The rumors are that TWO teams will move to Los Angeles, because the city is not going to give them $1.5 billion or whatever in taxpayer money to build a stadium. They would rather split that cost between two owners. Nitpicking here, but, the term is champing at the bit. Not chomping. The "bit" is a sharp piece of metal that is placed in a horse's mouth, and the rider can move it to stab the horse in his or her mouth, causing the horse to try to move away from the pain and therefore turn in the direction the rider wants the horse to turn. (You could also train the horse to turn when you squeeze your legs a certain way, which is the non-douchey way to do it.) Anyway, champing at the bit means chewing noisily on the bit, which you can actually hear. Chomping would mean taking a bite out of it. Everyone gets that mixed up because nobody knows anything about horses or that champing is a word. Anyway, it doesn't boggle my mind that three or four billionaires are considering moving their teams to LA. If it will make them more money, most owners will do it. The owners generally look at the fans as customers. You move somewhere else, you get new customers - more customers, wealthier customers, then you just see it as an upgrade and wave goodbye to the people that supported the team over generations. It's absolutely no problem to fill the entire stadium even in a small city with a lousy team. (In fact, up until recently there was a blackout rule for games that didn't sell out. I always thought that was bullshit though.) The problem is you need to charge $30 a ticket to fill the stadium when you have a shitty team in a small city. They would rather fill the stadium with people paying $200 per ticket on average and sell them $25,000 PSLs. The TV revenues are split evenly among all 32 teams, which is over $220m per team per year. So teams don't need to rely on ticket sales to keep things going - they could literally sell every ticket for $1 each and still make a large profit. But there's no reason to do that, they want to make as much as they can and that's okay with me. What is saddening is when teams get taxpayers to build them free stadiums, or when they abandon a multi-generational fan base just to make a few more tens of millions per year in some other city that doesn't have an emotional bond to the team.
As a young man, I was angry that I grew up in a market that constantly overlooked by the NFL. I'm not in the slightest bit any more. The league will result to pitting fan bases against each other to get the best possible deal. The games are almost secondary to what is a year round media circus, made possible by ESPN (which is just a separate function of the NFL) It seems making as much money as possible is all the "powers that be" care about. I used to liked to be reminded the game could provide opportunities to disenfranchised youth and occasionally represent something more. But that's as big a crock as the NCAA is. The NFL is glorified meat market and always will be. My town could easily have built a Dome and whored itself out to the league. But Im glad Portland is so anti - pro sports lobbying. So no, although I don't get too see the Jets in person every year, my team loyalties were never set in stone. And I see that as a positive now. The best thing that could happen to the NFL is that it lose some popularity. I will admit, not likely. But it would help it get back to its roots.
I stand corrected. Thank you. Saw "A Christmas Carol (1951)" last night for the umpteenth time and the term was used in that movie.
From the grammarist.com http://grammarist.com/usage/champing-chomping-at-the-bit/ Champing at the bit vs. chomping at the bit One definition of bit is a metal mouthpiece used for controlling a horse, and one definition of champ is to bite or chew noisily. These are the senses meant in the idiom champing at the bit, which refers to the tendency of some horses to chew on the bit when impatient or eager. In its figurative sense, it means to show impatience while delayed, or just to be eager to start. The idiom is usually written chomping at the bit, and some people consider this spelling wrong. But chomp can also mean to bite or chew noisily (though chomped things are often eaten, while champed things are not), so chomp at the bit means roughly the same as champ at the bit. In fact, chomp, which began as a variant of champ, is alive in English while the biting-related sense of champ is dead outside this idiom, so it’s no wonder that chomping at the bit is about 20 times as common as champing at the bit on the web. Champing at the bit can sound funny to people who aren’t familiar with the idiom or the obsolete sense of champ, while most English speakers can infer the meaning of chomping at the bit. Still, if you’re writing for school or for readers who are versed in English, champing at the bit is probably the safer choice.
I have in on today playing on a loop, I'll only keep it on till the kids get here then we can watch the bowl games I recorded last night.
I think if I had to move to the west coast it would probably be a little west of Portland. I don't go to games much anymore so it wouldn't effect me much that way and would not have to deal with the local fans I have here nor the transplants which are mostly GB and Pittsburgh fans. You get out to Silver Falls much, I love that area.
How does MLB stay afloat? Contracts are crazy, game is boring and talent is diluted because of expansion. I loved watching baseball when I was a kid, but more than an inning is a chore now.
162 games a year, stadiums fill up all summer long, average ticket price $28.. You do the math. Plus TV contracts And I disagree completely about the talent, there is more young talent in the league than there was 10/15 years ago. Baseball is on a real upswing That's a league that running the opposite direction of the NFL in terms of fan relations. When the NFL continues to fuck the common fan up the ass, baseball does so much for the fans. Well see in 20 years which philosophy pans out
Baseball is nothing but specialized roles, and 5-10 minute at bats. The AARP crowd that it is geared toward only has so much disposable income.
Sounds like football you're describing. Football is highly specialized even more than baseball. How much of the 60 minutes of football is the ball actually in play, very little. I don't know where you watch baseball, but I attended a weekday night game at Citi Field during the Mets "run" for the pennant this past season. True, there weren't too many kids and families, but it was a mostly young crowd, many in suits, that practically filled the stadium, certainly not predominantly AARP members. I should know because I'm an AARP member!
i love baseball and there is nothing better than a pennant race. but like with everything these days i would rather watch kids play than guys who make millions, sure its not elite athletes but its folks who genuinely care about the game. im the same with football at this point. i watch high school and college with much more fervor than i do the nfl. i rarely watch the primetime games unless there is nothing else going on.
Nothing against AARP members, I will be one in a few more years. I used to follow the Orioles religiously, but now I can't watch more than an inning without going to sleep. I pull for the Brewers now, and I still find it hard to watch them play. It may be a symptom of today's instant gratitude culture. I can watch World Cup soccer and be more entertained than watching MLB.
I like watching World Cup soccer too. I think it's a case of the high stakes involved in any given game. With baseball not much is at stake with any single game during the regular season unless it's late in the season in a pennant race or the playoffs. With NFL football, there's a lot more riding on each game. I could probably watch curling if there was a gold medal involved in the outcome.
its a different type of game to watch. like with football i prefer to watch non elit athletes play it but watching a game on a warm summer night while you are doing other things and just kind of have it on in the background is fantastic. even listening to it on the radio. i can remember listening to bob murphy every night in the summer as i went to bed listening to the game. maybe its the nostalgia for me.
Big difference; I could take my boy to a Padres game buy 2 GA tickets and sit in the outfield pay to park 10 minutes away get 4 tacos , a beer and a coke for about 60 bucks. When I had Chargers tickets that was one seat in the nosebleeds and I saw more fat fucks stand around in the huddle then I ever did at a baseball game. Honestly that's why I love soccer, I've gone to a few Taiwan National Team games, sat in great seats, had beers, (no food) and on my way in 2 hours and dropped less than 10 bucks. It's not always like that, I dropped 80 Euros to go watch Barcelona about 3 years ago and sat in the 5th deck... yeah 5th deck in a stadium that holds over 100K
Being in Florida and close to quite a few minor league stadiums I got interested in baseball again after many years of not following mainly because I was disillusioned after the strike in 94-95. Minor league half the time I can get free tickets, they have some $1 hot dog and beer nights, Sundays an all you can eat brunch with ticket for $15 or family night, four Field Box tickets, four hot dogs, four sodas and four bags of chips all for just $32 Can't beat many of the deals.
For a few years in a row, I went with a buddy to see NY Mets spring training games in Pt St. Lucie. Flew down, rented a car, stayed in a motel, ate at Outback, IHop or Ruby Tuesdays, etc, sat close to the field. We had a blast. Tried to see at least two home games. When the Dodgers were still in Fla. they trained a few miles north of the Mets. We could usually see two Met home games and a Met road game in Vero Beach. Stopped going a few years ago because my buddy was so p*ssed at the Mets for not signing good free agents. Now I think he wants to go again.
These shiny new stadiums are funded by a majority of taxpayers who do not care about the game. There is a huge misconception that these new stadiums contribute to the city's economy. This is a flat out lie. After interest payments, maintenance costs and a host of other expenses, the cities end up losing a shitload of money on the new stadium deals. A big thumbs up to the municipalities who have not sold out and said no to these new stadium scams. I think some cities are finally wising up and starting to realize that it is much better to lose a team (due to relocation), than to lose their pants on a new stadium deal. From an economic standpoint, the choice for the cities is easy: just say no to these billionaire owners asking for public handouts.
