I’ve discovered something interesting about German television. Most of it is in German.
Given that my entire German vocabulary consists of good day, thank you, you’re welcome and “do you speak English,” that leaves me with three choices; CNN, Disney Channel in German, or blogging. And one can only handle so much CNN. Life without television, go figure.
So without further adieu; random thoughts from across the pond…in English of course.
I am probably the only person on earth who thinks the NCAA tournament field is too big.
I’m not talking about the obnoxious decision to bloat the field beyond 64 teams. I actually think it was too big at 64.
Look I get that there is a spectacular symmetry to the sixteen team brackets; a symmetry by the way that the NCAA happily destroyed for more TV money. I get that the tournament is possibly the most exciting event in U.S. sports. And I’m fully aware that the chances of the NCAA reducing the tournament field are comparable to Disque winning a Nobel Prize.
That does not change my opinion that the tournament is bloated. I complain all the time about college football’s ridiculously exclusive system for determining its de facto national champion. Well college basketball goes to the opposite extreme.
Consider the 16 team monstrosity that is the Big East. All the teams played 30+ regular season games, plus the meaningless conference tournament. And then the NCAA was cordial enough to invite 11 of those 16 to its championship field of 68. That's an awful lot of basketball to eliminate 30% of the conference from the big dance. And people say the NHL’s regular season is meaningless?
In the end, 9 of those 11 teams, including the Mighty Pitt Panther, failed to reach the round of 16. The two that did, each beat another Big East team in the second round. That to me is a staggering indictment of the conference and a case study in how ridiculous the college basketball season has become.
If the NCAA tournament was reduced back to 48 teams and the automatic bids were retained for conference champions; that would force a lot of the fluff teams out and actually make the regular season meaningful. As much as I bash the conference tournaments, they would actually matter if the conference was likely to only get 3 or 4 bids. And that’s how it should be. It completely devalues the regular season when that the 5th best team in a conference gets to play for the NCAA championship, let alone the 11th best.
Even worse, after all those teams get in we still have to listen to the talking heads at TMZSPN moan and complain about the poor 12 loss teams that got excluded.
Fear not however, this will NEVER happen. The NCAA tournament is one of the most lucrative events in sport and the NCAA would never scale back its cash cow. I know the tournament is fantastic. Just understand that everything that happens before that is essentially an exhibition season for college basketball junkies.
Jamie Dixon has built a tremendous program at Pitt but his failures in the tournament can no longer be ignored. Especially given my entire rant above about the regular season being meaningless.
It’s easy to forget that before Dixon and Ben Howland arrived, Pitt had fallen off the Big East map. Under Dixon, the Panthers regularly compete for Big East Championships and get high seeds in March. Pitt basketball has become nationally relevant, which is far more than we can say for their football program.
Unfortunately with each passing year it’s looking more and more like Dixon is a coach who can’t win when it truly matters.
The reality of college sports is that the players turn over every four years (or less); the coaches remain the constant. The results at Pitt have been pretty constant under Dixon; strong regular seasons, high tournament seeds, and early round flameouts. In any given year you might blame the players. Over eight years, you have to look at the coach.
One of two things is happening at Pitt. Either Dixon is not a good enough coach in big games or he recruits players who can not raise their game to championship level. I believe its both. And even if you somehow blame it solely on the talent, keep in mind that Dixon is the person doing the recruiting
Most of us could accept Pitt’s loss to Butler this weekend as a fluke if it were a one time occurrence. Unfortunately, this has become the norm over the past decade plus. Sad as it is, I expected it, (which somehow did not stop me from ruining my brackets). You can not argue that Butler has more talent than Pitt. Nor can you argue that they were more talented than the teams they played on their miracle run to the NCAA championship game last year. That tells me they are extremely well coached and that coaching made the difference on Saturday.
The question is can Dixon do better and/or can Pitt do better?
To the latter, I say no. Pitt is not Duke or North Carolina. It is still a second tier destination in college basketball. Pitt compares perfectly to Syracuse. Jim Boeheim became a coaching legend by consistently producing strong regular season teams. And in Boeheim’s case, final four lightening struck three times in 30+ years. That success, including one national championship makes most people forget the litany or early round failures there. The same thing could easily happen for Dixon at Pitt.
To the former I’m not sure. I am truly skeptical that Dixon is capable of improving as a big game coach after eight years. As for recruiting, it’s absolutely possible that Dixon gets the best talent he can to come to Pitt. I wonder however if he is so set getting players to fit his system that he ignores potentially better offensive players who might be difference makers come tournament time?
I do not believe Pitt has peeked under Dixon or that he should be fired. That means the adjustments need to come from within. The status quo is no longer acceptable in Oakland; improvements need to be made, even if that means Dixon stepping out of his comfort zone.
I blistered the National Hockey League a few weeks back for their impotent handling of the travesty on Long Island. Sadly nothing has changed.
The league continues to hand out embarrassingly light penalties for severe incidents with obvious and predictable results. How many players have to be seriously injured by cheap shots to the head before the NHL hands out a single meaningful punishment?
There is no way to sugar coat this; Colin Campbell and the NHL brass have handled this issue with complete incompetence. The players keep driving elbows in to each other’s brains because they know there are no serious repercussions. And it’s not always the goons and thugs that are doing the dirty work. Now it’s the PAVEL Kubinas and Dany Heatleys of the world as well.
I seriously wonder if Colin Campbell failed third grade. Because that’s usually the point where people figure out there is a correlation between incorrect actions and punishment. It’s why we have prison cells for criminals in this country, to dissuade crime. If Colin Campbell was a judge in the criminal justice system, manslaughter would probably carry a four game suspension. Sadly I fear it may come to that in the NHL.
The league had a perfect opportunity to address the issue at the general manager’s meeting and again failed miserably. More tough talk and impotent action. The NHL continues to tacitly endorse and enable this activity which endangers its players and cheapens its product.
Unfortunately for Penguin fans, Matt Cooke is a big part of the NHL's problem. I previously accepted Cooke as physical player and an instigator who played on the edge and for the most part I respected his overall game. Alas, pretty much since the time Cooke clobbered Marc Savard last year he’s gone over the edge.
I’ve previously resisted the urge to label Cooke a dirty player but I can no longer defend him. At the very least, he’s reckless beyond an acceptable level. Trust me he’s not the only offender in the NHL but we can no longer ignore Cooke’s acts; not when Penguin fans are still boiling about Trevor Gillies. Even worse, those acts are now costing the Penguins points in the standings.
The NHL should come down on Cooke as a repeat offender; no less than ten games for his latest cheap shot. And honestly, Matt Cooke’s day in Pittsburgh should be numbered. I would rather use his cap hit to keep Talbot and Kennedy. I hate that its come to that but Cooke has left us no choice.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
Short Term Pain for Long Term Gain - Crosby's Comeback Can Wait
Pittsburgh’s current hockey savior skated in full pads on Monday, ending his 68 day ice hockey exile. That short skate, plus two others that followed represent mere baby steps in Sidney Crosby’s recovery from his January concussion(s). And yet the mere sight of number 87 in uniform took Penguin fans on a rollercoaster of extreme emotions ranging from unbridled optimism to trepidation and outright fear.
Truth be told, any reaction at this point is premature. The simple fact that Crosby skated does not insure his return this season. It’s reasonable to assume that skating is part of his rehabilitation routine; a routine that could last an additional three weeks or three months. Much as we would like to believe otherwise, it’s very possible that we will not see Sidney Crosby play another game this season.
That said (for you Jared), I doubt the Pens would have made such a public spectacle of Sid skating if they were not reasonably comfortable with his chances.
So at the risk of putting the cart way before the horse, the obvious question is; should Crosby return this season? Are the risks implicit in his return worth the potential rewards of it?
From a pure hockey standpoint, there is no discussion. Sidney Crosby is the best player in the world right now. It goes without saying that his return to the line-up would measurably improve the Pens Stanley Cup chances. If he were rehabbing a knee or a shoulder injury there would be no debate; the Pens would suit him up the minute he was even close to ready.
Unfortunately that’s not the case. Crosby is dealing with a significant head injury; in point of fact, two head injuries. The concussion(s) was serious enough to keep him off the ice for nearly ten weeks during which time he continued to experience symptoms. That’s too big a red flag to brush aside based on two or three healthy weeks.
I understand that at some point injured players must take the risk implicit with returning to the line-up. With all due respect to Aaron Asham, I’m far more willing to accept the risks of his returning too early than I am for our face of the franchise superstar.
The Penguins know much more about this situation than we do. They have top notch physicians studying Crosby’s cranium and making informed medical judgments. And yet those same physicians basically threw their hands up for the last 2 ½ months and admitted essentially that the brain will be what it will be. They are doctors, not miracle workers. I’m sure Anaheim goalie Jonas Hiller would confirm that sentiment.
I’ll reiterate something I pointed out in late January when I first expressed my Crosby concussion concerns. Heath Miller endured one of the most brutal head shots I’ve ever seen against Baltimore and was back on the field three weeks later. Sid has been out more than three times that long. That should give some context on how serious this is. Remember, two concussions in five days; the second of which occurred before the first healed.
Concussions are cumulative. Each is worse than the one before; each one takes a greater toll. You simply can not be too careful given that reality. I keep thinking about how Bill Cowher and the Steelers enabled Ben Roethlisberger’s overzealous return from his motorcycle accident in 2006. His mid season concussion against Atlanta seemed almost preordained given those circumstances.
I’m not sure that anybody can definitively determine what the proper healing time is for this injury. I think we can all agree that six months is a safer time frame than four weeks.
Crosby is a smart player who plays the game with his head up. That’s a politically correct way of saying he’s not Marc Savard. And yet we all saw what happened to Sid twice in five day span in early January. It does not matter who you are; it is impossible to avoid every hit, especially when you play in the high traffic areas.
So yes the risks are great, as are the rewards. A healthy Crosby gives the Pens a legitimate shot at the Stanley Cup. No Sid drastically reduces that opportunity. How do we evaluate this risk reward dilemma? By weighing as many considerations as possible. To wit:
1) The Pens chances to win the Stanley Cup – Exponentially better with Crosby in the line-up (unless you go with the theory that you can’t multiply by zero) but still considerably reduced without Evgeni Malkin. Throw in the likelihood that Sid will not be 100% either physically or hockey wise and those chances slip a bit further. Are those odds good enough to risk the franchise’s future?
2) The Future of the Program – The Penguins are built around Crosby both structurally and financially. Crosby takes up $8.7 Million of cap room through 2014. The worst case scenario is no Crosby. The second worst case is Crosby being in an out of the line-up at partial effectiveness a la Lemieux from 2001-02 through his final retirement. That would leave the Pens in a state of helpless hockey limbo.
3) The Championship Window – Any lost opportunity within an obvious championship window is profoundly disappointing. That disappointment is mitigated by the fact the Pens have locked in their young core for at least two more years; and that core is less than two years removed from lifting the cup.
4) The Environment – We all know the playoffs are considerably more physical than the regular season. You lose the Trevor Gillies thug factor but you gain the…”everyone finishes every check factor.” Net result, chances of injury increase. And that’s before we even consider…
5) The Garage League – The NHL has done little or nothing to dissuade head shots this year. They talk tough and then act with stunning impotence. Yes players fear suspensions more in the playoffs but the sad reality is that the league has FAILED to create a climate where players fear the consequences of delivering a hit to the head.
In the end, my contention is it’s not worth the risk. I might feel different if Malkin were not hurt. I might feel different if the team’s core was aging or they were about to be ravaged by free agency. I might feel different if the NHL made a genuine commitment to protecting its players rather than just spewing spineless rhetoric.
And before you tell me that the Pens medical staff has the best handle on the situation; remember this. On top of all the uncertainty I’ve already described, the Penguins let Crosby play four periods of hockey after taking the original hit from Steckel. For all the good things that go on at the new Igloo these days, this was nothing sure of negligence from top to bottom of the organization. The minute I saw Crosby scrape himself off the mush that was the winter classic ice, I suspected a concussion. Somehow his employer did not.
My emotional side wants Sid back in the line-up without question. My logical side knows that if he does play, I will cringe every time he goes to the corner to play a lose puck.
If you’re still conflicted, a bit of historical Penguin perspective can be quite valuable.
There are striking parallels between Crosby 2010-11 and Mario Lemieux 1989-90. Both players were dominating the league and carrying their team when significant injury struck. And while this current Penguin team is clearly superior in talent and depth; neither is or was a serious cup contender without their marquee star.
Remember how excited we were when Mario miraculously returned to save the Penguins’ hopes in the last game of the 1990 season? Remember how utterly devastated we were when the Pens lost in spite of that and were eliminated from playoff contention?
Given two decades of perspective we now clearly see what was impossible to know that night; losing that game was in reality the best case scenario. The Pens gave up a fleeting moment of happiness and a likely first round playoff defeat for the opportunity to draft Jaromir Jagr. In addition it eliminated the dilemma of whether Lemieux should try and play in the post season with his back in disrepair.
Moreover, Lemieux’s decision to comeback for that game ultimately delayed his inevitable back surgery and his return the following year. The Pens were quite fortunate that delay did not sabotage their 1991 cup run. In short, all emotions aside, the Pens should have shut Big 66 down the minute he hobbled off the ice at Madison Square Garden.
Sound familiar?
Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. My heart would love to see Sidney Crosby on the ice when the playoffs start. My head hopes he sits until next year.
Truth be told, any reaction at this point is premature. The simple fact that Crosby skated does not insure his return this season. It’s reasonable to assume that skating is part of his rehabilitation routine; a routine that could last an additional three weeks or three months. Much as we would like to believe otherwise, it’s very possible that we will not see Sidney Crosby play another game this season.
That said (for you Jared), I doubt the Pens would have made such a public spectacle of Sid skating if they were not reasonably comfortable with his chances.
So at the risk of putting the cart way before the horse, the obvious question is; should Crosby return this season? Are the risks implicit in his return worth the potential rewards of it?
From a pure hockey standpoint, there is no discussion. Sidney Crosby is the best player in the world right now. It goes without saying that his return to the line-up would measurably improve the Pens Stanley Cup chances. If he were rehabbing a knee or a shoulder injury there would be no debate; the Pens would suit him up the minute he was even close to ready.
Unfortunately that’s not the case. Crosby is dealing with a significant head injury; in point of fact, two head injuries. The concussion(s) was serious enough to keep him off the ice for nearly ten weeks during which time he continued to experience symptoms. That’s too big a red flag to brush aside based on two or three healthy weeks.
I understand that at some point injured players must take the risk implicit with returning to the line-up. With all due respect to Aaron Asham, I’m far more willing to accept the risks of his returning too early than I am for our face of the franchise superstar.
The Penguins know much more about this situation than we do. They have top notch physicians studying Crosby’s cranium and making informed medical judgments. And yet those same physicians basically threw their hands up for the last 2 ½ months and admitted essentially that the brain will be what it will be. They are doctors, not miracle workers. I’m sure Anaheim goalie Jonas Hiller would confirm that sentiment.
I’ll reiterate something I pointed out in late January when I first expressed my Crosby concussion concerns. Heath Miller endured one of the most brutal head shots I’ve ever seen against Baltimore and was back on the field three weeks later. Sid has been out more than three times that long. That should give some context on how serious this is. Remember, two concussions in five days; the second of which occurred before the first healed.
Concussions are cumulative. Each is worse than the one before; each one takes a greater toll. You simply can not be too careful given that reality. I keep thinking about how Bill Cowher and the Steelers enabled Ben Roethlisberger’s overzealous return from his motorcycle accident in 2006. His mid season concussion against Atlanta seemed almost preordained given those circumstances.
I’m not sure that anybody can definitively determine what the proper healing time is for this injury. I think we can all agree that six months is a safer time frame than four weeks.
Crosby is a smart player who plays the game with his head up. That’s a politically correct way of saying he’s not Marc Savard. And yet we all saw what happened to Sid twice in five day span in early January. It does not matter who you are; it is impossible to avoid every hit, especially when you play in the high traffic areas.
So yes the risks are great, as are the rewards. A healthy Crosby gives the Pens a legitimate shot at the Stanley Cup. No Sid drastically reduces that opportunity. How do we evaluate this risk reward dilemma? By weighing as many considerations as possible. To wit:
1) The Pens chances to win the Stanley Cup – Exponentially better with Crosby in the line-up (unless you go with the theory that you can’t multiply by zero) but still considerably reduced without Evgeni Malkin. Throw in the likelihood that Sid will not be 100% either physically or hockey wise and those chances slip a bit further. Are those odds good enough to risk the franchise’s future?
2) The Future of the Program – The Penguins are built around Crosby both structurally and financially. Crosby takes up $8.7 Million of cap room through 2014. The worst case scenario is no Crosby. The second worst case is Crosby being in an out of the line-up at partial effectiveness a la Lemieux from 2001-02 through his final retirement. That would leave the Pens in a state of helpless hockey limbo.
3) The Championship Window – Any lost opportunity within an obvious championship window is profoundly disappointing. That disappointment is mitigated by the fact the Pens have locked in their young core for at least two more years; and that core is less than two years removed from lifting the cup.
4) The Environment – We all know the playoffs are considerably more physical than the regular season. You lose the Trevor Gillies thug factor but you gain the…”everyone finishes every check factor.” Net result, chances of injury increase. And that’s before we even consider…
5) The Garage League – The NHL has done little or nothing to dissuade head shots this year. They talk tough and then act with stunning impotence. Yes players fear suspensions more in the playoffs but the sad reality is that the league has FAILED to create a climate where players fear the consequences of delivering a hit to the head.
In the end, my contention is it’s not worth the risk. I might feel different if Malkin were not hurt. I might feel different if the team’s core was aging or they were about to be ravaged by free agency. I might feel different if the NHL made a genuine commitment to protecting its players rather than just spewing spineless rhetoric.
And before you tell me that the Pens medical staff has the best handle on the situation; remember this. On top of all the uncertainty I’ve already described, the Penguins let Crosby play four periods of hockey after taking the original hit from Steckel. For all the good things that go on at the new Igloo these days, this was nothing sure of negligence from top to bottom of the organization. The minute I saw Crosby scrape himself off the mush that was the winter classic ice, I suspected a concussion. Somehow his employer did not.
My emotional side wants Sid back in the line-up without question. My logical side knows that if he does play, I will cringe every time he goes to the corner to play a lose puck.
If you’re still conflicted, a bit of historical Penguin perspective can be quite valuable.
There are striking parallels between Crosby 2010-11 and Mario Lemieux 1989-90. Both players were dominating the league and carrying their team when significant injury struck. And while this current Penguin team is clearly superior in talent and depth; neither is or was a serious cup contender without their marquee star.
Remember how excited we were when Mario miraculously returned to save the Penguins’ hopes in the last game of the 1990 season? Remember how utterly devastated we were when the Pens lost in spite of that and were eliminated from playoff contention?
Given two decades of perspective we now clearly see what was impossible to know that night; losing that game was in reality the best case scenario. The Pens gave up a fleeting moment of happiness and a likely first round playoff defeat for the opportunity to draft Jaromir Jagr. In addition it eliminated the dilemma of whether Lemieux should try and play in the post season with his back in disrepair.
Moreover, Lemieux’s decision to comeback for that game ultimately delayed his inevitable back surgery and his return the following year. The Pens were quite fortunate that delay did not sabotage their 1991 cup run. In short, all emotions aside, the Pens should have shut Big 66 down the minute he hobbled off the ice at Madison Square Garden.
Sound familiar?
Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. My heart would love to see Sidney Crosby on the ice when the playoffs start. My head hopes he sits until next year.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Coming to Grips with Conflicting Penguin Emotions
Watching the Penguins brilliant 3 to 2 victory in Boston on Saturday night I was overcome by the emotion of two conflicting thoughts. One is that this was yet another inspirational effort from a team overcoming an unprecedented run of critical injuries. The other was that not withstanding this, the Pens as currently constituted have little chance to win the Stanley Cup.
I started to come to grips with this when the Penguins played a tremendous game against the Craps a few weeks back and lost 1-0. The contest was in every way a playoff caliber. And it came down to Washington’s elite superstar scoring the only goal; while our stars continued their rehab. At that moment, I had shocking clarity in to what the post season could be like for the Pens.
The Pens are going to make the playoffs. The team accumulated enough points in November and December to assure that. They are going to battle when they get there. The team’s character, backbone, and strong coaching staff assures that. And they are likely going to finish without hoisting Lord Stanley’s Cup. The injuries to Crosby and Malkin dictate that.
I know we would all like to believe the Pens can pull this off without Crosby. On some level, I would like to think that Dustin Jeffrey will morph in to Jonathan Toews, James Neal in to Kevin Stevens and Alexie Kovalev in to…Alexie Kovalev. I know we would like to believe that a well coached team with grit, character, an all world goaltender and the best front four defense group in its history can overcome the loss of its two marquee superstars.
There is nothing wrong with believing that right to the last moment. That’s what true fans do. I assure you that’s what I will do. I will not give up on the Penguins under any circumstances. When the playoffs start, I will convince myself that the Penguins can win every series; even if the NHL somehow resurrects the 1984 Edmonton Oilers as their opponent.
Just understand that unless Sidney Crosby miraculously returns to health, there will likely be no Stanley Cup parade in the Burgh this year. And for the record, at this point I’m not sure it’s the best thing for Sid to come back this season, even if he can.
You may ask why I feel the need to say this before it even happens. Why throw cold water on an already difficult situation? Why not sit back and just see what happens? I am after all the person who said after the 2005 and 2008 football seasons that I would never give up on a Pittsburgh team again.
Because the cruel reality of the Pens situation is crystallizing for me. A team that was perfectly situated to win a Stanley Cup has been stripped to its core by critical injuries. I’m trying to reconcile the “successes” of a short handed team that plays its heart out every night with the harsh truth of what it takes to win a championship. And its creating a vicious internal conflict for me. Not too mention a fair degree of sadness.
The fact is, it’s not always a failure when a team does not win a championship. Sometimes getting to the playoffs and winning a series or two can be considered a huge success. Do you think that Montreal fans considered last season a failure because they lost in the conference finals?
If you look at the Penguins sans Sid and Geno, is there any doubt that duplicating Montreal’s conference final run would be a credible success? And such a run is possible, even without our two marquee stars.
That said, when a team is legitimately of championship caliber and falls short for whatever reason, it is profoundly disappointing. Championship opportunities are rare and precious. You simply do not know when or if they will come around. And there is a simple reason for that. There is a cavernous difference between a GREAT team and a CHAMPIONSHIP team.
Sports history is replete with great teams that were not championship caliber. The Penguins as currently constructed may be a great team; but it’s Sid and Geno that make them elite. For an apt comparison, think of the Steelers from 1992 through 2003. They had no fewer than six “great” teams in the era but no championship teams; thanks to the Kordell O’Donnell quarterback fiasco.
It takes an unbelievable mix of scouting, drafting, player development, coaching, talent, grit, heart, and luck just to create a championship window. If you doubt me on that luck part, remind yourself that Sidney Crosby wears a Penguin uniform solely based on the fortuitous bounce of a ping pong ball in 2005. Would the Pens have won the cup in 2009 with Bobby Ryan instead of Sid?
That is why you can never overstate the significance of a championship opportunity lost. You just do not know when or if the next one will come. Injuries, age, salary caps, and other factors often conspire to crash a championship window, faster than anyone would ever expect.
To this day I lament the Pens loss to Florida in the 1996 conference finals (even though I continue to deny it occurred). That said, it bothers me less on some level than the 1993 loss to the Islanders for this simple reason. The 1996 team Pens were a great team; but they were not a championship team. They simply did not have the depth on defense or at forward to beat Colorado in the finals. By contrast, the 1993 Pens were far and away the best team in hockey and should have steamrolled to a third consecutive cup.
The disappointment of the 1996 Pens was only to the extent that they lost one round earlier than they should have (and also that they were clutched and grabbed in to submission by a beer league expansion team). The tragedy of the 1993 Pens (strictly from a sports perspective) was a legitimate championship opportunity lost. Or worse, given away.
We have a ton of experience in Pittsburgh with great teams that in retrospect were not championship caliber. And we had some brilliant and wonderful rides with those clubs that I would not trade for anything. Last night I watched a clip of the Pens game 6 win over New Jersey in 1999; the game where Jagr scored late in the third and in overtime. It’s one of the greatest wins in Penguins’ history; leading to maybe the greatest upset in Penguins’ history. Great moments do not by definition have to occur on the way to championships.
There will be no shame if the Pens lose in early in the playoffs this year. Not with their roster in tatters. As long as they battle with every ounce of heart and guts they have available, I will be proud of the result. Everything I’ve seen from the Pens this year, especially since the injury run started tells me they will do just that. This team has inspired me on the same level as the 2009 Pens in games 6 and 7 against Detroit.
The sad reality though is that without Sid and Geno they struggle to score goals. And its hard to win 16 playoff games when you can’t consistently light the lamp. We love the great stories of grit and overachievement that occur in the playoffs. We love the Talbots, Cookes and Craig Adams of the world raising their game and playing with the heart of a champion. They are a big part of what playoff hockey is about.
You absolutely have to have those guys to win, but it’s the truly elite superstars that elevate a team to the next level. Championships are possible when the best of the best; Sid and Geno, Kane and Toews, Datsyuk and Zetterberg, raise their game to a level that goes beyond just hard work and grit.
Herein lies the heart of my conflict. I have never been more proud of the Pens than I am right now. I have no doubt they will continue to do us proud in the post season. And yet I can not get past the reality that a legitimate championship opportunity may have been stolen by cruel twists of fate. It’s frighteningly reminiscent of that brilliant ‘93 team that I’ve still never quite gotten over. It matters not that the current concerns are driven by factors beyond their control while the ’93 Pens simply failed to play their best hockey. Disappointment does not distinguish rationale, it deals only in results. Opportunity lost is opportunity lost.
I hope beyond hope to be wrong. I will be there to the very end rooting for a true Stanley Cup miracle. That’s what fans do. I will be proud of this never give up Penguin team until the final whistle. I just can’t help fearing that whistle will blow too soon.
I started to come to grips with this when the Penguins played a tremendous game against the Craps a few weeks back and lost 1-0. The contest was in every way a playoff caliber. And it came down to Washington’s elite superstar scoring the only goal; while our stars continued their rehab. At that moment, I had shocking clarity in to what the post season could be like for the Pens.
The Pens are going to make the playoffs. The team accumulated enough points in November and December to assure that. They are going to battle when they get there. The team’s character, backbone, and strong coaching staff assures that. And they are likely going to finish without hoisting Lord Stanley’s Cup. The injuries to Crosby and Malkin dictate that.
I know we would all like to believe the Pens can pull this off without Crosby. On some level, I would like to think that Dustin Jeffrey will morph in to Jonathan Toews, James Neal in to Kevin Stevens and Alexie Kovalev in to…Alexie Kovalev. I know we would like to believe that a well coached team with grit, character, an all world goaltender and the best front four defense group in its history can overcome the loss of its two marquee superstars.
There is nothing wrong with believing that right to the last moment. That’s what true fans do. I assure you that’s what I will do. I will not give up on the Penguins under any circumstances. When the playoffs start, I will convince myself that the Penguins can win every series; even if the NHL somehow resurrects the 1984 Edmonton Oilers as their opponent.
Just understand that unless Sidney Crosby miraculously returns to health, there will likely be no Stanley Cup parade in the Burgh this year. And for the record, at this point I’m not sure it’s the best thing for Sid to come back this season, even if he can.
You may ask why I feel the need to say this before it even happens. Why throw cold water on an already difficult situation? Why not sit back and just see what happens? I am after all the person who said after the 2005 and 2008 football seasons that I would never give up on a Pittsburgh team again.
Because the cruel reality of the Pens situation is crystallizing for me. A team that was perfectly situated to win a Stanley Cup has been stripped to its core by critical injuries. I’m trying to reconcile the “successes” of a short handed team that plays its heart out every night with the harsh truth of what it takes to win a championship. And its creating a vicious internal conflict for me. Not too mention a fair degree of sadness.
The fact is, it’s not always a failure when a team does not win a championship. Sometimes getting to the playoffs and winning a series or two can be considered a huge success. Do you think that Montreal fans considered last season a failure because they lost in the conference finals?
If you look at the Penguins sans Sid and Geno, is there any doubt that duplicating Montreal’s conference final run would be a credible success? And such a run is possible, even without our two marquee stars.
That said, when a team is legitimately of championship caliber and falls short for whatever reason, it is profoundly disappointing. Championship opportunities are rare and precious. You simply do not know when or if they will come around. And there is a simple reason for that. There is a cavernous difference between a GREAT team and a CHAMPIONSHIP team.
Sports history is replete with great teams that were not championship caliber. The Penguins as currently constructed may be a great team; but it’s Sid and Geno that make them elite. For an apt comparison, think of the Steelers from 1992 through 2003. They had no fewer than six “great” teams in the era but no championship teams; thanks to the Kordell O’Donnell quarterback fiasco.
It takes an unbelievable mix of scouting, drafting, player development, coaching, talent, grit, heart, and luck just to create a championship window. If you doubt me on that luck part, remind yourself that Sidney Crosby wears a Penguin uniform solely based on the fortuitous bounce of a ping pong ball in 2005. Would the Pens have won the cup in 2009 with Bobby Ryan instead of Sid?
That is why you can never overstate the significance of a championship opportunity lost. You just do not know when or if the next one will come. Injuries, age, salary caps, and other factors often conspire to crash a championship window, faster than anyone would ever expect.
To this day I lament the Pens loss to Florida in the 1996 conference finals (even though I continue to deny it occurred). That said, it bothers me less on some level than the 1993 loss to the Islanders for this simple reason. The 1996 team Pens were a great team; but they were not a championship team. They simply did not have the depth on defense or at forward to beat Colorado in the finals. By contrast, the 1993 Pens were far and away the best team in hockey and should have steamrolled to a third consecutive cup.
The disappointment of the 1996 Pens was only to the extent that they lost one round earlier than they should have (and also that they were clutched and grabbed in to submission by a beer league expansion team). The tragedy of the 1993 Pens (strictly from a sports perspective) was a legitimate championship opportunity lost. Or worse, given away.
We have a ton of experience in Pittsburgh with great teams that in retrospect were not championship caliber. And we had some brilliant and wonderful rides with those clubs that I would not trade for anything. Last night I watched a clip of the Pens game 6 win over New Jersey in 1999; the game where Jagr scored late in the third and in overtime. It’s one of the greatest wins in Penguins’ history; leading to maybe the greatest upset in Penguins’ history. Great moments do not by definition have to occur on the way to championships.
There will be no shame if the Pens lose in early in the playoffs this year. Not with their roster in tatters. As long as they battle with every ounce of heart and guts they have available, I will be proud of the result. Everything I’ve seen from the Pens this year, especially since the injury run started tells me they will do just that. This team has inspired me on the same level as the 2009 Pens in games 6 and 7 against Detroit.
The sad reality though is that without Sid and Geno they struggle to score goals. And its hard to win 16 playoff games when you can’t consistently light the lamp. We love the great stories of grit and overachievement that occur in the playoffs. We love the Talbots, Cookes and Craig Adams of the world raising their game and playing with the heart of a champion. They are a big part of what playoff hockey is about.
You absolutely have to have those guys to win, but it’s the truly elite superstars that elevate a team to the next level. Championships are possible when the best of the best; Sid and Geno, Kane and Toews, Datsyuk and Zetterberg, raise their game to a level that goes beyond just hard work and grit.
Herein lies the heart of my conflict. I have never been more proud of the Pens than I am right now. I have no doubt they will continue to do us proud in the post season. And yet I can not get past the reality that a legitimate championship opportunity may have been stolen by cruel twists of fate. It’s frighteningly reminiscent of that brilliant ‘93 team that I’ve still never quite gotten over. It matters not that the current concerns are driven by factors beyond their control while the ’93 Pens simply failed to play their best hockey. Disappointment does not distinguish rationale, it deals only in results. Opportunity lost is opportunity lost.
I hope beyond hope to be wrong. I will be there to the very end rooting for a true Stanley Cup miracle. That’s what fans do. I will be proud of this never give up Penguin team until the final whistle. I just can’t help fearing that whistle will blow too soon.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Calling Out Scott Burnside’s Petty Vendetta Against Mario Lemieux
I started this blog primarily for two reasons; I love sports and I love to write. I’ve wanted to be a sportswriter for as long as I can remember. The reality is that this blog; a true labor of love for me; is about as close as I will ever get.
I would like to believe that’s why most sports writers ended up in their chosen profession.
Covering sports every day is not a bad way to make a living. That goes especially for columnists who have nearly free reign to write whatever they want under the guise of “opinion.” I’ll readily concede two points on this issue; first my blog is entirely “opinion” and I tend to read columnists first and beat writers a distant second.
In short, I would be a complete hypocrite if I criticized someone for having strong opinions, even if they are in opposition to mine.
I can live with the idea that not every columnist is going to see the world as I do, especially when it comes to Pittsburgh sports. I pride myself in having as objective a view as possible about my home town teams. That means I’m about 10% as objective as a neutral outsider party doing the same analysis. I can be logical and pragmatic to a point; but its always overridden by my fierce emotional attachment to our teams.
In short, I really do understand that for much of the sports world, the sun does not rise and set over the Three Rivers.
Which brings us to Mr. Scott Burnside of ESPN.com fame (or infamy).
Mr. Burnside clearly does not like Mario Lemieux; which is his prerogative. There are a few people in this world I do not like and I don’t feel obliged to justify my reasons. The difference is that I do not use an international sports forum, or even this blog, to denigrate their character. Scott Burnside has now done so on three separate occasions to Lemieux. As far as I can tell, he’s doing so because Lemieux committed the heinous crime of refusing him an interview at the 2009 Stanley Cup finals.
To be clear, I have no issue with Burnside criticizing Lemieux or anybody else for their job performance or their opinions. That’s his job. I take severe issue when those criticisms become personal in nature and go clearly and obviously beyond the issue at hand.
To me there is a covenant of responsibility that any “journalist” has with their readers and those they cover; a covenant that grows in scope and magnitude with the size of their audience. The media has tremendous power to influence or even create public opinion. Given that, somebody fortunate enough to have an audience on the most widely viewed sports forum on earth; has a tremendous obligation to use that power responsibly.
Sadly, Scott Burnside has lost sight of this. He sacrificed his ethics, his objectivity, and his credibility over a petty grudge. So I’m calling him out on it plain and simple. His “columns” about Lemieux qualify as nothing more than petty, vindictive trash and are beneath the standards of “journalism.” He’s using the ENTERTAINMENT and Sports Network to carry on his one man vendetta against Lemieux.
I’m not going to turn this column in to a one man defense of Le Magnifique. Mario nether wants nor needs me to defend him. Like most Penguin fans, I have a very high opinion of the man for what he’s done for the Penguins and Pittsburgh, on and off the ice. I also think a man whose foundation annually donates millions of dollars to cancer related causes is probably a half way decent fellow.
That said, whether Mario is a saint or a sinner is irrelevant here.
We know beyond a doubt that Mario is a private person. We also know that he has tried very hard to make the Penguins of today the story; and not their legendary owner. There are many owners in sports; Jerry Jones and Dan Synder come to mind, who would be well served to learn that lesson. And it goes without saying that none are as accomplished as Lemieux in their chosen sport.
Apparently in Scott Burnside’s eyes, that’s a serious offense.
When I read Burnside’s first scathing condemnation of Lemieux in 2008, (attached below this paragraph), I was truly shocked. I thought I was reading about Ted Bundy…or at least Terrell Owens. To wit, a few quotes:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/playoffs2008/columns/story?columnist=burnside_scott&id=3413241
Yet there is one hockey great who will remain strangely, inexplicably mute through these Stanley Cup finals. When requests are made to talk to Lemieux, either in a one-on-one setting or in a group format with reporters covering the finals, word politely comes back through the team that the man who is the Penguins' part-owner doesn't want to take the spotlight away from his young team.
What a load of hooey. This has nothing to do with taking any spotlight away from his players. No, this is more about Lemieux's detachment from the game or, at least, detachment from having to share his thoughts and feelings about the game. It is both convenient and predictable for Lemieux to hide in the background at a time when the game most needs its relevant stars in place, because it's always been about convenience for Lemieux. The only reason Lemieux isn't making himself available during these finals is because there's nothing in it for him.
Beyond the fact that I don’t know what “hooey” is, this seems awfully contemptuous for a man’s whose primary motive is maintaining his privacy. And how exactly does the omnipotent Burnside have such clarity of vision on Lemieux’s motives? The answer is he does not; but then why let facts ruin a perfectly good character demolition?
If Burnside had left it at that, I would over time have taken the forgive but not forget mentality. Alas he was not capable of burying the hatchet. After the NY Islanders spent a Friday night making a mockery of the NHL last month; Burnside was moved. Not to criticize the Islanders for their cowardly, premeditated actions or the NHL for their impotent response mind you. No, Burnside was moved to shred Lemieux for speaking out against it. More quotes from that story (which I’ve included below):
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?columnist=burnside_scott&id=6120121
But this wasn't a call to action; it came off as a petulant child stomping his feet.
It's more than a little rich that Lemieux is threatening to walk away from the game now that he's got a shiny new arena and presumably all the millions he was owed all those years back when he hated the game but saved the team in Pittsburgh nonetheless.
Please take a good look at the title; “Only Failure Here is Lemieux’s Message.” Really? That’s the only failure in this travesty? Not trying to end Eric Tangradi’s career for example? Feel free to read the article and/or these quotes and tell me I’m over the top. And “Petulant child stomping his feet…” if that’s not the pot calling the kettle black.
Instead of discussing the relevant issue of a game that was an affront to every respectful principle of sport; Burnside writes an article filleting one of the games all time greats for speaking out against it. Somehow I don’t think he would have reacted that way if Steve Yzerman had those same comments. After all, Stevie Y is always available for an interview.
So a few weeks later, Trevor Gillies returns from a nine game suspension and immediately proves Lemieux 100% correct. In his first game back, Gillies takes a vicious run and gets a 5 minute penalty and game misconduct for attempt to injure. Apparently a nine game suspension for a blatant attempt to maim and injure is not quite the deterrent that Colin Campbell presumed. Who knew?
So what does my buddy Burnside do? He writes an article admitting that Mario was correct and still manages to throw in quite a few cheap shots.
http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/5263/trevor-gillies-punishment-coming-too-late
Somewhere Mario Lemieux is wagging his finger at those of us who criticized him and saying, "Look, you eggheads, was I right or was I right?" We hate that, by the way.
In the aftermath, Lemieux insisted the NHL had failed, and then destroyed his own message by threatening to leave the game. Haven't seen a "For sale" sign up in front of Consol Energy Center, so I can only assume Lemieux has reconsidered.
“We hate that by the way” hardly smacks of objectivity. That said, here is the key point that is nearly lost in Burnside’s vendetta.
But in the wake of Gillies' performance Wednesday, it's hard not to agree with Lemieux's assessment of how the NHL responded to the situation. That is to say, they failed to send an adequate message.
Gee, where have I heard that before?
So you see, even in admitting that Mario was correct, Burnside still can’t put aside his petty grudge. Is not granting enough interviews really a crime worthy of constant public denigration of an all time great player and decent human? Is it so severe as to take precedence over an event that set hockey back 25 years?
The answer of course is clearly and obviously no. And keep in mind, this is not Dave Molinari dealing with Tom Barrasso’s daily mood swing in the Penguin’s locker room. That I can somewhat understand though certainly not endorse.
Burnside to me has lost all of his credibility because he lost site of his most critical responsibility as a journalist. His personal attacks in a public forum do not even feign objectivity. That deserves far more condemnation then he’s given Mario Lemieux.
I would like to believe that’s why most sports writers ended up in their chosen profession.
Covering sports every day is not a bad way to make a living. That goes especially for columnists who have nearly free reign to write whatever they want under the guise of “opinion.” I’ll readily concede two points on this issue; first my blog is entirely “opinion” and I tend to read columnists first and beat writers a distant second.
In short, I would be a complete hypocrite if I criticized someone for having strong opinions, even if they are in opposition to mine.
I can live with the idea that not every columnist is going to see the world as I do, especially when it comes to Pittsburgh sports. I pride myself in having as objective a view as possible about my home town teams. That means I’m about 10% as objective as a neutral outsider party doing the same analysis. I can be logical and pragmatic to a point; but its always overridden by my fierce emotional attachment to our teams.
In short, I really do understand that for much of the sports world, the sun does not rise and set over the Three Rivers.
Which brings us to Mr. Scott Burnside of ESPN.com fame (or infamy).
Mr. Burnside clearly does not like Mario Lemieux; which is his prerogative. There are a few people in this world I do not like and I don’t feel obliged to justify my reasons. The difference is that I do not use an international sports forum, or even this blog, to denigrate their character. Scott Burnside has now done so on three separate occasions to Lemieux. As far as I can tell, he’s doing so because Lemieux committed the heinous crime of refusing him an interview at the 2009 Stanley Cup finals.
To be clear, I have no issue with Burnside criticizing Lemieux or anybody else for their job performance or their opinions. That’s his job. I take severe issue when those criticisms become personal in nature and go clearly and obviously beyond the issue at hand.
To me there is a covenant of responsibility that any “journalist” has with their readers and those they cover; a covenant that grows in scope and magnitude with the size of their audience. The media has tremendous power to influence or even create public opinion. Given that, somebody fortunate enough to have an audience on the most widely viewed sports forum on earth; has a tremendous obligation to use that power responsibly.
Sadly, Scott Burnside has lost sight of this. He sacrificed his ethics, his objectivity, and his credibility over a petty grudge. So I’m calling him out on it plain and simple. His “columns” about Lemieux qualify as nothing more than petty, vindictive trash and are beneath the standards of “journalism.” He’s using the ENTERTAINMENT and Sports Network to carry on his one man vendetta against Lemieux.
I’m not going to turn this column in to a one man defense of Le Magnifique. Mario nether wants nor needs me to defend him. Like most Penguin fans, I have a very high opinion of the man for what he’s done for the Penguins and Pittsburgh, on and off the ice. I also think a man whose foundation annually donates millions of dollars to cancer related causes is probably a half way decent fellow.
That said, whether Mario is a saint or a sinner is irrelevant here.
We know beyond a doubt that Mario is a private person. We also know that he has tried very hard to make the Penguins of today the story; and not their legendary owner. There are many owners in sports; Jerry Jones and Dan Synder come to mind, who would be well served to learn that lesson. And it goes without saying that none are as accomplished as Lemieux in their chosen sport.
Apparently in Scott Burnside’s eyes, that’s a serious offense.
When I read Burnside’s first scathing condemnation of Lemieux in 2008, (attached below this paragraph), I was truly shocked. I thought I was reading about Ted Bundy…or at least Terrell Owens. To wit, a few quotes:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/playoffs2008/columns/story?columnist=burnside_scott&id=3413241
Yet there is one hockey great who will remain strangely, inexplicably mute through these Stanley Cup finals. When requests are made to talk to Lemieux, either in a one-on-one setting or in a group format with reporters covering the finals, word politely comes back through the team that the man who is the Penguins' part-owner doesn't want to take the spotlight away from his young team.
What a load of hooey. This has nothing to do with taking any spotlight away from his players. No, this is more about Lemieux's detachment from the game or, at least, detachment from having to share his thoughts and feelings about the game. It is both convenient and predictable for Lemieux to hide in the background at a time when the game most needs its relevant stars in place, because it's always been about convenience for Lemieux. The only reason Lemieux isn't making himself available during these finals is because there's nothing in it for him.
Beyond the fact that I don’t know what “hooey” is, this seems awfully contemptuous for a man’s whose primary motive is maintaining his privacy. And how exactly does the omnipotent Burnside have such clarity of vision on Lemieux’s motives? The answer is he does not; but then why let facts ruin a perfectly good character demolition?
If Burnside had left it at that, I would over time have taken the forgive but not forget mentality. Alas he was not capable of burying the hatchet. After the NY Islanders spent a Friday night making a mockery of the NHL last month; Burnside was moved. Not to criticize the Islanders for their cowardly, premeditated actions or the NHL for their impotent response mind you. No, Burnside was moved to shred Lemieux for speaking out against it. More quotes from that story (which I’ve included below):
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?columnist=burnside_scott&id=6120121
But this wasn't a call to action; it came off as a petulant child stomping his feet.
It's more than a little rich that Lemieux is threatening to walk away from the game now that he's got a shiny new arena and presumably all the millions he was owed all those years back when he hated the game but saved the team in Pittsburgh nonetheless.
Please take a good look at the title; “Only Failure Here is Lemieux’s Message.” Really? That’s the only failure in this travesty? Not trying to end Eric Tangradi’s career for example? Feel free to read the article and/or these quotes and tell me I’m over the top. And “Petulant child stomping his feet…” if that’s not the pot calling the kettle black.
Instead of discussing the relevant issue of a game that was an affront to every respectful principle of sport; Burnside writes an article filleting one of the games all time greats for speaking out against it. Somehow I don’t think he would have reacted that way if Steve Yzerman had those same comments. After all, Stevie Y is always available for an interview.
So a few weeks later, Trevor Gillies returns from a nine game suspension and immediately proves Lemieux 100% correct. In his first game back, Gillies takes a vicious run and gets a 5 minute penalty and game misconduct for attempt to injure. Apparently a nine game suspension for a blatant attempt to maim and injure is not quite the deterrent that Colin Campbell presumed. Who knew?
So what does my buddy Burnside do? He writes an article admitting that Mario was correct and still manages to throw in quite a few cheap shots.
http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/5263/trevor-gillies-punishment-coming-too-late
Somewhere Mario Lemieux is wagging his finger at those of us who criticized him and saying, "Look, you eggheads, was I right or was I right?" We hate that, by the way.
In the aftermath, Lemieux insisted the NHL had failed, and then destroyed his own message by threatening to leave the game. Haven't seen a "For sale" sign up in front of Consol Energy Center, so I can only assume Lemieux has reconsidered.
“We hate that by the way” hardly smacks of objectivity. That said, here is the key point that is nearly lost in Burnside’s vendetta.
But in the wake of Gillies' performance Wednesday, it's hard not to agree with Lemieux's assessment of how the NHL responded to the situation. That is to say, they failed to send an adequate message.
Gee, where have I heard that before?
So you see, even in admitting that Mario was correct, Burnside still can’t put aside his petty grudge. Is not granting enough interviews really a crime worthy of constant public denigration of an all time great player and decent human? Is it so severe as to take precedence over an event that set hockey back 25 years?
The answer of course is clearly and obviously no. And keep in mind, this is not Dave Molinari dealing with Tom Barrasso’s daily mood swing in the Penguin’s locker room. That I can somewhat understand though certainly not endorse.
Burnside to me has lost all of his credibility because he lost site of his most critical responsibility as a journalist. His personal attacks in a public forum do not even feign objectivity. That deserves far more condemnation then he’s given Mario Lemieux.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)