Queen's principal Dr. Karen Hitchcock announced her resignation earlier today, which came on the heels of some severe criticism of her by student leaders, professors, and even our own paper.
It's no secret that I haven't been the biggest Hitchcock fan, especially given her treatment of the athletics review. Back in June, three months after the review's initial release date, she wouldn't even speak to our paper about why it was delayed or when it could be expected out. Instead, we got a statement from one of her plethora of spokespeople that she'd been considering it for a month and would release it in the near future. Well, that near future turned out to be nearer than expected: the day after we went to press, she suddenly released the review (perhaps prompted by our editorial criticizing the delay, or perhaps with the knowledge that any criticism of it would be delayed until our next print issue a month later, as we operate on a slower schedule in the summer months). In any case, her momentous decision that took over a month to come up with was the bold and shocking claim that the report needed further review. She dragged the process out for another six months in the name of soliciting additional feedback (mostly from the same people who gave their opinions before the generation of the review), and then made her final decision over a month after her own deadline.
In keeping with the vein of her bold decisions, the stunning conclusion that took so much time to come to was that parts of the review should be gradually implemented, but the most important recommendation (cutting funding to some teams to fund others at higher levels) should be put off until another review in April 2009 reranked the teams. It certainly seemed a political decision calculated to try and keep both the pro- and anti-review camps happy, perhaps not surprising given how the timing lined up with her quest for reappointment. There are parts of the review I disagree with, but on the whole, it's a pretty solid work and it outlines a compelling vision of excellence in a few sports. The anti-review forces also have a compelling vision of Queen's succeeding in a wide variety of sports. Hitchcock's attempt at a diplomatic response alienated both sides and prevented any solid progress in either direction. As we pointed out in an editorial the next issue, her response effectively nullified the review's chance to accomplish much in the coming years.
"Hitchcock has erred so much on the side of caution she has effectively made no changes at all," we wrote. "With a whole school year nearly passed before her haphazard response, Queen’s athletics hardly seem to be a top priority for Hitchcock.
The Athletics Review had the potential to improve Queen’s athletics and do so within a foreseeable timeframe. Hitchcock’s call to review interuniversity and competitive teams in another year renders that aspect of the initial report useless and doesn’t say anything concrete about the teams’ futures. It seems ridiculous that so much time and money went into the Athletics Review, only for it to be reviewed again."
Hitchcock followed up this lack of concern for athletics with an even more prominent display of her disregard when she skipped the annual end-of-year athletics banquet, sending vice-principal (academic) Patrick Deane instead (as she seemed to do for anything remotely controversial). She did address the assembled crowd via a creepy Orwellian pre-recorded video message, however. This wasn't a lone example of Hitchcock's lack of engagement with athletics, which was starkly different from her predecessors. A Queen's coach I was speaking to the other day told me about a recent encounter she had with ex-principal Bill Leggett, who not only remembered her, but discussed her team's recent successes in detail. It's hard to picture Hitchcock being able to do that, as she rarely attended games. When she did bother to show up, it was usually for a quick photo op at the start, and then she'd swiftly take off to do more important things. Contrast that with a university president like David Naylor of the University of Toronto, who, as James Mirtle wrote about in a Globe feature last fall, sees athletics as important to the school's overall success. Naylor, a former basketball Varsity Blue himself, told Mirtle he fully supports strong varsity teams.
Naylor's approach is hardly unique. In a time when universities are becoming less distinguishable from each other academically, sports play a huge role in both developing tradition and selling your brand. Consider the following quote from Michael Grange's story about the role the success of Carleton's basketball program played in shedding the school's "Last Chance U" reputation. "Their success has changed our outlook," said Dr. Samy Mahmoud, Carleton's president. "Sports are no longer an ancillary activity here. It's at the core of what we do." Wouldn't it be nice if Queen's new principal thought the same way? Sports should be one of the crucial parts of a university: not necessarily neglecting academics for athletics (a la the NCAA), but using athletics to build community spirit and attract people (and donors) to your school. Hitchcock never understood that: let's hope her successor does.
Showing posts with label Michael Grange. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Grange. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Possible new TV coverage for CIS sports
I've been meaning to put this up for a while, but just didn't have the time. A couple weeks ago, I wrote a story for the Journal about two new proposed TV networks the CRTC is looking at. The first application is an initiative of the Canadian Olympic Committee, which wants to launch English and French channels focusing on amateur sports, called the Canadian Amateur Sports Network and Réseau des sports amateur canadiens respectively. The second application is from the CBC for its own sports channel, which would also include an amateur sports component. Scott Moore, the executive director of CBC Sports, told me that their application proposed 35 per cent amateur content. Both applications are currently before the CRTC, and should soon enter the "gazetting" period, where the public and other companies can intervene for or against the new channels.
These applications are interesting because they may very well lead to more televised coverage of CIS sports. CIS Director of Marketing Peter Metuzals told me that the CIS has been in contact with the COC about their application, and the website for the proposed new channels lists CIS as a supporter. Steve Keogh, the COC's communications manager, told me that they're quite interested in televising university sports. CIS officials haven't yet had extensive discussions with CBC, but Moore also seemed quite receptive to the idea of televising university sports.
"I think it’s a great product that’s underexposed at the moment," he told me. "If we get the license, it’s certainly an area we’d look at."
Anyways, that's the recap of the article. There were some other interesting aspects I picked up from the interviews for it that we couldn't fit in due to space, so I figured I'd try and highlight the best ones here.
One thing I found particularly interesting was Keogh's comment that the COC would be interested in picking up some of the CIS sports that aren't currently televised, as well as possibly televising regular-season games in sports where only the championships are televised. "Our goal is to put a spotlight on sports that don’t already receive attention, but that doesn’t mean we won’t want a high-profile CIS event," he told me. That seems to fit with CIS chief executive officer Marg McGregor's comments that she'd like to see more regular-season games televised. "We were very happy with the quality of the coverage we got this year from various networks," she told me. "That being said, for sure we would like to see more games covered, and not just the championship games, but the lead-up games to build that audience, build that interest and build that excitement, particularly around certain games that are good rivalries and good matchups."
Both McGregor and Metuzals were quite clear that any coverage on the new networks would supplement existing coverage rather than replace it: CIS is locked into a deal with Sportsnet for coverage of the men's hockey championships for the next two years, and is currently negotiating a renewal of their agreement with The Score for various championships, including football and men's and women's basketball. In my mind, this is the right move: you don't want to throw away what you have, and as McGregor said, the quality of the coverage The Score and Sportsnet provided was quite high. It would certainly help expose university sport if they were able to get other games or championships on the air.
Both McGregor and Metuzals seem to highly value television as a means to expand university sport's presence and influence, which is good to see. Metuzals told me he wants to see as many CIS sports and matches televised as possible. "I would like to have as much distribution as possible in a variety of sports,” he said. McGregor said that the exposure they get from television is quite valuable. "TV is an excellent vehicle to promote what a great product university sport is," she told me.
There are advantages and disadvantages to both of the proposed new channels for those hoping to see more CIS sports. The COC bid would likely feature more university sport content, but it will probably have a harder time passing, as they're applying for mandatory carriage. As the Globe's William Houston pointed out in his column about the networks when they were first proposed, "A must-carry designation is difficult to receive." The CBC bid may also have difficulty passing, as it's closer to what's already offered by TSN, Sportsnet and The Score, and the companies that own those networks may file negative interventions. Another advantage if the COC bid passes is it would mean more revenue for CIS: the organization currently subsidizes some of the broadcasting costs of Sportsnet and The Score, but CASN's website states that it would pay all broadcasting costs, donate up to one-third of the advertising time to the organization involved and also establish an amateur sports fund that organizations like CIS could apply to. CASN isn't focused on commercial viability, as it would be primarily funded by the mandatory carriage fees: thus, it would also have an easier time covering lower-profile sports.
Ideally for university sports fans, both networks would be approved. Some have suggested that the two proposed networks are hurting each other's chances, but Moore didn't see it that way. "The CRTC may see fit to license one or both, but I don’t see them as being directly competitive," he told me. There's a point there, as the channels would have dramatically different focuses: the CBC one would probably feature some Raptors games, along with other professional sports, and it would also likely serve as a place to run more coverage of events like the Olympics and World Cup, where there's usually a lot going on at once. Both networks would be quite helpful for the exposure Canadian university sports: hopefully, the CRTC will recognize that.
Speaking of the CRTC, Keogh told me community support will be integral to the COC's bid. "What’s going to sell this to the CRTC is public support," he said. "If the Gaels want to be on the air, they’ll need to throw their support behind this. ... We’re asking the entire sports community, not just the CIS, to put their support behind this so we can make it a reality. There truly is a need for this. What parent won’t want to watch their sons’ or daughters’ events across the country in both languages? It presents such a great opportunity."
Public support will probably be necessary for both bids, particularly if the anticipated negative interventions by other sports networks materialize. The CRTC's final decisions could be made as early as the fall or as late as next year.
One final thought: Metuzals was very optimistic about the viability of CIS sports in a television marketplace. "The quality of play, the quality of the athletes is tremendous," he told me. "If you’re a hockey fan, and you love pure hockey, you should be watching university hockey, because next to the NHL, it’s the best. … Basketball, it’s the highest-quality basketball we have in the country for both men and women. If you like it and you enjoy it—and a lot of people are playing basketball in the country—this is the avenue. I think in years to come, we will have something similar to the NCAA tournament, or we should try and focus on that—not such a big monstrosity, but certainly the awareness and the interest that people have in the game and the various teams playing, it’s a great opportunity for us to build it."
Normally, I'd take his words on his own product with a grain of salt, as he is the marketing director: however, there are many outside sources talking about the quality of CIS sports these days. As I wrote about on The CIS Blog today, everyone from Darren Dreger to Don Cherry has talked about how good CIS hockey is. It's true in other sports, too: media personalities like Michael Grange of the Globedevoted significant time to covering the men's basketball tournament (and did a great job of it too), and the NCAA-champion Kansas Jayhawks are coming north to take on Carleton and McGill this summer, while soccer only has pros like Srdjan Djekanovic and former NCAA Division I stars like Israel Jones. It's looking like a pretty good time for CIS sports, even with the threat of the NCAA still looming.
These applications are interesting because they may very well lead to more televised coverage of CIS sports. CIS Director of Marketing Peter Metuzals told me that the CIS has been in contact with the COC about their application, and the website for the proposed new channels lists CIS as a supporter. Steve Keogh, the COC's communications manager, told me that they're quite interested in televising university sports. CIS officials haven't yet had extensive discussions with CBC, but Moore also seemed quite receptive to the idea of televising university sports.
"I think it’s a great product that’s underexposed at the moment," he told me. "If we get the license, it’s certainly an area we’d look at."
Anyways, that's the recap of the article. There were some other interesting aspects I picked up from the interviews for it that we couldn't fit in due to space, so I figured I'd try and highlight the best ones here.
One thing I found particularly interesting was Keogh's comment that the COC would be interested in picking up some of the CIS sports that aren't currently televised, as well as possibly televising regular-season games in sports where only the championships are televised. "Our goal is to put a spotlight on sports that don’t already receive attention, but that doesn’t mean we won’t want a high-profile CIS event," he told me. That seems to fit with CIS chief executive officer Marg McGregor's comments that she'd like to see more regular-season games televised. "We were very happy with the quality of the coverage we got this year from various networks," she told me. "That being said, for sure we would like to see more games covered, and not just the championship games, but the lead-up games to build that audience, build that interest and build that excitement, particularly around certain games that are good rivalries and good matchups."
Both McGregor and Metuzals were quite clear that any coverage on the new networks would supplement existing coverage rather than replace it: CIS is locked into a deal with Sportsnet for coverage of the men's hockey championships for the next two years, and is currently negotiating a renewal of their agreement with The Score for various championships, including football and men's and women's basketball. In my mind, this is the right move: you don't want to throw away what you have, and as McGregor said, the quality of the coverage The Score and Sportsnet provided was quite high. It would certainly help expose university sport if they were able to get other games or championships on the air.
Both McGregor and Metuzals seem to highly value television as a means to expand university sport's presence and influence, which is good to see. Metuzals told me he wants to see as many CIS sports and matches televised as possible. "I would like to have as much distribution as possible in a variety of sports,” he said. McGregor said that the exposure they get from television is quite valuable. "TV is an excellent vehicle to promote what a great product university sport is," she told me.
There are advantages and disadvantages to both of the proposed new channels for those hoping to see more CIS sports. The COC bid would likely feature more university sport content, but it will probably have a harder time passing, as they're applying for mandatory carriage. As the Globe's William Houston pointed out in his column about the networks when they were first proposed, "A must-carry designation is difficult to receive." The CBC bid may also have difficulty passing, as it's closer to what's already offered by TSN, Sportsnet and The Score, and the companies that own those networks may file negative interventions. Another advantage if the COC bid passes is it would mean more revenue for CIS: the organization currently subsidizes some of the broadcasting costs of Sportsnet and The Score, but CASN's website states that it would pay all broadcasting costs, donate up to one-third of the advertising time to the organization involved and also establish an amateur sports fund that organizations like CIS could apply to. CASN isn't focused on commercial viability, as it would be primarily funded by the mandatory carriage fees: thus, it would also have an easier time covering lower-profile sports.
Ideally for university sports fans, both networks would be approved. Some have suggested that the two proposed networks are hurting each other's chances, but Moore didn't see it that way. "The CRTC may see fit to license one or both, but I don’t see them as being directly competitive," he told me. There's a point there, as the channels would have dramatically different focuses: the CBC one would probably feature some Raptors games, along with other professional sports, and it would also likely serve as a place to run more coverage of events like the Olympics and World Cup, where there's usually a lot going on at once. Both networks would be quite helpful for the exposure Canadian university sports: hopefully, the CRTC will recognize that.
Speaking of the CRTC, Keogh told me community support will be integral to the COC's bid. "What’s going to sell this to the CRTC is public support," he said. "If the Gaels want to be on the air, they’ll need to throw their support behind this. ... We’re asking the entire sports community, not just the CIS, to put their support behind this so we can make it a reality. There truly is a need for this. What parent won’t want to watch their sons’ or daughters’ events across the country in both languages? It presents such a great opportunity."
Public support will probably be necessary for both bids, particularly if the anticipated negative interventions by other sports networks materialize. The CRTC's final decisions could be made as early as the fall or as late as next year.
One final thought: Metuzals was very optimistic about the viability of CIS sports in a television marketplace. "The quality of play, the quality of the athletes is tremendous," he told me. "If you’re a hockey fan, and you love pure hockey, you should be watching university hockey, because next to the NHL, it’s the best. … Basketball, it’s the highest-quality basketball we have in the country for both men and women. If you like it and you enjoy it—and a lot of people are playing basketball in the country—this is the avenue. I think in years to come, we will have something similar to the NCAA tournament, or we should try and focus on that—not such a big monstrosity, but certainly the awareness and the interest that people have in the game and the various teams playing, it’s a great opportunity for us to build it."
Normally, I'd take his words on his own product with a grain of salt, as he is the marketing director: however, there are many outside sources talking about the quality of CIS sports these days. As I wrote about on The CIS Blog today, everyone from Darren Dreger to Don Cherry has talked about how good CIS hockey is. It's true in other sports, too: media personalities like Michael Grange of the Globedevoted significant time to covering the men's basketball tournament (and did a great job of it too), and the NCAA-champion Kansas Jayhawks are coming north to take on Carleton and McGill this summer, while soccer only has pros like Srdjan Djekanovic and former NCAA Division I stars like Israel Jones. It's looking like a pretty good time for CIS sports, even with the threat of the NCAA still looming.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Campus Corner: A sibling rivalry, or lack thereof?
The men's basketball team faces a sharp contrast this weekend. Tonight, they play 14-0 Carleton, the consensus No.1 team in the country (according to the CIS poll, cishoops.ca, and the RPI rankings, which agree on very little apart from Carleton). Tomorrow night, they play a polar opposite team in the 0-14 RMC Paladins (as an aside, why does RMC even bother keeping volleyball and basketball teams? They haven't won a game in either gender in either sport this year, so they're worse than the Miami Dolphins, which is pretty sad).
Tonight's Carleton game should be quite interesting. As Neate Sager noted on The CIS Blog, Carleton's suffering from a flu bug. That, combined with the possibility that the Ravens might overlook tonight's match in preparation for tomorrow's Capital Hoops Classic against Ottawa before 10,000 fans at Scotiabank Place, should at least give the Gaels a slim chance to my way of thinking.
Unfortunately, head coach Rob Smart doesn't seem to agree. Smart told me that the game means "almost nothing" for his team, as they've pretty much already written it off. While certainly a pragmatic and realistic attitude, I'm not entirely convinced that it's the proper one for a coach to take before such a clash. As earlier mentioned, there's a reason we still actually play the games rather than just simulating them on computers. If both the New York Giants and Baltimore Ravens can almost knock off the New England Patriots, there's certainly a chance that Queen's can hang in there with Carleton, and maybe even take the match if they channel the kind of shooting (71% from three-point land!) the Raptors put
up against the Celtics in their upset the other day. Perhaps I'm just a huge fan of underdogs, but I like to believe that there's always some hope. If Queen's can hit 71 per cent of their threes, I'm pretty sure they'll pull off the win: otherwise, it's still a slim chance, but it's definitely there. In any case, the battle of the Smarts (Rob and his younger brother, Carleton coach Dave) alone makes this game worth watching.
By the way, to keep from coming down on Smart too hard: he also made a good point about how Queen's young guys (i.e. Mitch Leger, Jon Ogden) are right up there with, if not better than, Carleton's equivalent young guys. The difference is Queen's relies on its young stars, while Carleton uses them primarily as fill-ins. It's also possible that he's saying one thing to the media to keep expectations low while secretly pumping his guys up for battle. The other alternative is that he's just sick of the inevitable questions about the success his brother's having with Carleton. In fairness, these games don't really mean a ton in terms of playoff positioning either: the 9-5 Gaels are currently fourth in the OUA East, and there doesn't seem to be too much likelihood of them catching Toronto given the Blues' recent success: however, there are still a lot of games to play. They should be able to finish ahead of fifth-place Ryerson, though, as the Rams are currently 5-9. Thus, barring an unexpected run or Jean Van de Velde-esque collapse by the Gaels (or a Phil Mickelson-esque choke-job by the Blues), they should be set to host Ryerson in the first round, a very winnable game.
(Hilarious response by Smart when I asked him if there's a sibling rivalry: "A rivalry involves being close.")
It will also be interesting to see if Queen's can keep any intensity for Saturday night's game against RMC, or if it will all have been drained from them in the Carleton game. Smart said he isn't worried about overconfidence, but you have to think that there might be some going from playing a 14-0 team to matching up against an 0-14 team. RMC's certainly going to pull out all the stops against their cross-town rivals in an attempt to avoid a winless season, and the schedule should help them a bit. I don't think Queen's will let down far enough that RMC will take the game, but it might be closer than you'd think, and the improbable does occur from time to time.
The women's matches should also be interesting. Tonight, 5-10 Queen's takes on 3-12 Carleton. The Gaels then play the winless Paladins Saturday night. These are key games for playoff positioning. Queen's is currently fourth in the OUA East, and has no chance of moving up (third-place Laurentian is 12-4). However, they need to hang on to the fourth seed to host a first-round matchup. They definitely don't want to slip any further than fifth, as the sixth and final playoff seed earns a doomed matchup against the third-place team. Carleton currently occupies sixth place, and will be desperate to try and move up. As Gaels' head coach Dave Wilson noted, it really is a four-point game. The RMC game will also be key: Wilson pointed out that the Paladins have been playing good basketball without getting results, and you know they'll be fired up against a crosstown team that has also struggled.
(By the way, Wilson is one of my favorite coaches: he always has time for the media, and he's one of the most quotable people I've ever interviewed.)
Related:
- Neate Sager's piece setting up the weekend at Out of Left Field: he also threw a link my way, which was completely unexpected and very nice of him
- Neate's other piece on basketball at The CIS Blog, referenced above
- The CIShoops.ca weekend preview (By the way, Mark Wacyk got some nice recognition for his work from Michael Grange of the Globe and Mail, my favorite basketball reporter).
Tonight's Carleton game should be quite interesting. As Neate Sager noted on The CIS Blog, Carleton's suffering from a flu bug. That, combined with the possibility that the Ravens might overlook tonight's match in preparation for tomorrow's Capital Hoops Classic against Ottawa before 10,000 fans at Scotiabank Place, should at least give the Gaels a slim chance to my way of thinking.
Unfortunately, head coach Rob Smart doesn't seem to agree. Smart told me that the game means "almost nothing" for his team, as they've pretty much already written it off. While certainly a pragmatic and realistic attitude, I'm not entirely convinced that it's the proper one for a coach to take before such a clash. As earlier mentioned, there's a reason we still actually play the games rather than just simulating them on computers. If both the New York Giants and Baltimore Ravens can almost knock off the New England Patriots, there's certainly a chance that Queen's can hang in there with Carleton, and maybe even take the match if they channel the kind of shooting (71% from three-point land!) the Raptors put
up against the Celtics in their upset the other day. Perhaps I'm just a huge fan of underdogs, but I like to believe that there's always some hope. If Queen's can hit 71 per cent of their threes, I'm pretty sure they'll pull off the win: otherwise, it's still a slim chance, but it's definitely there. In any case, the battle of the Smarts (Rob and his younger brother, Carleton coach Dave) alone makes this game worth watching.
By the way, to keep from coming down on Smart too hard: he also made a good point about how Queen's young guys (i.e. Mitch Leger, Jon Ogden) are right up there with, if not better than, Carleton's equivalent young guys. The difference is Queen's relies on its young stars, while Carleton uses them primarily as fill-ins. It's also possible that he's saying one thing to the media to keep expectations low while secretly pumping his guys up for battle. The other alternative is that he's just sick of the inevitable questions about the success his brother's having with Carleton. In fairness, these games don't really mean a ton in terms of playoff positioning either: the 9-5 Gaels are currently fourth in the OUA East, and there doesn't seem to be too much likelihood of them catching Toronto given the Blues' recent success: however, there are still a lot of games to play. They should be able to finish ahead of fifth-place Ryerson, though, as the Rams are currently 5-9. Thus, barring an unexpected run or Jean Van de Velde-esque collapse by the Gaels (or a Phil Mickelson-esque choke-job by the Blues), they should be set to host Ryerson in the first round, a very winnable game.
(Hilarious response by Smart when I asked him if there's a sibling rivalry: "A rivalry involves being close.")
It will also be interesting to see if Queen's can keep any intensity for Saturday night's game against RMC, or if it will all have been drained from them in the Carleton game. Smart said he isn't worried about overconfidence, but you have to think that there might be some going from playing a 14-0 team to matching up against an 0-14 team. RMC's certainly going to pull out all the stops against their cross-town rivals in an attempt to avoid a winless season, and the schedule should help them a bit. I don't think Queen's will let down far enough that RMC will take the game, but it might be closer than you'd think, and the improbable does occur from time to time.
The women's matches should also be interesting. Tonight, 5-10 Queen's takes on 3-12 Carleton. The Gaels then play the winless Paladins Saturday night. These are key games for playoff positioning. Queen's is currently fourth in the OUA East, and has no chance of moving up (third-place Laurentian is 12-4). However, they need to hang on to the fourth seed to host a first-round matchup. They definitely don't want to slip any further than fifth, as the sixth and final playoff seed earns a doomed matchup against the third-place team. Carleton currently occupies sixth place, and will be desperate to try and move up. As Gaels' head coach Dave Wilson noted, it really is a four-point game. The RMC game will also be key: Wilson pointed out that the Paladins have been playing good basketball without getting results, and you know they'll be fired up against a crosstown team that has also struggled.
(By the way, Wilson is one of my favorite coaches: he always has time for the media, and he's one of the most quotable people I've ever interviewed.)
Related:
- Neate Sager's piece setting up the weekend at Out of Left Field: he also threw a link my way, which was completely unexpected and very nice of him
- Neate's other piece on basketball at The CIS Blog, referenced above
- The CIShoops.ca weekend preview (By the way, Mark Wacyk got some nice recognition for his work from Michael Grange of the Globe and Mail, my favorite basketball reporter).
Friday, January 04, 2008
49th Parallel War/Links of the Day
Currently watching the Canada-U.S. showdown at the World Juniors. Good game so far: the first period was a little defensive, but as a Canucks fan, I can hardly complain about that! Canada broke through in the second with a nice goal, and both teams seem to have decided to turn up the offensive pressure as a result. Kyle Turris is having a solid game, and just recorded Canada's second goal on the power play (after the U.S. was called for too many men on the ice) What I find weird about this match is how many, including the Globe's Tim Wharnsby, have labeled the Canadians as underdogs. Sure, they lost once in the group stage this year to a very good Swedish team (who knocked off Russia earlier today to advance to the finals), and came in through a quarterfinal win over Finland, but they've still won the last three world championships, and killed the Russians in the Super Series earlier this year: that deserves a little respect in my books at least. In contrast, the U.S. hasn't accomplished much at this level since their 2004 upset of the Canadians. They have many highly-touted players, but Canada can match them in skill with players like John Tavares and Kyle Turris, and Canada's quotient of hard workers and grinders is second-to-none. The Canadians also realize how important this tournament is to their country, and know they're playing on a national stage: skill guys like Tavares are willing to take whatever role they're given to help the team, while the U.S. philosophy seems to be more about advancing one's own stock and less about the team game. I think that difference in attitude will give Canada enough of an edge to hang on to the lead here and beat the Swedes for the gold.
Also interesting: Canadian starting goaltender Steve Mason got traded right before the game started. Can you imagine that happening at any other tournament?
Links of the Day:
- Alanah's take/open thread on this game
- James Mirtle's thoughts: he also sees the US as favorites
- Wharnsby reports that Canada's set to host the juniors three out of the next four years: should be a nice home-ice advantage
- Zanstorm's review of last night's epic Canucks-Rangers clash
- The Province's Jason Botchford has a nice piece on Ryan Kesler
- Ben Knight has a fascinating column up today: apparently Bayern Munich is trying to lure Jose Mourinho after Ottmar Hitzfeld leaves at the end of the season. That would be something to see!
- Michael Grange has an interesting post on the links between the Raptors and tonight's opponents, the Detroit Pistons
- Bill Simmons' playoff predictions (he also has a cool new column up and some new links)
- Great piece by Dana Kennedy of the Huffington Post on the Tony Parker non-scandal and the woman who started it
- Gene Collier of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a hilarious column picking out the most trite sporting cliches of the year
- Richard Sandomir of the New York Times dissects the problems with Bryant Gumbel's announcing
- The guys at Orland Kurtenblog found a Dan Cloutier mousepad on EBay
Also interesting: Canadian starting goaltender Steve Mason got traded right before the game started. Can you imagine that happening at any other tournament?
Links of the Day:
- Alanah's take/open thread on this game
- James Mirtle's thoughts: he also sees the US as favorites
- Wharnsby reports that Canada's set to host the juniors three out of the next four years: should be a nice home-ice advantage
- Zanstorm's review of last night's epic Canucks-Rangers clash
- The Province's Jason Botchford has a nice piece on Ryan Kesler
- Ben Knight has a fascinating column up today: apparently Bayern Munich is trying to lure Jose Mourinho after Ottmar Hitzfeld leaves at the end of the season. That would be something to see!
- Michael Grange has an interesting post on the links between the Raptors and tonight's opponents, the Detroit Pistons
- Bill Simmons' playoff predictions (he also has a cool new column up and some new links)
- Great piece by Dana Kennedy of the Huffington Post on the Tony Parker non-scandal and the woman who started it
- Gene Collier of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a hilarious column picking out the most trite sporting cliches of the year
- Richard Sandomir of the New York Times dissects the problems with Bryant Gumbel's announcing
- The guys at Orland Kurtenblog found a Dan Cloutier mousepad on EBay
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
