melted the steel beams at University of Phoenix Stadium, where the Patriots ultimately beat the Seahawks in perhaps the greatest Super Bowl ever.
Had the Patriots lost that game, take a long look at everything that's transpired in the two year's following Malcolm Butler's interception and tell me you'd be able to put up with the continued DeflateGate/SpyGate talk, the Trump/Patriots talk, the "when will Brady and Belichick retire" talk.
The stakes for this game would be exponentially higher. The Patriots would be a loss away from a losing record in Super Bowls in the Brady-Belichick era, with four straight losses after winning the first three. They'd be the 2004 Yankees and 2010 Bruins wrapped up into one long, drawn out agonizing string of pain.
So we don't have to fret about any of that happening, which is nice. The Falcons really just inspire apathy though, since their two most famous players either A) were arrested the night before Super Bowl XXXIII for soliciting a prostitute hours after winning an award for being an outstanding citizen or B) killed dogs.
If you think the Patriots are due for a blowout win (or loss, for that matter) in a Super Bowl, you aren't wrong. Their six trips under Brady-Belichick have been decided by 3, 3, 3, 3, 4 and 4 points, respectively. Reminds me of the Fibonacci sequence from when I took math plus in sixth grade.
No matter how boring the game may or may not be, one thing we know for sure is that the halftime show will be a talking point.
My musical taste has been described as that of a 60-year-old hardware store owner so Lady Gaga isn't exactly in my wheelhouse, but there's no doubt she'll put on a performance for the ages. I'm anticipating all of our favorite jams from 2009 make the cut, such as "Just Dance" and "Poker Face" and maybe, just maybe, "Bad Romance..."
...does that at all feel like a Super Bowl halftime show set list? Of course not. If there's one thing Roger Goodell knows better than botching independent investigations and displacing fan bases nationwide, it's giving fans an odd hodgepodge of Super Bowl halftime performers.
This really isn't a knock on Gaga, who I know many people are goo goo for, but think back to some of the truly great Super Bowl halftime performances of the last 15 or so years. I'm not picking up what's being put down.
Using Super Bowl XXXVI as a cutoff point, here are the top five Super Bowl halftime shows of the modern era. But first, some notables that didn't quite make the cut:
- Super Bowl XL (Steelers 21, Seahawks 10): The Rolling Stones
- No one (under the age of 50) loves the Stones more than me, but in journalism school, one of the first things they taught us was to be objective and not to show any bias. And my friends, I cannot tell you with a straight face that this was a good halftime show. Not that "Satisfaction" and "Start Me Up" are bad songs, but that's the equivalent of going to a fourth grade recorder concert and hearing "Mary Had a Little Lamb" and "Hot Cross Buns." A bland, vanilla, predictable set list which also included a new song at the time, "Rough Justice," which isn't even in my top 100 Stones tunes. I guess you can't always get what you want.
- Super Bowl 50 (Broncos 24, Panthers 10): Coldplay, Beyonce and Bruno Mars
- There were lip syncs at Hingham High put together better than this. Which is a shame, because Coldplay alone would've been great, and both Beyonce and Mars were bright spots at Super Bowls in the not too distant past. I guess in addition to slowly killing the game of football, Goodell wanted to put a stake through the heart of "Uptown Funk" once and for all as well
The Top 5
5. Super Bowl XLIII (Steelers 27, Cardinals 23): Bruce Springsteen
The Boss kept it simple, and I mean that in a good way. His energy level was right and he played a strong set list, not veering too far away from the norm. "Born to Run" and "Glory Days" were no-brainers, while "Tenth Avenue Freeze-Out" was a pleasant surprise at the beginning. Should he be penalized for playing then-recently released "Working On a Dream" instead of another tried and true jam like a "Dancing in the Dark" or "Thunder Road?" Perhaps. But compared with the Stones' selection of "Rough Justice" a few years before, it fit in just fine.
4. Super Bowl XLVII (Ravens 34, 49ers 31): Beyonce
The Destiny's Child reunion was fire flames. Everything was, really. Simply put, Bey worked it, girl.
3. Super Bowl XXXIX (Patriots 24, Eagles 21): Sir Paul McCartney
There were quite literally a million directions McCartney could've gone, given his Beatles and Wings catalogs, but I have no qualms with the path he chose. From the upbeat "Drive My Car" to Mark "Get Back" Loretta (or "Get Back" JoJo LaFell, if you prefer) he set the stage for an epic ending with his only truly great Wings jam in "Live and Let Die" (Maybe I'm Amazed is great too, although not necessarily a jam) before "Hey Jude" brought the place down in what was probably the greatest moment in the history of Jacksonville up to that point. Rodney Harrison's interception of Donovan McNabb surpassed it about an hour later, but it remains No. 2 in the illustrious lore of Jacksonville's past.
2. Super Bowl XLII (Giants 17, Patriots 14: Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers
Throwing aside the result of the game, which is admittedly difficult to do, Tom Petty could not have manufactured a better set list if he tried. The ordering of the songs worked to perfection, leading off with "American Girl," followed by "I Won't Back Down" and "Free Fallin'" to ending with one of the all-time great closers, "Runnin' Down a Dream." If you think about it, the Giants wouldn't back down from the Patriots, who were in the midst of a free fall from running down their dream of 19-0. I hate myself.
1. Super Bowl XXXVI (Patriots 20, Rams 17): U2
If you don't get chills on chills on chills listening to "Where the Streets Have No Name" with a list of the 9/11 victims scrolling in the background, you're just a character on Lost: you've been dead this whole time.
Future Halftime Shows We Need to See
- Foo Fighters
- Would be a perfect blend between the old-time rock and rollers and the more contemporary household names. "Learn to Fly" would be required, with "The Pretender" to close it out.
- Fleetwood Mac
- There is no more criminally underappreciated singer from any era than Stevie Nicks.
- Eminem
- As long as he doesn't accidentally play "Stan," which I accidentally left on a CD for my high school graduation party, I think we're good here. "Lose Yourself" would be an all-time moment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)