Believing

Wow.

What a basketball game. There are those few games a year where it feels like something truly transcendent happens, and while you are watching those games, you can feel it. You know that it's going to change the perception of a team, of a player, and not just in the way we typically vascilate from game to game once the playoffs start. I remember feeling that way watching the Game 4 of the Boston-Cleveland series in 2010, when it finally seemed like that Celtics team was good enough to win a title, and when Rajon Rondo decided it was time for the world to take him seriously as the star of the team. I felt that way in Game 4 of the 2008 Finals, when the C's overcame a 24-point deficit in the third quarter to win on the road and take firm control of the series. Last night's game was in that vein.

It had all the makings of a perfect drama. We knew this game was going to be fought incredibly hard on both sides – that the Heat were not going to let Boston come into their building and steal one, that the Celtics were not going to let Miami and their crowd prevent them from continuing their improbable run. Neither team gave up, and in a crucial situation for each like we saw last night, that's really all we should want. We saw what may end up being the “turning point” in this 2012 Boston Celtics season, the game a champion's season-in-review DVD would use to set up all the theatrics that follow.

In a narrative sense, this was a matchup of the World's Best Player, the League's Best Closer, and the Heat's Worst Abdomen versus Grit, Grind, and Guts. In a basketball sense, this was a matchup between a Big Three (I'm including Chalmers as the third wheel here, not Bosh) and a Complete Team. In a present-as-history sense, this game was filled with moments that will be dissected for months, and while it did not decide the series, it sure felt like it has that potential. LeBron was LeBron, Wade was Wade, and the Celtics still came out on top for the third straight game.

This Celtics team finally looks like they have what it takes to win a title. This is not to mean they look unbeatable, or that they won't lose the next two games and be done for the season by the time the next workweek begins (though I don't think that will happen). But Game 5 showed us that yes, this team can take continuous punches from the world's best players, withstand the fury, and emerge victorious. It's a feeling about a team that brings to mind the same feeling many Celtics fans and NBA fans had in the 2010 playoffs, after that most recent thrashing of LeBron at the hands of men in green.

The 2010 team had its up and downs for sure, storming out of the gate, fumbling late in the regular season, and fighting through some tough matchups in the playoffs en route to their Finals appearance. This 2012 version has endured a similar rollercoaster ride, really only becoming a visible threat as the season drew to a close, and only being taken seriously after their Game 4 vctory in Boston. The big similarity between them, in my eyes, is their series-altering wins against LeBron James and his teams.

It would be wildly misplaced to assume that since their 2010 brethren made the Finals that this team is now destined for the same path. However, they stand one win away from a matchup against the Best In The West, and I like their chances, even if they lose Game 6 at home. That next series would be an even tougher battle that would require a much high level of focus and execution. Earlier in these playoffs, I had little hope that they would even reach the Finals, nevermind have a chance against the then-seemingly-unstoppable Spurs or hypertalented Thunder. Now? Anything is possible.

Getting To Know The Minutemen

The last time the MAC added a new football school to their collective, they were taking on the floundering Temple Owls, recently booted from the Big East for what amounted to failure to run a successful program. It's been seven years since then, and Temple football has performed admirably in the MAC, leading the conference in attendance and posting three consecutive winning records. Now it's 2012, and the MAC is set to take on another program in transition, the UMass Minutemen. Though UMass is moving up from the FCS rather than moving from a BCS conference like Temple was, the concerns surrounding the team that will determine the success of the move are very similar. Temple was removed from the Big East due to poor attendance, lack of competitiveness, and a dearth of support from the university. While lack of support at UMass is not very concerning, considering the institution has put a serious amount of time and energy in evaluating and encouraging the move, the other two areas certainly warrant a close look.

The biggest obstacle to overcome for the UMass Minutemen, if they are to have a successful transition to the FBS and to the MAC, is attendance. As the NCAA requires an average attendance of 15,000 for home games for FBS teams, UMass would have had to almost sell out their home stadium in Amherst, MA, every game. Seeing as how their most recent sellout was in 2006, and assuming that some games would draw less than 15,000 fans, this would be a tough goal to accomplish in an area that is not as heavily populated as other locations. This drove the move to Gillette Stadium, home of the New England Patriots. Like Temple, the Minutemen will be playing in a full-size NFL stadium, and with Gillette positioned in the populous and alumni-heavy market of Greater Boston, the team should be able to draw a greater base of support. UMass has played two games in Foxboro over the last two years, both against FCS rival New Hampshire. The games drew 32,848 and 24,022, suggesting two things: 1) UMass students are willing to travel to games despite the distance from campus, and 2) locals are willing to buy tickets to the games. However, the significant drop in game attendance from 2010 to 2011 is not to be overlooked. Did the novelty of college football in the Patriots' Palace wear off? Did the Boston-based fans decide to catch only one game and chose the match at Boston College instead? Could fans sense the team was not going to have a great year, and backed off? Or, since the team was ineligible for the postseason due to the FBS move, did many simply lose interest, waiting for 2012? These are questions that will have to be answered this season.

UMass' attendance at football games in the past has been consistently solid, considering the level of play, the size of the stadium, and the location of campus. In the past five years, average attendance at McGuirk Stadium in Amherst has never crept much higher than 13,000, yet has also never dipped below 10,000. The fans consistently fill 60-80% of the venue, and speaking as an alum myself, tailgating has always been very popular. With a bigger venue, better location, free student busses to and from the stadium, and bigger opponents, I am confident that we will see that attendance number move upwards over time. Of course, this is dependent on the team remaining fairly competitive, scheduling solid non-conference opponents to draw additional fans, developing rivalries with MAC schools, and generally making Saturday games at Gillette a fun experience.

Sports fans are a fickle bunch, this we know. If the team begins to mire in mediocrity, fans will stop showing up; to what degree is the question. During the Minutemen's run to the FCS National Championship in 2006, attendance during the season hovered around the average stated above. However, when UNH came into town for a home playoff game, McGuirk sold out early. The fans of the Minutemen are real and are willing to support a winning club, so the degree to which UMass can produce that will go far to prove they belong in FBS football. And they certainly proved they were a consistently talented team in the FCS. Though their prior coach finished one game below .500 over three seasons, Massachusetts has enjoyed 22 conference titles, 3 National Championship appearances, and one National Title over the previous five decades. This is not a team that is foreign to success, and new coach Charlie Molnar will be tasked with both returning the program to that success and making the transition to FBS as smooth and successful as possible.

The team has played recently played very well against FBS opponents. Though they have not won in these interdivisional games since 1984 (against Ball State, of all teams), they have played tough. Beginning in 2005, they played Army, Navy, Boston College twice, Texas Tech, and Michigan, only letting two of those games get out of hand, including the game against AP #11 Texas Tech. In 2010, the Minutemen faced AP #20 Michigan on the road. One fumble in the red zone cost UMass, as they ended up losing by 5 in a shootout against Denard Robinson and the lethal Michigan offense. This team can compete at the FBS level, and it's up to Molnar and his recruiting staff to ensure that continues.

While we're on the topic of Michigan, UMass has agreed to go back to the Big House in 2012, highlighting what ended up becoming a very impressive and very strong non-conference schedule for their first year in FBS. Opening the season on the road against former arch-rival UConn, the team then hosts Indiana in their first official home game as a member of the MAC before traveling to Michigan and Vanderbilt later in the season. The Vanderbilt game is part of a four-game home-and-home series over the next four years, and the Indiana series is a two-gamer. The university is also working with Boston College to set up a potential bi-annual rivalry game, and has agreed to visit Florida in 2016. Less than a year after making their announcement of the move, the university has proven it is committed to scheduling games against talented schools. This should only help to aid both local support in the form of ticket sales as well as recruiting. However, the two biggest names are each only one-game series, and will both be on the road. The issue may end up being trying to find top-tier teams to come to Gillette in order to boost the average attendance number and prestige. This is not to overlook MAC opponents by any stretch. UMass is moving into foreign territory, and will be playing a majority of their schedule against teams with whom they have little if any shared history. Rivalries are the lifeblood of college football, and the Minutemen and their fans will be looking to develop some fast. The two most logical candidates are Temple and Buffalo, both geographically and historically. UMass and Temple have a long history in basketball, both being members of the Atlantic 10 Conference and experiencing many emotional and intense moments over the years. While the basketball rivalry has died down recently due to UMass slipping into years of under-performance, many fans still harbor these feelings. Buffalo and UMass went through a stretch in the 1990s where they faced off against each year in football until UB moved up to then-Division I-A. While these games did not produce the kind of passion that typical rivalries might, routine encounters do encourage resentment and enthusiasm amongst both fans and teams alike. It is impossible to predict who will become entangled in this type of situation with the Minutemen, as sports have a way of organically producing these environments, but it is something to keep an eye out for.

Of course, it does not matter where UMass plays, against what teams, and for what purpose, if they cannot win games. Fans will not continue to attend games for a team that routinely finishes in the bottom of the league, at least not in numbers that they would if the team was winning. And for this experiment to work, they need these fans to attend. This leads us to recruitment. The Northeast is not exactly a hotbed for college football; there are now only three FBS schools in the six New England states, the same amount that play in New York alone. And with the increased talent level, UMass will have to compete much more directly with BC and UConn if they hope to win the region's best talent. The Minutemen have never strictly recruited from New England, however, and with Charlie Molnar taking over the program, it would not be unreasonable to expect this to continue to be the case. The 2012 recruiting class for UMass is ranked around the Internet to be the 11th- to 14th-best class in the MAC, and it will most likely remain around that level for the first couple years in the conference. However, we are already seeing the program profile rising; this year, two alumni (Victor Cruz and James Ihedigbo) participated in the Super Bowl, and having the team play their games in a world-class venue like Gillette Stadium, home of the three-time champion Patriots, should only help the recruitment effort. It will be interesting to see how this evolves over the course of the next five seasons.

UMass is positioned very well to succeed in the next level of college football, though it will certainly take some time and effort to see this through. Like anything, there will most likely be some growing pains, and the hope is that the region and university are patient. Us UMass fans have to hope the team will compete early, continue to bring big games and good football to Gillette Stadium against MAC and non-conference schools, and that Molnar and his staff have what it takes to build a successful program from nearly the ground up. I do have confidence, and I'm more than looking forward to this upcoming season and what twists and turns it will bring. Go UMass!

UMass and College Football Realignment

Could Texas A&M's purported move to the SEC lay the groundwork for UMass being invited to a BCS conference?

I'll be perfectly honest. I love the amount of realignment talk going on in college football. I don't care if the Big 12 ceases to exist, which is looking more likely by the day, and I'm excited at the possibility of superconferences, even if those feelings are fairly selfish. I went to UMass, and would love to see them join a conference such as the Big East. Every time talks of realignment come up, I think about the possibility of the Big East either deciding to add teams to get to the 12 required for a conference title game (and the payday that comes with televising it), or having their hands forced as teams are lured out by bigger, more lucrative opportunities. The discussion has come up again, so I decided to look into what moves would likely have to be made in order to present conditions that might facilitate a BCS conference invitation extended to UMass.

The latest rumors have begun to swirl as Texas A&M is reportedly entertaining the idea of moving to the SEC. Coupled with the reports that the SEC is exploring an addition of Virginia Tech as well, this would bump the conference up to 14 teams and most likely set in motion a chain reaction that could doom the Big 12. With Texas A&M gone, the two Oklahoma schools would be encouraged to seriously consider the moves they have been exploring, namely joining the Pac 12. Texas would then be faced with an interesting choice: joining Oklahoma and Oklahoma State in the Pac 12, or becoming independent, as the Big 12 will not survive once these moves begin. While I could foresee them becoming independent a la Notre Dame, and preserving the Long Horn Network partnership they've begun with ESPN, I would not be surprised if they instead choose to remain conference foes with Oklahoma and ensure the continuation of the Red River Rivalry.

Either way, once A&M and the Oklahoma teams bolt the Big 12, the conference as we know it is over. Texas Tech is sure to follow Oklahoma into the Pac 12, if that is where they end up. If Texas chooses to go the independent route, I could see the Pac 12 then moving to add either Boise State or BYU to get to the magic number of 16 teams, making them the first superconference and really forcing the other conferences to make similar moves in order to remain competitive financially. If Texas follows OU, OSU, and Tech, that gives them 16 without the risks associated with the other smaller programs.

If Virginia Tech does in fact leave the ACC for the SEC, that drops the number of ACC teams below the threshold for a conference championship game. The logical move for the ACC in this case would be to conduct a bit of a raid on the Big East, luring Pitt and West Virginia as the most likely options as they are two of the more successful Big East programs and already have a strong rivalry in place. Pulling in a third new team (Syracuse and Rutgers are the popular throw-ins at this point) would give the conference 14 football teams as well as bolstering their standing in basketball as well, depending on what schools they could bring in.

The Big East would be forced at this point to make a few additions of their own in order to retain their status as automatic qualifiers to the BCS as well as adding a championship game if they could bring in enough teams. With the Big 12 having only five teams remaining, adding these would be the obvious move. The Big East have made inquiries into adding Kansas and Kansas State in the past, and pulling in Iowa State, Missouri, and Baylor would certainly improve the national brand and prominence of the conference. However, this again would leave the conference with an odd number of teams, and one fewer than required for the title game. This is where UMass could potentially come into play. If Notre Dame, the logical 12th team as they are already a member of the conference in other sports, chooses to preserve its independence, the Big East would be left choosing between a few options: wooing a service academy in Army or Navy, coupling the recent addition of TCU with SMU from Conference USA, expanding out to the Rocky Mountains and really stretching the conference geography, or looking to a school like Massachusetts. While 2012 is to be UMass' first as a member of the FBS, the Big East has experience with schools making the transition, as UConn completed the move less than 10 years ago. UMass would make sense in terms of balancing the conferences between the East Coast and the newly-added Midwest schools. They also have a dormant rivalry with UConn that, in my opinion, has the potential to become a legitimate draw and the premier game in New England. The two state universities played each other yearly for much of their history until UConn made the move up to what was then Division 1-A, and the contests were always some of the most anticipated of their respective seasons. Likewise, a renewal of the basketball rivalry could prove lucrative for both schools, as that is the sport both are known for, and a major-conference affiliation for Minutemen basketball certainly would not hurt their recruiting efforts.

With the Big 12 gone, the only conference that looks as if it would hold off on making moves would be the Big 10, currently holding 12 teams and a TV deal that runs through 2016. As the Big 10 most likely would not participate in conference expansion until around the time that deal is to be renegotiated, it could end up being the future home to teams such as Boise State, BYU, Nevada, even Notre Dame. The possibilities are numerous, and change is exciting. However, in terms of how this could affect UMass, a lot of dominoes would have to fall in the right direction in order for them to seize an opportunity to move to a big-time, BCS power conference. The possibility does exist, however, and the next few weeks could get the ball rolling in that direction, as we all wait on Texas A&M.

The Familiarity of the Unknown

As I write this, I have Saul Williams yelling, rather, speaking passionately in my ear. Through headphones, as I'm not fortunate enough to be on personal speaking terms with the poet, rapper, author, Renaissance man. I first discovered Williams' music right in the middle of the first decade of the twenty-first century. He was opening for Nine Inch Nails on their spring tour, which happened to race right through my town and university, close enough where I was able to walk to the venue from my dorm room. Hip hop was not my preferred genre of music to put on, but as I listened to Williams' lyrics and beats and genuine music behind his words, I identified with him. Of course, we have completely different upbringings, coming from entirely different American worlds. But our passions were similar, and I appreciated the methods and style in which he projected his point of view and thoughts. That's what lies at the heart of why anyone likes any type of music: they are able to identify with it in some way that makes the artist or the song personal. I found that in Saul Williams.

Knowing what is important to you and fighting for what you believe is right has always been a noble quality in a person. Williams embodies this. He fights through his music, the same way so many musicians did in the era surrounding the conflict in Vietnam. In a world where so much is taken for granted, where so much is kept from those in need, where greed is considered a positive quality, his voice may be of the minority. At least, that's what those at the top want people to think.

I used to think that I was in the majority, that most people truly wanted a different world than the one we live in. That they want a better world. I may have just surrounded myself with people who share this viewpoint, and life circumstances brought me to a separate, more cynical collection of individuals. I have become more cynical, less hopeful, more worried about the future we are inheriting and inhabiting. Maybe that's a good thing. Maybe that's the natural progression. Maybe that is the conundrum that Saul Williams found himself in, when he started getting serious about his writing and performing. If so, then I should be happy.

I should be happy because I envy Williams' ability to corral his anger and passion and excitement and fear and express those emotions and hopes in a positive manner. A productive manner. One that inspires people and attacks those who do wrong. I want to be a positive force in the world. I don't want to waste away performing others' minutiae and dirty work. I want to own my life and do with it as I wish. I know that I am not alone in that desire, and that it is a tougher life to lead than to follow the path of what has been done before and experienced already. I just can't find my life satisfying if my accomplishments mean the rich get richer.

I think too many people have fallen victim to settling. I include myself in that allegation. This world of mine is currently at a crossroads, yet there are not two paths, but many. Which one to take, I am still working on figuring out. This is a time in which the income gap is spreading to shameful levels, a time when it is becoming a sign of weakness to help those less fortunate, and one in which there seems to be almost no level of compassion towards one another. Every man for himself is becoming the norm, the expected. Whatever happened to the highest ideals of manhood? Whatever happened to working together to create a better society and a better planet? Whatever happened to leaving the world in better shape than when you arrived?

A Real College Football Playoff

Yeah, I'm going to try to tackle (hah) a college football playoff system. Division 1 (and by Division 1 I'm referring to FBS) college football is the only sport I can think of that crowns its champion based on opinion, and not strictly on performance. The major professional sports all have playoff systems. So do all levels of college sports - March Madness, the Frozen Four, FCS, DII, and DIII football, soccer. They all have a postseason tournament (or event, in the case of swimming, track, etc.) that allows athletes and teams to prove themselves on the field (or diamond, or pool). All of them except perhaps the most high-profile sport, football, in which we repeatedly endure a season-long discussion on who's the best, who should be ranked number one, who should play for the national championship. Things get ugly when we have to watch teams who should be given a shot denied that chance based on strength of schedule, expectations, or any other number of factors that aren't controlled by the team itself.

Sports are competitive. They are also meant to be played on a fair level, everyone playing by the same set of rules, so that we can determine who the best teams or athletes are. That is why the most popular format of a lengthy regular season followed by a tournament has become so ubiquitous. After a long stretch of games, we have an idea who the best teams are, but the tournaments after the regular season show us who's the best when it counts the most. And in the end, this is what we value highest in our sports-loving society. There's a reason that people like Michael Jordan, Mariano Rivera, Tom Brady, Mark Messier, and others like them are celebrated, while others with similar skills and accomplishments but lacking those championships or rings are forgotten or leave us feeling as if their careers are incomplete. We value winners, but we also consider what they won. You win a title when you win the postseason tournament, not when you finish the regular season with the best record. That's just how we evaluate sports and the athletes and teams who play them.

Without this level field though, without the teams themselves determining on the field who is the best, we are left in a place without what many would call a "true champion," in a place with a team or athlete who wins a title without going through the steps we expect and want to see. This is very much the place we find ourselves at with Division 1 college football. At the end of a regular season, which is shorter than almost any regular season in any other popular sport, we pick two teams to faceoff in a championship game. These teams don't arrive at the championship game by defeating all in their path in a tournament. It's almost as if the college football season is a combination regular-post-season, as the teams play a predetermined schedule, but unless they are almost perfect, they cannot make it to the championship. In some cases, teams that ARE perfect don't even get that chance.

This needs to be addressed, it needs to be rectified. There is no logical reason for the NCAA to continue to award championships to teams in the current format. If we are to take D1 college football seriously, and give it the time it deserves, we need to know that we are watching a sport that rewards its best team with a title. We don't know that now. The solution is, of course, a playoff system.

The main argument against a playoff (besides that it will hamper the athlete's in-class performance which I shouldn't have to but will address) is that it will diminish the importance of the regular season. This is not necessarily true. Yes, you may be able to win a championship with a less-than-stellar record if a playoff were implemented. But in no other sport does the regular season champ get a free pass to the finals. And in my playoff format, performance in the regular season will be highly important in terms of playoff berths and seeding.

March Madness is a gigantic event in the world of sports every year, and I'd love to see football take a lot of its ideas and implement them in order to have a fun, entertaining, and effective tournament of their own. Here's the basic rundown of how I'd like to see this work out. The playoff tournament would have 16 teams. All conference champions get an automatic bid into the playoff, just like in March Madness. This rewards teams for playing well within their conference, and adds importance to Conference Championship games. This also means every single school has a shot to get in, which also means they have a shot, regardless of how unlikely, to win the championship. Right now, teams like Buffalo, FAU, Utah State, can't realistically enter a season with championship aspirations. And though their talent level may suggest that even with a playoff they shouldn't be able to win, they could sneak into the playoffs as an unlikely conference champion, and put together a run to get them closer than they'd even have a shot at in the current system.

This gives us, as of this posting, 11 entries into the playoff. That leaves us with five more spots for at-large teams who did not win their conference. This allows room for the big-name programs in highly competitive conferences to gain entry into the tournament as well. While that may seem like a small number, it's much better than the current opportunity given to those teams: be perfect or you're out.

So we have 16 teams, 11 auto-qualifiers and five at-large bids. These five teams can be determined by a selection committee as in the college basketball playoffs. The committee could also be given the task of seeding the teams appropriately. Once we have our matchups, we then can determine where they would play.

Many of the playoff pleas I've read incorporate the current bowl games in the formula, holding each playoff game at a different Bowl venue through the tournament. I can see why this would be desirable, as it may ease the transition to a playoff system, but I don't agree it would be the best option we have.

There's not much like being at a college football stadium on gameday. The tailgating, revelry, alumni, students, fans, band. It's a great experience, and it's one of the things that makes college football so great. This should be embraced and harnessed, not ignored. The current bowl format places teams from all over the country in strange, unfamiliar locations in front of a crowd that a) probably has no real rooting interest in either team, b) probably has never seen them play before, and c) most likely got their tickets from their company or on business in some way. Rarely do we see an overwhelming contingent of fans filling a stadium 2,000 miles from their campus to root on their favorite teams, and this is most glaring during the non-BCS bowl games. It's a shame, really, and there's a really easy way to fix this problem in a playoff.

The top eight seeds in the playoffs are awarded home field advantage, and the higher seed in each matchup continues to have home field advantage throughout the playoffs. Seeing teams like Michigan, Texas, USC playing a playoff game at their own stadium would be quite the event, and surely would add to the excitement and feel of the game itself. Much better than the current system, from both the team and fan perspective. This would almost guarantee sellouts for postseason games. Imagine seeing Auburn or LSU trot out in The Big House, or Happy Valley, sliding all over the place in the snow in December or January. Now that's home-field advantage, and that's what you play for. We can even split the gate between teams so the smaller schools who get in and have to travel to SEC or Big 10 stadiums still have a financial incentive for making the postseason tournament, as they do for making bowl games now. We wouldn't even have to eliminate the bowl games entirely. They could continue to exist as a source of revenue and competition for schools who didn't qualify for the postseason tournament, acting similarly to the NIT in college basketball.

For the championship game, there's a couple ways we could go. We could have the higher seed host, or play it at a neutral site. We could even rotate the host as they do now, and as they do for the Super Bowl. Fans will travel to see their team win a title, this we know, and they will especially do so if it's in a fun city. For this reason, I would say we should host it in the warm weather, rotating between Southern California, Dallas, New Orleans, and Miami, or something similar to that. Those areas know how to host a party, and have proven they can do it well with championship sports. There's no reason not to allow them to do the same with college football.

So my proposed plan would be a 16-team tournament that includes the 11 conference champions and five at-large teams chosen by a Selection Committee, who would seed the field as well. All games would be played at the home field of the higher seed (or their desired field, such as a nearby NFL stadium), except for the championship, which will be played at a neutral site to be chosen from a rotation. The two best parts of this plan would be that the championship is decided on the field, and small-conference teams with stellar records would no longer be left out of the competition. I don't see any reason why something like this isn't in place now, and why it couldn't be implemented. We need a college football playoff to determine our true champion. Let's get it done, NCAA.

The NHL Re-Imagined

Not quite re-imagined. I just needed a title and wanted to be hyperbolic for a moment.

Similar to my earlier post regarding a proposed realignment and restructure of the NBA, I feel the need to address the situation of the NHL. Yet another league that has just enjoyed one of the more entertaining and exciting postseasons in recent memory (though I may be biased as I live around Boston), the NHL is going through a small renaissance of sorts. The lockout they endured not too many seasons ago shied away many fans, but it was not the sole reason the popularity of the sport declined. However, it is making a comeback, and though the NHL may never eclipse the popularity of the NFL, they do look to be adding a new generation of fans within the past couple years. Certainly to thank would be the new rules installed post-lockout that encourage exciting, fast play, as well as the hard salary cap that ensures a stingy owner cannot submarine the team's competitiveness by refusing to pay for talent.

Bettman's Sun Belt expansion/relocation was miscalculated, and I think on this we can all agree. Expanding hockey into southern US states worked in some cases (Dallas, Anaheim), but you can't force a game onto a population that does not grow up around the sport. Hockey will always do well in Canada, and in the northern parts of the States where it is already a tradition and part of life in the winter months. Nashville? Raleigh? Miami? These are not hockey cities, and I know it pains the diehards to watch the Stanley Cup skated around the ice when outside the arena it's 95 degrees (I'm looking at you, Tampa/Carolina/Anaheim).

Besides, the NHL isn't a league that needs 30 teams. The league worked best before Bettman went expansion-crazy in the '90s, and it could be much more prosperous in a situation that keeps its teams in areas where the fan base cares and realizes that what's important is not the quantity of teams. The talent level has grown in recent years due to the influx of European and Russian skaters, but I still think 30 is too big for the league. If I was Commissioner of Sports and lived in my ideal world, I'd be cutting the NHL down to 24 teams, 12 in Canada, 12 in the US, and split up the conferences as so, allowing every Stanley Cup to feel like a Border War. Of course, since this is a good idea, it will never happen.

My more realistic dream would be to break up the Sun Belt teams and either contract them or relocate them to a region that will give a shit. This plan is already in motion, as Atlanta finally admitted they made a mistake, and granted Winnipeg a team to call their own again. Let's continue with the shakeup: Gone are the Hurricanes, Panthers, and Lightning, three teams whose fan bases spend more time in the Sun in one week than a hockey player spends on the ice in a month. Columbus is not a pro sports town, and any professional major league team who has a cartoony wasp in the wrong colors as their mascot should have had the team taken away long ago (yeah, Charlotte, that's a dig at your old basketball team, who looks like they won't be in New Orleans much longer either). The Nashville Sabertooth Fossils can remove themselves as well, along with the Phoenix Coyotes (that was never going to work) and the San Jose Sharks, who despite having the best team in their division for four years running, simply cannot fill their arena. We'll move this talented group to a city that cares.

That makes seven teams I'd like to see moved or contracted. In response to this, I'd like to see five markets served with their own franchise, giving us a net loss of two teams. These new (or revisited) cities I'd like to propose would be Quebec City, Hamilton, Hartford, Seattle, and Green Bay.

Hear me out. Quebec is one of the fastest growing cities in Canada, and the Nordiques are a much-beloved franchise missed not only by their loyal fans, but also by hockey fans in general. Same goes for Hartford and the Whalers. In the past few years, Whalers merchandise has come back into popularity in New England, with many of the old fans and new hopefuls clamoring for a return of their green-and-blue clad skaters.

The new ideas are Hamilton, Seattle, and Green Bay. Seattle has a long hockey history, stretching back to the Metropolitans of the Pacific Coast Hockey Association in the early 1900s and currently being carried on by the Thunderbirds of the Western Hockey League (who look strikingly similar to the 1990s Whalers and current Vancouver Canucks). Seattle is a city of rabid sports fans, as evidenced by their quick and passionate support of Sounders FC in MLS.

It's long been said that the Toronto area can support another team, and in my opinion Hamilton would be a perfect place to host them. They certainly have the population and growth rate to support a professional team, and the nearby hockey cities of Toronto, Buffalo, and Detroit would make for some quick, fun rivalries between the teams. And let's be honest: It can never be a bad thing to bring hockey into a big Canadian city, right?

Lastly is Green Bay, and this is my biggest question mark in the fake plan that I'm making up now and definitely will never come to fruition. However, bear with me. Green Bay isn't the biggest city in the world, it's not even the biggest city in its own state. However, really the only things to do in Green Bay (I imagine, I've never been) are watch the Packers, talk about the Packers, or go ice fishing. Considering the intense passion and dedication these sports fans show to their football team, I don't think a hockey team in town would be a disaster. With the Packers' season over in early February at the earliest each year, having another sports team in the city of Green Bay that could continue play into the summer months could be a rousing success. The nearby Resch Center only has a capacity around 10,000, but I have to believe that a renovation and expansion in order to bring an NHL team to Green Bay would be a welcome process. Besides, the Canadian city of Saskatoon has been discussed as a future NHL site, and their population a) is smaller than Green Bay's, and b) isn't exactly known for their rabid sports fandom. The other place I'd consider for this last spot would be bringing a team to Portland's Rose Garden. Portland could be a viable NHL city in the way that it's a wholly viable NBA city, but for now, I'll pencil in Green Bay as our last introduction.

So, we are left with 28 teams. With the reduction in franchises, we no longer have a need for six divisions. What makes sense in this case are four seven-team divisions within two conferences, broken down in the traditional structure of East-West and divided as to reduce cross-time zone travel. Below is what this new league would look like, taking all of the previous moves into consideration:

There. That feels better, doesn't it?

The problem this now presents us with is scheduling. We've cut two teams and realigned all our divisions; current scheduling formats won't work with this new look. Aiming towards retaining the 82 games that have been standard since the 1995-96 season, I've broken the proposed schedule down as such: Five games against all other teams within the division (intra-divisional), for a total of 30 games. The odd game against each team would alternate hosts each year. Additionally, teams would play three games against all opponents that are within the same conference but outside the division (inter-divisional), giving us another 21 games, for a current total of 51. The extra home game would be alternated in the same manner as the intra-divisional games. Each team would then faceoff against every team outside their conference (inter-conference) twice in a home-and-home series. This new format ensures, unlike the current scheduling methods, that fans will have the opportunity to see every team in the NHL at least once in their home team's arena. This adds up to 28 games, totaling 79. With the three additional games we can follow an idea introduced by the NFL and that I adopted in my earlier post about reorganizing the NBA: each team plays one additional game against the team in each division that finished in the same place in the standings the previous year. That brings us to 82 games, a full NHL season.

One of the things I like most about this potential scheduling method is that there are an uneven number of games against all opponents within a team's conference (except the one opponent in the other division with the additional game as noted above), ensuring that the season series between teams will always have a definitive winner. This could open the door for challenge trophies as we see in college football, where the winner of the season series takes home the trophy for the year. As if we needed an added incentive for a Bruins-Canadiens or Red Wings-Blackhawks series, we might actually see hardware exchange hands as well. Talk about an interesting proposition.

With the altered alignment and scheduling system, the playoff system needs a little tweaking. We will guarantee playoff spots for the top three teams in each division, with the division winners being seeded no lower than fourth, therefore rewarding them with home ice in the first round. The remaining two spots in each conference go to the two remaining teams with the most points. We don't want a situation where the fourth-placed team in the weakest division gets into the playoffs with less points than the fifth-placed team in the other division, therefore giving us a weaker field for the playoffs. We want the best quality tournament we can get. We can retain the reseeding that is currently done after each round, and I would suggest keeping the seven-game series in every round as well. We know the Stanley Cup Playoffs work incredibly well, so let's not go messing around with the format too much.

It's my opinion that all of the changes mentioned in this post would make the NHL a much stronger and more successful league. I'm sure not all of these changes will ever be adopted, in fact most might never see discussion outside this blog. But Atlanta is packing up and moving to Winnipeg, so I guess anything is possible.

Titletown, USA

I want to start this post by congratulating the Boston Bruins on winning the 2011 Stanley Cup. It's been a long time coming, with 1972 being the last year the Cup called Boston its home. A truly remarkable run for the B's, who have shed the weight of being the last Boston sports team from the four major leagues to win a championship in the new millennium, allowing both themselves and their loyal fans to breathe a big sigh of relief, followed by the widest smile they've ever known.

But while the Bruins' achievements are certainly to be admired and celebrated, the real winner here is the city of Boston. This was not the Bruins' first title, though it may feel that way for many. It has, however, marked the culmination of the most spectacular, compact sports run any city has ever seen.

Boston has celebrated championships in all four majors before last night. In fact, that quest ended when the Patriots secured their first Lombardi Trophy back in February of 2002, thanks to the arm of Tom Brady and the leg of Adam Vinatieri. That championship put them in elite company; to date, only five American cities have had the honor of being called Champions in all four majors: New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, and then Boston.

What's incredible about this Bruins victory is that Boston now boasts the shortest span of time in which all four championships were won by the local team. From the last Patriots Super Bowl win in 2005 to last night's hoisting of the Cup, at one time or another, Boston sports fans have been able to say that yes, their team truly is the best, a claim that fans in only those four other cities can make. But Boston is different because of this incredibly short time span.

Detroit, perhaps the most unlikely city on this list considering market size, has the longest gap between all four titles, sitting at 34 years. Beginning with the Red Wings Stanly Cup win in 1955 and ending with the Pistons first NBA Championship in 1989, they also saw the pre-Super Bowl NFL Championship won by their Lions (1957) and a couple World Series taken by the beloved Tigers in 1968 and 1984.

Chicago, while part of this exclusive club, also had to wait many years in between titles. In a 24-year span from 1986 to 2010, they were able to relish championships from Da Bears, Jordan's Bulls, the surprise 2005 White Sox, and last year's Blackhawks. A great run, filled with some incredible moments for sure. But still, it took a quarter century to complete the superfecta.

Philadelphia was not much more impressive than Chicago's teams in terms of winning time, besting them only by four years. Philly's span reached from the 1960 NFL Champion Eagles to the 1980 Phillies, encompassing back-to-back championship wins from the Flyers as well as Wilt Chamberlain's first title, coming as a member of the 1967 76ers.

Ah, New York. Of course they're on this list. When you have two entries in three of the four sports, you give yourself a pretty monumental advantage. However, they still don't best Boston's six-year run. In their most concise effort, New York teams won all four titles in a 15-year span from 1973 to 1988. This run began with the Knicks' most recent NBA Championship and went through a couple World Series in Yankee Stadium, four straight Stanley Cups on the Islanders' ice, and finished up with the New York Football Giants' Super Bowl victory and ensuing Bill Parcells Gatorade shower. An impressive run, for sure.

But the crown goes to Boston, who before last night sat just ahead of Detroit with a span of 32 years (last Bruins Cup in '72 to 2004 Red Sox). Interesting, too, that there are no duplicates within the six year title run, though we were close. Minutes away, in fact, from an undefeated Super Bowl season from the 2007 Patriots and another Celtics victory over arch nemesis Los Angeles last June. Nevertheless, from the 2005 Patriots through the 2007 Red Sox, 2008 Celtics, and the 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins, this has truly been the most incredible, remarkable run for any four-sport city in modern history. Congratulations, Boston fans, and enjoy this. It's truly a once-in-a-lifetime experience.


Note: Anyone who wants to argue that "Boston" doesn't count because the Patriots don't play within the city limits must also then throw out New York and Detroit. But more importantly, they should probably just get over themselves.