12/21/24
January 17, 2005
Game On.: I've watched too many episodes of survivor to be wrong about this one, and that's only for a million bucks. The players are not stupid enough to throw away this season and be in the same position next September. That's 12.5% of each players entire career on average I would say. IF the players do throw away this season?? I would have a lot of trouble watching these guys again KNOWING they are that stupid. Here's some discussion from my hockey forum.
Whoa whoa whoa....self-linking on the front page? *averts eyes*
posted by Succa at 09:42 AM on January 18, 2005
This self-link will disappear in 3...2...1... /farkism
posted by wfrazerjr at 09:50 AM on January 18, 2005
No offence taken. I guess my post should have been made at collectivebargainingfilter.com. I have had a morbid facination with this situation since the beggining in regards to collective bargaining and human behavior. The link I posted to the forum isn't MY forum, it's the forum I visit and has some pretty sharp people posting there. I don't post very often. Basically with this post I wanted to be the first sitting around the television watching tribal council to exclaim who is getting voted off. That is the point I am at as a 20 year hockey fan. Again. IF the players throw away the season?? I would have a lot of trouble watching these guys again KNOWING they are that stupid. I'm trying to think of a survivor analogy to the players throwing away the season, the best I could come up with is when a small alliance votes off the strongest competitor early in the game. I know that's wrong, but it's one of those things that ruins the game. I believe the players are somewhat cornered and have to try and make the best deal they can right now, because it's the same deal they are going to get next September. 9 months is an eternity when you look at how short their careers are. Delete this thread if you want Mods, as I said, I wanted to be the first to get the answer right in class. Annoying yes, but it keeps the ego fed for a little while.
posted by kremb at 10:47 AM on January 18, 2005
IF the players throw away the season? kremb, i don't want to have to point out this glaring fallacy, but i must.
posted by garfield at 01:18 PM on January 18, 2005
yeah, yeah I know it's a lockout, but all the players have to do is accept that a cap is part of the new CBA and go from there. an interesting post at the hockey forum I visit. Lanny McDonald (nickname) says: I'm not sure if anyone else has been checking this site with regularity, but all season it has been advertising the NHL lockout and the essential suspension of programming. I haven't checked in the past week, but I just surfed by the site and low and behold they are advertising a "half season offer". Okay, I am now willing to finally admit that something is up. The NHL will indeed be back in business in the next two weeks. There is no reason to change the ad if you are not going to get a whack of progamming in short order!
posted by kremb at 05:55 PM on January 18, 2005
Not to take the wind out of your sails, but I'm betting the the "half-season offer" would have appeared even if they had started the season back in October. It's what the NFL/MLB/NBA TV packages do when they get to the mid-point of their season: they drop the price and offer the ability to watch the rest of the season, hoping to convince you to get the whole plan the next season. I really think it was just some scheduled marketing webpage update that took place, regardless of the status of the NHL.
posted by grum@work at 12:02 AM on January 19, 2005
No offence, kremb, but what exactly does this contribute to discussion of the strike that hasn't been offered before? I miss hockey and all but you can only skin a cat so many times...when the talks turn into something, then we might have something more to talk about.