Sports Teams You Would Get Rid of or Move

No, but it was to shockingly low TV ratings, in fact the worst ratings in WS history.

If you want an eye opener, start asking random "casual" sports fans who the two teams in the last world series were. Unless you're in the Rangers or Giant fan zone, it's amazing how many embarrassed blank looks you'll draw. There's never been a world series more ignored and soon forgotten than the most recent one.

 

I agree 100 percent. Minor-league hockey has done insanely well in Nebraska.

 

High school sports are not going anywhere. Not with the new push on healthy children.

I would wager that many of you are getting far fewer AAU requests these past 3-4 years because families do not have the money for hotels just so Johnny can play a game or two.

 

You're assuming that the eight football coaches who teach Geography, Civics, etc. at the high school are all absolutely necessary to having all the bodies neeeded to get those classes taught. Coaches aren't teachers who happen to get a stipend to stay after school and coach a little football. Instead of having all those coaches essentially contributing part-time to the larger faculty, wouldn't it be more cost efficient to get rid of most of them, replace them with a couple of regular teachers who, say, specialize in social sciences as opposed to the spread option offense? I mean, dump five coaches and replace them with two teachers? Aren't we trying to save costs here?

So yes, this would lead to a DRASTIC cut back in the number of employed coaches. They would have to reinvent themselves to compete for fewer regular teaching spots or try to make money hustling the AAU circuits.

If that happens, does the AAU start hiring people to coach club football? About as much as they hire people to coach club basketball, I'm sure.

I am aware that much of the rest of the world plays club ball, which takes the burden of financing organized athletics off the tax payer and on to private sponsorship/ownership. In some ways its more efficient. I don't know if, culturally, this country would be willing to make such a drastic change, especially when it has a model that's more than efficient at producing athletes, probably at least as efficient as the club-based system.

Remember, for all the talk of how athletes need to compete in club sports in the U.S. to reach an elite status, those club sports rely HEAVILY on the scholastic system to do the heavy lifting. If the scholastic system were taken away, I doubt if the club systems can be nearly as efficient, not without a fundamental shift in how they operate. Faced with that, I think even the club system community would favor saving scholastic sports as opposed with having to take on more responsibility.

If scholastic sports collapsed and the club system wasn't completely reinvented, coaching would go the route of citizen journalists and become the exclusive property of a country club clientele. I always thought that one of the strengths of the American player development systm was the professionalization (is that a word?) of coaches. At most levels of club sports in Europe, the coaches are volunteers.

 

USHL, WCHA and the NHL ... ambitious. The NHL would obviously offer a higher level than the Omaha Knights did, but I wonder just how much hockey Omaha could take. The sports dollar is already stretched between Nebraska football, Creighton basketball, UNO and a handful of minor league teams (Royals, Lancers, Nighthawks, Vipers).

 

You're operating from the bogus premise that a team's departure is always a reflection of a market's failure to support that team.

 

It wasn't a coincidence that both owners who left LA fall into the "Batshit Crazy" category.

 

I watched every pitch of the World Series. I did not watch one minute of college football in 2010.

 

It was hyperbole. Obviously.

The fact is that Americans no longer really care that much who wins championships, if it isn't their team. I would argue they don't even care about the Super Bowl that much as a sporting event as they do an annual cultural event.

 

I have a personal hatred for everything LA.

That said, I think the NFL has done just fine without 'em.

 

Every word you wrote might be 100 percent true.

It doesn't explain why tax payers should be subsidizing any of it. Not in an era when people no longer hold hands, pitch woo, respect the college dean, nor rally around their local prep sports heroes.

Why does it matter if non-athletes participate in sports? I mean, why does it matter enough for us to subsidize it to this degree, when our math, science, art, and music programs, just to start, are woefully inadequate?

With our without high school sports, our elite athletes will be fine. We won't be embarrassed on the world stage. We'll still win gold medals. But we'll do it a hell of a lot more efficiently.

 

This would describe me. After teams I have a particular interest are done, I generally lose interest. I'll watch the Super Bowl almost out of obligation. As a "sports guy" it would be awkward if non-sports people are all talking about the game on Monday and I have no idea what they are talking about.