Much has been made [David Shoalts, The Globe and Mail] of this afternoon's upcoming Game I tilt between Alexander Ovechkin's Washington Capitals and Sidney Crosby's Pittsburgh Penguins as a ready-made marketer's dream for the NHL. Hopes are high, and many seem to feel that this kind of matchup between two of the league's brightest stars could be a breakthrough moment for hockey in the U.S. There are some aspects that favour that idea, as both stars toil in reasonably large media markets where there isn't much else going on at the moment; both cities have atrocious baseball teams and Washington's NBA team didn't make the playoffs, while Pittsburgh lacks an NBA team completely and Pennsylvania's lone NBA team was just eliminated [Howard Beck, The New York Times]. If this series is going to draw in the viewers, though, it will have to start with a strong first game. Fortunately for the NHL, they've been able to get this game off of the obscurity of Versus and onto a major network, NBC. Unfortunately, scheduling concerns might just ruin the parade and turn the marketing dream into a nightmare scenario.
You see, the Pittsburgh - Washington game is set to start at 1 p.m. today. That's a little earlier than most NHL games, but not a huge problem. What is a problem is what's scheduled for the next block, though. At 4 p.m., NBC is set to air the Kentucky Derby pre-race show, leading up to the race itself at 5 p.m. Remember what happened the last time [Eric McErlain, Off Wing Opinion] a playoff game in overtime on NBC conflicted with a major pre-race show? That's right, NBC decided to abandon the Ottawa Senators - Buffalo Sabres game in the middle to switch over to their coverage of the Preakness Stakes (which apparently drew more viewers than the hockey game!). Now, the Preakness is important, but it doesn't quite have the cachet of the Kentucky Derby. If the network's willing to drop the playoffs for the Preakness, surely they'd do the same for the Derby?
Fortunately, the parties involved appear to have learned a bit from the last go-round. Greg Wyshynski reports over at Puck Daddy that the network has made contingency plans in advance. They've committed to showing the first overtime period on the main network (which would likely cut into the pre-race show), but then switching to the Derby while sending the NHL game to Versus for a second overtime and beyond if necessary. Obviously, this isn't an ideal situation, but it's the best hockey fans could hope for given the circumstances; it would be ratings suicide for NBC to continue showing hockey and miss the Derby itself, and they may even take a ratings bath by showing the first period of overtime hockey instead of the pre-race show. At least this time around there is a contingency plan that's been made public, and that's certainly an improvement.
Still, a switch to Versus would alienate some viewers who don't have the channel or can't find it and certainly wouldn't help the NHL's efforts to rebuild its major-league image. You can bet that both the league and network executives will be fervently praying for a short game this afternoon. It's the playoffs, though, so anything can happen, and the first clash between Alexander the Great and Sid the Kid may well be relegated to the obscurity of the bull-riding and fishing network in favour of some horses running around a track. If that happens, it will only reinforce hockey's minor-league status in the States, and the series Bettman and co. had hoped would save their image may wind up driving yet another nail into it.
Showing posts with label Washington Capitals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Washington Capitals. Show all posts
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Playoff pool update
Time for a quick update in my playoff bracket standings. After Round 1, I'm leading with 24 points. I managed to get all eight series right in terms of winners (beating all of the TSN experts), but only predicted the exact number of games (six) in the Pittsburgh-Philadelphia series. Still, my bracket is still intact, which has to be seen as a victory. My father, Frank Bucholtz, is hot on my heels with 23 points; he picked seven out of eight series correctly, but figured that the Devils would knock off Carolina. However, he got two series exactly right: Pittsburgh in six and Washington in seven. New Queen's Journal co-editor-in-chief Mike Woods and Canadian University Press board guy extraordinaire Ricardo Bortolon are tied for third place with 19 points each. Both picked New Jersey and San Jose to advance incorrectly. Mike was dead-on on the Washington series, while Ricardo called the Detroit sweep. My mother brings up the rear with 14 points; she incorrectly picked Calgary, San Jose and Montreal, but was right on the Pittsburgh series.
Here's my picks for the second round (again, made before Round 1 thanks to the bracket nature of this pool). I have Boston beating Carolina in six games, Washington knocking off Pittsburgh in seven, Anaheim victorious over Detroit in six and Vancouver taking down Chicago in seven. Remember to swing by at 9 p.m. for my live blog of the Canucks - Blackhawks game!
Here's my picks for the second round (again, made before Round 1 thanks to the bracket nature of this pool). I have Boston beating Carolina in six games, Washington knocking off Pittsburgh in seven, Anaheim victorious over Detroit in six and Vancouver taking down Chicago in seven. Remember to swing by at 9 p.m. for my live blog of the Canucks - Blackhawks game!
NFL free agency interviews: Kevin Ewoldt of Hogs Haven
Here's the final post from my series of interviews for this piece for The Good Point on free agency in the NFL, featuring an extended interview with Kevin Ewoldt of the great Washington Redskins site Hogs Haven. Previous posts in this series include my interviews with Sean Yuille of Pride of Detroit and Michael Bean of Behind the Steel Curtain. My questions and Kevin's answers are below, with minor edits for clarity. I also highly recommend this recent post from his site, comparing the Redskins' front office to those of the Patriots and Colts, and this older interview with Washington Capitals owner Ted Leonsis about the Capitals' franchise-building philosophy and how that might translate to football.
Andrew Bucholtz: Is there any free-agent signing by the Redskins over the last two decades that stands out as particularly bad to you? Did it seem like a bad idea at the time, or did it prove that way in retrospect?
Kevin Ewoldt: There are a lot: Deion Sanders, Steve Spurrier [ed note: free-agent coach], Adam Archuleta, Brandon Lloyd. The ones that sting the most are actually the ones where Washington traded draft picks away in return for the busts. Draft picks are how you keep youth on your roster. For Brandon Lloyd, the Skins traded a third-round pick and a fourth-round pick before awarding him a $10 million signing bonus. For T.J. Duckett, the Skins also traded a third-round pick. In return, T.J. only carried the ball 38 times in his career with Washington. Jason Taylor we acquired for a second-round pick and a sixth-round pick. The players in exchange all played one year (Deion, Duckett, Taylor). Lloyd played basically 1.5 years.
A.B.: Conversely, is there any free-agent signing that stood out as a particularly good move? If so, what worked about it (i.e. the money, the length of contract, filling a needed hole, etc)?
K.E.: London Fletcher stands out as a great signing. The Redskins went in the right direction when Gregg Williams and Joe Gibbs were running the show. London is the anchor of the Skins' defense and is the hands-down vocal leader of the locker room. He plays with heart and is a true leader.
A.B.: In the Leonsis article, you mentioned that "over-extending the length of contracts to aged vets" was the worst quality of the Redskins' front office. How would you rectify this if you were in Vinny Cerrato's shoes? Would you impose hard caps on money or term for veteran players (i.e. no one over 30 is offered more than X million over Y years), would you try to move towards shorter-term contracts throughout the organization, or would you evaluate each situation individually?
K.E.: The Redskins continually trade away draft picks, so their only option in filling holes is free agency. If I were in Vinny's shoes, I would be realistic about the situation. If you take a look at the all the successful franchises, the head coach plays a major role in the draft and free agency: [Bill] Belichick with the Patriots and Bill Cowher those years with the Steelers. The Redskins are very impatient with coaches, so the new incoming coach has to inherit the current roster and they basically have one to two years for success. That is a recipe for failure in my eyes. You need continuity.
A.B.: On a similar note, do you think teams that are active in the free-agent market should focus on younger, riskier players that haven't proven a lot yet or veterans with a track record?
K.E.: I think it depends on the situation and position. I wouldn't rule out either. I would certainly make the player's personality a factor. Brandon Lloyd had publicized issues with his coaches in San Francisco, and it was his downfall in DC as well.
A.B.: With the Haynesworth signing, at the time you wrote, "Lord help us all if this is true." Do you still think it was a bad move, and if so, what's the biggest problem with it (money, term, or just the wrong player)?
K.E.: I think Haynesworth is a good addition IF he stays healthy. If he only plays one or two years, then obviously it would have been a bad deal. Since there will likely be no salary cap next year and the Redskins have a ton of cash there isn't a lot of risk here. The team did not have to give up any draft picks which matters most to me. I'm hoping the Redskins can use their first pound pick this year to help take advantage of all the holes Haynesworth will create (assuming all the stud offensive lineman are off the board).
A.B.: Do you see the Redskins keeping up their big-spending habits in free agency moving forward? Why or why not?
K.E.: Absolutely. As long as Snyder and Cerrato are in charge, nothing will change regarding the big-spending. They always believe we're only one or two players (or coaches) away from a championship. I disagree with that. The team improved when Joe Gibbs was in control. He knew what players fit his system and who was coachable. Greg Blache, the Skins' defensive coordinator, was againt the Jason Taylor trade/signing, but the front office did it anyway. That speaks volumes.
A.B.: Imagine Dan Snyder has asked you to draft a blueprint for building a winning franchise. What would you include under the "Free Agents" section (i.e. what rules would govern your ideal franchise's free-agency moves)?
K.E.: See the Ted Leonsis article. Free agents should compliment the roster and the core group of players on the squad should push them. It is backwards in Washington. The free agents receive their fat checks and simply just play. I do think the front office has improved a bit in their signings. The Skins are now paying the big bucks for players under 30 years old.
Thanks again to Kevin for taking the time to answer my questions. You can check out his site here.
Andrew Bucholtz: Is there any free-agent signing by the Redskins over the last two decades that stands out as particularly bad to you? Did it seem like a bad idea at the time, or did it prove that way in retrospect?
Kevin Ewoldt: There are a lot: Deion Sanders, Steve Spurrier [ed note: free-agent coach], Adam Archuleta, Brandon Lloyd. The ones that sting the most are actually the ones where Washington traded draft picks away in return for the busts. Draft picks are how you keep youth on your roster. For Brandon Lloyd, the Skins traded a third-round pick and a fourth-round pick before awarding him a $10 million signing bonus. For T.J. Duckett, the Skins also traded a third-round pick. In return, T.J. only carried the ball 38 times in his career with Washington. Jason Taylor we acquired for a second-round pick and a sixth-round pick. The players in exchange all played one year (Deion, Duckett, Taylor). Lloyd played basically 1.5 years.
A.B.: Conversely, is there any free-agent signing that stood out as a particularly good move? If so, what worked about it (i.e. the money, the length of contract, filling a needed hole, etc)?
K.E.: London Fletcher stands out as a great signing. The Redskins went in the right direction when Gregg Williams and Joe Gibbs were running the show. London is the anchor of the Skins' defense and is the hands-down vocal leader of the locker room. He plays with heart and is a true leader.
A.B.: In the Leonsis article, you mentioned that "over-extending the length of contracts to aged vets" was the worst quality of the Redskins' front office. How would you rectify this if you were in Vinny Cerrato's shoes? Would you impose hard caps on money or term for veteran players (i.e. no one over 30 is offered more than X million over Y years), would you try to move towards shorter-term contracts throughout the organization, or would you evaluate each situation individually?
K.E.: The Redskins continually trade away draft picks, so their only option in filling holes is free agency. If I were in Vinny's shoes, I would be realistic about the situation. If you take a look at the all the successful franchises, the head coach plays a major role in the draft and free agency: [Bill] Belichick with the Patriots and Bill Cowher those years with the Steelers. The Redskins are very impatient with coaches, so the new incoming coach has to inherit the current roster and they basically have one to two years for success. That is a recipe for failure in my eyes. You need continuity.
A.B.: On a similar note, do you think teams that are active in the free-agent market should focus on younger, riskier players that haven't proven a lot yet or veterans with a track record?
K.E.: I think it depends on the situation and position. I wouldn't rule out either. I would certainly make the player's personality a factor. Brandon Lloyd had publicized issues with his coaches in San Francisco, and it was his downfall in DC as well.
A.B.: With the Haynesworth signing, at the time you wrote, "Lord help us all if this is true." Do you still think it was a bad move, and if so, what's the biggest problem with it (money, term, or just the wrong player)?
K.E.: I think Haynesworth is a good addition IF he stays healthy. If he only plays one or two years, then obviously it would have been a bad deal. Since there will likely be no salary cap next year and the Redskins have a ton of cash there isn't a lot of risk here. The team did not have to give up any draft picks which matters most to me. I'm hoping the Redskins can use their first pound pick this year to help take advantage of all the holes Haynesworth will create (assuming all the stud offensive lineman are off the board).
A.B.: Do you see the Redskins keeping up their big-spending habits in free agency moving forward? Why or why not?
K.E.: Absolutely. As long as Snyder and Cerrato are in charge, nothing will change regarding the big-spending. They always believe we're only one or two players (or coaches) away from a championship. I disagree with that. The team improved when Joe Gibbs was in control. He knew what players fit his system and who was coachable. Greg Blache, the Skins' defensive coordinator, was againt the Jason Taylor trade/signing, but the front office did it anyway. That speaks volumes.
A.B.: Imagine Dan Snyder has asked you to draft a blueprint for building a winning franchise. What would you include under the "Free Agents" section (i.e. what rules would govern your ideal franchise's free-agency moves)?
K.E.: See the Ted Leonsis article. Free agents should compliment the roster and the core group of players on the squad should push them. It is backwards in Washington. The free agents receive their fat checks and simply just play. I do think the front office has improved a bit in their signings. The Skins are now paying the big bucks for players under 30 years old.
Thanks again to Kevin for taking the time to answer my questions. You can check out his site here.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
From Tortorella to Schoenfeld
Yesterday's news that New York Rangers head coach John Tortorella would be suspended by the league for today's Game Six against the Washington Capitals after squirting a fan with water and throwing a water bottle into the crowd [James Mirtle, From The Rink] was interesting, but not unique. Of course, Tortorella is famous for his temper; this video of him tearing a strip off Larry Brooks of the New York Post is hilarious, but it shows that he perhaps isn't the most controlled coach in the world. It's also worth noting that this came after he benched Sean Avery for Game Five for his own lack of control.
However, the most interesting part about this story is that assistant coach/assistant GM Jim Schoenfeld is going to replace Tortorella behind the bench. Schoenfeld, of course, was famously involved in a similar situation back in the 1988 Prince of Wales Conference Finals when he was coaching the New Jersey Devils:
Yep, it's that Jim Schoenfeld who confronted referee Don Koharski after a 6-1 loss to the Bruins in Game Three. Koharski fell down and accused Schoenfeld of pushing him; Schoenfeld came back with "Good, because you fell, you fat pig! Have another donut!" It's gone down in history as one of the most storied coach/referee confrontations, and even made it into Wayne's World.
TSN host James Duthie said on the air a moment ago that Schoenfeld is the only other NHL coach to ever be suspended for a playoff game. That's true, but only to a certain extent. During the Canucks' run to the Stanley Cup Finals in 1982, Roger Neilson was the head coach, but he only got the job after GM/coach Harry Neale was suspended for brawling with fans in Quebec during the last part of the regular season. Neilson himself was kicked out of a game against the Chicago Blackhawks during the playoffs for the infamous towel-raising incident that kicked off the Canucks' tradition of Towel Power. He wasn't suspended beyond that, though, but it shows that there's a long history of coaches acting up in the playoffs.
What's funny is how things have changed, though. Back in 1988, the league suspended Schoenfeld for the next game, but the Devils got a restraining order issued by New Jersey Superior Court Judge James F. Madden only 40 minutes before the start of Game Four that allowed Schoenfeld to coach. This triggered a walkout by the game's officials, referee Dave Newell and linesmen Gord Broseker and Ray Scapinello, which delayed the game for over an hour. Eventually, local officials Paul McInnis, Jim Sullivan and Vin Godleski were recruited to work the game. Schoenfeld was later suspended for Game Five and things returned to normal. The Devils lost the series in seven games, and the Bruins lost to the Oilers in the Stanley Cup Finals.
Things appear to be taking a more moderate course this time. The Rangers released a statement Saturday night that they "disagree with the suspension" [Pierre LeBrun, ESPN.com], but there's no sign of a court order yet. President and general manager Glen Sather did send a strongly-worded letter [Jeff Z. Klein, The New York Times] to Gary Bettman about security problems in Washington. I guess they only bother with the courts for important things like digital media rights [Sports Business Journal]. In any case, it's interesting to see how things have changed over the years, and it's hilarious that Schoenfeld is stepping in to Tortorella's shoes.
However, the most interesting part about this story is that assistant coach/assistant GM Jim Schoenfeld is going to replace Tortorella behind the bench. Schoenfeld, of course, was famously involved in a similar situation back in the 1988 Prince of Wales Conference Finals when he was coaching the New Jersey Devils:
Yep, it's that Jim Schoenfeld who confronted referee Don Koharski after a 6-1 loss to the Bruins in Game Three. Koharski fell down and accused Schoenfeld of pushing him; Schoenfeld came back with "Good, because you fell, you fat pig! Have another donut!" It's gone down in history as one of the most storied coach/referee confrontations, and even made it into Wayne's World.
TSN host James Duthie said on the air a moment ago that Schoenfeld is the only other NHL coach to ever be suspended for a playoff game. That's true, but only to a certain extent. During the Canucks' run to the Stanley Cup Finals in 1982, Roger Neilson was the head coach, but he only got the job after GM/coach Harry Neale was suspended for brawling with fans in Quebec during the last part of the regular season. Neilson himself was kicked out of a game against the Chicago Blackhawks during the playoffs for the infamous towel-raising incident that kicked off the Canucks' tradition of Towel Power. He wasn't suspended beyond that, though, but it shows that there's a long history of coaches acting up in the playoffs.
What's funny is how things have changed, though. Back in 1988, the league suspended Schoenfeld for the next game, but the Devils got a restraining order issued by New Jersey Superior Court Judge James F. Madden only 40 minutes before the start of Game Four that allowed Schoenfeld to coach. This triggered a walkout by the game's officials, referee Dave Newell and linesmen Gord Broseker and Ray Scapinello, which delayed the game for over an hour. Eventually, local officials Paul McInnis, Jim Sullivan and Vin Godleski were recruited to work the game. Schoenfeld was later suspended for Game Five and things returned to normal. The Devils lost the series in seven games, and the Bruins lost to the Oilers in the Stanley Cup Finals.
Things appear to be taking a more moderate course this time. The Rangers released a statement Saturday night that they "disagree with the suspension" [Pierre LeBrun, ESPN.com], but there's no sign of a court order yet. President and general manager Glen Sather did send a strongly-worded letter [Jeff Z. Klein, The New York Times] to Gary Bettman about security problems in Washington. I guess they only bother with the courts for important things like digital media rights [Sports Business Journal]. In any case, it's interesting to see how things have changed over the years, and it's hilarious that Schoenfeld is stepping in to Tortorella's shoes.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
NHL bracket pool
Yes, this is a little late, but seeing James Mirtle's playoff bracket yesterday inspired me to create my own. Unfortunately, it's nowhere near as pretty, but it's functional. If you're interested in joining my bracket pool for fun, just go to Simply Sports Ware; the pool name is SportingMadness and the password is Sporting. The pick deadline is Friday night at 7 p.m.; that will allow picks to be made after one game in every series has been played. Let's see who comes out on top! Here's my picks:
Round One:
West:
-Vancouver over St. Louis in six games.
- Anaheim over San Jose in seven games
- Detroit over Columbus in six games
- Chicago over Calgary in five games
East:
-Boston over Montreal in five games
-Washington over New York in six games
-Carolina over New Jersey in six games
-Pittsburgh over Philadelphia in six games
Round Two:
West:
- Vancouver over Chicago in five games
- Anaheim over Detroit in six games
East:
- Boston over Carolina in six games
- Washington over Pittsburgh in seven games
Round Three:
West:
- Vancouver over Anaheim in six games
East:
- Boston over Washington in six games
Stanley Cup Final:
- Vancouver over Boston in seven games
Thoughts? Criticisms? Post them in the comments below. There's some reasonably bold picks here, so we'll see how it works out.
Oh, and the scoring system's included in the pool rules. Basically, you get points if you pick the right team to win the series, and you then get more points depending on how close you were to the correct number of games. Point values increase as the rounds go on.
Round One:
West:
-Vancouver over St. Louis in six games.
- Anaheim over San Jose in seven games
- Detroit over Columbus in six games
- Chicago over Calgary in five games
East:
-Boston over Montreal in five games
-Washington over New York in six games
-Carolina over New Jersey in six games
-Pittsburgh over Philadelphia in six games
Round Two:
West:
- Vancouver over Chicago in five games
- Anaheim over Detroit in six games
East:
- Boston over Carolina in six games
- Washington over Pittsburgh in seven games
Round Three:
West:
- Vancouver over Anaheim in six games
East:
- Boston over Washington in six games
Stanley Cup Final:
- Vancouver over Boston in seven games
Thoughts? Criticisms? Post them in the comments below. There's some reasonably bold picks here, so we'll see how it works out.
Oh, and the scoring system's included in the pool rules. Basically, you get points if you pick the right team to win the series, and you then get more points depending on how close you were to the correct number of games. Point values increase as the rounds go on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
