SPORTS

[jimimac71]

I truly miss the TV supplement from our paper.
It has been gone for years and is an extra $10/month by itself.
I have the Xfinity Stream app on my tablets.
Rather than plunk one channel at a time with the Xfinity remote on the TV, I can scroll through all my channels in a hurry.
I don't watch on the app. It's just a TV guide.

[laffite]

I truly miss the TV supplement from our paper.
It has been gone for years and is an extra $10/month by itself.
I have the Xfinity Stream app on my tablets.
Rather than plunk one channel at a time with the Xfinity remote on the TV, I can scroll through all my channels in a hurry.
I don't watch on the app. It's just a TV guide.

Wrong thread, perhaps? Or maybe there is a sports reference not shown but wondered at. No problem, just curious. No harm, no foul.

[jimimac71]

txfilmfan referenced the TV supplement right above my reply.
No sports reference from me.
Somebody greased the rails again.
I think we all go off-topic sometimes.
I don't mean to make a career out of it.
I will join you in a quick pint.
I don't often watch the Home Run Derby.
It can get boring rather quickly.
Now if somebody busted a window, that's different.
I've been to Washington State, but never Seattle.
So the game will be like a road trip while on my sofa.

[laffite]

Sorry ma bad ( I guess ). You didn't quote the post you were answering and I didn't think to look up. No harm no foul. Going off topic can be a lot of fun. So here is to it !!!!

[jimimac71]

Sorry ma bad ( I guess ). You didn't quote the post you were answering and I didn't think to look up. No harm no foul. Going off topic can be a lot of fun. So here is to it !!!!

I use a tablet most of the time and quoting is bad with my Android tablet and miserable with my iPad.
They never told us children to look up before we crossed the street, just left and right.
Multiple quotes can be insanely difficult here.
I mostly favor the National League. Too often the American League wins.
I always lived close enough to hear the SF Giants on the radio. So I’m a fan by default.
This would not be a good time to switch to the Oakland A’s.
Still think they should move to Portland, Oregon.
Baseball weather in Las Vegas will be a carbon copy of Phoenix, Arizona.

[jamesjazzguitar]

I get the L.A. Times. In the Sunday paper, the L.A. Times advised subscribers that they changed their sports section: no more box scores or "traditional sport game coverage". Instead, it will be more like a sport magazine: E.g., features about leading sport figures and teams but not about yesterday's sporting events.

Today I see that the N.Y. Times is shutting down their entire sports decks.

I pay over $500 a year for L.A. Time paper delivery. I just paid for 3 more months but will likely cancel the paper once this runs out. Both newspapers advised their users to seek daily information from the web. I'm going to take their advice!!!!!

PS: And I hope people can see how this is relevant to changes we are seeing with TCM and just how long TCM can remain viable.

In the case of the NYTimes, they recently bought The Athletic, and had already started shifting their sports resources over there before this announcement. Doesn't help the folks who read only the print version of the paper, though.

Sports stats and box scores and financial market data used to take up a lot column space. People have been able to get much more data in near-real-time online for decades, so it's no surprise papers are dropping this.

I was surprised the little paper where I grew up (town of now about 30,000) still publishes a TV supplement every Sunday. The major papers in DFW dropped them years ago.

I can see not having the box-scores for every pro NBA, MLB or NFL game played, but at least have them for the local teams.

I admit to being a box-score nut. Have been for almost 50 years. First thing I check in the morning are the box scores.

I'll continue to do so but using the Internet.

[laffite]

I get the L.A. Times. In the Sunday paper, the L.A. Times advised subscribers that they changed their sports section: no more box scores or "traditional sport game coverage". Instead, it will be more like a sport magazine: E.g., features about leading sport figures and teams but not about yesterday's sporting events.

Today I see that the N.Y. Times is shutting down their entire sports decks.

I pay over $500 a year for L.A. Time paper delivery. I just paid for 3 more months but will likely cancel the paper once this runs out. Both newspapers advised their users to seek daily information from the web. I'm going to take their advice!!!!!

PS: And I hope people can see how this is relevant to changes we are seeing with TCM and just how long TCM can remain viable.

In the case of the NYTimes, they recently bought The Athletic, and had already started shifting their sports resources over there before this announcement. Doesn't help the folks who read only the print version of the paper, though.

Sports stats and box scores and financial market data used to take up a lot column space. People have been able to get much more data in near-real-time online for decades, so it's no surprise papers are dropping this.

I was surprised the little paper where I grew up (town of now about 30,000) still publishes a TV supplement every Sunday. The major papers in DFW dropped them years ago.

I can see not having the box-scores for every pro NBA, MLB or NFL game played, but at least have them for the local teams.

I admit to being a box-score nut. Have been for almost 50 years. First thing I check in the morning are the box scores. [emphasis Laffite]

I'll continue to do so but using the Internet.

Wow, that elicits boyhood memories. A rush for the paper before my brother gets it. First thing, see what Aaron did. Second, see what Ted Williams did. Of course hoping Braves (Milwaukee) won and then see if the Red Sox won. And then see if the Yankees lost. Then sheer bliss to wander the corridors of Box Score Land. Did you ever get hold of The Sporting News?. A newspaper type thing that came out once a week with all the Box Scores for the week. Wow, James, we have a good shared memory there.

[jamesjazzguitar]

In the case of the NYTimes, they recently bought The Athletic, and had already started shifting their sports resources over there before this announcement. Doesn't help the folks who read only the print version of the paper, though.

Sports stats and box scores and financial market data used to take up a lot column space. People have been able to get much more data in near-real-time online for decades, so it's no surprise papers are dropping this.

I was surprised the little paper where I grew up (town of now about 30,000) still publishes a TV supplement every Sunday. The major papers in DFW dropped them years ago.

I can see not having the box-scores for every pro NBA, MLB or NFL game played, but at least have them for the local teams.

I admit to being a box-score nut. Have been for almost 50 years. First thing I check in the morning are the box scores. [emphasis Laffite]

I'll continue to do so but using the Internet.

Wow, that elicits boyhood memories. A rush for the paper before my brother gets it. First thing, see what Aaron did. Second, see what Ted Williams did. Of course hoping Braves (Milwaukee) won and then see if the Red Sox won. And then see if the Yankees lost. Then sheer bliss to wander the corridors of Box Score Land. Did you ever get hold of The Sporting News?. A newspaper type thing that came out once a week with all the Box Scores for the week. Wow, James, we have a good shared memory there.

My brother was the oldest sibling and he would also get the paper first. We also would get The Sporting News. He had to since he created a fantasy baseball game, based on The Sporting News, way back in the late 70s. Done way back before the Internet.

Yea, good memories!!!

[jimimac71]

Okay you sports nuts, tonight (9/9) there is no network television news.
My TV comes from San Francisco and every broadcast channel has sports and no news until 8 PM.
This is becoming a Saturday night norm, but until now, at least one channel had news.
Yup, this needs to be a crime and severely punishable by the FCC.

[laffite]

BENGALS MAKE A BAD BAD BAD CALL.
Bengals probably a heavy fave going in is doing nothing and trail the Browns, 16-3. With NINE minutes left in game they have a fourth and four on their own 40. I guess out of frustration they go for the first down. It doesn't work and Browns inherit great field position and go in for a touchdown, icing the game. I reject the usual ballyhoo that says, well if the Bengals had succeeded on the fourth down play they would be vindicated. Rubbish! It may have worked but it would still be a abominable decision. It was a bad percentage call especially under the circumstances. The Bengals did not need to do this because by NFL standards they were still in game trailing by 13 with nine minutes. That is only a two-score game!! If you know the NFL then you know that is plenty of time to make up that deficit. Oh, says a naysayer, well they were not doing anything anyway, might as well go for first down. If the score was 24-3 instead of 16-3, perhaps ... but only 13 points behind, NO! An asinine call. If I owned the team I would issue a stern warning to the coach or whatever imbecile, you do something like that again, you are out?

Disclosure : I am not a Bengal fan

[jamesjazzguitar]

BENGALS MAKE A BAD BAD BAD CALL.
Bengals probably a heavy fave going in is doing nothing and trail the Browns, 16-3. With NINE minutes left in game they have a fourth and four on their own 40. I guess out of frustration they go for the first down. It doesn't work and Browns inherit great field position and go in for a touchdown, icing the game. I reject the usual ballyhoo that says, well if the Bengals had succeeded on the fourth down play they would be vindicated. Rubbish! It may have worked but it would still be a abominable decision. It was a bad percentage call especially under the circumstances. The Bengals did not need to do this because by NFL standards they were still in game trailing by 13 with nine minutes. That is only a two-score game!! If you know the NFL then you know that is plenty of time to make up that deficit. Oh, says a naysayer, well they were not doing anything anyway, might as well go for first down. If the score was 24-3 instead of 16-3, perhaps ... but only 13 points behind, NO! An asinine call. If I owned the team I would issue a stern warning to the coach or whatever imbecile, you do something like that again, you are out?

Disclosure : I am not a Bengal fan

The Bengals offensive was playing poorly all game. Therefore, it wouldn't have mattered what call the coach made on the 4th down. Even if the Bengals would have scored, they would still be down by 6 points and it was highly likely that the Browns would have at least kicked another field goal, thus putting the Bengals behind by two scores.

[laffite]

BENGALS MAKE A BAD BAD BAD CALL.
Bengals probably a heavy fave going in is doing nothing and trail the Browns, 16-3. With NINE minutes left in game they have a fourth and four on their own 40. I guess out of frustration they go for the first down. It doesn't work and Browns inherit great field position and go in for a touchdown, icing the game. I reject the usual ballyhoo that says, well if the Bengals had succeeded on the fourth down play they would be vindicated. Rubbish! It may have worked but it would still be a abominable decision. It was a bad percentage call especially under the circumstances. The Bengals did not need to do this because by NFL standards they were still in game trailing by 13 with nine minutes. That is only a two-score game!! If you know the NFL then you know that is plenty of time to make up that deficit. Oh, says a naysayer, well they were not doing anything anyway, might as well go for first down. If the score was 24-3 instead of 16-3, perhaps ... but only 13 points behind, NO! An asinine call. If I owned the team I would issue a stern warning to the coach or whatever imbecile, you do something like that again, you are out?

Disclosure : I am not a Bengal fan

The Bengals offensive was playing poorly all game. Therefore, it wouldn't have mattered what call the coach made on the 4th down. Even if the Bengals would have scored, they would still be down by 6 points and it was highly likely that the Browns would have at least kicked another field goal, thus putting the Bengals behind by two scores.

You make a lot assumptions, James. For instance, how is it "highly likely" that the Browns would kick another field goal. How do you know that? That's like saying that if the Bengals punted it maybe the Bengals might have fumbled. You just make up your own game. The joy of the game is that outcomes are not knowable. And that's why good fundamental football is the way to go, it increases chances of winning. By this standard, Cincinnati made an inherently unsound decision. Your analysis is careless and possibly downright ignorant. Don't mean to jump on you like this, James, but It sounds like you don't know the game that well.

[laffite]

The New York Giants are playing the most dismal game. They trail 26-0 with half the second quarter to go. They have a punt blocked and returned for a TD. They have had a pass intercepted for a TD. And besides that they look terrible. I suggest the Giants resign the rest of their games for the supreme benefit of fans everywhere especially those in New York.

UPDATE : The Giants just tried a short field goal to get on the board before the half. They missed it.

[jamesjazzguitar]

BENGALS MAKE A BAD BAD BAD CALL.
Bengals probably a heavy fave going in is doing nothing and trail the Browns, 16-3. With NINE minutes left in game they have a fourth and four on their own 40. I guess out of frustration they go for the first down. It doesn't work and Browns inherit great field position and go in for a touchdown, icing the game. I reject the usual ballyhoo that says, well if the Bengals had succeeded on the fourth down play they would be vindicated. Rubbish! It may have worked but it would still be a abominable decision. It was a bad percentage call especially under the circumstances. The Bengals did not need to do this because by NFL standards they were still in game trailing by 13 with nine minutes. That is only a two-score game!! If you know the NFL then you know that is plenty of time to make up that deficit. Oh, says a naysayer, well they were not doing anything anyway, might as well go for first down. If the score was 24-3 instead of 16-3, perhaps ... but only 13 points behind, NO! An asinine call. If I owned the team I would issue a stern warning to the coach or whatever imbecile, you do something like that again, you are out?

Disclosure : I am not a Bengal fan

The Bengals offensive was playing poorly all game. Therefore, it wouldn't have mattered what call the coach made on the 4th down. Even if the Bengals would have scored, they would still be down by 6 points and it was highly likely that the Browns would have at least kicked another field goal, thus putting the Bengals behind by two scores.

You make a lot assumptions, James. For instance, how is it "highly likely" that the Browns would kick another field goal. How do you know that? That's like saying that if the Bengals punted it maybe the Bengals might have fumbled. You just make up your own game. The joy of the game is that outcomes are not knowable. And that's why good fundamental football is the way to go, it increases chances of winning. By this standard, Cincinnati made an inherently unsound decision. Your analysis is careless and possibly downright ignorant. Don't mean to jump on you like this, James, but It sounds like you don't know the game that well.

I'm not making any more assumptions than you are. The Bengals clearly were not making up their own game; I.e. in control of their destiny in this game. They were playing like crap and the coach and QB knew this. So with 9 minutes to go, why not take a chance to see if they could turn it around. Thus I don't agree with you that it was a bad move. It was a last ditch effort that failed. End of story.

[laffite]

End of story is right, especially for the Bengals. I have a name for that kind of strategy. The Kamikaze Factor. If you don't think there is a chance to win (when there is), get it all over with and do something stupid. Yeah, take a chance, percentage wise you will lose quicker and sacrifice any chance to win.

Seriously, real coaches like Andy Reid or Bill Belichick wouldn't ever consider such a move. It's the newbie coaches and newbie strategies that are coming in now, eschewing the wisdom of yesteryear in favor of a cockamamie go for it mentality. The NFL is rapidly becoming an out-of-control bush league.