Midweek Mailbag – Conference Finals Edition

Oh no… oh yes! It's time for another mailbag, where I answer questions on the minds of Canadians from coast to coast… or from north Edmonton to south Edmonton, whichever's easiest.

Tom Lundeen, of Edmonton, AB writes:

"Scott, for ages I've followed from afar, but I became a devoted follower the other day. What types of benefits do I receive for joining?"

That's correct, Tom. Becoming a devoted follower is a good idea, thanks for signing up!

Chris Nekechuk, of Edmonton, AB writes:

"I've recently developed a gambling addiction, and was betting solely on what you wrote in your blog. I am now down $3,000, but I was planning to make it all back on the conference finals but you didn't post your picks. What went wrong?"

Good question, Chris. To be frank, I've had a very difficult playoffs. I think I am a pathetic 6-6 through two rounds. My conference final picks were Detroit in 5 and Pittsburgh in 7 (a big part of me thinks the Wings will actually sweep) but I was deeply shamed by my previous predictions so I decided not to post the new ones.

I like Detroit because Chicago isn't ready to make that step, and I like Pittsburgh because the NHL has shown a keen interest in making sure they make it back to the Stanley Cup Finals. With that said they are also playing well, and would probably still be in the here if the referees didn't award them a game in each series.

Sidenote: Is there a worse referee in the league than Paul Devorski? He may not be the worst, but he certainly enters the discussion. The third period of Chicago/Detroit was an atrocity. He whistles David Bolland for a complete non-call, and ignores tackles by a strangely lethargic Red Wings team. No wonder Joel Quenneville was losing his mind on the bench.

It's to the point that I grimace if I see Devorski officiating. He's a vintage "old boys" referee who has no feel for the game.

Maurice Tougas, of Edmonton, AB writes:

"Son, we watched the final episode of 24 together, but I was wondering if you were willing to rehash your thoughts io your blog so I can archive them for a future date."

Fair warning to all – if you haven't watched Season 7 of 24 yet, skip this section and immediately buy the season (it's already in stores, $39.99 at Future Shop), then return to finish this question.

I thoroughly enjoyed 24 as always, even though this was probably only the 5^th or 6^th best season overall. Like any show, the 24 writers are a big fan of a cliffhanger to draw in viewers for next season, but this year was nothing but cliffhangers! I am somewhat unsatisfied as nothing got resolved. Jack is in a coma, Secret Agent Red Hot is about to murder a suspected villain (or at least thinking about it), and no one has killed Kim Bauer or Janeane Garafalo yet. I'm very upset. A few observations:

• Let me get this straight. In the final 5-6 episodes of the season, the only people Jack Bauer kills are doctors? I feel cheated.
  
• Apparently it's very easy to find evil and mad doctors in the city of Washington. I am blown away how many biochemists work for the terrorists.
  
• Tony Almeida made the classic villain mistake… pausing to tell his victim that "and…. Now I'm going to kill you!" instead of actually killing him.
  
• Is it a bad thing that I kind of understand where Tony is coming from?
  
• 8 a.m. the previous day: Jack Bauer is standing trial for war crimes, and Chloe is retired and watching over her son. 22 hours later, Jack Bauer is infected yet now running the FBI, and Chloe is their lead analyst because CTU Los Angeles had technology superior to the FBI's… five years ago. Outrageous.
  
• Why isn't the White House riddled with bullet holes from its attack only a few hours earlier?
  

Paul Beauchamp of Edmonton, AB writes:

"scott I love the blog but I hate reading it is very difficult for me is there anything you can do about that thanks by the way how about that dan cleary what a gem"

Well, as a matter of fact, a solution is in the works. Now that I have the resources to podcast, I'm going to do just that. I've promised Paul Beauchamp that he can be the first guest, where we will talk anything from television to sports. I think the average podcast will vary in length from 2-3 hours, so you may want to free up a few hours daily in case a podcast is published (yes, they will be downloadable on the site or on iTunes. Yes, seriously, on iTunes).

Richard Tougas, of Edmonton, AB writes:

"I hate the Pittsburgh Penguins so much I punched a hole in the wall when they won Game 1. What did you think of the Matt Cooke hit on Erik Cole?"

A flagrant cheap shot by Matt Cooke. He won't be suspended, of course, but I cannot fathom how the NHL thinks hits like this aren't suspension-worthy. Watch at 0:28 of the YouTube clip below, and tell me Cooke doesn't have FULL INTENTION of kneeing Cole. He actually sticks his knee out!

I continue to be flabbergasted by the league (and officials) giving repeat offenders and cheap-shot artists the benefit of the doubt. Colin Campbell is really, really, really bad at his job.

Corwin Cheng, of Los Angeles, Calif. Writes:

"Scott, what do you think Jim Balsillie's chances of successfully moving a team to Canada are?"

I'm cheering for him, but I wouldn't say his chances are any better than 50-1. Even if he wins the court case (which seems to be a toss-up at best), we all forget he needs the approval of the Board of Governors. And while it may be logical to move a team that is currently losing $35 million per season to a market that will undoubtedly make money, the owners are nothing if not loyal to Gary Bettman and his misguided view of what the NHL will look like.

The biggest loser in this could potentially be Jerry Moyes. After getting battered by making a poor business decision (you know, purchasing an NHL franchise that plays in Phoenix) he's lost well over $100 million in the last five years and the league is trying to force him to accept an offer that's nearly $80 million below another offer that's on the table. How cruel.

Mark Rattray, of Edmonton, AB writes:

"Word has it Michael Vick wants to return to the National Football League. Do you think he'll be successful? More importantly, what team will Brett Favre lead to a Super Bowl next year? He's not tarnishing his legacy at all!"

Michael Vick is an interesting story. As my old man has pointed out to me – hasn't he suffered enough? He lost two years of playing football (and counting), he lost his vast fortune and will never be marketable again (considering he was making millions and millions per year on marketing, it's a big loss). He went from making $10 million a year to $10 an hour working construction. If ever someone has paid his debt to society, it's Vick.

Keep in mind this is the league that employs a player who killed someone while drunk behind the wheel (Donte' Stallworth) and has welcomed back a player who previously had killed someone while drunk behind the wheel (Leonard Little). I won't even go into the plethora of other criminal offences committed by NFL players, but I think it's safe to say it's a pretty long list, and players have done things way worse than killing dogs.

Brett Favre, on the other hand, should be banned from the NFL, because he's not hurting dogs – he's hurting sports fans.