Changes in pro and/or college sports that you consider to be positive?

DocBenjamin

Go back as far as 56 years if you like.

Damn...I will have to think about this for a couple of minutes.

DocBenjamin

Stadiums serving sushi is good.

Never had any there, but comforting to know that $8 hot dogs aren't the only option.

DocBenjamin

Three point shot in basketball added a fresh dimension to the game.

That was a positive

Darin

The pitch clock in baseball has literally saved the game.
It’s made it an exciting game again.

Seeing John Buck or Lorenzo Cain adjust both batting gloves before every single pitch was a nightmare.

stevek

I think protecting QB's was a good idea. Nobody wants to watch 2nd and 3rd string QB's, instead of their starting QB who might be a star.

Nothing positive about the MLB changes. Baseball is supposed to be a timeless game, and should have stayed that way.

GroceryRackPack

This Is Gonna Be Super Exciting...

🎉🏈🎉🏈

craig44

@Darin said:
The pitch clock in baseball has literally saved the game.
It’s made it an exciting game again.

Seeing John Buck or Lorenzo Cain adjust both batting gloves before every single pitch was a nightmare.

I agree. and dont forget Nomar!

RiveraFamilyCollect

One change I hope they make.
Change the pro-bowl to the "rookie bowl"
The pro's phone in a performace because it doesnt make any sense getting hurt in the pro-bowl. The pro's don't need or want the reps.

Rookies would prefer the opportunity to show off their skills, some of them really want every possible rep.

LandrysFedora

As for baseball, stadiums going back to the 70's it was domed air-controlled stadiums, even though I didn't like how astroturf ruined many knees as it was like playing on cement with a rug over it basically. The retractable roof stadiums are awesome and the turf in these controlled environments today is much more ergonomically friendly to the knees. I live in Florida so it's really nice to know if I want to travel across state to St Pete to catch a Rays game or drive south to a Marlins game that weather will not be playing a roll. As for football I prefer open air, element inviting stadiums with grass/mud and the whole 9 yards. Am I mistaken or do the Twins play in an open-air stadium and the Vikings in a dome? Shouldn't that be reversed? Just thinking out loud to myself.

SanctionII

College basketball and high school basketball changing the rules to allow players to dunk the basketball.

Adopting a shot clock in basketball.

Adopting the three point shot in basketball.

I expect that at some time in the future basketball powers that be will (to accommodate the increased physical size of the players and the increased physical abilities of the players [i.e. 7' tall point guards, 7'6" shooting guards and forwards and 8' centers with the combined skill set of the players on the US 2024 Olympic team]):

1. raise the basket from 10 feet to 11 feet;

2. widen the court by 10 feet;

3. lengthen the court by 10, 15 or even 20 feet;

4. widen the lane by 2 or 3 feet;

5. lengthen the lane (and thus push back the free throw line) by 2 or 3 feet; and

6. push back the three point line by 3 feet in the corners and by 5 feet everywhere else.

bgr

@stevek said:
I think protecting QB's was a good idea. Nobody wants to watch 2nd and 3rd string QB's, instead of their starting QB who might be a star.

Nothing positive about the MLB changes. Baseball is supposed to be a timeless game, and should have stayed that way.

Baseball has changed a lot over the years. So where do you see the golden era of baseball rules occurring. Only out of curiosity as I can see pros and cons for some of these things.

Like with the pitch clock. I’m all for it when it doesn’t impact the outcome of the game. But if a batter walks or strikes out because of a violation .. that bothers me.

And replay. Why are there some things which can not be reviewed but can be clearly determined by replay? When this affects a game…

I’m for the most true outcome in sports. Above all. I don’t believe that’s ever been the case in baseball.

stevek

@bgr said:

@stevek said:
I think protecting QB's was a good idea. Nobody wants to watch 2nd and 3rd string QB's, instead of their starting QB who might be a star.

Nothing positive about the MLB changes. Baseball is supposed to be a timeless game, and should have stayed that way.

Baseball has changed a lot over the years. So where do you see the golden era of baseball rules occurring. Only out of curiosity as I can see pros and cons for some of these things.

Like with the pitch clock. I’m all for it when it doesn’t impact the outcome of the game. But if a batter walks or strikes out because of a violation .. that bothers me.

And replay. Why are there some things which can not be reviewed but can be clearly determined by replay? When this affects a game…

I’m for the most true outcome in sports. Above all. I don’t believe that’s ever been the case in baseball.

I do like the interleague play. I forget the year it started.

The rest such as the designated hitter, time clock, games played in cold weather, etc, in my liking detracts from the beauty of the game. Also the playoffs are way too long. But I don't wish to knock baseball too hard, it's still the best summer game ever invented.

To answer your question, I would say when MLB for a post season, only played the World Series, would be considered the golden era.

BLUEJAYWAY

@craig44 said:

@Darin said:
The pitch clock in baseball has literally saved the game.
It’s made it an exciting game again.

Seeing John Buck or Lorenzo Cain adjust both batting gloves before every single pitch was a nightmare.

I agree. and dont forget Nomar!

And how can we forget the annoying Chuck Knoblauch antics with the glove adjusting.

DocBenjamin

NIL money was huge. Brought the payoffs to daylight.

Free market always wins.

countdouglas

@Darin said:
The pitch clock in baseball has literally saved the game.
It’s made it an exciting game again.

Seeing John Buck or Lorenzo Cain adjust both batting gloves before every single pitch was a nightmare.

The thing about Buck, and Cain, and even Nomar who was mentioned later in the thread, is that all 3 of those players have had a 3 homerun game in their career, something Trouty has still never done.

One change that hasn't been mentioned is the intentional walk being signaled from the dugout by the manager holding up 4 fingers, negating the need to throw four wide ones.

I've always maintained that if they're serious about cutting down on the length of games, they should take that one step further with a similar rule change - After the 6th inning of any game that the Angels are trailing by 2 runs or less, and Trouty due up, the Angels manager should be able to signal from the dugout with 3 fingers, calling for the automatic strikeout, saving us the time of watching 3 fat ones go right down the middle for the strikeout that we all know is coming.

Darin

Count…. Too late to implement a 3 strikes and you’re Trout rule. Playing days are over.
His new goal is to be the opposite of Cal Ripken, in other words the Iron Man of the Injured List.
I’ll be rooting for him to break the record for most consecutive games not played, I think he has a great shot at it.

Mistlin

@stevek said:
I think protecting QB's was a good idea. Nobody wants to watch 2nd and 3rd string QB's, instead of their starting QB who might be a star.

Nothing positive about the MLB changes. Baseball is supposed to be a timeless game, and should have stayed that way.

Timeless as to...when?

So, to you, changing the rules to integrate the game wasn't a positive? The implementation of free agency and allowing players to play where they wanted to play wasn't a positive? Stopping pitchers from hitting (who NOBODY wants to watch) with the advent of the DH wasn't a positive?

Just...stop. The game has continuously evolved since its inception and your old man routine is tiresome.

The changes have been a net positive. The pitch clock means both pitchers and batters are forced to keep the game moving as several pitchers would deliberately just stand on the mound, peering in, trying to get the batter to tire and lose focus.

The change to force pitchers to face at least three batters or get to the end of the half-inning was a net positive too.

stevek

@Mistlin said:

@stevek said:
I think protecting QB's was a good idea. Nobody wants to watch 2nd and 3rd string QB's, instead of their starting QB who might be a star.

Nothing positive about the MLB changes. Baseball is supposed to be a timeless game, and should have stayed that way.

Timeless as to...when?

So, to you, changing the rules to integrate the game wasn't a positive? The implementation of free agency and allowing players to play where they wanted to play wasn't a positive? Stopping pitchers from hitting (who NOBODY wants to watch) with the advent of the DH wasn't a positive?

Just...stop. The game has continuously evolved since its inception and your old man routine is tiresome.

The changes have been a net positive. The pitch clock means both pitchers and batters are forced to keep the game moving as several pitchers would deliberately just stand on the mound, peering in, trying to get the batter to tire and lose focus.

The change to force pitchers to face at least three batters or get to the end of the half-inning was a net positive too.

I guess you didn't notice that football has far surpassed baseball as the national pastime. Some say that basketball may be second now.

Those "changes" didn't seem to work out so well in that regard, now did it?

1948_Swell_Robinson

@Darin said:
Count…. Too late to implement a 3 strikes and you’re Trout rule. Playing days are over.
His new goal is to be the opposite of Cal Ripken, in other words the Iron Man of the Injured List.
I’ll be rooting for him to break the record for most consecutive games not played, I think he has a great shot at it.

That would be a pretty interesting record. I wonder who holds it now. Would be hard to set parameters though.

DocBenjamin

DH was a disaster. To have a class of special athletes that only have to show up every 4th and then 5th games to throw a hundred pitches, (unless they get pulled after a few dozen.

And wore, the guy sitting on the bench who doesn't have to filed a position. Just get a ball where no one is, once a night.

stevek

Without question, the DH took a lot of the strategy out of the game.

Strategy is why I enjoy the game of football so much, and I think is at least partly why it has become the national pastime.

DocBenjamin

@stevek said:
Without question, the DH took a lot of the strategy out of the game.

Strategy is why I enjoy the game of football so much, and I think is at least partly why it has become the national pastime.

Mistlin would not have liked it when it was a thinking man's game.

Mistlin

Football has had a litany of changes in recent years (elimination of kickoff returns, playoff expansion and byes, unequal home and away game with 17-game schedule), and no one is lamenting those changes.

Football is the most popular sport for one reason and one reason alone - gambling. It has nothing to do with changes to baseball, it has nothing to do with the elimination of strategy, it has everything to do with every Tom, Dick, and Harry eager to wager on the game. Any other reason mentioned is wrong.

To suggest today's MLB is less strategic than in years past is laughably ignorant, when nearly every team has a bullpen of pitchers with 100+ MPH stuff, offense has never been harder to come by. So much so MLB had to outlaw extreme infield shifts.

Mistlin

@DocBenjamin said:

@stevek said:
Without question, the DH took a lot of the strategy out of the game.

Strategy is why I enjoy the game of football so much, and I think is at least partly why it has become the national pastime.

Mistlin would not have liked it when it was a thinking man's game.

There's more thought, strategy, and data utilized now than ever before. I am sorry you are unable to comprehend it, though.

Yes, the 'strategy' of watching a pitcher flail at 3 straight strikes is utterly compelling. The strategy of having a professional batter in a DH is a much better option.

Mistlin

@DocBenjamin said:
DH was a disaster. To have a class of special athletes that only have to show up every 4th and then 5th games to throw a hundred pitches, (unless they get pulled after a few dozen.

And wore, the guy sitting on the bench who doesn't have to filed a position. Just get a ball where no one is, once a night.

What language is this? It sure as heck isn't English. Can you please try again? I am not sure how to debate you when I have no idea what you're saying.

You say it's me that needs help with a thinking man's game?

DocBenjamin

@Mistlin said:

@DocBenjamin said:
DH was a disaster. To have a class of special athletes that only have to show up every 4th and then 5th games to throw a hundred pitches, (unless they get pulled after a few dozen.

And wore, the guy sitting on the bench who doesn't have to filed a position. Just get a ball where no one is, once a night.

What language is this? It sure as heck isn't English. Can you please try again? I am not sure how to debate you when I have no idea what you're saying.

You say it's me that needs help with a thinking man's game?

Honor me please with an addition to your ignore list. I think that you get five.

stevek

@Mistlin said:
Football has had a litany of changes in recent years (elimination of kickoff returns, playoff expansion and byes, unequal home and away game with 17-game schedule), and no one is lamenting those changes.

Football is the most popular sport for one reason and one reason alone - gambling. It has nothing to do with changes to baseball, it has nothing to do with the elimination of strategy, it has everything to do with every Tom, Dick, and Harry eager to wager on the game. Any other reason mentioned is wrong.

To suggest today's MLB is less strategic than in years past is laughably ignorant, when nearly every team has a bullpen of pitchers with 100+ MPH stuff, offense has never been harder to come by. So much so MLB had to outlaw extreme infield shifts.

Nope.

The major reason for the massive increase in football's popularity, has been the advent over the years of an ever increasing number of high school grads attending college. They love the enthusiasm for football at their college, and thus develop a lifelong loyalty to their alma mater team. Then many of these fans gravitate towards watching the pro game, and root for their local area's NFL team.

Mistlin

@stevek said:

@Mistlin said:
Football has had a litany of changes in recent years (elimination of kickoff returns, playoff expansion and byes, unequal home and away game with 17-game schedule), and no one is lamenting those changes.

Football is the most popular sport for one reason and one reason alone - gambling. It has nothing to do with changes to baseball, it has nothing to do with the elimination of strategy, it has everything to do with every Tom, Dick, and Harry eager to wager on the game. Any other reason mentioned is wrong.

To suggest today's MLB is less strategic than in years past is laughably ignorant, when nearly every team has a bullpen of pitchers with 100+ MPH stuff, offense has never been harder to come by. So much so MLB had to outlaw extreme infield shifts.

Nope.

The major reason for the massive increase in football's popularity, has been the advent over the years of an ever increasing number of high school grads attending college. They love the enthusiasm for football at their college, and thus develop a lifelong loyalty to their alma mater team. Then many of these fans gravitate towards watching the pro game, and root for their local area's NFL team.

Nope. You are absolutely, positively wrong. The idea college attendance is what fueled and continues to fuel NFL viewership is hilariously wrong.

If this was the reason, you wouldn't see the ever-increasing enthusiasm for the college baseball world series (the people suggesting the move of the baseball hall of fame to Omaha is proof). If your argument were based in reality, baseball would see the same boost. In addition, college attendance is actually declining in the United States, not increasing. So on both of these points you are simply wrong.

Football's rise to dominance is fueled by gambling. Throw in the advent of fantasy sports (football is a lot easier to manage with games on Sunday/Monday than baseball every day of the week) which is just more gambling it is clear to anyone with a brain that it's gambling and not college attendance that fueled the change.

stevek

@Mistlin said:

@stevek said:

@Mistlin said:
Football has had a litany of changes in recent years (elimination of kickoff returns, playoff expansion and byes, unequal home and away game with 17-game schedule), and no one is lamenting those changes.

Football is the most popular sport for one reason and one reason alone - gambling. It has nothing to do with changes to baseball, it has nothing to do with the elimination of strategy, it has everything to do with every Tom, Dick, and Harry eager to wager on the game. Any other reason mentioned is wrong.

To suggest today's MLB is less strategic than in years past is laughably ignorant, when nearly every team has a bullpen of pitchers with 100+ MPH stuff, offense has never been harder to come by. So much so MLB had to outlaw extreme infield shifts.

Nope.

The major reason for the massive increase in football's popularity, has been the advent over the years of an ever increasing number of high school grads attending college. They love the enthusiasm for football at their college, and thus develop a lifelong loyalty to their alma mater team. Then many of these fans gravitate towards watching the pro game, and root for their local area's NFL team.

Nope. You are absolutely, positively wrong. The idea college attendance is what fueled and continues to fuel NFL viewership is hilariously wrong.

If this was the reason, you wouldn't see the ever-increasing enthusiasm for the college baseball world series (the people suggesting the move of the baseball hall of fame to Omaha is proof). If your argument were based in reality, baseball would see the same boost. In addition, college attendance is actually declining in the United States, not increasing. So on both of these points you are simply wrong.

Football's rise to dominance is fueled by gambling. Throw in the advent of fantasy sports (football is a lot easier to manage with games on Sunday/Monday than baseball every day of the week) which is just more gambling it is clear to anyone with a brain that it's gambling and not college attendance that fueled the change.

College football has always far outweighed college baseball, and it's not even remotely close.

Checkmate.

Mistlin

@stevek said:

@Mistlin said:

@stevek said:

@Mistlin said:
Football has had a litany of changes in recent years (elimination of kickoff returns, playoff expansion and byes, unequal home and away game with 17-game schedule), and no one is lamenting those changes.

Football is the most popular sport for one reason and one reason alone - gambling. It has nothing to do with changes to baseball, it has nothing to do with the elimination of strategy, it has everything to do with every Tom, Dick, and Harry eager to wager on the game. Any other reason mentioned is wrong.

To suggest today's MLB is less strategic than in years past is laughably ignorant, when nearly every team has a bullpen of pitchers with 100+ MPH stuff, offense has never been harder to come by. So much so MLB had to outlaw extreme infield shifts.

Nope.

The major reason for the massive increase in football's popularity, has been the advent over the years of an ever increasing number of high school grads attending college. They love the enthusiasm for football at their college, and thus develop a lifelong loyalty to their alma mater team. Then many of these fans gravitate towards watching the pro game, and root for their local area's NFL team.

Nope. You are absolutely, positively wrong. The idea college attendance is what fueled and continues to fuel NFL viewership is hilariously wrong.

If this was the reason, you wouldn't see the ever-increasing enthusiasm for the college baseball world series (the people suggesting the move of the baseball hall of fame to Omaha is proof). If your argument were based in reality, baseball would see the same boost. In addition, college attendance is actually declining in the United States, not increasing. So on both of these points you are simply wrong.

Football's rise to dominance is fueled by gambling. Throw in the advent of fantasy sports (football is a lot easier to manage with games on Sunday/Monday than baseball every day of the week) which is just more gambling it is clear to anyone with a brain that it's gambling and not college attendance that fueled the change.

College football has always far outweighed college baseball, and it's not even remotely close.

Checkmate.

So, if it has 'always' outweighed baseball, and your (hilariously ignorant) assertion is people attending college became NFL fans, why wasn't football 'always' more popular?

You're wrong. Clearly.

stevek

@Mistlin said:

@stevek said:

@Mistlin said:

@stevek said:

@Mistlin said:
Football has had a litany of changes in recent years (elimination of kickoff returns, playoff expansion and byes, unequal home and away game with 17-game schedule), and no one is lamenting those changes.

Football is the most popular sport for one reason and one reason alone - gambling. It has nothing to do with changes to baseball, it has nothing to do with the elimination of strategy, it has everything to do with every Tom, Dick, and Harry eager to wager on the game. Any other reason mentioned is wrong.

To suggest today's MLB is less strategic than in years past is laughably ignorant, when nearly every team has a bullpen of pitchers with 100+ MPH stuff, offense has never been harder to come by. So much so MLB had to outlaw extreme infield shifts.

Nope.

The major reason for the massive increase in football's popularity, has been the advent over the years of an ever increasing number of high school grads attending college. They love the enthusiasm for football at their college, and thus develop a lifelong loyalty to their alma mater team. Then many of these fans gravitate towards watching the pro game, and root for their local area's NFL team.

Nope. You are absolutely, positively wrong. The idea college attendance is what fueled and continues to fuel NFL viewership is hilariously wrong.

If this was the reason, you wouldn't see the ever-increasing enthusiasm for the college baseball world series (the people suggesting the move of the baseball hall of fame to Omaha is proof). If your argument were based in reality, baseball would see the same boost. In addition, college attendance is actually declining in the United States, not increasing. So on both of these points you are simply wrong.

Football's rise to dominance is fueled by gambling. Throw in the advent of fantasy sports (football is a lot easier to manage with games on Sunday/Monday than baseball every day of the week) which is just more gambling it is clear to anyone with a brain that it's gambling and not college attendance that fueled the change.

College football has always far outweighed college baseball, and it's not even remotely close.

Checkmate.

So, if it has 'always' outweighed baseball, and your (hilariously ignorant) assertion is people attending college became NFL fans, why wasn't football 'always' more popular?

You're wrong. Clearly.

I had already explained why.

Mistlin

@stevek said:

So, if it has 'always' outweighed baseball, and your (hilariously ignorant) assertion is people attending college became NFL fans, why wasn't football 'always' more popular?

You're wrong. Clearly.

I had already explained why.

Your explanation has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese and has no basis in reality. Again, if college football has 'always' been more popular than college baseball, and collegiate sports fans migrating to the pro game is why the NFL is more popular, then it would stand to reason the NFL would have ALWAYS been more popular.

However, we all know that the NFL became more popular between the 70s and 80s, not when the NFL began. Therefore, logic dictates people attending college is not the primary or even secondary reason for the NFL becoming the most popular sport.

I know logic, facts, and reason are difficult concepts for some people to grasp, but I have laid out explicitly why your explanation falls on its face.

DocBenjamin

It is the quality of the Television sets. Fifties and early sixties, the units were serviceable but small and with low definition.

Baseball did much better than football on the sets as it was a slow game with only a few players as the focal point per play.

Football, you have 22 guys plus a handful of refs covering 50 yards or more on each play. Really a mess on a 1960 B&W Zenith.

The cheap, huge screens though have come back to bite the NFL in the butt as every close play is autopsied in super slo mo from half a dozen angles. Zebras that could be off 4 or 5 inches on a TD in 1965 are now deemed blind or accused of having money on the outcome.

Sad.

Mistlin

It's gambling.

That's it. That's the reason. How many people play fantasy baseball? Now, compare that to fantasy football?

Football is easy to bet on. That's the reason it's the most popular sport.

DocBenjamin

Rotisserie baseball leagues were huge before Fantasy football was conceived

Mistlin

@DocBenjamin said:
Rotisserie baseball leagues were huge before Fantasy football was conceived

No, they certainly weren't 'huge'. My point still stands - gambling is why football is the most popular sport in America, nothing more, nothing less.

DocBenjamin

@Mistlin said:

@DocBenjamin said:
Rotisserie baseball leagues were huge before Fantasy football was conceived

No, they certainly weren't 'huge'. My point still stands - gambling is why football is the most popular sport in America, nothing more, nothing less.

On the smartphone, most everyone can place a wager on the event of their choice. Except baseball where an interpreter might be needed.

I rarely watch NFL as it is now an emasculated sport. But it offers excitement. Baseball is a snooze, thus the limited wagering.

Basebal21

Some good ones
Transfer portal in college, it spreads out the talent among more schools
2 minute warning in college football
12 team college football playoff
College baseball making changes to the bats many years ago, offense was out of control in the 1990s
While it needs work, instant replay is a positive

Some bad ones
Banning the shift in MLB
MLB having a pitch clock thats too short
MLB shortening the basepaths
The no play zones for goalies in hockey
Implementation of split screen in game commercials

bgr

1. The NFL has the oldest age demographics of the major sports with the 55+ category being the largest group. I found this surprising. NBA and MLB trended a decade younger on average.
2. The NFL, according to data from Statista, has the highest percentage of fans without a college degree of the 3 major professional sporting leagues in the US. They classify fans as avid or casual based on the percentage of their teams games they watch.
3. The number of both avid and casual fan percentages of college attendees has remained largely unchanged over the years.
4. The percentage of high school graduates who attend college has also been largely unchanged in the past 30 years. This period is interesting as it happens to overlap with the exceptional growth of the NFL.