on what exists and would sol

Posted in Wrestling Forums by lavender123456 at 00:42, Jul 19 2014

OWINGS MILLS, Md. - The Baltimore Ravens and left tackle Eugene Monroe reached agreement on a five-year contract Friday. Finding a way to retain the 26-year old Monroe was one of the Ravens top priorities of the off-season. They now have the long-term answer at left tackle they have lacked since Jonathan Ogden retired following the 2007 season. Monroe was selected by the Jacksonville Jaguars with the No. 8 overall pick in the 2009 NFL draft. He spent four-plus seasons with the Jaguars before being traded to Baltimore in October. He started the final 11 games for the Ravens at left tackle. Mike Ditka Bears Jersey . 8 Ben Morgan for the injured Billy Vunipola was the only change in the England run-on side for the Six Nations showdown with Wales at Twickenham on Sunday. Matt Forte Bears Jersey . The biggest shock of this seasons competition was on when Watford took a 2-0 lead after 30 minutes at Etihad Stadium, only for a remarkable Aguero-led comeback by City in the final half-hour. The Argentina striker produced clinical finishes in the 60th and 79th minutes to level the score before Aleksandar Kolarov put City in front in the 87th. http://www.nflbearsus.com/Womens-Martellus-Bennett-Authentic-Jersey/.J. McCarron, Aaron Murray and Zach Mettenberger to finally hear their names called. Roberto Garza Bears Jersey . Brands was the only German player available to play Sunday, after Tommy Haas and Philipp Kohlschreiber won their doubles match Saturday for an unassailable 3-0 lead. Kohlschreiber pulled out of his reverse singles match against Spanish No. Brock Vereen Bears Jersey . Houston won 3-0 to advance to face New York in the Eastern Conference semifinals. Last in the game, Di Vaio and Romero got into a shoving match with several Houston players. Romero appeared to elbow and kick Houston defender Kofi Sarkodie.My uncle Rolly would say "a tie is like kissing your sister" and though I did not have a sister, and kissing anyone was a wholly unappetizing prospect, I got his drift. Nobody is happy with the outcome. To its credit, in the late 1990s, the spry brain-trust at the National Hockey League recognized this fundamental drag on its product and vowed to improve a flawed system. Various solutions and quick-fixes were considered in the ensuing years, and the League, largely during semi-regular work stoppages, decided on a blended approach. (This new three-pronged approach, despite coinciding with league expansion and record revenues, would trigger the erosion of my interest, until I eventually stopped watching entirely.) Change Number One: Four Skaters and a Goalie The number of skaters decreased to four a-side during the overtime period, opening up offensive manoeuvrability and theoretically ending more games with game-winning tallies rather than endless dump-and-chase neutrality. Verdict: Wow. This was a major move, altering the five-on-five structure basic to the sport, and it was a winner. Instead of labouring through increased late game conservatism, skilled players could find themselves better able to deke and shimmy and strut their capabilities, particularly in the games most crucial moments. It also encouraged the reversing of a trend which had taken hold across the league, one where teams were playing "not to lose" and overtime periods were getting increasingly dump-and-chase ho-hum. Overtime would be meaningful again! Sha-la-la-la! Success. Change Number Two: If At First You Dont Succeed, Shoot Again The NHL introduced the controversial, internationally-tested shootout as a means of concluding deadlocked matches. Already in use at NHL All-Star Games, the League took a baby step, opting for three shooters per side, rather than the five per side standard in international play. One in seven games ended in a tie in 2003-2004, so this was going to have a major impact. Verdict: Surprisingly decent move. Fans get a thrill and hopelessly tied games get a victor. Two for two, by my count. But the NHL is not in the leave-well-enough-alone business. In classic League fashion, a third branch of tinkering was offered up, one in which the basic worth of winning or losing would be altered. It is this final alteration that persists to today, defining the current system, and for this hanging-by-a-thread fan, produces a result which is laughable and has firmly pushed me to the periphery of support. Change Number Three: The Three Point Game Shudder. In the former system, a win was worth two points for the victor, zero points for the vanquished. A tie meant a point to each side. Two points per game to be won, lost or split. In the current system, two points continue to be the victors spoils, but depending upon how the loser loses, the losing team may be awarded one or zero points. The pertinent extrapolation — particularly in a conference-based playoff system — is to recognize that some games are then worth three points and other games worth two. This imbalance is a black eye on the game which needs immediate attention. The rule change emerged from what was termed the "Dead Puck Era" or "The Decade Hockey Turned To Crap". Overtime periods had become interminable with each side playing for the tie rather than chance going home pointless. So the NHL made tie games at the end of regulation worth one point to each side to encourage vigorous overtime play for an additional point. The change did not have the desired outcome. The risk-averse playing just starts earlier. Now the second half of the third period is the play-it-safe spot. (For those following at home, the second half of the third period was traditionally also known as the "end of the game".) So now this "end of the game" segment is like a Benjamin Moore product demonstration. Not coincidentally, since the current system launched in 2005-06, there has been a major weakening in the Mike Gallay-watching to hockey-on-television corollary. Whatever, It All Shakes Out in the End If the very nature of consolation points doesnt enrage you, consider this: not only should the Los Angeles Kings not have won the Stanley Cup in 2012, they should not have even been in the playoffs.dddddddddddd In 2011-12, the Kings finished the regular season in the 8th seed of the Western Conference. Their record of 40-27-15 really meant they finished games 40-42. In 10th place languished the Dallas Stars (42-40) and in 11th, the Colorado Rockies* (41-41). In any season prior to the three point game initiative, the Kings would not have been in the post-season. (*I am an indefatigable purist in some regards.**)(**I realize if that was truly the case I should refer to them as the Quebec Nordiques.) This is not a one-off situation. It happened to Vancouver and Los Angeles in 2005-06. To Colorado and Montreal in 2006-07. To Carolina in 2007-08. Dozens of teams have received unmerited seedings over the years, all because of the preposterous three point game. Et tu, Baseball? Whats that gang? You all are expanding to 30 or more teams?Hey, we can too!Sure weve heard of Atlanta. The NHL has long been a follow-the-leader organization which makes the three point game more puzzling. It has no relevant precedent. MLB games cannot finish in ties and, bolstered by its non-contact, non-cardiovascular setup, teams may play endlessly into the night. Hell, if necessary, theyll just keep playing tomorrow. Quite reasonably, the NHLPA would not approve potentially endless overtime periods because of potential injury and fostering competitive imbalance (ie. when a rested team plays a team which last night played seven periods). In the NBA, there are no ties and overtime periods are rare and captivating. Hardwood scoring is more plentiful than hockey scoring, so the likelihood of limitless overtime periods is slight. In the NFL (AKA "the league that gets things right" surprisingly there is allowance for ties, but league-wide there have been only two in the past five years. The anomaly of the football tie makes it bizarre and accepted as it functions more as a novelty than a drag on competitive balance. If every team averaged even one tie per season, oh yes, the NFL would have torched it long ago. Dumping & Chasing Dreams I try to get excited for hockey. I remember my youth, endless slapshots against a laundry room wall. I check out the standings to see who is jostling for—nope, cant do it. Right now, RIGHT NOW, of the 30 teams competing only 7 have losing records. Last year, by seasons end, same result, only 7 had losing records. In 2009-10, only 20% of the league had a losing record. Stop this madness. Its humiliating when grown men playing a grown mans game require the systemic equivalent of an orange slice and a plastic participant trophy. Are savvy Hockeytown fans sincerely fooled that their beloved Red Wings 30-24-13 record doesnt mean their team is a 30-37 loser? Their skaters headed to the locker room showers pissed off 37 times this year. Fact. Deep breath. I have heard all the reasons, some logical, some inebriated, on how to remedy this situation. The League and the PA and the broadcasters all have a say. But the solution is barely a tweak on what exists and would solve everything: Ten minute overtimes with four skaters a-side and a best-of-5 shootout. Winner gets two points. Loser gets a Tim Hortons special. Fans get a better reason to spend hundreds of dollars to attend. If you cannot win a game after seventy minutes then you earned the uncertainty of a shootout. The shootout, exciting as it is, might as well be five shooters a-side to give it more weight and the fans more thrills. The League only introduced regular season overtime in 1983-1984. Crucial, fundamental changes like this happen frequently. When the three point game was introduced it was to be rid of ties, to be rid of the indecision of such an outcome, but we wound up with a greater ingrained indecisiveness. This can be fixed. This should be fixed. This will improve the game. It might even make me forgive what those morons did to the conferences. Gallays Poll #3 If you were the NHL commish (my condolences), how would you remedy the current point system? (A) Leave it as is because I value tradition and systemic imbalance.(B) Take Gallays suggestions to make every game worth 2 points. 1 Winner. 1 Loser.(C) Go back to the system with the ties we all loved so much. Everyones a winner.(D) Abandon points altogether for a ranking system based entirely on scrapping. ' ' '