CubsFanBudMan

Or call Bettman's bluff. He sure does seem to go out of his way to keep the Coyotes there. Why hand them $25 million a year when your city would be better off anyway without them?

Maybe they'll wait until after Arizona's 100th to avoid the blow to state pride... /badcolumnist

That's because there aren't any. If you look at this picture below on the left side of the scoreboard, the logos are the representation of the Division/NL titles. It uses the logo from the time and it has the yeah (02, 07, etc.) attached in a circle on the logo. The World Series title is above the Miller Lite logo on the right. Odd because I KNOW that there was a World Series Banner as well as a 2002 NL West banner. I remember that because I was there in Arizona in 2003 and saw them but I guess they went to the new format sometime before the 2007 season... My one trip to the BOB was in 2004, and that World Series presentation was there, I believe. I don't recall the other ones being that way though, and it's usually something I look for/photograph. I'll see if I can dig up pics.

The CBC story has a timeline in it that follows along with what Brian in Boston posted. I wish it had been more thorough, but it starts in May.

But, would the Blackhawks and/or Bulls had the success they've had if the market had been shared? As barely a casual fan of hockey, the Blackhawks' seemed awfully vulnerable before WWW's death, including the oft-cited Sunday Wolves outdraw. (Just once, mind you.) However, those that said the Hawks' fanbase was a sleeping giant weren't kidding. Their rebound was incredible even before they won the Cup. Not to give too much cresite to the former Cubs' PR team, but Hawks games became the place to be and they hadn't won anything... jut like that group's old squad. Now the Bulls, somehow they managed to keep pulling in droves even during the dark days of guys like Tim Floyd and Jim Boylan. No idea how. I went to some Bucks games in 2001 as an alternative, but I doubt many others did. Same fate probably would have welcomed the Grizzlies in Dixmoor. More than anything, I'd like somebody to stick a palace in the suburbs (no Detroit pun intended) and lure an NFL team and a Super Bowl or 3. Outside of the United Center (and perhaps Toyota Park at the MLS level), the facilities are sorely lacking, and Chicago misses out on big events (to Indy especially) as a result. I think they've maximized the Cell, but there was only so much they could do because of their unfortunate timing. Still, I believe that New York could handle another baseball team, L.A. could have handled another basketball team pre-Chris Paul because of the Clippers' shadow status, and in all likeihood, Toronto would be the place to be for a two-team hockey town.

According to Mr. Labeaume, it's the discovery of "pockets" of very contaminated soil on the starting chosen site, there on the corner of Laurentienne and Hamel, and the strict rules of the Ministry of the Environment who have forced the city to operate near the Hippodrome. So this will be the façade of the new arena. Kinda reminds me of the London Knights' rink, where the façade is the shell of an old building and the rest of the structure looks modern. Pretty cool. See? What a bullet we dodged with the whole Hamilton thing. As long as a spaceship doesn't land on that thing, it should look pretty cool.

Excuse me for quoting my own post, but I knew there was a catch to what I proposed, but I didn't realize what it was until reading Dennis Dodd's column from yesterday: independents. They, and more specifically Notre Dame, are the reason that a wild card is always included, and why a team who isn't a conference or division champ will always be able to win, unless the BCS/NCAA/whatever finally comes to their senses. I maintain that my proposal above is still solid, and it's a testament to how irrelevant Notre Dame has become that I didn't consider them at all. My favorite line from Dodd's piece: "Strip away the Notre Dame label and the Irish are Northern Illinois - which is an insult to Northern Illinois. In the last decade, the Huskies are better than the Irish by seven wins." It's time to build a system without wild cards. There's no reason Alabama deserved to get a bye before the title game, and they should stop bowing to Notre Dame now, too. The rest is here: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/17750857/notre-dame-the-sticking-point-in-which-teams-get-bcs-playoff-berths

Closing public libraries to subsidize sports teams is so damn American it makes me crap eagles. Well, weren't all the cops and teachers laid off last year?

It's really simple to fix, and I have no idea why they won't do it and everyone makes it so complicated: Only conference champions go to the playoffs (or the BCS, for that matter). Sorry, Alabama, if you can't win your division, you don't earn a shot at the SEC title, and therefore shouldn't have a shot at the BCS title. People complain that a playoff ruins the regular season. Not if you have to win your division to make your conference championship game and then win that to make the playoff. Problem solved. Alabama would not have had an argument. Win your conference. (But by all means enjoy that BCS title... but it's as mythical a "national" title as the old ones before the BCS were. It's a BCS title.) Also, arguing 4-5 or 8-9 is a huge difference than arguing 2-3. At least something gets settled on the field that way.

That was my reaction when someone posted that article in another thread. The columnist used that centennial argument a couple of times in there, as if having an NHL team has any relevance at all to the state having a successful 100 years.

Ugh. Not a fan of that columnist. Not one, but two references to Arizona's centennial? As if they'll feel like less of a state worthy of 100 years if the "awful twist" of losing an NHL team happens. Yeah, just cancel the celebration. What?

I was just questioning that a few posts ago. Here is the AP story I referenced from Jan. 28. http://qctimes.com/sports/hockey/nhl-commissioner-plan-b-for-coyotes-is-premature/article_e8951351-48c8-58a7-90c8-efd29e4b4324.html Mentions Jamison, which I thought was inaccurate, but who knows. Again, I thought that was the whole point of the thread title.

Hi. This is the Coyotes thread I've seen at least two people say they can't find. Not sure why. Perhaps it's the obscure Scrubs reference. To that point, an AP story I read within the past 2 weeks referenced a "Sharks exec" with a name like Jamison. Wasn't it established here that it was a different guy, hence the thread title? To recap the speculated destinations for the team next year in order of likelihood: Glendale, Seattle, Quebec City, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Portland and did I read San Diego here somewhere? Carry on.

Yes. Just yes. Perfect picture and, of course, great headline. That image immediately came to mind when Hulsizer backed out, and I really have to wonder, if like a celebrity at an awards show, he got a Coyotes jersey and cap loaner that was later returned to the team store and sold as new. Trotting him out like that in the playoffs was lame.

I wonder what this thread title will be changed to someday... "Quebec City appreciation station," perhaps. Maybe "Blues bought by Hulziser." Or "Hulsizer." Either one. EDIT: "Adventures in Babysitting 3." Of course. At least Mings' Tawny stamp will let those who venture in know that this was once a "Here We Go Again" Coyotes thread. I welcome it's return, and the unavoidable Whitesnake soundtrack that comes with it. On topic: Reinsdorf again? Really? Glendale does realize he's not going to take anything but an absolute gift. And then here we g--you get the point.

Agreed, I was mildly disappointed when I heard that news. I mean, it's good that they're recognizing it, but it just should've been a section in the yearbooks, the Wild Card isn't banner-worthy. In a sport that is, for now, the most difficult to make the playoffs, I am OK with such a banner. Maybe it would make more sense for, say, the Brewers, who have very few appearances compared to ATL. But in MLB, where getting in is the key, I am OK with this. What I cannot stand, however, is the phrase "Wild Card Champions." That is not a championship any more than "NBA Western Conference 7th Place Playoff Birth" is a championship. Agreed, I would just say "Wild Card" or "Wild Card Winner" I agree about the toughest playoff berths being recognized and omitting championship from the wild card commemmorations. It's an impressive display the Braves have there, but -- referencing the OP's point -- isn't every yellow flag celebrating a "second place finish" of one kind or another? If we're going to draw a line, might as well do it at the red flag, because some of those division titles were just token playoff appearances, too (says the Cubs fan whose home field has a very similar display of real flags on the roof, with only 2 that ultimately mean anything). And why no red flag for Milwaukee? A bit of a pet peeve of mine when teams don't carry over their history.

I've been told repeatedly that Northwestern -- and only Northwestern -- is "Chicago's Big Ten team." Since that can really only be true in a realm such as the "Pointless Realignment Outpost," I thought I'd mention it here for posterity's sake. Carry on.

True, but I always thought a stadium in the right suburb could make it work. I just haven't identified which one that would be, but maybe a city could surprise me, as Bridgeview did on a much smaller scale with Fire. As far as the United Center, I agree, but despite the fact that I still feel it is top of the line, it just seems 16 years old isn't far away from the "we need a new stadium talk." OK, maybe only halfway there. The United Center name might be on its way out when the deal expires in 2014, based on the prominent Madhouse rebranding last year.

A few years ago there might have been an opportunity for a second NHL team to steal some fans from the Blackhawks, since the AHL's Wolves could even outdraw them (even head to head on a Sunday afternoon at least once) and probably had more games on TV due to the franchise's ban on televised home games. However, the theory that Chicago was a sleeping giant hockey town proved to be true even before the Blackhawks' run to the conference finals in 2008-09 -- a season which featured a stunning jolt to attendance thanks to a heavy marketing push by the team that convinced people to go to Cubs games for all those years. Now that they have a two-season string of sellouts and hold the Cup, all former and casual fans -- and then some -- are likely spoken for. Certainly this city can support a second team in more than just MLB, but I'd like to see that be an NFL team in a state-of-the-art stadium that can host Super Bowls. (Don't forget the Grizzlies were almost headed to south suburban Dixmoor -- my 2nd reference to that in as many days here.) I think the Bulls and Blackhawks are likely set at the United Center for a while still, but that Soldier Field renovation has to be one of the most short-sighted of all-time. Even the Cubs should probably rebuild the Wrigley grandstand from scratch like they did the bleachers.

That's what I've been seeing as well. Either people don't know or don't care, and as much as I want to point it out to every person I see at a Cubs game with a giant, shiny, blocky "1" to go with their normal-ish "0" on their Santo jersey, I don't. Add the Cubs to that list. Cubs and Bears throwbacks are the repeat offenders at the games I attend (although I might be among those that can't spot the Blackhawks jersey problems, having only recently seen them reemerge in public.)

YES. All the trophy/rivalry games stay intact and I do think it adds some sizzle to an otherwise underwhelming West. (And I like a lot of those teams.) This is why I said from the start that if the Big Ten expands, there needs to be one more team in the West than the East. Even a 14 with Nebraska, Missouri and Rutgers (or Notre Dame) would work. 16 blows the whole thing up no matter what (pods), I'm afraid, so at that point it wouldn't matter where the teams are from. And because of that, I almost want the Big Ten to stay at 12 now, where before I liked the 14 idea because of the likelihood Nebraska and Missouri would be brought in as secondaries after the East or Notre Dame stuff was settled. (Who knew?)

Had it launched, it might have saved that identity, especially if it had become the road. I like that the Bucks went back to their old color scheme with green as the focus, but I would have really liked to see this script on a jersey.

that thing is so ugly, so repulsive, that in a weird bizarre way i kind of like it. It's strange, but every time I see this it's so much worse than I remember. It must be the only odd jersey that I never remember all of the awful details. After a while of not seeing it, I always think it would have been OK had they worn it for a couple of games, then I see it again and realize it was so smart that they didn't.

And membership in said association is invitation-based. I'm pretty sure such an invitation would be forthcoming were Notre Dame to join the Big Ten. I could be wrong, but I believe joining the AAU was a previous Big Ten expansion hangup -- for Notre Dame. Something about the values not matching up with a Catholic university. Seeing as Notre Dame would have been a Big Ten member as of the early 2000s before some very last minute cold feet on Notre Dame's part, any AAU issues are overblown. There's also the 1998 invitation to join the Big Ten that Notre Dame turned down. My point was that the AAU was not an issue for the Big Ten invitation before, but was one of the reasons Notre Dame had the cold feet you mention. I'll have to look that up.

I may be reading your post wrong, but it suggests to me that you don't think a three-school expansion of Missouri, Nebraska, Rutgers would be worth it. Or that the Big Ten might find that to be the case. Rest assured the Big Ten will expand, even without a slam dunk like Notre Dame and/or Texas. Using your formula, I believe "Y will be ≥ X" in almost every scenario, including "just" adding Missouri, Nebraska, Rutgers. It's just a matter of how much greater "Y" can go. No doubt the Notre Dame and Texas talk is an effort to maximize it. But I never believed that the Big Ten was adding only one school. The three most important words are "Big Ten Network." Even adding Missouri, Nebraska, Rutgers has its benefits. Namely, adding live sports programming to the network and adding subscribers. A lot of talk revolves around getting into New York, but locking up the states of Missouri and Nebraska is nothing to sniff at. And Rutgers gives the network a shot at getting at least some of the New York market. I also like the Missouri-Nebraska-Rutgers rumor because it sets up conference divisions nicely, preserving traditional rivalries and giving Penn State the eastern one its wanted. Everything I've read suggests that the Big Ten holds landing Nebraska in the same regard as Notre Dame and Texas. Should that be the case? Probably not anymore. But Notre Dame isn't really Notre Dame anymore, either. As a Big Ten fan, I'd welcome the opportunity to see the Irish beaten regularly in conference play, but I think the Big East would be a nice fit for Notre Dame. Join up in football in what post-expansion would be considered by the mainstream media to be a weakened conference that the Irish would be projected to win every year. (And then fail to do so.) The problem is Notre Dame doesn't want to share that BCS money they only have to win 9 games to get. The Big Ten has stated a 12-18 month timeframe, but it sounds like the first three could be locked up sooner, with the possibility of adding two more at the back end of that timeframe. So you could be right. And membership in said association is invitation-based. I'm pretty sure such an invitation would be forthcoming were Notre Dame to join the Big Ten. I could be wrong, but I believe joining the AAU was a previous Big Ten expansion hangup -- for Notre Dame. Something about the values not matching up with a Catholic university.