The Boss has passed.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

It indeed can be answered with a yes or no. Was TV a "driving force" behind football becoming a more popular sport than baseball?

Why dance? Its a simple question regardless of how "broad" it may be.

Its as simple as saying that digital cable/satellite is a driving force in the destruction of the movie rental business.

No it is far more nebulous than that. But you know that.

Here is a third party's take.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...ort-in-america

The vision was that the more popular the entire league became, the more financially beneficial it would be for everyone.
The wisdom and foresight of this vision has led the NFL to unprecedented popularity and success.
So, why is the NFL so popular and successful?

The reason is due to the complete parity in the league.

Unlike most professional sports today, no matter where you live in the country, your team has an equal chance of winning the Super Bowl—this has caused the game to grow in popularity throughout every corner of the country, not just in New York, Boston, Chicago and Los Angeles

The parity seen in the NFL today can be attributed to two main principles: equal revenue sharing and a salary cap.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

LOL

I suppose that yeah this is a conspiracy to prop up the Brewers.

So I post something that supports a statement that I made (and hardly a controversial one since it has been the 2nd biggest topic in baseball for years) but you summarily dismiss it because of some theoretical agenda and supposed campaign of disinformation from MLB executives?

Have you been taking classes on the Riot-style of denial posting?

LOL

Selig is commissioner. He has interest in the brewers. Fact? Yes.

Selig's brewers benefit from revenue sharing. Fact? Yes.

Selig has been pushing revenue sharing for the last 20 years. Fact? Yes.

Revenue sharing has been a hot topic in baseball and there has been a big fight over the years. Fact? Yes.

So does Selig have any Agenda? LOL. No, I guess not.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

No it is far more nebulous than that. But you know that.

Here is a third party's take.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...ort-in-america

The vision was that the more popular the entire league became, the more financially beneficial it would be for everyone.
The wisdom and foresight of this vision has led the NFL to unprecedented popularity and success.
So, why is the NFL so popular and successful?

The reason is due to the complete parity in the league.

Unlike most professional sports today, no matter where you live in the country, your team has an equal chance of winning the Super Bowl—this has caused the game to grow in popularity throughout every corner of the country, not just in New York, Boston, Chicago and Los Angeles

The parity seen in the NFL today can be attributed to two main principles: equal revenue sharing and a salary cap.

This is hilarious. I guess "the bleacher report" is another bastion of fine journalism. Thanks Mr. Google. You are talking about Riot so does that mean you are Nascar?

Anyway, from the museum of TV. Not nearly as respected as "the bleacher report" but I guess if its a museum it counts for something:

But what, specifically, makes an individual sporting event "good television?" As Channels writer Julie Talen wrote, "All sports are not created equal. The most popular sports on TV are those best served by the medium's limitations." What she means is that even if there are 20 cameras and 40 microphones at an event, the viewer still receives one picture and one set of sounds. Together these must convey a sense of what is happening in the actual contest. Monday Night Football's long-time director, Chet Forte, argued, "It's impossible to blow a football game. . .Football works as a flattened sport. Its rectangular field fits on the screen far more readily than, for example, golf's far-flung woods and sand traps. The football moves right or left on the screen and back again. Its limited repertoire--kick, pass, and run--sets it apart from, say, baseball, where the range of possibilities for the ball and the players at any given moment is enormous." And CBS's top football director, Sandy Grossman, says "The reason (the gridiron) is easier to cover is because every play is a separate story. There's a beginning, a middle, and an end, and then there's 20 or 30 seconds to retell it or react to it."

There are, in other words, certain characteristics of the different sports that make them better dramatic and visual matches for television, and in doing so, render them more popular with audiences.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

LOL

Selig is commissioner. He has interest in the brewers. Fact? Yes.

Selig's brewers benefit from revenue sharing. Fact? Yes.

Selig has been pushing revenue sharing for the last 20 years. Fact? Yes.

Revenue sharing has been a hot topic in baseball and there has been a big fight over the years. Fact? Yes.

So does Selig have any Agenda? LOL. No, I guess not.

Bud Selig sold his interest of the brewers 5 years ago

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

This is hilarious. I guess "the bleacher report" is another bastion of fine journalism. Thanks Mr. Google. You are talking about Riot so does that mean you are Nascar?

Anyway, from the museum of TV. Not nearly as respected as "the bleacher report" but I guess if its a museum it counts for something:

But what, specifically, makes an individual sporting event "good television?" As Channels writer Julie Talen wrote, "All sports are not created equal. The most popular sports on TV are those best served by the medium's limitations." What she means is that even if there are 20 cameras and 40 microphones at an event, the viewer still receives one picture and one set of sounds. Together these must convey a sense of what is happening in the actual contest. Monday Night Football's long-time director, Chet Forte, argued, "It's impossible to blow a football game. . .Football works as a flattened sport. Its rectangular field fits on the screen far more readily than, for example, golf's far-flung woods and sand traps. The football moves right or left on the screen and back again. Its limited repertoire--kick, pass, and run--sets it apart from, say, baseball, where the range of possibilities for the ball and the players at any given moment is enormous." And CBS's top football director, Sandy Grossman, says "The reason (the gridiron) is easier to cover is because every play is a separate story. There's a beginning, a middle, and an end, and then there's 20 or 30 seconds to retell it or react to it."

There are, in other words, certain characteristics of the different sports that make them better dramatic and visual matches for television, and in doing so, render them more popular with audiences.

Ah the knock the source reply when the post refutes your inane take!

Yes we all know that football as a sport works well on tv.

But the conversation isnt about that. What you are saying is that all the moves that the NFL made and MLB didnt make were really pointless because football is easier to broadcast and as such was going to become more popular eventually anyway.

Thanks for your input. I will start the drive to remove Pete Rozelle from the Hall of Fame because obviously his legacy is completely overblown because, you know, football is easier to cover on tv.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Ah the knock the source reply when the post refutes your inane take!

Yes we all know that football as a sport works well on tv.

But the conversation isnt about that. What you are saying is that all the moves that the NFL made and MLB didnt make were really pointless because football is easier to broadcast and as such was going to become more popular eventually anyway.

Thanks for your input. I will start the drive to remove Pete Rozelle from the Hall of Fame because obviously his legacy is completely overblown because, you know, football is easier to cover on tv.

That is not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that TV was the main factor in football replacing baseball as the number 1 sport in the US. That hasn't changed.

Now, are you saying that isnt true? Lets stick to the topic for once. Stop dancing.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Bud Selig sold his interest of the brewers 5 years ago

The "arcitcle" that you googled was from 2006. The numbers were from the preceeding years. Try again.

[dalakhani]

There is no doubt that the NFL has been a much better run organization than Major league baseball over the last 40 years. There is also little question that football's moves including revenue sharing, tv contracts and overall marketing has been far better than the MLB. I am not in any way saying that TV alone set football apart.

However, I don't think the rev sharing was the primary force as I thought you had said. If I misread that, then this is all moot.

[clyde]

^^^^Frumped and frustrated for lack of Peanuts Pud to fly from boat.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Not a good person at all....The Boss is Springsteen

AGREED!...Just a Pig passing.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

Oh I believe that he was real S.O.B. to work for. He also took a beating for some shady dealings in the late 80's.
But if you are a fan of the organization, how can you not love him? The most important thing in the world to him was winning and he would do anything possible for his team to reach it's goal.

Pig bought rings. Big accomplishment.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Peace out as.shole

ezatly

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Pig bought rings. Big accomplishment.

not all of them scuds , the mid 90's teams that were assembled were mostly homegrown talent

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by gales0678

not all of them scuds , the mid 90's teams that were assembled were mostly homegrown talent

Weren't you in desperate need of a win in game 3 of the '96 World Series? Who turned that around for ya? A homegrown pitcher? No, sir. Was Mr. Cone. YOU DID NOT GROW THAT.

December 21, 1995: Signed as a Free Agent with the New York Yankees.

Was a PIG'S NEW TOY that came up tough for you in game 3. So, cut the bull. Blue Jays couldn't afford to sign him. So, you got him in July '95, and bought the whore in December. Fact is all ya rings since '77 been bought by that dead pig.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

This is what you paid Cone in those so called homegrown '90's:


1995 $4,000,000
1996 $4,666,667
1997 $6,666,667
1998 $6,666,667
1999 $9,500,000
2000 $12,000,000

Well over 40 mil. Pig bought your rings for you. Period. All of 'em that were won during his ownership. Would of had 8 if Fernando hadn't found a way to beat Righetti in '81. See, that's a completely a homegrown pitcher throwing a complete game to stop your pig from getting what would have been his third ring from us in 5 years time. I'm fully aware of this pig's ways.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

The "arcitcle" that you googled was from 2006. The numbers were from the preceeding years. Try again.

Oct of 2007 isn't 2006. And why would it matter anyway?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Oct of 2007 isn't 2006. And why would it matter anyway?

Because the question is what reason would he have to pump up the numbers.

The rev sharing in baseball was a very heated topic and will be Selig's legacy. Of course its going to be presented in the best light possible. Its kind of like the numbers on the economy.

The NFL doesn't publish their total rev numbers and with a new CBA looming the last thing those owners want to show is how much they are taking in.

The point is that baseball isn't close to the net rev the NFL is taking in and it really isn't debatable.

[herkhorse]

^^^^^

You guys are Like Carville and Matalin

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Because the question is what reason would he have to pump up the numbers.

The rev sharing in baseball was a very heated topic and will be Selig's legacy. Of course its going to be presented in the best light possible. Its kind of like the numbers on the economy.

The NFL doesn't publish their total rev numbers and with a new CBA looming the last thing those owners want to show is how much they are taking in.

The point is that baseball isn't close to the net rev the NFL is taking in and it really isn't debatable.

Which makes my point for me, thanks.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Which makes my point for me, thanks.

Yeeeahhh....okay then.

That stupid article you posted says that it is. Regardless...