johnnysama

Worst ideas in sports history

Recommended Posts

On the subject of the MLS, the rules the league played its games under at the beginning were terrible. Things have been better since they standardized their rules with the rest of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say the only reason people hate Bettman so much is because he doesn't have half the league located in Canada. The teams in the so called non-hockey markets (ATL, PHO, DAL, FLA, etc) have all been grossly mismanaged and underperforming. Fans don't go to watch losers or mediocre teams for extended periods of time, plain and simple. Just look at the NBA's relatively piss poor attendance numbers to find that out. Even the NFL and MLB don't fill to capacity if the management and team suck. That's just sports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say the only reason people hate Bettman so much is because he doesn't have half the league located in Canada.

If there's any over-generalizing going on here, it's this comment. No one wants half the league (15 teams) in Canada. Now that Winnipeg's back, and on solid financial footing, people want to see a team in Quebec City. That's all. Eight teams in Canada, around a quarter of the league, is the preferred number.

No one's calling for teams in Prince Albert, Churchill, Yellowknife, and Saskatoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stern did great for 20 years, he managed to make the league recover from the refs fixing games, but now that new owners aren't grateful to him for allowing the league ( and their investments) to grow, he lost a lot of power, hence the current fiascos. Since I fully expect Stern to retire within the next month, Adam Silver is going to have to do a hell of a job to recreate trust with the players.

I'd say

Garber>>Stern>Goodell>Selig>>>>Bettman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to say this quietly but I reckon, on balance, Goodell is doing a decent job. The 'No Fun League' jibe has been around from way before Goodell's time. Yes the NFL is run mostly on autopilot, but the game has hardly been more popular.

Stern has probably just over stayed his welcome by a year or two. But it's gonna take a very strong person to replace him.

Selig has always been a divisive figure, I kind of think baseball needs someone more committed to the traditions of the game.

Bettman just doesn't seem like a 'hockey guy' and that's his biggest trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say what you will about Stern following the lockout, but the NBA reached its greatest levels of popularity under his watch. Any league where a team like the Clippers can stay profitable is going something right.

And now Stern realizes the pile of mess he has on his hands. The Clippers are profitable because of their desirable location and some guy by the name of Blake Griffin. You may have heard of him. Harsh? Yes, but if you're going to call me out like that about a minor detail in an argument, you can expect likewise.

Other teams aren't as lucky as the Clippers. The Kings, Bucks and Bobcats struggle to keep their operations in the black. The Grizzlies face the possibility of contraction if it ever comes to that despite making a surprise run in the playoffs last season. MLB has the Tampa Bay Rays; the NBA has about six of them - teams that will suffer financially despite their success. Teams like the Hornets, who have had years of success before, simply can't compete when the commissioner of the league can't find a buyer and lets the franchise dangle in purgatory. How can you talk about Bettman's reluctance to move a team from Arizona to Quebec City or Hamilton or wherever (i.e. a more "hockey frriendly" market, i.e. Canada) when Stern has the Hornets handcuffed to New Orleans and Seattle is still sore about having the Sonics pried away from them?

Post-lockout NBA became popular because of the superstars, not because of anything Stern did. LeQuit James moving to Miami, Kobe teaming up with Shaq, Boston's Big Three. Stern had nothing to do with those aside from doing the obvious and making those guys front and center. The days of the Spurs being top dogs in the NBA were days when most fans simply didn't care, because as great as Tim Duncan was in those days, he wasn't going to sell any shoes.

Post-lockout NBA has also become a farce when the words "competitive balance" are mentioned. Stern allowed The Decision to happen. Popularity rose, but everything else fell. I'm no Dan Gilbert fan (COMIC SANS!), but he does have a point when he talks about the league becoming one where five or six teams have a legitimate chance to win a championship and everyone else plays the role of the Washington Generals for 82 games every season. Why even draft a superstar if you know he's just going to bolt for Miami, LA, New York, Chicago or Boston once his contract is up?

The worst part about Stern was the fact that he can't decide where he lies on issues. Under his watch he encouraged the league to embrace urban culture (The 76ers mascot's name is Hip Hop, for heavens sake) then decided to implement a dress code to, um, "clean up the image" of the league? He lets the superstars run the asylum then decides to block a perfectly fair CP3 to LAL trade for "basketball reasons". His record of going back on his word stretches back ages.

Oh, and we can't forget about the new ball fiasco, can we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say what you will about Stern following the lockout, but the NBA reached its greatest levels of popularity under his watch. Any league where a team like the Clippers can stay profitable is going something right.

And now Stern realizes the pile of mess he has on his hands. The Clippers are profitable because of their desirable location and some guy by the name of Blake Griffin. You may have heard of him. Harsh? Yes, but if you're going to call me out like that about a minor detail in an argument, you can expect likewise.

I wouldn't call getting a major point in a relocation discussion as it pertains to a commissioner's handling of it "minor" but to each his own.

Teams like the Hornets, who have had years of success before, simply can't compete when the commissioner of the league can't find a buyer and lets the franchise dangle in purgatory. How can you talk about Bettman's reluctance to move a team from Arizona to Quebec City or Hamilton or wherever (i.e. a more "hockey frriendly" market, i.e. Canada) when Stern has the Hornets handcuffed to New Orleans and Seattle is still sore about having the Sonics pried away from them?

So Bettman gets a pass for keeping the Coyotes in league-owned purgatory but Stern is damned for the Hornets situation?

As to your question, well the obvious answer is that both commissioners are in the wrong in insisting on keeping a team in a market that doesn't want them while more deserving markets remain team-less (and if you're going to continue commenting on the Coyotes-to-Canada talk get it straight, it's Quebec City, no one's serious about moving them to an Ontario locale).

The difference, and why Bettman's transgression is worse, is because on top of putting the Coyotes on league welfare he's also convinced a municipality to cover their losses up to $25 million a year. A city, Glendale, is spending tax money on a team no one wants. Money that should be going to paying for civic services and paying civil servants. The most recent plan to sell the team to an owner committed to keeping the team in Arizona involved the city spending more tax money to pay the potential owner to take the team. They were going to pay him more then he was going to pay to get the team in the first place. It's the most absurd form of a government handout to a corporation most of us have ever seen. For all that Stern is doing wrong with the Hornets in New Orleans he isn't insisting the city help foot the bill with tax dollars, as far as I know. On top of that the Coyotes play in a half-foreclosed strip mall, making Bettman's insistence on keeping them in the greater Phoenix area that much more absurd.

As for Seattle losing the Sonics? Under Bettman Winnipeg lost the Jets, Quebec City lost the Nordiques, Hartford lost the Whalers, and Minnesota lost the North Stars. Most of these teams left for unproven markets, and expansion teams were granted to more unproven markets while loyal hockey fans were dicked around for over a decade and a half. The expansion/relocations that failed have failed badly, yet the league under Bettman continues to keep teams where they don't draw while actual fans in real hockey markets (both in Canada and the United States) are left without teams.

I'm not saying Stern's perfect, far from it. He just hasn't mismanaged his league to the extent Bettman has.

Oh, and we can't forget about the new ball fiasco, can we?

Under Bettman we had the initial Reebok Edge rollout (if you keep bringing up the new ball and standardized Super Bowl logos then the Edge stuff has to count too), the abolition of traditional conference and division names, and an attempt to replace the NHL logo with an NBA-style logo during his early years. Oh, and he floated a plan to try and re-name the league's trophies clamming no one knew they were named after. Sorry Gary, hockey fans know who they're named after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Post

I agree so much anout the QB being allowed to knee the ball to win the game. It takes the excitement away, IMO.

And your NBA post gave me an idea. What if 3 pointers counted in every quarter besides the 4th? That would (hopefully) stop the insult that the NBA only matters in the last 2 minutes, and the 4th quarter would be more competitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baseball:

[*]Expanding the playoffs (starting next year)...MLB was just hanging onto being the one sport in which making the postseason was special. That's going away.

Really? I feel it can only improve the sport. Why would people prefer to see the same teams every year make it? Expanding the playoffs is the first step to fixing baseball. Next, put in a salary cap and floor, and boom, you have a competitive league where anything is possible. Not a sports equivalent of the occupy movement with four teams getting all the talent and wins.

Maybe its the frustrated Pirates fan in me talking, but expanding the playoffs and making the league more openly competitive can only improve it as far as I am concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This:

Only the NFL can make the simple act of catching a football a complex affair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baseball:

  • Expanding the playoffs (starting next year)...MLB was just hanging onto being the one sport in which making the postseason was special. That's going away.

This X 1,000,000,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baseball:

[*]Expanding the playoffs (starting next year)...MLB was just hanging onto being the one sport in which making the postseason was special. That's going away.

Really? I feel it can only improve the sport. Why would people prefer to see the same teams every year make it? Expanding the playoffs is the first step to fixing baseball. Next, put in a salary cap and floor, and boom, you have a competitive league where anything is possible. Not a sports equivalent of the occupy movement with four teams getting all the talent and wins.

Maybe its the frustrated Pirates fan in me talking, but expanding the playoffs and making the league more openly competitive can only improve it as far as I am concerned.

You have it backwards. MLB needs to instal a salary cap and floor first, and then there will be more diverse playoff competition. Expanding the playoffs is a way of avoiding those caps and it ruins the exclusivity and cheapens the playoffs. I don't ever want MLB to be like NBA, where half the teams make it to the playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baseball:

[*]Expanding the playoffs (starting next year)...MLB was just hanging onto being the one sport in which making the postseason was special. That's going away.

Really? I feel it can only improve the sport. Why would people prefer to see the same teams every year make it? Expanding the playoffs is the first step to fixing baseball. Next, put in a salary cap and floor, and boom, you have a competitive league where anything is possible. Not a sports equivalent of the occupy movement with four teams getting all the talent and wins.

Maybe its the frustrated Pirates fan in me talking, but expanding the playoffs and making the league more openly competitive can only improve it as far as I am concerned.

You have it backwards. MLB needs to instal a salary cap and floor first, and then there will be more diverse playoff competition. Expanding the playoffs is a way of avoiding those caps and it ruins the exclusivity and cheapens the playoffs. I don't ever want MLB to be like NBA, where half the teams make it to the playoffs.

Yes, well my point is, if you bring in both, then you're golden. And ten teams is enough for baseball, no more than that, so it wouldn't be half the league, just the top third.

You'll still have perennial favorites, yes, but there'd be a changing of the guard every now and then and most teams having a shot every year, like every other sport. Baseball is too exclusive and, for lack of a better term, elitist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say the only reason people hate Bettman so much is because he doesn't have half the league located in Canada.

If there's any over-generalizing going on here, it's this comment. No one wants half the league (15 teams) in Canada. Now that Winnipeg's back, and on solid financial footing, people want to see a team in Quebec City. That's all. Eight teams in Canada, around a quarter of the league, is the preferred number.

No one's calling for teams in Prince Albert, Churchill, Yellowknife, and Saskatoon.

Yeah it was just an exaggetation. I do believe the failing teams need to be moved (minus the Jakcets or else I lose hockey), and if Canada can help those teams out by all means. I just want to see what'll happen once the honeymoon period is over for these mediocre teams if they move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've long said that if "team location" is your biggest negative, then you've gotta be doing a great job with being commissioner. If your biggest beef about Bettman is that there's a hockey team in Phoenix, you've got to be happy about the NHL's general state of affairs.

Or, you know, trying to eliminate hitting and fighting as well as getting players to wear hard plastic equipment which only causes more injuries. And what Ice_Cap has mentioned above.

The only real knock on Bettman I've heard is "he's keeping the NHL in Arizona. Let the team die already so we can have yet another NHL franchise in Ontario". Geographic diversity is a good thing. Expanding the sport leads to more viewer interest, at least in theory. You can't blame Bettman for trying, even if he has been more than a bit stubborn about it.

Obviously you don't know very many hockey fans.

That is the worst excuse for making stupid decisions I have ever heard. NHL BREAKING NEWS: Gary Bettman moves Leafs to Hawaii, eliminates sticks, and removes goalies from the league. "At least he's trying", one writer said.

The teams in the so called non-hockey markets (ATL, PHO, DAL, FLA, etc) have all been grossly mismanaged and underperforming. Fans don't go to watch losers or mediocre teams for extended periods of time, plain and simple. Just look at the NBA's relatively piss poor attendance numbers to find that out. Even the NFL and MLB don't fill to capacity if the management and team suck. That's just sports.

199.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The teams in the so called non-hockey markets (ATL, PHO, DAL, FLA, etc) have all been grossly mismanaged and underperforming.

Florida's in first in their division and Tampa Bay nearly made it to the finals last year. Dallas has won a title and been fairly consistently in the playoffs over the last 11 years. The Thrashers situation can be summed up in one word: Atlanta. The Kings and Ducks both made the playoffs last season and despite Anaheim's poor 2011/12 they've also recently won a cup. The Sharks have been perennial title contenders for as long as I can remember, despite never having won.

And for all Phoenix's faults and poor play, this is not accurate to "hockey can never succeed in an atypical hockey market."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say the only reason people hate Bettman so much is because he doesn't have half the league located in Canada.

If there's any over-generalizing going on here, it's this comment. No one wants half the league (15 teams) in Canada. Now that Winnipeg's back, and on solid financial footing, people want to see a team in Quebec City. That's all. Eight teams in Canada, around a quarter of the league, is the preferred number.

No one's calling for teams in Prince Albert, Churchill, Yellowknife, and Saskatoon.

Yeah it was just an exaggetation. I do believe the failing teams need to be moved (minus the Jakcets or else I lose hockey), and if Canada can help those teams out by all means. I just want to see what'll happen once the honeymoon period is over for these mediocre teams if they move.

Fans will still be filling the arena every night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Don Garber is the only one of the five major leagues' commissioners that isn't seen in a really negative light.

You have to be recognized before you can be applauded or booed. Most look at Garber and go "Who's the guy in the nice suit?" :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say the only reason people hate Bettman so much is because he doesn't have half the league located in Canada.

If there's any over-generalizing going on here, it's this comment. No one wants half the league (15 teams) in Canada. Now that Winnipeg's back, and on solid financial footing, people want to see a team in Quebec City. That's all. Eight teams in Canada, around a quarter of the league, is the preferred number.

No one's calling for teams in Prince Albert, Churchill, Yellowknife, and Saskatoon.

Yeah it was just an exaggetation. I do believe the failing teams need to be moved (minus the Jakcets or else I lose hockey), and if Canada can help those teams out by all means. I just want to see what'll happen once the honeymoon period is over for these mediocre teams if they move.

Florida's leading their division, and they still tarp off the upper bowl. Phoenix has been a contender for three years now and they still draw poorly. Dallas leads their division and has a Stanley Cup Championship and yet they're having attendance issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.