This one speaks for itself....
http://www.twincities.com/soucheray/ci_5534545?nclick_check=1
All I'll add is it seems to me the Democrats are acting like drama queens for no good reason, they're going to have their protests, with the encouragement of the great city of St. Paul. But for whatever reason they always like to take the posture of the viticm, I just don't get it.
30 March 2007
28 March 2007
OT in the NFL
The owners are actually considering a change in the overtime format for this coming season after reviewing a study that shows that teams winning the coin toss won 62% of the overtime games last season. The proposal (that was ultimatly defeated) was to move the kickoff in overtime back to the 35 yard line (where it was before the 1994 season for all kickoffs). I think this proposal misses the point, I have the best idea, I offer it to the NFL free of charge.
It's clear that winning the coin toss before overtime offers too much of an advantage since they can win on the first possession on a field goal. I have they answer, they should play one more period and they should play to 7 points. So if a game is tied 27-27 after regulation, the first team to 34 would win the game, if neither team scores 7 points in the OT then the result at the end of the period stands (whoever leads wins, if it's tied its a tie).
This offers the elements of sudden death that any touchdown (with an extra point, talk about a high pressure kick) would end the game. However the days of getting a good return, and pushing the ball 30 yards to FG range and kicking on 3rd down would be over. Teams could still kick field goals under my proposal, but then they would also have to play defense. What this creates is the situration that a team wins and the game ends on any touchdown (a good element of sudden death), but teams can't lose games by simply giving up a field goal (unless it's 3 FG in one quarter, which would be very rare, but I think an okay result for an automatic victory), which I think are the two things fans are missing from the current strict sudden death games.
A couple downsides, there might be a few more ties if teams trade even field goals though overtime (downside only because for whatever reason American Sports Fans reject the tie as a result for whatever reason), I think that'll probably be the difference of a tie every 6 years or so now to a tie every 4 years. The other thing is that more overtimes would be longer and would probably have to go closer to 10-15 minutes to produce a touchdown instead of the 3 mintues the one drive games go (those are still possible if they end in TDs). This might make CBS mad because they have to push back "60 Minutes", Fox probably wouldn't care as they schedule the whole hour until 8et for "The OT" their postgame show so they wouldn't have much problem if the game were to run long.
I think this is a simple enough plan that offers the best of all sides, it would play more like 4th quarter football, than the quick current full sudden death game. I know there's football fans that read this, what are your thoughts.
It's clear that winning the coin toss before overtime offers too much of an advantage since they can win on the first possession on a field goal. I have they answer, they should play one more period and they should play to 7 points. So if a game is tied 27-27 after regulation, the first team to 34 would win the game, if neither team scores 7 points in the OT then the result at the end of the period stands (whoever leads wins, if it's tied its a tie).
This offers the elements of sudden death that any touchdown (with an extra point, talk about a high pressure kick) would end the game. However the days of getting a good return, and pushing the ball 30 yards to FG range and kicking on 3rd down would be over. Teams could still kick field goals under my proposal, but then they would also have to play defense. What this creates is the situration that a team wins and the game ends on any touchdown (a good element of sudden death), but teams can't lose games by simply giving up a field goal (unless it's 3 FG in one quarter, which would be very rare, but I think an okay result for an automatic victory), which I think are the two things fans are missing from the current strict sudden death games.
A couple downsides, there might be a few more ties if teams trade even field goals though overtime (downside only because for whatever reason American Sports Fans reject the tie as a result for whatever reason), I think that'll probably be the difference of a tie every 6 years or so now to a tie every 4 years. The other thing is that more overtimes would be longer and would probably have to go closer to 10-15 minutes to produce a touchdown instead of the 3 mintues the one drive games go (those are still possible if they end in TDs). This might make CBS mad because they have to push back "60 Minutes", Fox probably wouldn't care as they schedule the whole hour until 8et for "The OT" their postgame show so they wouldn't have much problem if the game were to run long.
I think this is a simple enough plan that offers the best of all sides, it would play more like 4th quarter football, than the quick current full sudden death game. I know there's football fans that read this, what are your thoughts.
Wild in great spirits, despite contraversal streak-ending loss..
Last night the Wild lost a scoreless tie in a 2 round shootout to the Calgary Flames. There was contraversy in the 1st period after an apparant goal on a Mark Parrish tip was called back because it was played by a high stick. There really haven't been any clear replays as to why this was called back, this is the only one that's shown it's even possible that Parrish played the puck with a high stick. (http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=201845&hubname=nhl, click highlights under "Related info"). All the other views seem to support it should've counted, but in a post game interview even Parrish conceded the call was close, but given the replays I don't see how the refs found a way to call this goal back.
That wasn't the only source of contraversy, Calgary couldn't stay on their feet, and Referees Justin St. Pierre and Marc Joanette saw fit to reward this diving behavior with pathetic penalties on Kim Johnssonn and Brent Burns. Meanwhile Calgary got away with more holding the sticks than I could count.
Despite all of this, based on what was written in the papers it seems the team is farily content with the result. They did play very well, and the regulation tie was enough to put them in the playoffs after Colorado's loss to Vancouver about an hour later. The Wild haven't been beaten in Regulation in 10 straight games and they rematch the Flames on Thursday night.
http://www.twincities.com/wild/ci_5536099
That wasn't the only source of contraversy, Calgary couldn't stay on their feet, and Referees Justin St. Pierre and Marc Joanette saw fit to reward this diving behavior with pathetic penalties on Kim Johnssonn and Brent Burns. Meanwhile Calgary got away with more holding the sticks than I could count.
Despite all of this, based on what was written in the papers it seems the team is farily content with the result. They did play very well, and the regulation tie was enough to put them in the playoffs after Colorado's loss to Vancouver about an hour later. The Wild haven't been beaten in Regulation in 10 straight games and they rematch the Flames on Thursday night.
http://www.twincities.com/wild/ci_5536099
27 March 2007
Fighting in the NHL
This past month has been a terrible month for injuries and suspensions in the NHL. There have been a lot of fights and suspensions, so this will be a pretty link heavy post as I am going to give my take on a few incidents and the video will be available to you to make your own judgements and comments.
#1) Ottawa at Buffalo, 22 Feb 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYqPZhlL4Jo
I thought the Senators' Neil hit was late on the Sabres' Drury, probably should've been penalised, I wouldn't say it was vicious enough to warrant a suspension, and I think the Sabres had a reasonable response. But I don't think Neil was completly blamless, it certainly wasn't clean, and he did have the elbow up (though its tough to tell if that's how he struck Drury). Though Sabres' goaltender Martin Biron (now with Philadelphia) was quite outmatched by Senators' goaltender Ray Emery. The teams played again two nights later, they did have a couple minor incidents, but nothing that relates to this video.
#2) New York Rangers at New York Islanders, 8 Mar 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dHzSzexrb0
(Note: To see this in real time, you need to watch the upper right side of your screen, as the camera pans right, if you miss it there are replays).
I think this was disgraceful and the NHL needed to punish Chris Simon. I think they did okay giving him the longest suspension in NHL history (because the Bertuzzi penalty in 2004, three years to the day incidentally, had no teeth because he was suspended one year but it was during the lockout). He got the remainder of the season with a mininum total of 25 games (the balance the Islanders don't play will be carried into the start of next year) which I think is okay, but I think 30-40 would've been better. Still short of the Bertuzzi incident, I think this is the worst in NHL history to use the stick as the weapon. Simon certainly could've fought the Rangers Hollweg if he thought the hit was dirty (though I don't even think that's the case). But there's no reason ever to swing your stick at player blinsiding him.
#3) Dallas at Nashville, 17 Mar 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upeLPWApt6w
(Note: The camera didn't catch this incident live, the first replay is at about :50 that caught it clearly.)
The commentary on this incident has infuriated me to know end. The common sentiment is that this was a dirty hit by Tootoo on Robidas (though there are some execptions NBC's Brett Hull, and Versus' Bill Clement among others), they completly ignore why this video is so damning for Robidas. After Tootoo hits Modano, Robidas skated over, and was going to charge Tootoo and hit him from behind, he is leading with is hands up, all Tootoo did was see him coming and preempt Robidas with a punch of his own. Tootoo got 5 games for this which I think is outrageously long. The fact is no one out there is speculating on how horrible an incident this would've been had Tootoo not known Robidas was coming. Again Robidas is skating toward Tootoo, while Tootoo is still facing the boards, Robidas has about a 20 foot head start as he's charing Tootoo, Robidas is planning to blindside Tootoo, and everyone is coming to Robidas defense only because he's the one that got hurt. Five games for Tootoo is outrageous the only two reasons there could be a suspesions is that Tootoo didn't drop the gloves and hitting Robidas with the glove on is worse than not (though honestly one wonders if he even had the time to do so), and secondly Tootoo did hit Robidas in the head and the NHL is starting to crack down on the head shots. I think a 1-2 game suspension woudl've been more appropriate, and if Robidas wasn't stopped by Tootoo's preemtion, I wonder how long Robidas would've got. But with Tootoo's suspension, the NHL is probably overreacting to the Simon incident, though this is completly different, Holleweg had no intention of engaging Simon after the hit in question, it's obvious Robidas was going to blind-side Tootoo (in a sense by hurting Robidas, Tootoo probably saved Robidas from a suspesion. Side note, Modano certainly should've been penalized for a slash on Tootoo's back after Tootoo laid out Robidas.
#4) Philadelphia at New York Rangers, 21 Mar 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Enj_6Br9gQQ
This was just unfortunate that the Rangers' Colton Orr was able to knockout the Flyers' Todd Fedoruk with the one punch. Fedoruk will likley miss the season at this point, however, he has caused some injuries on the Rangers earlier this season, and even managed to run afoul of the Wild's Derek Boogaard earlier this season. I don't believe the NHL has taken any action, nor should they on this incident, it had a violent ending, but is was a consenual fight, the men were facing one another, no one broadsided the other. Though it is bad that Fedoruk was taken off in a stretcher.
Final thoughts, I believe Fighting very much has a place in the NHL. It's the late hits in #1 that the referee needs to punish, and the cheap shots as in #2 the NHL needs to work to eliminate. In #3 Tootoo was defending himself and should've been let off easier because of that, and in #4 it was a fight wiht an unfortunate ending, but I don't think anyone was really at fight for starting this particular incident. But this is one fans thougts, I'd like to hear comments from others.
#1) Ottawa at Buffalo, 22 Feb 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYqPZhlL4Jo
I thought the Senators' Neil hit was late on the Sabres' Drury, probably should've been penalised, I wouldn't say it was vicious enough to warrant a suspension, and I think the Sabres had a reasonable response. But I don't think Neil was completly blamless, it certainly wasn't clean, and he did have the elbow up (though its tough to tell if that's how he struck Drury). Though Sabres' goaltender Martin Biron (now with Philadelphia) was quite outmatched by Senators' goaltender Ray Emery. The teams played again two nights later, they did have a couple minor incidents, but nothing that relates to this video.
#2) New York Rangers at New York Islanders, 8 Mar 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dHzSzexrb0
(Note: To see this in real time, you need to watch the upper right side of your screen, as the camera pans right, if you miss it there are replays).
I think this was disgraceful and the NHL needed to punish Chris Simon. I think they did okay giving him the longest suspension in NHL history (because the Bertuzzi penalty in 2004, three years to the day incidentally, had no teeth because he was suspended one year but it was during the lockout). He got the remainder of the season with a mininum total of 25 games (the balance the Islanders don't play will be carried into the start of next year) which I think is okay, but I think 30-40 would've been better. Still short of the Bertuzzi incident, I think this is the worst in NHL history to use the stick as the weapon. Simon certainly could've fought the Rangers Hollweg if he thought the hit was dirty (though I don't even think that's the case). But there's no reason ever to swing your stick at player blinsiding him.
#3) Dallas at Nashville, 17 Mar 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upeLPWApt6w
(Note: The camera didn't catch this incident live, the first replay is at about :50 that caught it clearly.)
The commentary on this incident has infuriated me to know end. The common sentiment is that this was a dirty hit by Tootoo on Robidas (though there are some execptions NBC's Brett Hull, and Versus' Bill Clement among others), they completly ignore why this video is so damning for Robidas. After Tootoo hits Modano, Robidas skated over, and was going to charge Tootoo and hit him from behind, he is leading with is hands up, all Tootoo did was see him coming and preempt Robidas with a punch of his own. Tootoo got 5 games for this which I think is outrageously long. The fact is no one out there is speculating on how horrible an incident this would've been had Tootoo not known Robidas was coming. Again Robidas is skating toward Tootoo, while Tootoo is still facing the boards, Robidas has about a 20 foot head start as he's charing Tootoo, Robidas is planning to blindside Tootoo, and everyone is coming to Robidas defense only because he's the one that got hurt. Five games for Tootoo is outrageous the only two reasons there could be a suspesions is that Tootoo didn't drop the gloves and hitting Robidas with the glove on is worse than not (though honestly one wonders if he even had the time to do so), and secondly Tootoo did hit Robidas in the head and the NHL is starting to crack down on the head shots. I think a 1-2 game suspension woudl've been more appropriate, and if Robidas wasn't stopped by Tootoo's preemtion, I wonder how long Robidas would've got. But with Tootoo's suspension, the NHL is probably overreacting to the Simon incident, though this is completly different, Holleweg had no intention of engaging Simon after the hit in question, it's obvious Robidas was going to blind-side Tootoo (in a sense by hurting Robidas, Tootoo probably saved Robidas from a suspesion. Side note, Modano certainly should've been penalized for a slash on Tootoo's back after Tootoo laid out Robidas.
#4) Philadelphia at New York Rangers, 21 Mar 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Enj_6Br9gQQ
This was just unfortunate that the Rangers' Colton Orr was able to knockout the Flyers' Todd Fedoruk with the one punch. Fedoruk will likley miss the season at this point, however, he has caused some injuries on the Rangers earlier this season, and even managed to run afoul of the Wild's Derek Boogaard earlier this season. I don't believe the NHL has taken any action, nor should they on this incident, it had a violent ending, but is was a consenual fight, the men were facing one another, no one broadsided the other. Though it is bad that Fedoruk was taken off in a stretcher.
Final thoughts, I believe Fighting very much has a place in the NHL. It's the late hits in #1 that the referee needs to punish, and the cheap shots as in #2 the NHL needs to work to eliminate. In #3 Tootoo was defending himself and should've been let off easier because of that, and in #4 it was a fight wiht an unfortunate ending, but I don't think anyone was really at fight for starting this particular incident. But this is one fans thougts, I'd like to hear comments from others.
23 March 2007
J the TV Critic (Game Show Edition)
The game show's have been making a comeback this year.
"1 v. 100" (NBC, on hiatus) - This is a great show (the format has been knocked off of Europe, surprise, surpise) A single contestant faces a mob of 100 people and they all have to answer multiple choice questions. When the player answers correctly he or she eliminates the members of the mob that are incorrect, and wins money for each player eliminated. If a player eliminates all 100 he or she wins $1 million.
Hosted by Bob Saget, he has the right personality for this one. He's certainly not "Danny Tanner", he's a little edgier in this show and not afraid to needle the mob members that miss questions. This is one to watch, too bad the show's last episode aired last week and is on hiatus, but I hope this one is brought back. 4 of 5
"Identity" (NBC, Friday 7c) - Giving a game show to Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller fame) was a stroke of brilliance. He is so right as a game show host, he's funny, and he has quite a dominating stage presense. The object is for a player to judge 12 contestants based on their appearance and match each one to a series of Identities. The game itself I think has problems that hurt the show. I think it moves too slow, the players spend too much time talking out what eventually comes down to judgemental instincts. It's not like the logic patterns that put the drama in "Who Wants to be a Millionaire". I just don't think this one has staying power, but for the love of God, when this one is over, find another show for Penn! (Maybe Ben Stein's old producers could reformat for a little of win "Penn and Teller's Money", okay not the best Idea, but I'm trying to help). 2 of 5.
"Are you Smarter than a 5th Grader" (Fox, Thursday 7c) - This one is great. You'll be a little confused if you watch this assuming the 5th graders on the panel and the contestant have an adversarial relationship (a la "1 v. 100"). The contestent picks one of 5 students from a panel and they both answer questions from grade levels 1 through 5. The brilliance of this show is in the "cheats". This is how the students can help the contestant though a "peek", a "copy" (ah the classics) or a "save". By the way, Jeff Foxworthy a great game show host?, who knew. But he's just right, the man who describes being a redneck as simply "lacking a certain sophisication", is still playing the role of being not so bright, yet he isn't afraid to needle a contestant struggling with a 1st grade question. There is so much more I could write on how good this show is, but I'll leave it here. 5 of 5.
"Deal or No Deal" (NBC, Monday 7c) - I hate to blow the lid off of this one since it's such a big hit, but I find this show too simplistic. The constestant picks one suitcase from 26 at random that has an amount of money in it. Then the constestant finds out how much is in there by deduction, opening the cases that aren't selected. As the amounts are eliminated, there is a banker that is trying to buy the case from the player sight unseen based on the possible amounts remaining. If the player sells the game is over, but the player may hang on to the case until the end and win what's in there.
If you know about statistics, you've probably figured this one out. The case the constestant has picked has an expected value of the average of the remaining amounts. The bank never offers the expected value, so players that are selling are usually slightly the worst of it (though my brother Jordan, who has watch this show more than me and is better versed in stats than me, says the bank has on occiation made an offer that's in fact positive EV). So the only game is to see recognize if the bank is offering you a deal that's better than your case's EV, or if the risk is so far below the bank offer that's is worth taking slighty the worst of it to avoid a big loss. The latter question is the very human element of this show, the source of the drama, and I suppose the reason its a hit. It just doesn't do it for me. 2 of 5.
"1 v. 100" (NBC, on hiatus) - This is a great show (the format has been knocked off of Europe, surprise, surpise) A single contestant faces a mob of 100 people and they all have to answer multiple choice questions. When the player answers correctly he or she eliminates the members of the mob that are incorrect, and wins money for each player eliminated. If a player eliminates all 100 he or she wins $1 million.
Hosted by Bob Saget, he has the right personality for this one. He's certainly not "Danny Tanner", he's a little edgier in this show and not afraid to needle the mob members that miss questions. This is one to watch, too bad the show's last episode aired last week and is on hiatus, but I hope this one is brought back. 4 of 5
"Identity" (NBC, Friday 7c) - Giving a game show to Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller fame) was a stroke of brilliance. He is so right as a game show host, he's funny, and he has quite a dominating stage presense. The object is for a player to judge 12 contestants based on their appearance and match each one to a series of Identities. The game itself I think has problems that hurt the show. I think it moves too slow, the players spend too much time talking out what eventually comes down to judgemental instincts. It's not like the logic patterns that put the drama in "Who Wants to be a Millionaire". I just don't think this one has staying power, but for the love of God, when this one is over, find another show for Penn! (Maybe Ben Stein's old producers could reformat for a little of win "Penn and Teller's Money", okay not the best Idea, but I'm trying to help). 2 of 5.
"Are you Smarter than a 5th Grader" (Fox, Thursday 7c) - This one is great. You'll be a little confused if you watch this assuming the 5th graders on the panel and the contestant have an adversarial relationship (a la "1 v. 100"). The contestent picks one of 5 students from a panel and they both answer questions from grade levels 1 through 5. The brilliance of this show is in the "cheats". This is how the students can help the contestant though a "peek", a "copy" (ah the classics) or a "save". By the way, Jeff Foxworthy a great game show host?, who knew. But he's just right, the man who describes being a redneck as simply "lacking a certain sophisication", is still playing the role of being not so bright, yet he isn't afraid to needle a contestant struggling with a 1st grade question. There is so much more I could write on how good this show is, but I'll leave it here. 5 of 5.
"Deal or No Deal" (NBC, Monday 7c) - I hate to blow the lid off of this one since it's such a big hit, but I find this show too simplistic. The constestant picks one suitcase from 26 at random that has an amount of money in it. Then the constestant finds out how much is in there by deduction, opening the cases that aren't selected. As the amounts are eliminated, there is a banker that is trying to buy the case from the player sight unseen based on the possible amounts remaining. If the player sells the game is over, but the player may hang on to the case until the end and win what's in there.
If you know about statistics, you've probably figured this one out. The case the constestant has picked has an expected value of the average of the remaining amounts. The bank never offers the expected value, so players that are selling are usually slightly the worst of it (though my brother Jordan, who has watch this show more than me and is better versed in stats than me, says the bank has on occiation made an offer that's in fact positive EV). So the only game is to see recognize if the bank is offering you a deal that's better than your case's EV, or if the risk is so far below the bank offer that's is worth taking slighty the worst of it to avoid a big loss. The latter question is the very human element of this show, the source of the drama, and I suppose the reason its a hit. It just doesn't do it for me. 2 of 5.
22 March 2007
JustinWorld! Online, The Latest...
Those of you who have given up on every reading my justinworldonline.com page, I don't blame you. It's been dormant for a nearly a year. I don't think I designed my page very well, also I think I planned on including way more content than I could handle at the time. Also I am finding the godaddy.com web hosting a little difficult (but hey it's free).
To address one of the issues, I have started a blogspot.com blog with my gmail account which will replace the free blog account from godaddy.com. I found that difficult to use as well, it's tough to navigate godaddy functions once you've logged in imo, and the blog wouldn't show comments on the particular entries, which I found annoying. My blogspot.com blog (available at http://justinworldonline.blogspot.com/) will address all of those issues.
Also, using and Atom feed I will set this up to feed my Facebook notes (this is in fact a test for that), and eventually this will feed a new justinworld.com homepage. So hopefully this will help me better manage my online presence.
To address one of the issues, I have started a blogspot.com blog with my gmail account which will replace the free blog account from godaddy.com. I found that difficult to use as well, it's tough to navigate godaddy functions once you've logged in imo, and the blog wouldn't show comments on the particular entries, which I found annoying. My blogspot.com blog (available at http://justinworldonline.blogspot.com/) will address all of those issues.
Also, using and Atom feed I will set this up to feed my Facebook notes (this is in fact a test for that), and eventually this will feed a new justinworld.com homepage. So hopefully this will help me better manage my online presence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)