Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2012 February 12
| Entertainment desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < February 11 | << Jan | February | Mar >> | February 13 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
February 12
editAll Canadian NHL Hockey teams win
editHow many times in the history of the NHL has every Canadian NHL hockey team won their game on the same date? For this to occur, all teams would need to be playing American city teams (i.e TOR vs BOS, MON vs Det, EDM vs LA etc) and of course win their game.24.89.210.71 (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Probably fairly often as until 1970, there were only two Canadian teams and unless they were playing each other, on any given night that both were playing, there was a chance of this happening, and both teams were good in the 1960s. I kinda suspect it happened fairly often on Saturday night.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Niggly point since I agree with you in principle, but there were more than two pre-1970 Canadian teams (Montreal Maroons, Ottawa Senators, Hamilton Tigers to give three others) and post-1970 but pre-1979 (Vancouver Canucks). But still, you are right, probably too many times to easily count. Mingmingla (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Quebec Bulldogs too. But from 1938 to 1970 there were only Toronto and the Canadiens, so it should be (relatively) easy to figure out for those 32 seasons. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Since 1980, there has been at least six Canadian based teams and as many as eight (1992-94). Perhaps the question could be best worded as what date saw the most number of Canadian NHL teams winning their games? In this way, you would include the maximum of two between 1938 and 1970 and potentially increase that number to eight when including seasons in the post NHL expansion.24.89.210.71 (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)www.thebuyart.com
- Quebec Bulldogs too. But from 1938 to 1970 there were only Toronto and the Canadiens, so it should be (relatively) easy to figure out for those 32 seasons. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Niggly point since I agree with you in principle, but there were more than two pre-1970 Canadian teams (Montreal Maroons, Ottawa Senators, Hamilton Tigers to give three others) and post-1970 but pre-1979 (Vancouver Canucks). But still, you are right, probably too many times to easily count. Mingmingla (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Sports markets
editHow do sports teams manage to survive and thrive as well, in small markets? Also, this applies to large markets as well. Where other teams failed to manage to survive and didn't thrive. Mean that all of this applies to the teams can be an expansion or been around for awhile (when the association/league formed/merged or from the start of expansion to the present). Not just in US or America, but the rest of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 20:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- A lot depends on the arrangements made by the league, especially regarding TV. The league may be willing to effectively subsidize smaller teams, by letting them have a larger share of TV revenues from league games than they would get if divided strictly based on number of home game attendees. Some leagues also allow the weakest teams to get the first draft picks, to even things out. Why do this ? If not, you can end up with one powerful team which completely dominates the rest, causing fans to lose interest. Of course, this is to help a new team get started, with the idea that they will eventually pull their own weight. If not, then they might soon lose their franchise. StuRat (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- There's the NFL and then there's everything else. The NFL has no local TV contracts, except for the preseason, and splits its national TV revenue equally. That allows the Green Bay Packers to compete with the Chicago Bears. In baseball, small-market teams are clearly at a disadvantage. The biggest spenders in baseball are all big-market teams (Yankees, Phillies, Red Sox, Angels, White Sox, Cubs, Mets, Giants), while the clubs with the smallest payrolls (Royals, Rays, Pirates, Padres, Indians) are from smaller markets. It's possible for a team like the Rays to compete if they find the right young talent and develop them through their minor league systems. It's a lot easier for the Yankees, who can cherry-pick the best veterans by offering them monster contracts. The NBA, like the NFL, has a salary cap to reduce the advantage of the large-market teams. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- In the UK, at least, markets aren't divided up as they seem to be in the US. Teams draw their fans from as far afield as they can, and media will feature whichever teams are popular in their area. A successful team from a smaller town can hope to attract fans from further afield, while a big city may have several competing teams, and is more likely to have other sports represented, thereby reducing their potential fanbases. Finally, some sports are simply more popular in certain areas of the country, so while West Yorkshire can support several successful rugby league teams based in fairly small towns, most large cities in the south of England can't sustain one playing at a high level. Warofdreams talk 13:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but you have relegation so a team which won't or can't spend enough money to compete will eventually find its own level.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm unclear what relevance relegation has to this. Having money to spend often correlates with having a large fanbase, and not so much with being based in a large city (although a wealthy owner can make an even bigger impact). Conversely, relegation doesn't always mean a smaller fanbase. And teams sometimes go bankrupt before finding their own level. Warofdreams talk 14:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Without relegation, in the US, some team have chronic poor records. Pittsburgh Pirates, for example.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am not an expert on the economics of European soccer teams -- I don't know if they have an equivalent to American local TV contracts that allow the Yankees and Red Sox to outspend their competition. But it certainly appears that there is less of a concern about "competitive balance" in European soccer than there is in American sports. Teams from London or Manchester have won every Premier League title since 1995. Real Madrid and Barcelona dominate La Liga. Teams from Milan and Rome tend to own Serie A. The Sheffield Wednesdays of the world have to be content with a promotion to the next division up, a run in the FA Cup and a victory over a cross-down rival. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Football broadcast rights in the UK are collectively negotiated by the respective Leagues, and the Cup competitions are negotiated by the respective Football Associations. As this means individual clubs don't have the means to negotiate their own settlements (and during the last lot of negotiations, Liverpool FC did threaten to do their own thing), they create their own TV channels instead. I'm not sure whether these channels are subject to the Premier League restrictions though. This is all subject to EU rulings however, as it has been deemed to be restrictive trading to only allow commercial outlets the choice of one broadcast provider for their football programmes. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)www.collieart.com
- I am not an expert on the economics of European soccer teams -- I don't know if they have an equivalent to American local TV contracts that allow the Yankees and Red Sox to outspend their competition. But it certainly appears that there is less of a concern about "competitive balance" in European soccer than there is in American sports. Teams from London or Manchester have won every Premier League title since 1995. Real Madrid and Barcelona dominate La Liga. Teams from Milan and Rome tend to own Serie A. The Sheffield Wednesdays of the world have to be content with a promotion to the next division up, a run in the FA Cup and a victory over a cross-down rival. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Without relegation, in the US, some team have chronic poor records. Pittsburgh Pirates, for example.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm unclear what relevance relegation has to this. Having money to spend often correlates with having a large fanbase, and not so much with being based in a large city (although a wealthy owner can make an even bigger impact). Conversely, relegation doesn't always mean a smaller fanbase. And teams sometimes go bankrupt before finding their own level. Warofdreams talk 14:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but you have relegation so a team which won't or can't spend enough money to compete will eventually find its own level.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- In the UK, at least, markets aren't divided up as they seem to be in the US. Teams draw their fans from as far afield as they can, and media will feature whichever teams are popular in their area. A successful team from a smaller town can hope to attract fans from further afield, while a big city may have several competing teams, and is more likely to have other sports represented, thereby reducing their potential fanbases. Finally, some sports are simply more popular in certain areas of the country, so while West Yorkshire can support several successful rugby league teams based in fairly small towns, most large cities in the south of England can't sustain one playing at a high level. Warofdreams talk 13:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- There's the NFL and then there's everything else. The NFL has no local TV contracts, except for the preseason, and splits its national TV revenue equally. That allows the Green Bay Packers to compete with the Chicago Bears. In baseball, small-market teams are clearly at a disadvantage. The biggest spenders in baseball are all big-market teams (Yankees, Phillies, Red Sox, Angels, White Sox, Cubs, Mets, Giants), while the clubs with the smallest payrolls (Royals, Rays, Pirates, Padres, Indians) are from smaller markets. It's possible for a team like the Rays to compete if they find the right young talent and develop them through their minor league systems. It's a lot easier for the Yankees, who can cherry-pick the best veterans by offering them monster contracts. The NBA, like the NFL, has a salary cap to reduce the advantage of the large-market teams. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)