Howard_T’s profile

since an awful lot of members of the Massachusetts Bar and Bay State judges are BC graduates, Jagodzinski might not have a chance.

It was indeed tongue-in-cheek, but if you grew up with Massachusetts politics and the court system of the Commonwealth, you would understand that it is only partially so. The "old boy" network is very much in play.

posted at 02:01 PM on January 08

bender, the only problem I have with your idea of BC wanting to change the perception of their football program is this funny idea they have of wanting their student-athletes to be exactly that. Students first, athletes second is their commendable way of doing things. BC has one of the highest graduation rates of athletes of all BCS universities. Their admissions requirements are stringent. It is very difficult for a coach to sell a program like that to highly skilled recruits. The best approach for a school like BC is to tell your recruits that they will get a first-class education, if they put in the necessary effort, and be part of a very good, but not great, football program that produces a few professional prospects each year. For any kid with decent high school grades and a set of parents who have their feet firmly on the ground, this should be enough.

posted at 10:54 AM on January 08

Georges, you should have titled this blog "I Fight Because It's the Only Way I Can Earn a Half Decent Paycheck in the NHL". I don't know what skill set you have outside of hockey, but if you dislike fighting so much, then find something else to do for a living. If you were not fighting, then you certainly would not be in the NHL.

All of you SpoFites who have looked at the Sanderson post should know my views on hockey fights by now. I think that part of the problem is the use of players like Georges Laraque, who are only marginally skilled in anything other than fighting. (In Laraque's defense, I've never heard of him being a cheap shot artist. His play, while intended for only one thing, is clean.) If there were some way of requiring all players on a roster to actually be able to play the game well, perhaps some of the unnecessary fights would be eliminated. When I first started following the game, star players like Gordie Howe stood up for themselves. They did not require a "bodyguard". Could we ever get back to those days?

posted at 10:41 AM on January 08

Jagodzinski's mistake in the whole thing was to make his move before paying the AD the courtesy of telling him what was going on. In any career, it's never a good idea to surprise your boss with anything other than a party on his birthday.

BC's problem is that they have a somewhat exaggerated opinion of their place in NCAA football. They have a consistently good program that plays a somewhat weak schedule (ACC plus a local 1AA team or 2, plus Notre Dame). They are not a perennial BCS championship contender, although a top 25 ranking is usually attainable. It is not the place where a top flight coach who is looking for better things is likely to want to spend significant time. Hiring a coach with NFL credentials is a mistake for BC, because as soon as he sees an NFL job he might like, he will try for it. Thus, BC would do better to better define itself as a very good university with a decent football program. Their best fit would be to hire a coach who has had a good measure of success in a Division 1AA or Division 2 program. This sort of coach will be looking to enhance his reputation, and since this would take repeated success over a long term, he would not be likely to be in any hurry to move on.

Does BC owe Jagodzinski any money? It sounds to me like they will agree on some sort of settlement. Otherwise, it winds up in the hands of the lawyers, and since an awful lot of members of the Massachusetts Bar and Bay State judges are BC graduates, Jagodzinski might not have a chance.

posted at 06:03 PM on January 07

I figured you for a night owl, JJ.

If they're not your pants, whose are they and why are you wearing them? Something's going on here. Tell us all, JJ.

posted at 04:32 PM on January 06

The photograph of the oncoming clouds (number 9 in the url sequence) deserves to be marketed as a framed print. It would look good in any tennis fan's game room/bar/den. I would also nominate the 2 of Nadal holding the trophy (numbers 34 and 35) for a similar use. The photo with the sun flare in the lens (21) is also a great piece of work. Thanks for sharing, JJ.

posted at 12:25 PM on January 06

The only thing on a golf course that affected my hearing was the string of foul language issuing from my mouth after my usual ineffective attempt to strike a decent shot.

JJ, do you wear those trousers because they're the only thing you can see in your closet early in the morning? They're a sure cure for a hangover.

posted at 10:14 AM on January 06

Yes, Bo, now that you mention it, I do remember the discussion. I'm not sure whether your chin strap comment is tongue-in-cheek or not, but if not, perhaps the helmet should be more difficult to remove. I too see the Sanderson tragedy as something of a freak accident, but one that was very preventable. Let's face it, as I said before, the very structure of hockey makes it arguably the most dangerous of team sports. Nearly every year I hear of the death or crippling injury of a player, and not always the result of a fight or dirty play. Here in the Greater Boston area we frequently see the video of Travis Roy, playing the first shift of his collegiate career for Boston University. He was in an overzealous attempt to check a player, somehow tripped, and wound up going headfirst into the end boards. He is a quadriplegic, but still continues to work as a motivational speaker and with the Travis Roy Foundation. travisroyfoundation.org

I still can't see how the game of hockey can be made safer without ruining the game. That is my dilemma.

posted at 03:33 PM on January 04

On review, I had not read tahoemoj's comment above before I posted my latest. I agree for the most part that hockey fights are generally without emotion, but that in nearly all cases are retaliatory in nature. It still holds true that even without the emotion, fighting is a cleaner way of "getting even" than a cheap shot.

Disclaimer: I never played hockey other than on the local pond or in inter-fraternity games in college. Even at that, I have 2 bad knees for my efforts. I think that most of us have enough of an understanding of the sports upon which we comment, even if we never played them, that we can contribute to an intelligent discourse. SpoFites seem to be very good at this.

posted at 01:55 PM on January 03

bobfoot, hockey is the only sport among the several you mention (with the exception of baseball and lacrosse) in which the players carry something that could be used as a weapon. Also, the physical layout of the hockey playing surface makes it probable that a cheap shot will result in serious injury. Thus, some sort of release is a better idea than cheap shots. There have been plenty of instances on a football field where a player has been deliberately fouled (by a low block usually) and sustained a serious injury. Perhaps if a harmless fight had been allowed, with appropriate penalties, perhaps including ejection, being applied, the deliberate act would not have occurred. The same goes for any sport, and the difference being that falling headfirst on a grass field is a lot less hazardous than doing so on an ice surface. The point is that the equipment and playing environment attributes of the game, coupled with its speed, make the run of play in hockey more dangerous than the other games.

My original point was that I recognized and agreed with the sentiment that fighting has a place in hockey, but that the Sanderson incident has me questioning that sentiment. I have given it some thought in the past few hours, and I am still in a quandary. Should those who engage in a fight be given a game misconduct and an automatic one-game suspension? It is the rule in collegiate hockey, but is it a good idea in the professional game? I think not. My reason is that even now too many teams try to send a less-skilled player onto the ice with the intent of goading the opponent's best into a fight. In essence this amounts to trading a "goon" for a star for 5 minutes or more. That's hardly fair, but how do you identify it and prevent it? So what's the solution? I'd like to see more comment.

posted at 01:45 PM on January 03

I have long been a proponent of fighting in hockey. To me it gives the players a means to release any feelings of anger toward an opponent without resorting to cheap shots. I think that dirty play is far more likely to cause serious injury than a good, old fashioned bare knuckles fight.

Last Tuesday, December 30, Tim Wallace of Pittsburgh and Boston's Milan Lucic had a fight. Wallace wears a visored helmet, and in a gesture of fairness, for which he received much positive comment, he removed it. Lucic removed his conventional helmet in return, and the two had at it. As they began swinging, I thought of Sanderson's injury and immediately held my breath. These were 2 strong men on skates, and either could easily have fallen to the ice head first. Frankly, I was scared. For the first time, I began to doubt the place of fighting in hockey.

I still think that fighting is not the worst thing, but with Sanderson's death, I wonder if it is worth it. I would not want to see an angry player, denied the possibility of a fight to redress grievances, take to swinging his stick, attempting a low check, or pushing an opponents face into the glass. But as I said above, I'm afraid that a Sanderson style incident will happen again. Thus, I'm caught in a dilemma. Where do we go from here?

posted at 02:15 PM on January 02

OOPS, I meant dyams is my man. Sorry, YYM, just because I can't read doesn't mean you get any undeserved accolades.

posted at 04:06 PM on January 01

I'm on board as "Out with 11-5". YYM, you are my man. WE ARE......PENN STATE!

posted at 04:05 PM on January 01

Here's my list for my favorite Boston-based teams:

Celtics: Stop trying to rest your starters. Resolve to win every game.
Bruins: Please don't let your terrific first half effort be an anomaly. Resolve to play hard on every shift.
Red Sox: Stay with the plan, and build the best team you can while staying within your financial guidelines. While you're at it, try to convince the politicians that Fenway Park should be turned into a monument, and a large new stadium be built in the city.
Patriots: Never, ever let Bill Belichick retire. Clone him if it should become necessary.
Revolution (MLS) and Cannons (Lacrosse): Try to get more than a few thousand fans who even know you exist.

posted at 02:07 PM on January 01

I have just finished looking through the official NBA rules on line, and there is nothing in there about what to do, other than to assess a technical foul, when a team plays with more than 5 on the floor. It's one of those unfortunate holes in the rule book that can crop up in any sport. I do believe that the officials, including the referees, could have done better.

If you look at the rule on the flagrant foul, it includes acts of deceit. The official scorer could have determined which of the 6 players on the court was not checked into the game. The referees could then have assessed him a flagrant foul, given Boston the technical foul free throw, and then awarded the ball to Boston. It's a stretch, but it's the only thing that comes remotely close to covering the situation.

Rivers was right in not blaming the officials entirely for the Celtics' loss. I watched the game on TV, and Boston did not play well. I will say that this might have been the worst job of officiating, even excluding the 6th man problem, that I have seen this season. There was no consistency in the calls being made, although neither team was favored, and this made for very sloppy basketball. The NBA needs to take a very long look at its officials and start fining or suspending referees for poor performance. There have been too many marginal performances over the past few years.

posted at 01:50 PM on January 01