USA loses to Canada. How pissed are you?

Before you read the rest of this blog, let me make one thing abundantly clear: I am neither a socialist nor a communist. I love democracy, and I love the United States of America. I can't think of anywhere else I'd rather live. This is the greatest country in the world.

But is losing the Olympic hockey semi-final game to Canada really that big a deal?

Ask yourself, how much time leading up to the Olympics did you devote to focusing on just U.S. Hockey?

Let me make another thing perfectly clear: I love the NHL players participating in the Olympics every four years. But in the interim, does anyone really think about Olympic hockey?

Think about it. Take hockey out of the equation even. If you're reading this, you may be a Boston fan, perhaps even a New York or Philadelphia fan, or a fan of some other city's teams. Let's say you're a baseball fan, and you're devoting mid-February (pitchers and catchers reporting) to the end of September (end of the regular season) plus into October (playoffs). You do this on a year in, year out basis.

Olympic hockey rosters are generally announced a month before the tournament starts, in mid-January. By the end of February, the Olympics have come and gone, and the players return to the NHL. That's a span of no more than two months, every four years. Is the level of devotion really the same?

Not to get all political on you, but let's face another thing: you take more pride in being American, but one of the best parts about the United States is that you can root for any team you want, and take pride in a city or region as well. You don't enjoy swimming in the tears of Giants fans after the Patriots go on a run? If you're a Cavaliers fan, didn't you love it when the Mavericks stomped the Heat? There's no love lost between 49ers and Seahawks fans, that's for sure. We appreciate these rivalries, or simply rooting against certain players and/or teams on a yearly basis.

You may have been rooting for Phil Kessel the last two weeks, but when the NHL resumes play next week, he's the guy that ditched the Bruins for more money. To the Maple Leafs, of all teams. You may have been rooting against Patrice Bergeron, Zdeno Chara, or Tuukka Rask because they weren't on Team USA. But aren't you ready to fully accept them back as your own, hoping they can carry the Bruins to another Stanley Cup title?

I'm not here to turn this into a nationalist vs. a regionalist argument. In fact, I think I just made up the word regionalist to define a region, or more specifically, a city or team one tends to root for. I'm way more focused on the Bruins winning a Stanley Cup, or way more heated about how the Patriots blew it again, how the Red Sox lost another elite center fielder to the Yankees, etc, etc. An Olympic Gold Medal in hockey would've been pretty awesome, no doubt, but the conversation really won't be relevant again until 2018.

And, perhaps the most important point of all: if the US had indeed won the gold medal, who would we have argued about it with? Isn't that what makes sports talk so great to begin with?

Top 10 Beatles Songs

This isn't your standard LeviNation blog but as I'm watching Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr dominate the Beatles's 50th anniversary of their appearance on the Ed Sullivan show, it's feeling mandatory I rank some of the Beatles greatest tunes.

Most of you who know me get that I'm a classic rocker by trade, somewhat of a Rolling Stones and Tom Petty fan, in particular. But the Beatles were the first classic rock act I really got into, so I'm returning to my roots with this one.

I'm no music critic so I'm gonna analyze each song, just give you a straight up list with no explanation, and then let the debate rage. I will say this though: I've always felt Sgt. Pepper's is a little overrated, and rank it no higher than the no. 3 Beatles album behind Abbey Road and the White Album.

Without further ado, the list:

10. Yellow Submarine
9. Love Me Do
8. You Never Give Me Your Money
7. Hello, Goodbye
6. Happiness Is A Warm Gun
5. Can't Buy Me Love
4. Let It Be
3. The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill
2. Hey Jude
1. Golden Slumbers Medley

Battle of New England: Rhode Island vs. Massachusetts

You might have heard that the Atlantic 10 Conference is having a banner year in the world of college hoops. All kinds of praise being tossed around, "the premier mid-major conference in the country," yada yada yada. ESPN's Joe Lunardi currently has the conference as the lone mid-major sending more than two teams to the NCAA Tournament in his latest "Bracketology."

Among the contributors to the rise of the A-10 has been the UMass Minutemen, who currently stand at 18-4, 5-3 in conference play. Some very good non-conference wins against LSU, New Mexico, BYU and Providence have UMass thinking big things in March.

In order to get there, however, they're going to have to step their game up on the road. A 1-3 record away from the Mullins Center in conference play isn't the most inspiring of looks, especially with the one win coming against bottom-feeder George Mason. Today's game, as you may have heard, is at the Ryan Center in Kingston.

Looking at the bigger picture here, UMass vs. URI is a rivalry that makes sense on a number of levels. While Rhody's biggest rivalry always has and always will be Providence College, the fact remains PC plays in the Big East and has access to the Dunkin' Donuts Center. It's also a smaller, private school, and while Ocean State bragging rights are always fun, I think the Minutemen and Rams can build up a mutual respect and hatred of one another.

For starters, they're both flagship state schools in Massachusetts and Rhode Island respectively. The drive from Kingston to Amherst is only about two hours. Throw in the fact that they're the only New England-based schools in the Atlantic 10, it makes too much sense. 

Both teams have been on a similar trajectory the last 20 years or so, too. UMass made the NCAA tournament each year from 1992-1998, with the apex being the 1996 Final Four team featuring Marcus Camby. Rhode Island made the tournament 1993 and then 1997-1999, with the highlight being the run to the Elite 8 in '98, plus a year of Lamar Odom. Neither team has appeared in the Big Dance since the turn of the century, although that's not to say there hasn't been a fair share of heartbreaking NIT appearances, followed by bottoming out. 

UMass has appeared in the NIT again each of the last two seasons, and with their sights now set on bigger things in March, Rhode Island fans must realize these things take some time. The damage of the 7-24 season in 2011-2012 was a humbling experience, but there's no question head coach Dan Hurley has this thing heading in the right direction. After going 8-21 in his debut year, the Rams are 11-12 heading into today's contest, and finishing .500 remains a realistic goal. His UMass counterpart Derek Kellogg won just 12 games each of his first two seasons in Amherst before getting to .500 in his third. 

For URI, today's game is about finally winning a big game at home. One-point losses to Providence and Saint Louis, two teams that also have aspirations of playing in March, have shown Rhody is a different animal at the Ryan Center. There's also just a bit of a revenge factor in play here. 

Back in 2009-2010, the last time the Rams won 20 games, most experts believed beating UMass in the regular season finale would pretty much guarantee a trip to the NCAA tournament. Instead, Ricky Harris of UMass made a layup with 3.5 seconds left to give the Minutemen a 69-67 victory, all but dooming Rhody to the NIT.

A loss by UMass today won't necessarily doom them, but losing to URI sure wouldn't be a great look in front of the NCAA selection committee. 

I'm projecting UMass to be able to exploit the Rams lack of depth today. Cady Lalanne will have a field day in particular if Gilvydas Biruta and Hassan Martin get into foul trouble, which has been an issue of late. Rhody will keep it close throughout, but a lack of experience winning close games will haunt them in the end.

This blog is also going to appear on The UMass Basketball Report, which can be found at www.umassbasketballreport.com  Adam Stein, UMass class of 2013, runs the site, which is all things Minutemen basketball. Give it a read, and check out what Rhode Island basketball can hope to match within the next year or two.

You can also listen to today's game on 90.3 WRIU, or online at www.wriu.org. Pre-game coverage starts at 3:00, and tip-off at 4. 

Roger Clemens, Red Sox Hall of Famer. Say what?

So it's that slow time of year between the Super Bowl and Spring Training where you really gotta dig for some hot sports takes. Especially this year, with the Bruins off two weeks for the Olympics and the Celtics taking a page out of the Patriots' playbook and having a bye, just for a whole season instead of a week.

Fortunately, the Red Sox decided to throw us a bone here and announce their 2014 Hall of Fame class. Now normally this wouldn't be a huge deal, because I consider myself as die-hard a Sox fan as there is, and I can barely recognize half the names on this list. But for the first time, a trio of players from my generation have been elected: Pedro Martinez, Nomar Garciaparra, and....Roger Clemens (as well as legendary WEEI announcer Joe Castiglione). 

When I say "my generation," I'm referring to kids who probably fell in love with the Nomar/Pedro teams in the late '90's, followed by some frustrating years leading up to winning it all in 2004 when it was the Manny and Papi show. I realize Nomar was traded during '04, so I should throw it out there I don't hold him in nearly as high esteem as I do Pedro, but I'd still consider him worthy of the Red Sox Hall of Fame.

Where was Roger Clemens during this time frame? The Yankees. True, he didn't go directly from Boston to New York, he stopped in Toronto for a few PED injections Molson's first. But he orchestrated his way to the Bronx and wound up winning two World Series there, as well as a Cy Young award in 2001. The Cy was one of four he'd win after leaving Boston. 

Not that simply playing for the Yankees after leaving Boston should be a death kneel to your credentials here. After all, Wade Boggs and a guy named Babe Ruth are in this Red Sox Hall of Fame. But Clemens had two chances near the end of his career, in 2006 and 2007, to return to the Red Sox, and turned them down both times. In '06 he signed with the Astros, fresh off a 1.87 ERA at age 42. In '07, when the opportunity presented itself again, where did he go? Back to the Yankees. He's a guy who clearly wanted no part of returning to his Boston roots back then, so why should we accept him back now? 

While Clemens did have great success after leaving the Red Sox in 1996, it's not as though he spawned a modern age "Curse of the Bambino." The Red Sox won in 2004 and again, in spite of Clemens's decision to join the Yankees, in 2007. And obviously this past year. There's literally no reason to remember him as one of ours, as "the one that got away."

If this were Cooperstown, the National Baseball Hall of Fame, we'd be dealing with a whole other set of issues involving statistics, steroids, and all that good stuff. I'm not going down that road right now. This is simply a local Hall of Fame, something I'd consider more "cool" to be inducted into than "honorable." I get Clemens is at or near the top of the Red Sox leader board in nearly every major statistical pitching category along with Cy Young, Tim Wakefield, and of course Pedro. But I can't turn a blind eye to the fact that for the final decade of his career, he made it his goal to burn the Sox.

Am I off base here? Should I let the grudge against Clemens go? Am I too young to appreciate what Clemens did here 1984-1996? Is it pathetic I'm getting worked up over the Red Sox Hall of Fame? You decide. Go vote in that poll on top of the page. But I'm willing to bet if you polled a decent amount of New Englanders which team they associate Clemens with, the answer sure wouldn't be the Red Sox.

Phil Kessel wasn't the first Boston athlete to bolt for Toronto.

Brady v. Manning: Any Closer to a Conclusion?

A common narrative after the AFC Championship Game was that Peyton Manning has surpassed Tom Brady in the quasi-fictional "Greatest Quarterback of All-Time" rankings, and that a Super Bowl victory would push him ahead of Joe Montana for no. 1 in these extremely subjective rankings. Then Sunday happened.

For me personally, I don't think Peyton would have captured that elusive "Greatest quarterback of all-time" title even with a win on Sunday, but I do think he would have moved past Brady, despite a 5-10 record head-to-head vs. the Patriots quarterback. Both before and after the game, I've had Montana at 1, followed by Brady, Manning, John Elway, and Dan Marino rounding out my top 5. But the results of Super Bowl XLVIII have made it downright impossible for me to consider moving Manning past Brady. For now.

A bigger point here, I think, is that neither Brady nor Manning have helped themselves in recent years as far as gaining steam towards surpassing Montana. Tom Brady hasn't won a Super Bowl in nine years. Peyton Manning in seven. Each player has lost two Super Bowls during that time span, botching numerous other chances in earlier post-season rounds. But there's little question that if anyone can overtake the former 49ers great, it's one of the Brady-Manning duo. I took as in-depth a look as I could inside these three signal-callers. Draw your own conclusions.

Joe Montana never lost a Super Bowl (4-0), and is 16-7 overall in the playoffs. In his seven losses, his average margin of defeat was a staggering 14.9 points per game. Montana's teams went one-and-done in the post-season four times. 

Tom Brady is 3-2 in Super Bowls, with the two losses coming by a combined 7 points. He's 18-8 overall in the playoffs, with the eight losses coming by an average of 9.5 points. Brady's only gone one-and-done twice. 

Peyton Manning is 1-2 in Super Bowls, with the two losses coming by a combined 49 points. He's 11-12 overall in the post-season, and both his 12 losses and eight one-and-dones are the most of all-time. 

Do I root for Wes Welker tonight?

Whether you've accepted since last March that Wes Welker is no longer a New England Patriot is one thing. Whether or not you've accepted that he's now one win away from winning his first Super Bowl--helping Peyton Manning in the process--is an entire other matter.

As soon as Welker took the 2 year, $12 million deal with the Denver Broncos last March, you knew that the storyline wouldn't just fade away, that we'd never see Wes again. This wasn't Pedro Martinez signing with the Mets back in 2005, virtually guaranteeing he'd only come back to haunt the Red Sox in interleague play, if at all (which wound up being the case). The Broncos were the top seed in the AFC a year ago, returning virtually the same roster, and while strengthening themselves, they weakened the Patriots. This was bound to happen.

So if it's not like Pedro, would it be a little bit more like Ray Allen leaving to join the Miami Heat in the summer of 2012? I think I speak for most in New England that while we begrudgingly respect Peyton Manning, we still despise LeBron James. Add in the fact that Allen took LESS money to join the Heat, and it becomes clear that's not a great parallel either. 

Considering Welker wound up signing with the Broncos for just $2 million more than the Patriots were offering over the length of the contract, could you say that Welker simply followed the money, and never cared about loyalty to New England in the first place?

Before you say yes, that the difference between $10 million and $12 million over two years is enough to qualify Welker as a 'traitor,' consider that this past off-season, Mike Wallace signed with the Dolphins for $60 million over 5 years ($30 guaranteed) and Greg Jennings signed with the Vikings for $47.5 million over 5 years ($18 guaranteed). 

During Welker's Patriots career (2007-2012), he caught an average of 112 passes a year for 1,234 yards. Jennings, over the same time frame with the Packers, averaged 63 catches a year, for 984 yards. Wallace, who's only been in the league since 2009, had averaged 59 catches for 1,010 yards with the Steelers. While I completely understand that they are more traditional "deep threats" than Welker would be considered, to say that they're worth upwards of $38 million (Wallace) or $35.5 million (Jennings) more than Welker is asinine on every level imaginable. Statistics don't tell the whole story, but in this case, they're more than enough to seal the deal.

The Patriots, and Bill Belichick in particular, low-balled Wes Welker. The fact they "replaced" him with Danny Amendola is equally laughable, but that's another story for another time.

I'm not telling you who to root for tonight, but if you're rooting against the Broncos, make sure it's not because Welker plays for them. He belongs with the Patriots, and that is strictly on Belichick.