kook_10

Unfortunately the Olympics are played for the Gold Medal, not the Lifetime Achievement Award.

At this point, I wasn't talking about the US Olympic chances or even Don Cherry, I was just addressing Tane specifically. With respect to Canada in the Olympics, you guys will have all the players and conditions you need and want to play an open tournament without qualifying the result. Yet, he wants to say "Who knows in a 1 game elimination tournament. I think the best way to judge which country is ahead of anyone else, is who's putting the most players into the NHL. Sorry, Canada's the Best." There is no question about the premier level of Canada's love affair with hockey, the cultural integration of the sport, and the individual development of the players, but if ever there was a time and place to show that those players can create the best team in the world, the Olympics is it. It's unfortunate that Tane's national pride would be so severely wounded if Canada were to lose that he has to create excuses beforehand and diminish the importance of the Olympic tournament. You guys really have no basis to be so insecure about hockey. [and no Tane i wasn't mocking your use of "u"s - I was inserting them out of cultural deference]

ftw! :beerbuddy:

I conceded as much, so why can't you let us savor a victory without s***ting all over it? It has been your fellow countrymen who have been talking about how far the program has come, and even so no one has crowned USA Hockey King of the World. We Americans have just been trying to relish our victory and championship, but that seems to be too much to ask. [btw you are already hedging any loss at the Olympics by diminishing the validity of single elimination? Jeez...you're worse than our redneck NASCAR flag wavers]

Hard to argue with that. It still makes me misty every time.

No one wants to argue with you because (in addition to your general arrogance and belligerence): a) The Spengler Cup has nothing to do with this (see Strawman under list of fallacious arguments). b) You brought into the argument Team USA in the early 90's, a period of time which according to your profile you were roughly 7-8 years old. c) You make mention of hono(u)r and Canadians while saying throwing around pejoratives such as "you Americans" "these Americans" etc. That's hardly the way to foster respect for your ideas. d) Arguing about Don Cherry's minor league experience in the 50's is pointless. Comparing the relative quality of the league in different eras is a fool's errand and only one person here seems up to that task. e) The Team Canada that was on the ice was good enough for the 5 million people watching before they lost (featuring such deities as Eberle and Hall). If, in hindsight, Canada doesn't think the team on the ice was representative of Hockey Canada, then perhaps they should consider more strongly lobbying for the allowance of who they consider their best team in the future. This isn't the Americans' fault. If this year stings that bad maybe Hockey Canada could also lobby for an asterisk in the annals of hockey. The fact of the matter is Team USA beat Team Canada in the 2010 World Junior Championships- no asterisk. I don't see any Americans here suggesting that is anything more than one huge victory for Team USA regardless of who was or wasn't on the ice. From my limited understanding of Canada, I think what a "good Canadian boy" would do is shake hands, say "good game", go home and outwork the competition to continue being the best overall hockey country in the world and to endeavo(u)r to have that show on the international stage. Luckily I think there are quite a few "good Canadian boys" here that exemplify the hono(u)r of which you speak, so maybe you should consider what they would do before painting the Maple Leaf with such an ugly colo(u)r. Begrudging victory, belittling accomplishment, as well as immodesty in victory aren't the actions that hono(u)rable Canadians or Americans would espouse. The past is written, so why not concentrate on the future?

it turns out the guy was from the league. he was testing out Bettman's plans for a team in Las Vegas:

oh yeah! I have one of those green lasers for my dogs to chase, they are really strong - much more powerful than the old red ones. They shine for miles. I can imagine that it would be a huge distraction, and potentially even damaging if Kipper looked at it.

glad to see my namesake up to something! it would be nice to see him play over here again, however unlikely that may be.

So does that mean the time of the penalty is the time of the goal as well?

it's not too early to say i've s*** the bed this week. that's what I get for picking the sharks! [facepalm]

Honorable Canadians don't throw around blanket statements about people from other countries.

Thank you. There will be ample opportunity to get us back. This was getting painful to read.

after the game is made up we could use the completed week as a tiebreaker if it comes to that.

After Midnight - JJ Cale

any ideas about those who doubled up the NJ/TB game? scratch this week's doubles?

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_dadd...?urn=nhl,212525 They fined Carcillo $2,500 for the "throat slash" gesture at 0:56 in the clip. such garbage. they should put it in the collection pot for the Oiler's liquor bill.

I can see your point, but I would just be concerned that it would be a move aimed more at current NHL fans rather than prospective ones. New players may be turned off by playing with a different set of rules. Who knows though. It would be a relatively big change. Having moved to LA in the mid 80s, I saw how the arrival of Gretzky really made amateur hockey explode in a place where the NHL had already been for 20 years. The superstar factor got kids out to actually play hockey. When kids play hockey the whole family watches games on TV and go to games. That's why Crosby should be traded to Phoenix.

uhhhh.... they're on the same size rinks now. do you only go to high school games? i meant specifically that amateur rinks shouldn't be materially different than NHL rinks. of course NHL rinks could expand, but hometown ones likely could not.

changing the rink size would have huge implications for youth leagues and community rinks. would we really want the game of hockey to be physically different for pros than for amateurs? its bad enough kids have to buy $100 sticks that frequently break.

4) Get rid of the trapezoid 5) Ease up on goaltender interference and go back to the 8x4 rectangular goal crease and blow the play dead on crease infractions (get the goalies deeper in the net) 6) allow more battling in front of the net 7) Hand out packs of cigarettes to defensemen

nothing to read into, just entertaining hockey and an entertaining clip. i'm not trying to revise history and say the Wings didn't suck then - they did. that doesn't mean you can't be entertained. I was and am still a fan.

i agree. the one thing that occurred to me this morning though, was that back in the 80's the game was much more unpredicatble because of the goalies (maybe because of pads, maybe because of defensive responsibility, maybe for a lot of reasons - I don't know). i like defensive responsibility too, but there really were't many 1-0 games. people here were talking yesterday about Stevie Ys goal on Casey being a bad goal, but if you go 10 years before that most of those goals would look bad these days. now it seems that the only real unpredictability comes from the refs, and thats not a good thing. [or Ozzie if he's in there - badumpbump] an entertaining 6-0 loss for the "Dead Things"

ok then. I was just trying to suss out your views on this. It seems you enjoy late 90's NHL hockey versus the 80's style NHL. but given that changes have already been implemented, and you clearly don't like the game as it is, what new changes would you make (either by creating new rules or eliminating recent ones) to create the style of play that you want?