SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Canada (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   The Great Canadian Sports Attendance, Marketing and TV Ratings Thread (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=228928)

ScreamingViking Sep 10, 2017 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 7917290)
That's odd. Here if you have TSN all four channels are automatically included. This is true of Videotron and Bell Fibe.

Same for me.

There are basic packages from my provider that don't have TSN at all, but if you're paying for one that includes it or have added sports to your basic offering, you get them all.

mistercorporate Sep 10, 2017 1:33 AM

TFC had 29,050 in attendance at the game today with 6 games left before playoffs begin. Well on track for another year of record attendance for the club. :cheers:

Also clinched a playoff berth and the Supporter's Shield is pretty much in the bag. Well positioned to win it all this year!

isaidso Sep 10, 2017 4:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking (Post 7917295)
Same for me.

There are basic packages from my provider that don't have TSN at all, but if you're paying for one that includes it or have added sports to your basic offering, you get them all.

I'm not sure what's happening with mine then. Basic cable is part of my condo fee so I never negotiated it with a cable provider. The CFL used to have all their games available for free over the internet so I just watched that way if the game wasn't on TSN. The CFL got rid of it a few season's ago.

I've often set aside an afternoon to watch a big game at home only to find out that my TSN channel isn't showing it. :(

lrt's friend Sep 10, 2017 5:13 AM

Every CFL game is on TSN. I don't know how you get a TSN channel that doesn't.

osmo Sep 10, 2017 6:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso (Post 7917261)
^^ Those are TSN's secondary channels. One has to pay more to get those. CFL should take precedence over practically any other sporting event; especially ones from another country. I follow tennis, but it belonged on the secondary channel not TSN's primary channel. They often have it ass backwards.

Even Raptors playoff games get booted to those secondary channels in favour of things like NASCAR or US beach volleyball. Am I still living in Canada?



Nope. They televised the US Open women's final. It's a big event but I bet more Canadians would have tuned into the Banjo Bowl. It's one of the biggest games of the year. I can watch lots of NFL and NCAA football on my tv but not a single football game from Canada. This is the rule rather than the exception. Right now my only choice is Notre Dame vs Georgia, Oklahoma vs Ohio State, or Stanford vs USC. It's ridiculous.

I shouldn't have to pay extra to get domestic programming. I should have to pay extra to get foreign programming.

Likely a case of the "Thrifty Sports Network". TSN pays money for a CFL but my guess, is that just for the few weeks of the US Open they payed a hefty million and more to broadcast it.

I also agree that the US Open tennis take presence as it is the final. It is a major final of the sport. If it was some random NASCAR race then I would scratch my head.

elly63 Sep 10, 2017 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by isaidso (Post 7917408)
I'm not sure what's happening with mine then. Basic cable is part of my condo fee so I never negotiated it with a cable provider. The CFL used to have all their games available for free over the internet so I just watched that way if the game wasn't on TSN. The CFL got rid of it a few season's ago.

I don't remember the CFL ever streaming games in Canada, they couldn't if they had a TV contract with TSN or anybody else. (For some reason that rings a bell however, but I can't think what)

Are you thinking of live streaming on TSN? They still do, all 5 channels. If you have a TSN sub (or know someone who does) and have a user/pass to the cable outlet where you pay your bill, you've got it.

If you're getting it through your renter and can't get a user/pass just ask a friend or relative.

http://www.tsn.ca/live#/TSN1

http://i66.tinypic.com/2ng8prp.jpg

http://i66.tinypic.com/ndxl1.jpg

http://i63.tinypic.com/infkgo.jpg

elly63 Sep 10, 2017 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by osmo (Post 7917451)
Likely a case of the "Thrifty Sports Network". TSN pays money for a CFL but my guess, is that just for the few weeks of the US Open they payed a hefty million and more to broadcast it.

It doesn't necessarily have to be big money. Is it going to bring in big numbers? Are there other competitors bidding, there are many factors that go into how much will be paid. TSN is not competing with an American network they are bidding to get the rights to broadcast in Canada.

When the IOC awards their rights for bidding they might get 1 billion from the USA and 300,000 from Rwanda, it's not a level playing field.

So even though it is a high profile event, that may or may not bring in big numbers, TSN may or may not have paid big money to get the rights. If they are "thrifty", as you say, they are not going to pay big money for something nobody is gonna watch.

Believe it or not, there was a time in this country when nobody gave a shit about the Super Bore.

osmo Sep 10, 2017 5:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elly63 (Post 7917533)
It doesn't necessarily have to be big money. Is it going to bring in big numbers? Are there other competitors bidding, there are many factors that go into how much will be paid. TSN is not competing with an American network they are bidding to get the rights to broadcast in Canada.

When the IOC awards their rights for bidding they might get 1 billion from the USA and 300,000 from Rwanda, it's not a level playing field.

So even though it is a high profile event, that may or may not bring in big numbers, TSN may or may not have paid big money to get the rights. If they are "thrifty", as you say, they are not going to pay big money for something nobody is gonna watch.

Believe it or not, there was a time in this country when nobody gave a shit about the Super Bore.

Sportsnet has been making a push on Tennis taking low hanging fruit like the Davis Cup. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a bidding war for Grand Slam tennis when in other years nobody cared. If TSN had to "overpay" for the rights they would be more inclined to try and squeeze money out of it.

Also, networks don't make money on viewers, they make money on advertising and the type of companies or products that gravitate towards tennis are different then CFL football. You would squeeze out more money from these companies by promising the important matches are on the flagship.

In don't see it as an issue, a regular season game is not on the level of a Grand Slam final even if it gets more viewers. If TSN was smart they would do what CBS does and make sure that football and tennis don't overlap.

Mla Sep 10, 2017 8:50 PM

UFC 215 in Edmonton last night. I think something around 16,000 in attendance.

Acajack Sep 10, 2017 11:50 PM

Will not spout bush league rhetoric but did anyone see the field at the LA Rams game today?

Holy crap - and I mean crap.

If BMO looked like that for a TFC game the red patch gang would blow up the CN Tower.

Hackslack Sep 11, 2017 12:50 AM

What was the official attendance too? Looked not even half.

Acajack Sep 11, 2017 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hackslack (Post 7918024)
What was the official attendance too? Looked not even half.

It is a humongous stadium though. 93,000 capacity I think.

elly63 Sep 11, 2017 1:16 AM

NFL fans mocked the Rams' embarrassing season-opening attendance in Los Angeles
Andrew Joseph usatoday.com September 10, 2017

Musta been a lotta fans visiting the ol' Pina Colada Hut when this photo was snapped

https://i.imgur.com/3VCwEYh.png

From what I've been reading, LA (both teams) are the Toronto of the NFL :)

One guy posted tickets were $6.

A ton of empty seats greet the Rams as they start second season in Los Angeles
Frank Schwab Shutdown Corner Sep 10, 2017

elly63 Sep 11, 2017 1:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 7917971)
Will not spout bush league rhetoric but did anyone see the field at the LA Rams game today?

Those ghosted line markings are kinda strange.

https://i.imgur.com/ouPUtjz.jpg

I'm loving' the new Firefox screenshot utility.

elly63 Sep 11, 2017 1:54 AM

https://i.imgur.com/7Dq3c8S.png

Berklon Sep 11, 2017 2:47 AM

Yea, it was known that L.A. was going to be a challenge with the teams they were given.

Had the Raiders moved to L.A. instead of Las Vegas, they would've done well right away. L.A. loves the Raiders. Instead they got the Rams and Chargers. Pretty stupid move.

It doesn't help that the Rams are playing out of an ancient stadium for 3 years - so they're gonna get around 30k or so in attendance. The Chargers will be playing out of an MLS stadium for 3 years as well. The upside is that they'll be sharing a sweet-ass new stadium in 2020 so that should help build up the fanbase:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_An...Hollywood_Park

If after a while things don't turnaround quick enough, and the owners lose their patience - they'll just wind up moving the team again. The NFL isn't afraid to move teams.

Jets4Life Sep 11, 2017 4:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berklon (Post 7918110)
Yea, it was known that L.A. was going to be a challenge with the teams they were given.

Had the Raiders moved to L.A. instead of Las Vegas, they would've done well right away. L.A. loves the Raiders. Instead they got the Rams and Chargers. Pretty stupid move.

It doesn't help that the Rams are playing out of an ancient stadium for 3 years - so they're gonna get around 30k or so in attendance. The Chargers will be playing out of an MLS stadium for 3 years as well. The upside is that they'll be sharing a sweet-ass new stadium in 2020 so that should help build up the fanbase:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_An...Hollywood_Park

If after a while things don't turnaround quick enough, and the owners lose their patience - they'll just wind up moving the team again. The NFL isn't afraid to move teams.

Absolutely nobody will be going to see the LA Chargers. 10,000 max. Nobody in LA wants the Chargers there, and they are playing in a 25,000 seat stadium designed for Soccer

osmo Sep 11, 2017 6:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elly63 (Post 7918054)
Those ghosted line markings are kinda strange.

https://i.imgur.com/ouPUtjz.jpg

I'm loving' the new Firefox screenshot utility.

That is still probably 45k there. Also, as a market LA fans never show up for anything on time sports wise, so when the shot was taken can be misleading. On TV it looked empty but not tragic. No way they will sell that place out at 93K, they will likely some for 45-50k as a top benchmark.

LA Rams will be fine, the team has a long history, plus the team is trash now and LA people awaiting for them to get good.

LA Chargers have to worry though, they play in 35K stadium and have not sold it out yet or been close. That team will be a train wreak as the city does not even acknowledge them.

LA only needed one team. NFL is woefully stupid on this and will have the Chargers die a slow death before they pull them plug and move them.

Berklon Sep 11, 2017 1:04 PM

The announced crowd for the Rams was 60,128. :haha:

Suuuuuure.

It's a good thing the Rams and Chargers will be sharing a stadium, because there's a chance one of those teams will wind up relocating again (probably the Chargers) - and it would be a disaster to leave a gorgeous $2.6B stadium without a major tenant. Hell, it's hard enough to justify spending that much money for only 1 team that only plays 8 homes games a year.

Acajack Sep 11, 2017 1:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elly63 (Post 7918054)
Those ghosted line markings are kinda strange.

https://i.imgur.com/ouPUtjz.jpg

I'm loving' the new Firefox screenshot utility.

I was guessing that the weirdness in the field markings was due to the NCAA field. Is it different from the NFL?

Acajack Sep 11, 2017 1:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berklon (Post 7918282)

It's a good thing the Rams and Chargers will be sharing a stadium, because there's a chance one of those teams will wind up relocating again (probably the Chargers) - and it would be a disaster to leave a gorgeous $2.6B stadium without a major tenant. Hell, it's hard enough to justify spending that much money for only 1 team that only plays 8 homes games a year.

Hey! They could move to Toronto and become the Toronto Rogers Cellphone Chargers!

elly63 Sep 11, 2017 1:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by osmo (Post 7918192)
LA Chargers have to worry though, they play in 35K stadium and have not sold it out yet or been close.

In 2017, to accommodate the Chargers use of the stadium, upgrades were made at cost to the Chargers including bleachers in the second deck on the east side of the stadium being replaced by tip-up seats and moved to the berm on the north side, adding 1,000 seats. A new section of upper-level bleachers, which seat 330, were erected in the southeast corner of the stadium.

Capacity 28,300?

esquire Sep 11, 2017 2:45 PM

Why has LA been so blasé about the return of the NFL? From what I can tell, it's not like ownership has been abusive by charging extortionate ticket prices, PSLs, etc. I'm sure getting to the games is a hassle but it's the same thing with USC and they manage to draw larger crowds to the Coliseum.

And why is it even worse with the Chargers? Is it just some regional antipathy towards cheering for "San Diego's team" or what?

In much the same way I find it baffling that there aren't consistently 25,000 people willing to pony up to watch the Argos in Toronto, I am similarly baffled that there aren't, say, 75 thousand people willing to pony up to watch the Rams each week in LA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 7918292)
Hey! They could move to Toronto and become the Toronto Rogers Cellphone Chargers!

:haha:

elly63 Sep 11, 2017 3:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire (Post 7918353)
And why is it even worse with the Chargers? Is it just some regional antipathy towards cheering for "San Diego's team" or what?

In much the same way I find it baffling that there aren't consistently 25,000 people willing to pony up to watch the Argos in Toronto, I am similarly baffled that there aren't, say, 75 thousand people willing to pony up to watch the Rams each week in LA.

Ironically the Chargers first year of existence was in LA at the Coliseum as the LA Chargers.

Yes, there are some strange similarities with Toronto. The naysayers said it would be a joke if the CFL didn't have a team in Toronto and yet the NFL weren't in LA. And maybe they are suffering something similar to being out of the market for awhile, something akin to Braley slowly strangling the Argos by decimating the marketing and promotion departments. It has been and will be a struggle to return. Like Toronto, there are no guarantees people will come back when you've lost them.

But on the positive side Ottawa was able to recover so hope reigns eternal.

As for the new stadium, I was under the understanding that Inglewood (home of the Fabulous Forum) is not exactly one of the better sections of LA.

esquire Sep 11, 2017 3:28 PM

^ I guess it didn't help that the NFL sprang two franchises on LA a year apart.

Speaking of California teams, it looks like the Niners are having problems of their own judging by this second half kickoff shot:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJZRldwVoAAsYsx.jpg

source: @gregboysen

In some ways the NFL might be better off being in a place like Toronto, at least from an attendance perspective. In much the same way that smaller Canadian markets pack the joint for the NHL at least in part because the cities have something to prove, Toronto would probably fill the seats for the NFL out of a desire to prove it belongs... places like LA and SF already know they do, so clearly that doesn't work as a motivating factor. They know the teams aren't going anywhere now.

Acajack Sep 11, 2017 3:40 PM

That game in SF was officially a sellout.

esquire Sep 11, 2017 3:44 PM

^ I've not been to Levi's Stadium but I did attend a game at Candlestick Park a few years back... I found that stadium very difficult to get into because of its location and lacking the local knowledge of any shortcuts. People say Levi's is even worse, partly because of its sheer distance from the city. I guess that's not helping things... even if dogfood.com and other tech companies buy all the seats, it looks like many of them are going unused.

elly63 Sep 11, 2017 4:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire (Post 7918411)
Speaking of California teams, it looks like the Niners are having problems of their own judging by this second half kickoff shot:

That must be one helluva lineup at the Rum Hut :)

Tell ya the truth, with the reduction in population (getting out of the boomer generation) and cord cutting and US network TV not being as powerful as they once were, you wonder if this model (the NFL) will even be sustainable in 20 years time.

le calmar Sep 11, 2017 4:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 7918418)
That game in SF was officially a sellout.

What the hell happened? 90% of the ticket holders didn't show up?

elly63 Sep 11, 2017 4:09 PM

WTH is going on down there in Calif?

The Chargers Had Pathetic Attendance Again At StubHub Center
Ryan Phillips http://thebiglead.com August 20, 2017

The San Diego/Los Angeles Chargers played their second game in the “Fight For LA” on Sunday night, as they hosted the New Orleans Saints. And, for the second week in a row, the Chargers failed to pack their tiny soccer stadium home.

Attendance for the game was officially 21,197 in a venue that holds 27,000. Now remember, that’s the number of tickets sold, not the number of fans who went through the turnstiles. It’s clear nowhere near 21,000 people were in attendance.

In Week 1 the Chargers were able to lure just 21,054 fans to StubHub Center, and this week they “officially” got 143 more. Take a look at some crowd shots:

Granted, those are early-game shots, but the following two are well into the first quarter:

So can we finally admit moving the Chargers to Los Angeles will be a complete and utter disaster? No, not yet? We’re going to let their attendance embarrass the league more and more every week? OK, sounds good.

Berklon Sep 11, 2017 4:12 PM

The picture shown above was at the 2nd half kickoff... lots of people not in their seats at that time. Other shots show a much fuller stadium - which is what I saw when watching the game. But SF is definitely having attendance problems... I'd say maybe only 75-80% of the seats are full at games.

The started to suck just as they moved into their new stadium. The first year attendance was great - but the novelty wore off and people didn't want to drive that distance to the new stadium to see a really horrible team.

Overall, NFL attendance has dropped. I think it's simply a sign of changing sports consumption habits and economics. It's really hard to beat watching multiple games in HD in the comfort of your own home for free. This is something all sports leagues will have to deal with.

elly63 Sep 11, 2017 4:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by le calmar (Post 7918444)
What the hell happened? 90% of the ticket holders didn't show up?

Not sure what game that was but later photos of the game below showed the stadium half full.

49ers sell out Levi’s Stadium for TNF, but only half show up
David Fucillo ninersnation.com Oct 7, 2016,

The San Francisco 49ers had essentially a sell-out crowd on hand for Thursday Night Football, with the game report saying paid attendance was 70,178. I believe Super Bowl 50 had the largest football crowd in the first 2+ seasons, with an announced 71,088 in attendance.

The 49ers are likely going to announce sellouts for each of their remaining home games this season. The number might change from game-to-game due to things like standing room tickets sold, but it will be essentially a sellout.

Of course, as we saw last night, and as we’ve seen before, a sellout does not mean that the stands are actually full of fans. Numerous people were tweeting and I heard from several folks who pointed to a stadium that was no more than half full. We’ll never know the full number for certain because the 49ers are not going to release the turnstile attendance (we certainly did not when I worked at the A’s!), but we know people are choosing to stay home.

...

esquire Sep 11, 2017 4:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berklon (Post 7918454)
Overall, NFL attendance has dropped. I think it's simply a sign of changing sports consumption habits and economics. It's really hard to beat watching multiple games in HD in the comfort of your own home for free. This is something all sports leagues will have to deal with.

As far as I can tell, it's basically a confluence of two factors:

1) There has never been a worse time to attend a game in person - think about it, $100 was considered fairly big money for a sports event just 20 years ago, now it only gets you mediocre nosebleeds in many popular venues. Security rigamarole means you have to get there early to go through increasingly airport-like screening. Traffic. Expensive everything inside the stadium. Miss all the other games because of the time it takes to get there and back.

2) There has never been a better time to watch sports on TV - pretty well anyone with a job that gives you disposable income can afford a big screen HDTV with access to multiple games a week.

In 1977 your options were spend $25 on a pair of tickets or make do with an AM radio, or if you were lucky, on a 21" fuzzy low-def TV.

These days, your options are spend $250 on a pair of tickets or just stay home and watch on a 55" HD screen.

elly63 Sep 11, 2017 4:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berklon (Post 7918454)
Overall, NFL attendance has dropped. I think it's simply a sign of changing sports consumption habits and economics. It's really hard to beat watching multiple games in HD in the comfort of your own home for free. This is something all sports leagues will have to deal with.

Especially today with kids who have grown up around their social interaction being through a handheld device. The need for face to face contact seems to be waning. In the olden days kids hung out at the mall (or wherever) to meet with friends, much less so today.

Another phenomena is kids are getting their driver's license much later than in years past, they don't need it to maintain contact with others.

And one last piece of the "craziness" of change. There are those who suggest that the period of adolescence carry on until a yoiung person is through with college, meaning essentially your "teenage" years will go until you are 25.

Berklon Sep 11, 2017 4:26 PM

Might be too early to judge the Chargers attendance by the pre-season games.
Most stadiums are less than half-full during the pre-season.

I don't even watch the games on TV. It's basically just a bunch of 2nd and 3rd stringers trying to make the team, and the rarely used key players trying to avoid injury. It's not very entertaining.

elly63 Sep 11, 2017 4:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berklon (Post 7918478)
It's not very entertaining.

Do people really watch the NFL for the football entertainment or more the spectacle, betting, fan pool, Monday morning office water cooler talk.

Very few people in Canada are xs and os type of fans.

Hackslack Sep 11, 2017 4:39 PM

I agree with all points made that it is hard to beat watching football in the comfort of your own home, with cheaper beer and better, clearer view of any game on demand, with no commercials (those who have pvr). It is the same with CFL as well.... however, I would argue the complete opposite for soccer, where the entertainment value being live at the stadium is exactly why MLS attendance numbers are doing so great, and tV numbers so poor... The entertainment of the live event and in-game experience appears exciting, with all the drinking and singing and jumping, compared to sitting infrint of the tv just watching soccer.

khabibulin Sep 11, 2017 4:41 PM

Over 80,000 in Lambeau Field to see the Packers- Seahawks game. I'm sure that the Giants - Cowboys, and many more games were well above 50,000 to 60,000, or more in attendance. I don't know why everyone points out the minority of games/teams with attendance issues, rather than the great success that the NFL is.

elly63 Sep 11, 2017 4:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hackslack (Post 7918490)
however, I would argue the complete opposite for soccer, where the entertainment value being live at the stadium is exactly why MLS attendance numbers are doing so great, and tV numbers so poor... The entertainment of the live event and in-game experience appears exciting, with all the drinking and singing and jumping, compared to sitting infringed of the tv just watching soccer.

I would agree that orgs like MLSE have done a fantastic job tying into the "millennial" market but I wonder as they age will that loyalty remain. This demo has grown up around downloading/streaming content for free they may not be the most reliable of markets long term. No one has yet figured out how to monetize social media to the point of replacing an NFL sized TV contract.

Also, those rabid MLS fans may be the total extent of their market. They talk about how they don't watch conventional TV and their ratings are abysmal so where does the growth come from without a large TV contract. Where will the money for growth come from?

elly63 Sep 11, 2017 4:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by khabibulin (Post 7918492)
Over 80,000 in Lambeau Field to see the Packers- Seahawks game. I'm sure that the Giants - Cowboys, and many more games were well above 50,000 to 60,000, or more in attendance. I don't know why everyone points out the minority of games/teams with attendance issues, rather than the great success that the NFL is.

There's no denying that, but the NFL should be looking at these issues as should the CFL in the three biggest cities. Is this just a temporary abheration, or will it continue to grow. And while neither league is in any peril, I would sure be concerned and making it a priority as something to try and fix.

elly63 Sep 11, 2017 5:03 PM

Sport of the future, rugby sevens. Cheap to play, very fun to watch and tailor made for the new content viewer. Fast paced and quick games (seven minute halves) so there isn't a big spectator investment of time.

I don't know a damn thing about rugby but I like watching it. Tell me this isn't entertaining

Video Link


Below isn't sevens but it's the wide open type play you will see and my favourite play

Video Link

Berklon Sep 11, 2017 5:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elly63 (Post 7918481)
Do people really watch the NFL for the football entertainment or more the spectacle, betting, fan pool, Monday morning office water cooler talk.

Spectacle only really applies to the Super Bowl... regular season games and playoffs are just games... you wouldn't be watching at all if you don't like football or like football and bet.

There's a lot of overlap between people who watch it for the game and people who bet. I used to be in FF pools, but stopped because it got in the way of just enjoying the game. I know a lot of people who watch just for the game itself. I also know a few people who are in football pools but don't actually watch the games because they don't find it interesting. Hard to dedicate so much time to watching football games only because you're in a pool, but don't enjoy the sport. You can do just as well on the pools just by perusing the stats on Monday morning to make your picks.

elly63 Sep 11, 2017 5:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berklon (Post 7918551)
There's a lot of overlap between people who watch it for the game and people who bet. I used to be in FF pools, but stopped because it got in the way of just enjoying the game. I know a lot of people who watch just for the game itself. I also know a few people who are in football pools but don't actually watch the games because they don't find it interesting. Hard to dedicate so much time to watching football games only because you're in a pool, but don't enjoy the sport. You can do just as well on the pools just by perusing the stats on Monday morning to make your picks.

Funny, I used to do well in hockey pools without ever watching the games. I used to buy the Hockey News preview/pool edition, worked every time, unless someone got hurt :)

GlassCity Sep 11, 2017 6:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elly63 (Post 7918534)
Sport of the future, rugby sevens. Cheap to play, very fun to watch and tailor made for the new content viewer. Fast paced and quick games (seven minute halves) so there isn't a big spectator investment of time.

I don't know a damn thing about rugby but I like watching it. Tell me this isn't entertaining

Video Link


Below isn't sevens but it's the wide open type play you will see and my favourite play

Video Link

I hate sevens haha, but that's cause I've been playing standard rugby for a very long time. Sure sevens can be fun to watch, but it could never become a legitimate sport. It's the arena football of rugby. You couldn't have a sevens "league", just cause the games are so short. It pains me when I see TV channels market it as "rugby" because it's not. I see sevens growth as an obstacle in the growth of 15s.

elly63 Sep 11, 2017 6:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlassCity (Post 7918637)
I hate sevens haha, but that's cause I've been playing standard rugby for a very long time. Sure sevens can be fun to watch, but it could never become a legitimate sport. It's the arena football of rugby. You couldn't have a sevens "league", just cause the games are so short. It pains me when I see TV channels market it as "rugby" because it's not. I see sevens growth as an obstacle in the growth of 15s.

I've thought about that as well, but mainstream sports are going to have to change to stay relevant. Because of all the news about CTE and concussions, the CFL has initiatives to get flag football really going in schools. Parents are now conditioned to keep their kids away from contact sports. The wide open play of sevens might help mitigate that.

The CFL for sure and likely the NFL are looking for "transitional" sports to get kids interested in playing like games and later transition them when they are older into full contact.

I agree with you that some traditionalists might frown on sevens but you can't argue with its popularity. Regular rugby (15s) seems to have opened up more from when I remember it, as exceeding slow and plodding which is not very good if you don't have much knowledge of the sport.

And with social interaction being so far different than when I was a child, even then it was damn near impossible to get a real game of baseball going, so you played a bastardized version of it. 15s rugby and football are likely the same, you play an improvised version on the playground and that maintains/creates interest.

GlassCity Sep 11, 2017 6:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elly63 (Post 7918662)
I've thought about that as well, but mainstream sports are going to have to change to stay relevant. Because of all the news about CTE and concussions, the CFL has initiatives to get flag football really going in schools. Parents are now conditioned to keep their kids away from contact sports. The wide open play of sevens might help mitigate that.

The CFL for sure and likely the NFL are looking for "transitional" sports to get kids interested in playing like games and later transition them when they are older into full contact.

I agree with you that some traditionalists might frown on sevens but you can't argue with its popularity. Regular rugby (15s) seems to have opened up more from when I remember it, as exceeding slow and plodding which is not very good if you don't have much knowledge of the sport.

And with social interaction being so far different than when I was a child, even then it was damn near impossible to get a real game of baseball going, so you played a bastardized version of it. 15s rugby and football are likely the same, you play an improvised version on the playground and that maintains/creates interest.

Well I would argue that rugby is overall much safer than football due to the different rules around contact, so CTE is less of a concern, although it's definitely still there.

Rugby's definitely sped up from before, but I could still obviously see how 15s may be dull to watch for a new viewer. That be said, football is largely guys standing around and yet it's very popular.

There's nothing wrong with sevens, both to play recreationally as you mentioned as well as as a spectator sport. My concern lies in North American market forces billing it as the standard-bearer of rugby, thereby seriously hurting any chances of the growth of 15s. I mean 3 on 3 hockey/basketball is fun to play and watch too, but at the end of the day, I want to see the real thing.

elly63 Sep 11, 2017 6:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlassCity (Post 7918637)
it could never become a legitimate sport

It's in the Olympics so that legitimizes (and popularizes) it. Having said that, much of those damn XGames stuff that I can't stand is in the Winter Olympics so I can't be a hypocrite.

I just look at does it really take away from the integrity of the sport, I don't think sevens does, but that's just my opinion. I would think that a more knowledgeable traditionalist would disagree.

They are going to have mixed doubles curling in the Olympics, I don't know what to think, but anything that helps grow the game can't be all bad.

They were blasting music between shots of the doubles before (don't know if they changed it)

Video Link

elly63 Sep 11, 2017 6:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlassCity (Post 7918672)
My concern lies in North American market forces billing it as the standard-bearer of rugby, thereby seriously hurting any chances of the growth of 15s. I mean 3 on 3 hockey/basketball is fun to play and watch too, but at the end of the day, I want to see the real thing.

I agree with that, I don't wanna see any of that 3on3 stuff either but rugby as a mainstream sport in North America did not catch on (and I do know its long history) so the market is wide open for sevens in NA.

As concerning safety, you get a lot of PC propaganda regarding what is dangerous and how often it is reported in the media. Heading a soccer ball at speed cannot be good and you very rarely hear that gymnastics is probably the most dangerous sport out there for injuries.

One thing that scared me a while back was a CMNT game where defender Steven Vitoria took a free kick off the head at full speed. Something at that rate of speed could be lethal, he went down and I was thankful he was able to get up.

GlassCity Sep 11, 2017 6:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elly63 (Post 7918680)
It's in the Olympics so that legitimizes (and popularizes) it. Having said that, much of those damn XGames stuff that I can't stand is in the Winter Olympics so I can't be a hypocrite.

I just look at does it really take away from the integrity of the sport, I don't think sevens does, but that's just my opinion. I would think that a more knowledgeable traditionalist would disagree.

They are going to have mixed doubles curling in the Olympics, I don't know what to think, but anything that helps grow the game can't be all bad.

They were blasting music between shots of the doubles before (don't know if they changed it)

Video Link

I should clarify, by "legitimate sport" I mean something you could build a traditional league system out of, with at least a few months of regular games, standings, playoffs, etc. Sevens is a tournament sport; games are 14 minutes long and teams play as many as 4 games a day. It's not really something geared towards emotional investment in your team or convenient watching.

It's obviously a real, difficult, demanding sport and I think the high scoring is flashy but it lessens the appeal of it to me. Hockey would be worse with 10-8 scores than it is like now with 4-2 scores.

esquire Sep 11, 2017 6:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlassCity (Post 7918689)
It's obviously a real, difficult, demanding sport and I think the high scoring is flashy but it lessens the appeal of it to me. Hockey would be worse with 10-8 scores than it is like now with 4-2 scores.

It was kind of like that in the 80s and people didn't seem to mind!


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.