- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 7/25/16 at 2:38 pm to WallEazyE
quote:
It's more about the travel days.
you're right...this must be exhausting
This post was edited on 7/25/16 at 2:39 pm
Posted on 7/25/16 at 2:39 pm to barry
quote:
Its 8 off days through a season, it makes a big difference when they play 7-9 game stretches at a time. Its not to shorten the season, its to provide more rest to the players.
I mean I get it, but it doesn't make a significant difference whatsoever. So instead of 162 games in 180 days, or .90 games/day, you've got 154 games in 180 days, or .86 games/day.
It would do nothing of note IMO, so I'm not really for or against it, although I guess you can argue it is a step in the right direction.
Posted on 7/25/16 at 2:41 pm to Epic Cajun
quote:
They should consider cutting the season by 162 games.
You know you can change the channel right?
Posted on 7/25/16 at 2:50 pm to vidtiger23
They should do double headers every other Saturday. That would add a roster spot for every team twice a month. The union should go for that, it gets more people in the union.
Posted on 7/25/16 at 3:32 pm to slackster
quote:
I mean I get it, but it doesn't make a significant difference whatsoever.
Tell us how many major league seasons have you played?
Posted on 7/25/16 at 3:40 pm to tccdc
quote:
Most morons will not realize that the 154 games schedule had been around longe
only by 2 seasons
154 was used from 1904-1918, and 1920-1961 (57 seasons)
162- 1962 to present (55 seasons)
Posted on 7/25/16 at 3:50 pm to rondo
quote:
you're right...this must be exhausting
You seem really educated on this subject
Posted on 7/25/16 at 3:55 pm to barry
There is some truth to it. If XYZ is the official ____ of MLB, and the length of the season doesn't change, would XYZ start paying less to to be the official sponsor? ESPN would still have the same number of Monday night games, Tuesday night Games, Sunday night games, etc. ESPN wouldn't pay less for their broadcast rights.
The question would be, what percentage of revenue is derived from ticket sales, concessions, and local broadcast rights? A team would have 4 less home games. We know those extra days off wouldn't fall on a weekend. Assuming 30,000 fans spend $50 each, that's a loss of $6M per team in gross revenue.
The question would be, what percentage of revenue is derived from ticket sales, concessions, and local broadcast rights? A team would have 4 less home games. We know those extra days off wouldn't fall on a weekend. Assuming 30,000 fans spend $50 each, that's a loss of $6M per team in gross revenue.
Posted on 7/25/16 at 4:00 pm to barry
quote:
Tell us how many major league seasons have you played?
I'm not sure why you're so sensitive about it, but what is the significant difference? Hardly anyone plays the full 162 games anymore in the first place.
If you've got 182 days to play 154 games, with a 4 day break for the all star game, you're still going to play 7-8 straight days, on average. Under the current set up you're playing 10-11 straight days. You can argue that is significantly different I guess, but are you really any better off on your 7th straight game than you are on your 10th straight game?
My point is that it isn't a significant change to the game as it stands right now. I don't know what you're trying to argue.
Posted on 7/25/16 at 4:04 pm to slackster
quote:
but what is the significant difference? Hardly anyone plays the full 162 games anymore in the first place.
The Rangers would likely disagree with you. They played 33 games in 34 days from May to the beginning of July.
It definitely takes it's toll.
Posted on 7/25/16 at 4:04 pm to slackster
If playing only 7-8 days consecutively rather than 10-11 can prevent even one injury per team then I'm sure the union/players would take it. Also they would have to take less money but when the average salary is $4.2 million going down 5% or 200,000 on average won't mean much
Posted on 7/25/16 at 4:12 pm to McCaigBro69
I guess my argument is that only 40 positional players played more than 154 games in 2015, so for the vast majority of MLB, what does this change?
Posted on 7/25/16 at 4:18 pm to WallEazyE
8 games less equates to 1.2 more off days a month. Not so much to even recognize it.
But I'd say the season is entirely too long as it is.
I'd vote to instead of extra off days, end the season 8 - 9 days sooner.
But I'd say the season is entirely too long as it is.
I'd vote to instead of extra off days, end the season 8 - 9 days sooner.
Posted on 7/25/16 at 4:20 pm to WallEazyE
quote:
If playing only 7-8 days consecutively rather than 10-11 can prevent even one injury per team then I'm sure the union/players would take it. Also they would have to take less money but when the average salary is $4.2 million going down 5% or 200,000 on average won't mean much
The counterpoint would be that since only 40 out of roughly 1200 players in the union even played 155+ games last year, why would the other 1160 players forego 5% of their annual earnings?
As it stands, 96% of the union is playing 154 games or less and still getting their full earnings. Why would they agree to a change?
Posted on 7/25/16 at 4:20 pm to East Coast Band
Been saying for years that the season should by shortened by a month or 30 games. That way you don't have baseball at the end of Oct and early Nov.
Posted on 7/25/16 at 4:44 pm to WallEazyE
I know it will never happen in a million years but I always wanted baseball to have a round-robin 174 game schedule with every team playing each other six times. Have the two teams with the best overall record play each other in the World Series. It would be the best way of determining a champion in a sport that has notoriously volatile results.
Posted on 7/25/16 at 4:51 pm to Bench McElroy
That will never happen.
Not to mention a Yankees -Red Sox series does not and will not have the same economic and interest level of say a Red Sox - Padres series or a Yankees - Brewers series.
Not to mention a Yankees -Red Sox series does not and will not have the same economic and interest level of say a Red Sox - Padres series or a Yankees - Brewers series.
Posted on 7/25/16 at 5:05 pm to Bench McElroy
quote:
It would be the best way of determining a champion in a sport that has notoriously volatile results.
Too much volatility for that to be true. If you were lucky enough to have all 6 of your games against the Cubs during the few weeks before the All Star break while Fowler was on the DL, how is that equal to a team that played all of their games when the Cubs were at full strength. Same thing can be applied to teams that play only contenders after the trade deadline vs playing teams that dumped salaries.
Posted on 7/25/16 at 5:19 pm to rondo
lol,
the pansies want less games, last time(schedule change) they got rid of double headers.
What next, only playong 6inning games when temperature is above 90?
the pansies want less games, last time(schedule change) they got rid of double headers.
What next, only playong 6inning games when temperature is above 90?
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News