infrared41

1 hour ago, the admiral said:

I think we should be able to change our names every 30 days. Name anarchy. Twitter gets away with it. Gotta keep up. 

On a similar note, back when I first joined Facebook, I decided it would be funny to send friend requests only to people who shared my name. It was hilarious for a little while - who knew there were over 50 "infrareds" on Facebook? Then it just got very confusing. But it was a hoot for a little while. My Facebook "holy grail" was to find some guy with my name who was born the same day and year as I was, but chaos ensued and I never got there. Oh well. 

1 hour ago, NicDB said:

There is the matter of two hockey teams that played a grand total of six seasons in Richfield.  I'm not sure I've ever read anything in-depth on either one that didn't cite the Coliseum's location as a major reason for their failure. 

Cleveland has had more hockey teams than I can remember. AHL, WHA, NHL, IHL, and back to AHL.  None of them have been particularly successful. It's not the Coliseum's fault that hockey has never worked here. That aside, I think the WHA's Crusaders, a team in a league that wasn't the NHL, averaged about 6,500 a game in their short tenure at the Coliseum because they were pretty good. At that time, in this area, 6,500 a game for hockey is like getting 35,000 a game for baseball. The Barons 2.0 New NHL Version wouldn't have worked if they had played downtown for free. Whatever the Indoor Soccer League team was supposed to be did well despite the games being played in Richfield. Indoor soccer fans set an attendance record there. I don't think you can use hockey's failure as some sort of proof that the Coliseum was a failure. But what do I know, I was only here for the entire existence of the Richfield Coliseum. Granted, living here and following those teams doesn't give me the same expertise as a Brewers fan who read some articles, but I do think I have some perspective on the matter. 

51 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

They just love the “good” Albert Belle highlights, a bit of it against the California Angels:

 

Albert Belle, the player who got me thinking that there was a serious steroid problem in Major League Baseball. Still remember him taking Troy Percival deep to beat the Angels. In fact, the Tribe kinda owned Troy Percival. 

22 hours ago, NicDB said:

The interstate system led to a lot of terrible ideas with infrastructure in low density areas, and the Richfield Coliiseum is one of my go-tos when making this point.  The idea was that if they put a venue equidistant from Cleveland and Akron, it could draw crowds from two cities rather than one.  So, naturally, the exact opposite happened.  Because no one considered that people don't want to commute such a distance to see a game on a weeknight.

Yeah, that's not entirely accurate. Just like any other team, attendance at Cavs games was good when they were competitive. Concerts and WWE events at the Coliseum did very well. Hell, 20,000+ showed up for an indoor soccer league game at the place. The Coliseum was in a weird location and the traffic sucked, but it was hardly the failure you're making it out to be. 

22 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Holy hell - those Richfield photos are shocking (to me.)  What was the idea behind putting it there?  Make it as inconvenient as possible for anyone to go?  Make it impossible to take mass transit?  It blows my mind that a 20k-seat venue can be that isolated.

Former Cavs and Cleveland Crusaders owner, Nick Mileti, came up with the idea for the Coliseum. The idea behind putting it in a field in Richfield Township was to draw people from both Akron and Cleveland as well all the towns in the surrounding area. It was reasonably close to Interstate 77 and the Ohio Turnpike. It was located near an exit on the Interstate 271 bypass at the junction of Ohio Route 303. The problem was that the main access road to the place was Ohio Route 303 which is a great little road two lane road for site seeing and motorcycle riding (as well as occasionally seeing the aforementioned Amish in their horse and buggies) but not so great at getting 18,000-20,000 people to an event. Traffic was a at best and a disaster at worst. From where I lived at the time, we'd take Ohio 303 all the way to Richfield which was about a 45 minute drive under normal conditions. If you were headed that way for an event, you had to add at least an extra hour and a half to have any chance of getting there on time.   

This is Ohio 303...

46 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Anaheim is to Los Angeles as Pontiac is to Detroit, as Richfield is to Cleveland, and as Chester is to Philadelphia.

 

I hate to break this to you, but the Richfield Coliseum, former home of the Cleveland Cavaliers and Cleveland Crusaders, was in a field out in the middle of nowhere. The Richfield Coliseum was located in Richfield Township which is almost as big as it sounds. Richfield is as close to Akron as it is Cleveland. (And no, Akron and Cleveland are not the same market.) Point being, the Coliseum and Richfield Township were more under the "sphere of influence" of the Amish than they were of the City of Cleveland. Don't believe me? See for yourself. 

Aerial shots of the Richfield Coliseum. 

Quote

Anaheim is nowhere.

No, this is nowhere. 

2 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

That's certainly a possibility, but until it's implemented, it's just speculation.  Maybe a trial?

 

"dude, you're wrong and an idiot" bruises more egos than a number next to a thumbs-down icon.

Technically, we aren't supposed to call people idiots in the first place. That aside, my opinion is that a down vote or dislike button is a bad idea. We've both been here long enough to know how it would turn out. 

3 hours ago, QueenCitySwarm said:

Very fair. I still don't think that NASCAR/baseball fans overlap all that much, but the effect on the Hornets would be much greater. It helps that the baseball/basketball season doesn't overlap much, but your point stands.

 

That said, I want to a Nationals game last year, in the lower bowl, for $15 a ticket. I'm not saying that it's not more expensive in general, but there are cheap tickets to MLB games. Plus, with an MLB team replacing the MiLB Knights, those fans would spend on the Major League team, presumably. 

My two favorite sports are baseball and NASCAR. I'm sure I'm not the only person to really like both sports. Anyway, I don't want you to get the impression that I don't like Charlotte. It's actually one of my favorite cities. I have family there, I've been the the 600 twice and the October race. I love Charlotte and the surrounding area. (I'd move there tomorrow if I could) That said, based on the economics, I don't see how an MLB team could carve out a spot in an already saturated sports market like Charlotte. 

81 home games is a lot of dates to sell at MLB prices. Sure, you can get the occasional good, cheap seat at an MLB game, but the team makes its in the park money on season tickets, the high dollar seats, concessions, luxury boxes, in stadium ads, etc. Another thing to consider is this, will the Panthers, Hornets, and NASCAR sponsors either spend more money or move their ads to the new MLB team? Maybe, maybe not. Will the people who own luxury suites with the current teams by yet another one for a baseball team? Then you gotta work out TV and radio deals, get sponsors for those deals, and so on. Point being, it's not as simple as just putting an MLB team in Charlotte and waiting for everyone to show up. A new team throws a huge wrench into an established sports market. There are only so many dollars to go around. As I said before, a new team doesn't bring in new money to a market, it has to fight for the money that's already there. That's why I think any MLB relocation should be to either completely "untapped" markets or markets with just one "big 4" team. 

47 minutes ago, QueenCitySwarm said:

You do make good points about ticket prices. Charlotte wasn't exactly in a place to land teams in the 90s with the city's money tied up in Charlotte Coliseum and (now) Bank of America Stadium. Plus, there wasn't an ownership group rich enough to place a bid. There is now. And I'll say that Atlanta has the Hawks, Falcons, and even hotter summers plus a ton of other events, like Charlotte does, yet the Braves don't seem to struggle with attendance. The Knights have at times rivaled the Marlins and Rays in attendance, with an uncompetitive team. There are baseball fans here, and I'd wager more than enough to make a Major League team work. I honestly don't think that NASCAR/racing has much of an effect on other sports, either. Memorial Day weekend, the weekend before, and a weekend in early October are enough to make a dent in a baseball team, which would have plenty of other dates to work with. If anything, they would affect the Panthers' attendance, but that clearly isn't true. With a stadium Uptown like BB&T Ballpark currently is, a Charlotte MLB team would work incredibly well. 

The Braves can’t even sell out playoff games. Anyway, something to consider is this, new teams don’t bring in new money to the local economy. New teams simply move around money that’s already in the local economy. So how do the local sports fans redistribute their money if you add a baseball team? Do Panthers fans drop their season tickets? BobHornetCats fans? Do the local NASCAR fans skip the all-star race or the 600 to spend that money on the new MLB team? See how tough it would be to add MLB to that market now? Again, minor league attendance and major league attendance are two entirely different animals. MiLB is dirt cheap, MLB is very expensive. 

1 hour ago, QueenCitySwarm said:

What markets would you suggest? I can think of Portland and San Antonio, but why would you purposefully leave out Charlotte? MLB might not be as popular as it once was, but it's still a major sport. People will show up no matter where, and leaving out Charlotte, a place that has ruled Minor League attendance for years, just because the city is also large enough to support other teams doesn't add up. 

I “purposely” left out Charlotte because an MLB team won’t work there. There’s too much competition and not enough interest. The Panthers, BobHornetCats, three NASCAR races, at least one major NHRA event, local track racing, and hot summers all add up to 12,000 fans a game for baseball...if you’re lucky. MLB has expanded twice in the last 20 years. If Charlotte is such a great market, how did it miss out on four chances to land a team?

With regard to MiLB, it’s a helluva lot easier to draw fans when your average ticket price is 30-40 bucks lower than the average MLB ticket. If MiLB success translated to MLB success, we’d have MLB teams in places like Erie, PA and Toledo, OH. 

Finally, if people will show up “no matter where” then why are we even talking about moving teams? Using your logic, Tampa and Miami are already successful which means there’s no reason to relocate either team. 

1 minute ago, dfwabel said:

The family of José Fernandez may differ with you.  

I was joking, dude. But thanks for being such a downer. 

On topic, any relocation by MLB should be to a city that has no more than one other “big 4” team. Ideally, the relocated MLB team would be the only team in town.  MLB needs to come to grips with the fact that it doesn’t have the status it used to. Teams aren’t going to do well trying to compete in new markets that have established  NFL and NBA teams.  

22 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

Mountains of blow?

That’s the second best argument I’ve heard for keeping the Marlins in Miami. 

23 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

Also, they can’t get rid of the Marlins. What would Billy Gil do then? 

And that, folks, is the best argument I’ve ever heard for keeping the Marlins in Miami. 

6 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

I'd say contracting the Florida Two would be an ideal situation.

Agreed. Anyone who listens to Basically a Sports Show knows my position on Major League Baseball in Florida. It was a bad idea from the start and it just got worse from there. Those two teams are never going to be successful in Florida. Move them, get rid of them, or find a way to have them play just the Yankees, Red Sox, and Cubs for their home schedules. It's a shame that a pretty cool stadium is being wasted on Miami. 

21 hours ago, pmoehrin said:

Its a BS explanation for not expanding.

Of all the things MLB needs to do, expanding isn't any of them. 

I'm a Cleveland Browns and Cleveland Indians fan. Where would you like me to begin? 

8 hours ago, DG_Now said:

Any chance we can turn the leaderboard off?

 

I think we all agree it's kind of silly. We'd also agree it's kind of fun in a way too. But I don't think it's at all useful. And I've seen people say "my post got more likes than yours" which makes me want to die.

You got my vote. 

2 hours ago, packerfan21396 said:

I know, I'm not too worried, just wanted to see if you guys had any insight.  I think it was about 9 before midnight, 2 after; I'm not sure.  I just see 1 like posts at the bottom bottom of the list and was just wondering why they were there where mine and other posts aren't.

I gave it my best shot based on what little I know about how it works. As Ice_Cap pointed out, most of the mods have no idea how the forums software and coding works. You might try asking one of the admins about it.

But like I said, those numbers don't really mean anything in the first place. Sure, it's kinda cool to "win the day" or see yourself on the weekly leader board, but other than that, it does exactly nothing for your actual reputation around here. Frankly, I wish it were called something else because calling it "reputation" gives it way more importance than it actually has. Anyway, if we can help with anything else, don't hesitate to ask. Wish we could have given you a better answer. 

15 minutes ago, packerfan21396 said:

I guess I should've been clearer, I meant I'm no where to be found on the daily leaderboard, even in the list under the top 4.

Honestly, it’s not worth worrying about. The numbers are meaningless. Did you get all 11 likes in a 24 hour period? If not, then it’s not going to show up. For example, if 6 likes were before midnight and 5 were after midnight, the likes will be spread over the two days. 

3 hours ago, packerfan21396 said:

Not sure if you guys can figure this one out either, but going along on the "How the Leaderboard works?" train, is there a reputation threshold to even be considered on the leaderboard?  I'm not trying to be egotistical here, but I escaped my lurking and occasional Concepts posting and made a splash in the News forum (for better or for worse) and I'm still nowhere to be found in the leaderboard even though my M barley study got 11 likes.  It seems like only the big names of the board get put on the leaderboard, any confirmation to that theory?

The reputation thing is based on liked posts. 11 might get you on the daily list, but you are not coming close to the weekly or overall list with that number. Usually, the weekly list leader has between 80-120 (or more) likes on a post or posts. With regard to the overall - career list, if you will - you're currently at 308. To give you an example, my "career" number is 5,671 and I'm not even in shouting distance of the top 10 or whatever it is.

Basically, to get where you looking to get, keep posting good stuff, I guess. 

4 hours ago, hettinger_rl said:

Take about 30% off there Ice_Cap.

No one is talking conspiracy. Just trying to navigate the mystery that is likes calculation. Don't come at me all snarky just because no one seems to be able to answer how this calculation occurs.

In order to reach the popular content section one does have to select the leaderboard tab that is at the top of the board betwixt the activity and calendar tabs.

You can look up the daily numbers too. That’s probably where you’ll find what you’re looking for. Try this...https://boards.sportslogos.net/pastleaders/

Folks, it’s adding a click or two. It’s not like finding a thread suddenly became more difficult than piloting the space shuttle. We’ve survived bigger changes than this. It might take a little getting used to, but I promise it will all work out. 

48 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Is moving from radio to TV always considered a promotion?  I look at them as two different jobs.

Pretty much. TV is a more prestigious gig and it probably pays a lot better. 

3 hours ago, johnnysama said:

 - Is it possible to delete this post? Yeah, I think I should've thought of this further. Thanks.

Done.