Baseball Season

rogers park bryan · **Joined:** Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm **Posts:** 81625

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

I doubt you want to compare attendance on a percentage basis. NFL stadiums are filled at significantly higher rates than baseball stadiums.

With 140 less games

rogers park bryan · **Joined:** Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm **Posts:** 81625

Frank Coztansa wrote:

Kirkwood wrote:

I'm sure there are high schools that have larger attendance numbers than some MLB teams.

Stay out of White Sox business.

rogers park bryan · **Joined:** Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm **Posts:** 81625

Apologist wrote:

You're just continuing to add fodder to the belief that football fans are dumb and unrefined

rogers park bryan · **Joined:** Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm **Posts:** 81625

Ive never been to an NFL game

Brick · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2013 7:37 am

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

Wrong, Rick. You're not watching the game at an alternate location. You're watching it on television. Why are you so embarrassed to be a fan of a television program? Own it! The season premiere is tonight!

I'm consuming it at home in a manner which I find superior. Yeah, there are things about going to a brewery that I like too but as an overall experience I don't think it would be worth the hassle.

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

You really think the experience of watching television is the same as seeing a game live? I know you don't. So now you're just BRicking. The games take place at a location. You enjoy a facsimile of them broadcast over airwaves or via cables. It's a great choice for an uncommitted guy who enjoys television and has some interest in football. We just disagree over whether that guy should be called a "fan".

I don't think it's the same thing. I believe sports on television is superior. In reality, the only thing that makes physical attendance at games better is when I use it as a way to hang out with friends or family. I don't believe I have ever attended a game alone in any sport.

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

I buy White Sox tickets because I'm a fan of the team. Sure, there are some things that are annoying. Just like you might find it annoying if cloud cover kills your satellite signal during another scintillating Red Zone drive.

That has literally never happened to me, ever. Let's stay in the realm of things that have a reasonable chance of happening.

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

So, let's try this one more time. Answer yes or no.
Can you be a true fan if you don't attend games every year?

Being a fan is about an emotional investment. I'm not looking into another man's heart. You know if you're a fan or not. But I would suggest that if the extent of your interest is clicking a television switch, you're not very fanatical at all.

Yes or no please.

Frank Coztansa · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2013 7:38 am

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

Frank Coztansa wrote:

Kirkwood wrote:

I'm sure there are high schools that have larger attendance numbers than some MLB teams.

Stay out of White Sox business.

Hey Joe Orr, the US Open tennis tournament has higher attendance and brings in more dollars to the local economy than the Super Bowl does. So that means that tennis is more popular than both baseball and football, right?

I don't know if that's true, Frank.

Its 100% true;
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/us-open- ... d=20070601

Quote:

As Rafael Nadal and company bring their tennis whites to the U.S. Open, spectators and athletes will give an estimated $720 million boost to the metro New York City area, far surpassing what the most-watched sporting event of the year, the Super Bowl, is expected bring next year to the region.

The U.S. Open kicked off on Monday at the U.S. Tennis Association Billie Jean King National Tennis Center in New York City.

Its two-week time frame is the main reason why the tennis tournament will generate more economic activity than the $430 million the Super Bowl is expected to bring when it comes to MetLife Stadium at East Rutherford, N.J., in February. The Super Bowl is a one-game, one-weekend affair.

So thats that. Its the same reason baseball attendance should be higher than NFL. There are 32 teams that play 81 home games a year. NFL teams play 8 home games a year. You do see the reasoning behind your faulty logic there, right?

Rod · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2013 7:40 am

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

I believe sports on television is superior.

As I said, you are a fan of watching television. ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL????

Brick · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2013 7:40 am

rogers park bryan wrote:

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

rogers park bryan wrote:

Has someone said "primarily"?

What percentage of people do you think watch the NFL, that would still watch it at the same clip if not for fantasy and/or gambling?

http://score670.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=1752124#p1752124

Late sunday people watching for fantasy purposes is miles away from saying Primarily over the whole sport

If the game is a 24-6, you probably have mostly gamblers and fantasy players watching.

What is the primary reason people watch the NFL then? You seem to think it is fantasy/gambling but for some reason you are arguing otherwise. Set it straight.

rogers park bryan wrote:

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

I doubt you want to compare attendance on a percentage basis. NFL stadiums are filled at significantly higher rates than baseball stadiums.

With 140 less games

Exactly! You are getting it too! It's another flawed metric. There is a really good one though that equals out the number of games and the size of the stadium. I don't know why you found it funny. It's the natural opposite to people claiming baseball is still more popular because the total number of tickets sold in a year is higher.

rogers park bryan · **Joined:** Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm **Posts:** 81625

There are people who go to zero games who are bigger fans than people who go to multiple games.

Some people are just fans of tailgating and getting drunk with a crowd

Brick · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2013 7:43 am

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

I believe sports on television is superior.

As I said, you are a fan of watching television. ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL????

You are a fan of being outside. ARE YOU READY FOR SOME TIME IN THE SUN???? See how easy it is to make useless and arbitrary declarations?

Rod · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2013 7:44 am

Frank Coztansa wrote:

You do see the reasoning behind your faulty logic there, right?

The faulty logic is in constantly changing the narrative to suit the idea that "football is king". The very reason the Super Bowl is so big is that it is a once a year event that has been marketed in the way it has. It's one of the biggest TV shows of the year.

Brick · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2013 7:46 am

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

Frank Coztansa wrote:

You do see the reasoning behind your faulty logic there, right?

The faulty logic is in constantly changing the narrative to suit the idea that "football is king". The very reason the Super Bowl is so big is that it is a once a year event that has been marketed in the way it has. It's one of the biggest TV shows of the year.

I guess when they start televising the World Series we can see if it becomes one of the biggest TV shows of the year.

Rod · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2013 7:49 am

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

ARE YOU READY FOR SOME TIME IN THE SUN????

As a matter of fact, I am.

Brick · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2013 7:54 am

So, for the record, JORR refuses to answer the simple question of:
Can you be a true fan if you don't attend games every year?

That's what all of this is about. He thinks he is a true fan because he chooses to go to games.

Rod · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:01 am

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

So, for the record, JORR refuses to answer the simple question of:
Can you be a true fan if you don't attend games every year?

That's what all of this is about. He thinks he is a true fan because he chooses to go to games.

I know exactly what I'm a fan of. I'm not sure you do.

The Original Kid Cairo · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:05 am

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

So, for the record, JORR refuses to answer the simple question of:
Can you be a true fan if you don't attend games every year?

That's what all of this is about. He thinks he is a true fan because he chooses to go to games.

He's saying that if you don't attend games, you're a fan of TV and not football.

rogers park bryan · **Joined:** Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm **Posts:** 81625

I'm a fan of Tv

Breaking Bad, The Wire, My Two Dads...

Brick · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:11 am

The Original Kid Cairo wrote:

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

So, for the record, JORR refuses to answer the simple question of:
Can you be a true fan if you don't attend games every year?

That's what all of this is about. He thinks he is a true fan because he chooses to go to games.

He's saying that if you don't attend games, you're a fan of TV and not football.

It's a simple yes or no answer. He chooses to not answer.

I understand he has an arbitrary criteria he has set that fits in with the view he chooses to have. That's fine. It's just a simple question and he won't answer because he realizes that the logical conclusion to his argument means that someone like me, who lives 800 miles away isn't a true fan of Purdue because he is highly unlikely to attend a game this year. That is why he won't answer it. It makes his whole argument look illogical.

Rod · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:14 am

The Original Kid Cairo wrote:

He's saying that if you don't attend games, you're a fan of TV and not football.

Well, first of all, I think the whole thing is really trivial. But I'm not exactly saying the above. There well may be some fans whose circumstances make it utterly impossible for them to attend an NFL game. I don't think that speaks to their devotion as fans at all. Though, if they're really football fans, they likely see some other forms of football that can be reasonably accomplished. I think we're using "football" and "NFL" interchangeably a lot in this discussion. Anyway, I think we can agree that the vast majority of the people posting here can afford to see an NFL game live if that is really their interest. It isn't a choice between seeing football and going hungry. It's a choice between seeing football or playing golf or taking your kids to Disney, things you may be bigger fans of than football. It's not something to be judged. But to me, the very word "fan" suggests an inordinate amount of interest in a subject.

Frank Coztansa · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:17 am

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

Frank Coztansa wrote:

You do see the reasoning behind your faulty logic there, right?

The faulty logic is in constantly changing the narrative to suit the idea that "football is king". The very reason the Super Bowl is so big is that it is a once a year event that has been marketed in the way it has. It's one of the biggest TV shows of the year.

The Super Bowl also only allows 70-80K people to attend, and of that maybe 1/4 of the tickets at most are available to the general public.

Quote:

Anyway, I think we can agree that the vast majority of the people posting here can afford to see an NFL game live if that is really their interest

Yeah, because the Bears play home games within 50 miles of most people who post here! Can the vast majority of people who live in Las Vegas, Los Angeles see a game even if they can afford it? The answer is a resounding no. Just like people that live in Las Vegas cannot see an MLB game that isn't spring training very easy.

If the Super Bowl was held in the middle of nowhere (I.e., Bristol, TN) at a place that can seat well over 100K people, it would still sell out. If it was held at a place that could seat 500,000 it would sell out. Not very many football fans in Seattle are going to be able to attend the Super Bowl in New York this year now will they? But they had plenty of chances to see the Mariners play.

The faulty logic is you beating this attendance/real fan thing home. It doesn't make any sense at all. I never saw Led-Zeppelin or Jimi Hendrix in concert. I guess I can't be a true fan of their music then according to you.

Rod · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:18 am

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

The Original Kid Cairo wrote:

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

So, for the record, JORR refuses to answer the simple question of:
Can you be a true fan if you don't attend games every year?

That's what all of this is about. He thinks he is a true fan because he chooses to go to games.

He's saying that if you don't attend games, you're a fan of TV and not football.

It's a simple yes or no answer. He chooses to not answer.

I understand he has an arbitrary criteria he has set that fits in with the view he chooses to have. That's fine. It's just a simple question and he won't answer because he realizes that the logical conclusion to his argument means that someone like me, who lives 800 miles away isn't a true fan of Purdue because he is highly unlikely to attend a game this year. That is why he won't answer it. It makes his whole argument look illogical.

It's not a yes or no question. And you're not going to bully me into answering it as such. It's like using a racial slur. Does using one make someone a racist? No, but it's a pretty good indicator that they might be. Does never going to a game mean someone isn't a football fan? No, but it probably suggests they aren't that interested. Or that maybe they just like watching TV.

Rod · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:19 am

Frank Coztansa wrote:

Can the vast majority of people who live in Las Vegas, Los Angeles see a game even if they can afford it?

They can if they're really a fan of it. If they're just slightly interested, they probably won't.

Frank Coztansa · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:21 am

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

Frank Coztansa wrote:

Can the vast majority of people who live in Las Vegas, Los Angeles see a game even if they can afford it?

They can if they're really a fan of it. If they're just slightly interested, they probably won't.

Stupid. Just really bad logic there.

Rod · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:23 am

Frank Coztansa wrote:

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

Frank Coztansa wrote:

Can the vast majority of people who live in Las Vegas, Los Angeles see a game even if they can afford it?

They can if they're really a fan of it. If they're just slightly interested, they probably won't.

Stupid. Just really bad logic there.

Let me ask you, Frank, could you define the word "fan" for me?

Frank Coztansa · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:26 am

I would say a fan is somebody who has a vested rooting interest in a certain team. A team he grew up watching, a team his parent(s) rooted for, a school he went to, or maybe a sibling/parent/aunt/uncle went to...any number of reasons.

It does NOT necessarily include attending the games of said team. Financial, geographical, work, family, any number of reasons could prevent somebody from attending a game. Yet they can still consider themselves a fan of that team, and they would be right.

Its ok that you are wrong, Orr. No shame in it.

Rod · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:50 am

Frank Coztansa wrote:

I would say a fan is somebody who has a vested rooting interest in a certain team. A team he grew up watching, a team his parent(s) rooted for, a school he went to, or maybe a sibling/parent/aunt/uncle went to...any number of reasons.

It does NOT necessarily include attending the games of said team. Financial, geographical, work, family, any number of reasons could prevent somebody from attending a game. Yet they can still consider themselves a fan of that team, and they would be right.

Its ok that you are wrong, Orr. No shame in it.

There are fans of other things besides athletic teams, so clearly your definition is incorrect.

Frank Coztansa · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:02 am

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

There are fans of other things besides athletic teams, so clearly your definition is incorrect.

Ok?

30 MLB teams. Sorry I had a typo Mr Condescending.

jimmypasta · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:10 am

I like Frank's description. JORR is usually a man who makes sense and always a well thought out comment or two,but this time I disagree.

Brick · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:15 am

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

Anyway, I think we can agree that the vast majority of the people posting here can afford to see an NFL game live if that is really their interest. It isn't a choice between seeing football and going hungry. It's a choice between seeing football or playing golf or taking your kids to Disney, things you may be bigger fans of than football. It's not something to be judged. But to me, the very word "fan" suggests an inordinate amount of interest in a subject.

It's not about what anyone can afford. It's about making a choice between two options and picking the one that provides the most value for your money. I could go watch every movie in a movie theater and pay significantly more. Yeah, I could afford to see a movie a weekend in a theater. I choose not to because not only is it more cost effective, in many ways watching at home is better than watching it outside the home. Either you choose to ignore it, or you just don't get the concept that someone may actually prefer the home viewing experiences and it has major advantages to the in person viewing experience. It's not laziness, or cheapness, or lack of caring. It's because it is better.

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

It's not a yes or no question. And you're not going to bully me into answering it as such. It's like using a racial slur. Does using one make someone a racist? No, but it's a pretty good indicator that they might be. Does never going to a game mean someone isn't a football fan? No, but it probably suggests they aren't that interested. Or that maybe they just like watching TV.

I'm not bullying you into anything. You seem to be implying that you aren't a true fan if you don't attend games in person. You just won't come out and say it.

The problem here is that you have decided the in person experience is definitely superior. That may be a valid opinion for you to have but you don't get to decide if it is valid for others. I much prefer the in home viewing experience when I care about the game and want to actually pay attention. The in person experience is better for social reasons.

jimmypasta · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:23 am

When I did go to Wrigley and a play was made,the first thing that popped in my head: "I'll catch the replay". It is natural from watching so many games on the comfort of my couch in front of a huge TV screen. You just can't beat watching any kind of game at home. I can eat,go to the bathroom,etc. without to much fuss. Also your concentration is enhanced watching on TV.

Baseball Season

Who is online