TYMNHS-Game 7

-Things You Might Not Have Seen (on TV in game 7 of the Blues-Blackhawks series. And almost 20% of the entire Chicago and St. Louis markets were watching last night's game. Record-setting numbers.)

Blues win 3-2 on Troy Brouwer's third-period goal and move on to meet Dallas in the second round. As a side note, I have done the PA announcing for over 1300 Blues games, and only a few stick out in my memory. (Of course my memory isn't what it used to be). But, last night's win, and the amazing, electric atmosphere at Scottrade Center, especially late in the third period, will stick with me for as long as I'm still around. Here's what you might not have seen on TV last night.

• Charles Glenn, (the regular anthem singer for the Blues) and occasional special-guest anthem
  
  singer Generald Wilson had cooked up what would have been an amazing duet for last night's national anthem. However, Charles was a little under the weather and didn't feel up to it. So Mr. Wilson (who has performed at many big-time, national sporting events in his Navy uniform) did his usual spectacular job as the soloist. If you can't be inspired by Generald's anthem, you had better check your pulse to see if you still have one. 
• Some in the crowd were, no doubt, wondering why there was a start and stop, and start again to one of the in-arena promotions early in the
  
  game. Well...TV timeouts are taken on regular stoppages in play...and not on icing calls. Last night's NHL TV timeout coordinator (and there's nobody better) Kevin Boschert thought that icing had been called when it actually was an offside call. The rest of us on headset thought it was just a regular stoppage and proceeded to get into the promotion planned for talented in-game host Angella Sharpe on the TV timeout. Then Kevin realized it was actually not an icing call...and the game operations folks at the same time realized that he hadn't called for the TV timeout and stopped poor Angella mid-sentence. After the confusion was cleared up Angella proceeded to the entertainment part as planned. Oh well...stuff happens. 
• To follow up on that, the pre-game show put on by Sr. Director of Event Presentation Chris Frome and Entertainment Director Jason Pippi was once again awe-inspiring and an amazing electric charge to get the fans prepped for action. 
• Francis Charron who was a stand-by referee, and Scott Cherrey a stand-by linesman, in an earlier game in the series both skated in last night's game. Congrats to last night's crew. There weren't many complaints from anybody about the way the game was called. 
• I happened to run into Blues GM Doug Armstrong in the hallway after the game. When I
  
  shook his hand and congratulated him I thought I felt a sense of his (probably enormous) relief after last night's win. But he always has a sense of "there's more work to be done" about him too. 
• As luck would have it, just after running into Army, I also encountered Blackhawks coach Joel Quenneville. I guessed that he had just had a post-game talk with his team and was headed to the press conference down the hall. He had just come through a set of double doors
  
  that separates visitor territory from the Blues locker room area. Coach Q coached here in StL for several years and I always enjoyed chatting with him when given the chance. But I sensed that he was in no mood to talk last night. I just stopped in my tracks as he put his head down and put a hand up to his forehead in the corner made by the doors and the hallway. His emotional distress was obvious. What a classy and caring gentleman.   
• My sense of the fan breakdown last night. 25% or so Hawks fans in the lower bowl. Maybe 5% in the upper bowl. I guess if you are traveling from Chicago to see a game in St. Louis, you may as well buy the expensive seats. 
• You might ask..."How much fun was it last night to announce 'One minute to play in the third period'? Answer- What an amazing thrill to set 20-thousand people off into a thunderous frenzy like that. It must be like announcing the stretch run of a horse race. The finish line is in sight and anything still can happen. Wow! 

Just a final note- I'm so happy for Tom Stillman and the ownership group. If things had not gone the

Blues way last night, I can't imagine how painful from a personal and business standpoint it would have been. The guy loves hockey, the Blues, winning, and St. Louis. Could there be a better owner?

TYMNHS

-Things You Might Not Have Seen (on TV in Game 5 of the Blues/Blackhawks Series)

Hawks win in 2nd OT 4-3 on Patrick Kane's first goal of the playoff series. You saw that.(If you were able to stay up late enough to watch) Here's what you might not have seen unless you were in the building...or up as close as me.

•  Coach's Challenge?- After Kane's game-winner, the on-ice officials made sure the maintenance people and other folks who have on-ice duties after the game did not come onto the ice surface. Then they all skated over to the scorer's bench by me and waited to see if there would be a coach's challenge. They obviously thought that some of the traffic in front of the goal, and Brian Elliott complaining about it, might result in a replay situation. Obviously, the Blues video people didn't think there was anything that was worth a challenge and everyone eventually headed for the locker room. Elliott complained about not being able to get back over to defend the open net that Kane shot into. But replays show there wasn't much for him to complain about. He appears to get bumped by his own D-men. 
• Stand by Ref/Linesman- The NHL sends a back-up referee to each playoff game just in case
  
  one of the on-ice guys gets injured or can't continue for some reason. The back-up guy would sub for either a ref or linesman. This actually happened a few years ago in one of our games when a linesman developed a rapid heartbeat. The back-up guy jumped in to call lines. Before the game the extra guy comes out to the penalty box in street clothes to observe the warm-up skate. Last night two guys showed up. I asked why there was two. The answer- in an elimination game they send an extra ref and linesman. So
  a ref won't have to call lines...a job he's not used to. Last night Francis Charron was the back-up ref. Brad Kovachik was the back-up linesman. 
• The Blues led by Senior Director of Event Presentation Chris Frome and Director of Entertainment Jason Pippi put together a fabulous pre-game presentation which included video shown on the ice with a full-rink projection system. The guys from a company in Quebec
  
  who were brought in for the playoffs last year are back for another visit in '16. It adds a spectacular element for the enjoyment of the fans and really helps get the crowd amped-up. 
• While we've become used to seeing a high-percentage of Hawks fans at recent Blues regular-season games, there wasn't much red to be seen in the crowd last night by my observation. 
• During the playoffs, the Blues have been making an effort to get fans back into the old...and
  
  wonderful...habit of singing When the Blues (Saints) Come Marching In during the game. In the old Arena days it was mostly spontaneous. The idea seems to be catching on thanks to the leadership of uber-talented singer Charles Glenn leading the charge in our show. 
• You won't realize it while watching the game, but the league actually uses different pucks during the playoffs. The pucks are actually the same regulation size...but they carry a logo of the Stanley Cup Playoffs on the back with the Blue Note (or whomever is the host team) on the front. During the regular season it's just the NHL shield on the back. 

If there is a game 7 at Scottrade Monday night, I'll have some similar observations here about that one. (Hoping our next game will be in Round 2). Thanks for reading. 

NHL Offside Video Review - Part 2

This time I write after an inspiring, but confounding when it comes to officiating, 4-3 Blues win over the Blackhawks in game 4 of their first-round series. I say confounding because of several moments in the game which seemed to be judged incorrectly by the men in stripes. I have tremendous respect for the fellows who take on hockey officiating as their mission. So I'm not about to question their integrity or intent to get it right. What this is about is how video replay, and the precise nature of it, fits into what is otherwise a thoroughly imprecise process in regulating a hockey game.

I once again watched a video review of an offside call that could have become a part of turning a win into a loss for the Blues. Thankfully, if you're a Blues fan, it did not. And I once again came away wondering, "Does the coach's challenge and video review on offside really belong in this sport?" 

Point 1 (Free flow)- Part of hockey's thrilling nature comes from the constant action. Entertainment and enjoyment builds to frequent crescendos as one absorbs the continuous, swift, intense, and mostly-graceful movement of everyone on the ice. The free-flowing nature of it is inherent to the pleasure gained. The hitting...the speed...the skating skill...the athletic ability...all combine to form a magical combination of sports-viewing pleasure.

Point 2 (Game Clock)- Throughout a game, scores of happenings occur that are imprecise and somewhat random. For example- The time at which a ref raises his arm and whistles a penalty can vary depending on the decision process of that human in stripes. After multiple instances, this could add or subtract a few seconds to the period and game. The reaction time of the game clock operator in pushing the button could do the same. The clock might malfunction (We've seen that before). How long did it take for the sound to travel from the whistle to the clock operator's ears? Some end-of-period, or end-of-game, scoring plays theoretically shouldn't happen at all if these things happened as precisely as a video replay of offside. None are precise to tenths, or hundredths, of a second like frame-by-frame replay. So randomness and "close is good enough" rules throughout the game, except for the coach's challenge?

Point 3 (Decisions)- Whether to call a penalty, or not, and on whom such as with the very strange Corey Crawford/Robbi Fabbri confrontation, obviously effects who wins or loses. There are instances of offside being called, and play stopped incorrectly, but not challenged. How many times does that happen in which a goal might have been scored were play allowed to continue? In some cases video will show that officials have made a bad call, or made no call; as in Andrew Shaw being allowed to flip off the officials and shout slurs in last night's game without further penalty. (See video above) These officiating calls/non-calls aren't subject to review, or being overruled by a league official.

Considering all of the above, to inject the coach's challenge, and video replay of offside, I believe is counter-productive to the overall product. Does frame-by-frame analysis of a player's skate position seem logical when you have so many other random and unchallenged occurrences which might also decide a game's final score?

In summary, part of the charm of hockey is that you have human beings flying around the ice surface crashing into one another trying to gain a territorial advantage. You also have humans officiating who are doing their best to make sense of it all and keep it a fair fight. But they can't, and won't, always be able to do that. I believe we should be happy with the appeal, and somewhat homespun nature, the sport has always had...humans and all. There should be no prolonged stoppages devoid of entertainment which often frustrate fans when a decision is rendered anyway. The league cannot guarantee a totally justified final score no matter how many coach's challenges and video replays at a critical time of the game are allowed. Last night's Blues/Blackhawks game is exhibit one. The NHL should allow the players to keep skating and the humans to keep officiating.

Offiside? Can the NHL Adjust?

As I write this, the Blues are up 2-1 in their playoff series with the Blackhawks after an inspiring 3-2 victory Sunday afternoon in Chicago. Many of us who follow the Note are thrilled with that, but also thinking it could easily be a 3-0 series lead if things had gone a bit differently on Friday night at Scottrade Center.

The Hawks' 3-2 win Friday was particularly tough to swallow after it appeared the Blues had taken a 2-1 lead late in the game. Appeared is the operative word. Hawks' coach Joel Quenneville challenged the goal as offside, and won, after a long video review. Replays showed Jori Lehtera crossing the blue line with his trailing skate appearing to be a bit off the ice at that critical moment. (see photo above) Lehtera went on behind the goal and fed the puck to Vladimir Tarasenko for what Blues fans celebrated as an apparent game-winning tally. (Of course there was still some time to play...but, you know.)

It is already shocking to see how many instances of video challenge on offside plays have occurred in the playoffs across the league. And in reading Hockeybuzz.com's Eklund's thoughts on the Blues game, I have to agree that some kind of sanity must be brought to these situations; especially when a ruling goes a long way to determining the outcome of a game. There can be no disputing the fact that the ruling was correct, and that video showed it to be, based on the rules as currently written. But did Lehtera really "cheat" or attempt to hide behind the defense in order to gain an unfair advantage? Gaining an unfair advantage in an attempt to make a play is what the offside call in hockey, soccer, football etc. is all about isn't it?

On the play in question in the Blues game, Lehtera entered the zone and went all the way behind the goal before passing out to #91 for the goal. The defenseman on duty at the blue line for Chicago not only was even with Lehtera at the time he entered the zone, but chased him all the way back behind the goal on even terms. The goal didn't come as a direct result of Lehtera's skate being a fraction of an inch off-side. Someone else scored it after a defensible passing play. Up until the coach's challenge was implemented, that was as good a goal as you're going to see.

You can't blame a coach in that situation for taking a gamble that anything close is offside and asking for a review. Sometimes they'll win...sometimes not. But are we unnecessarily delaying the game for these reviews?...and also unnecessarily overturning what just about everyone who knows anything about hockey thinks is a good goal? Again...did Lehtera really gain an advantage by having his skate a fraction of an inch off the ice? As Eklund said in his piece, referring to what he called the disaster in St. Louis, "Did the missed call have anything to do with the goal?" 

It appears to me that the video replay which everyone in the building, and at home, sees is in most cases subject to the interpretation of the officials anyway. Why not just let the on-ice officials rule on what they see in real time and be happy with it? A player being offside should be blatant to have a real effect on the ensuing play. The video review also takes the human element out of officiating, particularly on this type of call. And then it re-injects a different human element into the final ruling that many won't agree with anyway; particularly if it's so close that it takes ten minutes to come to a decision. So why put up with the protracted delays if fans are eventually going to come away frustrated and confused by the eventual decision? (By the way, when the officials announce the final ruling on any of these reviews, the NHL needs to take a cue from the NFL and have the officials explain the call as thoroughly as possible.)

For Blues fans, the overturned call on Friday night was akin to getting exactly the toy you wanted from Santa Claus on Christmas morning only to have your big brother break it before you could play with it. Is that good for the sport? Was the sport better before the coach's challenge on offside? The current policy, with video assistance, was enforced correctly. But the current policy needs to be re-evaluated so that the spirit of the offside call is what fans get....and they get it in a reasonable amount of time. I'm hoping the next time the NHL general managers get together to talk about rules they will put this one at the top of their list.

NGA West Comment

A public comment period is underway to allow for input to NGA Director Robert Cardillo as to the decision to locate the NGA West headquarters in North St. Louis, as opposed to the Scott AFB site. I took a few minutes to put in my two cents worth. I encourage anyone else who has thoughts on the subject to do the same. You may do so here- http://nextngawest.com/site/

Dear Mr. Cardillo; and others who may consider this comment,

Like many of my fellow southwestern Illinois residents, I was aghast at the announcement that North St. Louis was chosen as the preferred site for the new NGA West. Much of the media speculation prior to the announcement seemed to favor Scott AFB; and with plenty of good reason. Most who have lived in the St. Louis area for decades realize the enormous difference in what North St. Louis offers, or does not offer, as opposed to the area near Scott. Our trust was that someone who is making such a generational decision about the security of the United States, and the world, would be compelled to make the logical choice. When deciding between the security of a military installation and a blighted, crime-troubled urban setting for a critical intelligence agency mission one would choose to believe the intelligent choice would win the day. It appears not.

In reading some of the reasons given for choosing North St. Louis, it appears superficial environmental considerations and the provision of financial support to a re-development initiative in North St. Louis carried the day; instead of proximity to those most benefited by mission-critical information. The technical and security considerations put forth by the Illinois site supporters seemed to have little bearing on the initial preference. Why is that? We are not led to believe that pumping money into a run-down area of a big city is what NGA is all about. I don't pretend to think that politics didn't play a role in this decision. But in a perfect world it should not; especially not for a mission as important as that of the NGA. 

Please take another serious look at the benefits of locating at Scott. The nearby cities and counties offer high-quality universities which will produce many potential high-tech workers. And NGA may still draw upon the higher-education pool of the Missouri side. There would also then be no need to uproot a number of families who have called North St. Louis home for generations. If the commute time of the current workforce to a new location in Illinois was a factor, should it be? If so, those who make such a commute, such as the Missourians who work at our Belleville, IL campus of Lindenwood University, would tell you the commute is a breeze. At Scott there would be no need to be concerned about the security, personal and professional, of your workforce. And, more importantly, there would be the benefit of daily, personal interaction with those who most need and utilize the information produced by the NGA; the airmen, airwomen, and civilian workers based there.

I have no reason to argue for or against either location, other than the fact that my children and grandchildren will benefit from the information the NGA produces long after I am gone from this earth. I would like to believe they will live in a more secure world as a result of choosing the most effective location for NGA West. The Scott AFB location just makes the most military-mission sense; on the surface and in total. Changing the initial preference to Scott on the final decision seems unlikely, but it is the right thing to do. I'm hoping the fortitude and commitment to mission is there to do so. Thank you.

Thoughts on NGA

-Unless Robert Cardillo is into really big April Fool's jokes, the NGA West project will happen in north St. Louis and not where most thought it would, next to Scott Air Force Base.

If it weren't for the Illinois vs. Missouri competition that was set up on this thing, I'm not sure I would have much interest in it. But since it got so much publicity locally, I fell into the whole St. Clair County vs. St. Louis ballgame that was presented. And, as has usually been the case during my lifetime, Metro-East came out with the short straw.

It seems always to be Metro-East vs. St. Louis...or Metro-East vs. Chicago in most things political. And since Metro-East has less population than either of those other entities, the political muscle of St. Louis/MO and Chicago/IL generally carries the day. The National Geo-spatial Agency re-location bidding was just the latest example.

Now, if you're sensible, you would think locating the NGA, whose most important clients on the entire planet are located at Scott, in an expanse of free farmland next to the base, is a no-brainer. But, as with most things governmental and political, it's never that simple. The government has to take the common sense out of the equation and put the whole process through an expensive and wasteful collection of environmental studies and engineering opinions.

And then, worst of all, political wrangling, arm-twisting, and favoritism are allowed to overrule it all. So, at the end of this incredibly stupid process, you are able to read a lawyered-up and intentionally confusing tome of craziness as to why Mr. Cardillo arrived at the decision he did. One has to wonder if he didn't make his decision long ago based on orders from someone, and then the lawyers went to work on the reasoning. It would be very interesting to see a list of the people he took phone calls from, and how long those calls were, during the time this decision was supposedly still up in the air. Can you say...transparency?

For my part, and I'm not saying I'm unbiased, I can't imagine a worse place to put a spy agency and the high-quality, highly-paid work force, than a blighted, crime-ridden area in North St. Louis where you have to up-root a number of families just to clear the land needed. One can't watch the news on St. Louis television for five minutes without seeing multiple stories about shootings and other mayhem in that area of the city. I hope they plan to put one of R.Buckminster Fuller's geodesic domes over the whole area for the sake of the safety of the employees.

But crime aside, the NGA is an evermore important part of the fight against the evils in this world. Our country needs this mission; and needs it to be done more than just well for the sake of our nation's security and well-being. How can we not put these people in the same proximity as the enforcers who will take their vital information and put it to use to protect us?

Will Mr. Cardillo be able to sleep at night if he bowed to political pressure and jeopardized the future safety of his fellow Americans?

It's Us Against the World

I've finally calmed down enough to write about the Rams move to LA. But I'm not at all happy about the way St. Louis was treated in all of this, and that's more concerning to me than not having an NFL team here.

Nobody...I mean nobody... outside of St. Louis seems to give a diddly about how St. Louis was rear-ended by the NFL and Kroenke's team. OK...USA Today had a piece in which writer Luke Kerr-Dineen proposed that the NFL should pay St.Louis's outstanding debt on the dome. But there seems to be no empathy in most of what I've read, and none in anything I've heard spoken on national TV, or anywhere else. Apparently Terry Bradshaw was right all along when he said "LA is a done deal for the Rams", and we chose to think him a moron. People outside of StL don't really care about us. Maybe they should, because they could be next. But they don't. And it seems there's a general level of excitement about the Rams move. Ticks me off!

It's my opinion that St. Louis was caught in the perfect storm at this point in its history. A whole collection of factors came together to make it impossible for the Rams to stay here. Oh, it was possible for them to stay. But with ESK calling the shots, and seeking his dream, it became impossible...especially with the complicity of Roger Goodell and his unscrupulous minions.

The reasons are exactly what you know they are. And the list is long. I won't identify them all. But some would be-

• The after-effects of the Ferguson incident
• The stagnant state of general population and economic growth of the city and region
• The smarminess of the NFL commissioner, and the league office's willingness to broker a deal for ESK
• The "crazy clause"--The Dome must be in the top tier of NFL venues or the Rams can escape their lease. 
• The nationally-accepted perception of St. Louis as a baseball-crazy place
• The nationally-accepted perception of St. Louis as in fly-over country
• The murder rate
• The mayor of St. Louis being just one of a few hundred such elected officials in the St. Louis market rendering him somewhat powerless.

Many American cities would present a similar list, or worse. I mean how in the world can St. Louis be less of an NFL city than Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Nashville, or Jacksonville? Maybe we're not. But now we don't have a team.

Now, the city is going to be without the NFL for either a long time, or forever. And forever is a long time. And there is nothing anybody, even Dave Peacock, can do about it. Efforts could be mounted to attract an existing team. And we can make it known that we are open for NFL business and will build a new stadium for an expansion team. But that would likely only accomplish one thing. We would become a bargaining chip for the NFL that LA was for the last 20 years. 

Like others who have written and spoken in the aftermath of the move, I feel like we need to clean up our house first. We need to get rid of the perceptions that are out there. We need to make this into a place where it makes sense for a team to want to be, and do business. How does that happen? I hope someone has the answer, and the power to act on it. 

In the meantime, Let's Go Blues! And Let's Go Cards! (And maybe Let's Go MLS team!) 

And please notice there is a person important to this post whose name I chose not to write. Enjoy your investment when you can't get 30-thousand people to show up for the games in your Inglewood monstrosity buddy. 

StL in the NFL?

Well...Silent Stan's cards are now on the table. Wow! What a hideous, ghastly, and detestable sewage plant we are all brainless enough to live in. And to think in 1900 StL was the nation's fourth largest city. Why haven't we left with all of the smart people?

Does anyone still believe the Rams will be here long term? If that miracle happens, there's no way Kroenke is the owner. A franchise trade, or some sort of team ownership swap, is all that die-hard Rams fans can hope for if the construction helmets with horns will be useful much longer.

Even the most loyal StL/NFL fans would rather take a bamboo shoot under the fingernails than spend a nickel on any product of which Stan would be the beneficiary. The application that Kroenke's writers submitted to the NFL arguing for re-location to LA precludes any such possibility. The Edward Jones Dome operators can start planning the religious conventions and monster truck exhibitions now. Dave Peacock can start working on selling the National Car Rental stadium idea to other owners. ESK has other ideas and isn't bashful about leaving trash to be picked up by someone else.

Arguing the points of Stan's shots at St. Louis, and its viability as an NFL market, is useless. It's nothing more than a lawyered-up, best shot at making Stan's fellow NFL owners buy in to his side of the story, and version of history. What's more, Kroenke undoubtedly knows St. Louis is much more than what the document portrays it to be. In a vulnerable position with the re-location process, he's compelled to take a Hail-Mary shot to make Inglewood appear more attractive than Carson...and St. Louis. I would think, and hope, that the other multi-million and-billionaires who will decide St. Louis' fate are above the baloney-ball he's trying to sell. All they have to do is view some of the pro-St. Louis statements made when he took full control of the team. That wasn't all that long ago.

When some of the owners see what the Peacock/Blitz task force has presented to the league, they will say, "I'd take that". The realization should then take hold that Stan is not doing right by anyone but himself. When the new stadium effort began, Mr. K. had obviously already checked out of the StL market. If his heart wasn't irrevocably set on the Inglewood project, he would have engaged in at least some new stadium discussion. Of course, we know that didn't happen. If he kept the new stadium effort at arms length he could continue to promote the notion that St. Louis didn't do its part when talks of upgrading the dome didn't produce what he wanted; and then he could continue to say the contract was breached, and that allows me to do whatever I want.

Will some other owner take the new riverfront stadium deal and run with it? There aren't many obvious candidates for that. In the long run, St. Louis football fans will not necessarily get what they deserve, but what the NFL brass and owners think is best for business. That's the frightening part.

Makes You Wonder...

...what they know that the general public does not...Joe Buck and Dan Dierdorf I mean.

In case you missed it, both of these fellows took verbal swings at "Silent Stan" Kroenke at a Police Foundation luncheon yesterday at America's Center. Here's the whole story from stltoday.com. Rather than analyze what they had to say, it's more interesting to me to think about the position in the timeline of Rams/Dome/Stadium/LA events that these comments are occupying and with what knowledge were they made.

I have to believe that these extremely well-connected gentlemen, whose iPhones certainly include the numbers of NFL owners and top executives , are working with a fair amount of inside information. If they have been made to believe that Stan is going forward with the LA move no matter what, then they would have no reason to hold back on their comments. Both loyal to St. Louis to the end, Joe and Dan then are free to let Stan have it with both barrels knowing it makes no difference to him, or anyone else, but would get a rise from a crowd. I know both of these gentlemen a bit. And if they thought their comments would hurt the StL-NFL cause, they would most definitely be more restrained.

As to the timing, maybe the luncheon Q&A was just the public opportunity they were presented with to take a shot or two. Of course, the NFL owners are meeting again in October to hear proposals from St. Louis and San Diego on the progress and status of stadium plans. With that in mind, you wonder if Dave Peacock has told his "StL-NFL team", which may include Dierdorf and Buck...both news-maker types...that it wouldn't hurt a thing to jump on the Gateway City bandwagon. Please help further the city's case for an NFL team, Rams or otherwise. And if that means taking a shot at the Rams owner, by indicating that he didn't give the city a fair chance, so be it.

To carry that train of thought another step, one wonders if Peacock hasn't heard something like this from the NFL brass..."Dave, here's the thing. We believe Stan has a workable plan in SoCal, and we're not going to do much to stop him from spending 2 billion of his dollars on a complex in Inglewood and taking his team there. But if you can muster enough resources to get a stadium built in St. Louis, we will shake your hand and do our best to get your city a replacement team." 

It would be nice if somebody in the St. Louis media would simply ask Joe or Dan if they actually do know something about the future of the NFL in the STL that hasn't come out yet; or are just opinionated St. Louis guys speaking their mind. They may have inside info...but also could be playing along so as to not kill the stadium-building effort. Certainly, both guys know that Stan has no interest in preserving his public relations situation here, or selling Jones Dome tickets. That ship has sailed. They also understand he doesn't care what anyone else thinks; as long as the value of his investment doubles or triples when his team takes up residence in SoCal. He only needs to care what the left-coast crowd thinks.

It appears that one of two things is true. Some sources, national or local, have indicated to Buck and/or Dierdorf that the Rams move is a effectively a "done deal"...or they simply feel uninhibited when in a position to be ungentlemanly while speaking about the Midwest's least favorite multi-billionaire. I suppose we can all pick which we would like to believe.  

Baseball's "Old School" Defended

During my lunch break today, I had occasion to do a bit of internet surfing. And one of the places my surfboard came to rest was this article by Nate Scott who pens for USA Today. The thrust of the article--if you don't have time to click on the link-- is he thinks some of the old unwritten rules of the game of baseball are stupid. You know, the accepted brush back pitch, not showing up the other team, hot-dogging, etc.

Mr. Scott points to an incident in the blowout of the Yankees by the Astros Tuesday night. Carlos Gomez of the Astros, with his team already leading by a 9-0 score, just misses a Chris Capuano pitch to the point of producing a routine fly ball. Capuano then flips his bat toward his own dugout and mutters something. Some of the Yankees yell at Gomez, including manager Joe Girardi, and afterwards claim that Gomez should "play the game the right way". Gomez yells back, and...well...boys will be boys ensues.

Scott says this and other "internal policing" rules should go the way of the dinosaur. And somehow he totally whiffs on the fact that Gomez is a known hot dog in the sport who is always searching for the spotlight. He also doesn't seem to get that when Gomez, with his team leading big, curses himself and flips his bat he is not berating himself as much as he is showing up the pitcher...in effect saying "That bum threw me a pitch I should have hit to Portugal...and I missed it." Does Gomez consider what his actions say to the pitcher and the crowd? Of course not.

If this childish and self aggrandizing behavior isn't pointed out and halted by the players themselves, guess what? It doesn't get halted at all. Then soon we will have to put up with the same kind of ridiculous and me-first behavior we see in NFL football on a weekly basis. Make a tackle...stomp around the field, pound your chest, huff, puff, and and let out a primal scream. Run for ten yards...and act like you've won the game single-handedly in the first quarter. We see enough of the baseball diva behavior the way it is without allowing it to blossom into the whole show like the NFL does.

Mr. Scott, who is quick to call out what he deems an "old fogy" mentality, even goes so far as to say that the Gomez behavior should be considered a "good thing" in that he is still competing in a blowout. I guess that a 9-0 lead in a team sport isn't good enough? The player should also show that he is ready and anxious to "pile on" no matter how it makes the opposing players or fans feel? Again..it's all about me with today's players and gentlemanly play is "old fogy" stuff.

Maybe today's players, and writers, would do well to re-visit the sport as it was played by the gentlemen of the 19th and early 20th century; we might all appreciate the individuals playing it more.

NEW Stan/NFL Thoughts

Well...at the very uncomfortable, for St. Louis football fans, Rams/Cowboys practice in Oxnard yesterday, we were treated to the new look. Stan Kroenke has obviously decided to forgo the hair color and present himself au naturel. Stan, we hardly recognized ye.

The Mysterious One was cavorting with his NFL owner-buddy Jerry Jones at the joint practice...each sporting the ball cap of their respective teams. But we were used to the look from Jones, not so much from Silent Stan. Maybe it was time to reveal the "new Stan" for the fans who will be seeing him the most after the coming season? Whatever. Most have been less than impressed with his public image skills. The SoCal media will have a field day with the guy if he repeats his performance of here in the Midwest. Of course, he will buy an extended honeymoon if he moves the male sheep franchise back to San Andreas fault territory.
-0-
As to the significance of any comments coming from either Jones or Kroenke, it was a "no comment day" for Stan, other than the fact that he actually showed up at a Rams practice. Of course he rarely even bothers when the team suits up in The Lou.

Jones, on the other hand, was more than ready to support the effort to get a team to SoCal. And it sure sounded like he preferred it to be Stan and his Rams. He was politically correct enough to allow for the possibility that the Chargers/Raiders effort is a strong one, but didn't hold back in support of good ol' Stan as being the kind of people you want to associate with and see succeed. Jones also declined to say anything in support of the St. Louis stadium efforts. Essentially, that was his "no comment" moment...and that says something.
-0-
The esteemed Jeff Gordon of the Post-Dispatch writes this morning that the best-case plan for cleaning up the growing Los Angeles NFL mess would be for Stan to form a partnership with Dean Spanos of the Chargers (right) to co-inhabit the new Inglewood digs Stan is planning. According to the writings of Sam Farmer of the L.A. Times, both Spanos and Kroenke can block one another when it comes to re-location approval of the ownership in a vote. So eliminating that roadblock with a partnership would be the quickest and least costly approach to their mutual re-location interests. Of course, should that happen the poor Raiders will be left swinging in the Oakland breeze and looking for a solution on their own.
-0-
It has been suggested to me that an expansion team might be the best option in all of this for St. Louis and a new stadium on the riverfront. Scott Wuerz, who puts down his professional thoughts
for the Belleville News-Democrat, suggests that if the league is serious about expansion into a foreign market (London? Mexico City?) that they go ahead and do it and include an expansion team at the same time for St. Louis. You'll remember that St. Louis was snubbed, says Wuerz, in the expansion process before when Jacksonville came into the league. This would right that wrong. However counting on the NFL owners to do the honorable thing by St. Louis can be dangerous place to stand. We would have to hope that Dave Peacock works some sort of guaranteed return, a la an expansion team, for building a stadium even if Stan's SoCal dreams are realized.

If the expansion approach takes flight with the owners, the Inglewood Rams could be re-aligned with western teams in a division on the Pacific coast and the new St. Louis "Archers" (I never liked that one) could play in a more time-zone friendly division.

Obviously, there are a lot of moving (pun intended) targets in this shooting gallery. Buckle your seat belts football fans, it's going to be a bumpy ride.