Odds and Ends

Matt Cooke Update
For anybody not following the Matt Cooke situation, the NHL threw the book at him. He was suspended for the remainder of the regular season, which at the time was 10 games. On top of that, he was also suspended for the first round of the playoffs, which will be an additional 4-7 games, depending on how the Penguins play.

Overall, I think the NHL got this one right. In my previous blog, I was calling for a MINIMUM of 10 games for Matt Cooke. The NHL gave him 14-17, so I applaud their decision on this one. The decision was also applauded by the Pittsburgh Penguins organization.

Todd Bertuzzi
In tonight's game between the Red Wings and Blackhawks, Todd Bertuzzi was ejected early on for a head shot. At 5:17 of the first period, Bertuzzi delivered an elbow to the head of Blackhawks forward Ryan Johnson. Bertuzzi was given a 5 minute major for elbowing and a game misconduct for the hit.

On first instinct, I don't think this one was as blatant as the most recent Matt Cooke elbow. I would really like to see some other angles of the hit though, as well as a slower version. It's obvious at full speed that Bertuzzi's elbow did come up and make contact with the head of Johnson, that much cannot be debated. Based on the play, or what I've seen of it, it doesn't appear as though Bertuzzi came in with the sole intention of delivering an elbow to the head of Johnson. That doesn't make it any less reckless, but I still don't think it was quite as bad as the Cooke hit.

With all of that in mind, Todd Bertuzzi may be the ultimate repeat offender, if there is such a thing. Because it was Bertuzzi that delivered this hit, I expect another lengthy suspension from the NHL. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that he gets the same suspension that Matt Cooke did. I'm predicting the remainder of the regular season, which for the Red Wings is 6 games, plus the first round of the playoffs (4-7 games). So I'm predicting a 10-13 game suspension for Bertuzzi. If the NHL is serious about taking hits like this out of the game, that is what they need to do, intent or not.

Ocho-Ego
During the current NFL lockout, Chad Johnson/Ochocinco/Johnson/whatever his name is now is still playing football. Not that kind of football though, the kind we in the United States refer to as soccer. He is currently on a tryout with Sporting Kansas City (formerly the Kansas City Wizards) of Major League Soccer.

I'm going to get a little sidetracked here. Sporting Kansas City is a dumb name for a professional soccer team in the United States. Sadly, it is still an upgrade over the Kansas City Wizards. There are several teams in Major League Soccer that are trying to give themselves traditional European team names. Those include DC United, FC Dallas, Real Salt Lake, Sporting Kansas City, and Toronto FC, you could also include Chivas USA (who is named after the Chivas club in Mexico). For those not familiar for European football (soccer), FC stands for "Football Club."

I like the fact that MLS is trying to become more traditional, I really do. They did some pretty bizarre, and extremely non-traditional things early on in their history, which really hurt them for a while. But I don't think teams need to have traditional "European-sounding" names. We're the United States and that's just not how we do things here. We're just used to teams having names (e.g. Chicago Fire, Los Angeles Galaxy). I'm not saying that it is right or wrong, because it isn't. It's just what we do here in the States and it's what they've been doing in Europe for over 100 years. I think the MLS and its member teams need to work on establishing their own traditions, with their own identities, rather than trying to get it by copying famous European names. 

Back to my original point. Johnson played about a half hour in a reserve game against the Kansas City Brass and apparently didn't look so good. I'm not saying I'm surprised by that because football is a lot different than football (yes, I did that intentionally). Different sports require players to be built differently so success in one doesn't guarantee success or even results in another.

In the end though, this is basically just a huge publicity stunt, which is a win-win for both sides. It's an opportunity for Johnson to stroke his ego, as he normally does. It's also an opportunity for Sporting Kansas City to gererate some publicity for their club. This is the first year for the team under the Sporting Kansas City name. They were previously known as the Kansas City Wizards from 1995-2010. So this is a good chance for the team to generate more publicity on their recent rebranding of the team. The team is also slated to move into a new stadium, Livestrong Sporting Park, in the middle of the current season (tentatively scheduled for June). More publicity means more merchandise and tickets sold, which means more income for the team.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't be surprised if Johnson suited up for Sporting KC in an actual league game. If this actually happens, I don't think he'd ever see the pitch (field). In reality, he's not a good enough footballer (soccer player) to be on the field with an MLS club against another MLS club. It's all about the publicity and this would generate a lot of it. All of the major papers would probably feature pictures of Johnson wearing Sporting KC gear, which would obviously be huge for the team. Plus, Johnson could continue to stroke his ego some more.

As much of a joke as that would be, it probably wouldn't be bad for the league. It would generate a lot of publicity for the league as well and that is a good thing. The MLS has gotten a million times better in recent years and an event like this could help to showcase the game of football (soccer) and MLS within the United States. Would it fix the game in the States long term? Of course not. David Beckham couldn't do it, so how could Chad Johnson do it? He really can't. But even short term publicity wouldn't be a bad thing for an upstart league like MLS.

The Madness Continues
Remember my blog about the madness of the play-in games? I didn't think it would happen this year, but we now have a situation on our hands. The Rams of Virginia Commonwealth University have miraculously qualified for the Final Four. If you remember right, they had to play the Trojans of USC in one of the First Four games. That means that the Rams have won five games in the tournament already en route to the Final Four. The other three teams (Kentucky, Connecticut and Bulter), on the other hand, have only had to win four. As I said before, that's not fair. They shouldn't have had to play one more game than everybody else to get to this point. Now that a situation like this has come up, the NCAA needs to re-visit its tournament format.

I don't think VCU is a legitimate contender to win the national championship, even though they are now in the Final Four. With that said, I'm just hoping they're able to play their game for the remainder of their tournament run and not run out of gas before it's over. Yes they'll have six days off between games, but their legs have also had to play an extra 40 minutes of game time that their opponent on Saturday (Butler) hasn't had to play. They'll come out jumping this weekend, thanks to adrenaline, but it'll be anybody's guess whether or not they'll be able to sustain that energy throughout the entire game. I think it'll catch up to them eventually.

Get CarLOST
The Chicago Cubs have released fat ass pitcher Carlos Silva. Throughout the second half of last season, before getting injured, and throughout this spring, Silva has not pitched well. That was one of the reasons for his release. After being told that he did not make the club, he was given the option of the trading block, or an assignment to the Triple-A Iowa Cubs (if he couldn't be traded). He told the Cubs that he would not go to Triple-A and then ripped first year pitching coach Mark Riggins. Upon hearing that, general manager Jim Hendry had an interesting quote on the issue: “Basically, he wasn’t good enough to make the team,” Hendry said. “You factor in not only spring training, but you try to go back and factor in the second half of last year, looking at a guy who had a 14-something ERA from July 11 and came to camp with a notion that he already had a spot in the rotation. Obviously, the first three, four outings, quite poor.”

The Cubs decided to eat the remaining time left on Silva's deal, rather than keep him around as a potential distraction for the club. I can't say I blame them there. They probably aren't going to contend in the division this year, but they can still build the foundation for success down the line (i.e. There's always next year...). Also with Mike Quade being a first year manager, he already has enough on his plate, he doesn't need or deserve this. I applaud the Cubs organization for sticking up for and backing their on field staff. There are several organizations, in a variety of leagues, that would not do this in this type of situation.

To make a long story short, Silva is cocky, even though he's not getting positive results. Upon getting those negative results, he's quick to blame everybody else but himself. That's a lesson teachers try to correct in elementary school, just saying. He's out of shape. Plus, he's already had a dust-up with a teammate in the dugout this spring. When the whole thing is added up, Silva had to go. He got what he deserved on this one.

"Cooke"ing up another Suspension

Matt Cooke of the Pittsburgh Penguins is up to his old tricks again. For those who did not see any of the Rangers and Penguins game today, Cooke delivered an elbow to the head of Rangers defenseman Ryan McDonagh. This infraction happened early in the third period of the game, when the Penguins were up 2-1. Cooke was assessed a 5 minute major and a game misconduct.

A play like this should be no surprise from a player like Matt Cooke. He is a talented, yet dirty player, I can't say it any more clearly than that. Honestly, he may be the dirtiest player in the league right now. He has a history of plays like this. Earlier in his career he was known more for sticking his knee out and creating knee on knee collisions, which are extremely dangerous. Now he's moved on to head shots. He's committed several offenses and continually gets slapped on the wrist by the NHL. The leauge keeps saying they are going to crack down on this type of offense, yet fail to send a message each and every time an offense like this occurs.

The most recent occurance was the incident between Dany Heatley, of the San Jose Sharks, and Dallas' Steve Ott which happened this week. Heatley was given 2 games for that deliberate elbow to the head. Does any part of that sound like a crackdown on head shots to you? It sure doesn't to me. Two games is nothing more than a slap on the wrist. If you looked at Cooke's play from earlier today, you will also see a deliberate elbow to the head. It'll be interesting to see what the league does with this one since Cooke is a repeat offender. If the leauge is going to send this message, they need to do it now and they need to make it loud and clear.

Let's take a trip in the way back machine and look at the suspension history for Mr. Cooke. Keep in mind that these are just the suspensions, not the other cheap shots in which he was not suspended for.

In November 2008, Cooke was assessed a 2 game suspension for a check to the head against Rangers center Artem Anisimov.

Only 2 months later, Cooke was suspended again for 2 games for another shot to the head, this time against Scott Walker of the Carolina Hurricanes. I might condone this one if it was current Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, but can't let it slide during an NHL game.

The next one is the big one, which sadly went unpunished. I know I promised that I would include only the suspensions, but I cannot have this conversation without mentioning Cooke's hit on Bruins center Marc Savard. This may be the worst of the bunch, yet he was not suspended for this one. Sadly, I believe that it had absolutely nothing to do with the evidence, which is the hit itself. He wasn't suspended because the hit just happened to be against Marc Savard. Colin Campbell, who is the current Senior Vice President and Director of Hockey Operations for the National Hockey League. Under his current position, he also serves as the primary NHL disciplinarian. Campbell has shown a bias involving incidents including his son, Gregory Campbell's team. After the incident, he also referred to Savard as a "litte fake artist." You can find the evidence of both of those incidents here. "I was very unhappy and upset with that hit," said [NHL Commissioner Gary] Bettman. "I was more upset there was nothing (in the League rules) to do to punish it." Mr. Bettman, you are the Commissioner of the National Hockey League, you can suspend any player, for any reason you want. It doesn't matter whether or not it is in the rule book, especially in a situation like this where a suspension can easily be justified. My favorite sound bite on this hit came from the mouth of Don Cherry. I'll let this speak for itself.

Let's fast forward now to 2011. In February, Cooke was assessed a 4 game suspension for a hit from behind against Fedor Tyutin of the Columbus Blue Jackets. The interesting thing about the Tyutin play is that it happened in the next game after this "questionable" play against Alexander Ovechkin of the Washington Capitals. As far as I'm concerned, he should've been suspended for both.

Now we're up to today's incident against the Rangers' Ryan McDonagh. I'll pretty much let that video speak for itself, seeing as though we don't have too much information on the play at this minute. I think it's a no-brainer than Cooke will be suspended for this incident. Now we just have to wait and see whether or not the NHL will actually do the right thing and finally drop the hammer for hits like this. They failed to do it with Heatley and should've done it a long time ago with Cooke. As the NHL on NBC was signing off today, Eddie Olczyk mentioned that he thought Cooke should be suspended 8 games for the hit. I personally would like to see a minimum of 10. With all of that said, I'm expecting something anywhere from 3-5 games from the NHL. They've made too much of a habit lately of slapping players on the wrist for plays like this, even though they are supposedly cracking down in the issue. So I have a hard time believing that they are finally going to drop the hammer on somebody until they actually do it. Considering the fact that Cooke is a repeat offender, you aren't going to find a better time to send that message if you are the NHL.

For humors sake, I'm going to close this post with a fight that took place between Evander Kane of the Atlanta Thrashers and Matt Cooke. Again, I'll let this speak for itself.

The NFL Locks Out Its Slaves?!

After months of speculation, it's official! The NFL owners have officially locked out the players. The players have already voted to decertify their union in order to file an antitrust lawsuit against the owners. Plaintiffs in that case are players such as Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and Drew Brees. There have also been several players speak out about the current situation. Considering the current circumstances, that is to be expected. The comments that really caught my eye though were the ones made by Vikings running back Adrian Peterson.

If you have yet to see his comments, he compared the current NFL labor situation to "modern day slavery." Like Doug Farrar says in the previous link, I don't think Peterson was actually comparing playing in the NFL to slavery. I think he was trying to prove a point and ended up choosing a poor choice of words. The link I included contains the entire dialogue of the Peterson interview. You can read it and decide for yourself what he meant.

With all of that said, I cannot help but think less of Adrian Peterson. He's a great player on the field, even if he does have a serious case of fumblitis, but he's a little out of his league on this one. It's a complete joke to use the NFL (or any professional sports league for that matter) in the same sentence as slavery, no matter the context.

I understand that it is hard to be a professional football player. Anybody that says otherwise needs to be realistic. Throughout the length of an NFL season, the players put their bodies through hell. Many of them feel the effects of that once they retire. Again, with that said, players can make a ton of money throughout their careers just for playing a game. I understand it is a job, but looking at the big picture, players are still making a ton of money to play the game of football. It sure doesn't sound like slavery to me.

As of the 2010 season, the lowest amount of money a player on any roster could make is $320,000, and that is only for players without a credited season in the NFL. The longer a player remains in the leauge, the higher their minimum salary becomes.

In 2010, it means that a player with no credited seasons will receive at least $320,000.  For players with one credited season, the minimum salary is $395,000.  For players with two credited seasons, the minimum is $470,000.  For players with three credited seasons, the minimum is $545,000.

For players with four to six credited seasons, the minimum pay if $630,000.

Seven to nine?  $755,000.

And for players with ten or more seasons, the minimum salary is $855,000.

That's a lot higher than the average salary a teacher makes, at any level.

It's also a bit funny that Peterson, of all people would make a comment like that. He is currently in the middle of a six year, 40.5 million dollar contract, with atleast 17 million guaranteed. So he could make anywhere from 6.75 million to 2.83 million in a given season. Keep in mind, that's just for playing a game for a living. That doesn't count any endorsement deals and other contracts that he may have.

I don't think Peterson really was comparing a life as a player in the NFL to the life of a slave. That doesn't mean that he doesn't need to either re-tract or clarify his earlier comments. I understand there is currently some bad blood between the owners and players. There always is during times like this, in any sport. However, it's completely asinine to even talk about NFL players and slaves in the same sentence. The current group of NFL players may not be happy about their previous deal, as well as the owners' proposals, but they are most certainly not slaves.

That was a dark time in the history of our great nation and there's no reason to bring it up now. I understand that "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." But this is not the time, nor the forum to bring up the topic of slavery.

Step up and do the right thing Adrian, do what you need to do to make this right.

Stop the Madness

Today just so happens to be the beginning of one of the best times of the year for a sports fan. Currently, as I'm typing this, the NCAA is announcing the bracket for this seasons division 1 basketball tournament. As I've said before, the first couple of days of the tournament, where there are basketball games all day long, should be a national holiday. However that's a different point for a different day.

From 1985-2000, the NCAA tournament consisted of 64 teams. This alignment created four regional brackets, within the larger bracket, with each regional bracket containing 16 teams. From 2001-2010, a 65th team was added to the "tournament." This move created a "play-in" game which required two teams to play each other for the right to be the 64th team in the tournament. Keep in mind, the "play-in" game is officially considered to be part of the NCAA tournament. The winner of that game was promptly handed to one of the number one seeds and dismissed from the tournament.

Prior to this season, there was speculation that the NCAA was going to double the size of the bracket and expand it to 128 teams. This never happened, at least not for the 2010-11 season, but the tournament did expand again to 68 teams. By expanding again, this creates three more "play-in" games, which have been dubbed the "First Four," which is a play on its more famous older brother, the "Final Four."

At the conclusion of each regular season, each division I conference holds a conference tournament. The winner of each conference tournament is awarded automatic entry into the NCAA tournament. All-in-all, there are 31 automatic bids handed out by the NCAA. 30 of those bids go to teams who win their conference tournament, and the other automatic bid goes to the winner of the Ivy League, who does not hold a conference tournament. The remaining field is completed with "at large" teams.

As much as I love the NCAA tournament, I still have a major beef with the NCAA over it and it is these so called "play-in" games. I cannot say it any more clearly than this, they aren't fair. In order to win the NCAA tournament, under the 64 team format, a team had to win six games. When the "play-in" game was introduced, one team was all of a sudden required to win seven games to win the NCAA championship. So why is it that 63 teams have to win six games to win a championship and one team has to win seven? Under the new format, with three "play-in" games, why is it that 60 teams have to win six games to win a championship and four teams have to win seven?

Sadly, it gets worse. As I mentioned earlier, winning your conference tournament awards you an automatic bid into the tournament field. Since the introduction of the "play-in" game, there have been several occasions when conference champions have been placed into the "play-in" game. Again, I can't say it any clearer, that isn't fair. By doing this, the NCAA is automatically downgrading the value of an automatic bid from the (insert smaller conference name here) conference. A team should not be punished for winning their conference tournament and that's what the "play-in" game is. The NCAA is now unofficially saying that the bid from the Big East (or any other large conference) is more valuable than the bid from the Big South (or any other smaller conference). I'm not saying that that logic is incorrect, but in the interest of fairness, the NCAA cannot say that.

Under the new format, lets take a look at how the "play-in" games are shaping up. In the east regional, Texas - San Antonio is playing Alabama State for a 16 seed and a date with the number one overall seeded Ohio State Buckeyes. Texas - San Antonio is the winner of the Southland Conference and Alabama State won the SWAC tournament. Also in the east regional, Alabama-Birmingham (UAB) is playing Clemson for a 12 seed and the right to play West Virginia. In the southeast regional, North Carolina - Asheville is playing Arkansas - Little Rock for the 16 seed and a game with number one Pittsburgh. UNC Asheville is the winner of the Big South conference tournament and Arkansas - Little Rock won the Sun Belt tournament. The last of the "First Four" games includes teams in the southwest regional. Southern California is playing Virginia Commonwealth (VCU) for a 14 seed and a date with the Georgetown Hoyas.

So for this season, there are four teams that won their conference tournaments (and the automatic bids that go with winning those tournaments) that now have to again play their way into the tournament itself. How is that fair to thos teams and conferences? It isn't. Not to mention, where is the consistency in this whole thing? Two "play-in" winners get to play number one seeds, while one gets to play a three seed and the last one gets to play a five seed. How does that make sense? If you are going to have four "play-in" games, why not have each of the winners play a number one seed? That system wouldn't be fair either, because four teams would still be forced to play an extra game, but it would at least be even all of the way around. Also, if it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY (which it isn't) to play a play in game or games, FILL THE GAMES WITH AT LARGE BUBBLE TEAMS. Don't lessen the value of an automatic bid, force a team that hasn't earned an automatic berth into the tournament to play in this game.

If the NCAA wants to add teams to the tournament the only fair way to do it would be to go to the 128 team format, which would be adding an entire round for each team. Under that system, every team would again have to win the same amount of games to win a championship.

With that said, that system isn't good either. By putting 128 teams into the tournament, that would diminish the value of the regular season entirely. A winning regular season record under this system would almost guarantee you a spot in the tournament. I really do expect the NCAA to go to this format some time in the near future. A larger tournament means more money for the NCAA and that is what the whole thing boils down to. It doesn't matter or not if it's fair as long as the NCAA and its sponsors are churning a larger profit.

To make a long story short, I'm calling for the NCAA to stop the madness and eliminate uneven brackets which force teams to play more games than others. I also want to see the NCAA stop putting automatic qualifiers into the "play-in" games. It's not fair to those conferences. The NCAA needs to return to the 64 team format and leave it that way.

Torch Tiki

Ladies and gentlemen, Tiki Barber is coming back! I'll pause to let you re-gain your composure following some excessive laughter.

Barber unexpectedly retired from the NFL after the 2006-07 season. This was a surprise because at the time he was seemingly at the top of his game. After four seasons away, he has officially filed his paperwork with the league to un-retire and return. At this, I have to raise an eyebrow.

If you read the entire first article that I linked to, you read that this is seemingly a desparation move for Tiki following some shady (and that's putting it lightly) decision making.

"Barber's personal and professional life have been in shambles recently. In April 2010, Barber reportedly left his wife of 11 years, Ginny, for 23-year-old Traci Johnson, a former NBC intern. Ginny was eight months pregnant at the time. Soon after, NBC cited its morals clause and terminated Barber's contract, which reportedly paid him more than $300,000 per year.

In June 2010, the New York Post reported Barber was broke and couldn't pay his divorce settlement with his ex-wife."

Just reading that little paragraph makes it completely obvious that Tiki was cheating on his wife. Due to that point, I have to say flat out that I do not feel sorry for Barber at all. I try not to judge people because their lives are none of my business, but cheating on a spouse crosses the line. You don't deserve good fortunes if you are going to do something as immoral as that. I tip my hat to NBC for doing the right thing and terminating Tiki's contract. It's reasons like that why "moral" clauses continue to be a part of contracts.

Seriously though, at age 35, what does Tiki Barber hope to accomplish on the field? Honestly he'll be lucky to even make an NFL roster, let alone make an impact of any kind. It'll really be interesting to see which team will even take a chance on signing him. It's already been announced that it will not be the Giants.

As I said before, this is nothing more than a desperation move. It may not be a necessity now, but it may be down the road. That's the reason for this decision. The cushy jobs are now gone so he wants to make a little money so he can ride off into the sunset and avoid getting a real job. Two to one odds says he's retired again by the start of the upcoming season (if there is one).

Because I know somebody will interpret the title wrong, I'll clear it up now. When I come up with the titles for blogs, I typically try to make either some kind of pop culture reference, or something off the wall that can somehow be related to what I'm hoping to talk about. The first thing that came to mind when thinking about Tiki Barber was a tiki torch. I could've referenced a barber pole, but "Torch Tiki" sounded better since I wasn't planning on speaking very highly of him. With that said, I still don't want to see anybody literally "torch Tiki." Don't read anything more into it because there is nothing more intended.

There Must be Something in the Water

Sunday night (Feb. 27), I was listening to the Les Grobstein overnight show on The Score (WSCR 670AM in Chicago). For a brief time, he was talking about the Blackhawks and the current hot streak that they are on. In their last 10, the Blackhawks are 7-1-2 with wins in five straight.

As the show progressed, the "Grobber" went on to say that he thought that the Blackhawks could make it as high as the fourth or fifth seed in the western conference for the Stanley Cup playoffs. At that, I literally started laughing. I enjoy listening to Grobstein, but on this one I'm not sure what kind of Kool-Aid he's drinking or what he's trying to pass out to the listeners of the show. The Chicago Blackhawks will not make it up to a four or five seed. I'm saying that as a hockey fan, not as a Red Wings fan.

To prove my point, let's take a look at the remaining schedule for the Blackhawks:

*Through games played on February 28

March 2: vs. Flames (2nd Northwest Division, 7th Western Conference)
March 4: vs. Hurricanes (3rd Southeast, 8th East)
March 5: at Maple Leafs (4th Northeast, 10th East)
March 8: at Panthers (5th Southeast, 12th East)
March 9: at Lightning (1st Southeast, 2nd East)
March 13: at Capitals (2nd Southeast, 5th East)
March 14: vs. Sharks (1st Pacific, 3rd West)
March 17: at Stars (4th Pacific, 8th West)
March 20: at Coyotes (2nd Pacific, 4th West)
March 23: vs. Panthers (5th Southeast, 12th East)
March 26: vs. Ducks (5th Pacific, 11th West)
March 28: at Red Wings (1st Central, 2nd West)
March 29: at Bruins (1st Northeast, 3rd East)

April 1: at Blue Jackets (4th Central, 12th West)
April 3: vs. Lightning (1st Southeast, 2nd East)
April 5: at Canadiens (2nd Northeast, 6th East)
April 6: vs. Blues (5th Central, 13th West)
April 8: at Red Wings (1st Central, 2nd West)
April 10: vs. Red Wings (1st Central, 2nd West)

Looking at that, the Hawks have seven games remaining with teams currently leading their division. They have another four with teams in second place. Lastly, 13 of 19 games are against teams that are currently in the playoffs. Of the other six games, most of them are against teams that could find themselves in the playoffs with a strong finish. The numbers don't lie, that's a tough schedule, especially when you are fighting for a playoff spot.

Honestly, I think they are more likely to miss the playoffs than get in as a four or five seed. If they do get in, it'll be somewhere in the 6-8 range. They have a tough remaining schedule, as I already pointed out, plus they still have a huge question mark between the pipes. I don't mean that as a knock on Corey Crawford by any means. The kid has come out of nowhere and had an amazing year. Earlier in the season, I made the comment that "I wouldn't trust Crawford to be the person guarding the base in a game of capture the flag, let alone trust him to guard the net in an NHL game." I'll go ahead and take my crow on that one.

With that said, everything up to this point goes out the window. He's never been "the guy" in a late playoff race or the playoffs themselves. In crunch time, some guys thrive and other guys fade. What will Crawford do? I have no idea, but neither does anybody else. That's a question mark.

To be fair, I'll give Jimmy Howard in Detroit a question mark as well. His won't be as strong of a question mark as the one given to Crawford, but it's still a question mark none the less. Down the stretch last season, Howard put the Red Wings on his back and carried them to the postseason. That's encouraging. Yet he really hasn't done much in the postseason either. He won a first round series last season (against the Coyotes), but didn't do much after that in the second round (against the Sharks). To be fair, the Wings themselves didn't do much against the Sharks last year either to help Howard out. Like Crawford, Howard hasn't done it much late in the playoffs which creates a question mark.

If the Blackhawks do get into the postseason though, I promise you, they'll be tough. They're the defending Stanley Cup champions and will come in with something to prove this year. They will also come into the postseason, if they get in, battle tested. Every single game from here on out for the Hawks will have a "playoff-like" mentality. Due to the tight race in the Western Conference, the Hawks will also have a "win or go home" attitude. At this point, they have to in order just to get in. The Green Bay Packers had to finish off the previous NFL season that way and carried their momentum all the way to a Super Bowl title. If they do get in, I don't think they'll be the contenders they were last season, but they aren't going to roll over and die either. I wouldn't want to play them early.

To make a long story short, I'm going to attempt to back up my earlier prediction and put my money where my mouth is. If the Blackhawks get into the postseason with a four or five seed, I will change my Facebook profile picture to one of me wearing a Blackhawks t-shirt. I will also keep that picture there for the duration of the Stanley Cup playoffs. That means it will be there at the time of the first playoff games and will remain there until the Stanley Cup is handed out. Being a Red Wings fan, that's the last thing that I want to do, especially during the playoffs.