Crimson Platypus Posted March 7, 2005 Report Posted March 7, 2005 I just usually pick it up with about 40 games left in the season
The Czech Republic Posted March 7, 2005 Report Posted March 7, 2005 Does everybody I argue with adopt the mallet-head smiley or what?
Guest pinnacleofallthingsmanly Posted March 7, 2005 Report Posted March 7, 2005 But this is a stupid topic. There's no absolute choice. Some of us find different things exciting. Ding! Ding! Ding!
Tawren Posted March 8, 2005 Report Posted March 8, 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... Agreed. Rugby is fast paced, violent, manly, and all things good. Plus, it is pretty easy to understand (in a sense of "get the ball down the field" - some of the rules and such can get confusing). I really wish sports networks would show more of it.
Guest Agent of Oblivion Posted March 8, 2005 Report Posted March 8, 2005 I'd watch the hell out of rugby. I've seen one game of it ever, and the dude went to punt the ball, but intentionally didn't, and kicked some fucker right in the teeth instead.
Your Paragon of Virtue Posted March 8, 2005 Report Posted March 8, 2005 How can you compare a football season to a sprint? I know you're talking about the schedule, but due to how intense the game is and how long they must feel, it's much more of a marathon. A four month season should NOT be referred to as a sprint.
Crimson Platypus Posted March 8, 2005 Report Posted March 8, 2005 No one is comparing a football season to a sprint, the comparison is a football season to a baseball season put in different terms. A is to B as C is to D not A is to C as B is to D Where: A = football season B = Baseball season C = Sprint D = Marathon
Your Paragon of Virtue Posted March 8, 2005 Report Posted March 8, 2005 No one is comparing a football season to a sprint, the comparison is a football season to a baseball season put in different terms. A is to B as C is to D not A is to C as B is to D Where: A = football season B = Baseball season C = Sprint D = Marathon A sprint is not a third as long, and about ten times as physically grueling as a marathon. So I just think it's a poor analogy is all. But who cares? If you want certain things in baseball, fine. I prefer football, a guy like Al *maybe* *probably* would prefer a sport like baseball. I'm sure we use different standards for what we want in an "exciting team sport". That being said, I'm actually glad hockey's gone, because it doesn't clog up my sports coverage. In America you complain about it not getting enough coverage, in Canada I see it waaaay too much. Even now, they cover a league that's not even around way too much, and it is generally one of the top stories every night. WHY?
Crimson Platypus Posted March 8, 2005 Report Posted March 8, 2005 You're missing the point but whatever... I really enjoy going to minor league baseball games. I love baseball, especially live, my ONLY gripe with the MLB is the length of the season. Personally I think that given today's instant gratification society that the MLB would be better off with a shorter season where the payoff isn't so far off.
The Czech Republic Posted March 8, 2005 Report Posted March 8, 2005 Okay fine. Let's tell Budweiser, Fox Sports, Ticketmaster, and everyone else that baseball season should be reduced to 78 games. This will eliminate 42 home games with an average of 1,764,000 tickets per ballpark. This should eliminate 84 games total, and about 250 hours of programming from each local sports affiliate (that with the lack of college sports, NBA, and other stuff, depends on baseball games to fill its schedule), with around 80 of those 250 hours being advertisements from local and national sponsors that are gone. Pitchers, who could, in theory, start 32 games a year, can now only garner 15 starts a year. (I hope Tom Glavine doesn't mind.) And why not carry this over to October? The ALCS that was a ratings monster? Gone. Make way for the American League Championship Game, where everything rides on one pitcher and nine innings. Forget about the drama of the Boston Red Sox coming back from three down to win it in seven. They'll just have to get it in extras, but it'll still be pretty big! Same format for the World Series, which will now be "The Super Bowl Of Baseball." By shortening this schedule, we will effectively halve the potential for families to spend a nice warm summer day outdoors at their park of choice, enjoying baseball; and for players to play the game they love, and to amass their statistics over the same course as their predecessors whom they hope to surpass. But hey, it's gonna be great, because each game is more important.
Your Paragon of Virtue Posted March 8, 2005 Report Posted March 8, 2005 While I think you're a little melodramatic in the paragraph with the families thing, I think you are right. Baseball has to be 162 games, that's just the nature of the sport to be that long. This goes back to each sport being different.
The Czech Republic Posted March 8, 2005 Report Posted March 8, 2005 Yeah stop turning baseball into football. To see the differences in presentation, just go to ESPN Classic and compare NFL Films to This Week In Baseball. (The actual one with Mel Allen not the Fox shit) "On the field, battle lines are drawn. Twenty-two gladiators will endure what no man can ever dream of enduring. Each man with a specific role. A role no other man he serves with can ever fill. The objective is simple." blah blah blah "Those Houston Astros were lookin' mighty fine in St. Louis this week! Sure doesn't look like old Whitey Herzog was too happy about that error in right field!"
nl5xsk1 Posted March 9, 2005 Report Posted March 9, 2005 A sprint is not a third as long, and about ten times as physically grueling as a marathon. So I just think it's a poor analogy is all. I like the fact that you're ignoring the reasoning that I used to compare football to a sprint, Paragon. I'll quote myself: 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. Please note that I didn't reference how grueling the two were or anything comparable. My whole point is to DEFEND football. Sorry you don't dig my analogy.
Red Baron Posted March 9, 2005 Report Posted March 9, 2005 That being said, I'm actually glad hockey's gone, because it doesn't clog up my sports coverage. In America you complain about it not getting enough coverage, in Canada I see it waaaay too much. Even now, they cover a league that's not even around way too much, and it is generally one of the top stories every night. WHY? What about the college sports, little world series, and all those farm teams for baseball, get more coverage than hockey. And a league that's not even around way too much? Whats that, the AHL, OHL, QMJHL, WHL???
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now