Luongo Controversy

This morning, a couple of talk show hosts from a Vancouver sports radio station (Team 1040) were commenting on the Roberto Luongo pad issue.

For those of you who haven't heard, the Dallas Stars allegedly complained to the NHL before the start of last year's playoffs that the Canucks goalie's knee flaps--which stuck out of his pads--gave him an unfair advantage. If you were to believe the charges, those flaps were supposedly helping Luongo make more saves.

Then in December, Stars goalies Marty Turco and Mike Smith jokingly put on home-made mock flaps during a morning skate to perhaps seemingly further insinuate that Luongo's pads had been illegal.

In reality, the knee flaps worn by Luongo supposedly are for protective purposes and nothing more, and some other goalies in the league use them too, most notably Stanley Cup champion J.S. Giguerre of the Ducks.

A couple months ago when the complaints by the Stars surfaced, the NHL had allowed Luongo to continue using the pads after checking the equipment. And that was also okayed during the Stars-Canucks first-round playoff series last spring too.

The reason that this is now an issue is that the league has apparently reversed its ruling, and has asked Luongo to remove the flaps.

And get this: apparently other goalies in the league will still be allowed to wear theirs.

Double standards? In professional sports? Welcome to the NHL.

Not that I sympathize with Luongo, of course, as I do not root for the Canucks.

But apparently an unofficial statement issued by Kay Whitmore--a former Canuck goalie who is now part of the league's "goalie police" department dealing with equipment issues--to The Province, a newspaper in Vancouver, was that the controversial ruling was handed down was due to the way Luongo was wearing his pads.

My take on this is that goalies shouldn't be allowed to wear big pads to begin with, so the league definitely needs to start cracking down on goalie equipment issues.

But getting back to the comments made by the morning show hosts in Vancouver, this is supposedly a good thing.

According to them, this ruling will motivate Luongo to take his game to the next level. Play with a chip on his shoulder, and prove to the rest of the league that he can be one of the world's best goalies in spite of this gamesmanship displayed by the Stars.

Hello? Make Luongo mad and he'll shut the door on the rest of the league?

What do these media guys know anyway?

Has Luongo proven to be in the same class as a guy like Patrick Roy, who you can certainly suggest played well when challenged in that manner?

Roy was a multiple Stanley Cup winner.

What has Luongo won?

One playoff round in his NHL career, that's what.

For these talk show hosts to even remotely suggest that Luongo may now step up and take charge because of this controversy is laughable.

Now, the hosts didn't mention Roy's name, but if you try and read between the lines, it's like saying that Luongo is suddenly going to have this unbeatable aura because of this controversy and have a "us-against-the-world" mentality.

Very few athletes have been able to take it to that kind of level. Certainly none in Vancouver's non-storied history as far as I know. Certainly not in Luongo's repetoire either.

But perhaps now the media guys are going to say that Vancouver should plan a parade for this team come June too. Better start printing those Stanley Cup tickets and plan a route for the championship celebrations!

And oh, by the way, guess what. Peter Forsberg isn't going to Vancouver either.

I guess the Vancouver media will suggest that the Canucks will land Mats Sundin or some other big name before the trading deadline too!

Is there anyone else out there who has a take on this goalie equipment/Luongo controversy? Discuss.

Radical Baseball Wild Card Format

Purists and critics have complained that far too many wild card teams in baseball have been winning or making it to the World Series.

These teams weren't even good enough to win their own division, for crying out loud!

Yet, once these second-place outfits get on a roll and get into the post-season, they start knocking other teams off.

In 2007, it was the Colorado Rockies in the National League. The 2006 Tigers and 2005 Astros also made it to the Fall Classic.

The 2004 Red Sox used the wild card route to make the post-season before stunning the world with their record-setting triumph over the Yankees in the ALCS and an anti-climatic sweep over St. Louis in the Fall Classic.

1997 and 2003 Marlins. 2002 Angels and Giants. And on and on.

Based on the current format, wild card teams do not have home-field advantage in the Division Series or League Championship Series, regardless of their won-loss records. (It's possible for a wild card team to have a better record than a division winner, but the latter will have the extra home game.)

Well, if wild card teams in baseball are havin so much success--or luck--why not give them more of a disadvantage, or penalty, if you will, for not winning their divisions?

At the present time, the Division Series is a best-of-five, with the series going 2-2-1 and the wild card team having the middle two games.

A wild card team could potentially split the first two, go home for the middle two games and sweep them, and move on to the League Championship Series.

I propose the following to eliminate such an "advantage" for these non-division champs:

Let the wild card host the first game.

Yes, you heard me right. The first game should be hosted by the "inferior" team.

Then here's the kicker.

The division winner will then host the remaining four games of the series.

That's right, a 1-4 format, with the wild card team getting just one home game, and it can't come in any of the "key" or pivotal middle games.

If a wild card team can survive that, then kudos to that team.

And let's say that team makes it past the Division Series and moves on to the League Championship Series, again, the current 2-3-2 format could be favorable.

Again, split the first two, and get the next three at home. What disadvantage is that?

My solution:

3-2-2, with the division champ hosting five of a possible seven contests.

Again, under this proposed format, if the wild card team somehow survives the first three games going 2-1, this forces them to have to win their lone two home games, otherwise they have to return to enemy territory to try and advance to the World Series.

This probably will never happen, but if baseball wants to eliminate the wild card "advantage", they must go an unconventional route in order to accomplish this.

Does anyone else out there have any bright ideas for the wild card? Discuss.

Should a team get a point for losing?

Should a team get a point for losing?

Of course, everyone who follows hockey knows this.

The NHL awards teams that lose in overtime and in the tie-breaking shootout a single point, while the winning team gets two points.

Huh?

How can there be a total of three points awarded (to both teams) when a regulation game awards only two?

Strange.

Yes, I understand the league's reasoning behind it.

Previously, before the NHL started adopting the "extra point" rule (and before shootouts were used), teams could basically be tied after regulation, and then play it conservatively in the OT period and pray for that single point. Be aggressive and go for it, and have it backfire if the other team scores, and you lose everything. No points for a 60+ minute effort.

Thus, coaches preached playing it safe, and skate away after that five-minute OT session with a single point.

Yes, I get that.

So, the single point that is now awarded for OT and shootout losses is supposedly going to make teams go for it and not worry about losing if they get caught in odd-man breaks.

Teams could go for it and try to score, knowing that they have already secured that "loser" point regardless of what happens next. If they actually win, they get two points.

Yes, I know that too.

And, with a lot of games being close and all these extra bonus points awarded for losses, it has created a more competitive game--on the ice and in the standings.

For example, just randomly taking a look at the standings, say on February 14, 2008, you will see the following scenarios:

Toronto, despite being last in the Eastern Conference with 55 points (and second last overall in the entire league), was just 8 points behind eighth-place Boston (63) for the final playoff spot in the conference.

The Maple Leafs had been inconsistent all year long during the 2007-08 season, and had blown third-period and last-minute leads in several games. And they had those bonus points to show for their failures, and those points had piled up and made it seem like they still had a shot.

That's what the NHL is trying to do, trying to create this competitive balance. Teams that still think they are in the playoff race will probably not want to tank the season and start a fire sale. Good for the league, good for fan interest, et cetera, et cetera.

However, the problem here is that this system is giving fans false hope.

Tampa Bay, with 56 points on the same day, was No. 14 in the conference, but was only 6 points away from being tied for the division lead in the mediocre Southeast Division. If the Lightning went on a hot streak, they might well catch up to the division leaders and could see themselves in third place in the entire conference (since division winners were ranked 1-2-3 in the conference standings).

And just to look at this humorously for a second, a team could basically go 0-0-82 (ie. not win any games, losing all 82 games in overtime or in the shootout) and get 82 points. That's a .500 record, for not winning a single game. Wow.

Professional athletes--hockey players, that is, as we shall see in a second--are getting paid big bucks but need to be rewarded with these consolation points.

Teams can proudly proclaim that "this is the greatest season in history" and point to the high point-total that is inflated by those loser points. And perhaps jack up ticket prices too.

But seriously, is there any other league out there amongst the "big four" in North America that awards points to losers?

Nope. Not in Major League Baseball. If you lose a 23-inning marathon, that's too bad. You get nothing in the standings. Just go out and play again the next day (or same day).

Not in basketball. You keep playing until someone loses. And your team could score 150 points in the game and not be rewarded in the standings. If you lose the game.

Not in football. You lose in overtime because your kicker blew it but the other team's didn't. Well, you might have to go home while the other teams play on in the playoffs.

The only other comparable situation would be the Canadian Football League (CFL), where a missed field goal could result in a single point. But the CFL is not really a major league, so I digress.

Anyway, the point here is, the concept of giving points to losing teams is a bit goofy. No other leagues do it.

So why the NHL?

Lots of things don't make sense in the NHL, but this loser point system is one that is so ridiculous that other leagues don't even bother.