FanDuel - WFBC

November 29, 2012

SportsFilter: The Thursday Huddle:

A place to discuss the sports stories that aren't making news, share links that aren't quite front-page material, and diagram plays on your hand. Remember to count to five Mississippi before commenting in anger.

posted by huddle to general at 06:00 AM - 22 comments

The Great Conference Re-Alignment continues: Louisville to the ACC. ECU and Tulane to the Big East.

The Big East has officially become the East Coast farm team for conference expansion.

posted by Bonkers at 07:38 AM on November 29

I LIKE SPROTS!

posted by NoMich at 09:00 AM on November 29

Wednesday 28 November 2012. The Day of No Huddle. Never forget!

Meanwhile, NYT's Fifth Down blog has a long piece on how, for some people, Fantasy Football kills football's fantasy.

posted by Mr Bismarck at 09:57 AM on November 29

Question for anyone who might know: are coach buy-outs contingent on anything, particularly on whether the coach gets work somewhere else? Like, if some MAC team snaps up Derek Dooley, does he still get all $5 million from Tennessee, or would they prorate it based on how long he's out of work or how much less he gets paid or whatever?

posted by Etrigan at 10:16 AM on November 29

The Hard Life of an N.F.L. Long Shot: the story of Pat Schiller, picked up by the Falcons as an undrafted free agent, as told by his uncle.

posted by yerfatma at 11:10 AM on November 29

Huh. I guess I forgot to lock my computer. However, I DO LIKE SPROTS!

posted by NoMich at 11:15 AM on November 29

Question for anyone who might know: are coach buy-outs contingent on anything, particularly on whether the coach gets work somewhere else? Like, if some MAC team snaps up Derek Dooley, does he still get all $5 million from Tennessee, or would they prorate it based on how long he's out of work or how much less he gets paid or whatever?

It can vary by contract, but the general approach is that a coach gets paid what he is owed on his contract for each year remaining on the contract less whatever he makes in a new position. If he takes a new job during the term of the original (terminated) contract, for the years affected he will get the difference between the annual salary owed from his old job (if higher) and the annual salary at the new job. If the new job has a higher salary (unlikely for someone fired from his most recent job), no amounts are owed for overlapping years. Sometimes coaches/agents will, at the time of termination, negotiate a one-time, lump sum buyout at some discount of the amount owed for the remainder of the contract, which the coach will retain irrespective of whether he takes a new job and for how much.

posted by holden at 12:16 PM on November 29

I'm really missing the NHL. It's come to this:

posted by yerfatma at 02:49 PM on November 29

I'm really missing the NHL

Discussion in the sports media in these parts is that a very small nucleus of owners, not surprisingly from the wealthiest teams, are telling the rest of the owners to toe the line and keep their opinions to themselves. This is the same group of owners who complain loudest about the rising cost of salaries, sign the highest paid free agents each year driving the league economics, and also strongly oppose any form of revenue sharing with the other 80 percent of owners they are stifling. Worse yet, the league commissioner is in full agreement with this minority.

In Winnipeg the MTS Centre went from hosting 2 or 3 sold out events per week prior to the Jets return to 2 or 3 sold out hockey games per week during the NHL season last year to 1 large event per month this year as these events now need to be scheduled around Jets games. Local businesses are hurting and employees in the entertainment sector have lost their jobs.

I suggest it's about time for government to step in and force binding arbitration. This is about far more than owners and players wanting a bigger piece of the pie or wanting to build on their reputation of labor victories.

The agreement reached must be long term and include revenue sharing. Franchises that have no reasonable possibility of surviving on their own need to be moved (Phoenix, Columbus, Tampa Bay, etc.) to locations where they will be supported. Finally, both players and owners must have a say in league decisions.

Leaving matters in the incapable hands of Gary Bettman, Jeremy Jacobs, Dolan/Ilitch/Leipold and the like means more greed and less hockey.

posted by cixelsyd at 04:08 PM on November 29

NHL 94 is my favorite sports game ever yerfatma. I could regularly drop 20 goals on an opponent in that game once I figured out the trick to scoring.

posted by insomnyuk at 09:08 PM on November 29

Leaving matters in the incapable hands of Gary Bettman, Jeremy Jacobs, Dolan/Ilitch/Leipold and the like means more greed and less hockey.

I agree with most of what you say, cixelsyd, but I have one or two things to quibble with. First of all, rather than move the weak sisters and unprofitable franchises, just eliminate them. I would suggest getting rid of 6 teams. This would immediately improve the quality of the product on the ice, possible leading to more interest in the sport. The problems with this are twofold. It will cost the surviving teams/owners a bundle to buy out the eliminated teams, and by eliminating 6 teams, there are about 150 or so less jobs to be had for the players.

While Jeremy Jacobs was instrumental in starting the first lock out, and he is not exactly amenable to solving this one, he at least has not gone the "outrageous contract" route in signing his players. For the most part the money and length of Bruins' contracts is reasonable, unlike some of the mega-deals offered by other teams. It's not as if I am a Jacobs fan, but after the first lock out he did keep some faith with the fans by providing a competitive team that won a Stanley Cup.

I pointed put in a previous comment on the subject that Jacobs is in no hurry to get this thing done. He has the Celtics in for 41 regular season games, plus playoffs and preseason. There are also concerts, ice shows, the circus, and so on. I imagine he does his Alfred E. Newman impersonation on occasion, saying "what, me worry?".

posted by Howard_T at 11:19 PM on November 29

First of all, rather than move the weak sisters

Since the lockout (seven seasons), here are the teams that made the playoffs less than half the time:

Toronto - 0 times *sigh*
New York (I) - 1 time
Florida - 1 time
Columbus - 1 time
Winnipeg - 1 time
Edmonton - 1 time
Carolina - 2 times
St. Louis - 2 times
Minnesota - 2 times
Colorado - 3 times
Los Angeles - 3 times
Tampa Bay - 3 times
Dallas - 3 times

and unprofitable franchises

Ten least valuable franchises:

St. Louis - $130 million
Phoenix - $134 million
Columbus - $145 million
New York (I) - $155 million
Carolina - $162 million
Nashville - $167 million
Florida - $170 million
Tampa Bay - $174 million
Buffalo - $175 million
Anaheim - $192 million

just eliminate them. I would suggest getting rid of 6 teams.

Based on these two lists, the obvious choices would be:

Columbus Blue Jackets
New York Islanders
Florida Panthers
Carolina Hurricanes
St. Louis Blues
Tampa Bay Lightning

posted by grum@work at 01:20 AM on November 30

While Jeremy Jacobs was instrumental in starting the first lock out, and he is not exactly amenable to solving this one

The Boston media is saying he's the prime mover behind this one. I really want fans to stay away from the Garden in droves. Actually, I really want that man forced to sell and then put in stocks on Boston Common.

posted by yerfatma at 09:19 AM on November 30

When I ask my insurance agent (who is somewhat reserved and diplomatic) about Mr. Jacobs, he says in an even-toned, dignified voice: "We've been patiently waiting for a coronary occlusion for quite some time".

posted by beaverboard at 10:12 AM on November 30

Jacobs' focus is greed and stroking his own ego and not what is best for hockey over the long term, much like Bettman. It's all just another notch in thier belts if they can break the players.

posted by cixelsyd at 11:14 AM on November 30

Discussion in the sports media in these parts is that a very small nucleus of owners, not surprisingly from the wealthiest teams, are telling the rest of the owners to toe the line and keep their opinions to themselves. This is the same group of owners who complain loudest about the rising cost of salaries, sign the highest paid free agents each year driving the league economics, and also strongly oppose any form of revenue sharing with the other 80 percent of owners they are stifling. Worse yet, the league commissioner is in full agreement with this minority.

While this is about a month old now, this article seems to suggest it is (was?) largely owners of medium to small value/revenue teams that are (were?) the hardliners.

posted by holden at 11:40 AM on November 30

grum, you are the master of stats and far more aware than me of reality on the ground but eliminating Tampa Bay, Florida and Carolina would essentially remove the NHL from the South(east) entirely. If there were contraction I think that factor would be fairly significant.

I actually think those teams are missing a big marketing opportunity, which is to get themselves into the heads of the region's NASCAR fans as a good cold weather alternative. Much as I despite the fighting in hockey I expect it would appeal strongly to those fans.

Islanders just signed an expensive lease with the new arena in Brooklyn and any buyout of that franchise would sure have to also deal with that lease.

A 24 team league, though, with four six team divisions has a lot of appeal.

posted by billsaysthis at 12:19 PM on November 30

eliminating Tampa Bay, Florida and Carolina would essentially remove the NHL from the South(east) entirely. If there were contraction I think that factor would be fairly significant.

The NHL doesn't have a presence in Mexico, either. There's a reason that the Southeastern teams aren't profitable, and it isn't for lack of trying -- if there were enough fans to support four teams, all four of them wouldn't be in the bottom quarter (give or take a coupla percent) for profitability.

posted by Etrigan at 12:44 PM on November 30

The Hurricanes are in Raleigh, while the Bobcats and Panthers are three hours away in Charlotte. The Triangle does have college basketball (and to a lesser degree, football) but the Raleigh fanbase seems a lot more engaged with 'its' hometown team than the ones in Florida and Arizona.

posted by etagloh at 11:33 PM on November 30

Of course, the season before and the two seasons after the last lockout saw "warm weather" teams win the Stanley Cup (Tampa Bay, Carolina, Anaheim).

The Triangle does have college basketball

This can't be mentioned enough. As much as the NBA and NHL think they can draw attention to themselves in the winter, nothing compares to the interest in college basketball in that region.

posted by grum@work at 12:29 AM on December 01

You chumps have been contracting my beloved Hurricanes for 15 some odd years now.

posted by NoMich at 03:22 PM on December 01

Things are looking up for the Coyotes. New owner and a renegotiated arena deal in Glendale.

posted by rcade at 04:11 PM on December 01

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.