It's not just the polarization, there are a large number of people who don't want to see their sports politicized. That's why they watch sports, to get away from politics.

Do people think this before or after they stand for the anthem, or do they do it before or after they enter the stadium their tax dollars paid for? Surely they didn't mind police or military engagement nights, right?

People just don't want to hear politics they don't agree with. If people have a tough time with athletes asking for basic human rights that's on them to take a long look in the mirror.

Sports are inherently and intrinsically tied to politics. Believing anything else borders on ridiculous.

Does "basic human rights" support rioting and the ambush of police officers?

I actually was going to post this before I saw your post: I am all for supporting our military and police but I don't think the athletic fields are the place to do it. I grew up in a time when they played the national anthem at many public gatherings ie theaters but long before these present troubles I thought the act had outlived its time.

When the need to insult begins perhaps the one doing the insulting should look in the mirror and see their intolerance.

I guess when we clap for military personnel we're all just saying we are okay with war crimes, given that an athlete kneeling for what they support is obviously promoting rioting and destruction.

True that!

I at least wasn't even talking about growth scenarios. I was talking about retaining the demographics it won over long ago.

Baseball is a pretty good case study for why focusing on retaining isn't necessarily a good strategy for survival.

If Goodell's recent hollow "nothing" apologies are any indication, I think the NFL is coming around to the fact that they may take a small immediate hit now, but they're going to be better off in the long run by at least putting on a progressive face.

More good antenna info

Attic TV Antenna vs. Outdoor TV Antenna Setup

I support the ending of playing of the National Anthems at sporting events. It serves no purpose and I've had this opinion years before the latest waves of protests.

Ditto. In most non-North American leagues, when it's time to start the game, they start the game. It's refreshing.

That's a question I would love to ask the CRTC. I think I read an explanation once but I've forgotten what it was, must have been a very lame excuse for me not to remember. Maybe I'll see if I can find out again, complaint letters to the CRTC wouldn't hurt.

Sounds like you're a cord cutter, I'm always interested in what kind of setup people have

It's not necessarily an either/or. The smart money does both.

This applies to any form of business though if we're talking about pro sports, the NHL in Canada vs. the U.S. is a good example.

NHL fandom is still big in Canada but the NHL's neglect of this country has at the very least led to a relative decline in interest in the sport. It's very noticeable to anyone who grew up in the 70s, 80s or 90s, how the impact and presence of the league in overall society is visibly diminished.

The NFL has grown its brand into a juggernaut to the point where sports bars in places far away from an NFL team and with no local club like Anchorage Alaska are packed on Thursday nights with people watching games featuring teams from far away places.

The NHL was headed towards that kind of fandom in Canada (the early stages of it were there) and if you follow the evolution of countries' main national sports worldwide, *should* have been like that. But they squandered that opportunity.

It kind of is an either/or in this instance when you're talking about about something as mutually exclusive as either allowing athlete's to express their beliefs on your stage or not.

We've had this discussion before, but the idea that the NHL squandered anything (purely from a business standpoint) in regards their overall strategy over the last two decades is nothing but nationalistic egotism. No NHL owner will think that the opportunity to bring hockey from say 75% domination of the national sports landscape to 90% is better than collecting franchise fees from two new teams that are already more valuable than half their Canadian counterparts. It also assumes the league is the sole reason for any rise or decline in interest/viewership and ignores the underlying demographic changes that are fueling the growth of basketball, soccer, and others. There's a good chance the massive cohort of second generation immigrants would still be bigger basketball fans even if we stuck a team in every city of 500,000 people.

The NFL is unique because their best business case is to completely saturate the one market they operate in. There is no giant neighbour that presents a sizable opportunity cost for every decision to keep the NFL local. The better analogy for hockey is the NBA, and to say that the league has squandered the opportunity to grow the game in Indiana as China fuels the most rapid growth any modern sports league has seen.

The NBA is a pretty good case study in this with their progressivism (except for when it comes to China...). They crush every other league in most metrics for fans under 30, including the NFL.

It's essentially just Canadians moaning that the NHL doesn't praise them as fans at every turn and breath, despite there being fewer of them with their money being worth 25% less.

As i've said what feels like a thousand times on this forum: it's not the NHL's prerogative to grow the game of hockey, at least not initially. Their main goal is to maximize profits for their owners. That's it. If people have an issue with a decline of the sport of hockey in Canada they should look towards Hockey Canada. The NHL goes where the money and growth is and for the past thirty years that hasn't been in Canada.

Agreed, and this is a good analogy.

It was quite literally the only game in town. Canadians had no choice really when it came to sports in Canada at that time (50s-70s) on a broad, national scale. It was the NHL or, like, the CFL maybe? I'm sure somebody over 40 will be quick to correct me on this. Either way, the options at that time, even leading up to the 90s, were far less than they are today.

The NHL's diminishment in Canada is less to do with the NHL and more to do with every other sport and league entering the country.

And I think it would be appalling to expect athletes to sit on their hands in a time of such turmoil when people like them are murdered and discriminated against on a daily basis in their cities and neighbourhoods. I guess Tommie Smith and John Carlos should have stuck to sports and kept their heads down. I guess Muhammad Ali should have shut his mouth and gone to Vietnam. I guess Carlos Delgado should have stood during every seventh inning as God Bless America blasted over the speakers. I guess Canada should have gone to Moscow '80.

Related:

NaomiOsaka大坂なおみ @naomiosaka
All the people that were telling me to “keep politics out of sports”, (which it wasn’t political at all), really inspired me to win. You better believe I’m gonna try to be on your tv for as long as possible.

Yeah, I am and I'm not at the same time.

I was sans-cord for a few years when I was internet-only (using antenna + streaming).
Rogers contract was up and it was cheaper to get an internet/cable/landline package than an internet-only deal (obviously done purposely - shouldn't have to spend $100 for just internet)... so I have an HD cable box with basic cable package and an unused land-line. I work from home (long before covid) and require reliable and fast internet service - and Rogers offers the best service in my area.

The cable box is hooked up to my TV downstairs and antenna is hooked up upstairs.

I used to have an outdoor antenna (cheapish one) and it didn't do any better than my indoor one (Terk) - so I stuck with the indoor one and took down the outdoor one (which was a bit of an eyesore where it was sitting). Basically it gets pointed in one of two directions depending on the channels I want to watch at the time. I'd like to try the Antennas Direct ClearStream 2MAX antenna to see if I can get all the channels pointing in just one direction, and possibly getting a few more (like some Buffalo channels). I hate to spend $100 on it to find out that it doesn't do any better in my current living space.

The SOBs at Bell do the same thing, they offer a cheaper package to get you hooked you into "cable" than just Internet and phone (in my case). They've even told me that I don't have to hook the "cable" up, but I have have to cut off my nose to spite my face and I tell them to stick it. I figure I'll cancel and they'll get someone from retention to call me two days later and see if we can work out a deal. I'm gonna try and see if I can get into a trial of Starlink.

I bought a Mohu Curve antenna (for the looks) and it gets the few channels that are available to me. If you are in Hamilton you might have a rough time getting Buffalo without a decent setup.

As I said before I have a laptop hooked up to the TV with Kodi installed on Windows. I have a bunch of legal addons CBC GEM, Internet Archive, Crackle, Pluto TV, Xumo, and YouTube (for starters) I also have the IPTV from my previous post installed on Kodi with channels like Buzzr, Knowledge Network, several News Channels, FreeSports, EdgeSports and Bein Sports Xtra. There are some really good Pluto channels like History and Biography which seem to be the library from the old A&E Network (before it sucked)

Interestingly, if you are French you can get almost every major French speaking channel. ICI RDI, ICI, Noovo, TVA, Tele-Quebec, Canal Savoir, CPAC and stuff from France.

It's actually not that difficult to get going. I had to learn everything on my own but now that I know what to do and what not to do (illegal addons) it's fairly easy. But if a person doesn't want to put a little work into it or have everything at 1080p and instantaneous it isn't for them. For me it's a hobby to see what I can get for nuthin'. I probably spend more time playing with it than watching the programs. Not maintaining to keep it going but trying to make it better.

The black population of the U.S. is only 13.5% and not even the second largest group as that is Latinos and I am amazed how little sports leagues bother to even try and garner more latino support compared to BLM support. The latino population is growing at an incredible pace in the U.S. and no one seems to target them in outreach, commercials ect...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/...he-next-decade

I describe my self as a "cord-never-haver". We only had antenna when I grew up. My parents got satellite after I went to college. (We watched a lot of DVD box sets). Got Netflix when I was in college, and when I moved home for a few years we were somewhat evenly split between watching TV or Netflix using the Playstation.

Now I've moved out and me and my fiancee have added Disney+, Amazon Prime and Crave. So I guess we're technically up to a ~$40 a month in those costs, but the Netflix is her mom's account, I offloaded my account to my parents, and we'd have prime anyway for shopping/shipping. We don't make good use of them though, if we were tighter for money I'd try to stick to 1 or two and rotate which one we're signed up for. The problem is we run them by telling the Google Home what to play on the Chromecast, and that means I'm not actually browsing and seeing what's available. (She's the one who's into all the technology, I'd be happy with just netflix, a game controller and a radio...)

I pay TSN Direct out of my personal budget, choosing either day-pass or monthly based on which works out better for me - I really only watch Toronto Arrows and Hamilton Tiger-Cats. I find "illegal" streams for European rugby, mostly because time zones make it so that I rarely watch. I did sign up for TSN to watch Super Rugby when it started back up this June, but couldn't keep up with the 3am kickoffs and got out of the habit. Trying DAZN and NFL and we'll see if I stick with that. NFL is almost the opposite problem from Super Rugby, 1pm is TOO much in the middle of day. Great for attendign live, not as great if I want to get other stuff done and also catch a game on TV.

Thanks!


I really agree with this. It comes up in rugby, especially rugby league a lot. Many English fas are critical of the Toronto Wolfpack not doing more to develop the game in Canada. But they are not the CRLA, and their purpose is to win titles and make money, like any pro team.

I never made any pronouncements on this stuff.