Bowski

Members
  • Content Count

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bowski

  1. I agree with everything except what is in bold, the hard salary cap forces this with teams frequently having to dump players which, in theory, does balance the league out more. In that light, it's a matter of the club signing the right players to fit their system and with their other players which means it falls more on good team management and less on individual player talent. I would also say, imo, that hockey is a sport where luck is very present in how a player performs on a night-by-night basis, so sometimes it can feel like a random simulation. However, if you're more a fan of the league and less of a specific team, this comes off as more enjoyable. I love the Blues, but I love the sport of hockey more; so I watch not just Blues games, but any game that is on, and I'd rather see all the teams doing "well" then just a handful of top-market teams dominate everyone else. On the note of the NFL, there's mostly parity, but it really comes down to good coaching and management. The Patriots are the ultimate example of not always having the best talent, but having a coach that knows how to utilize their players to their fullest potential to win. Now that the Browns are being coached well and management seems competent, they have a higher chance to win despite having had just as talented teams in the past. One final note is that IF the MLB & NBA had hard caps, I believe it'd create the same dynamic that the NHL has experienced since 2012.
  2. Ya'll need to chill, never romanticized or advocated for it, literally just thought it was interesting. Having an interest in something doesn't mean you advocate it. I have an interest in alternate history, especially explorations of different outcomes of war. Saying a world where say the Nazis won is an interesting concept to explore, doesn't mean I advocate or endorse Nazism, just that as an avid historian I enjoy exploring alternate paths to their fullest. Same concept applies here, just because I enjoy exploring the potential of a different system for a sport doesn't mean I want it implemented. The only thing I said about it was that it could hypothetically address the parity issues in the US. Chill, peace out
  3. These look sharp to me, simple yet unique in my mind. At least with it being that light grey, I would think during games it'd be fairly unnoticeable.
  4. Am I in the minority stating that the Adidas logo placement on the jersey throws off my liking the uniform? I really like the look, but the logo just draws me away from everything else on the jersey.
  5. Or its a way of saying; I was looking at pro/rel from hypothetical way (it is an interesting concept) and everyone else was taking it as me stating that I fully desired it in our leagues. Not to mention, some of you stated very clearly that you believed that parity wasn't good. So, knowing we'd never reach an agreement on that so I peaced out on the argument.
  6. I mean, it is technically due to DH rule. I'm done talking in circles about this; some real mental gymnastics are taking place to justify lack of parity.
  7. ^The MLB actually is two separate leagues I agree with you wholly, and I would say I don't believe its possible really at all either. But it is interesting to think about and explore on a conceptual level. I would say also that for the monopolies; it is a consequence of the developmental history and entrenched perception of sports leagues in the United States. Our systems of youth, college, semi-pro, and professional are not set-up to really support blurring the lines between them. Like in the US, an 18 yr old high school QB is not going to be anywhere close to a 26 old NFL QB in terms of talent. Soccer has the benefit of a unique age parity, 17 yr olds being able to compete with 20+ yr olds, so I still think the system could in theory be applied to the MLS. All that in mind, I would say that economics forced a monopoly on a sport to occur because running a league isn't cheap and profit margins are very important for long-term stability; if you need further examples of that, I highly suggest reading about the economics of MLB & NFL when they were in their infancy. I believe in a hypothetical situation where stadiums are not publicly funded, modern capitalism doesn't occur to box out small markets, and cost of entry isn't as high; you could have promotion/relegation occur in that sport, but outside of concepts, it is not possible in the US due to this and a lot of other factors.
  8. Monopoly: a commodity controlled by one party College football is a fundamentally different product then the NFL, I'm sick of people saying that if you think the NFL is unbalanced and lacking parity, just watch college football instead You could make an argument for AAA baseball being comparable to the MLB, but only in experience, not actual game-play NBA compared to the G-League, not even close; game-play is much slower and the experience is drastically different NHL to AHL play is comparable due to the play, and to be honest the best AHL teams would still likely lose to the worst NHL teams We tend to look at sports leagues differently, then companies that deal in more tangible products like manufactured goods, services, etc. but we seem to forget that the professional sports league is selling its product to the consumers. There is some competition among the leagues due to being in the same general industry but in terms of comparable products they don't provide the same stuff. The NFL does not sell the same product as the MLB, just as Nintendo does not sell the same product as Comcast-Universal despite being in the same entertainment industry, none of these are competing against each other to provide the exact same product to the consumer. I've never said it would necessarily simple to do this for our leagues, just that it would be a hypothetical way to force parity in the leagues. I genuinely do not care if the teams suffer losses in profit, I care about the consumers, fans, getting the best product.
  9. I agree to a point, but we don't really have an ideal system in the US either tho. In our system, since the concept of "professional" sports are monopolized to box out competition, there's no accountability or consequences for failure. So you have organizations that are just terrible and continue to be terrible with no change because they still profit even if it hurts the parity of the leagues. In a system where they fear being relegated to a lower tier, i.e. less money, they'd ideally strive to be better every year. I know its all unlikely, but its at least it's an idea to get out of the stagnant low parity we have. It may not benefit the clubs or players, but it would certainly benefit the fans.
  10. Lack of parity and greedy owners is catching up with them https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/07/15/nfl-nba-nhl-mlb-sports-teams-running-out-of-fans/39667999/
  11. I mean, I don't believe that the monopolies will hold up for more than 20 more years, the league's are struggling....except the NHL & MLS......and that's why they're all doing blatantly greedy things to keep a solid profit margin. Low attendance is has to be really hurting the MLB & NBA as far as the numbers I've seen.
  12. I think we've muddied the definition of a Ponzi Scheme in this thread, and no I don't think MLS is one, and they're actually probably the only ethical league in the USA. I really don't ever see them hustle cities the way the big four do, and as far as I know, most of their stadiums are mostly or wholly privately funded. I'd like to clear up how we're describing shady (fraudulent) tactics by leagues and teams; if they don't exist and never do, it's a Ponzi Scheme, if they do exist just don't deliver what's promised, it's a hustle.
  13. ^Kinda like when people complain about companies, then still buy their product lol I think its the latter though, because of the sports worship here in the US, people will complain only to quietly sit back down in the seats to watch *insert team*
  14. ^Really Frisco is booming that much? I haven't been down to Toyota Stadium since 2007, and I remember it being not too developed then, but if it is now, I guess I should go check out the stadium again. As for the overall "Ponzi" nature of the MLS, I'd definitely say its a team-by-team basis and really depends on the market.
  15. The same exact thing is happening slowly in my city where they built a new stadium a few years back, first off they built brand new condos all around it that have I believe total about 200 - 250 units, and according to the city's data, only 75 have had residence for more than 2 years. The older neighborhoods next to the area have also all started to experience the same thing as in Cincinnati, most of them were long-time minority renters living in fairly cheap houses only to have the landlords start cranking up rent to a point that many houses sit vacant and get eventually sold to be redeveloped into new apartments that are too expensive for previous renters. I would say objectively speaking it boosts the area's income/property tax income to a point & does lure business development downtown to a point; but it comes at the expense of many people who get essentially priced out to live in run-down areas of the suburbs aka the multitude of trailer parks that have sprung up on the outskirts of my city in the past 5 years. It's caused two major things here in my region of Indiana; There's basically a "reverse white-flight" happening in my city where many young white families are moving into the heart of the city and raising housing costs because you know, landlords are a**holes. This actually has resulted in the decay of some of the suburban areas of the city, as well as a present a further case for why, in general, bus systems are inefficient/cause more problems then they solve and, in particular, why our public transit system was poorly designed in the first place. As a result of the "reverse white-flight", the small towns around the city have all began to gain many black and Hispanic residents which has been a burden on the towns, because there's not enough jobs and city services to go around, because many of these new residents don't exactly bring copious amounts of tax revenue It's honestly disgusting that cities put in to place these borderline racist/class-ist zoning laws that supplement landlords being greedy.......that then prevents mixed development in cities that would benefit everyone. Then the cities engage in dirty politics to build these stadiums by stealing funds from other sources, i.e. why Detroit announced a new Red Wings Arena days after declaring bankruptcy.
  16. I mean at the point of the logistical nightmare, you could in theory create a system of regions that have self-contained leagues with about 10 top tier teams with an additional "minor" league of 7 to 8 teams. Then have the winners of each of the top tier league play in a tournament akin to the Champions League. The brutal reality of this is that pretty much eliminates the very small markets that some of the Single-A and below leagues serve because most of these clubs operate on very small margins, and without the ownership of the top teams, they'd dissolve. So in that light you'd likely see 2 solid pro-leagues in each region, with maybe an additional "semi-pro" league in the denser regions. I would argue that this would also severely lower the quality of play in the sport because the minor leagues give young raw players time to develop, but you could make an argument that clubs would get more involved in the youth leagues to develop players like they do in Europe for soccer. Another point I'd make to, is that the season would need to be significantly shorter with additional cross region play. I'm thinking it'd need to be somewhere around 60 - 70 games at that point to allow for series still but also not make playing the same rotation of teams repetitive for fans. Also I personally think the semi-fluid nature of rosters in baseball justifies a longer schedule, and without it, there'd be no need for 100+ games. Some pre-season, cross level tournaments could also cement the idea of any team from any city winning on the big stage. Every two-seasons would be the chance for promotion and relegation with the bottom two in the 1st tier playing a set of elimination games against the top two of the 2nd tier. I envision : North-East Region; could support 3 tiers Mid-West Region; could support 2 tiers South-East Region; could support 3 tiers thanks to Florida & coasts being huge fans of baseball Plains-Region; could support likely only 1 tier but only if anchored by Kansas City & Denver Texas-Bayou Region (Texas-Louisiana-Mississippi-Arkansas-Memphis Area); could support 2 tiers West-Coast Region; could support 2 tiers stretching from San Diego-Phoenix then up to Seattle-Vancouver Hypothetical Example of the Mid-West Region; Top Tier League: Chicago Cubs Chicago White Sox Milwaukee Brewers St Louis Cardinals Cleveland Spiders (renamed due to Indy) Detroit Tigers Minnesota Twins (Promoted) Indianapolis Indians Cincinnati Reds (Promoted) Louisville Bats 2nd Tier League Toledo Mudhens Fort Wayne Tincaps (Promoted from Single-A, as they should be) Columbus Clippers Iowa Cubs (would need new name) Lansing Lugnuts (Promoted from Single-A, arguably one of the best teams at that level) Akron Rubberducks (Promoted from Double-A) West Michigan Whitecaps (Promoted from Single-A, makes no sense why Grand Rapids is stuck in Single-A) Dayton Dragons (Promoted from Single-A)
  17. Would be an interesting concept to explore in an alternate history though, especially since for most of its history, baseball was isolated to North America. Could end up going down a bit of rabbit hole that results in a system that locks less money up at the top just like the soccer leagues of Europe. It would essentially have to pivot on the elimination of the farm system as we know it. Currently writing an alternate baseball league history and I may incorporate this idea into my league: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/central-league-alternate-minor-to-pro-baseball-timeline-up-until-1900.471086/
  18. It was a joke, I enjoy watching women's soccer quite a bit, the women are more precise in their movement and shots. I was making light of the fact that most women's sports are still sexualized in one way or another......
  19. I mean are any guys really watching any women's sport for the fundamentals?
  20. Why watch any sport then? You can experience playing football, basketball, baseball, etc. as well, but you pay to go see people who are way better then you play that sport because it's more entertaining. Same concept, different game, and don't ever forget; sports are all just games at the end of the day. Putting sports on pedestal above video games doesn't change that they both fundamentally accomplish the same thing, entertainment The argument of few will experience the feeling of the NFL or NBA is also negated by the fact that also very few will ever compete at the pro-level of gaming Also, I can guarantee every single sport that is cherished in today's world started off in an infancy that folks that didn't understand what it was or what would be become of it, and you can bet they probably mocked it because they didn't understand it. You think people 150 years ago thought football would become a game that millions love and that generates billions of dollars every year? Hell no! So skeptics, truly ask yourself, do you really think it's gonna fail or do you just not understand it thus you mock it? That being said, I don't volleyball, like I don't really understand how people play it, why is it entertaining, really anything about it; but if someone could explain it to me, I'd gladly absorb that knowledge.
  21. I not an overall fan of Adidas take for a lot of teams, but I think the stripped, kinda gimmicky basic looks that it brings for schools not as seeped in tradition (ASU and Wash) works for those schools, but when they tried pulling that at ND and Wisconsin (Ugh, dark years for those looks in the latter parts of the contract), it just came off as ugly and cheap looking. My thoughts on uniform supplier's relation to the success and or reputation of a team; Bottom-Level Looks => Bottom-Level Success & Reputation (Teams Typically Have Little Tradition & No Historic Identity) Nike Catalog Looks; typically aren't competing just looking for a look that doesn't cost much & low-to-moderate concern of reputation (In US, Nike is definitely more liked than Adidas) Adidas Catalog Looks; typically wanting to save money & aren't concerned with reputation Mid-Level Looks => Mid-Level Success & Reputation (Teams Typically Have Some Tradition & A Few Memorable Identities) Under Armour Catalog Looks; typically splurging a little to get some unique basic looks, as UA has shown to be more expensive than Nike & Adidas, also moderately concerned with reputation Adidas Custom Looks; pretty much either slight variation of catalog looks, a traditional look that they somehow also always mess something up about it, or some gimmick based on a tradition from the school (See all the throwbacks for A&M and the alts that were made for UCLA) High Level Looks => High-Level Success & Reputation (Teams Typically Have Lots of Tradition & At Least One Iconic/Consistent Identity) Under-Armour Custom Looks; high level of respect for traditional looks & good at finding ways of maintaining old designs on tighter & smaller uniforms,and there's generally a lot of effort put into the custom alts for teams (see Maryland's Alts and Notre Dame's Shamrock Series Alts) Nike Custom Looks; same as UA essentially but I would say that Nike is also good at helping teams create an Identity (See Oregon, TCU, Baylor, and Boise State) Obviously there's expections to this rule; Cal & Texas Tech both have custom (beautiful) looks from UA but aren't really powerhouses or seeped in much tradition comparatively to other schools Several schools that have Nike Custom Looks are still mediocre at best see teams like Vandy, Wake Forest, Baylor, Oregon State, etc A team can have basic looks and all of a sudden get really good (then get a custom look) i.e. Boise State However, I do believe there's enough evidence out there to support my theory here
  22. The uniforms shown were the ones from 1995 - 1998, which was the start of the collapse. As for red being used on the uniforms in general, I know a theory I've heard from my Hawks fan friends; is that the color red cursed the Blues and Hawks until the Blues dropped it. To be honest though, anything to spite the Hawks is good in my book, so maybe we should add red back to the uniforms..... p.s. making the playoffs in the NHL is not indicative of the stability of the franchise, see 18/19 Pens, literally every Capitals season before 17/18, etc.
  23. We fans don't speak of that blasphemous use of the color associated with beginning the collapse of the franchise.