Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2005 I'd argue that it's the former. Kind of hard to be popular without being shown yes? Just look at the way ESPN hypes upcoming basketball, football, and baseball games on other programs. They didn't do that nearly enough when they were showing the NHL and as a result, hockey wasn't popular due to lack of press. ESPN's trying to reach has wide an audience, and honestly hockey just doesn't have the nationwide popularity the other sports do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
King Cucaracha 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2005 Get two good teams against each other, and if everyone plays to their potential, it will be an exciting game to watch. I don't care what sport it is... Even with soccer? I find that hard to believe. -=Mike Obviously not in American soccer, because it's lightyears behind European and South American soccer in terms of talent and certainly in terms of fan passion. American soccer bores me to tears. In England, it's a lot different. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nl5xsk1 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2005 I'd argue that it's the former. Kind of hard to be popular without being shown yes? Just look at the way ESPN hypes upcoming basketball, football, and baseball games on other programs. They didn't do that nearly enough when they were showing the NHL and as a result, hockey wasn't popular due to lack of press. ESPN's trying to reach has wide an audience, and honestly hockey just doesn't have the nationwide popularity the other sports do. But what about a sport like poker, which really wasn't that popular until ESPN pushed it to the moon? Then, once it got more popular they had a legitimate reason to keep hyping it. But it was their press-machine that made it as popular as it was. Another example is the X-games ... shoved down people's throats until the point that they believe that they actually like it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crimson Platypus 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2005 I'd argue that it's the former. Kind of hard to be popular without being shown yes? Just look at the way ESPN hypes upcoming basketball, football, and baseball games on other programs. They didn't do that nearly enough when they were showing the NHL and as a result, hockey wasn't popular due to lack of press. ESPN's trying to reach has wide an audience, and honestly hockey just doesn't have the nationwide popularity the other sports do. But what about a sport like poker, which really wasn't that popular until ESPN pushed it to the moon? Then, once it got more popular they had a legitimate reason to keep hyping it. But it was their press-machine that made it as popular as it was. Another example is the X-games ... shoved down people's throats until the point that they believe that they actually like it. Poker is not a sport, it's a game. Far more time stopping in regards to time outs, challenges, and penalties. In hockey, the referee doesn't get a camera on his mug so he can explain the penalty. Actually this is one thing that hockey (NHL) needs to change. I think that part of the problem that hockey has is that (most) Americans simply don't understand the game well enough to get the same kind of enjoyment they do from say Football, where each penalty is explained by the refs (and then the announcers). If they had the refs miked so that when a penalty is called the home viewers (and people in the audience) could find out what the penalty is, and then the announcers (for the viewing audience) explained what was called, and why - with replays to demonstrate it, people would learn more about the game and understand it more. I also think that hockey is the most exciting game to see LIVE. There is SO much going on in hockey that television just can't catch it all. Unlike football where there is time for tons of replays with all the stoppages and commercials. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slayer 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2005 While hockey isn't top on my list of favorite sports, I will have to admit that few things in sports are as exciting to me as an OT hockey playoff game, where there's no stupid tie (or regulation tie, ugh) result, you have to score to win, and it doesn't matter if it takes an extra 5 periods to do so. Baseball is great because there's no "rigid" scoring system. If the bases are loaded, depending on where (or if) he hits the ball, anywhere for 0-4 runs can come in. Football is football. I can't say why, but I just enjoy it. Basketball I can take or leave with the exception of the Final 4 tournament. Even soccer has been an enjoyable watch in the past on occasion for me, but only when it's European soccer/World Cup and when viewed in the company of foreign exchange student friends of mine. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crimson Platypus 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2005 Also as far as football goes 16 games > 62 > 82 > 19658 game seasons Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChris 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2005 But what about a sport like poker, which really wasn't that popular until ESPN pushed it to the moon? Then, once it got more popular they had a legitimate reason to keep hyping it. But it was their press-machine that made it as popular as it was. Poker wasn't popular because there was no way to watch it without falling asleep, because no one knew what cards the players had unless there was a showdown. the reason poker is so popular now is because of the cameras that let you see the hole cards -- which was pioneered in England, and brought over to the World Poker Tour on the Travel Channel. The WPT created the poker boom long before ESPN decided to get involved, despite what they'd like you to believe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Agent of Oblivion Report post Posted March 7, 2005 I only like Hockey when it's a minor league game, and I'm actually there, because there's usually a good scrap. Since this is totally subjective, I'll go out on a limb and say a great boxing match is more exciting than any team sport. Morales vs. Pacquiao is this month..watch that one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2005 Also as far as football goes 16 games > 62 > 82 > 19658 game seasons Yeah. There's nothing better than a sport where, due to work constraints, I get to see three games a year. And two of those are because the Eagles are popular enough to get on Monday Night Football. Baseball is on every night for six months. I can decide two hours before a game to go out and catch a minor league Red Barons game, drive up and buy a good ticket, just like going to the movies. No other sport gives you that kind of freedom. If you don't like 162 game seasons, you don't have to watch every game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Agent of Oblivion Report post Posted March 7, 2005 Right, but the argument he's making is that 162 games reduces the meaning of each individual game. With say college football, you lose once and you're in trouble. Twice and you're screwed. That thin line between success and failure makes for a lot riding on the outcome every single time one tunes into a game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slayer 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2005 There's nothing better than a sport where, due to work constraints, I get to see three games a year. New job, bucko Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crimson Platypus 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2005 There's nothing better than a sport where, due to work constraints, I get to see three games a year. New job, bucko I haven't worked a Sunday in 5 years and I don't plan on doing so anytime soon. Right, but the argument he's making is that 162 games reduces the meaning of each individual game. With say college football, you lose once and you're in trouble. Twice and you're screwed. That thin line between success and failure makes for a lot riding on the outcome every single time one tunes into a game. Exactly. A 10 game losing streak in baseball is quite easily overcome. A 5 game losing streak in football is a disaster. If MLB cut their season in half, 81 games, it would easily double my interest. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ripper 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2005 I challenge any person that believes that Basketball isn't a wear on your body, physcially banging game, to take that ass to the paint and try to get position in the post or go for a rebound or take a pick. All these things happen every play of the game. and that shit hurts. I am sorry but at least you get padded up in Hockey. There is a reason Yao Ming is clutching his chest and sucking air when he comes up court after about 3 plays. Basketball isn't finesse people. You are just looking at the wrong part of the screen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ripper 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2005 Since this is totally subjective, I'll go out on a limb and say a great boxing match is more exciting than any team sport. agreed!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Agent of Oblivion Report post Posted March 7, 2005 The only thing I could ever do with basketball is box out, rebound, and play rough in the frontcourt. Ripper is correct about basketball being physical. There's probably more running involved in it than any other sport, except maybe running. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChris 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2005 If you want a good workout sometime, try reffing a basketball game, especially if it's a two-referee crew. The refs do more running in an average game than the players. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2005 If MLB cut their season in half, 81 games, it would easily double my interest. What is it with you people? If you guys ran leagues, regular seasons would be decided by one and only one game. That way, it couldn't possibly be unimportant! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nl5xsk1 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2005 I challenge any person that believes that Basketball isn't a wear on your body, physcially banging game, to take that ass to the paint and try to get position in the post or go for a rebound or take a pick. All these things happen every play of the game. and that shit hurts. I am sorry but at least you get padded up in Hockey. There is a reason Yao Ming is clutching his chest and sucking air when he comes up court after about 3 plays. Basketball isn't finesse people. You are just looking at the wrong part of the screen. Yes, there is most definitely contact in hoops. But to say that there's at least padding in hockey sells short the level of impact in that game. Tell Eric Lindros and his collection of concussions that he's got enough padding. Tell Paul Kariya that after he gets knocked unconscious due to a Scott Stevens hit. I'm not one of the ones that says that basketball is contact-free. But I am one that says that there's less contact than in hockey. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crimson Platypus 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2005 If MLB cut their season in half, 81 games, it would easily double my interest. What is it with you people? If you guys ran leagues, regular seasons would be decided by one and only one game. That way, it couldn't possibly be unimportant! "You people"? I fear that I am but one humble platypus and in no way am a representative of the platypi race as a whole. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2005 No, lots of people on this board: "The NHL should only play 70 games so that they're more important" "The NBA season is too long. It should be like 60 games so they're more important" "They don't need 162 games! Maybe if they just played 120, they'd be more important" Especially with hockey, does anyone understand the financial ramifications of taking home games off the calendar? The gate has always been most important to a team's revenue in the NHL. Christ, baseball is in a renaissance, attendance is on the rise, and you want to eliminate potential ticket sales and take games off TV schedules and eliminate advertisement revenue. Baseball is not meant to be a Timeless Battle Of Life And Death like football is made to be. The random nature of baseball warrants a long schedule. Shit happens, you drop one game of a four-game series, oh well, you go out the next day and win. I like that in baseball you can't have one single play sink the team in one fell swoop like football. I mean, that's usually not how life is. Here's an idea, how about they don't play any games at all and determine standings based on ESPN Talking Head verbal blowjobs. Would that solve the problem of "needless games"? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crimson Platypus 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2005 Ah my post was 96% sarcasm... I don't give a shit what ESPN says about anything TCR. What I am saying is that with a 162 game season, at least 1/2 of those games mean just about nothing. I'm not saying that if you took away 1/2 of the games from last season (say for example, the first half of the season) it wouldn't completely change the playoff picture. What I'm saying is that in football everyone goes 100% 100% of the time, for two reasons really 1. If you are dogging it in football you will get hurt. 2. Every game counts. If a left fielder decides to lollygag it during the 46th game of the season, so what? You can't tell me that people don't just laze their way through games sometimes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crimson Platypus 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2005 Oh and as far as the financial arguement goes, 1/2 the games = 2x the ticket price. Baseball is very reasonable as far as pro sporting events go. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2005 Yeha double the tickets for games at Wrigley Field and Fenway Park. You've got your thinking cap on Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crimson Platypus 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2005 I'd pay it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2005 What I am saying is that with a 162 game season, at least 1/2 of those games mean just about nothing. I'm not saying that if you took away 1/2 of the games from last season (say for example, the first half of the season) it wouldn't completely change the playoff picture. What I'm saying is that in football everyone goes 100% 100% of the time, for two reasons really 1. If you are dogging it in football you will get hurt. 2. Every game counts. If a left fielder decides to lollygag it during the 46th game of the season, so what? You can't tell me that people don't just laze their way through games sometimes. How many days of your life are a matter of life and death in which every single decision you make is crucial and can have a meaningful and long-lasting impact for the rest of your year? Not that many, unless you operate a nuclear reactor or something. By and large, people have bad days, and it's really not supposed to be that big of a deal. If a left fielder is dogging it one day, that's fine. You can't give 100% for 162 days from April to October or you'll never make it. It's about stamina and endurance over the course of a whole season, not short bursts of energy over 17 weeks. It's the sprint vs. the mile. Both are impressive but entirely different beasts. Take that into consideration. Baseball's just not meant to be like football. You have a bad day, you go out and have a good day to balance it out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Angel_Grace_Blue 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2005 Just wanted to say that rugby (Union, that is. I don't know much, if any, about league), can be fast-paced and exciting, especially if the teams have a strong group of backs. Nothing wrong with a good set of forwards, but sometimes, the rolling mauls get to be a bit much. And of course, very limited play stoppage, and usually for not very long. Now, if only the US could field a half-decent team... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the max 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2005 Baseball games in May and June may not seem like they matter, but when a team loses a pennant by four games, and it's traced back to a losing streak that they had in May/June, it becomes that much more important. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nl5xsk1 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2005 To compare a baseball season to a football season is to compare a marathon to a sprint. Marathon: you get a bad start or lose your footing, you still have a chance of winning. Sprint: you get a bad start or lose your footing, you've not no chance. Baseball: you get off to a shitty start to your season or have a losing streak in the middle, you still have a chance of winning. Football: you get off to a shitty start or have a losing streak in the middle, you've got little-to-no chance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crimson Platypus 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2005 To compare a baseball season to a football season is to compare a marathon to a sprint. Marathon: you get a bad start or lose your footing, you still have a chance of winning. Sprint: you get a bad start or lose your footing, you've not no chance. Baseball: you get off to a shitty start to your season or have a losing streak in the middle, you still have a chance of winning. Football: you get off to a shitty start or have a losing streak in the middle, you've got little-to-no chance. Personally I'd rather watch a sprint every single time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2005 Then I suggest that you don't follow baseball. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
