2011 NHL Playoffs: The JvR Show

There's a new wave of talent coming into the NHL. Of the top 30 scorers in the NHL this season, 12 of them were 25 years old or younger. This is a positive development for the NHL, a league constantly trying to engulf new fans into the game. The Philadelphia Flyers build through the draft with young talent and have no accumulated a good core for their future. Among them are Jeff Carter, Mike Richards, Claude Giroux, Sergei Bobrovsky, and several others. However, there is one other player that the entire NHL has had its eyes on as of late. James van Riemsdyk, Philadelphia's "underrated" 2nd overall pick back in the 2007 NHL Draft. Which leaves hockey buffs with this question: can a No. 2 pick really be considered "underrated"? You bet he can. That is exactly what van Riemsdyk is being seen as now as Chicago's Patrick Kane soaks in the praise and glory that comes with a Stanley Cup. 

Op-Ed: What it's like to be a Bucks fan

(Editors Note: Dan Kelm played basketball at Viterbo (WI) University, before declaring for the 2011 NBA Draft. Part Mark Cuban and part Bill Simmons, this is his first contribution to SportStatistics)

With young exciting teams filled with emerging superstars such as the Thunder and the Bulls gearing up to clash against teams with a myriad of Hall of Famers in the Lakers and the Celtics, now is without a doubt an exciting time to be an NBA fan. I’ve been told that when your team makes a deep playoff run it can make the situation all the more enticing. Unfortunately, this is something that I’m about as familiar with as LeBron James and a championship ring. So Magic fans, take a deep breath. Even though it may be quite disheartening that Otis Smith decided that trading for a washed-up chucker, a washed-up Turk, and a spot up shooter had NBA Finals written all over it, it could always be worse.  You could be from Milwaukee. So, without further ado, here are my top reasons why it sucks to be a Bucks fan:

Op-Ed: On Potential MLB Playoff Expansion

As American society continues to grow and change, we find our sports teams and leagues in a constant battle to adjust to the needs and wants of the public. At least, they say they do it for the fans, and in spirit of competition, though the driving force usually  seems to be green--and a  lot of it. When the NCAA  was looking to  potentially

Selig has been taking heat this week for both his
playoff talk and MLB's takeover of the Dodgers

expand to 96 teams, there weren't many people who really believed the 96th-best team in the country had a legitimate shot at winning a national championship--but an extra round of games would certainly bring in some extra TV revenue. So, when Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig (left) comes out and says that he's strongly considering a playoff expansion, does any baseball fan believe it's for any reason other than money? From what Selig has been saying, it sounds as if playoff expansion is not just being considered, but instead seems almost inevitable--as early as next season. For a league that was the slowest in terms of adding video replay (a full nine seasons after the NFL), and even then approved it for home run calls only, the idea of such a quick change coming seems to be unlike how Major League Baseball usually operates. I'm not saying there would not be any benefits to expansion--seeing more small-market clubs in the playoffs would be a good thing, and I'm sure any team in the AL East not named the "Yankees" or "Red Sox" would happily welcome a better shot at playoff baseball. However, the idea of baseball expanding their playoffs is, overall, a terrible one. So why is Selig doing this? Are there any other options? Hit the jump for more!

2011 March Madness Wrap

Calhoun won his 3rd national championship

After one of the better tournaments in recent memory, America was presented last night with what was billed as the most unlikely final game in NCAA Division 1 history. On one hand, we had mid-major darling Butler, an 8-seed, in their second title game in as many years. After losing lottery pick Gordon Hayward to the NBA, most college basketball experts figured Butler would be a long shot to make the NCAA tournament itself, much less a second Final Four. In a tournament where even the best teams fall prey to bad luck, Butler's sheer appearance in the final game was a monumental achievement. On the other side of the court was the University of Connecticut, led by a coach basically the exact opposite of Butler's Brad Stevens--Jim Calhoun, the 68-year-old in his 39th season as a head coach. Calhoun actually was in his fourth season as head coach at Northeastern when Stevens was born.

Unfortunately, after all of that buildup, we were presented with a stinker of a game. Does that mean that Butler and Connecticut weren't deserving of a national title? Of course not--they both beat quality teams on their way to the title game. Butler had a slightly tougher road (having to face Pitt, Wisconsin, and Florida), to be sure, but both teams had the necessary resumes and talent worthy of a title game appearance. The game they played, however, was no more of a national championship game than a season opener in terms of the quality of offensive play. UConn shot a blistering 34.5% from the floor, a full 16% better than the Bulldogs. Pretty, it was not. But what does that mean for the future of the 68-team-tournament? Hit the jump to find out.

On a Certain NCAA Tournament Game

How much was Jamie Dixon to blame for Pitt's loss?

As objective sports journalists, we are supposed to be impartial to one game over another. We're supposed to treat all teams equally, to try and separate ourselves from the sports themselves in order to best explain them to others. Who would take any sports journalist's opinion if they knew exactly what team he roots for--at least, without them using some sort of statistics to back up their opinion? Either way, it's no secret that sports journalists are accused of being biased towards or against certain teams, and so it's with that in mind that I share this information--while I attend Temple University now, for two years I attended the University of Pittsburgh, and thus I consider myself a fairly interested Panthers fan. Now, I share that with you because I'm writing tonight about the Pitt/Butler game that took place this evening, which had one of the most screwed-up endings you could ever imagine for a basketball game. With 43 seconds left, the Panthers got the ball back with a 1-point lead. They then made three key mistakes that led to losing the game...

On the "First Four"

This is the exciting one. In case you forgot.

Over the past two days, the country has been treated (tortured with? whatever) the first First Four, the NCAA's newest, greatest idea to somehow increase the appeal of the student-athlete...or is it to make them more money? I never get that right. Either way, the last two nights proved to me at least--and I'm  not the only one--that the NCAA still does not understand how to balance the interests of the country with the best interests of the sport. This "First Four" is no more a part of the NCAA tournament experience than the US Open qualification tournament is for one of the Grand Slams of tennis.  I don't mean to disparage what it is the players do--they won their conference tournaments, they get to play on national television, and they're living the dream of being Division I student-athletes. However, until the top players and teams are playing, the games are nothing more than a play-in, a chance to get into the tournament--and I think we've already given some teams enough chances to do that. Hit the jump for more stat-less opinionated ranting. I mean, sports journalism.

Accountability

I don't usually do non-statistics posts, but as I did put "Stuff" in the title, I feel that I can use that similar to the "Beyond" after the Bed and Bath. There have been two stories that have hit the sports world in the past few days that have gotten a lot of people angry for what are actually fairly similar reasons. These two stories, one in college basketball and the other in college football, both deal with the issue of accountability--who do some of these people have to answer to. There's also the issue of "fairness," as everybody sees it differently. When we, as people, see something unfair, we know it is, and we yearn to do something about it, but one of the toughest things about dealing with the human condition is dealing with the idea that sometimes things aren't fair, and that's all you can say. Or is it?