eva unit zero

The problem with the Foxtown area beng crowded wouldn't be as big an issue with a hockey arena; both Ford Field and Comerica Park have a much larger capacity than a hockey arena and are sometimes scheduled to host events on the same day. An arena with a multi-purpose parking structure (something that could be easily accessed from Ford Field and Comerica Park as well) would RELIEVE congestion in the area by providing significantly more available parking. I think the area behind the Fox Theatre would be a GREAT location for a new arena. It's a mostly vacant area with a single owner that is in a good downtown location with good freeway access.

Wetzel's system is a good system, but it will not happen that way immediately. The BCS conferences would not so readily hand over equality to the minor conferences. As I said before, my proposal was an attempt to BRIDGE THE GAP and create a REALISTIC scenario that addresses all of the anti-playoff arguments in a way that could work. It was NOT my ideal solution, but rather one I thought could actually be implemented with the minimum possible dissent. Here's an example bracket for my system based on last season's pre-bowl polls: Big Ten: Ohio State vs Michigan Pac-10: USC vs California Big 12: Oklahoma d. Nebraska At-Large: Wisconsin v. Boise State SEC: Florida d. Arkansas Big East: Louisville v. Rutgers ACC: Wake Forest d. Georgia Tech At-Large: LSU vs Notre Dame As I have said before...I feel Michigan would have beaten OSU had they played for the title game. So we'll use that projection in filling out the bracket. The SEC, Big 12, and ACC titles games actually were played, so their results have already been entered. USC, Wisconsin, LSU, and Louisville are the other likely winners. That plays out to the following bowl matchups: Rose: USC v. Michigan (we know how that worked out) Fiesta: Oklahoma v. Wisconsin (Wisconsin 'beat' the team that actually beat OK in the Fiesta) Sugar bowl: Florida v Louisville (Florida was much better than Louisville) Orange Bowl: LSU v Wake Forest (LSU would have stomped Wake) This would lead to: WEST SEMIFINAL: USC v Wisconsin EAST SEMIFINAL: Florida v LSU I think those matchups would likely lead to a title game of: TITLE GAME: USC v Florida. Both of these teams were able to avoid getting rusty in the pre-bowl break, and destroyed Michigan and OSU in what were basically home games in January. As for a winner? I am going to say USC would have beaten Florida.

A great deal of old players consistently made more than Howe did in the same era, even though Howe was the best player in the world for 20 years. If he wants to make a little more money after spending so long being completely shafted, so be it.

Renovating the Joe would probably cost more than building a new arena when you consider the renovating the Joe means that they can't expand Cobo. If a new arena is built near Comerica, and the Joe is razed and replaced with an expanded Cobo, the city would be much better off.

The major difference is that Gomez and Drury are both solid all-around centers in their prime who have never had major injury issues, while Bertuzzi is an injury-prone headcase who isn't even close to the player he was five years ago, but is still making money like he can play that way. Here's a comparison of each player's average per-season numbers for the past three seasons: Scott Gomez: 78 GP, 20-51-71, +11 Chris Drury: 78 GP, 28-35-63, -1 Todd Bertuzzi: 55 GP, 15-32-47, +1 Over their team's current GP this season, that projects to the following 'projected' totals of what those players should have so far (red text means he's well behind pace, black means he's within 2 of his 'pace', and blue means he's ahead of pace) Scott Gomez: 23 GP, 6-15-21, +3 Chris Drury: 23 GP, 8-10-18, EVEN Todd Bertuzzi: 17 GP, 5-10-15, EVEN As you can see from this comparison...Bertuzzi is WELL behind what would have been a reasonable expectation. Drury and Gomez haven't been perfect, but they have been a lot closer to what was expected than Bertuzzi has.

He didn't want to keep them in Nashville past the offseason, which is as I said against BoG bylaws. ANY owner who wants to move a team has to abide by that, not just those trying to move an American team to Canada. If you recall, people were worried that George Gilette was going to move the Canadiens to the US, and Bettman quickly shot that down saying the Canadiens would never be allowed to be moved while he is commissioner.

Here's where the argument comes into contact irreconcilably with the 'expansion watered-down talent' argument. Cheap shots were more common and less penalized pre-instigator than they are now. This is also the time period when people say hockey players were higher skill levels. Generally, it is accepted that players who tend to throw cheap shots are often on the bottom end of the scale in terms of skill, and have to play a chippy, cheap style to hold on to a roster spot. So the argument that the bottom tier players were better then, yet that worse players are more likely to 'goon it up' is a paradox when you consider the history. Of course, it is possible the players were better, and the instigator penalty has been the difference. But ultimately this would suggest that the instigator REDUCES cheap shots by "preventing enforcers from doing their jobs", which we all "know" to be false. I don't honestly see much difference being caused in the number of cheap shots whether or not we have the instigator. Most guys who are out there cheap-shotting players al lover the place ARE NOT deterred by a fight. Pronger? Tootoo? Hartnell? Those guys get challenged and roughed up regularly. Do they stop? No. Fischer completely destroyed Hartnell, did that stop Hartnell from throwing more cheap hits? Nope.

The policy of the Board of Governors is that sale and moving of a franchise cannot even be voted on without a binding agreement. The Board also requires that votes on moving teams be held separately from sale votes, and that new owners for existing teams must make a good faith effort in the current market. Balsillie was quoted as saying he would not enter into a binding agreement (which would require him to actually put money down) until the Board of Governors ruled on the sale AND the move. Balsillie was taking deposits for 2007-08 season tickets for the Hamilton Predators. Had Balsillie been willing to pony up the money to enter into a binding agreement, he'd have a team. Despite the persecution complex Canadians seem to have in recent years, Balsillie was NOT blackballed from the league. Balsillie not owning a team is the fault Balsillie and Balsillie alone. During the Pittsburgh process, Bettman and the league put down conditions to Balsillie regarding keeping the team in Pittsburgh; that was more of an 'anti-Balsillie' act than anything involved in the Nashville sale process. This whole bruhaha has more to do with the fact that Canadians don't feel Nashville 'deserves' a team because they don't have a history of hockey like Pittsburgh, which entered a team in the very first professional hockey league, despite it being based mainly on several teams in Michigan's UP. If Balsillie were to get involved in the Tampa Bay sale process, it's likely he could have his team if he played by the rules as people in northern markets tend to view a successful Lightning franchise in the same 'Southern market=no fan support' label that has been stuck to Nashville.

Georgia is ranked higher than LSU because Georgia has played better. LSU lost twice, but nearly lose three other times. Georgia has had a last-second win against Vanderbilt and an overtime win against Alabama, but has easily beaten every other opponent they have faced. LSU has taken the lead over late in the fourth quarter or in overtime this season against: Alabama, Auburn, and Florida. With just a shade less luck, LSU is a 7-5 team that has the 8th best overall record in the SEC and is fifth in the division with a 3-5 conference record. If Georgia had lost both of its close games, they'd be 8-4, and 4-4 in the conference; good for 4th overall and third in the division.

You are completely incorrect. Osgood has allowed fewer than two goals in five starts and one relief appearance, and has allowed three or more goals only three times. It wasn't until his ninth start that he allowed more than two goals. Ozzie is one of the best goalies in the league right now. Why don't you wait until he isn't before you go ousting him.

The problem being that the two largest Canadian markets that don't currently have teams have lost teams recently due to a lack of financial support. It's like if you have two people named Jack and three named Bobs working for ACME corporation. Even if all both Jacks are better workers than any of the Bobs, that's no guarantee that if you hired the next Jack over the next Bob that you would get a great worker. The main reason Balsillie hasn't been able to buy a team is that he has been willing to throw offers and words but hasn't been willing to put down a single cent towards a purchase or to play by the rules. If Balsillie had played by the rules and been willing to put his money where his mouth is, the Preds would be on their way to Hamilton.

Assuredly that number includes merchandise sales, which are going to be better for Canadian teams than many of the newer American teams. Combined with the strong Canadian dollar, the Canadian revenue percentage will increase as even if the same dollar amount is spent in local currency, it means a greater value is spent in Canadian markets than before, when expressed in USD. Another major factor? The Michigan economy dragging on Wings ticket sales and merchandise revenue.

How does that neglect the non-BCS conferences and the Independents? Currently there are ten BCS game slots, six of which are dedicated to conference champions. That leaves four at large berths. By taking away six more teams that would contend for at-large berths, I've effectively INCREASED the chances that a team from a non-BCS conference would get a real shot at winning it all. As for the '8-4 Michigan over 9-3 Illinois WTF' comment. Georgia is the top-ranked team in the SEC and has an excellent shot at making the title game if Missouri and West Virginia lose, and an even better chance if LSU and Virginia Tech ALSO lose. Yet Georgia doesn't have the opportunity to play for the conference title because they tied at 6-2 in the division with Tennessee, who beat them and therefore holds the tiebreaker. If the conference championship were not division-based, Georgia would play Tennessee for the SEC title, leaving LSU out of the mix as Georgia has a better ranking and did not play LSU. Based on overall record, 9-3 Tennessee would be left out. I set up so that the three 'single-division' conferences would operate in the same fashion; based on conference record. If a playoff system is set up based solely on BCS rankings, one thing that MUST happen would be that the SEC, ACC, and Big 12 championship games would have to be abolished or incorporated to allow for proper scheduling. I was doing what I could to appease both sides of that argument but still make it fair for the Big 10, Big East, and Pac-10 teams that finish 2nd in their conference. But I'll make a couple modifiers. For example, if we limit the number of teams per conference to three as you have in your example, Florida is removed from the playoff and replaced with Illinois. If we make a further modification to appease the small conferences and Notre Dame; reserving one At-Large berth for the highest ranked team not from one of the six BCS conferences, there are no changes made to my example bracket as Hawaii is already in the playoff. Notre Dame should receive no special considerations above other independents if we want this to be a 'fair' solution. My playoff bracket was an attempt to reconcile the 'tradition of the bowls' argument with the obvious need for a playoff in the best manner possible, and I think in that that I have succeeded. Ultimately, there are teams that would be left out in favor of other, lower-ranked teams...but a minimum of two teams currently in the top ten WILL be left out of the BCS completely THIS season, most likely Oklahoma and Florida but with the right teams losing it could be all of USC, Kansas/Missouri, LSU, and Florida. In my scenario, only USC drops out of the top ten, with three conference champions coming from outside the top ten and Illinois and Hawaii sliding ahead of USC and AZ State after those two Pac-10 teams lose and UCLA ends up playing one more home game in January.

Wings roster, as signed for next season; players expected to retire are not listed: Datsyuk 6.7m/Zetterberg 2.65m/Holmstrom 2.25m Hudler 1.015m/Filppula RFA/Samuelsson 1.2m Maltby 883k/Draper 1.583m/Cleary UFA Franzen 942k/Kopecky 500k/Downey UFA Ellis 475k Lidstrom UFA/Rafalski 6m Kronwall 3m/Lilja UFA Lebda 650k/Chelios UFA Meech 483k Quincey RFA Osgood UFA Howard RFA So we're looking at a total of about 28.332m. We would need to sign a minimum three forwards, three defensemen, and two goaltenders with the remaining 22m under the cap. Now let's look one season beyond to see where the Wings stand after 08-09. Datsyuk 6.7m/Zetterberg UFA/Holmstrom 2.25m Hudler RFA/Filppula RFA/Samuelsson UFA Maltby 883k/Draper 1.583m/Cleary UFA Franzen UFA/Kopecky UFA/Downey UFA Ellis UFA Lidstrom UFA/Rafalski 6m Kronwall 3m/Lilja UFA Lebda 650k/Chelios UFA Meech 483k Quincey RFA Osgood UFA Howard RFA That would be a total of 21.55m, leaving about 29m to sign a minimum eight forwards, three defensemen, and two goaltenders. Holland should be expected to negotiate new deals for Zetterberg, Hudler, Filppula, Lidstrom, Cleary, and perhaps even Franzen and Osgood BEFORE any major free agent signings will be made this season. For those players, we should expect cap hits like this: Zetterberg 7m Hudler 1.5m Filppula 1.2m Cleary 1.8m Franzen 1.2m Lidstrom 7.6m Osgood 1m With Lidstrom, Filppula, Cleary, and Osgood needing new deals this summer, that adds 11.6m onto our cap next season for 2-1-1, leaving approximately 10m to sign a minimum 1-2-1 to finish out the roster. An average 2.5m per player. Sounds great, right? Not so fast. Now let's factor that into the 'two-year' projection. That's an additional 21.3m for 4-1-1, meaning the Wings would only have about 7.5m to fill out 4-2-1. That's an average of barely over 1m. Still decent cap room, but a huge difference from what the Summer '08 figures look like. Let's flesh out the 09-10 roster a little more. Kopecky, Ellis, Quincey, and Howard will all likely be brought back. Assume the first two see deals hitting the cap for 550k, with Quincey and Howard getting 850k. That's 2.8m out of our 7.5m available that goes away for 2-1-1. This leaves us 4.7m to fill up two forward slots and a defense position. Chelios seems likely to retire after next season, so we'll figure Quincey's 850k is covered by Chelios for the same rate in 08-09. Howard's contract would hit next year. So to fill that 2-1-0, we have about 9m to fill it for next season, followed by 4.7 the following year for the same three players. We need to sign a depth forward, a scoring forward, and a defenseman if possible. We'll assume 500k to cover the depth forward, be it Downey or someone else. That means 4.2k to cover a forward and a defenseman. Here's where it truly gets interesting. We could bring back Andreas Lilja, likely for about 1.2m, and have 3m left under the cap to cover a forward and bonuses; or we could let Lilja walk, and bring in Jakub Kindl, whose cap hit is 822k, and have about 3.4m under the cap. All of these calculations are based on the cap level stagnating at 51m, so it's entirely possible the Wings will have more space than that. I would hope we could bring in Brian Rolston or Marian Hossa, but it's more likely to be a guy like Ryder or Brunette for that amount.

There are two options for lines I would like to see: With ZDH. Datsyuk/Zetterberg/Holmstrom Hudler/Filppula/Kopecky Cleary/Draper/Samuelsson Maltby/Drake/Franzen Without ZDH Holmstrom/Zetterberg/Samuelsson Hudler/Datsyuk/Kopecky Cleary/Filppula/Franzen Maltby/Draper/Drake I would rather see the second unit work out, as it has three lines capable of decent scoring as well as a veteran shutdown line. I want to see Kopecky given a full-time shot on the second line because he was playin well there in a brief stint before Franzen returned from injury.

Washington's biggest needs if they trade Ovechkin are a defensively capable defenseman and a solid defensive forward, as well as at least one skilled offensive forward. Preferably at least two of these players would be between 22-28. One possible deal would be Jonathan Cheechoo, Pat Rissmiller, Curtis Brown, and Marc-Edouard Vlasic for Ovechkin.

Yeah, because the GOP went out and said 'we're all big business owners, let's do what we can to ensure that the dollar's value diminishes when compared to other forms of currency. That would cost us all significant amounts of money and assets...who's with me!!'

Ozzie was the Wings' best player in 00 and 01 postseasons. And he was ABSOLUTELY the difference in 99; had Osgood not been injured against Anaheim, the Wings would have won the Cup. As far as Hasek stealing games in 02? There were two games in that run where the Wings gave up 30+ shots. Both were games against St.Louis that Detroit won in a close game (two of fewer goals difference) despite being outshot. Those are the only games where one could even make the argument that Hasek 'stole' the game. If we use that criteria (Wings outshot, 30+ shots against, won by two goals or less) to determine when a goaltender stole a game, Osgood stole two games vs Dallas (not including his two shutouts that series) as well as stealing Game 4 in the Yotes series and preventing the Wings from falling down 3 games to 1 in the first round. As far as Dom stealing games last playoff...his W-L record breaks down like so: 30+ shots faced: 1-1 25-29 shots faced: 3-4 20-24 shots faced: 4-2 Under 20 shots faced: 2-1 Wings do not outshoot opponents: 2-2 Ultimately, Hasek did not 'steal' games for the Wings last playoff. The first game against Anaheim is the only game that statistically could be argued as a 'steal' and that must be weighed against the fact that Giguere played the worst against the Wings of the three goaltenders Detroit faced, yet was the only opposing tender to outplay Hasek.

In seven full seasons racing F1, Fangio won five world championships. Senna won three in ten. Prost won four during Senna's career.

I have a solution to the 'we didn't get in because of the stupid voters' argument. The playoff should be 16 teams, which would consist of the following breakdown. Two teams from each of the six BCS conferences. For the Pac-10, Big Ten, and Big East this would be the two teams wit hthe best conference record. For the SEC, ACC, and Big 12, this would be the two division winners from each conference. These conference championship games would be held at the home field of a member school on a rotating basis. In addition to these twelve teams, you would have four at-large teams. The two westernmost teams selected would be in a play-in for the Fiesta Bowl, while the two easternmost At-Large schools would be a play-in for either the Sugar or Orange Bowl, depending on whether the top SEC or ACC champ was ranked higher. The conference with the higher ranked team would draw the At-Large, while the other would face the Big East. The Big Ten and Pac-10 champions would play in the Rose Bowl. The Big 12, ACC, and SEC champions would play in their 'traditional' bowl against either the Big East champion or an at-large team. The winners of the bowls would advance to a semifinal round; the Rose Bowl winner vs the Fiesta Bowl winner (West Regional) and the Sugar Bowl winner vs the Orange Bowl winner (East Regional) in a neutral site game, and the winners of those contests would advance to the championship game. The reason this would work is that it incorporates the existing bowls and conference tie ins, as well as the existing conference championship games, and does it in such a manner that a BCS team that is left out really can't complain about it because if they had been a top-two team in their conference they would be in. This year's bracket would have looked like: Big Ten: OSU v Michigan Pac-10: Arizona State v USC Big 12: Missouri v Oklahoma At-Large: Kansas v Hawaii SEC: LSU v Tennessee Big East: WVU v Connecticut ACC: VT v BC At-Large: Georgia v Florida Assuming (for argument) that the first team listed wins all of those games, the next round would look like this: Rose Bowl: OSU v Arizona State Fiesta Bowl: Missouri v Kansas Sugar Bowl: WVU v LSU Orange Bowl: Georgia v VT Again assuming the first team listed (higher ranked team) wins, we'd see the following semifinal matchups: West region final: Missouri v OSU East region final: WVU v Georgia Which leads us to the championship game, which (first team winning, again) would look like: Title game: Missouri v West Virginia Which is what it looks like it will be barring any further upsets of #1 or #2. That said, under this scenario two teams currently ranked in the top 16 of the BCS would be left out in favor of lower ranked teams; #15 Illinois, left out due to finishing third in the Big Ten in favor of #30 Michigan, who posted a better conference record and beat the Illini; and #16 Clemson, who finished second in the ACC Atlantic behind Boston College and was left out in favor of #26 Connecticut, who finished second in the Big East. The only thing this suggestion does? Makes nonconference games virtually meaningless to the national title picture. For example, LSU and Tennessee have both posted 6-2 conference records and one will win the conference with two losses. The conference title game would remain the same even if the two teams had both lost all four of their nonconference games; meaning that it's a realistic possibility that a team with injury issues or consistency problems could lose six games overall and still win the national title with an overall 10-6 record. But I'll take that downside if it means we have a real, definitive champion and no 'this team should have gone to the game' bulls***.

Fangio.

I wouldn't mind seeing a playoff system that worked like this: Each of the six BCS conferences would have a four team playoff. The non-BCS conferences and the independents would submit 8 at-large teams with a limit of two teams per non-BCS conference. Two rounds would be played, reducing us to six conference champions and two at-large teams. The next two rounds would be the Bowl Games; the current four BCS bowls plus two more, with the 'semifinal' round rotated between the six bowls on a three-year basis. 32 team playoffs, the minor conferences have a REAL shot at winning if they deserve it. It also removes the 'Nebraska/Oklahoma' controversy where a team could lose its conference championship game and still have a shot at the national title. If winning the conference championship is a direct requirement of playing in the title game via an incorporated playoff, that would never happen. The first round could also be lopped off, leaving us with two teams per conference plus 4 at-large berths for a 16-team playoff.

McFadden, even including his big game against LSU, hasn't performed better on a per-game average basis than Hart, even if you don't account for the fact Hart has been playing injured for much of the season. I just don't think you can act like one guy should win the Heisman while the other shouldn't even be mentioned in the discussion when their numbers are so similar. Here's a comparison between the two. Rushing: McFadden 25.3 carries per game, 143.8 Y/G, 5.7 Y/C, 1.25 TD/G Hart 25.9 carries per game, 136.9 Y/G, 5.3 Y/C, 1.33 TD/G McFadden and Hart are carrying basically the same amount, putting up the same yardage, and scoring with the same frequency. McFadden does receive more passes, but this is more a function of the fact that Arkansas has only one wideout to throw to; McFadden is second on the team with 21 receptions, and only one Arkansas receiver othert han McFadden has more than 13. Michigan has four players with 19 or more receptions. Michigan having better receivers than Arkansas shouldn't be a point against Mike Hart.

One thing you are failing to recognize is that Sinden's attitude was WRONG, and led directly to the clutch and grab 90s where teams would commit obstruction penalties on pretty much every shift and rarely actually get called for them.

Michigan will be in the Outback or the Alamo. The Capital One bowl has already said they are looking at Michigan as behind OSU, Wisconsin, Illinois, and even Penn State, whom Michigan beat and has the same record as. Illinois and Wisconsin likely take the Capital One and the Outback, but there is a very slim chance that Illinois could end up in a BCS bowl, which would land Michigan in the Outback. The thing is, had Michigan beaten Wisconsin and then lost to OSU, Michigan would be ranked probably 14th or 15th right now. There are twelve teams that would be ranked ahead of them that currently have nine wins, plus two 8-win teams (Florida and Oregon) that are likely to pick up an additional win before the end of the season. If we take the six conference champions, which at this point looks like it will be OSU, LSU, Kansas, Connecticut, Oregon, and Boston College, and we assume that the higher ranked team will win remaining games...then we end up with the following teams going to the BCS bowls: Kansas; Big 12 champ (Title game) West Virginia; Big East Champ (Title game) Ohio State; Big 10 champ (Rose Bowl) Oregon; Pac 10 champ (Rose Bowl) LSU; SEC champ (Sugar Bowl) Virginia Tech; ACC 2nd, At Large (Sugar Bowl) Boston College; ACC champ (Orange Bowl) Georgia; SEC 2nd, At Large(Orange Bowl) Arizona State; Pac 10 2nd, At Large (Fiesta Bowl) Missouri; Big 12 2nd, At Large (Fiesta Bowl) The still doesn't even come close to including Michigan. And even if Oregon loses and does not become the Pac-10 champ, USC would actually become the conference champion by virtue of the tiebreaking win over Arizona State. Michigan would still be shut out of the BCS with a win over Wisconsin. If Ohio State ends up in the title game, which can only happen if West Virginia loses to Connecticut and Missouri loses to Kansas, and OSU manages to leapfrog those two and LSU, Michigan still would have had a tough time getting a BCS bid. Illinois will have an easier one than Michigan would have, having losses only to Missouri, Iowa, and Michigan. And Illinois likely won't get into the BCS, leaving Michigan looking at the Alamo bowl (likely against Texas) as I said earlier.