Chisoxfn

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 10, 2013 -> 02:39 PM) doesn't care about hockey b****es about not getting hockey The NHL has lost a true opportunity, here. I said I don't care about b****ing to my cable provider. I'm happy with my service. I was for once not b****ing about hockey and i blame the league for putting big games on a channel that isn't important. It is one thing when a games in the 1st round are broadcasted on random networks but once you get past that, you should be broadcasting everything on networks which are widely available and known.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jun 10, 2013 -> 02:40 PM) I'm not exactly defending the lockout. I'm coming up with ways to deal with what already happened. Also, LOL at "non-existent channel". 15-20% less homes then TNT. You are competing for ratings. Also, I don't have statistics but I bet 98% of people with cable TV have heard of TNT. I'm going to guess 10% of them have heard of a channel called NBC sports. You know how many f***ing channels i have that I don't even know I have. Just cause I'm subscribed doesn't mean I'm ever going to scroll to it. It is just one of those channels in between the ones I watch and the next one I watch.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 10, 2013 -> 02:33 PM) You do realize the Stanley Cup Final will be on NBC for 5 games, right? Also, the NBA Finals have LeBron James. It's pointless to compare. Yep and it is nice...too bad 2 of the games are on a network that is available to about 20% less people then TNT.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 10, 2013 -> 02:37 PM) Aside from on random Sundays and a WGN game here and there, you can NEVER watch the Blackhawks with an OTA, crystal-clear HD signal and an $80 antenna. But now you're a superfan who can't be bothered to find an alternative for 2 possible games that won't be on NBC? When you have kids and families there are plenty of people that are going to not be in front of a TV enough to watch every game and to spend an extra $15/month for something like that. And the reality is the big money isn't in the $ spent at the arena's, it is in the overall ratings and the better the ratings the more ad revenues and the bigger the tv contracts.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 10, 2013 -> 02:35 PM) Maybe you should direct your b****ing toward whatever cheap content provider you pay for? I don't care...I get a great price and love my service. I had directtv prior and overall I like what I have. And I get BTN and plenty of other channels that bring more value to me then a network that boasts hockey and MLS games (and some s***ty conference football/basketball games). If you wanted to broadcast on a non-existent channel just broadcast all your games on the NHL channel and pump that up.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jun 10, 2013 -> 02:27 PM) It comes on packages with a lot of other sports channels. Please tell me where all the games, all season, should be broadcasted? And what options the NHL turned down instead? Stop f***ing locking out and start actually playing the sport regularly for more then 5 or 6 years and maybe you don't have this problem. Greedy players and owners are the reason they are in this s***ty situation. Yes, the sport has done well because some of the top markets are performing (you have SoCal and Chicago both being huge rating booms for the league in recent years) but you know what could have been if the league and players hadn't royally f***ed up. You had to start over as a league. NHL and the players made this mess.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jun 10, 2013 -> 02:14 PM) Damn, NHL just lost tons of future die-hard fans because they put TWO games on a channel that is IMPOSSIBLE to find and NO ONE has when those people wanted to watch their first games of the year. Except I b****ed about it during the rest of the playoffs too. Its pathetic.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jun 10, 2013 -> 01:39 PM) The Super Bowl most definitely attracts viewers who do not otherwise watch sports on cable. The World Series still gets a handful, but not nearly as many as they used to. I don't know a single person who is watching the NBA or NHL finals but isn't interested enough in sports to get channels like CSN or NBCSN. You could stick a couple of the NBA Finals games on ESPN and it probably wouldn't matter a whole lot. A lot more people will stumble onto and watch the NBA playoffs then NHL playoffs given the channel placement.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jun 10, 2013 -> 01:02 PM) Exactly. I wish they'd play the games in my backyard, because that'd be convenient, but alas I will figure out a way to watch NBC and/or NBCSN. It's not hard. The problem is there are plenty of people who can't afford or won't purchase an upgraded channel package just to get hockey games. Yes, diehard fans will but not us.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jun 10, 2013 -> 12:57 PM) TNT is totally basic cable. According to this site, TNT is available in 98 million homes, slightly more than ESPN. http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/I...arch-cable.aspx NBC Sports is available in 78 million. I will say this...I guess NBC sports is pretty wide spread. I didn't realize NBC sports was previously OLN and VS and this is just the 3rd rebranding of the network. I guess that better explains the 78 million.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 10, 2013 -> 12:16 PM) Some people don't get TNT. I get TNT, I don't get NBC Sports. I find it hard to believe that TNT isn't included in the basic tier cable line-ups. NBC sports is not covered in most of the basic tiered cable lineups where I live.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jun 10, 2013 -> 09:25 AM) Those "some people" probably aren't big sports fans to begin with, haven't watched any of the playoffs, and won't care if they don't see it. It's a lot of b****ing and moaning for nothing. Well I'm one of those people. And while I don't watch hockey and regularly make fun of it, I do enjoy the playoffs and it irritated me when I wanted to watch one of the Hawks/Wings games I couldn't. Also, if the sport is going to get top players and succeed, you need to get the major markets.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jun 10, 2013 -> 10:13 AM) I wouldn't say "better". He'd still be a superstar, but we've seen what can happen if you're physical with him. Lebron is bigger and more athletic than everyone he plays now, but he occasionally goes through stretches where he can't get to the rim and basically stops trying to score. He starts becoming a passer and doesn't shoot it unless he's within 5 feet of the rim or it's a wide open jumper. See the 2011 Finals, the last two games and chunks of the Indiana series. Teams in the 90's packed the paint a lot more (watch Michael against the Pistons or Knicks sometime) and had big men a lot more imposing than Chandler and Hibbert. He'd likely have to lean on his jumper more, which is good but not great. It's nitpicking to the highest degree since he'd still be at the top of the league with MJ (and arguably Hakeem/Shaq, but I hate big/small arguments), but I honestly think Durant's game would translate a little better offensively. Durant is a much better jumpshooter and teams in that era definitely had stretches where they conceeded the long jumper (Depending on how teams tried to guard him of course. Under the "Jordan Rules", he'd have issues because he can struggle to get open. If they guard him like Chris Mullin, he'd do well). Lebron would still be better overall because of his ball-handling and defensive versatility though. I think if he consistently played in a tough league, he'd learn to get past the physical play (where as right now he rarely has to deal with it) cause he clearly has the physical strength to deal with it. Durant would be great in any era. Like LBJ, he is an elite player in any era.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jun 10, 2013 -> 09:07 AM) I just worry about his age 34 & 35 seasons at the end of the deal. If he declines, then you are stuck with an expensive platoon player that you are looking to salary dump on someone again. Fair point. I'd hope you get him at a discount, he puts up a good year and you can opt to move him for some talent. I didn't realize he was so old.

For old times sake..."Where's our Puig?"

I'm still disgusted in the display Fullerton put on. f***ing pathetic. They were completely a more talented team and flat out choked. If it weren't for the generous scorekeeping, every single run allowed to UCLA would have been unearned. One of the premier defensive teams in the country completely fails against a team (UCLA) that will make you pay for any mistakes. The absolute only way they could have beaten Fullerton is if Fullerton beat themselves...and they destroyed themselves. Freaking pathetic. This was the best team since the 06 team which choked to ASU in the super regionals. Such a sick pitching staff wasted. Tip my cap to UCLA though. Played great fundemental baseball. Flawless by and large and they made the big pitches when they needed to (Fullerton couldn't do anything with runners on and a lot of that had to do with good pitch execution). Fun Fact: Chatted with Rowand for a few minutes at the Fullerton game. Also chatted with Troy Glaus at the game. My god Glaus is huge. Was crazy how no one knew or recognized either of these guys. Edit: Sorry, I needed to vent.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jun 9, 2013 -> 01:42 AM) I just posted NBA.com's All 90's team. And I dunno if LeBron trumps Hakeem. And there would be years where Pippen, Hill, Barkley or Malone could be better at forward. Thing is we don't know. But a lot of those guys would be the undisputed #2 in today's NBA, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that LeBron wouldn't easily be the second best player. For fun, let's replace Larry Johnson with LeBron on those Hornets teams. Taken at the same time. Is LeBron winning any titles? There is absolutely no way that Charles Barkley, Hill or Pippen would ever be ahead of LBJ on an all NBA team. That is just asinine. All are tremendous players but use your eyes people. Lebron would struggle? The dude is a freak athlete and a beast. I think he'd have been better because he'd get more angry from getting fouled a lot more.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 8, 2013 -> 10:03 PM) LMAO. Not ONE reply? This thread is awful. I didn't need to. I disagree with you because i think this Heat team isn't very good. Bosh is playing like a sissy and Wade is just a shell of his former self. Lebron is ridiculous and would have been the #2 player in the league in the 90's, next to Michael, and to be frank, he has the talent to be better. Lebron's game would have worked beautifully in the 90's.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jun 8, 2013 -> 12:57 PM) That Magic team wasn't together nearly long enough to establish any kind of pattern. They were really only together for three seasons. 93-94 was Hardaway's rookie year and they lost in the first round. They didn't face the Bulls. 94-95 they added Horace Grant and beat the Bulls before getting swept by Hakeem/Drexler in the finals. Yes, Michael wasn't quite right yet, but he still put up 31-6-5 that postseason while shooting 48% from the floor. It's not like he pulled an '11 Finals Lebron. The bigger issue was that they didn't have Rodman yet so their frontcourt was pretty weak. 95-96 the Bulls smoked them, but Grant missed most of that series and Nick Anderson missed a game as well. Shaq left for LA in 96 and Penny started getting hurt after that. Had that team been together longer or had better timing/luck, they might have been a juggernaut. They had two stars and three very solid role players. IMO, that's the best/most talented team I've seen that didn't win a ring. I have to go with the Sacremento Kings & Portland Trailblazer teams which choked to the Lakers.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Jun 7, 2013 -> 02:01 PM) I don't think stopping Shaq would have been the key to beating those Laker teams, anymore than it was in beating his Orlando teams (excluding the series when Jordan had just come back from baseball). They'd play hack-a-Shaq, and he'd get his points, but it would come down to other match-ups. I do agree that the Bulls still win. Big difference...The Orlando teams didn't have Kobe Bryant.

Great deal by Tampa. Understand what the Bears are doing. Hurts though, I thought he was going to be really good prior to that injury. I hope the Bears are confident his failures last year weren't as a result of him not having his strength fully built up.

Seriously...was he traded?

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jun 9, 2013 -> 08:34 AM) OMG I CAN'T FIND THE CHANNEL WITH MY RABBIT EARS Some people don't get that channel. Pretty sorry for the sport that you can't have your major championship on a channel that is widely available on standard cable packages (e.g., on tiers with ESPN). Gary Bettman is clueless though.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jun 10, 2013 -> 08:23 AM) Maybe if the Dodgers pay for half of Ethier's contract. He is still due $69 million from 2014-2017. No thanks, I'd rather just eat the last year of Dunn's deal. Dude has put up an .800+ OPS every season of his career but 1 in Dodger stadium. Plays a solid defensive outfield, hits from the left side, good OBP. I think it is highly unlikely the Dodgers would have any interest in the deal (since it would mean moving Adrian Gonzalez to the OF or I suppose playing Dunn out there)...however, if so, we'd be getting a far better all around player. Dunn has what, another year left? I agree you'd need some cash to come as well since at this point the Dodgers want him out (and to be frank...at least based on all the rumblings...he's wanted out for a couple years too).

On another subject...I'm all for a Ethier for Dunn deal.