Maybe the solution is not to participate in this sketchy enterprise.

They pile huge money into sports to try to leap to legitimacy. They’re trying to prop up their football team as a legit D1 outfit by actually paying to play teams that will beat them, to give them scheduling cred.

Sox held out for a total jackpot in return for Quintana in the off season. Now they might have to settle for jack.

What gets me is all the lecturing about how it’s not all that expensive compared to hot hockey markets. Well in big markets like Chicago, playoff ticket prices are eyewatering. In Ottawa, they may not be as much, but they are still expensive, and of course everything is jacked up, including parking. Throw in factors…

So if you are a sophisticated fan and don’t want to seem like a neophyte, you just accept substandard, inconsistent officiating because good officiating is too much to ask.

I forget which series too (seems like Washington), but I also recall that it was more of a legit interference. However, i don’t recall that Sullivan did an initial challenge. I think at first the refs conducted their own review to see that the puck crossed the line, which it did. So then it seemed kind of absurd that…

OK, two things there. One the textbook is badly written, specifying the often contradictory actions of “initiates contact” and “incidental [contact]” within a single contingency. Second, it is the definition of “initiates” that is decided seemingly randomly with each case. And nothing is spoken about the result of…

You can’t challenge an interference call outside of the goalie, but your point illustrates the absurdity of these goal challenges, which carve out an exception to make a review of a subjective call. The result is more random officiating. The call on Hainsie was a joke.

Textbook? Come on. The puck was loose in the crease before anyone entered it. Offense has a right to go for the puck. It’s basically a spin of the wheel whether interference is called. And how come interference to waive off a goal is almost always called only upon replay? Why do refs continually miss it—or not call…

You might be borderline, and the more chances, the more you can be wrong and lose and your opponent can gain. As long as you keep the double margin, there’s nothing inherently wrong with stalling.

“Marc-Andre Fleury gave up four goals in 13 minutes to start Game 3, and that apparently outweighed his entire body of playoff work this year.” Didn’t outweigh as much as open the window to play Murray. Now that he has a little game action from finishing for Fleury, Murray is the guy Sullivan thinks gives the best…

He fell five to seven feet. Head versus concrete.

No, he means the random slanted placement of the short entries, like he was signing something handed to him.

A guy whacked out on PCP enough to park his car in the middle of a roadway at least didn’t have the chance to kill anyone actually innocent by driving his car any farther in that condition.

Once as a kid I was with my dad on one of his pastoral calls to an older couple. They asked me if I wanted something to drink, and I asked for Tom Collins. At home we were served the Canada Dry bottled mix (no booze).

That’s the way!

Beer snobs never disappoint

I’ve heard that repeated many times. I’ve never seen it substantiated. When you think of how good a skater that would make the goalie, you would think you would see some goalies converting to skating positions, since skating and hands are about the most elusive of talents.

I recently saw a video of old goalies and they were remarking that goalies tend to be guys who love to be the center of attention and the action. Sometimes they discover their calling at first because they are the bad skater (though many goalies are very good skaters).

Ties in football are especially tolerable because gamblers care about the outcome versus the spread, not whether a team won, tied, or lost.