Denver Colorado Sports Thread

[Giovoni]

Originally Posted by Pizzuti

It's not about the players. It's about the fans, and their money.

The Super Bowl would certainly sell out regardless of what city it is in, but I think you can push up the ticket prices much higher if you can guarantee that the weather will be comfortable. It's not just for the game itself; the Super Bowl attracts wealthy visitors from around the country who might want to spend the entire weekend vacationing in some Sun Belt city, so there is some appeal in being able to promise sun, especially when people are coming from colder northern states in January and will be especially turned on by the idea of going to Miami or San Diego. You'll note that previous to 2014 there will have only been a total of 4 cold-weather Super Bowls in history in domed stadiums.

A stadium of 75,000 seats means that super bowl tickets would be worth well over 100 million dollars, since the full stadium at a minimum ticket price of $800 each would be 60 million and many seats start out much more expensive. Of course the NFL gives a lot away to various sponsors and to promotional events, but the value of those gifts also depend on the value of the tickets. A lot of prizes involve Super Bowl tickets along with some sort of hotel and entertainment package.

The NFL currently claims that the NYC Super Bowl will be a one-time-only exception. Meadowlands Stadium will have 82,000 seats, bigger than most others in the country, and beyond that it is a brand new, extremely large and technologically-advanced stadium with a lot of expensive box seats. Maybe the NFL wanted this stadium to be built so bad (because expanded seating will bring revenue in year round, year after year, not just for the Super Bowl) that they hinted at a chance to win a Super Bowl as part of the deal. Or maybe they just figure that the NYC metropolitan area is SO big and SO populous that demand will be extremely high without having to appeal to travelers.

To pretend that the super bowl is about the fans and their money is the most egregious misrepresentation of who actually gets to watch the game that I can possibly imagine.

Essentially 0 fans of the game actually get to go to the game. Every actual fan watches the game on television unless they win tickets that an advertiser who actually controls the tickets produces a contest or lottery
around. In fact, if the game were held in an isolated TV set with only the field, players, broadcasters and whatever 25 year past their prime musical entertainment they trot out that particular year - it wouldn't effect the fans 1little bit.

If you're saying it's because the suits that actually get the seats for the one sporting event they attend all year long because of the status getting to go imparts to their ego and their Armani can't take cold or water, then I'd accept that.

If you're saying its a benevolent mood by the NFL to protect the "fans'" comfort and cash outlay to see a game so that they don't shiver in the stands then seriously. really? REALLY?

And you think wealthy visitors from around the country are holding off on experiencing the cultural richness of the US until there's an excuse to visit Jacksonville, Phoenix, Tampa, North Carolina, Dallas, Detroit (dome), etc? REALLY?

[Eeyore]

^

I agree its not about the fans but some do go. I was at both superbowls the Broncos won and there was a good true 5,000 - 10,000 fans or so. But I do get your point.

[Pizzuti]

Originally Posted by Giovoni

To pretend that the super bowl is about the fans and their money is the most egregious misrepresentation of who actually gets to watch the game that I can possibly imagine.

Essentially 0 fans of the game actually get to go to the game. Every actual fan watches the game on television unless they win tickets that an advertiser who actually controls the tickets produces a contest or lottery
around. In fact, if the game were held in an isolated TV set with only the field, players, broadcasters and whatever 25 year past their prime musical entertainment they trot out that particular year - it wouldn't effect the fans 1little bit.

If you're saying it's because the suits that actually get the seats for the one sporting event they attend all year long because of the status getting to go imparts to their ego and their Armani can't take cold or water, then I'd accept that.

If you're saying its a benevolent mood by the NFL to protect the "fans'" comfort and cash outlay to see a game so that they don't shiver in the stands then seriously. really? REALLY?

And you think wealthy visitors from around the country are holding off on experiencing the cultural richness of the US until there's an excuse to visit Jacksonville, Phoenix, Tampa, North Carolina, Dallas, Detroit (dome), etc? REALLY?

Ugh, no, I am not saying any of those things at all. Go back and read what I wrote.

I just pointed out how ticket sales at a super bowl could total in the tens of millions of dollars. A lot of other companies pay the NFL for special sponsorship deals and that's probably even MORE money. The NFL also makes a lot of money from people who flock to the super bowl town to hang out but don't actually get in to the game; one article said that revenue adds up to $125 million for the NFL. Even if the NFL earns a billion dollars on a super bowl selling the television rights, $100 million on these other revenue streams STILL A LOT OF MONEY. Increasing revenue by 5 percent is considered a good thing in business, and any businessperson would tell you that's still a deal you pursue.

Also, the value of increasing demand for a good or service goes beyond whether or not it sells out. I already agreed that the Super Bowl will sell out no matter where it is. You can continue to increase demand on something that is already sold out, and by doing so you can raise the price. If you are a business you want to raise the price as much as you possibly can.

You said yourself that it doesn't make sense to ban Super Bowls in cold weather because of its effect on the players. OK, I'm agreeing with you there, it doesn't make sense. A snowy Super Bowl would actually make for good TV. I'm agreeing with you there.

I offer an alternative explanation, and you are totally offended by it. WTF?

Maybe I'm ultimately wrong about the NFL's reasoning, but it's a legitimate theory. Your claim that there is no money in the game itself is bogus. A fan in the game is a bigger cashflow for the NFL than a fan at home. And a fan in the game spends on more than just tickets. Yes, the NFL makes the majority of its revenue from TV. It also makes a heckuva lot of money from activities surrounding the game itself.

[A-G]

I'd love to see a Superbowl on the frozen tundra of Lambeau.

[Giovoni]

Originally Posted by Pizzuti

Ugh, no, I am not saying any of those things at all. Go back and read what I wrote.

I just pointed out how ticket sales at a super bowl could total in the tens of millions of dollars. A lot of other companies pay the NFL for special sponsorship deals and that's probably even MORE money. The NFL also makes a lot of money from people who flock to the super bowl town to hang out but don't actually get in to the game; one article said that revenue adds up to $125 million for the NFL. Even if the NFL earns a billion dollars on a super bowl selling the television rights, $100 million on these other revenue streams STILL A LOT OF MONEY. Increasing revenue by 5 percent is considered a good thing in business, and any businessperson would tell you that's still a deal you pursue.

Also, the value of increasing demand for a good or service goes beyond whether or not it sells out. I already agreed that the Super Bowl will sell out no matter where it is. You can continue to increase demand on something that is already sold out, and by doing so you can raise the price. If you are a business you want to raise the price as much as you possibly can.

You said yourself that it doesn't make sense to ban Super Bowls in cold weather because of its effect on the players. OK, I'm agreeing with you there, it doesn't make sense. A snowy Super Bowl would actually make for good TV. I'm agreeing with you there.

I offer an alternative explanation, and you are totally offended by it. WTF?

Maybe I'm ultimately wrong about the NFL's reasoning, but it's a legitimate theory. Your claim that there is no money in the game itself is bogus. A fan in the game is a bigger cashflow for the NFL than a fan at home. And a fan in the game spends on more than just tickets. Yes, the NFL makes the majority of its revenue from TV. It also makes a heckuva lot of money from activities surrounding the game itself.

No No I'm not offended.. and I know you were offering the NFL's point of view. I just still think the NFL's point of view here is crazy. There is just no way a person who wants to go to the super bowl is going to either decide not to go or not be immediately replaced by other people in the available hotel rooms or 1% of the tickets that are made available to "fans". If there ARE such people that call themselves "fans" of football then the NFL has a bigger problem. How many people are gauranteed a sunny day at Mile High? How many times has it not sold out since Ronald Reagan was still an actor? None. Zero.

I get you that the NFL is saying they need the sun. I've heard the argument 100 times. I'm saying if you buy the NFL's argument as being legitimate then they are paying you something.

I didnt claim there wasn't any money in the game itself. I claimed that for all intents and purposes the real fans of football wouldn't be effected at all if there weren't any seats at all to watch the game live.

[Pizzuti]

Originally Posted by Giovoni

No No I'm not offended.. and I know you were offering the NFL's point of view. I just still think the NFL's point of view here is crazy. There is just no way a person who wants to go to the super bowl is going to either decide not to go or not be immediately replaced by other people in the available hotel rooms or 1% of the tickets that are made available to "fans". If there ARE such people that call themselves "fans" of football then the NFL has a bigger problem. How many people are gauranteed a sunny day at Mile High? How many times has it not sold out since Ronald Reagan was still an actor? None. Zero.

I get you that the NFL is saying they need the sun. I've heard the argument 100 times. I'm saying if you buy the NFL's argument as being legitimate then they are paying you something.

I didnt claim there wasn't any money in the game itself. I claimed that for all intents and purposes the real fans of football wouldn't be effected at all if there weren't any seats at all to watch the game live.

A lot of the people who buy tickets for the Super Bowl aren't "real football fans." In fact, I would guess that a majority of them either 1) won the tickets in a promotional deal (in which the company offering the promotion paid the NFL a lot of money) or just happen to be really wealthy and want to brag about the experience of attending a Super Bowl, but aren't any better fans than the average person. There are surely many big fans who attend, but I'd say that Super Bowl attendees have the highest percentage of not-very-serious football fans of any NFL games.

That's why I'd say that's why weather has a bigger impact on the Super Bowl than other games - Super Bowl attendees are not actually there for the game itself. They're there for an experience.

I don't know if the NFL's reasoning for why they only want good weather games is a load of bull or not, but there has to be SOME reason for it. Either they truly think the game would suffer and one team's fans would be pissed off about it, or it's about money. I can't think of any other reason.

[Brainpathology]

So no one is going to comment on last nights miracle at Coors Field? I'm talking of course about Manny Corpas retiring all 6 batters he faced.

In the more mundane the Rockies scored 9 runs in the 9th inning. <yawn>

I watched Corpas give up a grand slam in anaheim last weekend - he looked completely lost. I hope he's found the form that he had in the beginning of the year when he was playing closer and not that his mind is jellow and can only pitch when the game (seemingly since they were down 9-2 and 9-3 when he pitched) is already decided.

[EngiNerd]

Corpas has given up way too many games...I was at the one vs. the Giants on the 3rd, and he gave that one up too. Everyone was booing him off the field. The guy just doesn't have it this year, and needs to be sent back down to the Springs.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

Corpas has given up way too many games...I was at the one vs. the Giants on the 3rd, and he gave that one up too. Everyone was booing him off the field. The guy just doesn't have it this year, and needs to be sent back down to the Springs.

Yeah I didn't understand why Morales went down and not him last week (not that Morales was the bees knees lately either). I can't fault Tracy really at all with what he's done as the manager but Corpas really makes me scratch my head. That and pitching to Pedroia after he had already hit 2 home runs to lose the game to Boston a couple weeks ago. If the bases aren't loaded (and they weren't) why pitch to someone obviously having a GREAT night.

[SnyderBock]

Morales has options, Corpas does not. Corpas has been one of their most consistent relievers all season, until his slump over the last couple of weeks. His stuff is still some of the best in the pen. On the other hand, Morales has been pretty much horrible all season. He blew nearly every game he tried to save in April and May (thus why Corpas took over as closer) and he has been wild and constantly over-throwing, even after his loss of the closer spot. Morales is obviously just throwing and no longer pitching, he's violently jerking his head towards 3rd base during his delivery which is severely elevating his release point, leading to pitches being left up in the zone. The results are not good. He's throwing so hard, that he's loosing all breaking action, his pitches are all flat and elevated. That's very bad. There is no question Morales had to go down with his option left and all the mechanical and mental mess he has gotten himself into. Corpas is all there mentally, his head is in the game and he's pitching, not throwing. He's just simply pressing, because he wants so bad to be a good closer just like his baseball hero from his home country of Panama, Mariano Rivera. So when Houston Street was getting close to returning, Corpas knew he had to impress, so he could stay on as a late inning setup man and in line as the backup closer. This is exactly when he started to struggle. This is simply a slump, nothing mechanical. He is already showing signs of easing up and regaining his form. He's far too valuable to that bullpen to place on waivers and hope he goes unclaimed, because he'll be claimed in a heartbeat. they are a far better bullpen with Corpas, than without. The Colorado Rockies and Bob Apodaca know exactly what they are doing.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

Morales has options, Corpas does not. Corpas has been one of their most consistent relievers all season, until his slump over the last couple of weeks. His stuff is still some of the best in the pen. On the other hand, Morales has been pretty much horrible all season. He blew nearly every game he tried to save in April and May (thus why Corpas took over as closer) and he has been wild and constantly over-throwing, even after his loss of the closer spot. Morales is obviously just throwing and no longer pitching, he's violently jerking his head towards 3rd base during his delivery which is severely elevating his release point, leading to pitches being left up in the zone. The results are not good. He's throwing so hard, that he's loosing all breaking action, his pitches are all flat and elevated. That's very bad. There is no question Morales had to go down with his option left and all the mechanical and mental mess he has gotten himself into. Corpas is all there mentally, his head is in the game and he's pitching, not throwing. He's just simply pressing, because he wants so bad to be a good closer just like his baseball hero from his home country of Panama, Mariano Rivera. So when Houston Street was getting close to returning, Corpas knew he had to impress, so he could stay on as a late inning setup man and in line as the backup closer. This is exactly when he started to struggle. This is simply a slump, nothing mechanical. He is already showing signs of easing up and regaining his form. He's far too valuable to that bullpen to place on waivers and hope he goes unclaimed, because he'll be claimed in a heartbeat. they are a far better bullpen with Corpas, than without. The Colorado Rockies and Bob Apodaca know exactly what they are doing.

I always forget to check about options damnit.. 4 out of 5 times that will explain it. Tracy and the rockies obviously agree with your assessment of Corpas, I just don't see it. But as I said if last night is any indication, he may be out of the "slump" he's been in.

[SnyderBock]

The Rockies might trade for Dan Ugla, but the Florida Marlins will probably ask for Chris Iannetta and Franklin Morales. Personally, I'm not convinced the Rockies would be on the winning end of that stick. Perhaps they would be, but Olivo is hitting way above his career average and not hitting much at all on the road. If Olivo starts to slump, they will be very glad they have Iannetta, who is a very patient, good batter, not playing anywhere up to his potential so far this season. Well, he has been playing up to his potential in the last week and the Rockies won 2 games because of it. They have won 8 of their last 11, instead of going 6-5 in their last 11 games, because of those two games Iannetta helped with the late inning comebacks.

On the other hand, Dan Ugla is a powerful right handed bat they can get in the lineup -- whereas they can only have Olivo or Iannetta in one at a time, not both. Ugla would play 2B and 1B. Herrera is filling in a 2B perfect and batting a perfect 2hole right now. Ugla would replace Herrera's OBP with a .385+ BA, 30+ HR, 80-100 RBI per season power. Ugla is 30 years old. When Tulo returns and Barmes moves back to 2B, Ulga would platoon with both Barmes at 2B and with Helton/Giambi at 1B. It would be hard to get them all regular playing times. Now if Helton's back is more severe than anyone is letting on, Ugla/Giambi would be an excellent right/left 1B platoon, especially since Ugla could get some extra playing time at 2B, when Giambi plays 1B.

[blm3034L!fe]

I think the Broncos will be 10-6 or 11-5 and I think Quinn will end up being the QB for most of this Season, with Tebow playing a very small role this Season. But Tebow will be groomed for Denver's next John Elway caliber QB GO BRONCOS!!!!!

[Eeyore]

^

The Broncos better make the play offs this year and have a home game. Its been to long.

[blm3034L!fe]

You are absolutly right Eeyore the Broncos are well over due for the Playoffs! I was watching the news the other day and I guess Big John will be behind the scenes helping out the young QB's. Maybe the presence of a World Champion coaching you will have a HUGE impact on these young QB's Performace? I sure hope so!

For once I am excited about the Broncos Future and now the BEAST is locked in Elvis Dummervil is here to stay love it!!!!!

LET'S GO BRONCOS!!!!

[Eeyore]

Some good news for the Broncos. This is from News Radio 850 KOA Denver:

The Broncos have agreed to terms on a contract with QB Tim Tebow. The deal is said to be worth $33 million dollars over 5 years, with approximately $9 million dollars guaranteed.

[Eeyore]

Finally the NFL season is here!

This weekend is going to be a interesting test for Denver as we play @ Jacksonville. If Denver can manage a win then the next 2 games are home against Seattle and Indianapolis.




GO DENVER BRONCOS!

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by Eeyore

Finally the NFL season is here!

This weekend is going to be a interesting test for Denver as we play @ Jacksonville. If Denver can manage a win then the next 2 games are home against Seattle and Indianapolis.

GO DENVER BRONCOS!

You're flipping out about the Broncos after what's happened in Lodo the last week??????

I'm just hoping the Rockies play long enough that I don't have to pay attention to the Broncos... they are sooooooooooo nebulous looking this year I have no idea what to think. Of course I'll watch every second of every game like I try to ever year (and I finally am basically guaranteed Sundays off all season!!) But I have a sinking feeling that I may be watching certain games through hands over my eyes.

[Eeyore]

The only thing that I know that happened in LODO was when the cops beat up a Puebloan. I do think I heard something about the Rockies winning but I did not pay attention as its only baseball. (yawn) Now if the Rockies make it to the World Series then I might watch.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by Eeyore

The only thing that I know that happened in LODO was when the cops beat up a Puebloan. I do think I heard something about the Rockies winning but I did not pay attention as its only baseball. (yawn) Now if the Rockies make it to the World Series then I might watch.

You just make it too easy. I'm not even going to respond because it will really just give me the same level of pride I feel in my ability to breathe.