East Region Fan Poll

[Ralph Turner]

The World Series was an early fall classic, not a late fall classic.  Thru 1968, the World Series matched the American League winner with the National League winner,  no ALCS, no NLCS, no night games, nothing else.

The season was over by October 10th, and our teachers let us keep our earpieces to our transistors going, if we got our work done while the World Series was being played in the daytime!

[DanPadavona]

Amen Ralph.  I distinctly remember having the '78 1 game playoff between the Red Sox and Yankees on in our elementary school classroom prior to dismissal, and running home after school to watch the finish. 

As Jonny pointed out, its ridiculous how late they stick these games on.  Kids don't get to watch these games. I think they are giving up their future generations of fans for short term ratings/revenue.  Is it any wonder the NFL has blown past MLB as our nation's past time since we were kids?

[met_fan]

Not sure what this discussion has to do with east region football.  Anyway, baseball is doing just fine for itself.  It sets new attendance records every year and is about to surpass the NFL in revenue generated.  I agree games start too late, but the long regular season is part of what makes baseball great.

[theoriginalupstate]

Not sure what this discussion has to do with east region football.  Anyway, baseball is doing just fine for itself.  It sets new attendance records every year and is about to surpass the NFL in revenue generated.  I agree games start too late, but the long regular season is part of what makes baseball great.

162 games vs 16 games....

Not hard to generate more revenue....

[Boxer7806]

great point UPSTATE...the later the games are the less kids get to watch the game and that is only going to hurt the MLB in future generations...

[met_fan]

great point UPSTATE...the later the games are the less kids get to watch the game and that is only going to hurt the MLB in future generations...

They've been saying that for a generation

162 games vs 16 games....

Not hard to generate more revenue....

Considering that the NFL was blowing MLB away in revenues just a few years ago, it's quite a turnaround

[pg04]

Don't forget....

The fan polls should be in today.... Should be an interesting week! 

[redswarm81]

The World Series was an early fall classic, not a late fall classic.  Thru 1968, the World Series matched the American League winner with the National League winner,  no ALCS, no NLCS, no night games, nothing else.

The season was over by October 10th, and our teachers let us keep our earpieces to our transistors going, if we got our work done while the World Series was being played in the daytime!

First, the token East Region football throwaway:  Given the previously exalted status of Al Fred (# 11 in the d3football.com poll), and the Hobart/Upstart boot-on-the-neck subduing of the Saxons, the Pumpkinheads' stock value oughta be higher than Hartwick's, don'tcha think?  I mean, they have identical records, and although Hartwick beat SJFisher, they also lost to W(TF?)NEC.  Hobart's 2 losses were both by less than a TD, to 6-2 Dickinson and 7-0 RPI.

Now the real meat:  Ralph, you are so right.  We also learned in those days who had the coolest dads, since they were the ones who were allowed to stay home from school to watch the World Series--how cool is that?

The logical reason that there is a long season in baseball is not to preserve records (that argument was lost 46 years ago, when MLBaseball put an asterisk next to Roger Maris' 61 home runs), but rather to determine with certainty which team finishes first.  Now that we have Wild Card teams, finishing first isn't a requirement, so there is no need for a superlong season to filter the teams.

[Jonny Utah]

The World Series was an early fall classic, not a late fall classic.  Thru 1968, the World Series matched the American League winner with the National League winner,  no ALCS, no NLCS, no night games, nothing else.

The season was over by October 10th, and our teachers let us keep our earpieces to our transistors going, if we got our work done while the World Series was being played in the daytime!

First, the token East Region football throwaway:  Given the previously exalted status of Al Fred (# 11 in the d3football.com poll), and the Hobart/Upstart boot-on-the-neck subduing of the Saxons, the Pumpkinheads' stock value oughta be higher than Hartwick's, don'tcha think?  I mean, they have identical records, and although Hartwick beat SJFisher, they also lost to W(TF?)NEC.  Hobart's 2 losses were both by less than a TD, to 6-2 Dickinson and 7-0 RPI.

Now the real meat:  Ralph, you are so right.  We also learned in those days who had the coolest dads, since they were the ones who were allowed to stay home from school to watch the World Series--how cool is that?

The logical reason that there is a long season in baseball is not to preserve records (that argument was lost 46 years ago, when MLBaseball put an asterisk next to Roger Maris' 61 home runs), but rather to determine with certainty which team finishes first.  Now that we have Wild Card teams, finishing first isn't a requirement, so there is no need for a superlong season to filter the teams.

I think records have a HUGE part as to why they keep playing the long season.  And money is the other issue.

[redswarm81]

The logical reason that there is a long season in baseball is not to preserve records (that argument was lost 46 years ago, when MLBaseball put an asterisk next to Roger Maris' 61 home runs), but rather to determine with certainty which team finishes first.  Now that we have Wild Card teams, finishing first isn't a requirement, so there is no need for a superlong season to filter the teams.

I think records have a HUGE part as to why they keep playing the long season.  And money is the other issue.

First, let's be realistic.  It's ALL about the money, there's no other rational explanation.  And that reason is a logical reason, but it places the economics ahead of athletics.  The question I'm addressing is focused on the athletics: what is the logical, athletics-based justification of a long regular season?

I know that you and a lot of others think that records are a justification, but I haven't heard much of a logical explanation for the "preservation of season-long records" defense of 162 game seasons.  If preserving season-long records were so important to MLBaseball, why haven't they put an asterisk next to every variation?  Some examples:

• Most home runs in a strike year
• Most home runs in a season including a management lockout

If preserving season long records were so important to MLBaseball--and to its fans, why was there no criticism of steroid abusers McGwire and Sosa in 1998?

If MLBaseball wants to preserve season-long records, why do they permit interleague play?  Why do they permit Wildcard teams, a playoff structure that encourages, even demands that teams and players ease up when they are leading their divisions?

[dewcrew88]

The logical reason that there is a long season in baseball is not to preserve records (that argument was lost 46 years ago, when MLBaseball put an asterisk next to Roger Maris' 61 home runs), but rather to determine with certainty which team finishes first.  Now that we have Wild Card teams, finishing first isn't a requirement, so there is no need for a superlong season to filter the teams.

I think records have a HUGE part as to why they keep playing the long season.  And money is the other issue.

First, let's be realistic.  It's ALL about the money, there's no other rational explanation.  And that reason is a logical reason, but it places the economics ahead of athletics.  The question I'm addressing is focused on the athletics: what is the logical, athletics-based justification of a long regular season?

I know that you and a lot of others think that records are a justification, but I haven't heard much of a logical explanation for the "preservation of season-long records" defense of 162 game seasons.  If preserving season-long records were so important to MLBaseball, why haven't they put an asterisk next to every variation?  Some examples:

• Most home runs in a strike year
• Most home runs in a season including a management lockout

If preserving season long records were so important to MLBaseball--and to its fans, why was there no criticism of steroid abusers McGwire and Sosa in 1998?

If MLBaseball wants to preserve season-long records, why do they permit interleague play?  Why do they permit Wildcard teams, a playoff structure that encourages, even demands that teams and players ease up when they are leading their divisions?

There was no criticism of Sosa, McGwire, etc. because MLB lost SO many fans after the lockout in 1994 and canceling the World Series and everything that they needed fans badly, so they figured fans liked offense and that was the way to get it.
That home run chase brought a lot of fans (read: money) back to baseball, so Bud and the rest of his cronies turned a blind eye to who was being shot in the a$$ with a syringe full of drugs.

[redswarm81]

First, let's be realistic.  It's ALL about the money, there's no other rational explanation.  And that reason is a logical reason, but it places the economics ahead of athletics.  The question I'm addressing is focused on the athletics: what is the logical, athletics-based justification of a long regular season?

If preserving season long records were so important to MLBaseball--and to its fans, why was there no criticism of steroid abusers McGwire and Sosa in 1998?

There was no criticism of Sosa, McGwire, etc. because MLB lost SO many fans after the lockout in 1994 and canceling the World Series and everything that they needed fans badly, so they figured fans liked offense and that was the way to get it.
That home run chase brought a lot of fans (read: money) back to baseball, so Bud and the rest of his cronies turned a blind eye to who was being shot in the a$$ with a syringe full of drugs.

I agree for the most part--again, it's all about the Benjamins.

In their "defense," Bud Selig and his cronies have hardly changed their attitudes--they're still doing their best to see nothing.  But there's logic behind their conscious blindness, since steroid-enhanced performance is "good for business."  (I just flashed on Bud Selig as Tony Soprano--but Bud Selig is too much like Vito Spattafore to make the analogy work  )

Technically, the 1994 and 1995 shortened seasons were due to strike, not a lockout.

Good work, Jimmy Olson of "Around the East."

Oh yeah, East Region football.  Can anyone make sense of the Erratic8?  If SJFisher wins out, why should anyone rank them higher than an undefeated RPI?  RPI didn't lose to Hartwick, after all--although I think a case can be made that Hartwick is the most underrated team in the East.

[superman57]

First, let's be realistic.  It's ALL about the money, there's no other rational explanation.  And that reason is a logical reason, but it places the economics ahead of athletics.  The question I'm addressing is focused on the athletics: what is the logical, athletics-based justification of a long regular season?

If preserving season long records were so important to MLBaseball--and to its fans, why was there no criticism of steroid abusers McGwire and Sosa in 1998?

There was no criticism of Sosa, McGwire, etc. because MLB lost SO many fans after the lockout in 1994 and canceling the World Series and everything that they needed fans badly, so they figured fans liked offense and that was the way to get it.
That home run chase brought a lot of fans (read: money) back to baseball, so Bud and the rest of his cronies turned a blind eye to who was being shot in the a$$ with a syringe full of drugs.

I agree for the most part--again, it's all about the Benjamins.

In their "defense," Bud Selig and his cronies have hardly changed their attitudes--they're still doing their best to see nothing.  But there's logic behind their conscious blindness, since steroid-enhanced performance is "good for business."  (I just flashed on Bud Selig as Tony Soprano--but Bud Selig is too much like Vito Spattafore to make the analogy work  )

Technically, the 1994 and 1995 shortened seasons were due to strike, not a lockout.

Good work, Jimmy Olson of "Around the East."

Oh yeah, East Region football.  Can anyone make sense of the Erratic8?  If SJFisher wins out, why should anyone rank them higher than an undefeated RPI?  RPI didn't lose to Hartwick, after all--although I think a case can be made that Hartwick is the most underrated team in the East.

a lot of these questions could be answered after this weekend, lets see how RPI handles a common opponent in UofR, but RPI also has not beaten their opponenents handily leaving us to question whether or not they can stay with an agressive team like Fisher

[union89]

Man, I had Albright ranked #6 last week....this week I re-examined their schedule, BRUTAL.  They have yet to beat a team with even a .500 record......had to drop them a bit with the other scores around the East even though Albright won.

[dlippiel]

Redswarm I'll tell you why RPI is not and should not be ranked ahead of Fisher...Look at their schedule. They have only beaten one good team in Hobart and if they played again right now I think Hobart would take them just like they took Alfred. RPI this year looks alot like Union did last year winning games (I'll give them credit they are winning) against weak teams by slim margins. This catches up to you towards the end of the season. We will see how RPI does in the next two weeks. They are clearly better than Rochester and are the favorite against the Dutchmen. I guess all I am saying is settle down. RPI's season starts this Saturday (with the exception of the Hobart game), lets see how they do. Higher than Fisher come on. Soon you'll be saying that RPI should be ranked in the top 20 in hockey after a tough win over Sacred Heart in OT. They got outplayed by Union last week and Union doesen't even give scholarships (aide to canadians does not equal 38,000 free rides). RPI fans always wanting to conquer the world.