soohockey15

I appreciate the joy and fun of college basketball tournament time, but from a basketball-watching standpoint its pretty brutal. I'll watch the tourney once it starts but the conference tourneys just don't do much for me. Give me NBA every day.

....pm sent

Cooke's long-running history of cheap-shots helped him earn this suspension. If someone like David Backes did the same thing, it wouldn't have been the same suspension (and rightly so). This point isn't debatable. I think everyone knows Matt Cooke plays hard. Some guys play hard and clean. Others play hard and dirty. Not difficult to figure out which category Cooke falls in. You don't have to remind us... Wrong again. So wait, his elbow 'accidentally' went away from the natural path of his body into McDonagh's head? The hit was 100% intentional. Cooke saying that he 'needs to change the way he plays' is all the evidence we need that the hit was intentional. He's 32 years old. By the time he changes something about his game, he will already be irrelevant. Might be the most rational thing you've ever said.

What's Faison's other option? Testify for the bill in defiance of the SBoHE and UND?

Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lmn2B0TuF8&feature=player_embedded Cheap shot champion.

Happened early in the 2nd half. Chicago State plays incredibly terrible defense. They looked like a city league team.

There were multiple examples of Cooke going out of his way in an attempt to injure after the player had played the puck. The Savard hit is sickening, as are his repeated attempts to take out players' knees. I guess trying to injure a player (and justifying it by saying he's making a play on the puck) who isn't looking is just fine, but a line somewhere is crossed when two consenting players drop the gloves. The amount of hypocrisy in your argument is incredible.

So here's what DaveK constitutes as good, clean play: Running around the ice headhunting and taking guys' knees out; intentional attempts to injure the other guy. "Rough" stuff that has no place in the NHL: Two guys, both of whom are agreeing to go at it, going at it. Perfectly within the rules. It makes my brain hurt wondering how you're fine with the way Cooke plays while also being so vehemently against fighting.

If you don't like fighting in the NHL, you are free to watch women's hockey.

Here's Matt Cooke doing a bunch of Matt Cooke things: My link

You had it up until that last part. The downtown restaurants are very popular, but Whitey's hasn't kept up with the curve.

Try not to be so butthurt.

Ha, so a team with a bad defense and an awful running game would only lose 2 more games if they didn't have one of the best QBs in the league? Is that what you're saying? That team is awful without Manning. Replacing him with a random QB would make them much worse. Replacing Favre with a random QB would make the Vikings better. A team with a top-10 defense and running game should not be 6-10, plain and simple.

I disagree. Manning had the lowest yards/attempt since his rookie year and was sacked more than he had been since 2007. He isn't very mobile, but he has a quick release and does a good job avoiding pressure. Just watching the games you'd be able to see how little time he had to throw. The Colts without Manning are 3-13 at best. The Vikings without Favre might have a better record.

A horrible secondary, yet they were 10th in pass defense. Favre was one of the worst, if not the worst, QB in the league this year. Pittsburgh has a bad offensive line. Indy has a bad offensive line. Yet those teams both found ways to make the playoffs. Right on about Chili though. He was awful. I'm not sure how the Vikings fix this. They shouldn't draft a QB because they need to win now. But there aren't many (any?) good, experienced QBs available. They're in no-man's land.

I think QB play in general was the reason for their terrible year. Since Favre started 14 of the 16 games, you can pin a lot of it on Favre. The Vikings have a better team (without factoring in QBs) than, say, the Colts but Manning is one of the best QBs in the league. The Vikings had a top-10 defense and a top-10 running game. Not really sure how you can say how it isn't mostly Favre's fault. Webb was pretty bad today.

They don't have a shot at the playoffs even if they win this weekend. They've beaten three bad teams and can't win on the road. Now they're gonna go 6-1 or 7-0 to close out the season? 0% chance that happens. I mean I guess you could say they have a 'shot', but they'd have to beat both the Giants and Eagles (on the road, in late December). They just aren't good enough offensively, defensively, or on the sideline. I'm guessing they end up 8-8 or 7-9, with the Packers going 11-5 or 10-6.

Bamba hasn't been out of high school long enough to try out for the NFL. He isn't on the team due to a violation of team rules.

Did you just the term 'national stage' when referring to the Women's Frozen Four?

I couldn't disagree with you more about the product of the league. In the late 90s and early 2000s it was awful, too many high schoolers and not a ton of big names. But now the NBA (and NHL) has had a huge influx of young, talented, and likeable players. LeBron, Dwayne Wade, Kevin Durant, Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, Brandon Roy the list goes on and on. The NBA also has the best commissioner in sports, David Stern. And much like hockey, the NBA is far more entertaining to watch during the playoffs than any other time of the year. I would say the number of NBA franchises and NHL franchises in financial trouble is about the same, and its probably due to the same reason (economy). I enjoy watching the NHL as well, but its much tougher to sell the product because 1.) the sport isn't as popular in some regions of the country and 2.) its much more difficult to market players. I don't mean to say the NHL doesn't have anyone they can sell, but its tougher because they play a sport where the best players are on the ice for about 20 minutes a game, their faces are obstructed by helmets, and the game is being played in a glass enclosure. I think the commissioner has tried too hard to expand the sport in non traditional places too fast (where its subsequently flopped), and he doesn't seem to have a plan for the league in the near future (he'll need to address Phoenix and Atlanta, for starters). I hope the NHL can score a TV deal with ESPN, and I hope the league becomes more popular in the near future. I think the NHL is a blast to watch, but I don't think Bettman is the guy to lead the league into prosperity. Hopefully they can bring in somebody who has a clear direction for the league.

Uh, no. The reason the NHL doesn't have a tv deal is because it simply isn't worth it for networks, hence the reason it gets less media attention. Not difficult to understand.

Sometimes I wonder if you're even a real person. 'Hockey-hating' national media? Hockey gets less attention in the national media because it has a much smaller fanbase than basketball.

I would hope every Sioux fan would hope for the basketball championship. That would do so much more for the school and state than any number of hockey titles could.

A combination of guys who match up the best with hitters in the late innings. I hate it when teams place guys in set roles and refuse to ever differ. They should use their best guy in the highest-leverage situation, and go from there.