The Czech Republic Posted November 8, 2004 Report Posted November 8, 2004 Things to consider: No Fun League No Montreal Expos No High Schoolers No Professional Hockey
KanadianKrusty Posted November 8, 2004 Report Posted November 8, 2004 I voted for Selig since no hockey is more of a benefit than anything else.
Angel_Grace_Blue Posted November 8, 2004 Report Posted November 8, 2004 I haven't voted, but is it just me, or does Selig look a little like Stephen Hawking? I'm not saying "Wow, seperated at birth!" or anything, but like one could impersonate the other, kinda. Or at least resemble an impersonator.
Guest Anglesault Posted November 8, 2004 Report Posted November 8, 2004 Selig may be the worst thing to ever happen to professional sports.
alfdogg Posted November 8, 2004 Report Posted November 8, 2004 Things to consider: No Fun League No Montreal Expos No High Schoolers No Professional Hockey Don't forget "No Pete Rose in the Hall" That Stern is the best of this bunch doesn't really speak well.
starvenger Posted November 8, 2004 Report Posted November 8, 2004 Bettman's a min-Stern wannabe, but Selig set the standard for incompetence marred by periods of brilliance (I'll get back to you on the brilliance part).
Guest Vitamin X Posted November 8, 2004 Report Posted November 8, 2004 I think Selig sets the standard here. I professionally don't like baseball and couldn't see myself getting into it until it would become similar to the old NES game Basewars, but the lack of a salary cap and how some teams (I could be looking at David Stern for this as well) are purposely bad solely for the purpose of turning a profit and being extremely cheap as in the case of the Expos, Twins, and in the NBA, the Clippers and Wizards. I think it's changed a little in the Clips' and Wizards' case, but baseball still reigns supreme in corruption.
Guest Smell the ratings!!! Posted November 8, 2004 Report Posted November 8, 2004 this is truly a horrible list to choose from
Guest Salacious Crumb Posted November 8, 2004 Report Posted November 8, 2004 It has to be Selig. Every attempt he's made to cut down on team spending has only lead to it increasing. He should be fired for allowing the Yankees to get so out of control with their spending. And he wins solely for the fact that he threatens cities with moving a team if they don't foot the bill for a new stadium. And he's also the worst for his obvious bias against the Oakland A's and for what he did to the Expos for the last few seasons.
Slayer Posted November 8, 2004 Report Posted November 8, 2004 Tags is the least offensive of the group. In spite of the rules and actions that give credence to the "No Fun League" title, the NFL is still the most entertaining of the Big 4, IMO I don't give a fuck about basketball or hockey, though I've never heard of any huge problems with Stern. Selig wins.
the max Posted November 8, 2004 Report Posted November 8, 2004 Let's see, there's still baseball, basketball and football in the United States. The way Bettman's going...there won't be any hockey. Bettman gets my vote.
DerangedHermit Posted November 9, 2004 Report Posted November 9, 2004 Bettman's killing a sport, while Selig's merely raping one. Bettman.
razazteca Posted November 9, 2004 Report Posted November 9, 2004 Hockey is going out of business just like Women's Soccer.
CanadianChris Posted November 9, 2004 Report Posted November 9, 2004 What, I need to choose??? | | | v Eh, I'll say Bettman. Really no redeeming qualities.
Guest Rrrsh Posted November 10, 2004 Report Posted November 10, 2004 Bettman easy. The best single way to find out who has made their sport better or worse in teh eyes of teh business world and by the fans is the National TV contract they had when they started as commich compared to now. Bettman wins in a landslide.
Guest fanofcoils Posted November 10, 2004 Report Posted November 10, 2004 I voted for Stern only because he always seems alright but with his latest quote on tighter officiating and don't ever criticize the refs.
Kahran Ramsus Posted November 10, 2004 Report Posted November 10, 2004 It is obviously between Bettman & Selig. I voted Selig because at least Bettman is man enough to go through with what he thinks is best for the sport. Selig is just a spineless slug.
The Czech Republic Posted November 10, 2004 Author Report Posted November 10, 2004 It is obviously between Bettman & Selig. I voted Selig because at least Bettman is man enough to go through with what he thinks is best for the sport. Selig is just a spineless slug. But Bettman is so categorically WRONG.
lomasmoney Posted November 10, 2004 Report Posted November 10, 2004 Does Bettman even know how to skate. Or the reason why the 1919 Stanley Cup Finals didn't happen or anything at all about the history of hockey because he seems to take a bigger shit on it every day. The biggest mistake in the history of the NHL was giving this ass the commish job. Why they haven't fired him, changed the names back of the conferences, and got rid of like 8 teams I will never understand
The Czech Republic Posted November 10, 2004 Author Report Posted November 10, 2004 In his first year on the job he called the morning skate a "skatearound." whoops
Guest Leena Posted November 11, 2004 Report Posted November 11, 2004 Stern is easily the best. Tagliabue hasn't done anything noticeably stupid. It's easily Bettman, though. The guy knows nothing about hockey, and hockey has died a terrible death in his hands.
MarvinisaLunatic Posted November 11, 2004 Report Posted November 11, 2004 I think all the expansion that Bettman allowed over the last what, 10 years, mostly in places that could care less about hockey is a pretty good reason why hes the worst.
Guest MikeSC Posted November 11, 2004 Report Posted November 11, 2004 Stern is taking a league that was once entertaining and is overseeing it becoming a total bore. Bettman took a sport with virtually no following in the states and tried to make it work. He failed. I imagine you can add the France family (heads of NASCAR) to this list in about 5 years, when the "Driving around in circles = cool" fad comes to a glorious halt. -=Mike
Guest Leena Posted November 11, 2004 Report Posted November 11, 2004 I've never understood the love for Nascar... I guess it's the same as baseball... the entire point is to get drunk as possible, so you don't realize how boring it is.
Guest MikeSC Posted November 11, 2004 Report Posted November 11, 2004 I've never understood the love for Nascar... I guess it's the same as baseball... the entire point is to get drunk as possible, so you don't realize how boring it is. I don't get how it became a fad --- I'm a proud Southerner and that is too damned redneck for my tastes. How anybody can sit in the stands for several hours watching cars travel in circles is lost on me. -=Mike
MarvinisaLunatic Posted November 11, 2004 Report Posted November 11, 2004 I imagine you can add the France family (heads of NASCAR) to this list in about 5 years, when the "Driving around in circles = cool" fad comes to a glorious halt. -=Mike Well, considering that NASCAR races get better ratings than every sports besides football, I don't know about that. Although they have been bit with the EXPANSION NOW bug to the point where there are probably too many (36) races and they've done away with a lot of the unique tracks in favor of the homogenous 2 mile superspeedways that can pack 150-200,000 fans in. But at least they can fill those seats every weekend and theres still talk of building tracks in other places (New York, Washington St, as well as Mexico and Canada).
Agent_Bond34 Posted November 11, 2004 Report Posted November 11, 2004 I guess it's the same as baseball... the entire point is to get drunk as possible, so you don't realize how boring it is. So, that's what it would take to enjoy a baseball game? Anyhow, I voted for Bettman, for reasons already listed in this thread.
Guest MikeSC Posted November 11, 2004 Report Posted November 11, 2004 I imagine you can add the France family (heads of NASCAR) to this list in about 5 years, when the "Driving around in circles = cool" fad comes to a glorious halt. -=Mike Well, considering that NASCAR races get better ratings than every sports besides football, I don't know about that. Although they have been bit with the EXPANSION NOW bug to the point where there are probably too many (36) races and they've done away with a lot of the unique tracks in favor of the homogenous 2 mile superspeedways that can pack 150-200,000 fans in. But at least they can fill those seats every weekend and theres still talk of building tracks in other places (New York, Washington St, as well as Mexico and Canada). Unfortunately, they've abandoned their homebase and this just doesn't reek of something that will last. -=Mike ...How in the can anybody WATCH it?
MarvinisaLunatic Posted November 11, 2004 Report Posted November 11, 2004 I imagine you can add the France family (heads of NASCAR) to this list in about 5 years, when the "Driving around in circles = cool" fad comes to a glorious halt. -=Mike Well, considering that NASCAR races get better ratings than every sports besides football, I don't know about that. Although they have been bit with the EXPANSION NOW bug to the point where there are probably too many (36) races and they've done away with a lot of the unique tracks in favor of the homogenous 2 mile superspeedways that can pack 150-200,000 fans in. But at least they can fill those seats every weekend and theres still talk of building tracks in other places (New York, Washington St, as well as Mexico and Canada). Unfortunately, they've abandoned their homebase and this just doesn't reek of something that will last. -=Mike ...How in the can anybody WATCH it? Its lasted almost 50 years without the fanbase being expanded into bigger markets outside of the south (or their homebase). And they haven't abandoned the south at all since a vast majority of the races are still held in the south (and most of the Drivers still live in and around Charlotte..) As for how can anyone watch it?...I would say that a 3 hour race has more action in it than any other sport, but of course thats just my opinion.
The Czech Republic Posted November 11, 2004 Author Report Posted November 11, 2004 Bettman took a sport with virtually no following in the states and tried to make it work. He failed. It had followings in the Midwest and Northeast, with islands of interest like St. Louis. They could've parlayed that into scaled-down success but chose to make the same cities we always mention into "hockey hotbeds" and failed on a large scale.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now