HedleyLamarr

2 hours ago, LMU said:

To give you a picture, this is the status as of now with this going pretty much all day.

So....as of about two hours ago, we're only 0.5% of the way to completion?

...or just throw out a dirty, inappropriate joke so the mods can delete it!

Is there a rule starting that signatures must be English only, or require an English translation?

i dont think so but everyone here speaks english and if they dont they just do english translation

If you're Canadian, your signature has to be in both English and French.

In North Carolina's win over Georgia Tech this past Saturday, Marquise Williams was UNC's leader in passing yards, rushing yards....and receiving yards. In the same game!

134 yards passing, 148 yards rushing (most rushing attempts in the game by a UNC player), and one catch on a reverse-pass play from a WR throwing the ball for 37 yards, one yard more than the player with the 2nd-most receiving yards.

Well, it doesn't hurt that the NHL's getting billions in TV revenue from NBC and Rogers, and millions from local TV deals. Doubt the AHL or ECHL has much money coming in from TV deals.....

It'll be interesting to see how many folks pay just south of $300 for ECHL hockey. You'd have to be hella dedicated to the league or a team to put that much coin on AA hockey. I mean, Gladiators games aren't televised in Atlanta, and whatever radio signal they have gets drowned out once the sun goes down. And no one's clamoring to get their games on TV (especially since NBC airs a couple games weekly and the regional FSN shows just about every Carolina and Nashville game...Atlanta's getting their hockey fix).

Does she not wash her hands after giving a handy?

Minnesota and Columbus have banners for all the teams in the rafters. I think Winnipeg has them in the lobby. Who are the others?

Nashville and Tampa, and there might be one or two more.

I'm pretty sure Nashville has their banners in the rafters. I know they definitely have them on the main concourse.

It'd be the almost-perfect scenario for the NHL...move Carolina to Quebec City, expand to Las Vegas and Seattle (to balance out the conferences), and the Coyotes stay where they are. So, naturally, it'll never happen. Except for the Coyotes staying put.

Unless they get wise to the fact that they can expand by two and get three expansion fees (one via a relocation fee) in the process. Money they don't have to share with the NHLPA. So maybe it will happen.

,I've now dropped to 2 stars. How the hell does that happen?

Because you're constantly whining about something that doesn't mean crap.

Trouble maker.

Lee, didn't you once say that the expanded portion of the Winnipeg Arena was literally plywood floors and seats?

Coaches are looking to stay employed, too. And there is an expectation by the fans and the GM's/front office for the coaches to come up with a game plan for 3-on-3 play. Coaches don't give a damn about the fans being entertained....see "neutral zone trap" and "1-3-1".

Hell, ask the Kings. Wasn't their shootout record like 3-15? You can bet your ass they'll be coming up with ways to win in 3-on-3 situations, as will the other 29 teams.

I know you're not comparing your beer-league team to NHL play. Hell, I don't even put heavy consideration on the AHL stats because these players/coaches are more concerned about practices between games and the parent club dictating how the farm team plays their games. They aren't scheming 3-on-3 play because that takes practice time away from the fundamentals and drills the parent club wants them to refine and perfect.

I agree with everything you're saying here Hedley...Coaches will do their damnedest to scheme the crap out of this but...this ain't football.

The beauty of the 3on3 is that it's gonna be super-hard to put it into a box.

The 3on3 is more fluid, chaotic and fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants than 5on5 or 4on4.

How would you scheme a 1on1 competition?

The fewer the players, the more it comes down to speed, skill and luck.

This'll have coaches pulling their hair out.

Their "scheme" will last 'til the first mistake and then it'll be good ol' pond hockey 101.

You can say it's going to be frenetic and chaotic because 3-on-3 situations have never been practiced. There simply weren't many 3-man opportunities that warranted practice time. That's going to change. Now there's a reason to practice 3-on-3 situations, and now there's a reason to add those coaching situations.

The only time there's been a 3-man practice situation is 4-on-3 or 5-on-3 power plays. Defensive situations. As Admiral alluded to, coaches will probably be more conservative and put two defensemen and a defensive-minded center and play "not to give up a goal" more so than "up-and-down, fast-paced, reckless abandon". With three players, coaches will likely tell their players to defend areas more than playing man-on-man. Coaches will find a way to slow the game down.

Key numbers: 56 GWG were scored in the 3 minutes of 4 on 4. 45 GWG were scored in the 4 minutes of 3 on 3. So yes, while the number of shootouts did go down, it is telling to me that fewer goals were actually scored during 3 on 3 play, despite there being an extra minute to work with.

Anyone who is pretending straight 3 on 3 will kill the shootout may be under some delusion.

Hang on there one minute, ramalamadingdong...

136 games go into 4on4 overtime and there's 56 "game-winners"....That's a success rate of 41%.

80 games make it into 3on3 OT, where there's 45 "game-winners" ...That's a success rate of 56%.

I'll swing by this neighbourhood around All-Star time next year, and you can attempt to call me "delusional" then.

Don't forget just how conservative coaches and teams get after January 1st. They can accept losing a shootout rather than in OT because of the ROW tiebreaker.

Bingo. If you lose in the shootout, you get a point and the other team gets a win that counts less. Most of all, you can't say you did anything wrong.

You want to kill the shootout, kill the loser point. Keep breaking ties in the win column with ROWs, sure, but stop padding the points and teams will play to win.

Yeah, that would work, but aren't we looking to be entertained?

Several years ago I treated a rep team that I was coaching to a year-end 3on3 tourny.

3on3....change on the fly...no face-offs...clear the zone after a goal....

Even when a penalty was called, the play kept on, and the "offended" team was awarded a penalty shot in a game-end shoot-out.

(So if my team had 2 penalties, the other team had 2 shots)

Anyway, it was fantastic non-stop action...chances galore!

I can remember addressing the parents in the lobby after the game.

These were battle-hardened rep parents that had been-there, done-that.

They couldn't contain their enthusiasm.

We do the 3on3 thing every year now.

I can almost guarantee you admiral, that the 3on3 OT will be the most exciting part of the game.

And if you're worried about coaches ruining this with some sort of "super-system"...well don't.

The fewer players on the ice; the harder it is to implement a "system'.

It'll be chaotic, fast and fun, and I'm convinced that it'll work.

Coaches are looking to stay employed, too. And there is an expectation by the fans and the GM's/front office for the coaches to come up with a game plan for 3-on-3 play. Coaches don't give a damn about the fans being entertained....see "neutral zone trap" and "1-3-1".

Hell, ask the Kings. Wasn't their shootout record like 3-15? You can bet your ass they'll be coming up with ways to win in 3-on-3 situations, as will the other 29 teams.

I know you're not comparing your beer-league team to NHL play. Hell, I don't even put heavy consideration on the AHL stats because these players/coaches are more concerned about practices between games and the parent club dictating how the farm team plays their games. They aren't scheming 3-on-3 play because that takes practice time away from the fundamentals and drills the parent club wants them to refine and perfect.

Make the goals bigger (hey, the players have gotten much bigger and faster and the goalies are more skilled and wear bigger pads, the goal size needs an inflation adjustment, too) and move icing to the defensive blue line instead of the red line (make these defensive systems defend 50 feet of ice instead of 25) and call it a day.

No way.

3 on 3 means more ice, more chances, more odd-man rushes...mistakes won't be dangerous; they'll be deadly.

On the fly changes better be bang-on.

If the teams go all-out this will be fantastic!

However, you're right, if teams play not-to-lose... it'll suck.

I'd hope that not much more than a third of OT games go into a shoot-out.

The zamboni guys'll be able to go home early.

I'll put the percentage of shoot-outs after overtime at under 40%.

I drink Chivas.

3-on-3 before now produced a lot of goals because it's something coaches rarely-to-never practiced. It's a situation that rarely happened, so what little precious practice time they got wasn't wasted on 3-on-3 situations.

Now, the coaching staff has a reason to practice 3-on-3 situations because an extra point is on the line. They're going to figure out ways to slow down the game and clog up space in 3-on-3 play.

Admiral's absolutely correct. 3-on-3 play is going to get figured out pretty quickly and we'll still see well north of 100 shootouts throughout the season. Maybe not 170, but closer to that number than 85. Don't forget just how conservative coaches and teams get after January 1st. They can accept losing a shootout rather than in OT because of the ROW tiebreaker.

Maybe Bridgeview was a crappy place for a soccer stadium. I spent my early childhood memorizing maps and I still don't entirely remember where Bridgeview is. I think it's by Midway, but that's not very specific. Maybe the Fire should have stayed at crappy Soldier Field.

I spent three nights in Bridgeview, and I still don't know where it is. Thank goodness my GPS did....

From checking The Sweet Workaround To Not Using Crappy New Google Maps For Which You Should Thank Me, it appears that Bridgeview city limits go from roughly 68th to 103rd, but not very far across. The inner southwest suburbs have always been especially mysterious to me. I mean, Worth, Bedford Park, Bridgeview, I know these are places that exist, but in a bonus round of Where in Chicagoland Is Carmen Sandiego?, I wouldn't have a prayer.

We stayed at the Super 8 in Bridgeview. Don't remember much about the area, other than a McDonald's across the street and a car parts store next door. Didn't spend much time there outside of the Three S's. The drive from there to the train station at Midway was hella weird, too.

At least I was able to find a grocery store to bring home some Matt's cookies.

Maybe Bridgeview was a crappy place for a soccer stadium. I spent my early childhood memorizing maps and I still don't entirely remember where Bridgeview is. I think it's by Midway, but that's not very specific. Maybe the Fire should have stayed at crappy Soldier Field.

I spent three nights in Bridgeview, and I still don't know where it is. Thank goodness my GPS did....

Those are going to be really interesting days, especially for the NHL teams.

The visiting teams much prefer doing their morning skates at the NHL building, as it gives them the chance to get acclimated to the bounces/sight-lines of the building. And, it gives their equipment staff the ability to be at the arena all day and do what they need to do. Also, the visiting team generally doesn't want folks in the bowl during their morning skate.

Going on local time, the visiting team's morning skate is from 11:15am til around 12:30pm. That doesn't leave much time for morning skates, AHL game, then NHL game. The Sharks would likely have to do their morning skate at the practice facility, or schedule these games as "one ticket, two games" doubleheaders.

I didn't pull out the quote to harp on her for being a transplant or part-time fan or whatever. Hell, when I lived in Phoenix, I went to my fair share of Coyotes games and bought a white Peyote throwback and wore it to non-Ducks games.

But would I have gone to a Glendale city council meeting and angrily pointed my finger at the mayor? No. That's why I'm curious as to what she would wear to a Bruins/Coyotes game. Is she a Bruins fan that roots for the Coyotes because they're local? Or is she a Coyotes fan that used to be a Bruins fan? It makes a difference in terms of the context of her rant, to me.

EDIT: also, I guess the Glendale mayor had previously announced a charity drive that would allow someone to taze him. Well, after the meeting, there was a swell of support which allowed this woman, Ronda Pearson, to taze the mayor of Glendale...

You can say that, knowing that the Ducks (and Angels, for that matter) are safe and aren't going anywhere. Everyone becomes a great actor or does things they normally wouldn't do when the situation becomes dire enough to them. Until you're actually in a dire situation, it's pretty damn easy to say what you would do.

Seems like a lot of you are wanting to put these Coyotes fans (or any fans in a similar situation) into a lose-lose situation. Posters here will either mention that these fans couldn't be bothered to show up for a fan rally when times are at their most peril (whether it be the Thrashers or Rams or whichever fan rallies didn't get the number of folks you believe should have been there) or fans that do show up to rallies or city counsel meetings get mocked. The city can't seem to win either....they get ridiculed for agreeing to this contract in the first place, not they're getting mocked for trying to get out.

This woman, along with the other Coyotes supporters, showed up to the meeting to give Glendale the appearance that the fans care enough to show up to a meeting that was put together last-minute. They recognized that they could be losing their team. She likes the team enough to where she purchased season tickets. As those of you that have purchased season tickets know, it's totally different than just purchasing tickets for a few games....there's personal relationships and financial investments you're putting into the team and the experience.

We're all pretty tired of Glendale and the Coyotes being at odds...we all want closure to this once and for all, whether it's keeping the team there or relocation. But I think your frustration is misguided towards this woman. She clearly didn't expect this groundswell of attention or to be interviewed by SportsNet.

There were never as many threads as there seemed to be; I just edited the title a lot and settled on this one once the thread/anti-thread nomenclature seemed to gain currency.

I was pretty partial to "Chelmdale"....

I hope Scott Burnside didn't strain anything carrying all this water for Anthony LeBlanc.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/38341/coyotes-saga-continues-glendale-could-lose-twice-with-attempt-to-terminate-lease

Burnside was an Atlanta guy, right? No shock that his allegiances would fall here.

Not sure if Burnside was an Atlana guy, but another hockey guy at ESPN (Craig Custance) was definitely an Atlanta guy. Custance was the Thrashers beat reporter for the AJC.

This Sherwood guy running a daycare? He can't find a quiet office?

4 yay votes to 2 nays with the mayor's vote to come, and now we're starting to get Jerry Springer'ing from the crowd....

I thought the guy on the phone was in favor of ending the contract?

I was wondering what Bill Swerski was up to. Didn't realize he was on Glendale's city counsel....

Hey lady, Glendale's a suburb.