Has any NHL player ever fallen while holding the Stanley cup?
I don't think this has every happened. Steve Yzerman commented in 1997 that he thought he was going to trip over one of the TV cables while skating with the Cup. As a side note this tradition of skating with the Cup didn't start until the 1950's. "Ted Lindsay of the 1950 Cup champion Detroit Red Wings became the first captain, upon receiving the Cup, to hoist it overhead and skate around the rink. Since then, it has been a tradition to have each member of the winning team take a lap around the ice with the trophy hoisted above his head."
Is the NHL rigged?
no, and the previous answer suggesting that only big market teams are allowed to win because that’s what makes money doesn’t fit with reality. The reason big market teams tend to win is because they also tend to generate the most money/revenue, and so can afford to pay more money for players (up to the cap) and coaches and development staff and facilities, etc etc…Within the last 20 years, teams from the following small market cities have won the cup (based on team valuation here - The Most Valuable NHL Teams:ColoradoNew jerseyCarolinaTampa BaySo there’s no evidence to support the claim that the NHL does anything to keep it’s big market teams winning the cup. There’s also no evidence to support the claims that the NHL uses it’s referees to guide big market teams, or that referees hold long standing grudges against certain players.What we do have is evidence that the NHL wishes to grow the sport, while making as much money as possible, and to that end, they have supported large and small markets alike. Look at the list of cities where the NHL draft has been held over the past 2–3 decades. Look at what cities have hosted all-star games. Take note of the fact that the NHL has scheduled pre-season games in countries like China.Does the NHl want to make money? Yes. Is it happy when it sees higher revenue from big market match ups? Yes. Is there evidence that it rigs games? No. Ultimately, the NHL is concerned with long term growth and health of the sport. Rigging matches to support only big markets would surely go against a long term outlook as it’s smaller markets dwindle and fade with no hope for ever winning the ultimate prize.
Do you think the call by Kevin Pollock in Game 6 of the Stanley Cup final sapped the Predators momentum?
First off, i’m not sure you can call it “erroneous”. It is standard practice for refs to blow the play dead when they lose sight of the puck. It happens numerous times throughout the season. As hockey players you get used to it. Surely you want the goal, but such is life. Th eref thought the goalie had the puck and blew the play dead. He is supposed to do that for the safety of the goalie. So, based on his perspective, he made the right call as required by the NHL.As far as how it affects momentum, i’d suggest that it might have to some degree, but probably not as much as most people think. There wasn’t really opportunity for momentum to have been built off that goal. It went in. The ref waved it off immediately. And again… as hockey players, you’ve seen that happen a 1000 times. They knew there was little chance that call was coming back for them. Having been in situations like that (obviously nowhere near the degree of a stanley cup final), you often look for the positives in these types of situations. The guys are rallying on the bench. You’re barking at each other about how you’re getting your opportunities and just keep doing what you're doing and yada yada. When you get that close, you tend to feel like it’s just a matter of time.These guys are pros, and my personal feeling is that it probably didn't have the effect on momentum or moral that most people think. It certainly didn't help their cause, and a single goal could have changed the decision of the game, but at that moment, no… i don’t think it was that big of a deal for the players.
Can anyone please explain The Shining to me?
It could mean anything. I kind of go with the absorption theory. Whoever dies in the overlook, becomes a part of it. In the Overlook the date is always 1921 so, therefore, you have always been there. As for the photo... I've never quite been able to understand it. If Jack is merely the caretaker, why is he at the centre of the photo, as though he is the most important figure there? There is a great blog dedicated to answering this question, and the following idea comes straight from it http://jonnys53.blogspot.com/2007/06/wha... On inspection it can be confirmed that Jack, in the photo at the end, is wearing the exact same tuxedo as Lloyd the bartender wore in the film. Here: http://thegrumpyowl.com/wp-content/uploa... Now Lloyd represents the devil. The tuxedo is red to begin with, the collar is pointed like horns and he is so chilling and unnerving. He TEMPTS Jack into drinking alcohol: JACK TORRANCE: "God! l'd give anything for a drink. l'd give my goddamn soul. . . . .for just a glass of beer." And at that precise moment - 66minutes and 6 seconds into the film (666) - Lloyd appears: JACK: Hi, Lloyd. A little slow tonight, isn't it? Lloyd: Yes it is, Mr. Torrance.What will it be? So, going back to the photo at the end. Jack is wearing the Devil's tuxedo. He is at the centre of the picture. He is in charge. He is the master of the ceremonies. He is evil. Jack Torrance is the devil. If you're intrigued, I strongly suggest that you check out the blog above.
Why do Red Wings fans feel there is a conspiracy?
There has been talk surrounding the lousy officiating that has been extremely obvious during the playoffs and tied to this has been a mention of a conspiracy against the Detroit Red Wings. A few things to get the blood boiling a bit: 1) Sidney Crosby = NHL's #1 Marketing Campaign 2) Broadcast partners = NBC and Versus ---Mike "Doc" Emrick = Got his start in NHL broadcasting with Pittsburgh. ---Ed Olczyk = Former player and coach for the Pens. ---Pierre McGuire = Former Scout and Stanley cup winner with the Pens. 3) Gary Bettman...
Why do people think the NHL rigged the expansion draft so Vegas could make the Stanley Cup Final?
Because maybe sports fans aren’t the deepest of thinkers?Consider a few numbers. Vegas paid $550 million for a franchise. Divided among thirty teams, that works out to… $18million per team. Which is, give or take, one months operating budget.So the grand conspiracy is that thirty rich owners gave up their own dreams of a Cup in exchange for a months worth of revenue.Didn’t happen.Let’s try stupidity instead. To justify the franchise fee, which was a matter of ego and economics, to prove how important the NHL is, the thirty owners gave too much. Not a whole bunch too much, but enough that a savvy GM and a good coach took advantage. Vegas gets a lot of breaks - from the Vegas Flu to a bunch a players willing to park their egos. But the biggest break, getting starters from every team, was a dumb decision by the league owners.Now the league needs to expand again, to Seattle, and you know that Seattle will demand at least the same deal.
A question for USA Hockey fans?
Do you think the US earned the victories in winning wo gold medals one in 1960 where we beat Canada, and the Soviet Union, 1980 Miracle on Ice when we beat the Soviets, and beat Canada in a stunning upset to win the possibly one and only world cup, the 1996 World Cup of Hockey? I think the US players won those games fair and square, and they worked very hard to win those two golds and a World Cup. Logic may dictate that Canada or Russia always wins in the end of the tournaments. If we played Canada for 10 games, they may win 8 or 9. People defy logic and do the unthinkable all the time. I still think it's physically possible to beat Canada and win at least one more Olympic gold medal sooner or later. I hear USA hockey is improving and we're getting some new talented players. What do you think the US needs to work on in order to increase the chances of winning one more gold from at least none to slim? Persoanlly, I feel the Americans really need to work on their playing as a team as their primary, not each player on the same team trying to be the star, in other words a one man team. Another thing is our physical game. People who think the US will NEVER beat Canada, or think that the US accomplishments in 1960, 1980, and 1996 are nothing but fakes or fixed games to please the politically correct are wrong. We just had a better conditioned team, and a better team in those times we won. I feel we will pull off another upset and win a third gold medal sooner or later. Only time will tell when it will happen, and it may take about a few more years, or a decade to do so. This is a question for American hockey fans.
Out of the four major professional sports in the United States which one is the hardest to win back-to-back championships?
Looking at the most recent back-to-back champions in the four major sports:Basketball: Golden State Warriors, 2018 and 2017.Hockey: Pittsburgh Penguins, 2016 and 2017NFL: New England Patriots, 2004 and 2005MLB: New York Yankees, 1999 and 2000This feels reasonable in terms of their respective difficulty, but of course if I had pulled the list in 2000, I would be looking at the Yankees having just three-peated, the Elway Broncos team having won back-to-back Super Bowls in 1998 and 1999, the Red Wings having won the Stanley Cup in 1997 and 1998, and the Bulls having three-peated from 1996 - 1998. The best answer is that it’s really hard in all four sports because teams win championships, and as soon as a team has won one, its players become more valuable commodities on the open market, the pressure of winning one is eased, they've got a target on their backs for the following season, some regression to the mean occurs, and the fatigue of having played more games than anyone else the previous season starts to mount.Looking over the historical record, basketball has remained the sport where it’s most likely you’ll see a back-to-back champion. This makes sense, as it’s the smallest active roster, with the smallest number of players on the court at any given time, which makes it the easiest sport to keep a championship nucleus together. Baseball and football feel like the two sports where it’s hardest, but both sports have seen teams win two years out of three several times in the past decade without going back-to-back.Football is difficult because the roster is enormous, and the playoffs are single elimination, meaning that one off game ends your season. Baseball also has an enormous roster, but it’s got the most parity of any major sport. A football team that goes 11–5 probably wins its division, but might not get a first-round bye. A baseball team that goes 111–51 is historically great. A baseball team also isn’t one team; it’s essentially five over the regular season and 3–4 in the postseason. It changes that dramatically with who the starting pitcher is. For that reason, I’m going to go with baseball as the most difficult sport to win back-to-back.