Home Opener 10/18 vs Anaheim

[thecoffeecake]

On 06/21/2016 at 8:53 PM, Matteau#32 said:

Yup.  I went to the game since the Giants played Monday Night that week.  The guy who sits to my right is a Jets fan and had a tough time unloading his.  Jets were playing the Redskins at 1 that day.  

So otherwise you would've skipped the game to just watch the giants? Man I wish football would just die. Maybe the concussion issue will push future generations back towards baseball, but I doubt it.

[Matteau#32]

On ‎6‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 5:07 PM, thecoffeecake said:

So otherwise you would've skipped the game to just watch the giants? Man I wish football would just die. Maybe the concussion issue will push future generations back towards baseball, but I doubt it.

Yes.  Would have sold the tickets.  If they played at the same time, would have watched the Giants and then the Rangers on delay.  For the 12-11 game, if D*ll*s-Giants stays at 8:30, will watch Rangers-Devils until 8:30, then after the Giants game watch the rest of the Rangers game.  I have noticed, they will post Giants scores during the Rangers broadcast, but will not post hockey scores during an NFL broadcast and I don't want to know the score ahead of time.  If I wind up going to the Giants game, haven't decided which games I am keeping/selling aside from the Saints and Eagles games, then I will just miss Rangers-Devils.  Not going to watch when I get home around 12:30-1am.

Football die?  Ha.  The NHL will die-off and go out of business LONG before the NFL ever does.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Matteau#32

[Devil Dan 56]

On June 26, 2016 at 5:07 PM, thecoffeecake said:

So otherwise you would've skipped the game to just watch the giants? Man I wish football would just die. Maybe the concussion issue will push future generations back towards baseball, but I doubt it.

I'm as confused as the last 2 posters.... What's wrong with football? And why would future generations go towards baseball?!?

[Bibby89]

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 4:01 PM, NJDfan1711 said:

Wow, they come to Tampa twice this year which is awesome, but both games are over by November 5th! lol

The first time they come this year is October 15th for the second game of the season which I think is the earliest they've ever come to Tampa, but definitely this is by far the earliest that they've come to Tampa BOTH times.  Usually it's like once in October or November and again in March or Feb.  If we end up in a playoff position later on in the year I'm gonna be dying to go to a game =/

Guess I should just be grateful that they come twice this year

I will be there on the 15th most likely.Can't wait.

 

Correction, just booked mine and my sons tickets. His first game. Super excited.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Bibby89

[thecoffeecake]

5 hours ago, Matteau#32 said:

Yes.  Would have sold the tickets.  If they played at the same time, would have watched the Giants and then the Rangers on delay.  For the 12-11 game, if D*ll*s-Giants stays at 8:30, will watch Rangers-Devils until 8:30, then after the Giants game watch the rest of the Rangers game.  I have noticed, they will post Giants scores during the Rangers broadcast, but will not post hockey scores during an NFL broadcast and I don't want to know the score ahead of time.  If I wind up going to the Giants game, haven't decided which games I am keeping/selling aside from the Saints and Eagles games, then I will just miss Rangers-Devils.  Not going to watch when I get home around 12:30-1am.

Football die?  Ha.  The NHL will die-off and go out of business LONG before the NFL ever does.

I don't buy that. I mean, neither is going to go out of business in any of our lifetimes, but the NFL relies on the casual fan. Hockey has a much more passionate base per fan than football does. Hockey will never lose popularity in its traditional areas. Football has only become this wildly popular in the last couple of generations.

3 hours ago, Martyisth3b3st said:

I don't understand this. Why do you "wish football would just die"? Because you don't enjoy watching it, nobody else should? 

Not that they shouldn't necessarily, but it would be nice in my opinion if football's popularity declined drastically. I'm not saying that it will. It dominates the media airwaves 12 months out of the year. I shouldn't have to hear the countdown to training camp in the middle of July every time I turn on the radio. I don't like football culture, I think the sport itself is beyond stupid and incredibly boring. I don't get the appeal of watching guys take 45 second breaks after 2-3 seconds of actual time in play. I think all of the energy and talent this country funnels towards football would be much better suited going towards baseball and basketball especially, but also to hockey and soccer. I know injury is prevalent in every sport, but in no uncertain terms does football present the biggest risk to cognitive and mental health, especially for young people. And yea, that's only my opinion, but I'd personally be happier with our sports landscape if football was a fringe sport.

2 hours ago, Devil Dan 56 said:

I'm as confused as the last 2 posters.... What's wrong with football? And why would future generations go towards baseball?!?

Well, baseball was the predominant sport Americans played until the last quarter of the20th century. There will always be one major sport that captures America, and historically that's been baseball or football. I would love for that popularity to shift back towards the traditional national passionate of baseball. With what we know about concussions, football participation at the youth level has probably peaked (it probably had anyway because of how hugely popular football is) and may start to decline with what we now know and are continuing to learn about concussions. Now, the sport could adapt, but if nothing changes, it's not terribly unlikely that future generations will shift towards a different sport. You hear parents more and more talk about not wanting their kids to play football. With the natural athletic ability and size needed to succeed at basketball, baseball is the likely candidate if that shift were to happen.

 

The national obsession with football has gotten so out of control that this guy would rather sell his tickets for one of the biggest rivalries in hockey to lay on his couch to watch a mediocre Giants team on the television.

Edited July 11, 2016 by thecoffeecake

[DevsMan84]

You whine about football where players "45 second breaks after 2-3 seconds of actual time in play" and then later suggest it's popularity to be replaced by baseball?

Edited July 11, 2016 by DevsMan84

[thecoffeecake]

3 minutes ago, DevsMan84 said:

You whine about football where players "45 second breaks after 2-3 seconds of actual time in play" and then later suggest it's popularity to be replaced by baseball?

Baseball has longer time in play than football does. And much of the time in play in baseball are pitches that take less than a second to reach the plate. Besides, a pitch is thrown every 10 seconds.

[DJ Eco]

Baseball is fun to play, and boring as fvcking sh!t to watch. End of story. And I'm not even a football fan either.

[Devil Dan 56]

47 minutes ago, thecoffeecake said:

 

The national obsession with football has gotten so out of control that this guy would rather sell his tickets for one of the biggest rivalries in hockey to lay on his couch to watch a mediocre Giants team on the television.

Who cares how he uses his season tickets? I sold Ranger tickets all the time. I'd make 3 times what i paid for them and not have to deal with drunk college kids starting fights for 3 hours. Plus, Sundays are perfect for relaxing and watching some football before the work week. 

 

35 minutes ago, thecoffeecake said:

Baseball has longer time in play than football does. And much of the time in play in baseball are pitches that take less than a second to reach the plate. Besides, a pitch is thrown every 10 seconds.

Yeah, and the rest of the time we watch pitchers in the bullpen scratching their crotch. Baseball has fallen to the wayside because of the steroid scandal and the fact that it's a snoozefest. It's ok to have on in the background, but sitting for 3 hours of 9 guys standing around in a field while a batter fouls off 6 straight pitches just isn't that entertaining to a lot of people anymore. 

[bobilly45]

37 minutes ago, thecoffeecake said:

Baseball has longer time in play than football does. And much of the time in play in baseball are pitches that take less than a second to reach the plate. Besides, a pitch is thrown every 10 seconds.

I guess you've never had the displeasure of going to a game pitched by steve trachsel, with him no pitch was ever thrown within 4 minutes of each other

[CommonDreads]

Baseball is the kind of thing I turn on at night when I'm having trouble falling asleep, that's not even a joke that's a fact. It's boring as sin. To say football is more boring than baseball is absolutely ludicrous.

I'd like more hockey coverage as much as the next guy, but football isn't going away, and I don't really have much of a problem with that.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

Coffee, you don't necessarily have to share your opinions about everything.  Great, football ain't your thing.  As Derrick Coleman once famously said:  "Whoop-de-damn-doo!"  And providing your reasons why you don't like it in a thread that had nothing to do with opinions on various sports accomplished what exactly?  All your knocking of football "culture" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean...can't say that I'm at all interested to hear you expand on that) and the sport itself did was piss off people who enjoy watching it (and derailed the thread).  And a hell of a lot of people DO watch a hell of a lot of football...and as you are very likely well aware, they get heavily into it at ALL levels:  pee wee, high school, college, NFL.  If it's not for you, swell. 

Anyway, on topic, hoping to get to the home opener this year...it's been a while since I've been to one.  The last one I went to was the 4-3 loss to Dallas in 2010-11 (forget if they lost in OT or SO...I know it was one or the other).  We know how the rest of the first half of that season went...

 

[bostondevil11]

8 hours ago, Martyisth3b3st said:

Oh man, I remember that game. It was Rolston's first game with us after he signed the major contract, same with Anton.

That game started off pretty good and then the wheels fell off.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

38 minutes ago, bostondevil11 said:

That game started off pretty good and then the wheels fell off.

Yep, think the Parise-Zajac-Kovy line got the team off to a 2-0 lead in the first period IIRC.  Lots of early good feelings and excitement.  

[DevsMan84]

9 hours ago, Martyisth3b3st said:

Oh man, I remember that game. It was Rolston's first game with us after he signed the major contract, same with Anton.

I think you meant Kovy.  Rolston signed with the Devils before the 08-09 season.

Haven't been to a home opener since the 2012-13 season when we beat Philly.  Sans Parise the arena was packed and the team looked like they did in the previous season's playoffs.  I'll try to see if I can catch this year's home opener as it will be my first one as a married man.

[NJDfan1711]

19 hours ago, Bibby89 said:

I will be there on the 15th most likely.Can't wait.

 

Correction, just booked mine and my sons tickets. His first game. Super excited.

That's awesome.  Barring some unforeseen circumstances, I should be there.   Wouldn't mind meeting and saying hello to a fellow forumer if you're there.

[RunninWithTheDevil]

Adding my two cents that no one asked for. If we're complaining about Football being "slow-paced" compared to baseball, let's talk about this:

 

The average baseball game is about 3-4 hours long.

Average actual playing time for a baseball game: 18 minutes.

 

Baseball blows. Bunch of overpaid, no-loyalty, chubby dudes running around a sandbox for 4 hours. it's the only sport besides boxing and being a center in football where you can be fat as hell and still be considered a professional. 

[Crisis]

24 minutes ago, RunninWithTheDevil said:

 

The average baseball game is about 3-4 hours long.

 

2:52, but who's counting?

[Matteau#32]

On ‎7‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 4:55 PM, thecoffeecake said:

I don't buy that. I mean, neither is going to go out of business in any of our lifetimes, but the NFL relies on the casual fan. Hockey has a much more passionate base per fan than football does. Hockey will never lose popularity in its traditional areas. Football has only become this wildly popular in the last couple of generations.

Not that they shouldn't necessarily, but it would be nice in my opinion if football's popularity declined drastically. I'm not saying that it will. It dominates the media airwaves 12 months out of the year. I shouldn't have to hear the countdown to training camp in the middle of July every time I turn on the radio. I don't like football culture, I think the sport itself is beyond stupid and incredibly boring. I don't get the appeal of watching guys take 45 second breaks after 2-3 seconds of actual time in play. I think all of the energy and talent this country funnels towards football would be much better suited going towards baseball and basketball especially, but also to hockey and soccer. I know injury is prevalent in every sport, but in no uncertain terms does football present the biggest risk to cognitive and mental health, especially for young people. And yea, that's only my opinion, but I'd personally be happier with our sports landscape if football was a fringe sport.

Well, baseball was the predominant sport Americans played until the last quarter of the20th century. There will always be one major sport that captures America, and historically that's been baseball or football. I would love for that popularity to shift back towards the traditional national passionate of baseball. With what we know about concussions, football participation at the youth level has probably peaked (it probably had anyway because of how hugely popular football is) and may start to decline with what we now know and are continuing to learn about concussions. Now, the sport could adapt, but if nothing changes, it's not terribly unlikely that future generations will shift towards a different sport. You hear parents more and more talk about not wanting their kids to play football. With the natural athletic ability and size needed to succeed at basketball, baseball is the likely candidate if that shift were to happen.

 

The national obsession with football has gotten so out of control that this guy would rather sell his tickets for one of the biggest rivalries in hockey to lay on his couch to watch a mediocre Giants team on the television.

I beg to differ on your first point.  Yes, there are a lot more casual football fans than hockey fans, but there are A LOT more hardcore football fans than hockey fans outside of Canada, and it is not even close.  The NFL prints money, the NHL's revenues fluctuate hugely with the value of the CDN$, which is tied to oil big time.  Without another spike and plateau in the price of oil, their currency is not going to get any stronger.  The NFL has a lockout and misses a few weeks of training camp and it was the first bit of labor unrest in over 30 years.  The NHL has had 3 lockouts and a players strike in the last 24 years and people are already talking about what the owners are going to demand in the next lockout.  While I don't think either is going out of business, IF one were to, it would be the NHL.  Granted, it would eventually be re-branded and possibly a more Canadian heavy league, but again don't think it would happen.

On your second point, there are a lot of people who would say the same about hockey as they think people only watch for the fights.  You don't like football culture?  What does that even mean? 

I also disagree on your 3rd point.  Once football started being shown on tv, it quickly took over as the #`1 sport in this country.  Yes, some parents will keep their kids away from football, but reality is, at the younger ages, concussions are a lot less of an issue.  When I was a kid, my parents told me time and time again, they were not going to let me play football.  When I was 11, they changed their mind and I played all through HS and a year of college ball.  All 3 of my younger brothers played into HS and one played in college. 

As far as me selling my tickets. The Giants play 16 games a year, the Rangers play 82.  Simple math should tell you which game is more important.  Secondly, the Devils are not the Rangers biggest rival.  Not even close.  For the Rangers fans as a whole, it is 1) Isles 2) Flyers 3-4) Penguins and Caps, and then the Devils.  Although some would even put the rivalry with the Bruins ahead of the Devils.  I don't agree with it, but some will.  I know, I know, you have 4 friends in NJ who are huge Rangers fans and consider the Devils their chief rival. Great, I am talking about as a whole.  What am I using?  Well, demand for the tickets.  Which games do non-season ticket holders seem to want the most, which games get the higher prices on the secondary market. Which games get less tickets put up on the secondary market (as in the season ticket holders are keeping the games), and the general atmosphere at the Garden when the teams comes in.  I have been to many Rangers-Devils games at the Garden, and in most cases, you wouldn't even know they were rivals.  Atmosphere is just never as charges as when they play the Isles, Flyers, Pens, Caps (and yes, has been like that since before Crosby and Ovechkin).  Believe me, I wish it were different.  For years, I hated the Devils more than anyone else, and really hoped the rivalry from the Rangers perspective would pick up, but it never did.  I think part of it is timing.  If the NHL expanded/moved to NJ in 1972 and LI in 1982, then I think the Rangers-Devils would be bigger than Rangers-Isles.  Obviously, we would never know, and yes, it has been over 30 years since the Devils moved to NJ, but just how I feel.  Rangers-Isles was already intense by 1982.  It is also not even close to one of the biggest rivalries in hockey.  Rivalries I would put ahead of Rangers-Devils aside from the teams I listed:  Flyers-Pens, Pens-Caps, Flyers-Caps, Habs-Leafs, Habs-Bruins, Habs-Sens, Leafs-Sens, BHawks-Wings, BHawks-Blues, Oilers-Flames,  And, that was just thinking off the top of my head and not putting any real thought into it.  The game on the 11th will not be a big seller on the secondary, so if you wanted to go see them play in the Garden and you don't care about Giants-D*ll*s, then this might be the cheapest opportunity.  18th will probably go for more.  Closer to Xmas, so college kids are likely home.  Giants play the Lions at 1 and the Jets play Saturday Night that week.  However, the D*ll*s game clearly IS the most popular of the Giants home games.  Just go look at Stubhub and you will see the difference.  Thirdly, I didn't say it directly, but I did imply I also had Giants season tickets and haven't decided yet if I am going to the Giants-D*ll*s game. 

[Matteau#32]

On ‎7‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 5:09 PM, thecoffeecake said:

Baseball has longer time in play than football does. And much of the time in play in baseball are pitches that take less than a second to reach the plate. Besides, a pitch is thrown every 10 seconds.

Not even close to every ten seconds.  I umpired baseball for over 20 years.  Few years ago switched to mens softball.  A 7-iining softball game takes anywhere from 50-85 minutes.  A 7-inning mens baseball game usually took 2-2 1/2 hours.  Why?  because there is A LOT more than 10 seconds between pitches.  On Friday, watch an MLB game and actually time how long between pitches.  With nobody on, to the same batter, you are talking 30-45 seconds.  With runners on base, you are talking about a minute.

[mfitz804]

For me, I have to be in the mood for baseball. I have to be prepared, to just sit back, relax, kick back and waste a few hours. If I am not in that mood, I can't really do it.

Unlike hockey, which of course I can always watch. 

[DevsMan84]

18 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

For me, I have to be in the mood for baseball. I have to be prepared, to just sit back, relax, kick back and waste a few hours. If I am not in that mood, I can't really do it.

Unlike hockey, which of course I can always watch. 

Beer also goes a long way into whether a baseball game will be enjoyable to watch.  At least that is for me.

[thecoffeecake]

On 7/13/2016 at 8:20 AM, Matteau#32 said:

Not even close to every ten seconds.  I umpired baseball for over 20 years.  Few years ago switched to mens softball.  A 7-iining softball game takes anywhere from 50-85 minutes.  A 7-inning mens baseball game usually took 2-2 1/2 hours.  Why?  because there is A LOT more than 10 seconds between pitches.  On Friday, watch an MLB game and actually time how long between pitches.  With nobody on, to the same batter, you are talking 30-45 seconds.  With runners on base, you are talking about a minute.

 

On 7/11/2016 at 6:28 PM, Martyisth3b3st said:

also, speaking as a huge baseball fan myself, your "football is boring, watch baseball" sentence made me seriously wonder if you were trolling. A pitch isn't even thrown once/ten seconds in little league any more. Try 45 seconds to a minute.

The average number of pitches thrown in a single MLB game is 292 (in 2010; I couldn't immediately find more accurate numbers, but it's gone up since then). If a pitch is thrown every 45 seconds, just the process of pitching alone would take 219 minutes a game. That's over 3 and a half hours. Games as a whole on average take less time than that, including pitching, time in play, time in between innings, pick-offs, 7th inning stretch, etc. 10,12,15 seconds is the average. There is a 12 second rule on the book. Turn on the Yanks or Mets game tonight and count out loud in between pitches. It may seem like 45 seconds, but absolutely not.

 

On 7/11/2016 at 7:54 PM, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Coffee, you don't necessarily have to share your opinions about everything.  Great, football ain't your thing.  As Derrick Coleman once famously said:  "Whoop-de-damn-doo!"  And providing your reasons why you don't like it in a thread that had nothing to do with opinions on various sports accomplished what exactly?  All your knocking of football "culture" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean...can't say that I'm at all interested to hear you expand on that) and the sport itself did was piss off people who enjoy watching it (and derailed the thread).  And a hell of a lot of people DO watch a hell of a lot of football...and as you are very likely well aware, they get heavily into it at ALL levels:  pee wee, high school, college, NFL.  If it's not for you, swell. 

Anyway, on topic, hoping to get to the home opener this year...it's been a while since I've been to one.  The last one I went to was the 4-3 loss to Dallas in 2010-11 (forget if they lost in OT or SO...I know it was one or the other).  We know how the rest of the first half of that season went...

 

First of all, let's be fair. If you want to be critical of the minor firestorm my posts caused, fine. But this thread was A., derailed halfway through the first page, and B., was dead before there was a subsequent response to my post from a week or 2 ago. I don't even think this thread was on the first page of the forum. Don't just hurl random indictments at me because you disagree with me.

Secondly, I didn't just start bashing football. I didn't bring the game up, because why would I. My first comment was in response to other people talking football on a New Jersey Devils board. I didn't provide my reasons as to why I don't like it until I was asked very specifically "what's wrong with football?". I'm not out of line here. I can  comment on what's going on what's going on in a particular thread. That's exactly what all of this is. I think you and others just very strongly don't like my opinions. Which is fine and fair because this is an online hockey forum specifically designed for sharing opinions in a public setting. It's a platform created specifically to engage debate and discussion.

On 7/13/2016 at 8:20 AM, Matteau#32 said:

Not even close to every ten seconds.  I umpired baseball for over 20 years.  Few years ago switched to mens softball.  A 7-iining softball game takes anywhere from 50-85 minutes.  A 7-inning mens baseball game usually took 2-2 1/2 hours.  Why?  because there is A LOT more than 10 seconds between pitches.  On Friday, watch an MLB game and actually time how long between pitches.  With nobody on, to the same batter, you are talking 30-45 seconds.  With runners on base, you are talking about a minute.

See above. There is no possible way there can be 30-45 seconds in between pitches at the professional level. And a minute? I think the nature of the game makes people think time is moving a whole lot faster than it is. 10 seconds in between pitches can feel like 45, but it isn't.

[DevsMan84]

16 minutes ago, thecoffeecake said:

 

The average number of pitches thrown in a single MLB game is 292 (in 2010; I couldn't immediately find more accurate numbers, but it's gone up since then). If a pitch is thrown every 45 seconds, just the process of pitching alone would take 219 minutes a game. That's over 3 and a half hours. Games as a whole on average take less time than that, including pitching, time in play, time in between innings, pick-offs, 7th inning stretch, etc. 10,12,15 seconds is the average. There is a 12 second rule on the book. Turn on the Yanks or Mets game tonight and count out loud in between pitches. It may seem like 45 seconds, but absolutely not.

 

First of all, let's be fair. If you want to be critical of the minor firestorm my posts caused, fine. But this thread was A., derailed halfway through the first page, and B., was dead before there was a subsequent response to my post from a week or 2 ago. I don't even think this thread was on the first page of the forum. Don't just hurl random indictments at me because you disagree with me.

Secondly, I didn't just start bashing football. I didn't bring the game up, because why would I. My first comment was in response to other people talking football on a New Jersey Devils board. I didn't provide my reasons as to why I don't like it until I was asked very specifically "what's wrong with football?". I'm not out of line here. I can  comment on what's going on what's going on in a particular thread. That's exactly what all of this is. I think you and others just very strongly don't like my opinions. Which is fine and fair because this is an online hockey forum specifically designed for sharing opinions in a public setting. It's a platform created specifically to engage debate and discussion.

See above. There is no possible way there can be 30-45 seconds in between pitches at the professional level. And a minute? I think the nature of the game makes people think time is moving a whole lot faster than it is. 10 seconds in between pitches can feel like 45, but it isn't.

Edit: Changed mind and don't care enough to even start.

Edited July 14, 2016 by DevsMan84

[RunninWithTheDevil]

So guys, who's ready for Anaheim?