davearm2

Please, just stop. Just stop what?

Quick question... how on Earth did Luke Scott earn the Birther label?

Seems like a lot of false outrage to me. If some player everyone likes had made these comments, there would be no reaction at all IMO.

You are seriously pathetic. Take out the word meaningless if it's going to keep you up at night. Makes no difference to me. (a) personal attacks are against board rules. (b) if i take out the word meaningless, it reads: "You see nothing resembling that in the video I linked of Pie freaking out in a winter league game?" the part about the winter league game, even without meaningless, suggests to me that you believe these games do not matter. Haha you'd have 80,000 posts rather than 40,000 if you spent your day policing every personal attack on this board. I guess I'm special. :blush: Maybe this will help you see the light friend: if Pie had behaved this way in a MLB game, I'd have the same reaction. So all of your semantic hand-wringing is a pointless waste of time. Don't pretend for a moment that the way Pie behaves has anything to do with how you react. Your [consistently opposing] reaction is a function of the way the board feels about a topic, not some strongly held beliefs you already possess. As to the point of semantic hand-wringing... aren't you the one trying to prove the difference between calling Pie a savage and saying he's acting like one? It seems you're playing up the semantics angle stronger than anybody else. Frankly I don't give a crap about the way Pie behaves. But knowing what I know, and having seen him blow a gasket more than once, I think Scott was spot on with his comments, and the general sentiment he expressed: Pie has a habit of acting like a jerk, and so people will begin to perceive him as such.

You are seriously pathetic. Take out the word meaningless if it's going to keep you up at night. Makes no difference to me. (a) personal attacks are against board rules. (b) if i take out the word meaningless, it reads: "You see nothing resembling that in the video I linked of Pie freaking out in a winter league game?" the part about the winter league game, even without meaningless, suggests to me that you believe these games do not matter. Haha you'd have 80,000 posts rather than 40,000 if you spent your day policing every personal attack on this board. I guess I'm special. :blush: Maybe this will help you see the light friend: if Pie had behaved this way in a MLB game, I'd have the same reaction. So all of your semantic hand-wringing is a pointless waste of time.

You are seriously pathetic. Take out the word meaningless if it's going to keep you up at night. Makes no difference to me.

Alrighty I'll put you in the savage = cannibal camp too So you were posting the definition to show that you're idea of "savage" is wrong and ridiculous? Because otherwise that post made no sense. Au contraire mon freire. I posted the definition to show that *your* idea of "savage" is wrong and ridiculous.

Oh please. Is that the best you can do? If so, just quit while you're behind. these players are paid for their participation in the winter leagues. there are playoffs in the winter leagues and championships are awarded. so again, why do you say the game was meaningless? In this context, my use of the phrase meaningless, was meaningless. Take it out if you have a problem with it. My point is no different.

Jesus get a [expletive] clue. I said earlier that I wouldn't have chosen the term savage. That doesn't change the fact that you are totally misusing it.

Alrighty I'll put you in the savage = cannibal camp too

Oh please. Is that the best you can do? If so, just quit while you're behind.

Oh lord how did I miss more davearm wrongness? Care to elaborate, or are you just hoping to join the fanclub? Definition of SAVAGE 1a : not domesticated or under human control : untamed b : lacking the restraints normal to civilized human beings http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/savage?show=0&t=1303874386 You see nothing resembling that in the video I linked of Pie freaking out in a meaningless winter league game? Or perhaps you also leap to the wrong conclusion that savage implies warpaint, spears, loincloths and bones through the nose.

Not true. All I said was, Americans aren't buying what soccer is selling, and I stand by that. I never said, nor implied, that this means they wouldn't buy the same thing if it was applied to another sport. Heck I'm convinced Americans would still watch the NFL regardless of how badly they tried to screw up their product. It's not that different. Many of the same factors that make the Olympics popular, also apply to the World Cup. The spectacle of the event, elite athletes performing on the world's stage, the patriotism of rooting for the home team, and yes, the uniqueness that comes from paying attention to it once every four years. The soccer itself isn't the only draw. As you said yourself, Americans can get that on ESPN at other times. And let's not compare attendance figures for a stadium sport to that of arena sports. That's silly.

That's not the term I would choose. And it's not the term I'd use to describe Pie either. But I can certainly understand where Luke Scott was coming from with those comments.

Haha right, and miss the chance to see the usual self-styled saber-wizards make fools of themselves again?

I would strongly dispute the term "featured". I would hazard a guess that ESPN/2 airs about the same number of Euro soccer games as WNBA and Arena Football games, and probably in very similar timeslots (i.e., undesirable ones). Feel free to correct me if that's a misconception. A red herring would be to focus on the performance of a once-every-four-years event such as the World Cup. Americans love gymnastics and bobsledding for a few weeks every four years too.

Even if you were correct that soccer isn't popular in the US -- and you're not -- it seems incredibly thin, logically speaking, to blame the purported unpopularity on the league/cup system employed. I did nothing of the sort. Soccer is unpopular as a spectator sport here, because Americans find it boring to watch. It's a fringe, niche sport in the U.S. Sorry if that hurts your feelings or whatever, but the numbers are what they are, and the absence of any meaningful national TV deal proves the point. So to make the argument, as others have, that Americans would embrace a multiple-champion setup in baseball because it works in soccer is inherently flawed, because soccer itself hasn't worked in America (at least not as a spectator/fan sport). Tons of kids play soccer, and it's growing like crazy in terms of participation. I get that. But that's not pertinent to this issue. No. Again, you have a serious correlation-causation problem. Because soccer isn't popular here doesn't mean the league/cup system would be unpopular here (though I would not even remotely be in favor of importing it). There are many reasons soccer may not be popular here, and you have shown no nexus between soccer's unpopularity in the US and the league/cup system (I'd posit such nexus would be impossible to prove, as I don't believe most Americans are even aware of the simultaneous domestic cups and leagues). When you say "whatever that sport is doing, the American sporting public ain't buying" and use that for a reason the league/cup system would not work in the US, you are ostensibly saying that "soccer is played with 11 players a side, and soccer hasn't worked in America, so no sport with 11 players a side would work in America." The problem here is not mine. Look someone else pointed to soccer as evidence that a multiple-champion format for baseball would work here. I showed that's flawed logic, and why. In order to establish that premise, you'd want to show an example of a sport that uses that forma and is popular here. Not only is soccer not such an example (because it's not popular), but it's arguably a counter-example (its unpopularity may be due at least in part to the format). Hope this helps.

Somebody outta write a book

Even if you were correct that soccer isn't popular in the US -- and you're not -- it seems incredibly thin, logically speaking, to blame the purported unpopularity on the league/cup system employed. I did nothing of the sort. Soccer is unpopular as a spectator sport here, because Americans find it boring to watch. It's a fringe, niche sport in the U.S. Sorry if that hurts your feelings or whatever, but the numbers are what they are, and the absence of any meaningful national TV deal proves the point. So to make the argument, as others have, that Americans would embrace a multiple-champion setup in baseball because it works in soccer is inherently flawed, because soccer itself hasn't worked in America (at least not as a spectator/fan sport). Tons of kids play soccer, and it's growing like crazy in terms of participation. I get that. But that's not pertinent to this issue.

I think we all watch plenty of baseball here. That kind of "show" absolutely does not happen all of the time. Pretty much every season. So one major leaguer, out of ~1000, in one game out of ~2500, acts like that. Finally we agree.

I think we all watch plenty of baseball here. That kind of "show" absolutely does not happen all of the time.

He didn't call him a savage. He said he's acting like a savage. There's a difference FYI. And it's hard to dispute, looking at the behavior. Straight out of the Milton Bradley archives.

I would challenge anyone to have a look at this clip and then say Scott might not have a valid point regarding the savage comment.

Apparently Americans would rather watch sports that really aren't sports than soccer. Yes, let's compare the TV contracts of sports that have all been around for years and years to a league that's been around for 16 years. Ooooo, wait, I can cherrypick stats too: Seattle Sounders attendance, week 4: 36,223 Seattle Mariners attendance, same day: 13,056 Vancouver Whitecaps attendance, week 5: 20,809 Vancouver Canucks attendance, Game 2 Stanley Cup Playoffs: 18,660 MLS: More popular than hockey in Canada and baseball in the PacNW. LOL yes I cherrypicked stats by listing off the two most reasonable measures of the most popular sports in America. Who broadcasts the MLS?

Makes no sense how? It's exactly what you said yourself. If you don't like the survey design, take it up with with the Nielsen and Harris folks.