I think the most interesting part of that article was the information that Buck and Aikman are doing the Giants-Seahawks game. That must mean Week 9 is chock full of lousy NFC games.

tkihshbt wrote:

I think the most interesting part of that article was the information that Buck and Aikman are doing the Giants-Seahawks game. That must mean Week 9 is chock full of lousy NFC games.

There aren't many good games, period. The only three with both teams with winning records are Bucs/Falcons, Dolphins/Ratbirds, and Colts/Eagles. Not a lot of households names on five of those six squads.

I dont think Baseball vs football is a fair comparison.  One has 16 games and the other has 162.

I don't mind games on TBS as long as Dave Campbell is helping call them.

tkihshbt wrote:

I don't mind games on TBS as long as Dave Campbell is helping call them.

I like Dave Campbell too.

tkihshbt wrote:

Can we go back to two divisions and scrap the hell out of this wild card thing? Except for when the Cardinals are playing, nobody has the same excitement for the World Series because the playoffs have been going on for three weeks. We can keep the first week of April and we can keep the 162 games if we go back to two divisions, zero wildcards and have this thing done by Oct. 16.

TK, I agree with you more and more these days.  I guess I've become more educable.  The other night on MLB the group was talking about what a great idea that it would be to add another wild card and how the "purists" now see that they were wrong when they originally opposed the wild card.  I guess I never was a purist because I hated the idea from the start and haven't changed my mind at all.

If they want to keep a wider fan base, I think the solution Max and I agreed on a while back would be a lot better for the fans (though not for MLB fortunes) and would keep more teams worth watching.  Return to the June 15 trade deadline and enforce it ruthlessly.  Then disqualify any team from revenue sharing that doesn't attract a certain number of fans over a two year period.

It would also be nice if all of us outside of Phillie, New York, and Boston could conspire not to watch any postseason games that include the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, or Mets.  If they don't want to watch us, why should we watch them?

APRTW wrote:

Getting baseball over before footabll season gets hot and heavy would increase WS ratings, IMO.

It would help tremendously in this part of the country.  Once SEC teams start showing up for fall practice, baseball becomes the stealth sport.  The problem for me is that football starts way to early these days and lasts way too long.  And I felt that way even when I was still interested in football.

When I was in Junior high and high school, the state athletic association strictly enforced a rule that the coaches could not come anywhere near us until August 20, when we would begin two-a-day practices.  School started on the 2d or 3d week in September but there was no air conditioning.  The heat on the field was almost unbearable even then and most of us weren't carrying near as much weight in proportion to our frames as these guys do.  It makes me nauseated to even think about playing football at the time seasons begin now.

My second or third year in college, Arkansas and Ole Miss played a game in Memphis in 100 degree heat and that was almost the only thing anyone who attended talked about, especially in Fayetteville since Ole Miss beat the crap out of us.  That game would have been near the end of September.  This past September it was near 100 almost everyday and the teams had been playing for more than a month.

When it comes to greed, Goldman Sachs has nothing on our college administrators.

Last edited by Mags (11/05/2010 10:28 pm)

Mags wrote:

If they want to keep a wider fan base, I think the solution Max and I agreed on a while back would be a lot better for the fans (though not for MLB fortunes) and would keep more teams worth watching.  Return to the June 15 trade deadline and enforce it ruthlessly.  Then disqualify any team from revenue sharing that doesn't attract a certain number of fans over a two year period.

I like this idea a lot, BTW.

APRTW wrote:

Mags wrote:

APRTW wrote:

Getting baseball over before footabll season gets hot and heavy would increase WS ratings, IMO.

It would help tremendously in this part of the country.  Once SEC teams start showing up for fall practice, baseball becomes the stealth sport.  The problem for me is that football starts way to early these days and lasts way too long.  And I felt that way even when I was still interested in football.

I think every sport last to long.  The Super bowl is a part not a sporting event.

It didn't really hit me until the team in which I had a rooting interest made the Super Bowl again after a 20-year layoff. In that time the Super Bowl went from a game to an event. And I don't mean that it in a good way. I stopped going to Super Bowl parties a long time ago. Listening to people talk over the game and then go silent when the commercials came on was almost offensive behavior.

APRTW wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

It didn't really hit me until the team in which I had a rooting interest made the Super Bowl again after a 20-year layoff. In that time the Super Bowl went from a game to an event. And I don't mean that it in a good way. I stopped going to Super Bowl parties a long time ago. Listening to people talk over the game and then go silent when the commercials came on was almost offensive behavior.

I like a good game but I also like an excuse to drink beer and get out of the house.  A bunch of drunk guys doent usually pay to close attention to a game.

It's not just the drunk guys, but the drunk girls in mini-skirts, who never watch football, and just see the event as another party to dress up for, that makes it better to watch alone, or with just a few friends at anything other than a "Super Bowl Party".

APRTW wrote:

Max wrote:

It's not just the drunk guys, but the drunk girls in mini-skirts, who never watch football, and just see the event as another party to dress up for, that makes it better to watch alone, or with just a few friends at anything other than a "Super Bowl Party".

That would make it more appealing not less.  Unfortunatly the super bowl parties I would attend would not have girls in mini skirts.  In Illinois I wont be seeing a mini skirt for 8 months.  The girls at our parties would be my wife and my friends wifes.  They would be likely to bring the party down and are more likely to have kids hanging from there hips instead of skirts.

maybe it's an urban/suburban thing.  believe it or not, the last super bowl party i went to was probably 11-12 years ago and would have been in st. louis.  as long as we are talking 'above the knee', single women can find the mini-skirt to be suitable attire for the most outlandish situations and seasons.

Believe me, it is just as bad when there aren't any minis around.  The women in my crowd all wear blousy pants these days if it's not a formal occasion or on the job.

My wife goes to the bedroom to watch Victim T.V. if I turn on a pro-game in the den (usually to watch a few minutes of P. Manning) during the regular season but she starts talking about having folks over to watch the super bowl right after Christmas.  She has been sorely disappointed the past several years.

I'm sure a lot of my loss of interest in the super bowl came from being a Vikings fan in the 70's and despising the Cowboys and the Raiders.  During the 90's, we had some good friends who always wanted to get with us and another couple for super bowl viewing and I suffered through it with little interest.  We rotated the host role until he retired and they moved back to Paris (Tennessee) and then to Oregon to be with their daughter, son-in-law, and grandchild.  I liked them very much but do view their relocation as an entirely negative development.