Baseball in bigger trouble?

[mac94]

[quote name='avrag' timestamp='1414698118' post='10375059']
[quote name='poizster' timestamp='1414697324' post='10374999']
I like the suggestion someone made on ESPN awhile back. Don't let hitters adjust or take off their batting gloves during an at bat. Might save 1 hour right there. Either that or don't let them step out of the batters box.
[/quote]

Yeah, I think that as well. I would allow them to do it once per plate appearance, but that is enough.
[/quote]

AMEEN. It has gotten freaking ridiculous. Like watching nervous tics. Ruining the game on TV.

[golfortennis]

Not as a "do this or die" move, but I do agree baseball needs to speed up. Vegas already has the over/under for how much quicker Yankees games will be next season without Jeter at 34 minutes. But the Red Sox had a couple pitchers last season take nearly a minute to throw a pitch with no one on, and nearly two minutes with men on. I've always been of the belief that a 9 inning game should not take more than 2 1/2 hours.

The thing with baseball is that it's a game best suited for radio if you can't be there. Unless you're talking about Vin Scully, the TV guys talk too much. I can listen to a game driving, or sitting out back.... The TV product has gotten really bad due to a)too much talking from announcers, and b)Fox's idea of getting as close up as possible, but going from hitter, to dugout, to crowd, to pitcher, to CF camera before every pitch really takes away from what the game can offer. When you're at a game, you can watch how the fielders are adjusting, etc. Watching a Fox broadcast you would think the only thing is the batter taking the pitch.

The other thing though is that baseball requires an intellectual investment. You watch a football game, you see QB throw the ball, receiver catch it. Or you can see that the QB got it off before pressure got to him. Or you can see that they had trips right and an empty backfield, and the safety was coming on the blitz. You can enjoy football at several levels. To enjoy baseball, you can't look at it in a basic fashion. That's pitcher throws the ball, catcher throws it back. You need to know that the man on first is a threat to steal, so he wants to throw a fastball to give his catcher a chance, but the hitter lives off the fastball, so a breaking ball might be a better choice, except it may give him a chance to steal. You will be bored out of your tree if you can't make that investment. It's a thinking man's game.

But it does need to be thought quicker.

[bubbagump]

[quote name='PZero' timestamp='1414712612' post='10376069']
[quote name='bubbagump' timestamp='1414703328' post='10375453']
ESPN also carries the home run derby and other festivities.
[/quote]

They have Mike Greenberg as the in stadium announcer and Chris Berman on TV for it. What a treat!
[/quote]

Berman has done it for some time. First you said they dont cover it, that was wrong....now you are making fun of who covers it. See for yourself the big names that cover baseball for ESPN: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ESPN_Major_League_Baseball_broadcasters"]http://en.wikipedia....ll_broadcasters[/url]


Like I said, turn the TV on during the season and they air Baseball Tonight nearly every night if not every night. They always feature baseball plays in the top 10 (which you seem to think means they are pushing a sport), they have prime time games Sunday, Monday, We night, and they do good coverage of spring training as well.

So Im really not sure where you are getting your point from other than from pure ignorance of not knowing.

[avrag]

[quote name='Bluefan75' timestamp='1414718004' post='10376419']
Not as a "do this or die" move, but I do agree baseball needs to speed up. Vegas already has the over/under for how much quicker Yankees games will be next season without Jeter at 34 minutes. But the Red Sox had a couple pitchers last season take nearly a minute to throw a pitch with no one on, and nearly two minutes with men on. I've always been of the belief that a 9 inning game should not take more than 2 1/2 hours.

The thing with baseball is that it's a game best suited for radio if you can't be there. Unless you're talking about Vin Scully, the TV guys talk too much. I can listen to a game driving, or sitting out back.... The TV product has gotten really bad due to a)too much talking from announcers, and b)Fox's idea of getting as close up as possible, but going from hitter, to dugout, to crowd, to pitcher, to CF camera before every pitch really takes away from what the game can offer. When you're at a game, you can watch how the fielders are adjusting, etc. Watching a Fox broadcast you would think the only thing is the batter taking the pitch.

The other thing though is that baseball requires an intellectual investment. You watch a football game, you see QB throw the ball, receiver catch it. Or you can see that the QB got it off before pressure got to him. Or you can see that they had trips right and an empty backfield, and the safety was coming on the blitz. You can enjoy football at several levels. [u][b]To enjoy baseball, you can't look at it in a basic fashion. That's pitcher throws the ball, catcher throws it back. You need to know that the man on first is a threat to steal, so he wants to throw a fastball to give his catcher a chance, but the hitter lives off the fastball, so a breaking ball might be a better choice, except it may give him a chance to steal. You will be bored out of your tree if you can't make that investment. It's a thinking man's game.[/b][/u]

But it does need to be thought quicker.
[/quote]

I generally agree with you, but the bolded part of your statement means that the TV announcers would actually have to talk about those details to make it interesting. So, in a way, they do have to talk a lot, or rather discuss all those options, for TV coverage to be exciting.

[FairwaysToHeaven]

how about speeding up the game simply through little common sense rather than drastic changes. i'd actually be for 7 inning games, but i get thats drastic.

limit pitching changes to one per innning. when new pitcher comes in he has to be ready to go. thats what the bullpen is for. you don't get another 10 pitches to warmup.

when an inning is over, start the next inning asap. stop the tossing the ball around between innings waiting for commercial break to end.

no pitching coach walks to the mound. players get 9 timeouts every inning when they are sitting in the dugout. their is no clock, so the wasting of time is just that.

batter must stay in box unless contact is made to ball

plenty of other ways to help speed up the game without changing it for the die hards. same goes for golf. we can all think of ways to speed the game along without making the hole 2x the size.

why it won't happen, because as someone else said, revenue is just fine. problem is once you start to decline, its a slippery slope and getting fans who disappear back is harder than it sounds.

[F171615]

[quote name='HoosierMizuno' timestamp='1414775074' post='10378973']
how about speeding up the game simply through little common sense rather than drastic changes. i'd actually be for 7 inning games, but i get thats drastic.

limit pitching changes to one per innning. when new pitcher comes in he has to be ready to go. thats what the bullpen is for. you don't get another 10 pitches to warmup.

when an inning is over, start the next inning asap. stop the tossing the ball around between innings waiting for commercial break to end.

no pitching coach walks to the mound. players get 9 timeouts every inning when they are sitting in the dugout. their is no clock, so the wasting of time is just that.

batter must stay in box unless contact is made to ball

plenty of other ways to help speed up the game without changing it for the die hards. same goes for golf. we can all think of ways to speed the game along without making the hole 2x the size.

why it won't happen, because as someone else said, revenue is just fine. problem is once you start to decline, its a slippery slope and getting fans who disappear back is harder than it sounds.
[/quote]

One issue with some of your measures to speed up the game is that they will hurt the revenue. TV wants as long of commercial breaks, and as many as possible to bring in the revenue - that's what really makes the games stall.

[Chief Illiniwek]

[quote name='F171615' timestamp='1414787951' post='10379971']
[quote name='HoosierMizuno' timestamp='1414775074' post='10378973']
how about speeding up the game simply through little common sense rather than drastic changes. i'd actually be for 7 inning games, but i get thats drastic.

limit pitching changes to one per innning. when new pitcher comes in he has to be ready to go. thats what the bullpen is for. you don't get another 10 pitches to warmup.

when an inning is over, start the next inning asap. stop the tossing the ball around between innings waiting for commercial break to end.

no pitching coach walks to the mound. players get 9 timeouts every inning when they are sitting in the dugout. their is no clock, so the wasting of time is just that.

batter must stay in box unless contact is made to ball

plenty of other ways to help speed up the game without changing it for the die hards. same goes for golf. we can all think of ways to speed the game along without making the hole 2x the size.

why it won't happen, because as someone else said, revenue is just fine. problem is once you start to decline, its a slippery slope and getting fans who disappear back is harder than it sounds.
[/quote]

One issue with some of your measures to speed up the game is that they will hurt the revenue. TV wants as long of commercial breaks, and as many as possible to bring in the revenue - that's what really makes the games stall.
[/quote]
It's a balance between short term revenues and the long term degradation of your product. Right now I think that MLB is pushing too far to maximize revenues and will pay the price in 10-30 years when there are very few fans left stateside.

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='HoosierMizuno' timestamp='1414775074' post='10378973']
how about speeding up the game simply through little common sense rather than drastic changes. i'd actually be for 7 inning games, but i get thats drastic.

limit pitching changes to one per innning. when new pitcher comes in he has to be ready to go. thats what the bullpen is for. you don't get another 10 pitches to warmup.

when an inning is over, start the next inning asap. stop the tossing the ball around between innings waiting for commercial break to end.

no pitching coach walks to the mound. players get 9 timeouts every inning when they are sitting in the dugout. their is no clock, so the wasting of time is just that.

batter must stay in box unless contact is made to ball

plenty of other ways to help speed up the game without changing it for the die hards. same goes for golf. we can all think of ways to speed the game along without making the hole 2x the size.

why it won't happen, because as someone else said, revenue is just fine. problem is once you start to decline, its a slippery slope and getting fans who disappear back is harder than it sounds.
[/quote]

No!

I can't imagine those changes, especially for the players.

Stay in the box? You gotta step out, scratch, take a swing or 2, look down the line for the signs, step back in, take a breath. That's baseball!

Not throw the ball around the horn and around the out field between innings and

The Catcher yell, "coming down!"?

That's baseball!

[golfortennis]

[quote name='HoosierMizuno' timestamp='1414775074' post='10378973']
how about speeding up the game simply through little common sense rather than drastic changes. i'd actually be for 7 inning games, but i get thats drastic.

limit pitching changes to one per innning. when new pitcher comes in he has to be ready to go. thats what the bullpen is for. you don't get another 10 pitches to warmup.

[i]The mound is different on the field from the bullpen. The warm up isn't a delay. The LaRussarizing of the game(8 pitching changes in an inning) is what hurts. [/i]

when an inning is over, start the next inning asap. stop the tossing the ball around between innings waiting for commercial break to end.
[i]And so you're going to come back from commercial to the third batter in the inning? [/i]

no pitching coach walks to the mound. players get 9 timeouts every inning when they are sitting in the dugout. their is no clock, so the wasting of time is just that.

batter must stay in box unless contact is made to ball
[i]Basically. No stepping out.[/i]

plenty of other ways to help speed up the game without changing it for the die hards. same goes for golf. we can all think of ways to speed the game along without making the hole 2x the size.

why it won't happen, because as someone else said, revenue is just fine. problem is once you start to decline, its a slippery slope and getting fans who disappear back is harder than it sounds.
[/quote]

Just like the umps have been allowed to co-opt the strike zone(gee, call it like the rule book says and you'll see more swings), they've also been allowed to basically ignore the time limit between pitches.

Baseball really is like society at large: the need for new laws(rules) is ridiculous when you consider that enforcing what is already on the books would solve the issue.

[avrag]

[quote name='Bluefan75' timestamp='1414801782' post='10380849']
[quote name='HoosierMizuno' timestamp='1414775074' post='10378973']
how about speeding up the game simply through little common sense rather than drastic changes. i'd actually be for 7 inning games, but i get thats drastic.

limit pitching changes to one per innning. when new pitcher comes in he has to be ready to go. thats what the bullpen is for. you don't get another 10 pitches to warmup.

[i]The mound is different on the field from the bullpen. The warm up isn't a delay. The LaRussarizing of the game(8 pitching changes in an inning) is what hurts. [/i]

when an inning is over, start the next inning asap. stop the tossing the ball around between innings waiting for commercial break to end.
[i]And so you're going to come back from commercial to the third batter in the inning? [/i]

no pitching coach walks to the mound. players get 9 timeouts every inning when they are sitting in the dugout. their is no clock, so the wasting of time is just that.

batter must stay in box unless contact is made to ball
[i]Basically. No stepping out.[/i]

plenty of other ways to help speed up the game without changing it for the die hards. same goes for golf. we can all think of ways to speed the game along without making the hole 2x the size.

why it won't happen, because as someone else said, revenue is just fine. problem is once you start to decline, its a slippery slope and getting fans who disappear back is harder than it sounds.
[/quote]

Just like the umps have been allowed to co-opt the strike zone(gee, [u][b]call it like the rule book says and you'll see more swings), [/b][/u]they've also been allowed to basically ignore the time limit between pitches.

Baseball really is like society at large: the need for new laws(rules) is ridiculous when you consider that enforcing what is already on the books would solve the issue.
[/quote]

I also don't understand the way the strike zone morphed into what it is today.
OT: It is even worse over here, in the amateur leagues I played in, an worst of all in the wine-and-beer league I played in for the last two seasons of what was my "baseball career" (I managed the worst team in the worst league on the planet in the final year and doubled the number of wins from the previous season, from 1 to 2).
Anyway, the strike zone in this league starts at about the ankles and goes all the way up to the knee-caps. I was once thrown out of a game, when I was catching and a buddy of mine, who had a pretty good four-seam fastball (in relation to the general level of the league, at least he reached 85 mph at times) was pitching. Knowing how they called it usually, I started to show him the glove at about knee height and he hit it every time and walked two batters in a row, because those strikes were all called balls, although they were right down the middle. I asked the umpire what had been wrong and he said "Too high". So I went down to about the mid of the shinbones with my glove. The pitcher switched to his two-seamer and hit my glove perfectly, only to be called "high" again. I then talked to him to try and go even lower, and proceeded to hover my glove just about 2 inches above the ground. He hit it again, and it was called a ball again. I was so mad that I stood up and tried to dig a hole behind home plate with my spikes. The home plate umpire asked me what I was doing and I told him that I was making a hole to put my glove in, because otherwise it would not be possible for me to hold it low enough to get a strike called. "You're out of here" was the response, which had to be expected.
It did not matter much, because the players of both teams had already had about 60 beers combined, and the party had already started midway through the second inning. Both teams made sure that the umpires got nothing of the brew, though.

[joeshmo]

[quote name='Chief Illiniwek' timestamp='1414791393' post='10380231']
[quote name='F171615' timestamp='1414787951' post='10379971']
[quote name='HoosierMizuno' timestamp='1414775074' post='10378973']
how about speeding up the game simply through little common sense rather than drastic changes. i'd actually be for 7 inning games, but i get thats drastic.

limit pitching changes to one per innning. when new pitcher comes in he has to be ready to go. thats what the bullpen is for. you don't get another 10 pitches to warmup.

when an inning is over, start the next inning asap. stop the tossing the ball around between innings waiting for commercial break to end.

no pitching coach walks to the mound. players get 9 timeouts every inning when they are sitting in the dugout. their is no clock, so the wasting of time is just that.

batter must stay in box unless contact is made to ball

plenty of other ways to help speed up the game without changing it for the die hards. same goes for golf. we can all think of ways to speed the game along without making the hole 2x the size.

why it won't happen, because as someone else said, revenue is just fine. problem is once you start to decline, its a slippery slope and getting fans who disappear back is harder than it sounds.
[/quote]

One issue with some of your measures to speed up the game is that they will hurt the revenue. TV wants as long of commercial breaks, and as many as possible to bring in the revenue - that's what really makes the games stall.
[/quote]
It's a balance between short term revenues and the long term degradation of your product. Right now I think that MLB is pushing too far to maximize revenues and will pay the price in 10-30 years when there are very few fans left stateside.
[/quote]

Not sure how that works since the commercials are when a team comes off the field or during a pitching change.
What happens on the field has no bearing on the number of commercials.

I always compared baseball to golf with golf being slower and I like watching both.

[hebron1427]

I'm in the same boat as a lot here. I grew up with baseball. Atlanta in the 90s was the place to be for baseball. I started playing T-ball around 1988 or 89. the braves were good and local, and there was TBS, so we got to watch most of the games, even though we were too poor to afford cable. i played baseball in high school, devoted my time to it--actually, it's probably why i know my wife (long story, but related).

i watched one game this entire year, and it wasn't a post-season game.

i own a Ken Burns/PBS documentary called "Baseball: The Tenth Inning." The documentary is a beautiful recap of baseball during my lifetime--it literally starts with the braves beating the pirates in the 1991 NLCS as a backdrop for everything that happened with barry bonds in the decade and a half ensuing. The series i think does a beautiful job of explaining where baseball went wrong without trying to focus too much energy on that specific topic. it touches a lot of parts of the game, but one huge portion is the lost '94 season, the strike, and what it did to fans.

it seems like during this time period between about 94 and 2005, the game underwent some type of change...some type of weird change. at the start, it was a romanticized game, simultaneously cerebral and athletic. it included nuances that couldn't easily be mastered without an understanding of the artform that made it what it was. we treated the players as quasi-heroes; in fact, some of our greatest sports moments were of the heroes of baseball (e.g., lou gehrig's "luckiest man alive"). the game was intertwined with our identity.

1994 changed that a bit. people began to distrust the game because it was more than apparent that the game was no longer primarily about those virtues we held it to, but it was more about money. it used to be that a city's identity was partially based in who was their first baseman, because he was OUR guy. trades had the potential of scarring a player's image, because there was something to be said of a player that ended his career the same place he started it. after 1994, the country's eyes were opened to the reality that it was really just a bunch of millionaires who whined about what their billionaire employers were paying them. it was not something anyone in the mainstream could relate to, and it certainly wasn't something that increased the profile of the game.

then, when the steroid era was unveiled, it created a whole new world of distrust. i am one of the people who believes that bud selig (i can't even type his name without cringing a little bit, that worthless piece of sht) consciously turned a blind eye to what was happening. there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that when brady anderson randomly hit 50 home runs, they KNEW something was wrong. i remember the feeling of seeing brady anderson and going "wow, THAT guy just hit 50 HR? you're telling me it's frank thomas, griffey, albert belle, and THAT guy?" (might have those guys wrong, but that's just the idea of what the era felt like). but baseball saw the dollar signs when mcguire and sosa started battling it out. they acted in the long term WORST interest of the game because the short term best interest of the game was having the nation watch a chase for a 50-ish year old record that was perhaps the most hallowed in the history of sport (esp with the controversy and asterisk on roger maris's record and, more importantly, how it implicated the greatest baseball player of all time, babe ruth). it was nightly news determining who was going to hit a home run and how they were going to do it. and, amazingly, practically NO ONE thought it was odd! McGuire was averaging a home run every 7 ABs! how could we be so foolish! and when the reporter wrote the story on andros, the rest of the news media chewed him a new a-hole for being so so so so wrong about it all. why? because this was BASEBALL; it wasn't that meathead game of football, where the only thing to do was be strong, and it wasn't basketball, where the most athletic always won. this was BASEBALL, where the players held the game in high regard; where they respected and admired it. this is where they were stewards of the game, not just players. they would NEVER sully the records like this, right?

well, we all found out that, where there's fame and money at stake, people will cheat. after the second misstep (first, strike, second, steroids), that was it for baseball. as my father has always said, if the dog bites you once, shame on the dog; if the dog bites you twice, shame on you. in this case, baseball bit twice, and this country will not forgive it again. it's a machine. it's just like football--there to generate revenue off the (slowly dwindling) populous that follows it. once you take away the mystique, baseball ceases to be something worth watching. it is now just in competition with football as a game that we can watch those with economic motives try their hardest to be the strongest, fastest, and biggest. but there's no real mental game; it's all a lie now. as compared to games with truly better athletes, baseball comes in third behind the best athletes in the world (basketball) and the toughest athletes in the world (football, which also happens to be one of the most entertaining athletic displays as well). baseball's strength was always its ability to be more than just a sport.

and, now, it's just a sport.

[avrag]

to hebron1427:
While I can understand all of your emotions:
a) Do you honestly believe that PEDs are not common in the other sports you are talking about?
b) Do you honestly believe that the baseball greats of the past did not take anything they could get their hands on, if they thought it could improve their performance? (Think about what we know about Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb and how they led their lives outside of baseball for a minute, before you answer to b)).

[golfortennis]

[quote name='avrag' timestamp='1415116895' post='10395629']
to hebron1427:
While I can understand all of your emotions:
a) Do you honestly believe that PEDs are not common in the other sports you are talking about?
b) Do you honestly believe that the baseball greats of the past did not take anything they could get their hands on, if they thought it could improve their performance? (Think about what we know about Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb and how they led their lives outside of baseball for a minute, before you answer to b)).
[/quote]

Willie Mays admits to taking greenies back in the 60s. But because the sportswriters back then didn't think it was a *major societal ill*(insert trademark symbol here), people don't think that way about those years.

[hebron1427]

[quote name='avrag' timestamp='1415116895' post='10395629']
to hebron1427:
While I can understand all of your emotions:
a) Do you honestly believe that PEDs are not common in the other sports you are talking about?
b) Do you honestly believe that the baseball greats of the past did not take anything they could get their hands on, if they thought it could improve their performance? (Think about what we know about Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb and how they led their lives outside of baseball for a minute, before you answer to b)).
[/quote] the answer to a) is obviously yes. But that didn't matter because baseball was "above" that. Odd as it sounds, we all know nfl players are on hgh and no one cares. Why? Because the nfl is not a game that we put on a pedestal for its cunning and intelligence. We love it because it's freakish athletes doing freakish things. For b) of course they would....well, some at least. The motivators were not nearly as high as they are now. But, yes, ty Cobb was known for sharpening his cleats so he could spike opposing players as he slid into base. Do either of those answers have anything to do with our perception of the game as a country? Not at all. We on this site know that more than half of the tour players out there are cheating on their wives and smoking off the camera, but the pga paints this "these guys are good" campaign to mean that these guys aren't human. And, mostly, the golfing public buys it. Tiger having an affair was MAJOR scandal because of the game he is associated with, not because what he did was so wrong. Jordan had affairs when every bit the star tiger was, but Jordan played basketball, not golf. Baseball was the same way. Delusional public lifting the game to a different standard than the rest. Some if it is foolish, but that foolishness is part of the calculus nonetheless. Baseball WAS there because we believed it was there. When they disillusioned the public, it fell. That was my point.

[avrag]

[quote name='hebron1427' timestamp='1415165300' post='10399325']
[quote name='avrag' timestamp='1415116895' post='10395629']
to hebron1427:
While I can understand all of your emotions:
a) Do you honestly believe that PEDs are not common in the other sports you are talking about?
b) Do you honestly believe that the baseball greats of the past did not take anything they could get their hands on, if they thought it could improve their performance? (Think about what we know about Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb and how they led their lives outside of baseball for a minute, before you answer to b)).
[/quote] the answer to a) is obviously yes. But that didn't matter because baseball was "above" that. Odd as it sounds, we all know nfl players are on hgh and no one cares. Why? Because the nfl is not a game that we put on a pedestal for its cunning and intelligence. We love it because it's freakish athletes doing freakish things. For b) of course they would....well, some at least. The motivators were not nearly as high as they are now. But, yes, ty Cobb was known for sharpening his cleats so he could spike opposing players as he slid into base. Do either of those answers have anything to do with our perception of the game as a country? Not at all. We on this site know that more than half of the tour players out there are cheating on their wives and smoking off the camera, but the pga paints this "these guys are good" campaign to mean that these guys aren't human. And, mostly, the golfing public buys it. Tiger having an affair was MAJOR scandal because of the game he is associated with, not because what he did was so wrong. Jordan had affairs when every bit the star tiger was, but Jordan played basketball, not golf. Baseball was the same way. Delusional public lifting the game to a different standard than the rest. Some if it is foolish, but that foolishness is part of the calculus nonetheless. Baseball WAS there because we believed it was there. When they disillusioned the public, it fell. That was my point.
[/quote]

Ok, I can see your point.

[golfortennis]

[quote name='hebron1427' timestamp='1415165300' post='10399325']
[quote name='avrag' timestamp='1415116895' post='10395629']
to hebron1427:
While I can understand all of your emotions:
a) Do you honestly believe that PEDs are not common in the other sports you are talking about?
b) Do you honestly believe that the baseball greats of the past did not take anything they could get their hands on, if they thought it could improve their performance? (Think about what we know about Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb and how they led their lives outside of baseball for a minute, before you answer to b)).
[/quote] the answer to a) is obviously yes. But that didn't matter because baseball was "above" that. Odd as it sounds, we all know nfl players are on hgh and no one cares. Why? Because the nfl is not a game that we put on a pedestal for its cunning and intelligence. We love it because it's freakish athletes doing freakish things. For b) of course they would....well, some at least. The motivators were not nearly as high as they are now. But, yes, ty Cobb was known for sharpening his cleats so he could spike opposing players as he slid into base. Do either of those answers have anything to do with our perception of the game as a country? Not at all. We on this site know that more than half of the tour players out there are cheating on their wives and smoking off the camera, but the pga paints this "these guys are good" campaign to mean that these guys aren't human. And, mostly, the golfing public buys it. [b]Tiger having an affair was MAJOR scandal because of the game he is associated with, not because what he did was so wrong.[/b] Jordan had affairs when every bit the star tiger was, but Jordan played basketball, not golf. Baseball was the same way. Delusional public lifting the game to a different standard than the rest. Some if it is foolish, but that foolishness is part of the calculus nonetheless. Baseball WAS there because we believed it was there. When they disillusioned the public, it fell. That was my point.
[/quote]


I disagree vehemently. Woods' scandal was what it was in no small part because he had been marketed as this "messiah", this person all should look up to and attempt to emulate. His family was trotted out when it suited his purposes. He made his fortune on the back of that image. It had nothing to do with golf being as you described. If what you say were true, no one would have known at the time about the attempted coup in 83, the purse splitting scandal on the senior tour in the mid 80s.....golf was not protected like you seem to think.

Woods' behavior was kept quiet for the same reason steroids in the NFL are not a "big deal":the sportswriters don't want to rock the boat. It was well known among them that Woods was doing what he was doing, but fear of Woods cutting them off, and being ostracized from the "club" kept them quiet. Same with the NFL. Write something negative and you will receive "encouragement" to see it their way, along with "educational material" to help you with that. Plus don't forget that annual work trip to somewhere warm in January(now February).