Sports in Canadian culture

[HomerSPC]

Originally Posted by esquire

Considering the wide footprint of hockey in the US, I'm surprised that those sorts of basketball-only buildings are still built down there. Unless of course it's for a college team that has no intention of ever hosting hockey.

You'd think having the Islanders as a long-term tenant would be a nice feather in Barclays Centre's cap, and a good moneymaker for them. But it was so badly compromised that it was destined not to work... it was a stopgap temporary situation, kind of like when the Coyotes shared the Suns' arena in Phoenix.

Hockey isn't nearly as popular as basketball is in the US.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by HomerSPC

Hockey isn't nearly as popular as basketball is in the US.

That isn't really the issue here, though.

[Tg11]

But I along with other people who are sports fanatics just want to be able to play recreational sports this summer and if vaccine rollout helps with that, then I'm good

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by esquire

Considering the wide footprint of hockey in the US, I'm surprised that those sorts of basketball-only buildings are still built down there. Unless of course it's for a college team that has no intention of ever hosting hockey.

You'd think having the Islanders as a long-term tenant would be a nice feather in Barclays Centre's cap, and a good moneymaker for them. But it was so badly compromised that it was destined not to work... it was a stopgap temporary situation, kind of like when the Coyotes shared the Suns' arena in Phoenix.

IIRC Barclays was built exclusively as a basketball venue but it of course doubles as the secondary main arena concert venue in NYC after MSG. It's pretty ideally placed and can cover event dates that MSG can't when it's hosting other events. I don't doubt that Barclays would make more on concerts than Islanders games.

The Islanders are absolutely upgrading by moving to UBS, though. That arena should be pretty nice.

[esquire]

Barclays could have potentially worked as a home for the Islanders, but the crappy configuration combined with distance from the fanbase was apparently too much to overcome.

You have to think the odds of it all working out would have been higher if Barclays was able to accommodate a hockey rink properly. And that wouldn't be without some benefit to the owners... sure one sold out concert would probably do better than an Islanders game, but there are 42 Islanders games + preseason + playoffs... that's a lot of concerts to fill to replace all those hockey nights. That said if any city can do that easily it's NYC, but the point is there is still significant value to hosting a NHL tenant.

[JHikka]

David Alter
@dalter
Starting in ‘21-‘22, the #Leafs will provide full-time, 1-year paid contracts within their management team and coaching staff, respectively, to Black or Indigenous candidates or those who identify as part of another marginalized and/or radicalized group in their dev. program.

https://twitter.com/dalter/status/1395153999901466624

Adam Laskaris
@adam_la2karis
Saw this on Instagram.

Producers of the Leafs Amazon Prime series are looking for diverse families to feature in the doc:

https://twitter.com/adam_la2karis/st...94581629739008

---

Do the Leafs know something that we don't?

[Tg11]

Originally Posted by esquire

Barclays could have potentially worked as a home for the Islanders, but the crappy configuration combined with distance from the fanbase was apparently too much to overcome.

You have to think the odds of it all working out would have been higher if Barclays was able to accommodate a hockey rink properly. And that wouldn't be without some benefit to the owners... sure one sold out concert would probably do better than an Islanders game, but there are 42 Islanders games + preseason + playoffs... that's a lot of concerts to fill to replace all those hockey nights. That said if any city can do that easily it's NYC, but the point is there is still significant value to hosting a NHL tenant.

May as well move the Islanders to Brooklyn because if they do that, Barclays gets themselves a hockey team on top of already having a basketball team and the rivalry that the Nets/Knicks have in the NBA transfers over into the NHL with the Islanders/Rangers especially if you move the Islanders from Long Island to Brooklyn

[esquire]

^ They've already tried that... it didn't work.

[Tg11]

But back to sports in Canada, I think everyone wants to be outside playing recreational sports and if this vaccine rollout expedites that process, then a lot of people who do play sports can actually enjoy their summer.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Tg11

But back to sports in Canada, I think everyone wants to be outside playing recreational sports and if this vaccine rollout expedites that process, then a lot of people who do play sports can actually enjoy their summer.

Amateur team sports are basically at a standstill in parts of the country... here in Manitoba, you can have up to 5 people gathered for outdoor sports activities and you can't have games, just practices. It sucks... organized team sports are totally off the table for most people, but there is more leeway for individual sports like golf.

My son would be in soccer, baseball, hockey and swimming right now but the only thing that's happening is a small-group baseball practice on an alternating basis, so once a week.

[Tg11]

Originally Posted by esquire

Amateur team sports are basically at a standstill in parts of the country... here in Manitoba, you can have up to 5 people gathered for outdoor sports activities and you can't have games, just practices. It sucks... organized team sports are totally off the table for most people, but there is more leeway for individual sports like golf.

My son would be in soccer, baseball, hockey and swimming right now but the only thing that's happening is a small-group baseball practice on an alternating basis, so once a week.

Yeah because here in Ontario normally I would be playing soccer in a league

[megadude]

I'm sure this topic has been brought up before but I just watched TSN's highlights of the Champions League final and it's just cringeworthy to listen to people who don't follow a sport butcher the names and terms.

"Second Champions League title in franchise history". Try club, not franchise.

Another example is "and he scores in extra time". Nope. What they mean is added time or stoppage time. Extra time is OT.

This has been a pet peeve of mine for 25 years, watching TSN, The Score and Sportsnet just brutalize the commentary on soccer and other international sports.

They even said the wrong player's name when talking about a missed shot. And they skipped one incredibly crucial moment of the game.

It's a total failure from top down, including management, writers, researchers and on air talent. I could not operate like that. If something is a part of my job, especially if seen by millions of people, and if I consider myself a professional, I probably want to get some of the most basic things correct.

It's not that difficult. You'd think they'd have a read through before going on air and there'd be someone to tell you how to pronounce the names. And whoever is writing the script for that sport's highlights should actually know the sport.

[rousseau]

I agree, it's awful. Though I think somebody must have noticed something was off, because while the on-screen chyron said "franchise" the news presenter made a point of saying "club" several times in his report on the final, including with a slow emphasis when the word "franchise" appeared on the screen in the clip I saw.

https://www.tsn.ca/video/uefa-champi...lsea-1~2212079

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by esquire

That isn't really the issue here, though.

It comes back to the argument that multi-purpose sports venues aren't ideal. As a Canadian, I've grown up watching basketball in venues built for hockey. They accommodate basketball but the spectator experience is noticeably poorer than in basketball specific venues. The ice surface is MUCH larger than a basketball court meaning seats are often a lot further away than you'd want and/or the slope of seating is too slight. They do this in an attempt slope seats further inward towards the court.

Obviously money is a consideration but given the choice of a basketball specific venue or a hockey arena that can host basketball I'd pick the former every time. The Goldring Centre at the University of Toronto is infinitely better for basketball than Scotiabank Arena where the Raptors play. The only basketball specific venues that exist in Canada tend to be basketball gyms on a university campus. As someone attracted to a sport over celebrity/hype I'd rather watch Varsity play at the U of T than the Raptors at Scotiabank. You feel far more connected to the action on the court. It's a superior fan experience and leave more satisfied.

Basketball specific venue at the University of Toronto

http://www.mjma.ca/Portfolio/Feature...ntre-for-Sport

[Djeffery]

Which is funny because Scotiabank was a basketball arena by design and isn't the best for hockey either. The Leafs made some changes when they joined the project, but it was well under construction for the Raptors by that point. I don't get the comparison of the Raps to the U of T though. I think most people would rather watch the Raptors play in that U of T facility too. Or the Leafs play in what has become of the MLG ice rink. I'm sure people would love to see the Jays play at Christie Pits. But obviously you need to seat a paying fan base.

And while most fans would prefer a venue purpose built and exclusively used by their team, economics generally say otherwise. Baseball and football have thankfully split up in most cases for that now. But hockey and basketball are too similar to justify separate buildings in most cases. Even the Pistons gave up their own, bought and paid for facility to move in with the Red Wings.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by megadude

I'm sure this topic has been brought up before but I just watched TSN's highlights of the Champions League final and it's just cringeworthy to listen to people who don't follow a sport butcher the names and terms.

There's a good reason why TSN has lost almost all of their soccer rights aside from MLS. OneSoccer and DAZN are simply better options for Canadians at this point and it was clear that TSN didn't want to put much effort or money into non-MLS ventures.

It's not really a great situation either way. If we have North Americans commentate and discuss it sounds very American in how they go about things, but if we utilize Europeans/Brits for analysis and commentary it's perceived as being forced in some way, like only those people can have knowledge and expertise. There's a balance somewhere but I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the good Canadian soccer media talent is from the UK.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

Which is funny because Scotiabank was a basketball arena by design and isn't the best for hockey either. The Leafs made some changes when they joined the project, but it was well under construction for the Raptors by that point. I don't get the comparison of the Raps to the U of T though. I think most people would rather watch the Raptors play in that U of T facility too. Or the Leafs play in what has become of the MLG ice rink. I'm sure people would love to see the Jays play at Christie Pits. But obviously you need to seat a paying fan base.

And while most fans would prefer a venue purpose built and exclusively used by their team, economics generally say otherwise. Baseball and football have thankfully split up in most cases for that now. But hockey and basketball are too similar to justify separate buildings in most cases. Even the Pistons gave up their own, bought and paid for facility to move in with the Red Wings.

In all fairness, it was a multi-purpose facility shoe horned into an old postal delivery building.

The comment about the Raptors was about their venue, not the team itself. My sporting choices are largely based on spectator experience, being close to the action, and feeling connected to what's going on in the field of play. For that reason, I'd rather go to Goldring where Varsity plays instead of Scotiabank where the Raptors play. The issue with Scotiabank isn't that it holds 18,000 but that the sight lines aren't as good as one finds in a basketball specific venue. Scotiabank doesn't count as one imo despite the Raptors spearheading it all.

I know if I go to a Varsity game I'm going to have a better experience than if I go to a Raptors game because Goldring was specifically designed for basketball. The rows of seats start where they should. Their placement wasn't constrained by the dimensions of a pre-existing building or altered so it can also accommodate hockey.

I did mention that it's cost effective to twin basketball and hockey. That's not in question. I'm just not going to go if there's a game across town in a sport specific venue.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

Which is funny because Scotiabank was a basketball arena by design and isn't the best for hockey either. The Leafs made some changes when they joined the project, but it was well under construction for the Raptors by that point.

And while most fans would prefer a venue purpose built and exclusively used by their team, economics generally say otherwise. Baseball and football have thankfully split up in most cases for that now. But hockey and basketball are too similar to justify separate buildings in most cases. Even the Pistons gave up their own, bought and paid for facility to move in with the Red Wings.

The compromises of the Air Canada Centre/Scotiabank and Barclays aren't even in the same league between hockey and basketball.

When sections of the seating are essentially 'You can't see the game', it's not a good venue period, except for a temporary thing.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by isaidso

In all fairness, it was a multi-purpose facility shoe horned into an old postal delivery building.

The comment about the Raptors was about their venue, not the team itself. My sporting choices are largely based on spectator experience, being close to the action, and feeling connected to what's going on in the field of play. For that reason, I'd rather go to Goldring where Varsity plays instead of Scotiabank where the Raptors play. The issue with Scotiabank isn't that it holds 18,000 but that the sight lines aren't as good as one finds in a basketball specific venue. Scotiabank doesn't count as one imo despite the Raptors spearheading it all.

I know if I go to a Varsity game I'm going to have a better experience than if I go to a Raptors game because Goldring was specifically designed for basketball. The rows of seats start where they should. Their placement wasn't constrained by the dimensions of a pre-existing building or altered so it can also accommodate hockey.

I did mention that it's cost effective to twin basketball and hockey. That's not in question. I'm just not going to go if there's a game across town in a sport specific venue.

It's really an apples to oranges comparison between a glorified gymnasium and a major league sports arena, and also apples to oranges with the product on the court. I suspect the spectator experience is probably better at U of T than it is at Barclays as well, simply because of the intimacy.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Basketball specific venue at the University of Toronto

http://www.mjma.ca/Portfolio/Feature...ntre-for-Sport

I've never seen that before... the U of T's home court has to be the best looking basketball venue in the country, and a far cry from the overgrown high school gym-type venue that you usually see at the Canadian university or college sport level.

As to Scotiabank Arena, even though the Raptors got the ball rolling on it, it still has the bones of a hockey arena. If you can fit a hockey rink into it without compromise (unlike Barclays), then you can't really say it is a pure basketball venue.