cochiseuofm wrote:I had a long response prepared and then I deleted it. The reason I think, and still do, you took responses personally is because of your unwillingness to admit any single part of your plan was flawed or potentially wrong.
I have ideas on occasion... I post them on occasion... then, I look for others to come along and poke holes in the idea(s) so that I can re-think/re-tinker with it/them... find the unintended consequences. That's how bad or just-okay ideas become good-or-excellent ideas.
But before I can do that, there has to be a "we-ness" of thought sufficient that it's apparent that others have (a) given some similarly-serious degree of effort to engage the idea(s) that they perceive the current problems addressed by the idea(s), (b) how the idea works to address those problems, and then (c) the benefits that springboard from implementing the idea.
Only then can a response be taken all that seriously, and it has almost nothing to do with "taking it personally." If a person has thought about Issue X thoroughly enough, then they're likely to be able to anticipate and give a legitimate response to others' initial thoughts. That's not taking something personally. Rather, that's simply responding in a way that either repels those who aren't willing to invest any further thought into Issue X (good for them, good for the rest of us) or a way that compels people who are willing to invest that thought to think more broadly and/or deeply.
cochiseuofm wrote:I haven't read one person say they think the caps were a good idea, you continue to act like we aren't willing to think outside the box (a not-so-subtle insult BTW) as a response.
Caps aren't exactly a core part of the idea, so if that's all you'd like to change, no problem.
You mention that you haven't read one person who said that they think the caps are a good idea... that would be important to me if I thought that almost everyone who reads this thread is going to feel equally motivated to react and respond. But I don't... do you? I recognize that it is far more the case that discussion boards are environments for poking said-holes rather than accentuating the positive, so to speak... people are far more likely to criticize than they are to take the time to say what they like. It's not unlike those teacher evaluation surveys we all did in college--the students typically most interested to complete them are those who feel a need to shoot the prof down. Those who love the prof, on the other hand, are not ordinarily as driven to express what they like.
Being unwilling to think outside of the box is an "insult?" Not an "insult" if, by that term you mean there was an intention to slight others in a personal way. It is a criticism. But it is a criticism of the human tendency to be skeptical of change, particularly when one has little or no way of determining the credentials of the person laying out the idea--i.e., since we are all anonymous here, and thus, a given poster for all we know could be Bob Costas, while another could be George Will, but they're all on equal ground here with the high school drop-out who pulls 3rd shift at a fast food restaurant.
cochiseuofm wrote:Anyways, your argument seems to be grounded in your belief that fans will go to games if they think their teams have a better chance of winning than not. Can we agree on that?
If so, I'd like to ask what you are basing that off of. Certainly not off fact. If you look at attendance figures for bad teams, like the Pirates, the games that sell out to 40k+ fans are the ones against premier NL teams, like the Dodgers, Phillies, and Cardinals. In fact, in 2009, the Pirates lost 9 of their top 10 highest selling games.
Their highest selling game of the season? A loss to the Dodgers when they were already 54-89 and well out of the playoff picture.
And you know what else? I lived in Pittsburgh that year. I went to 5-10 games and I know why I went. The Pirates do a great job of having free concerts after games and fireworks for families to enjoy on certain nights. They sell tickets either by a) featuring a marquee team with superstars worth seeing in person, or b) relying on a gimmick marketing campaign that appeals more to casual fans (who BTW far outnumber "real" fans in every city). They don't do well in games where they play other doormats.
If you don't believe me, check for yourself. But please don't condescend to me and say things like "[your criticisms come from a] fairly indefensible denial that fans go to games out of an assumption that their team has a fairly distinct chance at winning, and winning for some purpose beyond just that day's game." Because I haven't seen one iota of statistical proof from your part that gives you the right to pretend my points are "indefensible."
Your response caused me to decide to run the numbers of the PIT 2010 attendance year... this is the most substantive challenge you've written, pardon the observation if you will, so I wanted to carve an hour out of my evening last night to see the data for myself. I appreciate your prompting me to do that, since, as I said at the beginning of this, this is how ideas get improved.
I have some tentative conclusions, but I want to take this and add to it an analysis of the KC 2010 year, per craig01's response.... I'll get to it eventually.
cochiseuofm wrote:And please stop responding to any criticism with accusations that we all hate change. Because all you are doing is seeming like an ass.
As that I'm not running for president anytime soon, and even if I were, you wouldn't know it, I don't treat visits to a discussion board as-if it is a Rotary Club luncheon. I say what I think, and though I try to be civil, I don't think it's all that efficient to sit here and filter words for the sake of feelings. So, I'll accept the criticism/name-calling that goes with that territory. In that way, at least, I'm disinterested/hate... ummm... change...
