Ryan Reisert / McGill Tribune

The McGill Redmen hockey team exploded out of the gate Saturday night, scoring four times in the first period, en route to a 6-0 victory over the Queen’s Golden Gaels. Thirteen different Redmen made the score sheet, most notably Maxime Langelier-Parent, Marc-André Dorion, and Francis Verreault-Paul, all of whom enjoyed multi-point nights. The Golden Gaels, plagued by injuries, were outshot by the Redmen 36-20 and were outplayed in all facets of the game.

On Red Light Night at McConnell Arena, Redmen coach Kelly Nobes praised his players for moving their feet and communicating well on the ice. 

“We knew we would have a decent crowd tonight,” Coach Nobes said. “We wanted to get on them right from the start and the puck was bouncing right for us.”

Gaels goaltender Riley Whitlock, who entered the game with a sterling 2.30 goals against average and a .933 save percentage, was lit up for six goals on 28 shots before being pulled 12:25 into the second frame. To his credit, Whitlock made several impressive saves, particularly on the penalty kill, but was hung out to dry by his teammates.

The Queen’s skaters looked dazed and confused for the entire game, unable to execute basic breakouts or maintain puck possession on a two-man advantage in the third period. The Golden Gaels went 0-for-9 on the power play and the Redmen were able to create scoring chances on the penalty kill, including a shorthanded goal by Benoit Levesque at 8:27 of the first period.

The Redmen victory was especially important for Hubert Morin, who earned the shutout Saturday following a rough outing, in which he allowed three goals on 13 shots in a 3-2 loss to UQTR on Nov. 9. The Redmen offence took the pressure off their goaltender by scoring early. The defence corp was rock solid, consistently winning one-on-one battles along the boards. 

Redmen winger Francis Verreault-Paul, who went scoreless in his first four games of the campaign, now has eight goals in a five-game scoring streak. 

“The first few games I was shooting the puck 12 times a game, I had scoring chances in slot, but the puck didn’t want to go in,” the fourth-year forward said. “Now I’m out of it, we’re playing good hockey, and it’s been a long time since we had a game like that one tonight.”

The victory gives the Redmen sole possession of first place in the OUA East division with a 10-1-2 record and two games in hand on UQTR and Nipissing, who are tied for second place. The Redmen will look to pad their two-point cushion when they visit the Nipissing Lakers in their next game on Nov. 26 in North Bay, Ontario. The Golden Gaels drop to 6-5-1 with the loss and will host the Ottawa Gee-Gees in their next contest, coming this Friday in Kingston.

zimbio.com

Valérie Grand’Maison, a 23-year-old double major in history and psychology at McGill, won six medals in Beijing in 2008, three of which were gold. But you’ve probably never heard of her.

That’s because Grand’Maison won her medals at the Paralympics. She competes in the S13 category, which, according to the simplified explanation she gave me, is reserved for people in the mildest class of visual impairment (she estimates that she has about ten per cent of her vision). Upon her return to Canada from Beijing, the lack of recognition for a three-time Paralympic champion was hard for her.

“I had such high expectations of what life would be when I came back. I thought I would be a whole different person and people would talk to me differently, but they really didn’t. Nobody knows what the Paralympics are … I thought I would have more recognition but it just didn’t happen, obviously,” she said. “Now I know what I’m doing this for.”

After briefly quitting swimming following the Paralympics, Grand’Maison rediscovered her love for the sport. She credits this, at least in part, to McGill Swimming Head Coach Peter Carpenter.

“I actually quit, and then I heard that Peter was starting as the swim coach at McGill and I thought maybe I would just try as a social thing,” she said. But she enjoyed the training so much that she began to ramp it up again. “I really, really enjoy his program; I really like the guy.”

When asked if it was really the program that lured her back or whether the sport had an addictive hold over her, she laughed. “It’s a little bit of both, I guess,” she said. “I’m addicted to training—really, really addicted to endorphins.”

Now Grand’Maison is juggling two concurrent swimming seasons—CIS and Paralympic—while maintaining a course load that will allow her to graduate next year. The conflicting schedules of the two seasons keep Grand’Maison very busy. For example, over the past weekend she traveled with the team to a CIS swim meet at Dalhousie, one that her teammates and competitors had been training to excel at. For Grand’Maison, the competition was a bump in her training schedule. Her preparation, in the short term, is for a Paralympic meet in two weeks. In the longer run, she’s aiming to peak next fall at the London Paralympics.

“She was sort of going to this meet in a different frame of mind and a little different state of preparedness because she has a swim meet coming up,” Carpenter said. “So she wasn’t tapered the way the others were.”

Even if she isn’t a star in the CIS like she is against Paralympic competition (she holds the world record for the 100m, 200m, 400m, and 800m freestyle and the 400m IM), her experience at the highest levels of the sport sets her apart on the McGill team in some ways.

“As a university swimmer she’s just one of the gang. She’s not the best swimmer on the team but she is definitely the most professional athlete on the team,” said Carpenter.

That professionalism translates into leadership of the type that Carpenter appreciates.

“Huge, massive leadership, absolutely. In many, many different ways. The way I value the most is just her setting an example,” he said. “[She’s] always one of the first people on deck.”

It all stems from her priorities, which are swimming first, school second, and everything else wherever it can fit into her busy schedule, lodged between three courses and 25-30 hours of training per week. If that doesn’t sound like enough, Grand’Maison finds readings and writing assignments take longer due to her visual impairment, which was caused by macular degeneration starting at 12 years old. 

Whatever the difficulties, she’s happy to be on the path towards the 2012 Paralympics that she’s taking right now.

“I know that coming back from London I have to sit down and figure out my life,” she said. “[But] my life for the next 10 months is pretty figured out.”

For a week, boxing was alive and well in the memory of its fans. Like George Foreman in 1994, when the then 45-year-old won the heavyweight championship, boxing beat back father time and became relevant, even central, to sport for a few short days.

This renewed interest was set off by a tragedy, the untimely passing of a great man. Smokin’ Joe Frazier, an Olympic gold medalist and a world heavyweight champion in arguably the greatest era of heavyweight boxing, died of liver cancer in his home on Nov. 7, at the age of 67.

One of the many who mourned his death was Muhammad Ali, Frazier’s fiercest rival. The two played integral roles in each other’s lives, shaping their respective legends in the fires of their three fights, polarizing boxing supporters inside and outside of the ring. 

Their history is a complicated one. When Ali was stripped of his title and arrested for his refusal to be inducted into the Armed Forces, Frazier, then the number one contender, refused to compete in the tournament for Ali’s vacated belt in protest of the decision. When Ali was released from prison and had his boxing license reinstated (in part due to the efforts of Frazier), the two met in the first of three fights, appropriately titled Fight of the Century. In the first-ever match between undefeated heavyweight champions, Frazier beat the older Ali resoundingly in a unanimous decision. Frazier then defended his title twice before losing to a young and ferocious Foreman. Ali and Frazier’s second fight didn’t have the import of the first or third as it was a non-title fight. But their third, the Thrilla in Manila, will go down in history as one of the greatest ever.

Since Frazier died, I’ve re-watched all of these fights in their entirety and have been enthralled by the display of boxing and fighting ability shown by the two champions. The thing that struck home the most though, was the beauty of their contrasting styles.

Ali’s feet sought to refute the scales’ calculations that he was indeed a heavyweight, as he floated and danced around the ring with preternatural quickness; Frazier’s heavy soles, like his persona, were bound to the earth. A blue collar hero in his adopted home of Philadelphia, Frazier didn’t have Ali’s flourishes—his winks at press row, his interactions with the crowd, or his mocking glove, extended in a hapless opponent’s face—Frazier was a simple juggernaut, a perpetual motion machine that knew only one direction: forward, leading with his head and bobbing and weaving through the onslaught of blows longer-limbed fighters would rain on him from above. Finally, like a greyhound or a heat-seeking missile, Frazier’s head would close that gap and come to rest on his opponent’s chest, nuzzling it, almost tenderly. There, he was safe, at least physically, as Ali couldn’t generate the power to hurt him from that close. He would absorb a torrent of verbal abuse though, between grunts from Frazier’s powerful left hook, a clubbing blow that shattered ribs and was particularly effective at intimate range. Frazier’s one idiosyncrasy was his head, which bobbled like a demented jack-in-the-box with a specially tuned affinity to Ali’s punching rhythm. At times he ducked his way through torrents of Ali’s sharp jabs seemingly unscathed.

Outside of the ring, the fighters were also vastly different. Frazier was a hero to the working class, while Ali was a playboy, a fast-talking draft dodger who was close friends with the dangerous and divisive Malcolm X. Ali, known for his verbal sparring nearly as well as for his sparring in the ring, let his tongue run loose against Frazier in the lead up to each of their fights, calling him “ugly,” and “the gorilla.” Those taunts hurt Frazier deeply and the animosity we witnessed in their matches wasn’t staged, at least not on Joe’s part.

The two reconciled much later, only after they had both turned deaf ears towards the pleas of their daughters, also boxers, to make peace.

Every one of Frazier and Ali’s fights was incredible—compelling acts of physical, technical, and tactical artistry. But in the aftermath of watching them, rather than contentment, I was filled with bilious rage.

This relates to the second, much less important but still notable piece of recent boxing news, Manny Pacquiao versus Juan Manuel Márquez III. They fought one of the better fights seen in years, but it only whet my appetite for the one fight that all fans have waited, and waited, and waited for: Pacquiao versus Floyd Mayweather.

These two should have been our generation’s Frazier and Ali, but they’ve hemmed and hawed and it looks like they’re equally complacent to end their respective careers without ever having fought. I wonder if they fear to fight because the loser would end up like Joe Frazier, doomed to runner-up status. If that’s the case then they’re foolish, because I know a lot of people, myself included, who will remember a warrior like Frazier with more fondness than either of them.

Like Muhammad Ali said, “[T]hat’s one helluva man, and God bless him.”

—Sam Hunter

Five was a significant number for McGill on Sunday as the women’s hockey team won their fifth game in a row with a 5-1 victory over the Ottawa Gee-Gees in the nation’s capital. Leslie Oles led the way with two goals and an assist while first-year forward Mélodie Daoust contributed three helpers in the winning effort. Continuing along the lines of Martlet success coming in fives, McGill held Ottawa to five shots in each period and earned five powerplays. Martlet goalie Charline Labonté also got credit for her fifth win of the season. Head Coach Peter Smith was extremely happy with the effort.

“I thought we played extremely well in the Ottawa game. We controlled the puck, and had a ton of shots, leading to scoring chances,” Smith said. “There are many things we can take from this game both now and for the future.”

With the win, the Martlets maintain their first place ranking in the RSEQ, and will return home this Friday for a rematch  against the Gee-Gees, before battling Concordia on Nov. 27.

—Adam Sadinsky

Ryan Reisert

FOOTBALL — All hell broke loose south of the border this weekend as Nos. 2, 4, and 5 in the BCS standings lost in stunning fashion. Losses for Oklahoma State, Oregon, and Oklahoma open the door for a rematch between SEC-rivals LSU and Alabama in January’s national championship. Here in Canada, McMaster beat Acadia, and Laval had their way with Calgary in the national semifinals. The two will meet in Saturday’s Vanier Cup. Finally, the Cooler hopes that it has created some new CFL fans through constant exposure, and that they’ll be watching when the Winnipeg Blue Bombers take on the B.C. Lions on B.C.’s home field in Sunday’s Grey Cup. In the NFL, the Green Bay Packers improved to 10-0, leading every single pundit in the sporting world to speculate on whether the team will go undefeated. 

BASEBALL — Free agency took a back seat to more sartorial news this week, as two AL East teams announced major changes to their respective brands. Toronto fans have been calling for a return to the Blue Jays classic look for years, and their wishes have been answered by the organization. The Jays’ new identity is an update of the old logo that adorned the team’s caps in the glory years of the early ‘90s. In Baltimore, the Orioles also decided to change the bird on their hat to one more associated with winning than with the ornithologically-correct specimen that they have worn since 1989. Like Toronto’s winged mascot, the Orioles’ new cartoon bird is an update of a previous logo that Baltimore wore when it won its three World Series. Will the new looks lead the Jays and O’s out of the AL East basement?

HOCKEY — The NHL and Pittsburgh fans got exciting news Sunday when the Penguins announced that captain Sidney Crosby would return to the lineup Monday night against the Islanders. Crosby, who hasn’t played in nearly 11 months due to a concussion he sustained in the Winter Classic on New Year’s Day, is so important to the league that CBC will broadcast a rare weekday game—between two American teams no less. This newspaper will have already gone to print before the Isles-Pens game, but the Cooler expects that the Kid got a standing ovation worthy of a newly inaugurated president, and that his team played an inspired game.

BASKETBALL — The NBA lockout continues, but that hasn’t stopped some of its players from playing elsewhere. Utah Jazz forward Andrei Kirilenko has returned to his native Russia and his old team CSKA Moscow. Kirilenko has been one of the Euroleague’s standout players in the young season, but suffered a broken nose on Saturday. On the fringes of Europe, Jordan Farmar, one of the NBA’s few Jewish players, is experiencing success with Israeli club, Maccabi Tel Aviv. Leading the European powerhouse in scoring, the Cooler thinks Farmar is probably enjoying being the team’s star player. CSKA and Maccabi are probably hoping that the lockout never ends.

Although they agree that the lockout should end as soon as possible, two basketball fans  give their take on who they support:

Owners

I’m an avid NBA fan, and like most other fans, I’m attracted to the league because of its players. We cheer for Kobe and Dwight because they’re the ones with the world-class talent. But after months of fruitless negotiation, I’m siding with the owners.  

There are three main issues to evaluate. The first is the salary cap. Before the lockout, the NBA used a soft cap system, allowing teams to exceed the cap to re-sign their players. Because teams were allowed to exceed the cap threshold, they were given the opportunity to sign free agents to massive contracts. This created a system whereby a mediocre player like Rashard Lewis earns $21 million annually. The owners are pushing for a hard cap, which does not allow teams to exceed the cap threshold. This way, owners would be more cautious with their spending, and eventually, the average salary of players would decline. Players argue that it’s the owners’ faults for signing players to contracts that are totally disproportionate to their production. However, the motivation behind the owners’ hard cap system is to prevent this mistake. For instance, when a role player like Travis Outlaw is handed a five-year, $35 million contract, it increases the market price for other similar role players. This leads to a frenzy of ridiculous spending.

The second issue is revenue sharing. Under the previous Collective Bargaining Agreement, NBA teams were forced to share revenue only if they exceeded the luxury tax. On the surface, this gives a significant financial advantage to teams in larger markets, such as Los Angeles and New York. Teams in Indiana and Milwaukee struggle to build winning teams, and feel disadvantaged. The owners’ argument is that they shouldn’t have to share the money earned by their teams with others. In fact, there is no real correlation between greater revenue and on-court success. Teams in small markets without huge cashflows, such as San Antonio and Oklahoma City, have become some of the most successful franchises in the NBA. How did this come about? Simply, through the draft. In order to achieve success in the NBA, franchises must draft well. The New York Knicks are the wealthiest team in the NBA, and handed out money for years, but their last title came in 1973. Thus, it’s not certain that revenue sharing will lead to more success for small market teams. 

The last issue, and probably the most polarizing one, pertains to Basketball Related Income, or what fans have come to know as BRI. In the 2010-2011 season, players earned 57 per cent of BRI, which includes ticket sales, television contracts, concessions, etc. The owners feel they are entitled to some more of that revenue, a completely fair claim since they are the ones funding the team.  While the players are willing to share the revenue more evenly than the previous agreement, they rejected a dead-even 50-50 split. The average salary of the NBA player in the 2010-2011 season was $5.15 million, so it seems unreasonable to argue that they need more money. This is not to say that the owners need more money either, but the system is unfair. The BRI is based on gross revenue, so when the owners are spending extra funds on promoting and marketing their team, they’re taking a hit to their share. The players do not feel this hit, and should be willing to split the BRI evenly. 

As an NBA fan, there is no winner in this dreaded situation, but a compromise must be reached, and as much as I love Dirk, I’m cheering for Mark Cuban.

– Steven Lampert

Players

This is like deciding between Glee and Dancing with the Stars on a Tuesday night … there’s no right way to go. The NBA and the NBPA are both to blame for the current NBA lockout. After last year’s season, one of the best ever, they had to find a way to get some kind of deal done in time for a season. But, if I have to take a side, I’m standing with the players, and so should you.

The owners claim they were losing money under the old CBA. We have to say “claim” because they haven’t been transparent with their books. Not the behaviour of men in white hats. Nevertheless, let’s assume that owners are losing money and do need to change the system drastically to make a profit, taking a greater share of Basketball Related Income (BRI) and instituting a hard cap system. So that means that owning a basketball team is not a great business investment? Thanks for stating the obvious. A sports franchise is not a business. It’s a toy for billionaires. If the owners want a guaranteed profit they should sell their teams and invest in gold. Or they should sort it out between themselves with revenue sharing. What they cannot do is expect the players to just hand over hundreds of millions of dollars without giving them something in return.

How would a hard cap system help the owners save money you ask? Under the old system, a soft cap allowed teams to go over the cap if they were willing to pay a luxury tax on every dollar spent over the cap. A hard cap would limit how much teams could spend, which would help owners save money and increase parity in the league, says the NBA. This is ridiculous. First of all, the owners already have a built-in device to limit overspending; it’s called common sense. Nets forward Travis Outlaw makes $7 million a year. If the Nets aren’t competitive and aren’t profitable, they deserve it. As for competitive balance, how about this: do your job. If you want to win, hire good coaches and GMs, draft well, re-sign players before they hit the open market, and build a culture of winning in your city. Consider the Knicks. They have plenty of money. They also hired a coach who literally doesn’t coach defence, at all. I’m going to go out on a limb and say they won’t win a title anytime soon, and they’ll have no one to blame but themselves. 

These two issues, the cap system and the BRI split, seem to be the central points of contention in these negotiations. In both cases, the owners’ proposals aren’t outrageous, but they do require concessions from the players. On the other hand, the players are receiving nothing in return for these concessions. The owners expect the players to do these things for the good of the business as a whole, as if they were equal partners in the NBA. At the same time, the players aren’t being shown the respect a business partner deserves. The NBA has shown, with its series of ultimatums, ambushes, and condescending memos, that the owners see themselves at the top of the pyramid looking down on the players, which they are. They want the players to act like partners without treating them like partners, backing the players into a place where they feel like they need to stand up to bullies.

It’s hard to feel sympathy for millionaires, but don’t buy into the image of the players as greedy. If anything, their actions prove the opposite. They’re willing to lose a year of salary—money most of them will not recover whatever the new deal looks like—to stand up to the man
. Are you really going to side with the man?

– Haruki Nakagawa 

Winner: Players

As entertaining as the owners can be (we’re looking at you, Mark Cuban), it’s the players that make the NBA what it is. They should benefit most from the league’s financial profits, and should be compensated accordingly. 

Glossary

Basketball Related Income (BRI)—Accounts for most of the revenue generated by an NBA team. Includes, but is not limited to, ticket sales, television contracts, and concession sales.

Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)—A legally-binding contract between management and employees that defines conditions of employment for a specified time period.

Hard cap—A salary limit that may not be exceeded for any reason. The current system is a soft cap, allowing teams to surpass the limit in exchange for revenue sharing.

Travis Outlaw—Formerly a talented NBA player. Now a case study against the owners.