How I Met Your Mother

Last night How I Met Your Mother came to an end.

This is a show that has, more than any other show for me, been "the show". Everyone seems to have that one show that they watched religiously and never gave up on it. For a lot people that was Friends, Fraiser, Seinfeld, Cheers, The Office or, The Cosby show.

I think it's pretty clear that the final episode has been met with less than stellar reviews. You can go anywhere on the internet for that opinion. I'm not going to harp on that in this post but I would like to list a few of my "pros and cons" really quick.

Pros:
- The show didn't just give us a storybook ending. It was real and somewhat gritty.
- Ted did get his life in the suburbs and his 2 kids (1 boy, 1 girl).
- The show felt no need to have a huge twist in Lily and Marshall's story. They were the 1 consistent in the show and, outside of Marshall's slow but realistic career path they just were the average couple.
- The pineapple was never explained.
- We actually knew the mother's name all along. The tie-in being that the stripper who introduced herself to Ted in season 1 was named Tracy while Ted was "still Ted". I guess there was a hint of truth when he said "and that kids, is how I met your mother".
- The new plays.
- Jim Nance and the Cockamouse made a cameo.

Cons:
- Seeing as the show harped so hard on Robin and Ted being over and how Ted had moved on they shouldn't have ended up together.
- We didn't really get to see Ted and Tracy fall in love. We just figured out how they met and saw a few of their big moments in life. Part of what I was excited for (and it became increasingly obvious that it was not going to happen as season 9 continued on) was Ted continuing his path of calling a girl too fast and telling them he loved them too early but this girl actually enjoying that as opposed to being freaked out.
- I felt that Barney and Robin gave up too easily.
- How obvious the cut was for the interaction between Ted and his kids. I know the part for the kids was taped a long time ago as a backup plan in-case the show got cancelled but that was hard to suspend belief.
- I also don't really understand how Ted could have extremely strong feelings for Robin all along but he was going to marry Stella, considered marrying Victoria and, married Tracy. I mean for a guy who believes there is one woman out there for him that's quite a number of people to be willing to spend your life with.

All in all, I think the episode was an average episode of HIMYM but had a very disappointing end. I would have been fine with adding a scene of Ted and Tracy dating early on, even if she still died. I think that would have been better then the Robin hook up.

I wanted to write a little bit about what this show meant to me though, through all the negative being thrown at it today I will always look back fondly on this show.

I'm 28. That's only a few years younger than the characters on the show during it's run. So the story-lines about money issues and finding your way in the world hit home. The show was really funny at times, it was really emotional at times. The show was a source of a bunch of inside jokes between me and my friends and, it was a comfort when I was going through one of the hardest experiences I've been through, one that I still feel residual effects of today.
I relate to Ted because I do want to meet that special someone (though I don't want kids and I already live in the suburbs) and I am surrounded by friends who are engaged, married or, married with children. Most of whom met those significant others and built their lives together during this show's run.

To me, How I Met Your Mother reminds me that although sometimes life is tough or sometimes life is insane and fun, you will always have your best friends to be there for you. That's what I see when I watch this show back.

Thomas Stajan is a Beast

Even though I had intentions to have my blog have a strong focus on the team, I haven't posted much on the Brampton Beast since the season started.
To tell you the honest truth: I was in attendance for the home opener and it was not great. I didn't want to "be that guy" so I decided against posting anything about that experience.
Since then my interest in the team has slowly disappeared as they are a middle of the pack team.

Today, I saw a tweet that pulled me back in a bit.

Thomas Stajan is returning to Brampton. A former member of the Battalion who very recently finished off a stint with Guelph in the CIS. Stajan spent 4 years with the Battalion where he recorded 112 points in 256 games. He was also a member of the Battalion team that made a run to the OHL Championship in 2008/2009.

That's interest enough to get me out to the Powerade Centre one more time and give this another shot.

Female Cut Jerseys

I've been a "jersey nerd" for as long as I can remember. In fact, one of my co-workers (affectionately?) calls me that on a regular basis.
Places like the Chris Creamer Sports Logo Community are places where I find people I identify with.
I can spot a fake jersey petty easily and one of my biggest pet peeves is when people make excuses to buy those cheep knock off jerseys because the actual product is "too expensive".

I say that because lately there has been an ongoing theme for me thanks to a certain friend of mine.
Female jersey etiquette.

The ladies cut jersey is a popular style these days, I've specifically noticed it more in NFL and NHL jerseys. The Toronto Maple Leafs also launched a "jersey dress" this year that I understand has sold pretty well.
I've been told "it's cute" or "it fits me better" or even "I'm not a boy why would I wear a baggy jersey?".

So, just to put it out there for the few people that do read this blog, here is why I hate the female cut jerseys:

That is not what they wear on the field of play.

It's as simple as that.

I mean, do you really think I wear a football jersey because I think that it's fashionable? No, a football jersey (much like a hockey jersey) is designed with the idea in mind that you have to fit it over shoulder pads. Why would I normally wear something designed so that a large piece of protective equipment could fit under it?
Do I buy dress shirts or t-shirts so that I can wear something large under them? Hell no. Come on.

So why should there be a female (or a dress) cut but not a "male cut" for guys who want to wear them? Guys wear these jerseys like they are designed: for the field of play. Why does there need to be a female version? If said female is a fan of the sport/team then they should be just as happy to sport the same thing that their team is wearing not some version of the jersey that is unfit for the field of play.

You wear a jersey because you want to support your team. In doing so you wear the team's "uniform" and it feels like you connect with the team and the other fans. That's why you wear a jersey that is the same style as what the team wears on the field on play.

Ok, rant over.

P.S. don't me started on the female cut jerseys that are pink just because they are "for girls".

TFC: The next step

What an exciting week it has been to be a TFC fan.
Dero is back, English international striker Jermain Defoe is coming and seeming out of left field, US international centre-mid Michael Bradley has signed with the club.

So that leaves a couple questions:

First off: What to to with Matias Laba?
He's currently under a DP contract but obviously the arrival of Dafoe, Bradley and, Gilberto this off season means that Laba is the "odd DP out". Ryan Nelson mentioned this week that he really wants to keep Laba so maybe TFC will need to use up some allocation money and an international slot on him? The rules of MLS are very hard to follow but I believe that, if Laba agrees, this should be possible.

Second: What formation do we play?
4-4-2 is very popular in MLS. There's no point in TFC trying to stray too far from that.
The problem TFC current has is their strength at mid comes from the middle and the attacking mids. Maybe TFC considers going 4-3-1-2 and having Dero and Osario split time as the attacking mids who can be the bridge between Michael Bradley at centre mid and the strikers? Maybe a 4-4-2 diamond that looks more like 4-1-2-1-2? That would mean that Bradley would sit back and Dero/Osario would sit up further. Is that the best use of Bradley though as we know he can score too. The formation situation is my biggest question going into 2014. TFC clearly has firing power now but they can't play everyone forward.

Third: Filling the holes:

Just so you get an idea this is what the current roster looks like position by position:

Goalkeepers (3): Joe Bendik, Chris Konopka, Quillan Roberts
Right Backs (3): Mark Bloom, Ryan Richter,
Left Backs (3): Justin Morrow, Ashtone Morgan, Jonas Elmer
Center Backs (3): Steven Caldwell, Doneil Henry, Gale Agbossoumonde
Center Mids (5): Michael Bradley, Jackson, Kyle Bekker, Jeremy Hall, Matias Laba
Left Mids (0):
Right Mids (2): Alvaro Rey, Reggie Lambe
Attacking Mids (3): Dwayne De Rosario, Jonathan Osorio, Manny Aparicio
Forwards (6): Jermain Defoe, Gilberto, Bright Dike, Andrew Wiedeman, Emery Welshman, Jordan Hamilton


So there are clearly to very big holes for Toronto at this point. Left mid and right back.
The easiest solution would be to continue to splash the cash (obviously to a lesser extent) and try to find a proven MLS player to fill the holes.
The other, is the draft (which just started at noon today) but that may not yield a player who is ready for starting 11 minutes.
Finally, TFC might have to consider trading some of that surplus at forward. I'd hate to see Dike go, he just came to the team late last season and he was a nice addition who went forward and added a little punch to an otherwise weak attacking game. That said, he's a good MLS player who might get you a good piece back in return. Clearly he won't be playing nearly as much with Dafoe and Gilberto in the team now so maybe he is a piece that they need to use.

So...that's where we are at.
On paper, this team is MUCH better than last year and I can not wait, but that being said this club is not yet complete.

More Fighting In Hockey

Earlier this year I wrote about fighting in hockey.

This past weekend the Pittsburgh Penguins and Boston Bruins met up in what became a fairly rough match up.
It started with James Neal kneeing Brad Marchant in the head (Marchant was laying on the ice) in what was, in my opinion, clearly an intentional motion.
After that, we saw the Bruins' Shawn Thornton punch Brooks Orpik and continue to punch him as he lay on the ice. Apparently Orpik was knocked out, though that seems to be something that is still in question as he was able to travel with the team and was conscious when he arrived at the hospital. Regardless of how bad the injury was, that is not the point. Thank goodness he is ok.
To add to that Loui Eriksson suffered a concussion from a hit that Brooks Orpik laid on him and Chris Kelly suffered a broken ankle at the hands of Pascal Dupuis.

Clearly this game was a mess.

I won't go on my rant about getting rid of fighting in hockey. I did that in my previous post. What I want to point out is the lack of consequences.
If you look at the box score for that game 12 penalties were given out. So that says to me that the referees were trying to get control and couldn't. I can't really blame the refs in this situation. All they could do is start calling every little thing and that would not help matters. So where does that leave it? Brennan Shannahan and the NHL department for Player Safety.

James Neal was given a 5 game suspension. Apparently that is the maximum a player can receive for an over-the-phone hearing. In my opinion, that's bullshit. His intent, which normally is next to impossible to determine, was quite clear. He wanted to hit Marchant, I doubt anyone can dispute that.
So that raises the next question: why was this only an over-the-phone hearing? I don't know what the factor is that changes a phone hearing to a hearing in person. I'm not sure that the NHL does either, as I can not find a clear definition. I do see a simple solution though: If the phone is the main issue preventing this from having a longer suspension all you need to do is call the player and say "this is going to require a face to face meeting". Problem solved. This isn't James Neal's first suspension. This was clearly intentional. He should get at least 25 games in my mind. If it was me, I'd tell him to take the rest of the season off.

Shawn Thornton is scheduled to meet with the NHL on Friday (December 13) and he will have his suspension decided at that time. I will say this to Shawn's credit he really seemed sincerely apologetic in the post game interviews. It was refreshing versus the usual typical response that is vague and tries to chalk it up to being "part of the game" or "the heat of the moment".
That being said, Shawn must accept that what he did was wrong. Not only a violation of the rules within the sport but also wrong in the context of society as a whole. If I went out and punched out somebody like that in the street then I would be in jail. This happened during a hockey game so he won't be in jail (which is a whole other topic for another day) but the suspension should be heavy. If I were a betting man I'd guess the NHL will give him between 5 and 10 games. If it were me, much like with James Neal, I'd say take a year off. Come back next season.

Some may say that's harsh. I say this: If you don't start making it clear that you want this crap out of the game then this crap will stay in the game. Sending a strong message out to the entire league by sending these players home for the year would do exactly that.
To boot, the salaries that these players loose should be donated to a foundation that does research pertaining to concussions and their effects on the brain. Make the money help counter the damage the player is contributing to.

That's my 2 cents.

Quack, Quack, Quack

October 13, 2013.
A day for people like me who love their sports uniforms.
The Mighty Ducks of Anaheim returned (if only for 1 night) in all their teal and eggplant glory.
Nothing more can be said besides "I want one" in reference to the jerseys.
For more pictures check out the Icethetics blog post or the NHL.com gallery.

That is one beautiful jersey

Fighting In Hockey

Clearly this is the topic of the day in the NHL world. It's not a new topic, it seems to come up every time a serious injury takes place. Last night that injury occurred during the Leafs/Canadians game when Colton Orr and George Parros got into their second fight of the night.

A concussion was the result of this fight. Clearly (in my opinion) Orr did not do this on purpose. It was a mistake, a "fight gone wrong". Now Parros (who thankfully was released from hospital this morning) is not sure when/if he can come back to play. Parros is a Princeton educated man, this is a potential waste of what is (dare is even say possibly "was") clearly an above average mind.

I've had a strong opinion on this topic for some time now. Fighting in hockey is, in my opinion, no longer necessary. The notion that each team carries a player or two who plays minimal minutes and does not have the same abilities or skills as the other players on the ice is insane. Of course these players are going to get hurt. Besides the fact that they punch at each other for a living, they also can't skate at the same pace and as a result end up hurting themselves and other players when trying to land a proper body check.

Now don't get me wrong. I understand that hockey is a physical sport and I do not suggest that we take body contact out of hockey. Hitting a player properly in order to remove them from the puck is just as much a part of the game as a proper tackle is in football. I also understand that hockey is a face paced game that involved quick thinking and as a result there are a lot of "gut reactions". So sometimes when you play a sport and you want to win you will feel more emotional. Sometimes that emotion is anger and you'll want to fight. I accept that.

So where does that leave the fighting issue? Well, first of all, because of the emotions, you can't stop it all together. Just like you can't stop people from doing crimes. So just like that guy who steals a candy bar (my point being it's not the end of the world if it happens once in a while but it is still a crime) you develop rules to minimize the potential of fights happening. Much like the person who steals a candy bar knows that if they are caught there is a potential to go to jail, the people who choose to fight need to know they are going to have to "do their time".

It's simple use an escalating scale. 1 fight is 10 minute major and an ejection from the game. Fight number 2 is another 10 minute major and an ejection plus an additional game. From there you get 2 additional games, then 4, then 8 and so on. Essentially, if you really want to fight, that's fine but you better make it worth it because your team will suffer.

This should eliminate all these "fake" fights that the 2 enforcers get into in an attempt to "change the momentum of the game". That's my opinion on what should be done.

Don't get the point of this post confused though. This is not a prediction. I realize that the NHL sees fights as part of the entertainment value and they will probably not change a thing. Personally, I've been to plenty of hockey games in my time and I've seen how the crowd gets when there is a fight. I don't participate. I stay sitting and don't clap. I don't find it entertaining. It's not boxing, it's not UFC, it's not wrestling. There's no "sweet science", it's 2 guys clutching at jerseys and landing the odd punch. That's it.

It's 2013 not 1913. Goalies wear masks, players wear helmets. We've evolved from a large, heavy chunk of wood as a stick to a lightweight material. Jerseys are no longer big wool sweaters, they are microfiber, repel sweat and, weigh less. Players now have to wear visors. Why is fighting still tolerated?