PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics]

[sp6r=underrated]

The pitch timer might help a bit but when you look at how delayed the NFL is with replays, commercials and flags and that it's still obscenely popular, it makes me think pace of play might be a red herring for wondering why baseball isn't what it once was interest wise.

It is not the primary cause of baseball's decline but it is a fixable problem. And you should always fix fixable problems.

Yep. And the NFL is 1 of 1. They are completely irrelevant to improving baseball's popularity. You have to set them completely aside.

IMO, and I say this as a baseball fan, the sport is in secular decline. If you look back 100 years ago the 3 most popular sports in the US were: boxing, horseracing and baseball. Neither boxing nor horseracing are mainstream anymore. Horseracing people only watch the 3 races and boxing is the definition of a fringe sport.

The strange thing about baseball's popularity isn't its decline but the fact it managed to still have mainstream appeal 100 years later. Baseball's popularity decline was inevitable as the sport was built for in-person attendance/radio while sports fans now rely on HDTVs/Smartphones/Highlight reels while rarely attending games.

But there are things MLB can do to improve the popularity. And a pitch clock is one of em.

Sadly Manfred has more bad ideas than good. His worst idea, and this is plainly clear to me, is he wants MLB to get to the NBA/NHL level for playoff spots.

Too many teams making the playoffs actually hurts the NBA/NHL. Fans don't even care anymore about making the playoffs. That is a massive problem when you play 82 games. It is an enormous problem when you play 162 games. When you have a 162 game schedule you can't just have the RS become exhibition games.

But that is what Manfred wants. He'll get to sell another round of post-season series to the networks while killing off the RS. And in 2 decades he'll act amazed that fans no longer even know what a pennat race is or why fans don't care about 100 win seasons.

[falcolombardi]

I think the real issue with baseball is not speed. Nfl is very slow inbetween plays all thinghs considered

Is just, for lack of a better word, a bit too simple sport as far as visual spectacle goes tbh

Basketball, soccer, gridiron football and hockey all are played over a field, the action goes over a wider area, there is a wider area of plays and outcomes

Baseball at a casual level doesnt have that imo, to a casual viewer it can feel a lot more repetitive

Dribbling (or passing) sports just have more movement all over the place to keep the average viewer engaged i think

[HeartBreakKid]

It's casual audience is large though for that reason. You don't have to pay that close attention to every play in baseball. It's significantly more popular than a sport where there is absurd amounts of speed like hockey.

[Texas Chuck]

It's casual audience is large though for that reason. You don't have to pay that close attention to every play in baseball. It's significantly more popular than a sport where there is absurd amounts of speed like hockey.

Hockey's issue is its a bad TV sport. Now HD saved it, but prior to HD watching hockey on TV was essentially pointless because they couldn't show you the entire zone and forget ever seeing the puck. But the difference in hockey live versus TV is just enormous. Football and baseball are both better TV sports than in person. Football gives you a million replays and with baseball you aren't in the heat and you can do other things.

basketball is probably the best sport to watch either way. It's great live and its great for TV.

[Colbinii]

It's casual audience is large though for that reason. You don't have to pay that close attention to every play in baseball. It's significantly more popular than a sport where there is absurd amounts of speed like hockey.

Hockey's issue is its a bad TV sport. Now HD saved it, but prior to HD watching hockey on TV was essentially pointless because they couldn't show you the entire zone and forget ever seeing the puck. But the difference in hockey live versus TV is just enormous. Football and baseball are both better TV sports than in person. Football gives you a million replays and with baseball you aren't in the heat and you can do other things.

basketball is probably the best sport to watch either way. It's great live and its great for TV.

This is a great post. The issue I have with going to Hockey Games [I attend about 1 Minnesota Wild game per year by being invited by a friend who somehow acquires a ticket to a game] and $18 White Claws really turn me off.

[Dr Positivity]

For me I question whether current culture even needs 3 water cooler sports compared to 20 years ago when Netflix was just shipping DVDs by mail and there was no Youtube or Tik Tok. If that's the case all that needed to happen to baseball was for it to be less interesting than the NFL and NBA.

[falcolombardi]

As much as i despise FIFA as a organization.... i have to admit their control over the sport in soccer has been a positive in many areas such as international cohesion and giving priority to national team competition over private leagues to grow the sport

If fiba was not such a toothless org (such as their **** in europe club basketball) they could do so much more for the sport.

As it is,it kinda has been the nba who has had to make efforts to promote basketball internationally and even help develop it across the world (like the africa initiatives). Fiba can barely run their tournaments at this point

Example: the reffinh **** show this eurobasket. Because of their fight with euroleague (the biggest club competition in europe separated from fiba structure) they dont allow refs who work in the euroleague to ref their fiba tournaments... and that has been apparent with questionable reffing across the tourmament

[sp6r=underrated]

This is a quasi political point but I think it is allowed because it is sports related. I'm watching the opening week of the NFL and I saw a TV ad for one of those online sportsbooks were they offered $200 dollars if you made a $5 dollar deposit. There is no way that is profitable unless a large percentage of customers are just bankrupting themselves.

I suspect in ten or so years, the US is going to have a large percentage of problem gamblers who are facing significant debt. Their family members will be pissed. This is going to have significant repercussions over the next decade for sportsleagues that jumped into bed with bookmakers. The NBA did with Silver.

Like I said you can't give away that much money to sign up unless some customers are just gambling like crazy.

[HeartBreakKid]

This is a quasi political point but I think it is allowed because it is sports related. I'm watching the opening week of the NFL and I saw a TV ad for one of those online sportsbooks were they offered $200 dollars if you made a $5 dollar deposit. There is no way that is profitable unless a large percentage of customers are just bankrupting themselves.

I suspect in ten or so years, the US is going to have a large percentage of problem gamblers who are facing significant debt. Their family members will be pissed. This is going to have significant repercussions over the next decade for sportsleagues that jumped into bed with bookmakers. The NBA did with Silver.

Like I said you can't give away that much money to sign up unless some customers are just gambling like crazy.

Sports betting exist outside of the United States for a long time and those societies have hardly collapsed.

To address your point, they are giving you risk-free 200 dollars. As in you are playing with fictional money. You use the 200 dollars to place bets, not to redeem as actual cash. That's been around forever, so yes, it is profitable.

I think it's interesting that you make such a gigantic leap in analysis of what will happen in 10 years without knowing something that basic. That's a much bigger problem in America than DraftKings. Gambling has plenty of arguments against it but it's hard to take a criticism of it seriously when someone doesn't know something THAT basic. Kind of like someone saying weed will crash American society if it becomes more accessible yet they confuse the symptoms of weed with other drugs.

Could Americans have debts from gambling problems? I mean Americans have debts from literally everything from shopping to transit to finding a place to live to basic things like education and to even hospital bills. So...I guess?

My guess is that gambling will be a very small % of America's debt problem.

[sp6r=underrated]

This is a quasi political point but I think it is allowed because it is sports related. I'm watching the opening week of the NFL and I saw a TV ad for one of those online sportsbooks were they offered $200 dollars if you made a $5 dollar deposit. There is no way that is profitable unless a large percentage of customers are just bankrupting themselves.

I suspect in ten or so years, the US is going to have a large percentage of problem gamblers who are facing significant debt. Their family members will be pissed. This is going to have significant repercussions over the next decade for sportsleagues that jumped into bed with bookmakers. The NBA did with Silver.

Like I said you can't give away that much money to sign up unless some customers are just gambling like crazy.

Sports betting exist outside of the United States for a long time and those societies have hardly collapsed.

To address your point, they are giving you risk-free 200 dollars. As in you are playing with fictional money. You use the 200 dollars to place bets, not to redeem as actual cash. That's been around forever, so yes, it is profitable.

I think it's interesting that you make such a gigantic leap in analysis of what will happen in 10 years without knowing something that basic. That's a much bigger problem in America than Draftkings.


Could Americans have debts from gambling problems? I mean Americans have debts from literally everything from shopping to transit to finding a place to live to basic things like education and to even hospital bills. So...I guess?

My guess is that gambling will be a very small % of America's debt problem.

You get to pocket the winnings of your "freebets." Given the dollar amounts they are throwing away they have to subsidizing these losses with massive revenue gains elsewhere.

https://www.fanduel.com/freebets

As to your comment about legalized betting existing in other countries smartphones is a gamechanger. Smartphone gambling is very much like slot machine gambling. Designed to be addictive and will bankrupt a set percentage of customers.

[HeartBreakKid]

This is a quasi political point but I think it is allowed because it is sports related. I'm watching the opening week of the NFL and I saw a TV ad for one of those online sportsbooks were they offered $200 dollars if you made a $5 dollar deposit. There is no way that is profitable unless a large percentage of customers are just bankrupting themselves.

I suspect in ten or so years, the US is going to have a large percentage of problem gamblers who are facing significant debt. Their family members will be pissed. This is going to have significant repercussions over the next decade for sportsleagues that jumped into bed with bookmakers. The NBA did with Silver.

Like I said you can't give away that much money to sign up unless some customers are just gambling like crazy.

Sports betting exist outside of the United States for a long time and those societies have hardly collapsed.

To address your point, they are giving you risk-free 200 dollars. As in you are playing with fictional money. You use the 200 dollars to place bets, not to redeem as actual cash. That's been around forever, so yes, it is profitable.

I think it's interesting that you make such a gigantic leap in analysis of what will happen in 10 years without knowing something that basic. That's a much bigger problem in America than Draftkings.


Could Americans have debts from gambling problems? I mean Americans have debts from literally everything from shopping to transit to finding a place to live to basic things like education and to even hospital bills. So...I guess?

My guess is that gambling will be a very small % of America's debt problem.

You get to pocket the winnings of your "freebets." Given the dollar amounts they are throwing away they have to subsidizing these losses with massive revenue gains elsewhere.

https://www.fanduel.com/freebets

As to your comment about legalized betting existing in other countries smartphones is a gamechanger. Smartphone gambling is very much like slot machine gambling. Designed to be addictive and will bankrupt a set percentage of customers.

Of course you pocket the money you win from the bets. What would be the point otherwise.


That practice has been around since I was in highschool, it is obviously profitable. I have been out of high school for much more than 10 years. If anything gambling has only become more mainstream since then.


These are bets that only go up to 25 dollars and a high proportion of them will be placed by people who have never sports bet before, or don't know what good risk/reward is. They are not going to be losing a ton of money on that. The money that they generate from a service like fantasy football alone would be able to subsidize that 1000x over.


Most people in gambling lose, of course - hence why they let new sign ups make a few free bets in hopes they'll be permanent clientele. That isn't a coming of dark things to come, that has been around forever already. You could go back to Lebron's first MVP and find the same exact deal.

[sp6r=underrated]

Sports betting exist outside of the United States for a long time and those societies have hardly collapsed.

To address your point, they are giving you risk-free 200 dollars. As in you are playing with fictional money. You use the 200 dollars to place bets, not to redeem as actual cash. That's been around forever, so yes, it is profitable.

I think it's interesting that you make such a gigantic leap in analysis of what will happen in 10 years without knowing something that basic. That's a much bigger problem in America than Draftkings.


Could Americans have debts from gambling problems? I mean Americans have debts from literally everything from shopping to transit to finding a place to live to basic things like education and to even hospital bills. So...I guess?

My guess is that gambling will be a very small % of America's debt problem.

You get to pocket the winnings of your "freebets." Given the dollar amounts they are throwing away they have to subsidizing these losses with massive revenue gains elsewhere.

https://www.fanduel.com/freebets

As to your comment about legalized betting existing in other countries smartphones is a gamechanger. Smartphone gambling is very much like slot machine gambling. Designed to be addictive and will bankrupt a set percentage of customers.

Of course you pocket the money you win from the bets. What would be the point otherwise.

Well you said I didn't understand a basic thing and so I'd had to spell it out explicitly.

That practice has been around since I was in highschool, it is obviously profitable. I have been out of high school for much more than 10 years. If anything gambling has only become more mainstream since then.

Were smartphones around when you were in HS? Because smartphone gambling is akin to walking around with a slot machine hooked up to your bank account. That is a huge difference between you and your buddies placing a bet or going to the corner and placing a cash bet.

These are bets that only go up to 25 dollars and a high proportion of them will be placed by people who have never sports bet before, or don't know what good risk/reward is. They are not going to be losing a ton of money on that. The money that they generate from a service like fantasy football alone would be able to subsidize that 1000x over.

$25 * 1,000,000 people = $25,000,000. That money has to come from somewhere. And the source is problem gamblers. Modern gambling companies are designing products to be addictive to create problem gamblers. That's a public policy problem.

Most people in gambling lose, of course - hence why they let new sign ups make a few free bets in hopes they'll be permanent clientele. That isn't a coming of dark things to come, that has been around forever already. You could go back to Lebron's first MVP and find the same exact deal.

[/quote]

Again no smartphones in Lebron days. And since gambling is harmful for most users, govt., should regulate more carefully than it does. And I say this as someone who is not militantly anti-gambling. I've flown to Vegas to gamble with friends. But people walking around with slot machines in their pockets hits me as very dangerous.

But as I said we will see. If I'm wrong in ten years we won't see any rise in significant gambling debts. If you're wrong, we will. Time will tell who is right.

Right now public policy is clearly moving in your direction. Every sporting event advertises gambling constantly. It is being legalized everywhere. CA is the next one to jump on the train.

We shall see if having slot machines in people's pocket is a good idea.

[Jaivl]

Oh my god, if we do win a medal with this team

[70sFan]

What am I watching right now...

[70sFan]

When Doncic torched Bridges like he was nothing, but then couldn't score against Sokołowski. Eurobasket is wild!

[Jaivl]

When Doncic torched Bridges like he was nothing, but then couldn't score against Sokołowski. Eurobasket is wild!

Euro irremediably gonna end with Spain beating France **again** with Willy dropping 39 points on Gobert, can't stop the meme train.

That or lame twitter jokes with Germany vs Poland.

[Texas Chuck]

When Doncic torched Bridges like he was nothing, but then couldn't score against Sokołowski. Eurobasket is wild!

Luka told everyone as a rookie that scoring in the NBA was easier than Europe. Everyone mocked him at the time only for him to have been proven quite right.

[falcolombardi]

Gobert >>>luka, sorry, that is how it works now /s

remember this is a single elimination tournament

Think of how many upsets there are in march madness compared to nba and apply it in fiba tournaments when evaluating a player/team results


The volatility of single elimination is why thinghs like usa dominance in the olympics or spain continued succes in fiba-ball are so much more impressive that they seem at first glance (and they are very impressive at first glance too)

[Jaivl]

CANNOT STOP BO CRUZ RATATATATATATA

[falcolombardi]

CANNOT STOP BO CRUZ RATATATATATATA