You're sensible to a fault. Your view of sports is very dull, IMO.Originally Posted by Jacoby_Ellsbury;489882;
You're sensible to a fault. Your view of sports is very dull, IMO.
And who are you, the proud lord said, that I must bow so low?
Only a cat of a different coat, that's all the truth I know. In a coat of gold or a coat of red, a lion still has claws, And mine are long and sharp, my lord, as long and sharp as yours.
The guy who plays against the steroid users... doesn't always know he's a user, right?
And they are both unfair advantages. That is the core point.*Sigh*
One is natural, one isn't. One is intentional, one is random.
But they are unfair advantages. We don't really need to categorize them any further.Irrelevant, they're not like "unfair advantages", even if you view it as an "unfair advantage", so you can't compare them.
Yup, I live in a very dull, uninteresting, black & white, logic and common sense filled world where everything is the same and everyone is judged by the same measuring stick.
I like games (football and baseball) played out in the weather. JMO, though.
1. Why should they? If they see an advantage, exploit it. It's there, and there's no rules against it.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly why it shouldn't be up to the teams. Do NBA teams have the option to construct their arenas as outside stadiums or not? Doubt it.
Valid point, which is why all this should have been done a long time ago.2. It costs a great deal of extra money at taxpayer's expense. The NFL can't tell teams that they need to make a stadium that is more expensive than it needs to be, basically because it'll piss of the people.
The only thing about the stadium that I care about is the roof. In baseball, every diamond should have the same dimensions.You can't control what the stadium is constructed like because it's not part of the playing field. Beyond the field itself, it's all up to the ownership, and I doubt there's anything the NFL could do about that even if they wanted to.
That's not the same thing, either way. The opposing team knows that there is snow, or maybe it's just really cold, and white fluffy stuff that melts is falling to the ground, but we're not sure if it's snow, right? It's so different to the point that you can't even use it for comparison.
And they are so different that they shouldn't be used to counter each other. If you think mother nature is an unfair advantage, then, well, that's tough shit. It's mother nature, and to be honest with you, it's just a natural occurrence that a team uses it's regional weather to it's advantage.And they are both unfair advantages. That is the core point.
Yes there is, one is with intent, while the other is completely random.But they are unfair advantages. We don't really need to categorize them any further.
A team exploiting a nature-related unfair advantage for their benefit isn't the same as players taking pills for their benefit? Mmmkay.
So they are both unfair advantages, though.Yes there is, one is with intent, while the other is completely random.
Can someone make him into a Sports Nazi or something?
It's. A. Natural. Weather. Occurrence.
They. Can. Exploit. Their. Regional. Weather.
Do I have to spell it out for you? Or are you so stuck in your "EVERYTHING MUST BE FAIR AND THE SAME AND EVERYONE MUST BE BORING!!!" ways? Good god, want to take the fun out of sports? Go for it, I doubt anyone's going to watch games where everyone's playing in the same stadium and has the same everything. Why don't you just make sure all of the teams are the same too? Like, no Adrian Peterson, he's too good, he's an unfair advantage. I'm just using your logic, don't take it too seriously.
Well so is a guy like Albert Pujols, should you only be allowed to let him bat once or twice in a game just because he happened to come along into your organization? Or Adrian Peterson? Or Peyton Manning? Or Sidney Crosby? Like I said, just using your logic.So they are both unfair advantages, though.
Adrian Peterson is naturally good. So no, that isn't my logic. My logic is to let the players play the game. Without unneeded assistance from outside influences such as steroids, weather, etc..
Sorry to rip a hole in your unicorns-n-rainbows dimension.
lolWell so is a guy like Albert Pujols, should you only be allowed to let him bat once or twice in a game just because he happened to come along into your organization? Or Adrian Peterson? Or Peyton Manning? Or Sidney Crosby? Like I said, just using your logic.
And weather is naturally available to exploit :lol:
Steroids aren't, but you're grouping everything into one giant category, so then the very best of players, by your logic, should be, actually, not limited, but eliminated all together.
So you've gone from trying to over-filter the idea of what's an acceptable unfair advantage, saw it blow up in your face, and now you're going to try and over-broaden things. Love it.
To answer your question, no the best players should not be eliminated, because the players make up the teams in question. What I want gone are the unneeded outside factors. Players are inside factors.
Hahahhahahahaha1!
You guys should just get a room and work it out.
But get your homework done first, please.
"Hating the Yankees like it's a religion since 94'" RIP Mike.
"It's also a simple and indisputable fact that WAR isn't the be-all end-all in valuations, especially in real life. Wanna know why? Because an ace in run-prevention for 120 innings means more often than not, a sub-standard pitcher covering for the rest of the IP that pitcher fails to provide. You can't see value in a vacuum when a player does not provide full-time production."
You didn't prove anything, all you've been saying is how black-and-white things should be, do I have to repeat myself, again? You've even gone as far as saying that it's comparable to "putting potholes in the ice" or "heightening the hoop". It's so laughable that you can tell me that my argument has "blown up in my face" when your argument has more holes in it than swiss cheese. Knock this shit off, your proclamations of victory, the sarcasm, it's all really annoying, but it's what I've come to expect when I disagree with the great J_E.
No one was trying to ask you what your opinion on it was, I was simply stating that it was your own logic that was being used. Your counter-argument is probably the first one of great validity that you've even made, considering that your entire argument has been based off of comparing apples to pizzas.To answer your question, no the best players should not be eliminated, because the players make up the teams in question. What I want gone are the unneeded outside factors. Players are inside factors.
-How typical for you to take the 'black and white' statement and apply to me somehow having a black and white approach to matters (meaning no compromises), when it was meant as a synonym for boredom (which I have a feeling you knew anyway).You didn't prove anything, all you've been saying is how black-and-white things should be, do I have to repeat myself, again? You've even gone as far as saying that it's comparable to "putting potholes in the ice" or "heightening the hoop". It's so laughable that you can tell me that my argument has "blown up in my face" when your argument has more holes in it than swiss cheese. Knock this shit off, your proclamations of victory, the sarcasm, it's all really annoying, but it's what I've come to expect when I disagree with the great J_E.
-You can ramble about how many holes my argument has, but you haven't been able to disprove any of them. Evidenced by you falling back to the 'UR NO FUN U WANT 2 SUK TEH FUN OUT OF SPORTS CUZ UR NO FUN GO BACK 2 NO FUN LAND' stance. In the realm of sports, fun and logical often disagree.
-I will post how I please.
-Refer to yeszir's signature.
Except you weren't using my logic, you were using what your logic decided was my logic.No one was trying to ask you what your opinion on it was, I was simply stating that it was your own logic that was being used. Your counter-argument is probably the first one of great validity that you've even made, considering that your entire argument has been based off of comparing apples to pizzas.
Posting Permissions
