202 thoughts on “February 8, 2012: Winners”

  2. dude, the minnesota whitecaps have been awesome for years. everyone knows this. now if only the swarm could pick things up...

    1. I like it, but Pek is definitely Gregor Clegane, not Ilyn Payne.

      **pushes glasses back up nose, hitches pants higher**

          1. Also, I'm pretty sure Pek! could get his f***ing hand half chewed off and still make Cousins look stupid under the basket.

        1. I'm waiting for the day when parity hits the NHL (or at least almost every game gets to overtime) and the entire league finishes with a "winning record".
          Then I will call it the LWHL: Lake Wobegon Hockey League.

        2. Since you get half as many points for OTLs, then the Wild's record is equivalent to 29-24, so I would count it as a winning record.

          1. So under your formula, in short, if points>games played, then the record is a "winning" record. 1-0-10 would then be a "winning" record. This is why AMR's scenario is plausible.

            Moss is on the SBG side of the ledger -- a winning record is winning more than half the games.

            (Moss also thinks they need to go to a system where every game counts for 3 points if they're going to insist on splitting points for OT games, but then the record line needs four columns: RW-OTW-OTL-RL.)

              1. Except that's not how the standings work. I understand that you, SBG, Moss, and probably plenty of other people would prefer W-L and that's it, but that's not the situation.

                The Wild have a max value of 2 standings points per game played (53 games = 106 possible points).

                They have earned 58 points. That's 54.7% of the possible points. That's better than a team that gets 2 points in half of its games and gets 0 points in the others, and seems to me it would count as a winning record.

              2. Spooky says truth. I think if we're going to define a "winning record" as more wins than losses (and I think that's the better approach), then the Wild do not have a winning record.

                However, because of the way they do points in hockey, a winning record is significantly less important than it is in other leagues.

                Honestly, I kind of enjoy the hockey approach (for hockey). It was a good solution for a problem unique to their sport.

                1. If we define it the way spooky defines it, then spooky's right. I'm not arguing that spooky is misinterpreting his own argument, I'm arguing with his definition.

                  The NHL standings aren't determined by wins/losses. They are determined by standings points. Thus, I'm arguing that a different standard for "winning record" has to be applied (namely, more than 1 point per game).

                  1. But that certainly wouldn't be a colloquial definition of "winning record."

                    If it is something different in hockey, then why not call it something different?

                    1. The only reason I'm calling it that is because of this argument. Because the post said "There's a winning team in Minnesota. It's not who you would have guessed."

                      My point is that the Wild is a winning team in Minnesota that is very much in the playoff picture. Then, people asked why I considered them a winning team, and to define my argument, I said "because they have earned more than 1 point per game."

                    2. This is because the NHL values some games as being worth three and some being worth two. Therefore, the metric should not be 1 point per game, but rather whether the total earned per game is greater than the total points awarded/2.

                      I was absolutely okay with awarding points when there were ties. But, there are no ties, just wins and losses. Basketball and football have overtime, do teams get credit for overtime losses? Baseball has extra innings, do teams get credit for extra inning losses?

                      Go back to ties or eliminate the point system.

                    4. And even that doesn't work right, because it penalizes OTW. Ugh, this point system stinketh! It should be 3 points as Moss says for every game, or just wins and losses.

            2. Or, how about this, eliminate the point system altogether and count wins as wins and losses as losses, like every other sport.

              1. Yep, and that was Moss' qualifier above ("if they're going to insist on splitting points"). But if they do go to wins/losses, then they need to do away with the shootout or at least expand the OT and maybe expand the shootout to more shooters. But they're reluctant to do that because of the extra playing time and the fact that shootouts can go long the way it is.

                2. Hmm, re-reading SBG's comment, I may have misinterpreted what he was saying.

                  I want to point out that soccer has a system that deals with more than two possible outcomes, and the standings are not determined by straight number-of-wins v. number-of-losses comparison.

          2. Then again, if they had won those games in overtime or shootouts instead of losing them, they would be 33-20-0 with 66 points, so I'm not buying your argument.

      2. I'm with you, DG. The way the NHL counts it, the Wild are above .500. Some may not like that system, but it's the system the NHL has adopted. They are essentially right at league average in winning percentage, so I think it's fair to mention them here.

        Also, for those who don't like the NHL's system, you can always go back and add up points the way you'd like. I count OT W's and L's as W's and L's, and I count SO W's and L's as ties. By my count, the Wild have 6 SO L's and 5 SO W's, which would make their old-school record 20-20-13. Not above .500, but right at .500, essentially just where the Wolves are.

        1. The average team in the NHL has played just over 53 games and has just over 59 points. So, the average number of points per game league wide is 1.11. The Wild have played 53 games and have 58 points. They are accumulating 1.09 points per game. I'm not sure where the NHL definition of above .500 is located, but we should all agree that the Wild record of accumulating points, as compared to the rest of the league, is slightly below average.

          In the games that they have played, to use your numbers, they have 20 regulation wins and 20 regulation losses (40 of 80 points) and five OT wins and six (actually eight) OT losses (18 of 39 points). So, they have collected 58 of the available 119 points, or 48.7% of the available points.

          This is what passes for a winning record.

          1. It should be pointed out that in the pre-overtime days, the Wild would be 20-20-13, or exactly .500. But, with the advent of overtime and the no ties allowed shootout, the Wolves are now either well above .500 or just slightly below .500, however you wish to look at it.

            2. I'm pretty sure that I did point out that the Wild would be 20-20-13 under the old system.

          2. You can create records that satisfy the points per game above the NHL average criteria, but fail the 50% of points possible criteria SBG laid out above (e.g., 24-18-8 with 13-32 OT games). Similarly you can find records that do the opposite (e.g., 26-22-2 with 2-7 OT games), the same way you can find records that look like winning records that fail both the above criteria (e.g., the Wild's current record).

            I guess I don't know what the correct solution is, but the most straightforward is looking at each game as 2 possible points for the Wild and figuring out whether they have achieved that 50% of the time on average.

  5. Pekovic, wow. The man gets position so low that his defender is under the basket. Once he gets the ball there, it's two points. Awesome.

    1. That was really fun to watch. If Adelman starts Darko when he's "healed" from his "injury", then it will be proof that Beasley has driven the man insane.

      1. Zgoda:

        Pekovic admitted, "I surprised myself" with that bit of thievery and ball handling. He also delighted an announced audience of 14,073 with a display of nifty footwork and spinning offensive moves that enabled him to completely outplay Cousins one night after the former Kentucky star went for 28 points and 19 rebounds in New Orleans.

        Love noticed, tweeting, "Pek is out there working!!!"

        When informed of that, Pekovic replied, "I don't know. I don't got Twitters."

        "I don't got Twitters" needs to be a thing.

        3. Radja felt the cold seeping through the cement floor as he sat clutching his wounded leg. There was a bullet lodged somewhere in his right thigh, but between the numbing cold, the flickering light, and his dark leather pants, he couldn't tell exactly where. He watched the shooter step closer, finally showing his face. Pekovic. Of course they would send Pekovic.

          "I... I... I have the money, Fedor knows-" Radja stammered, his voice cracking and breaking as the click-clack of a hammer being cocked rattled down the hallway.

          "The money not important now," slurred Pekovic. His voice was a cold blanket of snow over Radja's already freezing body.

          "But... but Fedor said we were okay. It... he said it on twitter. He said I could give him the money. Didn't he show you? Didn't you see?"

          "I don't know," Pekovic spat. He raised the gun. "I don't got twitters."

  7. Well, we made it through yesterday without my wife having to share her birthday.
    So, unless labor strikes in the next 16 hours, tomorrow is the day.
    We won't even have a 90% certain name headed into the hospital. That makes me feel icky.

    1. Both of our kids came on their own, but neither of them until we had actually scheduled the induction. Like their old man, they need a deadline.

      1. This isn't an induction deadline, this is a scheduled C-section, as they don't want you doing VBAC if it's VBA3C, especially at less than two years from the prior. My wife has never even gone into labor.

              2. 28 hours of hard induced labor with our first, ending in a C-section. Never got past 7 centimeters. Mrs. Twayn ended up with a nasty infection that kept her in the hospital for five days after the birth.

        2. a different view.

          Women with three or more prior caesareans who attempt VBAC have similar rates of success and risk for maternal morbidity as those with one prior caesarean, and as those delivered by elective repeat caesarean.

          YMMV, of course. It ain't my womb.

          2. It also isn't your OB or your prior OB.
            Also, the <24 months since prior C-Section further strengthened their opinion.

            1. Yah, confidence in your OB is a lot more inspiring than some random study. Best wishes to you and EAR and the Baby-to-Be-Named-Later!

              1. I have little confidence in most OBs. We were lucky to have found one that was totally on board with the type of birth my wife wanted. The high-risk OBs the hospital made my wife see were something else, though. Terrible people skills and outdated and incorrect information left a bad taste in our mouths. It felt really good to show them up.

                1. I really liked our OB surgeon for the first three births.
                  New, closer hospital for us. New doctor. I don't have any reason to trust him (though no reason not to).

          3. Also, to be honest, I like the caesarians, because they are scheduled and I don't have to worry or panic about how long it's going to take, child care, whether I'll be called from work and have to take the bus, and if that will get me there late, etc, etc.

            1. My wife was induced both times. The scheduling for that was nice. Also, for our second kid, it was lucky we were scheduled to go in, because the way things progressed, if we hadn't already been in the hospital, we probably would have been that couple giving birth on the side of the road.

              1. My wife was lucky enough to be induced, suffer through 14 hours of labor and then have a C-section. So best of both worlds!

                2. Ugh. With the girl, my wife was in labor for about 20 hours and was this close to having to have an emergency C-section at the end.

                  The boy practically fell out of her in comparison.

                  1. We did the 20+ hour thing as well. (although that is counting the far less difficult early labor portion.) We got to the hospital at about noon and everything was finished by about 7 or 8 the next morning, I think. I remember there was still time to order breakfast from the hospital cafeteria, at any rate.

                  2. The doctor broke her water right at the beginning of the labor, so there was a time issue going on. She was on Pitocin the whole time and never progressed at all, so we made the call to have the C-Section after 14 hours. Kid was already at 41 weeks. Still doesn't want to get moving when it's time to go somewhere.

                    1. with The Boy, we had six (eight?) weeks of bedrest hell, followed by water-breaking-in-OB's office, a very painful walk to L&D, and our (awesome) delivery nurse issuing "get here NOW" orders to the OB (also awesome) so he didn't miss the delivery. No time for drugs.

                      with The Girl, we did a few hours of laps around the L&D ward after the (same) OB broke her water (on purpose!) in his office. But again, no drugs. That was pretty much the last thing The Girl accomplished ahead of time.

                    2. My wife's water broke on its own while she was sitting on an exercise ball. From the sound of it, I thought she popped a tendon or something. We figured out that it wasn't an ACL when she got up to walk around a few minutes later.

    3. Good luck. I'm just smiling here, in a quiet confidence, knowing full well that if your wife does go into labor, she's going say that it's all your fault.

      Also, pick some names already. Jeez.

      1. Well, the whole thing better be my fault.
        I wanted to go over names last night, but EAR said no, she wants to meet the kid first.
        We've got a list, she just doesn't want anything other than one I don't want. The name is somewhere on that piece of paper though.

        1. Good luck on getting the name you want. That's one of the nice things about actually going through labor... the mom is too tired to argue about names at that point.

          1. That's the nice thing about not particularly caring about a name so long as it wasn't really dumb. We were able to come to agreement on a name quickly once we found out we were having a girl, then used the strategy of telling everyone who would listen what we decided on as our way of protesting people who withold it from their friends for the reason that "they don't want anyone to steal it."

            1. Yeah, we have been similarly open about what name we chose for the upcoming offspring. We waited to tell the grandparents-to-be first, but after that, didn't see the point in being secretive.

              1. We've been big fans of not finding out the gender, so having a name ahead of time obviously didn't make sense.

                I think the surprise thing is kind of nice, and that fact that you two went the opposite way only further cements my confidence in that approach.

                  1. Heh, Sheenie and I picked out our first son's name about 4 years ago. Who knows how long it'll be until we cross that road...

                    1. That's my problem. Too many names we like. I think we're going to have at least 6 kids, just to get to all of our names.

                2. friends of ours in grad school, when asked, would always say "we are planning on [your name] if a boy, [your spouse's name] if a girl."

                  I thought that was a pretty good strategy for warding off the world. Humorous, yet effective.

                  1. That's pretty good. I think I also would have accepted a strategy of "we don't know, the adoptive parents haven't picked one out yet."

            2. Moss and the Mrs. kept names to ourselves, not because of the threat of theft, but because we didn't want to hear anyone's opinions and have them taint our process of choosing.

              Once you've conferred the name, people tend to not outwardly react unfavorably, but they will before you've conferred it.

              1. My mother just did this to my brother and his wife, who are expecting their first child within a month. I can understand that my mom might not be excited to have a grandson named Gunnar (not sure if that's the spelling they would have used, but being my family is Norwegian, I hope that's what they'd have used), but she pretty much wrecked any chance of them using it and pissed off her daughter-in-law.

              2. yeah, we did that with Pete for the same reasons. that, and i kind of liked keeping it under wraps just to heighten the suspense for awhile. also, we didn't commit 100% until after he was born anyway.

                1. we didn't commit 100% until after he was born anyway.

                  This too. Moss and the Mrs. always wanted to make sure the name fit the baby. On child #3 we went away from our pre-birth choice. On child #4 we hadn't settled on a name pre-birth anyway.

                  1. How old is the youngest Moss child?
                    AMR wonders if Moss is just AMR some X years in the future.

            3. Well, we told everyone the sex, and we had a scheduled c-section, we wanted something to be news.

              Also, we've reserved the right to change course once the baby's out, as we did for AJR. Had we told people ahead of time, that would have been awkward. It wasn't about keeping the names, it was about not hearing everyone's stupid negative opinions about some names before they have no chance but to accept it. What do I care that my SiL had a classmate-enemy in middle school with the name? That kind of crap is important to my wife and I, but that's as far as those opinions should go.

              1. Heh, all these additional comments are the other reasons we told everyone who asked. I, for one, enjoyed telling people who didn't like that they could go have their own damn baby if they wanted a different name and the we liked what we'd chosen.

          2. the mom is too tired to argue about names at that point.
            Also: when on post-surgery opiates. How do I do this proper without taking advantage of her hopped-up state?

              2. When she sobers up and for the rest of her life, she'll know she got a raw deal. This is a perpetuity of "you owe me", and I'll never be able to pay the debt off. How recently married are you Phil? You should know this.

                1. I filled out the birth certificate for my first daughter, so I spelled the agreed-upon name the way I wanted to, not the way my wife thought it should be. I'm still catching grief for that, but I didn't have to fill out the paperwork on our other two kids, so I still consider it kind of a win for me.

                  1. Runner daughter has the interesting situation of not having a middle name. Oh, she does have one, but the hospital neglected to include it on the birth certificate.

                    1. Sheenie's father found out a couple of years ago (right around when he was turning 60) that he had been misspelling his first name his entire life. He then had to go and get a new DL, passport, etc.

                    3. Oh, she does have one, but the hospital neglected to include it on the birth certificate.

                      The exact same thing happened to me. They had me legally adjust my name, as opposed to any of the several documents that my (assumed) full name already appeared on.

                2. She's already carried the kid to term and giving birth, right? So the "Perpetual You Owe Me" already exists, regardless of any other factors. Given that we're dealing with a sunk cost, it just makes good economic sense to take advantage of the situation.

                  But to answer your question, it'll be 7 years in May.

                    3. Cool. Me picking my kids' names hasn't either. Both times my wife said she was too tired and that it was my choice. I think ultimately she was happy with both my choices, but I don't know that she would have gone the same way that I did at the time.

                      So take advantage of it to avoid the name you don't like, that's all I'm saying. Once your kid is named, she won't regret having that name.

      1. I would have to say more than me using the mp3/youtube converter to upload the album onto my computer.

        1. Oh, I wasn't criticizing anything here, just curious what kind of concession they have to make to amazon.

          1. Apologies if it came back as combative, not my intent. As for return, I don't remember where but I saw something online saying it is a 70/30 split in the band's favor.

      2. If they are the ones releasing it (rather than via a [big] label), then probably more than they would from a CD.

      3. When Ha Ha Tonka had a $3.99 Amazon.com sale last year, someone asked the band on FB. They responded that it's Amazon's sale, not theirs. They and their label got the same regardless (so it's not like the old BMG or Columbia House mail-order sales). Basically, Amazon might be distributing it at cost or at a loss to themselves.

        Of course, if you buy it at their shows, they'll make more money off it. But it should be the same as if you bought it at a record store, or a regular price download, or a regular price mail-order (other than straight from the label or band).

  9. bjhiggum, the Pek for Howard swap is off the table. You had your chance.

    1. I'm about as critical to Obama as they come, but I think that a science fair at the White House is awesome and really puts some credence into the importance of science and innovation. Also, that picture rocks.

    2. As a advocate of the Humanities, I look forward to the White House hosting a quiz bowl. Heck, force Congress to participate by pitting each state's championship high school team against their Congressional delegation (or, for greater interest, against a rival state's delegation, e.g. Minnesota state champs vs. Wisconsin delegation, Illinois vs. Indiana, etc). Draw the questions from American history, literature, and civics, have some stentorian media personality play host, and televise it on PBS or CSPAN.

      2. Quiz bowl was a lot of fun. One caveat with your plan would be states with smaller delegations having a disadvantage. I think we had a team of four or five, which means at least seven states would be short.

        1. We could have two quiz bowls - one in which each state is represented by two players and another in which the team size is determined by state population!

      3. Do any of you really think the Congressional teams would stand a chance? I think it would be great, but our politicians would most likely come out of it looking, uh, "less" intelligent.

        1. no matter what the occupation, pitting a "best of" pool versus one person, the one person is going to do poorly. besides, how many "I DIDNT" ELEKT MY CONGRESMAN TO PLY GAMES" comments to you want to see?

          1. It's so cute when the Tribbies come out in force, though! All the angry red crayon scribblings and anti-Mauer rants really make my day.

  11. I don't know where/if video of this would be online, but did anybody see the trick shot some little kid (from Burnsville I think) used in a shootout that was on the news last night? He cradled the puck on the blade of his stick (like the Michigan player against the U in the NCAA tourney back in the 90s) and then did a spin-o-rama before flinging it over the goalie's shoulder. Absoultely ridiculous.

      1. It was basically the exact same as that video except the player went to the right side of net. It was a local game and the footage was very poorly shot from someone's cell phone on the far side of the rink.

  13. Signatures have been collected. Petitions have been filed. The "Fighting Sioux" nickname issue will go to a vote in the state of ND. If the referendum is passed, the school will be required to keep the name and the Attorney General will be required to sue the NCAA. In advance of the vote, UND has resumed use of the name.

    Minnesota and Wisconsin have vowed not to play the "Fighting Sioux" in non-conference sports (with the B1G Hockey conference coming, UND will be non-conference in hockey). The Big Sky has threatened to rescind their invitation to UND if the name stays. The state board of higher education is threatening to sue the state if this referendum passes.

    So, UND has lost its main rival in football (NDSU). It is likely (because this thing is GOING to pass) to lose its two main rivals in hockey. They are faced with having no real conference to play sports outside of hockey in.

    As far as I care about such things, I am thrilled with this outcome.

    1. I've barely been following this but I find it kind of embarassing that people are so upset about the name thing. I don't know, I think the NCAA should handle these things on a case by case basis. The name should be up to the tribes, not the the citizens of ND, the vast majority of whom have the privilege of saying "well it doesn't offend me so I don't see the big deal!" like my mother.

      Edit: I hope this isn't too forbidden zone-y. It just really grinds my gears.

      1. Didn't the rules say that both of the relevant tribes had to actively approve the name? One of the tribes did, and the other didn't even take a vote on it?

        I dunno. Having come from a school with a mascot that was the school (God bless the MIAC), I don't see the big deal about school mascots. Personally, I'd welcome the opportunity to come up with something new and clever.

        1. Johnnies? Gussies? Oles? Tommies?

          in Carleton's case, only the women's teams were saddled with that lame school-derived moniker (Carls), as the men's teams were the "Knights". I guess "Damsels" or "Maidens" didn't sell very well.

          2. The former.

            St. Ben's was technically The Blazers, but we just called them the Pooches. Also, we said that their official song was Queen's "Fat Bottomed Girls."

            No, seriously, I married a Bennie. They're all hot. Goddesses, really.

                1. I'm a Johnnie and my wife's a Bennie. When we were there, our teams frequently beat up upon the rest of the MIAC, so I'm assuming this talk is just jealousy rearing it's ugly head.

                  1. The same was true of when I was there. When were you there?

                    I think jealousy is probably a safe assumption for Free's motives. It certainly can't be joy at having been anywhere else, what with SJU being heaven on earth.

                    1. standard Carleton cheer:
                      "That's all right, that's okay!
                      You're gonna work for us some day!"

          2. While fairly clever, it is not new and so would not fall under the "new and clever" category.

        3. In fact, the NCAA identified 19 schools with nicknames that were problematic. They were each given the choice: get permission from the tribes or change the name.

          The dispute began in 2006, when the NCAA prodded 19 schools to get rid of American Indian nicknames, logos and mascots that it considered "hostile and abusive" to Indians. The University of North Dakota is the only school left where the issue is in serious dispute.

          The NCAA said the schools, to avoid sanctions, had to change their nicknames or obtain permission from local tribes. Most changed their names, although the Florida State Seminoles and the Central Michigan Chippewas were among the schools that got tribal permission to keep their nicknames.

          North Dakota challenged the NCAA edict in court. In a settlement, the school agreed to begin retiring its nickname if it couldn't obtain consent to continue its use from North Dakota's Standing Rock and Spirit Lake Sioux tribes by Nov. 30, 2010.

          Spirit Lake tribal members endorsed the name. But the Standing Rock Sioux's tribal council, which opposed the nickname, has declined to support it or to allow its tribal members to vote.

          The law forcing the school to use the name and logo was approved last March, despite opposition from university officials and Grand Forks legislators. Supporters of the proposal included some prominent university alumni.

          The law's chief sponsor, Republican House Majority Leader Al Carlson, said he resented the NCAA's bullying and what he regarded as the Board of Higher Education's clumsy handling of the matter. Carlson hoped the law would make the NCAA reconsider its opposition to the nickname and logo, but the NCAA was adamant.

          The law was repealed during a special legislative session in November, with many former supporters switching sides and saying it had not accomplished its purpose of influencing the NCAA.

          UND is not being treated differently than the other schools. They did respond differently, however, by suing. I hope the name stays and UND suffers because of it. In addition, I wish that NDSU would adopt the same policy as Minnesota and refuse to play them, but of course that would probably result in some sort of state law requiring that they play.

          1. I'm with you Stick. UND can do what they want, but the people forcing this just need to realize that they choose to be in the NCAA. If you want to flout the rules of the organization you chose to be in, then be prepared to face the consequences. And those consequences will essentially force UND to have a 3rd rate athletics department. Given what NDSU has done with it's athletics program and what it has meant to the entire institution, quite frankly I'm surprised that UND supporters are forcing this issue. I think the Fighting Sioux name supporters think that everything is going to be just like it was. It isn't and UND will suffer financially and reputationally.

            1. Although not a resident of the great state of ND anymore, I'm here quite a bit and I have really tired of hearing about the nickname thing. I was totally against the state legislature shoving it down the school's throat when the school wanted to move on, but now I am totally in favor of that.

            2. Maybe it's because the United States didn't invade Ireland, wage war on the Irish people for over a century, take over the country, and relegate those few remaining people that weren't killed in the countless wars to the worst parts of the country.

              This is just a guess on my part. Perhaps it's because you haven't complained enough.

              1. Which demonstrates that this isn't about whether a people group is offended/insulted/demeaned (or not), but just about whether a certain category of people groups is.

                  1. Agreed.

                    I've lived this issue before (as a former faculty member at Illinois). Danders get up. No good can come from it.

      2. I really liked the nickname Bison, especially that we pronounced it differently than anyone else in the country. It's Bi-Zun. Bison is very North Dakota-y. So is the Sioux I guess. Our ancestors pretty much wiped out both of them, come to think of it.

    2. It's hard for me to see having such an attachment to a team nickname. Or more precisely, an official team nickname. If the Twins changed names to the Millers tomorrow, I'm pretty sure I'd still follow them. Or if the Gophers changed their name to the (something generic), I might sigh and shake my head, but I'm pretty sure at the end of the day, I wouldn't really care.

    1. i'll have to watch this later, but based on the comments on the video (not a good source, i know), i'm guessing this guy is guilty of flaming/stribbing as opposed to trolling.

  15. In keeping with the mascot discussion above, here are my suggestions for replacing offensive mascot names:

    Ole Miss - They had to replace Colonel Reb. The Admiral Ackbar suggestion was the best.
    NDSU Fighting Souix - Fighting Sue (either women, or attorneys).
    Cleveland Indians - The Cleveland Rocks
    Washington Redskins - Washington Monuments
    Atlanta Braves - The Atlanta Cokeheads. Or possibly the Atlanta Richard Jewells.

    Others?

    1. I'd go with Fighting Siouxsies. The women's teams could then be the Banshees. Or vice-versa.

      1. That would be a safe assumption. It's really an accurate statement of my antipathy for accurately identifying schools in states that aren't MN though.

      1. I didn't, unfortunately. I think he wanted everyone to get something, but underestimated how popular he would be. I was happy to get a picture though. It was pretty cool to meet him.

Comments are closed.