Tag: NHL

Can we please stop with the pointless clichés?

The Raptors-Cavaliers series should put one of these nonsensical phrases out for good

In our world, the direction of humanity seems to be plummeting towards the toilet with each passing day (with a few exceptions). Part of that free-fall is heard with all of these overused, robotic sayings, otherwise known as clichés. In sports, some of the most spoken terms include “It’s the biggest game because it’s the next game,” “keep the main thing the main thing,” and everyone’s favorite, “it is what it is (probably the worst out of the bunch).” As much of an attempt to keep any feeling out of the equation these clichés amount to, there’s one that definitely misses the mark when it comes to competition, and while there’s an understanding why it’s used, it’s hard to get behind when truth is completely missing.

What’s that specific cliché ? It’s the one that says a series doesn’t begin until the road team wins a game. The origin of this misplaced saying is unclear, but it’s typically used around the NBA and NHL (MLB also), sports associations that use series as their playoff format. There’s a lot that is put into having a home court or ice advantage. The feeling of playing in front of a home crowd, particularly for the role players who don’t get as much spotlight as the stars, can elevate their performance. Therefore, when the road squad is able to steal that advantage, it’s seen as a monumental shift in the tone of the series. For an example, the Minnesota Timberwolves were able to win Game 1 of their Western Conference semifinals battle with the San Antonio Spurs Monday night in San Antonio. Now, the Timberwolves have the advantage as long as they win at least their home games, and the Spurs have to get it back (their first opportunity comes Friday night in Minneapolis). Of course, the rest of the series has to work itself out, but if we’re supposed to follow the meaning of this cliché, it officially became real when Minnesota won.

But what happens if a whole series happens without a road team winning, or said away team wins for the first time to actually advance to the next round? If any of those two instances occur, there’s factually no way anyone can use that saying, which frankly makes it sound idiotic. Case in point, let’s use the recent first round series between the Toronto Raptors and Cleveland Cavaliers, won by the Cavaliers in seven games (Cleveland is battling the Detroit Pistons in the Eastern Conference semifinals). The home squad won all of those contests, and it’s certain the players, coaches and fans who watched the series knew they were in a battle, regardless of result. If we’re to believe the cliché in question, that means the Raptors and Cavs never played, and a whole series can actually play out before it even begins. A road squad can win Game 6 (or perhaps Game 7 if the series makes it that far), ending a series the home team won the first five games, before it starts. How crazy does that sound?

Even with going to the other side of the aisle, lets say the away team wins every game in the series. Does that mean the battle never happened because the home team lost every time, or could it be deemed one of the best of all-time because nothing but road victories occurred? Are we going to tell the players and coaches who went through the series, making all of these adjustments physically and mentally, the series never began because the home team won all of the games? What if a player gets injured during one of these contests? The injury never happened (I guess) because the series never began, due to the road team losing time and again. There’s too many items available to poke holes at this cliché, and it’s not because of any deep searching. Stories are written, and items are documented. The combination of the two equals said analogy being factually not true.

It’s understood clichés are used to explain a lot of the experiences we go through in life. There are even a few, such as “the more things change, the more the stay the same,” that make more sense than others, and are probability more appropriate with today’s times. This one about the series beginning when the road team wins is not one of those clichés that hit the mark. Sometimes, a fancy saying in an attempt to sound philosophical isn’t necessary. Let’s cut the complications out of it (which is hard to do for most), and say a series begins when the ball is tipped, or the puck is dropped (or first pitch), to start Game 1. After all, it’s not like the teams involved are caring about when and where they win. They just want to win, and frankly, so do the masses.

Exploring why the NBA regular season has lost its luster

The In-Season Tournament provides a boost, but a lull between the conclusion and the playoffs loom large

More than ever, the regular season in many of the world’s major sports leagues have decreased in terms of importance. From the players to the fans, the priority is to make it to playoff action, and let the chips fall where they may. The decaying value may not be any more prevalent than it is in the NBA, where it’s almost considered a crime if a player (let alone a star player) comes close to playing in all 82 regular season games. That, combined with a style of play that has made defense optional, and a product that is close to unwatchable becomes the result. It’s become so bad, commissioner Adam Silver knew he had to do something in an attempt to remedy the problem, and alas, the In-Season Tournament (won by the Los Angeles Lakers) is born. After assessing the results, it’s time to look into why this point was reached, the after effects of the tournament and where things go from here.

When it comes to the league’s devalued regular season, one of the main reasons people love to point the finger at is load management. This isn’t to say resting players wasn’t happening before this, but the San Antonio Spurs started a trend when they chose selected games to sit aging starts like Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili in the early to mid-2010s. The goal was to make sure they were healthy for the playoff run, and the action resulted in the Spurs making back-to-back runs to the NBA Finals in 2013 and ’14 (winning it all in the latter year). Since then, many other teams have adapted the strategy for numerous reasons, even if it means shutting down players for trade and draft considerations. Nowadays, 65 or 70 games played for a star player is considered a miracle, and there’s no indication of that trend changing anytime soon. It’s never a good sign when the competitive balance of a league is in question, and the problem is particularly glaring in the NBA. Yes, MLB and the NHL have equally long seasons (in terms of months played), but the star players are likely to play more often than not. The NFL has less games to play, but you can count on them to be in action unless injuries keep them out. The opposite has become the norm in basketball.

Along with load management, the quality and style of play is mentioned as a reason why the league’s regular season isn’t as pleasant on the eyes and ears. At the risk of sounding like the old head, the days of tough defense seem to be long gone, and players get thrown out if there’s even a hint of a hard foul. The combination of rule changes and the want by many to see more offense equals point totals that are astronomic. Final scores of 130 to 120 are now the normal instead of the exception, and it’s surprising if a team, or both, don’t have 100 points after three quarters of action. In other words, the games in the regular season aren’t too much better than glorified scrimmages and shoot arounds, and the product has become close to cringeworthy. This isn’t to take away from the skill these players have on offense, but the defense is more about getting the points back on the other end than taking the challenge and actually stopping somebody.

It’s one thing to point out problems, but what are the solutions? We knew there were (and still are) issues with tanking, and the NBA decided to introduce the Play-In Tournament in response. Like anything else in life, the playoff tease has its detractors, but it has worked to generate more excitement and more importantly, lessen the amount of giving up on the season. Viewership in the regular season is the next issue, which is a problem simply because football (both the NFL and college) is clearly the elephant that blocks the sight for everything else. At the earliest, the league’s Christmas showcase, when there are five nationally televised games in a row, is when any bit of interest in the season begins. By bringing the IST into existence, they can at least take advantage of the nights football isn’t on as much, and give incentive for the players to hold off (for a little bit) on load management. From all indications, the tournament checked all of the boxes for success, and if the way some of the courts looked is the most fans can complain about, it’s safe to say good reviews are aplenty.

So what happens next? There are reports the NBA is looking at ways to improve upon the first IST. Maybe the league can start the tournament a little later, with the final potentially taking place on Christmas Day. The first month of the season is used by many players to start getting into playing shape, and for that reason, it’s understood why the NBA wanted to have the dates they chose to hold the invitational. Maybe they could hold another one before the All-Star Break, with the trade deadline looming. Some people say the IST is a gimmick , but in the soccer world, the tournaments during the season have been a rousing success. It’s good to see the NBA is willing to try something new. They saw a problem, and they’re trying to solve it. Best believe, the other leagues in North America are watching, and if the success continues for basketball, don’t be surprised if there are copycats that follow.

Maybe one day, the NFL will be honest with us, and themselves

A lot has happened since March 11, 2020, when the world literally changed forever. It was then when the COVID pandemic really start to grip everything and everyone, and the sports world was not spared from its outreach. The NBA and NHL postponed their respective seasons, and the NCAA cancelled March Madness altogether. MLB didn’t have a clue on how to deal with the pandemic, and their season was shortened to 60 games, more than half of the 162-game campaign we’re accustomed to. Even the English Premier League and other soccer organizations in numerous countries were forced to stop their seasons due to the virus. In other words, the world as we knew it stopped before our eyes.

The one league that was able to escaped the wrath of COVID (at least initially) was the NFL, that was only because they were in their offseason. Eventually, even they would have to adapt to change. The draft would be held virtually, and so would training camps. The preseason was cancelled, and the first game action came with the season-opener between the Houston Texans and Kansas City Chiefs Sept. 10 of that year. The season was largely playing out in empty stadiums, and there would be at least one game held each day of the week due to postponements caused by the pandemic.

As the world attempted to return to normal, the NFL was determined to do the same. They wanted to be strict as far as COVID protocols went, pinning the responsibility on the franchises to make sure coaches and players adhere to the rules as the 2021 regular season loomed. No longer would games be postponed due to spikes or outbreaks, they would be forfeited and handed to the team that was supposed to play the infected one. The league wanted to stay on schedule, perhaps thinking (and it’s not out of the norm for the NFL to act this way) they can do so because they are “The Shield.” It would be logical to think this stance was premature when considering a pandemic is still going on, but when has the NFL listened to anybody going against their vision?

With everything I just said, here we are, almost two years after having our lives turn upside down, and there’s a harsh truth staring at us and the league. COVID (and all of its variants) is still very much a factor, and because of that, the NFL is doing what they vowed not to do a few months ago, postponing three games on Friday. The Las Vegas Raiders–Cleveland Browns matchup has been moved from Saturday to Monday, and two more games (The Washington Football Team–Philadelphia Eagles and Seattle Seahawks–Los Angeles Rams) were pushed back from Sunday to Tuesday. While the move shows a sign of basically being in the same place we were with the pandemic at this point last year, it also shows what the league, and many others, are ultimately about when push comes to shove. Anyone with a little intellect can see money is always the priority when it comes to the decision making in the NFL.

Bottom line, a forfeited result means a loss of revenue for everyone involved, and the NFL knows this better than anyone. What this means is they’ll do anything to protect their profit, even if it means going back on their original word. The funny thing is many people would understand if money is the first motivating factor, as long as the organization is honest about it. Instead, the NFL continues to hide behind other reasons while conducting their business, and attempts to tell us so as if we can’t see through them. Postponing the three games shows exactly why someone can not (and should not) take what the league says seriously, because eventually, the truth comes to life, and it’ll likely involve lots of dollar signs. Then again, nobody can expect the NFL to be honest with them if they can be honest with themselves first.