Population Statistic: Read. React. Repeat.
Tuesday, October 24, 2021

back to balance?
Can this be right? Is NHL commissioner Gary Bettman actually considering doing away with the current scheduling formula that maximizes divisional contests while minimizing inter-conference play?

Bettman and the league committed to a new three-year schedule cycle after the lockout, designed to enhance [intra]-divisional rivalries with eight-game series, put other conference teams on a four-game plan and play non-conference opponents home and away once every three years.

That idea has been under criticism almost from its inception, either from players mixed at a steady diet of four division teams or fans robbed of seeing young stars such as Sidney Crosby and Alexander Ovechkin.

“We’re going to look at it after the season and see what changes make sense,” Bettman told a reporter on the weekend after most thought the league would let the plan run its course.

This may just be lip service, in response to some griping from the Maple Leafs over having to play Ottawa seven times in a month. Still, I really hope there’s some teeth to this. I maintain, as I did two times last year, that it gets downright repetitious to watch the same damned matchups practically every week. It’s boring.

The idea that it encourages fans to take in more of these rivalry games is, to me, false. If I’m not a ticket-season holder, I’m not going to go to more than one or two games against a particular rival — I want to see different matchups and different opposing players. Bringing in the same teams over and over again, especially in so short a timeframe, discourages ticket-buying.

Enough already. The league’s schedule-makers obviously can’t make this format work. Play an appropriate number of divisional games, then free up the schedule for the variety that inter-conference opponents would provide.

by Costa Tsiokos, Tue 10/24/2006 11:21:18 PM
Category: Hockey
| Permalink | Trackback | Feedback


what a babeLet me tell you what I love about this cover of the October 2006 French Vogue:

The way the model, Natalia Vodianova, is so blatantly treating the baby she’s holding as a prop. She’s standing akimbo-ish, acting all come-hithery toward the camera, while baby’s presence in the photo is largely incidental. And it’s comically obvious how unlikely it is that Vodianova should be the kid’s real mother, despite (or because of?) how the scene is shot.

I’m sure photographer Mario Testino was going for this imagery. Somehow, the use of a miniature human being as fashion accessory neatly sums up everything you need to know about fashion.

And furthermore, if this shot doesn’t win something in next year’s Magazine Publishers of America cover competition, I’ll be, like, totally bummed out.

by Costa Tsiokos, Tue 10/24/2006 10:41:17 PM
Category: Fashion, Publishing, Women
| Permalink | Trackback | Feedback


About an hour ago, someone told me about how she found herself in the emergency room this past Sunday (she drove herself) due to a killer migraine.

And now, I find myself experiencing a mild headache.

Sympathy pains? I didn’t think I was so empathetic.

Actually, I’m betting my pounding head is the result of too much or too little caffeine for the day. So long as I don’t wind up in the hospital, like many migraine sufferers, I’ll get through it.

by Costa Tsiokos, Tue 10/24/2006 01:32:23 PM
Category: Science
| Permalink | Trackback | Feedback