Pauly

The Sports Impact of COVID-19

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

So there is no doubt that fewer kids will be watching a postseason baseball game that starts at 3:00 or 4:00 in the afternoon than one that starts at 8:00 at night. Nighttime postseason baseball is better for people of all ages, for the simple reason that nighttime is when people of all ages are more likely to be able to watch. 


Wait, what?

 

spacer.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could Fox start the games at 7/6 Central without running afoul of the FCC for running network programming in the access hour?

 

EDIT: of course they could, the law has been off the books since 1996, like most laws relating to broadcasting. Well there's your solution!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Could Fox start the games at 7/6 Central without running afoul of the FCC for running network programming in the access hour?

 

EDIT: of course they could, the law has been off the books since 1996, like most laws relating to broadcasting. Well there's your solution!

 

Broadcast laws? Surely, you jest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 


I’m not sure our response is half as organized as Europe’s, though. We still have states that refuse to take the virus seriously, and their refusal to respond certainly threatens to prolong the pandemic. 

 

Good point. Some of the states taking social distancing less seriously are SEC states. They're going to be pretty bummed come September.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

MOD EDIT: We're going to pretend that exchange never happened. 

 

 

I got to see Carlton Fisk's historic home run in the 1975 World Series, even though it came after midnight on a weeknight, because my parents let me at age 10 stay up past my bedtime — on account of this being the World f-ing Series.

 

The next year, I got to experience the joy of Chris Chambliss's pennant-winning homer, even though it came at around midnight, which was well past my bedtime as an 11-year-old. This remains my most cherished sports memory, one that can bring tears upon re-watching. I am so grateful that my parents were sensible enough to let me stay up to experience this historic event.  And, judging from the frenzied reaction at school the next day from other kids who had been watching, most of them had parents who were equally sensible.

 

The idea of missing these era-defining occurences in order to adhere to an arbitrary bedtime is outrageous. For a mere handful of nights per year, ignoring a bedtime is no problem. That is how you build fans and promote the love of history.

 

Also, while it is true that kids now have plenty of screen-based activities that keep them indoors, it does not follow that playing outside is a thing of the past. When I am out riding my bike, I see plenty of kids running around, riding their own bikes, playing basketball, football, and even baseball. Playing outside is a universal and timeless act of childhood.

 

So there is no doubt that fewer kids will be watching a postseason baseball game that starts at 3:00 or 4:00 in the afternoon than one that starts at 8:00 at night. Nighttime postseason baseball is better for people of all ages, for the simple reason that nighttime is when people of all ages are more likely to be able to watch. 

 

 

Your basic argument is "this is how it was for me, so it should work this way for everyone".

 

I'd argue that bedtimes for youngsters are hardly arbitrary.   First bell for elementary schools is what - 7:30?  Many experts suggest that kids need 8 hours of sleep to get the most out of school, therefore, it could be argued that a responsible parent would want their child in bed by 9:00 so that they can theoretically take a bit to fall asleep, get 8 hours of sleep, wake by 5:30/6, have time to get dressed, eat some cereal, catch the bus, and be at school by 7:30.

 

Some parents prioritize their kids education, others don't.  I'm not going to argue which is right, but I can tell you this - nobody that values their kid's education is wrong.  In a perfect world (which ours is hardly) every kid would get 8 hours of sleep, a good breakfast, and get the most out of school.  I don't think there's a rational argument against that.  Therefore, starting games at 8:00 is the wrong thing to do.

 

Now that that's settled, I want to hear more about the theory that kids are better positioned to watch games that end close to midnight than they are games that end around 7-8 PM.  I'm completely baffled by that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

Good point. Some of the states taking social distancing less seriously are SEC states. They're going to be pretty bummed come September.

 

Unless we get an all clear from a reliable medical source by, say, mid-June, my guess is there won't be any football at all this upcoming season. At best, we're probably looking at a delayed start and an abbreviated season. And I think that may be too optimistic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

Your basic argument is "this is how it was for me, so it should work this way for everyone".

 

I'd argue that bedtimes for youngsters are hardly arbitrary.   First bell for elementary schools is what - 7:30?  Many experts suggest that kids need 8 hours of sleep to get the most out of school, therefore, it could be argued that a responsible parent would want their child in bed by 9:00 so that they can theoretically take a bit to fall asleep, get 8 hours of sleep, wake by 5:30/6, have time to get dressed, eat some cereal, catch the bus, and be at school by 7:30.

 

Some parents prioritize their kids education, others don't.  I'm not going to argue which is right, but I can tell you this - nobody that values their kid's education is wrong.  In a perfect world (which ours is hardly) every kid would get 8 hours of sleep, a good breakfast, and get the most out of school.  I don't think there's a rational argument against that.  Therefore, starting games at 8:00 is the wrong thing to do.

 

Now that that's settled, I want to hear more about the theory that kids are better positioned to watch games that end close to midnight than they are games that end around 7-8 PM.  I'm completely baffled by that.

All true regarding kids and their weekday routines on the east coast, however what about those on the west coast?Most people work 9-5, starting the game at 6-7 ET would mean our friends out west wouldnt be able to see the begining innings of the ballgame. If the MLB (or TV scheduling in general) has to choose between keeping the kids of the Eastern Standard Timezone tuned in, or basically the adult viewership of the west coast I think they'd choose the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roughly four-fifths of the country is on Eastern or Central time; absent a California team or the Mariners in the World Series, who are you to dictate the terms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Roughly four-fifths of the country is on Eastern or Central time; absent a California team or the Mariners in the World Series, who are you to dictate the terms?

 

He's an Angels fan from Whitby, Ontario which of course makes him the preeminent authority on programming sports TV for the West Coast of the United States. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/24/2020 at 11:39 PM, infrared41 said:

1. "As a fan, I'm not a fan."

2. "I'm in phone."

3. "What the Hell is CCSLC?"

Honorable Mention: "Needs stripes." 

 

Stick work will injury you.

 

This thread BB and S.  MODS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the admiral said:

Roughly four-fifths of the country is on Eastern or Central time; absent a California team or the Mariners in the World Series, who are you to dictate the terms?

Uh I take my job as National Programming Timeslot Director very seriously thank you very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LA_Angels said:

I'd argue that bedtimes for youngsters are hardly arbitrary.   First bell for elementary schools is what - 7:30?  Many experts suggest that kids need 8 hours of sleep to get the most out of school, therefore, it could be argued that a responsible parent would want their child in bed by 9:00 so that they can theoretically take a bit to fall asleep, get 8 hours of sleep, wake by 5:30/6, have time to get dressed, eat some cereal, catch the bus, and be at school by 7:30.

 

All true. And a handful of exceptions doesn't change the validity of that general practice.

 

 

4 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

I want to hear more about the theory that kids are better positioned to watch games that end close to midnight than they are games that end around 7-8 PM.  I'm completely baffled by that.

 

The fact (not theory) is that young kids will tend to be at home at 8pm, whereas they are far less likely to be home at 3pm on a weekend, when there are a million other things to do.

 

 

4 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Some parents prioritize their kids education, others don't.  I'm not going to argue which is right, but I can tell you this - nobody that values their kid's education is wrong.

 

Politely ignoring the contradiction in that statement, I will agree that prioritising education is the correct approach. The point is that allowing a few late nights for special occasions does not compromise that approach.

 

Also, let us realise that a person's education entails a lot more than school.  There are also cultural reference points that make up part of one's education. My father made me watch Nixon's resignation in August of 1974 simply on account of that event's historical magnitude, even though I, not quite nine years of age at the time, could not fully appreciate its meaning. But my father felt, correctly, that I should have that event as part of my memory, as part of my experience, as part of my education. 

 

And likewise for the significant sporting events. No one who saw Fisk's home run in 1975 or Chambliss's home run in 1976 came away unaffected; these events made up essential parts of our enculturation and therefore of our education. A decade later, a new generation of kids had the formative experience of witnessing Buckner's error in game 6 of the 1986 World Series. All of these events happened late at night; yet they were viewed by millions and became cultural touchstones. 

 

Starting a game at 3pm on a Saturday or Sunday consigns that game to a kind of obscurity, a second-class status; this is not consistent with the magnitude of a playoff or World Series game.  As I mentioned, most of the kids I knew did not see the 1973 World Series game that I posted — even though that game involved the Mets! They were just busy doing other things, as normal kids will be doing on a weekend afternoon. But they would surely have seen the game if it had been a night game, just as everyone saw the Fisk, Chambliss, and Buckner games that have become part of our collective memory.

 

The ideal time to start would be 8:00, prime time; the absolute earliest should be 6:30, the hour that the Super Bowl kicks off (even though that leaves West Coast viewers in the unpleasant 3:30 netherworld).

 

The key point is that you can let your kids stay up a few nights a year for important events while still maintaining a bedtime that is appropriate for preparing them for school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

Quote

A study in France tracking outcomes in 20 patients given hydroxychloroquine, or a combination of hydroxychloroquine and the antibiotic azithromycin, has been widely cited by Trump and other proponents of prescribing the drugs for the coronavirus. Half of the 14 patients receiving hydroxychloroquine alone got better, and all of the six receiving the combination therapy got better. But the tiny sample size and lack of a rigorous trial protocol have been highlighted by those urging caution. 

 

Another study, in China, found that hydroxychloroquine performed no better than standard treatment for the coronavirus. Larger, more rigorous clinical trials of the treatments are underway around the world and in the United States.

 

I hope it works, but surely we need more data than 20 people and the endorsement of some guy with bad hair in DC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

 

I hope it works, but surely we need more data than 20 people and the endorsement of some guy with bad hair in DC.

You have to be more specific than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

 

I hope it works, but surely we need more data than 20 people and the endorsement of some guy with bad hair in DC.

 

Pretty sure the FDA isn't rolling the dice on 20 people and "some guy with bad hair." Australia and India were the first to report that they were seeing success using those drugs. There are a lot of reports out there from medical professionals saying they are seeing good success with the cocktail. Granted, the medical community is saying that the best evidence they have is "anecdotal" but the numbers still look promising. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Toronto banning public gatherings until June 30, that doesn't bode well for the professional sports leagues...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, willmorris said:

With Toronto banning public gatherings until June 30, that doesn't bode well for the professional sports leagues...

 

If you mean that it implies that the US will likely follow suit, then yeah.  While unlikely, it's always a tiny bit possible (even if 0.0001%) that they're like "wow, we did such a good job at social distancing, eh?  Let's make that May 30 instead, eh?"  In the more likely scenario where they stay with that, and the guy with bad hair decides to say "screw this, I need the economy to be better regardless of how much it spreads" and ends our ban on April 30 or some time before June 30, then it shouldn't stop American pro sports leagues.  Toronto could just become a traveling team, or maybe play games in Buffalo until Canada starts returning to normal.  

 

Of course, if I'm Canada, I'm looking at the numbers in the US and possibly keeping my borders closed (oh, the irony if they build a wall) even if my citizens are allowed to gather again.

 

We all know the reality, and that June 30 probably makes a lot more sense than anything sooner, but what makes sense vs what happens aren't mutually exclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, willmorris said:

With Toronto banning public gatherings until June 30, that doesn't bode well for the professional sports leagues...

 

There was a specific carveout for the possibility of sporting events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.