sharkey58
sharkey58's Comments
More FanHouse Blogs
- Amir Sadollah Bloodies Phil Baroni
- Mark Martin Remains Sentimental Favorite
- UFC 106 Results
- Nate Robinson Shoots at Wrong Basket
- Broadcasters Suspended for Haddadi Comments
- UFC 106 Fight Card
- Stefanie Spielman Dies at Age 42
- Bears Shun NBC for Sunday Night Game
- Parisyan Pulls Out of UFC 106, Dana White Says Move is Career Ender
- Questions Surround ESPN's NBA Latino Power Rankings
Stub Hub
The 2009 schedule has been released. Search for tickets!
Truth & Rumors
MOST POPULAR
-
1
Bills owner wanted Gruden
- Views
- 61493
- Comments
- 389
-
2
Parcells to Browns?
- Views
- 10446
- Comments
- 176
-
3
Why Knicks passed on Iverson
- Views
- 30409
- Comments
- 108
-
4
Yankees keeping eye on Halladay
- Views
- 49129
- Comments
- 91
-
5
Raiders players happy with new QB
- Views
- 12190
- Comments
- 91
Most Active Users
Comments + Blog Posts + Throwdowns
Message Boards
-
NCAAF > General NCAAF
2009's most disappointing team
- Views
- 697
- Replies
- 27
-
NCAAF > General NCAAF
CFB Game Day 11/21/2009
- Views
- 335
- Replies
- 145
-
NCAAF > LSU Tigers
Les Miles FIRE HIM
- Views
- 193
- Replies
- 21

Julie Henderson
Maria Kirilenko



The reason he went to court is because this guy was using Bosh's name and face for advertisments that were not endorsed by Bosh. Bosh also has already said he will give back every domain name to its rightful owner FOR FREE, so that this does not happen to anyone again.
For the record, everyone says Toronto is a small market. I live in Toronto, this is by no means a small market like Tampa or Kansas City. This is the 5th largest city in North America, a quarter of the entire population of my country live in the Golden Horseshoe area, which runs from northeast of the city down to Niagara Falls and the areas bordering NY State/Buffalo. This is a massive media market in North America and by far the largest in Canada. So by no means is this anything close to a small market. The Jays could easily operate with a much bigger budget than what they have, they just choose not to. Remember, they did it back when they were winning World Series.
Now that we've established that, we can forget about this "story", since clearly it's old news.
This story parallels Buckner on so many levels. First off, let's leave aside the fact that because of Wrigley's narrow foul territory at that section of the park, there's ZERO chance Alou catches that baseball. So foul ball means the batter is still up. The very next pitch, it's a routine 6-4-3 double play ground ball to Alex Gonzalez. Gonzalez boots it, inning continues, floodgates open and Florida forces game 7 winning 8-3.
Now here's where it really parallels Buckner. Everyone forgets that the Red Sox blew a lead in the 9th inning of the Buckner game, and were only one strike away from winning that very night. Of course Calvin Schiraldi and Bob Stanley blew that game for the Red Sox in the 11th. But does anyone remember that? Of course not, because Buckner booted the ground ball. Does anyone also remember that Buckner's booted ground ball came AFTER Bob Stanley threw a wild pitch to bring home the tying run, which he had inherited from Schiraldi? Of course not, because Buckner booted the ground ball. Same situation here. Nobody remembers that the Cubs bullpen blew it, or that Alex Gonzalez booted a grounder in game 6.
Now to game 7. In 1986 the Red Sox had a three-run lead into the 6th inning when the Mets then stormed back and took the lead that would win them the Series. But of course nobody remembers that, because Buckner booted the grounder the game before. I'm sure many people out there still think that Buckner's grounder actually won the Mets the series, just like with Bartman. And again, back to 2003, because of the whole Bartman situation, everybody forgets about how the Cubs blew a lead in the 8th inning of game 7 (not to mention Josh Beckett throwing an incredible game for the Marlins, and even as a Cubs fan I have to give him props for that postseason). But nobody remembers that because of Bartman.
Now, having ranted about this long enough, I'll say one thing: ESPN is clearly milking this thing to the point where it's gotten too crazy. Nobody really cares anymore. The only reason I'm posting this is to possibly try and clear some sort of air around the story. The bottom line is we can make up all the curses, myths and weird stories we want, but when any team in any sport has any long drought without winning it means that management of the club, both at the ownership/administration and sport operation levels, are not very good and don't care about winning. You don't have to look further then the Cubs (mostly during the Tribune era, but even at the end of the Wrigleys), Blackhawks under Bill Wirtz, or the Maple Leafs since 1967 to understand this fact.
Now can we all just drop this Bartman crap please?
Now take Phoenix or Atlanta. There, it's been tried (in the case of Atlanta, twice) and it's failed (in the case of Atlanta, both times). There are hockey fans there, but it's clear there's not enough. A place like Nashville gets some major flack for having a hockey team, but I think if it wasn't for the horrific ownership they might have a slightly more solid footing there. They may not be true-blood "hockey fans" in Nashville, but people there have come to love the sport and grown into Predator fans. You could have said the same thing for just about any US market such as New York, Boston, or Chicago in the 1920s, when the league was still almost 100% Canadian. Who would have thought hockey would succeed in those cities? And did you know that when the original Ottawa Senators moved to St. Louis in 1935 the St. Louis Eagles sold out every game that season? They only folded because of travel costs during the depression.
Anyways, the point of my rant is that the southern expansion has worked in many places. San Jose (which I'd compare to Toronto and baseball), Los Angeles because of Gretzky (and the NHL has to have a team in LA), Dallas, Tampa because of the Cup, St. Louis, and maybe Carolina (Cup) and Nashville. Sorry Anaheim (even with a Cup), Phoenix, Atlanta, and Florida, but you've run your course. Teams should go to Seattle, Portland, Winnipeg, Quebec, Hamilton, and Hartford. Then you still have some teams in the south, but every team is in a place where you know hockey will be strong.
As for the neglected markets? Well, the south's obsession with minor-league hockey is still strong. Look how many minor-league teams are in Mississippi and Alabama. Hey, University of Alabama-Huntsville has a NCAA hockey team that's pretty popular there!
Finally, and I know I'm going on long, but if you want to grow the sport in non-traditional markets why doesn't the NHL help the NCAA build DI college hockey in places like North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, California, etc? We all know college sports are a huge part of American culture. Watching the sport at a college level in non-traditional markets could help sell the game at the professional level. The non-hockey fans will always support their alma mater in any sport, from football to archery.
But I've rambled enough. Please discuss.
Let's end this bulls--t story now before it gets out of ... oh wait, I forgot, it's Toronto and hockey, this will never end as long as the sport is around.
(By the way, the cynical individual writing this comment is in journalism school with an intent on becoming a sportswriter)