Are You Ready for Some FOOTBALL!

[Locutus D'Borg]

Just the Yankees or Dodgers fans in your group?

The Yankees were in the Bronx at around 161st St. The Dodgers were in Brooklyn at Ebbetts Field close to Prospect Park.. And the Giants were in the upper tip of Manhattan around 158th St. in the Polo Grounds directly across the Harlem River from Yankee Stadium.

Which borough of NY did you grow up in?

My guess is that you lived in/near Brooklyn and those who weren't Dodgers fans were Yankees fans.

PS: I don't know if it was "planned" or not but it's interesting that the "rivalry" between the Giants and Dodgers was transplanted from Manhattan/Brooklyn to SF/LA after both teams moved west in 1958 and that that "rivalry" still endures to this day.

Don't hate me but....I was born in Manhattan and we lived on Long Island (pronounced lon guyland) until 1960, then we left the state.

 

[sgt1372]

Don't hate me but....I was born in Manhattan and we lived on Long Island (pronounced lon guyland) until 1960, then we left the state.

OMG!!!

I'm sure you know that there are still people in NY who remained Giants even after they moved to SF and remain Giants fans to this day. I've met a few over the years. The same probably also applies to Dodgers fans who still live in NY but I haven't met any of those, unless you're one of them. LOL!

BTW, I don't think you ever said which team you rooted for -- the Yankees or Dodgers?

In either case, I'd have to HATE you!

Just kidding . . .

 

[Monofletch]

Ive been watching the USFL. I haven’t picked a team to follow yet. I am hoping the XFL comes back. We had a huge Battlehawks support here in St. L. I would get season tickets for that!

 

[sgt1372]

BTW, Locutus, my GF was born in NYC (Queens) and has 4 other siblings who still live in/near NYC (one other in Hawaii) and one of her siblings is rich enough to be able to afford a upper Eastside coop and FOUR behind-homeplate SEASON tickets to the Yankees and other sports and cultural events.

She doesn't really care but I have no problem giving her sh*t about her sibling's allegience to the dreaded YANKEES and I'm hoping one day to visit NYC when the Giants are there so that I can wear Black/Orange team colors in 2 of their seats right behind home plate.

LOL!

 

[The Amazing Virginian]

The USFL is the ultimate case study in how the sports media is in bed (or not) with the various sports leagues, and the gross distortions this produces in their "coverage" such that the sports fan needs to take EVERY single thing they say with a tablespoon of salt.

FOX . . . their talking head TV programs and their website have USFL coverage every day. Highlights. Scores. Analysis.

ESPN . . . literally absolutely ZERO coverage both on TV and at their website. 100 percent ghosted.

The difference? FOX is a partner and broadcasts USFL games. ESPN isn't and doesn't. Looking at their disparate treatment of the USFL is actually laugh out loud funny.

ESPN is famous for only providing good coverage of sports/leagues where they have some kind of financial interest. For many years it was difficult to find anything about hockey on their TV networks, and it was pushed way down on their website. Then in the past year the NHL signed a new broadcast deal, and ESPN is now broadcasting games. And, voila, now they cover the NHL. Magic!

 

[l1ranger]

The USFL is the ultimate case study in how the sports media is in bed (or not) with the various sports leagues, and the gross distortions this produces in their "coverage" such that the sports fan needs to take EVERY single thing they say with a tablespoon of salt.

FOX . . . their talking head TV programs and their website have USFL coverage every day. Highlights. Scores. Analysis.

ESPN . . . literally absolutely ZERO coverage both on TV and at their website. 100 percent ghosted.

The difference? FOX is a partner and broadcasts USFL games. ESPN isn't and doesn't. Looking at their disparate treatment of the USFL is actually laugh out loud funny.

ESPN is famous for only providing good coverage of sports/leagues where they have some kind of financial interest. For many years it was difficult to find anything about hockey on their TV networks, and it was pushed way down on their website. Then in the past year the NHL signed a new broadcast deal, and ESPN is now broadcasting games. And, voila, now they cover the NHL. Magic!

and their NHL coverage sucks - much rather watch the TBS / TNT crew with Biz and the Great One, and highly prefer to watch the Caps on NBC sports washington.

of course its Stanley Cup Playoff time - football doesnt exist in any form for me right now. I was lucky enough to get to go into the swamp saturday and watch em put smack down on that Florida team, hopefully they can get a couple more in short order and rest up for round two.

 

[sgt1372]

The USFL is the ultimate case study in how the sports media is in bed (or not) with the various sports leagues, and the gross distortions this produces in their "coverage" such that the sports fan needs to take EVERY single thing they say with a tablespoon of salt.

FOX . . . their talking head TV programs and their website have USFL coverage every day. Highlights. Scores. Analysis.

ESPN . . . literally absolutely ZERO coverage both on TV and at their website. 100 percent ghosted.

The difference? FOX is a partner and broadcasts USFL games. ESPN isn't and doesn't. Looking at their disparate treatment of the USFL is actually laugh out loud funny.

Of course, it's all about the $.

Reports are that Fox owns ALL of the teams has committed to spending $50M/yr for 3 yrs to "operate" the league.

So, if it seems like Fox is really "pushing" the USFL by broacasting the games live (and repeatedly in replays), this is why. They have to sell as many ads as they can, as many times as they can, to recoup this "investment" (and, if they're lucky, actually make $ on it).

See: https://www.sportskeeda.com/american-football/how-much-usfl-franchise-cost

BTW, since Fox has exclusive rights to the USFL, I doubt they'd be sharing any coverage with ESPN or other broadcast channels unless they are willing to pay for the privilege which they obvioulsy have not interest in doing since it would only benefit Fox and not them.

 

[Monofletch]

Drew Breeze to the Seahawks? That might be something AWESOME!

 

[The Amazing Virginian]

Of course, it's all about the $.

Reports are that Fox owns ALL of the teams has committed to spending $50M/yr for 3 yrs to "operate" the league.

So, if it seems like Fox is really "pushing" the USFL by broacasting the games live (and repeatedly in replays), this is why. They have to sell as many ads as they can, as many times as they can, to recoup this "investment" (and, if they're lucky, actually make $ on it).

See: https://www.sportskeeda.com/american-football/how-much-usfl-franchise-cost

BTW, since Fox has exclusive rights to the USFL, I doubt they'd be sharing any coverage with ESPN or other broadcast channels unless they are willing to pay for the privilege which they obvioulsy have not interest in doing since it would only benefit Fox and not them.

I don't know about the rest of those claims, but I know for a fact that Fox does not have exclusive rights to the USFL. NBC has broadcast their games, too.

My point is that NONE of these so-called sports networks (whether it be ESPN, or Fox, or CBS Sports, etc.) or their shows really cover sports. They promote sports and leagues in which they have a vested interest, and screw the rest of sports which don't profit them. It would be nice if someone started a show or even a network which was just devoted to covering sports, in proportion to fan interest, without bias due to their own financial interest. I guess that's unrealistic.