RedRamage

I don't think NCAA football (or Basketball) is quite the same animal. The fan base for these teams is a totally different things... every year you import thousands of new fans who are living in a small close community re-enforcing that fandom and feeding on itself. After four years of this they are released into the world... some of them will remain rabid fans... some will become casual fans and some will lose their fandom. But even if 80% of those leaving the school completely stop following their teams that still means 20% remain fans... and thousands more replace them in the new freshman class.

MLBPA really need better communication efforts to the fans. MLB has put out daily updates the last few days and while I know it's propaganda, it's still hard now to get a jaded view of the union based on how MLB has put out their info.

If the Packers approached the Lions and offered to trade Equanimeous to the Lions because he wanted to play with his brother, what draft pick would you be willing to part with to get him? Now, on one hand Equanimeous has been entirely unremarkable in his career so far... 569 yards so far scattered across three years. So why would you give anything up for that? But, on the other hand, Equanimeous has at least shown that he can play in the NFL AND the Lions are sorely lacking in WR talent. So, would a 7th round pick be worth giving up to shore up the WR group a (very) little bit as well as create a nice feel good story about another set of brothers on the team? Lions have picks: 217 (6th round) 230 (7th round) 238 (7th round) Would you be willing to give up one of those picks?

This Rob guy sounds like a douche.

I dunno... I mean for this year of course it's mostly meaningless as they aren't playing in those locations. But I guess the question is: It's better to "piggyback" off locations that already have a football fan base built or to go to a location where there isn't any risk of fan-conflict? Looking at the original USFL: Teams in NFL cities: Boston/N.O. Breakers (83/84) Chicago Blitz Denver Gold LA Express Michigan Panthers NJ Generals Oakland Invaders* (While the Raiders were in LA at this time, the 49ers were in SF) Philly Stars (83/84) Tampa Bay Bandits Washington Federals (83/84) Houston Gamblers Pittsburgh Maulers Teams in non-NFL cities: Arizona Wranglers/Outlaws (Cards move right after the USFL closed) Birmingham Stallions Portland Breakers (85) Baltimore Stars (85) Orlando Renegades (85) Jacksonville Bulls Memphis Showboats Oklahoma Outlaws San Antionio Gunslingers So 6 teams were always in non-NFL cites, 9 teams were always in NFL cities, and 3 teams started in NFL cities and moved to non-NFL their last year. I guess I'd lean on the side of trying to tap into an existing fan base. As long as the USFL doesn't try to go up against the NFL there's probably not going to be much issue with a Steelers' fan feeling disloyal rooting for the Mualers or a Texans' fan cheering for the Gamblers.

I really waffled for a bit on Jeremy Ruckert, but decided to take a chance.

100% agreed.

https://www.fanatics.com/mlb/st-louis-cardinals/st-louis-cardinals-new-era-2022-spring-training-low-profile-59fifty-fitted-hat-red/o-2398+t-03671165+p-04047864698+z-9-1404876011?_ref=p-CLP:m-GRID:i-r0c0:po-0

Heck, if they don't start until mid-May we'll all be watching the USFL and baseball will be far from our minds... right?

I personally don't mind the shift. I'm not going to be super upset if outlaw it, but imho if the defense is shifting on you it's because you aren't as good a hitter as someone the defense doesn't shift on. You're not using the whole field. That's on you as a hitter. No like them shifting? Practice hitting the other way. On a side note: How would the rule look? You'd have to get pretty specific with language... something like: "A defense must have two infielders and at least one outfielder on each side of a line drawn from home plate thru 2nd base to the outfield." But then you need to specify a minimum depth that outfields can play... I mean if I was shifting to the first base side I'd just move my "centerfielder" up close to the infield, and shift my "thirdbaseman" to the outfield. The left fielder plays just to the left of the centerline. Now I've satisfied the rule and still get my shift. I mean you should end up seeing a line of chalk through the outfield designating how far back the outfielders have to play.

I dunno that it was LA feeling entitled as much as it was the NFL wanting to the LA market.

That thought actually popped into my head yesterday and I didn't hate it. I didn't dwell on it too much cause I don't see it happening in the real world, but it's not a bad idea. I also like your idea of limiting a DH, like you can only DH twice a week or can only be a DH once every three games...

I don't think it's impossible to make the argument that a catcher is a very specialized position. Now, I'm not trying to argue that catchers should get a DH... I really don't to see that. But I think the argument can be made to some degree: Catchers are involved in the second most number of defensive plays after the pitcher Catchers get significant wear and tear on their bodies so it makes sense that teams would want to limit additional physical strain. Catchers need to focus on knowing hitter's tendencies as well as pitcher's strengths and weaknesses to best aid their pitcher in succeeding. Catchers need to train in specialized areas like pitch framing, and learning signs, both "plain text" and coded signs... these things could eat into time practicing hitting. Is that enough to warrant a DH? I don't think so... but it is different from other defensive positions. And I suspect if you ask players in the 30s and 40s and 50s they would say that pitching isn't different enough to warrant a DH. I hope it never comes to pass, but I wouldn't be shocked if there was a push for a DH for catchers in a few decades.

Do any of the specialists get a designated blower?

I would agree and that's definitely not something I want to see. Honestly I think it would be very interesting in football to go backwards and not have O- and D-teams. I think catcher is the next most "specialized" position, but I also think that it's isn't that far removed from other positions, like SS and CF for that matter. If catcher ever gets a DH I wouldn't be surprised to see the rest start falling as well. So, the question is: Is pitching different enough from catching that we can accept a DH there but still logically refuse a DH for catcher? I don't think the argument should hinge on pitchers being traditionally bad hitters. I'd rather argue that a pitcher's skill set (and therefore what he should practice and perfect) is significantly enough different that it warrants special treatment.

I've recently read a couple of books on "old timey" baseball and it's interesting to read about pitchers hitting. I think it was Auker who argued that a DH was silly because once you start going down that road, where do you stop? Obviously we haven't moved beyond pitchers yet and it seems like there's a reasonable argument that pitchers are a different animal. Every play (when their team is on defense) starts with the pitcher. They have a very specialized skill set they need to hone. They cost a lot of money and a teams success hinges heavily on how well they play. The argument would then be that because they have to spend so much time on pitching they don't have time to learn proper hitting. Because they are involved in every play, they have a bigger impact on the game than position players who also bat. And because they cost so much money and are so important to the success of the team it's reasonable to not want to add extra risk by having them hit. That seems like a pretty reasonable argument... but couldn't you pretty much say the same thing about Catchers?

How old were you when you realized that the D on the Tigers hat and jersey used to be different?

Anyone else listening to/watching this? linktr.ee/DetroitCityofChampions I'll admit I'm a little biased cause I particularly enjoy this event in sports history, but I do think it's an important time period... the year that really transformed Detroit into a sports town. The podcast is Jamie Flanagan with Charles Avison who's wrote three books detailing the events. Now, I'll readily admit that Charles is not always easy to listen too... he's definitely not a radio trained speaker, but the wealth of information he has about the players and teams and events from the 1935/36 season is just amazing to listen too.

https://www.mlive.com/sports/2022/02/detroit-native-byron-allen-preparing-bid-for-denver-broncos-could-become-leagues-first-black-owner.html

The science of scouting... 🙂

I actually turned on the game for a (very) short period of time last night and right away turned it off. This is an interesting idea, but does the winner or the loser get the first pick? If it's the loser than I anticipate it being a pretty dull game as well. My suggestion, years ago, was that pro-bowl nominee get to pick any college player of the same position to play for them in the pro-bowl. They mentor the player for the week or so leading up to the game. The benefits: College Players get a chance to show of their skills to more NFL coaches/front offices. Pro-Players get a chance to showcase people they believe are deserving (either from their college or hometown or highschool or whatever). My hope would be that these wouldn't be the star players that everyone is talking about but rather players who might be 3rd day draft picks or even UDFA types. This will probably be semi-self regulating in that the top name players will not want to play in the game for fear of risk of injury. Pro-players get a small taste of coaching and are able to show up their potential future coaching skills to NFL front offices The game will hopefully be more entertaining. It may not be hugely popular with the fans, but I doubt it'll be any less popular that it is right now.

I take issue with that though because I think this says people are looking at the problem wrong. The question shouldn't be: "Why aren't there more Black Head Coaches?" The question should be "Are minorities getting a fair shot at being hired?" And I totally get that the first question is a much better sound bite and far easier to provide "evidence" to support it and that the media is gonna go for the low hanging fruit... I get that. But in a situation where there are only 32 jobs... that sample size is so small that minor fluctuations can easily alter things. I'm sure that you agree that it's entirely possible that a team could go out and interview 10 people and pick the best candidate and the best candidate for them happens to be white but that race played no part in the decision, right? But by merely saying: "Wow... look at that... yet another white guy gets hired..." while rolling your eyes implies that the team was motivated by racism. Could there have been racism? Sure... could there not have been racism? Yes. But every team now that hires a white guy will have this cloud over them that they were racist.

While I mostly agree, I think it's also a problem to elude that every time a white coach gets hired it's because of racism. There's a clear issue with the Rooney rule. In theory it's a good idea, in practice I suspect that many minority coaches are really often wondering if team is only interviewing them to check the box. The spirit of the rule is to this gives minorities a chance to change minds... to get their foot in the door and convince teams that they are the guy. But in practice I'm certain that there are plenty of situations where teams are going through the motions but no matter how impressive the interview is, they'll never get the job. Look no further than Quinn hiring Patricia. There is no way anyone was going to interview so exceptionally well that Quinn didn't hire Patricia. One could argue that the mere chance to interview is worth something (practice, get your name in the media as a potential HC, maybe impress someone who'll mention it to someone else who's hiring...) but I don't know if that would out weight the negatives of feeling like you're just being used. It's the double edge sword of something like the Rooney Rule. Prior to the rule if a minority was interviewed for a job it's very likely that that candidate is being seriously considered. Now it seems like any time a minority who is interviewed people wonder: "Is he really a candidate? Is he really qualified and in the running or are they just checking the box?"