This week's podcast features some NBA All-Star game discussion, college sports' mascots, and the Albert Pujols saga. If you don't feel like listening to the whole thing, at least tune in at the end for the mascot debate. I think it's an important issue which everyone needs to chime in on.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
5 comments BotB Podcast #8
This week's podcast features some NBA All-Star game discussion, college sports' mascots, and the Albert Pujols saga. If you don't feel like listening to the whole thing, at least tune in at the end for the mascot debate. I think it's an important issue which everyone needs to chime in on.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
At least the NBA All-Star game doesn't determine who gets home field advantage in the NBA Finals.
That's true. I don't hate the system MLB has in place. I would rather they just give it to the team with the best record overall. I think the winner of the ASG getting homefield is sort of lame but at least it gets ppl talking about the game a bit. Again, it would be better just to give it to the team with the best record, but that seems too hard to do.
As a huge baseball fan, I HATE the way the All-Star Game affects the playoffs.
Because the MLB All-Star Game matters, the managers in said game should do everything in their power to win. If that means only eight position players plus a DH play and the rest of the all stars ride the bench, then so be it. The manager shouldn't have to think "well, Pujols has played 4 innings, I should sub someone in for him, even though if I win this game, I might have home field advantage if I get to the World Series" The game really matters so they should treat it as such.
Flip a coin during the tiebreaker scenario flips, that's a better system. Best record in the playoffs, that's a better (the best) system. Hell, just alternate it like they used to, even years NL, odd years AL. That works for me.
Oh, and one more thing regarding your podcast. I'm a UK Basketball fan and I probably watched 75% of the games Rondo played in and I had NO IDEA he'd be as good as he is. In college he'd have flashes of brilliance, so you could see the potential, but never would I expect him to be able to run an NBA-caliber offense the way he does. Side Note: I was playing NBA2K11 a couple weeks ago as the Celtics vs the Heat and I had a triple double with Rondo: 22 points, 11 assists, 31(!) steals
Koleslaw, I did not see the whole "Rondo being good" thing coming at all. I thought he would be a servicable backup who could come in the game and provide something different for a team...especially since he wasn't a great shooter. But not this. I did not expect it at all.
How can you place meaning on a game that has for years been played as an exhibition? You are putting these players in an awkward position - using the newer WS home field advantaqe to stimulate them to play hard, but this runs against the grain of 'well this shit is just a highly-advertised exhibition of marketable players'.
Okay, I'm a bit drunk, so maybe that didn't make sense, who knows. But, watching the dunk contest this morning on DVR, I was pretty appalled by how much cross-marketing and made-for-tv scripted moments went into that thing. Granted, I haven't watched a full dunk contest in years, but shit. It was absurd, and the Blake/car thing? ...Really?
The NBA... Where Marketing Happens.
Post a Comment