HedleyLamarr

25 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Yeah, it would do a lot for goal-line and offside calls.

 

Oh, and a hearty LOL at Gary Bettman, the guy whose league has bungled one television contract after another when he wasn't taking the league off television altogether with lockouts, being inducted into a broadcasting hall of fame.

With the available technology we have today, there's really no reason why there shouldn't be sensors in the puck and along each line, with lights that illuminate when the puck crosses each line.  It could eliminate any gray area when it comes to goals, icings, and offside calls.

10 minutes ago, Cosmic said:

I've thought for a while that the glow puck technology could be used to just make the puck blacker and more visible. The execution was very cheesy and 90s, but the idea was solid.

Well HDTV's and television innovations have kinda eliminated the need for a constant glowing puck.

What this will really help with is when there's madness in the crease and there's some question whether the puck crossed the line or not.

Not the momma!

3 hours ago, the admiral said:

transmogrify

Such a beautiful word, especially for this month....

I'll believe it when I hear it from FIFA.  Anytime there's been rumblings about the 2022 World Cup removal, Qatar gives FIFA some extra cash miraculously gets back on schedule.

Who can host it on 4-5 years notice?  It looks like the US wants the 2026 World Cup.  I would think FIFA wouldn't like giving Europe back-to-back Cups (though it would be understandable on short notice)

On 10/6/2017 at 1:58 AM, ElwoodCuse said:

It's not mutually exclusive for Cam Newton to have (1) said a sexist thing that he shouldn't have and (2) been unfairly targeted for criticism because of racism

 

He actually made a really good apology, it sounded sincere, like he wrote it himself, and wasn't just "I'm sorry if anyone was offended"

Well, it's an unfortunate situation he put himself in, because outside of a couple 3-hour stretches during the season, he seems to be a really genuine, likeable guy.  I was curious about which direction this would go on Facebook from black women....most took the black side over the women side, and some even brought up Trump in their argument.

Not sure it was a "really good apology", though.  I watched it....definitely sounded like he wrote it himself.  And he did manage to work in the "I'm sorry that you got offended" quip, which isn't an apology.

Ever since Caldwell came on in 2014, the Detroit Lions are tied for the 10th-best record.  Pretty good turnaround from where they were 9 years ago.

5 hours ago, CS85 said:

For those not in the know, ESPN's Jamele Hill went off on twitter, accurately calling our fatass slimeball blowhard president a Fatass Slimeball Blowhard President.  FSBP naturally reacted immediately, demanding she kiss the tip of his gold-plated and likely toenail-growing metaphorical penis.

 

ESPN then rushed to find a POC to fill her gap during the next SportsCenter.  They all refused.  She was then put out there anyway.

 

There's a lot of weird quasi-apologies and mixed-truths floating around now, but ultimately it appears nothing came of it except for more arguments over the "Stick To Sports" movement that has birthed from mostly Twitter scum wanting to get their local sports beat writers to not make them feel guilty for being bigots/racists/general useless white fartknockers.  

Jamele's just looking for a way to stay relevant and generate some ratings for that 6pm SportsCenter that no one's watching.  And if there's anything I've learned over the years, a desperate person will often go the "race route" to be their Hail Mary effort.

What prompted her tweet(s)?

The hell?!

3 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

The "all they need is a new stadium" argument does seem prevalent in the Tampa Bay area. It just seems like a hell of a gamble. It's a lot of public money to spend on something that could end up wasted if the stadium wasn't the problem after all. 

 

They might as well spend the money though, to be honest. There's no where else for MLB to go. So if the Rays are going to stink up the attendance standings in the Tampa Bay area? They might as well do it in a place that's pleasant to go to and spend an afternoon in.

If this is the only con in the Rays looking to improve their stadium situation and overall situation, it's not really that much of a gamble.  Especially if the locals feel it'll be a solution and there's no real alternative for MLB to look at.

This is exactly why the Rays have been talking to the Braves people.  The Braves did a lot of surveys and a lot of research when it came to putting together their SunTrust Park/Battery Atlanta plan, and early numbers suggest it's been a huge success.  Traffic hasn't been the disaster Atlantans thought it'd be, and leaving the ballpark area has been much more of a breeze than Turner Field.  And there's so much to see and do around the ballpark now.  The Rays want in on that.

If the TV numbers are high but attendance is low, that's telling me the fans are looking for inspiration to go to the ballpark.  An unexciting building that's quite the distance to drive to with high-ish ticket prices (last time I bought tickets to a Rays game, they seemed so much more costly than Braves tickets) isn't cutting it.

Penguins fans will disappear once Crosby is done, just like they disappeared when Mario left the ice for good.

I went to the Braves game last night, and was chatting it up with these two guys that were next to us.  He was from Tampa, so naturally the Rays and their ballpark came up.  He had a couple of interesting tidbits:

1. Apparently the Rays people are in communication with the Braves about how they were able to come up with stadium location and all that fun stuff.  (So I guess this goes in line with whatever the Rays planned on discussing come this offseason...wasn't there something about the Rays and stadium plans coming this December?)

2. The population of St. Petersburg has gone up in the last five years, though it remains the poorer city between them and Tampa.

3. The desire seems to be for a retractable roof, because this is Florida in the summertime.

1 hour ago, BeerGuyJordan said:

There's little to no question which team(s) the majority of the baseball fans follow in places like Providence (BoSox), Columbus (Indians and Reds), or Memphis (Cardinals). All of those are cities that are large enough to make a push, if they had a stadium. The fact is that they won't.

 

Why not? It's not like they're close enough to have to pay indemnification fees. Answer: they're a significant secondary market to another team, and there are better places to expand.

Providence and Columbus aren't going to pursue a MLB-sized stadium because they know they're never getting a team.  And Memphis simply can't afford 81 homes a year..  Has nothing to do with being a "significant secondary market".  (Memphis to St. Louis is about the same distance as Nashville is to both Atlanta and St. Louis)

At this point, every market currently without a MLB franchise is a "secondary market" to some team.  Vegas, Portland, Nashville, Indianapolis, etc.  That won't be a deciding factor.

1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

What I am really curious about is your reply to my quote from the CTE thread ended up in the Rays thread...

I've no idea.  Maybe the board got hit in the head.....

2 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

So I'm curious as to how much any of this has impacted our football (and not just NFL) fandom.  And, if you have kids (I don't) whether you'd let 'em play.

None to me.  I recognize that watching football is simply an entertainment option, and I don't have any attachment to the participants involved.  They know what they're getting themselves into...a rough, dangerous game.  You're responsible for the decisions you make.

I don't have any kids, but if I did, I'd let them play football.  I'd educate the hell out of them (like Sex Ed, Drugs, etc) and let them make that choice on playing or not.  There are plenty of positives of kids and young adults getting involved in team sports, too.

On 7/23/2017 at 1:33 PM, BeerGuyJordan said:

The original statement was an oversimplification, and stated that they were booted to make room for concerts. Nothing was said about money.

 

No AHL team makes more than a concert would. Even Hershey could make more money, if they booked concerts on those 38 dates. The same is also true of many NHL and NBA teams.

 

The bottom line is that they weren't "booted for concerts." The team was becoming more successful, and their landlords tried to triple their lease. If they had agreed to shell out the extra cash, they would have stayed. It wasn't fiscally wise to stay.

They could book concerts/shows/etc. on just 1/5th to 1/4th of those 38 dates and still come out making more coin than if there were 38 hockey games.

That ice is on the floor for at least six months, probably closer to seven.  Which means those freezer coils underneath are in use for over half the year.  Not cheap.  Then, there's the air conditioning it takes to meet AHL regulations.  Not cheap.  And, perhaps the biggest cost of all, is everything that goes into ice maintenance.....Zambonis, Zamboni upkeep, ice-making materials, properly cleaning the ice numerous times a day, and the full-time and game-day staff in charge of handling the ice.  On game days, the ice gets cleaned (and double-cleaned) about 12-15 times.  On non game days, 3-4 times.

What probably went down is that the owners told the Aeros', "You can keep playing here, but you're picking up the tab on the ice financials." which would explain the uptick in charge.  Building owners rarely change their rent price for whomever wants to use their building, I think for legal reasons.

Perhaps I'm looking at things in a different perspective, then.  Guess I can never take off my Game Operations glasses when I go to a sporting event.  Nor am I letting just the building determine my entertainment quality.

2 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Well I think you're wrong about Tropacana Field. It's a dump. I grew up going to Jays games. The Sky Dome's not the most modern and up to date facility in the Majors, but Tropicana Field's a trash heap. It's dim, dirty, and all around depressing. 

 

So I totally see why fans don't want to turn out for the games. A new stradium, even one in St. Pete, may very well turn things around. Problem is that a new park is a huge financial risk. What happens if the city and team put up millions and attendence and revenue are still down?

When did I say Tropicana Field isn't a dump?  I'm pretty sure I mentioned that they've tried to liven up the place, whether it's with lighting or brightening up the concourses or whatever, but it's not an ideal place to see a game.  It's pretty weird for a baseball fan to sit at a ballgame and not see sunlight or see the sun setting while the game is taking place.  The Rays' current management has made some efforts to make the best of a lousy situation, but a Sam's Club with a new paint job doesn't take away from the fact it's still a Sam's Club.

I'm sure the Rays have done them, but they need focus groups to determine if they should seek a new ballpark in town, where to build it, etc.  It's not like the Rays current ownership...and maybe even their initial ownership...had a say in where to build the stadium.  I can only go on my experience of attending five games there that I can see why folks wouldn't want to make that time commitment 81 times a year.  Folks don't like sitting in traffic.  That wouldn't be as much of a problem if they built the ballpark closer to their season ticket holders and frequent ticket buyers like the Braves did.  The Braves took a risk by moving out to Cobb, and they've seen a big uptick on mid-week game attendance and a big money boon...with a fan base that's got a reputation of being fairweather.

2 hours ago, Lights Out said:

You do raise a fair point on the Spring Training games, but still, people show up in droves to watch exhibition games that don't count in a dump of a stadium, just because it's some semblance of major-league baseball in Montreal. I doubt we'd be hearing much talk about Montreal as an expansion market if those games drew poorly.

Again, it's a really easy sell for preseason games if you bring in a close-enough team and call it a Nostalgia Game/Weekend/etc.

If, say, the Predators and Hurricanes (or really, any two NHL teams) played a preseason game or two back in Philips Arena, a lot of folks within a 2-3 hour driving radius would come see NHL-adjacent hockey in their backyard, including myself.  Doesn't make Atlanta any closer to getting a team.

38 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

he'll die on a hill trying to convince you the NHL could have worked in Atlanta despite the awful attendance. 

The Thrashers had good attendance and turned a profit before Atlanta Spirit took over and started their in-house fighting.  And considering I worked for the team, I'm pretty damn sure I know just a little bit more of the dealings-on than, say, you.

Besides, you could be bringing some actual insight to the discussion instead of re-hashing debates from years ago, since you live in Tampa....

1 minute ago, LMU said:

The problem with Montréal that hasn't been mentioned is that Olympic Stadium is a pit and a pain to get to.

Unlike Tropicana Field?

It is 23 miles from downtown Tampa to Tropicana Field.  At the best of times, it's a 25-30 minute drive, and that's assuming you go straight from work to the game.  If you're going home to pick up the wife and kids then going to the game, you're dealing with rush hour traffic to get home, then you're getting right back in that traffic in the 'burbs, going through Tampa again, then dealing with traffic leaving Tampa for St. Pete, and are lucky as hell if you see the first pitch.  The few times I've been there, it's taken us 1.5 hours to go from Clearwater to inside the stadium.  Or, two hours from Kissimmee to Tropicana Field.

2 hours ago, Lights Out said:

Things have changed dramatically since 2004, though. The current mayor of Montreal, Denis Coderre, has been vocal in his support for bringing the MLB back. There's a group of investors in place that meets the MLB's conditions to own a franchise. There's a large grassroots movement to bring baseball back to Montreal, headed by former Expo Warren Cromartie. Despite being a :censored:hole, Olympic Stadium is packed every year for the annual Spring Training games. And Manfred has continuously voiced his support for the Montreal market, which is incredible considering how hard Selig tried to crush any hope for baseball in Montreal.

It's easy to sell out two games when you get the lone Canadian team involved and call it "Expos Nostalgia Weekend".  It's easy for a politician to say "I'd love for baseball to come back" because that's extra money coming to town.  It's easy for the Commissioner to say he'd like to see a city get a team because he doesn't want to alienate any North American market from watching and investing in his product.

Montreal's problem is that there's 79 other games they would have to sell.  Montreal's problem is that the government hasn't "walked the walk" when it comes to getting finances involved to get baseball back, both locally and federally.  Montreal's problem is that MLB knows Montreal will always be one of the runts when it comes to eating at the MLB Food Bowl.

Their last four seasons had attendances of 7000, 9000, 12000, and 9000.  And two of those seasons were winning seasons.  You would think that if the TV deal stunk, that would give you even more incentive to go catch more games in person, especially if the team is competitive.  But, the fans didn't show up.

Montreal is not a good baseball market.  Dispute that as much as you'd like.  Fans didn't show up.  Tampa Bay may be drawing flies, but that's nearly double what Montreal drew.  If you're willing to say that Montreal wasn't given a fair shake, you have to also admit that the Rays have never been in an ideal attendance situation, either.  Can't just pick-and-choose when you use the martyr defense.

5 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Montreal would also have killed for a 97-win season. 

 

Besides, different times.  You can't compare eras to eras, only how a team performs in relation to its contemporaries.  And the Rays have always performed terribly, even when the team was among the best in baseball. 

Rays went to the World Series in 2007, Montreal's last season was 2004.  And the Expos churned out a cool 9,300 fans that season.

Montreal had back-to-back winning seasons in 2002 and 2003 and got 22,000 to come out....combined.  Montreal was not a good market then, and they aren't a good market now. Give them two games a year to host the lone Canadian team and a chance to relive their baseball days, they can handle that.  79 more?  Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

29 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Still better than the fans in Tampa Bay, who didn't care about baseball even when their club was in first place the entire year.  Even when their club went to the World Series.  Put that team in any other baseball city, and they'd be at the top of the attendance charts.  But in Tampa Bay, barely a blip. 

 

Make all the excuses you want, but the Tampa Bay fan base gave up on baseball.  If they were ever interested in the first place.   

 

Really not sure that's your best argument, there. 

 

Montreal would have killed to see 16,000 come to every game.