The NHL finally released the names of the new divisions yesterday and, of course, managed to screw that up. The Western divisions, named the Pacific and Central divisions, are fine; we could nitpick a few teams and locations but ultimately they make sense. As for the East, well, that's a whole different story. The NHL decided to keep the Atlantic Division. That makes a lot of sense considering the Atlantic Division as it has has existed for over a decade is still intact. However, they decided to make the "Atlantic Division" hold the Bruins, Habs, Leafs, et al and name what was once the Atlantic Division (plus Columbus, Carolina, and Washington) the Metropolitan Division.
Here is the definition of "metropolitan" according to Webster:
"of, relating to, or characteristic of a metropolis (large city) and sometimes including its suburbs."
Essentially, the New York Rangers are now in the "Large city and surrounding areas" division. Which is ridiculously vague and indicative of absolutely nothing. Literally every single NHL team (and most AHL teams) is located in a metropolitan area; either inside a big city or its surrounding suburbs. Meanwhile, the Detroit Red Wings, who are closer to the Mississippi River than the Atlantic Ocean, is part of the "Atlantic Division." If the NHL wanted to go with a vague and stupid name like "Metropolitan" then why couldn't the teams actually near the Atlantic keep their division name and let Montreal and Toronto and the others be the "Metropolitan Division"? Then again, the people in charge of these decisions are the same ones in charge of contributing to three lockouts in under 20 years so why should anyone be surprised?
Anyway, I'm going to milk the moment and take advantage of the openness of this. Keep reading for some stupid things I extemporaneously decide to throw together.
I watched MasterChef a couple of days ago and it led me to question when the last time Gordon Ramsay has messed up a dish. I don't mean something like, "these fish tacos were good but could have used a bit more cheese." I mean really screwing up. Like burning the chicken or making his curry way too spicy or something like that. Even Henrik Lundqvist lets in a soft goal once in a while and Tom Seaver didn't go his entire career without some terrible outings; there's no way that Gordon Ramsay just NEVER screws up a beef wellington to the point that it's unenjoyable, right? How long ago, though? This month? The last three months? This year?
Twitter is great. I love being able to interract with people I otherwise never would have. That being said, there is so much cancer throughout. Part of the cancer is parody accounts. For every funny parody account there are 100 that are annoying. There are like five million Condescending Wonka and Will Ferrell accounts they all recycle the same five tweets that all the other millions of parody accounts have tweeted at least five times with hopes that nobody will notice. Then there are the parody accounts that aren't actually parody accounts.
Stop making exceptions for people who only make excuses.
— Mila Kunis (@MilIa_Kunis) July 18, 2013
Is there anyone in the world who would read that and think, "oh my god that totally sounds like Mila Kunis"? It's literally just a generic tweet that you'd expect from any 14-year-old girl who is trying to be deep and emotional.
Then there are the people who see the success of a few of the truly great sports parody accounts, such as the Bryzgalov parody which is of a player who can be parodized, and decide to pollute the atmosphere with parody accounts of other players. No, people, "Stralman's Ego" is not something that has to exist and using the F-Word in every other sentence does not make you edgy or amusing. Don't make these stupid accounts every time the Rangers pick up some generally uninteresting player. Don't follow me or tweet at me with those accounts in hopes that I'm going to retweet you and make you into a Twitter superstar. It's not going to happen.
President Obama recently released a statement in regards to the acquittal of George Zimmerman, and I'm not going to get involved in politics or the case itself because it's just not necessary. But this brings up a trend I'm beginning to notice which is that we're slowly developing a culture, media-wise, where it's expected that the president release a statement on everything that happens ever. It's not as if FEMA was bribing the jury under the table. The trial went as all other trials do. The judicial system is set up with the understanding that, once in a while, a person who might be guilty might not be convicted. This isn't something that requires executive intervention. Was Franklin Delano Roosevelt holding press conferences to voice his opinion on the decisions of a Florida jury in a murder case? Why the hell is it suddenly necessary that the President "have a stance" on everything? By the 2016 election we're going to have Skip Bayless mediating a serious, nationally televised First Take Debate between Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio as he insists that "voters want to know" what their stance is on Pete Rose and the Hall-Of-Fame. And I'm going to have a seizure when it happens.
Here's a fun fact: Michelle Branch has perfect pitch. Considering 99% of songs that hit the radio consist of autotuned samples of Will.I.Am or Nikki Minaj gargling with
washing machine noises computerized dubstep beats in the background it's refreshing to listen to someone who is genuinely talented.
Have a good weekend, everybody.
Follow Me On Twitter: @Herman_NYRBlog
Email Me: AdamNYRBlog@gmail.com