What changes in sports would you want?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The last time there was a Subway World Series (Yankees vs. Mets in... 2000 was it?) the ratings were the lowest in the period. I know people assume more NY teams = more ratings and TV numbers, but the rest of the country just tunes out.

The value isn't in having two ... it's really in having one.
(and in having them for the entire season package, not just the WS)

08: Philly vs Tampa: 8.4m avg
09: Philly vs Yankees: 11.7m avg

[thesloppy]

I hate the broken late game, foul-fest of NBA basketball as well, and I think the game would be improved by playing to a set score, instead of to a time limit. I know at one point I decided there was some great reasoning behind having each NBA 'game' be a best-of-three to 21, with the team that wins 2 of those games getting the win for the night...but I can't remember what that reasoning was. I guess it was formed around the basic premise that in games that tight, with a set end-point, there'd be a lot less reckless (or strategic) fouling.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The value isn't in having two ... it's really in having one.
(and in having them for the entire season package, not just the WS)

08: Philly vs Tampa: 8.4m avg
09: Philly vs Yankees: 11.7m avg

Exactly. You don't need more and more NYC teams. 2 or 3 will capture the market in terms of eyeballs.

You would think that NYC probably COULD handle another baseball team based on its population, but do people think there are unserved baseball fans still in NYC? Or would fans peel off from backing the Yankees or Mets to back Team3?

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I hate the broken late game, foul-fest of NBA basketball, and I think the game would be improved by playing to a set score, instead of to a time limit.

I'd forgotten about this, but I have definitely proposed this to friends in the past. I'd be on board.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Exactly. You don't need more and more NYC teams. 2 or 3 will capture the market in terms of eyeballs.

You would think that NYC probably COULD handle another baseball team based on its population, but do people think there are unserved baseball fans still in NYC? Or would fans peel off from backing the Yankees or Mets to back Team3?

I'd say it's likely you'd get a weak sister #3 for a very long time.
Same with Chicago.

You'd get some adoption during the post-season hypothetically I suppose but I'd be more concerned about the viability a third for 162 games. Costs are high, interest relatively low, that's a bad combination.

[larrymcg421]

Instead of two shots and the ball, how about three free throw shots for any foul beyond the three point line? That would get rid of another pet peeve - teams fouling while up three and forcing the other team to shoot two free throws.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The last time there was a Subway World Series (Yankees vs. Mets in... 2000 was it?) the ratings were the lowest in the period. I know people assume more NY teams = more ratings and TV numbers, but the rest of the country just tunes out.

That 2000 WS, while lower than the years surrounding it, was higher in the ratings than all but 2 WS from 2005-2016 and was fairly close to 98, 02, and 03.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Exactly. You don't need more and more NYC teams. 2 or 3 will capture the market in terms of eyeballs.

You would think that NYC probably COULD handle another baseball team based on its population, but do people think there are unserved baseball fans still in NYC? Or would fans peel off from backing the Yankees or Mets to back Team3?

And pro/rel means you potentially have 0 which is what kills your national TV deal.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I hate the broken late game, foul-fest of NBA basketball as well, and I think the game would be improved by playing to a set score, instead of to a time limit. I know at one point I decided there was some great reasoning behind having each NBA 'game' be a best-of-three to 21, with the team that wins 2 of those games getting the win for the night...but I can't remember what that reasoning was. I guess it was formed around the basic premise that in games that tight, with a set end-point, there'd be a lot less reckless (or strategic) fouling.

The Basketball Tournament, that summer tourney that's taken off the past few years is going to experiment with these rules in their qualifying rounds this year. NBA is watching, but the idea is too radical even for the D-League to attempt it.

Elam landed on something more radical: eliminate the game clock from crunch time. Under Elam's proposal, the clock would vanish after the first stoppage under the three-minute mark in the NBA and the four-minute mark in NCAA games. Officials would establish a target score by taking the score of the leading team and adding seven points -- then restart the game without a clock. The team that reaches that target score first wins.

Here's more on the 'Elam Ending'

Zach Lowe on The Basketball Tournament's innovative end-of-game rule

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

And pro/rel means you potentially have 0 which is what kills your national TV deal.

This just isn't true. Look at pro/rel leagues around the world -- not that you folks do -- and realize that those leagues do not relegate their bread and butter teams, it's always the fringe teams that get dropped.

Even in scenarios like in Mexico, where storied clubs eventually get dropped, owners figure out ways around it or they change the entire point system to make sure the signature clubs don't get dropped because of a bad year.

The idea isn't really about exclusion, it's about adding more markets, more cities and increasing interest in the game by giving people a chance to see more games closer to where they live, rather than paying out the nose once or twice a year for a game and/or being excluded from watching games because it requires some kind of expansive package or whatever.

The point is pro/rel could add to the market cap of these leagues, because the fallacy right now is that there's a limited talent pool or something, but there isn't. Baseball thrived back when there were only teams in the east, the games were only on radio and the west coast had a near major league that wasn't a major league at all.

Times have changed, but dropping leaguewide media contracts and letting teams do what baseball already does and let clubs sign their own media deals would be a windfall for teams like the Cowboys, etc., but it'd stiff teams in markets like Oklahoma City.

The setup right now creates these situations where owners can pit cities against each other, which is the real argument against pro/rel, is this artificial scarcity. There are dozens of ways pro/rel could/would work and could expand interest in these leagues in some cases (though not all..) and actually have games matter.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

Here's more on the 'Elam Ending'

Zach Lowe on The Basketball Tournament's innovative end-of-game rule

Cool! I find it interesting that he still settled on a rather convoluted system, involving timed play for 90% of the game, and adding 7 points to the leading team's score to get the target score, saying "basic worked better" when compared to more complex systems....but why not just make the target score set from the beginning of play? I'm sure there's a simple reason, but they need to lay it out for my tiny brain.

[stevew]

First to 100

[murrayyyyy]

Intentional foul rule I saw a long time ago to fix things. Give the team that is fouled the option to inbound the ball with 14 seconds left on every non-shooting foul or shoot the shots.

HOW NON-SHOOTING FOULS ARE TREATED IN THE BONUS. If a team is in the bonus and there is a non-shooting foul committed against them, the team can elect to shoot two free throws OR inbound the ball on the side with the shot clock starting at the higher of 14 seconds or the time on the shot clock when the foul was committed. This change would end most off-ball intentional fouling.

Shocked no one asked for FIBA rules with regard to goaltending, once the ball hits the rim it's fair game. Takes one more call away from the refs that I saw them get wrong multiple times during the NCAA tournament.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

This just isn't true. Look at pro/rel leagues around the world -- not that you folks do -- and realize that those leagues do not relegate their bread and butter teams, it's always the fringe teams that get dropped.

Even in scenarios like in Mexico, where storied clubs eventually get dropped, owners figure out ways around it or they change the entire point system to make sure the signature clubs don't get dropped because of a bad year.

The idea isn't really about exclusion, it's about adding more markets, more cities and increasing interest in the game by giving people a chance to see more games closer to where they live, rather than paying out the nose once or twice a year for a game and/or being excluded from watching games because it requires some kind of expansive package or whatever.

The point is pro/rel could add to the market cap of these leagues, because the fallacy right now is that there's a limited talent pool or something, but there isn't. Baseball thrived back when there were only teams in the east, the games were only on radio and the west coast had a near major league that wasn't a major league at all.

Times have changed, but dropping leaguewide media contracts and letting teams do what baseball already does and let clubs sign their own media deals would be a windfall for teams like the Cowboys, etc., but it'd stiff teams in markets like Oklahoma City.

The setup right now creates these situations where owners can pit cities against each other, which is the real argument against pro/rel, is this artificial scarcity. There are dozens of ways pro/rel could/would work and could expand interest in these leagues in some cases (though not all..) and actually have games matter.

This might be the worst argument for relegation I've ever seen. Oh don't worry - they'll just change the rules like in Mexico or Argentina if a team that matters gets relegated! Then what's the fucking point?

The big problem is that things like the draft and playoffs don't really sit that well with promotion/relegation.

Also relegation is often a financial disaster, look at how many teams in England have dropped multiple division after relegation in the last 10 years.

I love promotion/relegation in the leagues where it exists, but it's 95% out of historical status quo an the fact there there is really only 1 major sport in those countries.

The USA is so different from a sporting and geographical standpoint that it seems awfully silly to just jam another framework onto things.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

This just isn't true. Look at pro/rel leagues around the world -- not that you folks do -- and realize that those leagues do not relegate their bread and butter teams, it's always the fringe teams that get dropped.

2 examples:

Manchester City: 2000-2001, 97-98 to 98-99
Chelsea: '75-'76, 76-77, 1984-1985 to 87-88

And more to the point:
"Since the start of the Premier League in 1992, seven clubs have never faced the drop; Arsenal, Aston Villa, Liverpool, Manchester United, Everton, Tottenham Hotspur and Chelsea. However there are no English clubs currently in existence that have never been relegated from the country's top division" - The Guardian.

Which European football clubs have never been relegated? | News | The Guardian

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Cool! I find it interesting that he still settled on a rather convoluted system, involving timed play for 90% of the game, and adding 7 points to the leading team's score to get the target score, saying "basic worked better" when compared to more complex systems....but why not just make the target score set from the beginning of play? I'm sure there's a simple reason, but they need to lay it out for my tiny brain.

Prevent a matchup of two bad shooting teams going for six hours?

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

This just isn't true. Look at pro/rel leagues around the world -- not that you folks do -- and realize that those leagues do not relegate their bread and butter teams, it's always the fringe teams that get dropped.

Those leauges often have 4-5+ teams in their one major metro area. The US has twice as many metro areas over 4 million people than the entire EU combined. The major US markets have 2 teams, at most. They also have other sports competing on equal footing against them which isn't common overseas.

[Umbrella]

Interestingly, the last 3 NBA relocations are now the 3 smallest TV markets in the league (New Orleans, Memphis, Oklahoma City). I don't think the size of TV markets is as much as a driving factor as people think.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

2 examples:

Manchester City: 2000-2001, 97-98 to 98-99
Chelsea: '75-'76, 76-77, 1984-1985 to 87-88

And more to the point:
"Since the start of the Premier League in 1992, seven clubs have never faced the drop; Arsenal, Aston Villa, Liverpool, Manchester United, Everton, Tottenham Hotspur and Chelsea. However there are no English clubs currently in existence that have never been relegated from the country's top division" - The Guardian.

Which European football clubs have never been relegated? | News | The Guardian

This isn't a vote for promotion/relegation in US sports leagues with franchises because it's not and it would never work, but these days the chances of a City or Chelsea getting relegated are virtually nil, so I don't disagree with the original premise.

The difference between Man City in 1997 or Chelsea in 1988 to their current incarnations with billionaire owners and millions of fans across the world is absolutely night and day.

[Umbrella]

Newcastle is probably a better example. Big club, bad owner. They have bounced up and down a bit the last few years. I could see the Knicks being like that if the NBA had relegation.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by Umbrella

Interestingly, the last 3 NBA relocations are now the 3 smallest TV markets in the league (New Orleans, Memphis, Oklahoma City). I don't think the size of TV markets is as much as a driving factor as people think.

That didn't affect the markets that matter at all and it doesn't change how the networks are going to view things. As long as NY and LA are well represented, everywhere else takes a back seat.

I still don't get the New Orleans move other than maybe bad ownership. I think Memphis was an exchange rate deal and those two metros were much closer in size in 2001. OKC was a lying ownership group taking over and moving a team after promising not to.

Look at what MLS has done. They've openly talked about 2 franchises in NY and LA since day one and worked to make it happen as quickly as they could.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by stevew

Baseball-play 2 81 game halves with a 2 week AS break in the middle. Break ties with a 1 game playoff (or more, as necessary).

The '81 Reds would like you to screw off!

[stevew]

I do like the Fiba goaltending rule.

[Atocep]

The Wilpons forced to sell.

[mckerney]

Football:
If the NFL is going to keep having team play on Thursday night require that the teams playing are coming off a bye week.
Do away with coaches challenges, have all replay review decisions come from the league/conference office.

Golf:
Have official scorers keep track of score and don't take calls or emails about rule violations from TV viewers.

[albionmoonlight]

If you announce a franchise move, you have to leave immediately. You don't get that last awkward season in your former city.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

That 2000 WS, while lower than the years surrounding it, was higher in the ratings than all but 2 WS from 2005-2016 and was fairly close to 98, 02, and 03.

Yes, TV ratings changed fundamentally in the late 2000s. Difficult to judge 2000 to 2005, but one can say that the WS between the Yankees and Marlins a few years later got higher ratings than the Yankees and Mets.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

This just isn't true. Look at pro/rel leagues around the world -- not that you folks do -- and realize that those leagues do not relegate their bread and butter teams, it's always the fringe teams that get dropped.

Originally Posted by bhlloy

This isn't a vote for promotion/relegation in US sports leagues with franchises because it's not and it would never work, but these days the chances of a City or Chelsea getting relegated are virtually nil, so I don't disagree with the original premise.

The difference between Man City in 1997 or Chelsea in 1988 to their current incarnations with billionaire owners and millions of fans across the world is absolutely night and day.

Originally Posted by Umbrella

Newcastle is probably a better example. Big club, bad owner. They have bounced up and down a bit the last few years. I could see the Knicks being like that if the NBA had relegation.

Newcastle is a decent one, but a better one is Leeds. An iconic team which is struggled for a long time (and now is doing decently in the Championship). Now granted a lot of that is their own making - they borrowed significantly to keep making Champions League and the one year they didn't the losses spiraled). Leeds though was a 'big club' before the insane money started flowing into the Prem.

And yes, one can say that Man City and Chelsea won't go down any time soon, but that's due to the fact that they have ridiculously lavish billionaire owners who are willing to print money. However, neither Man City nor Chelsea was considered a 'bread and butter' team prior to the rich owner. They spent their way to it.

Of course this is another concern. If your team isn't owned by a free spending billionaire you have basically no chance (even Leicester is owned by a free spending billionaire). And even then the chances aren't that great if you aren't one of the top 4 or 5 big money teams.

And lets not forget that in the EPL, Aston Villa, who were relegated last season are one of the most storied teams in the English football's history.

[wustin]

For college basketball I want them to keep it how it has been for the last idk how many decades or completely do the 180 and have it emulate the NBA. Quarters and NBA foul system, no physical play, etc.

Otherwise you have the shitshow that was the national championship which reminded me of the 2004 Pistons/Pacers playoffs. Where both teams would shoot like shit and rack up 25-30 fouls against each other.

[SirFozzie]

Golf: If a person makes a good faith signing of their scorecard, then post round penalties do not incur the additional penalty of signing an incorrect scorecard.

College Basketball: 10 minute quarters, calling games more like the NBA does.

Pro Basketball: Get rid of the one and done rule. If you're good enough, you're old enough.

Football: No commercials between kickoff and resumption of play (so you can have timeouts between the touchdown/Point Try and the kickoff, but not between kickoff and first and 10.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Football: No commercials between kickoff and resumption of play (so you can have timeouts between the touchdown/Point Try and the kickoff, but not between kickoff and first and 10.

thats done this year

[nilodor]

NBA
Go with that idea Zach Lowe discusses where once there is 4 minutes left in the game, the game goes to a set score 7 points higher than the leading teams.

No timeouts during last 4 minutes, all timeouts remaining convert to free clock stoppage and ball advancement.

All
Stadiums no longer can be funded by public money. Only land donation and infrastructure (roads/rail) is allowed.

[Atocep]

I think the easy solution for the end of ncaa/nba games is give teams the opportunity to pass on free throws and instead just take the ball out of bounds.