Transmogrifier wrote:Does it matter? Rules were disregarded to do this, and all for a tiny bit of money. MLB better be getting some ads in the theatres or this is even more of a joke.
Sure it matters, because you took my comment and turned it into something it wasn't, because I never said anything about the rules. I haven't read the rule book cover to cover, so I can't speak on that issue.
If you want to comment on a possible rule violation, don't use a quote that has nothing to do with the rules to support your point.
I wasn't using your quote to support your point. I was, instead, pointing out that we're arguing the wrong issue. Forget tradition, how about rules. Don't attack me and ignore the facts.
And if you want to see the rule quote, it's on this board, a few posts down.
BronsonPinchot wrote: However, players having individual deals with sponsors sounds awesome. When you think about it, its kinda unfair that they aren't allowed to do it.
It wont be awesome when your fav team signs a deal with nike but their star player is signed with reebok and the next thing you know he's on the trade block (Probably making more a year from Reebok from than from the team anyway)
Nobody can say that this advertising is "messing with the game" or in any way diminishes the great tradition of the game.
I accept all of the other arguments about greed, good taste etc. but to bring up tradition is hypocracy because baseball has sold out before and will sell out again.
The one interesting argument was that this is the thin edge of the wedge (or a slippery slope) and soon the players will be dressed up like NASCAR drivers. Where is your evidence of this? And if this is a real concern shouldn't people have objected when they first put advertising in the ballparks or when they put commercials on during the game. Its not a slippery slope but a pendulum that goes back and forth. There has been more advertising in the game than this (see the picture of Ebbets Field) and I am sure that one day there will be less advertising - things change - deal with it.
I remember all of the purists bemoaning the advent of the domed stadiums. Look how that has changed - everybody wants to build the next Camden Yards
Mookie, there is a huge difference between the outfield wall and the field ...
Ever since you and I donned our little league uniforms, brought to you by Allstate, there has always been some sort of advertising on the outfield wall, even it looks awful. Heck one could even argue that putting ads on the OF wall is as much about baseball as the game itself ..
wrveres wrote:Mookie, there is a huge difference between the outfield wall and the field ...
Ever since you and I donned our little league uniforms, brought to you by Allstate, there has always been some sort of advertising on the outfield wall, even it looks awful. Heck one could even argue that putting ads on the OF wall is as much about baseball as the game itself ..
The field is something totally different ....
Hmm...from my reading of the rules (you can check them if you like http://www.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/offic ... ries_3.jsp) the outfield walls are within the field of play just like the bases (and unlike the on-deck circle).
Other people have made the same distinction - what exactly is the "huge difference". If you ask me, I think that the walls get more airtime and are easier to read than the bags.
wrveres wrote:Mookie, there is a huge difference between the outfield wall and the field ...
Ever since you and I donned our little league uniforms, brought to you by Allstate, there has always been some sort of advertising on the outfield wall, even it looks awful. Heck one could even argue that putting ads on the OF wall is as much about baseball as the game itself ..
The field is something totally different ....
the outfield walls are within the field of play just like the bases (and unlike the on-deck circle).
Other people have made the same distinction - what exactly is the "huge difference". If you ask me, I think that the walls get more airtime and are easier to read than the bags.
I understand that .... I really do. But even looking at the picture you provided, It reminds us that the wall has always been "For Sale" but the actual "playing surface" (is that a better way to put it) has always been off limits.
The messed up part about the whole thing, is that they could just superimpose anything they want on the field, much in the same way FOX Sports does with NASCAR. I mean the idea is to attract the home audience, not the people at the game anyways, right?
Lets take a step away from the hard and fast rules for a second. The issue here for me is that the ads will go where the players are running and playing, not just surrounding the space where they play.
Now to the tradition question. All the changes to "tradition" people have mentioned in this thread have been made in order to improve the game or its popularity (eg. lowering the mound, the DH, opening day in Japan, juicing the balls ), which is far different than uglifiying (if thats a word ) the field just to make more money. The placing of ads on the field does not improve the game or increase its popularity, it simply makes more money for owners and the league.
Nobody likes the ads everywhere in ballbarks, but since they are not seen with the players, they are not as bad as ads undernieth a player's feet.
Quick question for those who don't like the Spiderman ads (and I'm probably in that camp myself): how do you feel about the planned logos promoting cancer awareness? Or how about commemorative World Series logos?
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by rolenfan » Thu May 06, 2004 5:11 pm 
), which is far different than uglifiying (if thats a word 
) the field just to make more money. The placing of ads on the field does not improve the game or increase its popularity, it simply makes more money for owners and the league.
