GREAT NEWS!!!!!

Great points made. Alot of stuff these days does not make sense to me.

Generally, I agree with you but I doubt seriously most Venezuelan's hate us and can be described as "terrorist". They have an entrenched dictator not unlike others before him. These clowns come and go in Latin America; in the meantime, why cut off cultural ties to the people?

The best way to handle Chavez is to ignore him (to the extent he's harmless). Why give him greater stature by playing into his hand? That's what cutting off baseball would do. It would turn Venezuelan popular opinion away from us and towards Chavez.

On the other hand, MLB needs to invest more at home. Their product is becoming increasingly marginalized as football, basketball, and even tournament poker is dominating cable. MLB needs to shore up its domestic product and rebuild some excitement here at home.

You're right on the money Bum. They're certainly not all terrorists. In fact Chavez is not sleeping in a bed of roses, but more like a bed of thorny rose bushes.

Have a read... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070527/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_chavez_vs_tv

And here'another...http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PDFHC00&show_article=1bu

He's going to have his hands increasingly full with people discontented with his heavy handedness.

hugo needs to drink decaff, 27 cups of coffeee a day make him nuts

Wrong place for politics!

That's right thats-a-balk!...let's steer it right back to baseball where this thread started...

The Talented Mr. Chávez by: Franklin Foer

A Castro-loving, Bolivar-worshipping, onetime baseball-player wannabe, Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez is perhaps the world’s most openly anti-American head of state. With Latin America in the midst of a leftward swing, how dangerous is he?

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200605/chavez





He's a baseball-player wannabe nut!

How's that?

Never said anything about the venezuelan people...my signature about conserving fuel has been there for a couple of years...

Address the lack of financial support of American kids instead...maybe if teams could ID 50 16yo kids and take them to spring training facility and work with them on the fundamentals of the game every summer for 6 weeks instead of having them traverse the country in search of the next tournament or have them travel and spend a small fortune on showcases (some good others strictly moneymakers) maybe that would be a way for MLB to help kids in this country. Instead of watching their fan base be eroded because kids are off to lax or other sports. Some good press wouldn't hurt considering apparently steriod and performance enhancing drugs have become synomous with baseball.

quote:

Address the lack of financial support of American kids instead...maybe if teams could ID 50 16yo kids and take them to spring training facility and work with them on the fundamentals of the game every summer for 6 weeks instead of having them traverse the country in search of the next tournament or have them travel and spend a small fortune on showcases (some good others strictly moneymakers) maybe that would be a way for MLB to help kids in this country.

Ain't that the truth. Many parents cough up well into the five figures to help their sons -- but many, many more just don't have adequate resources to help their sons get better and get seen. It would be awesome if MLB would invest more money in them.

quote:

Originally posted by gotwood4sale:
That's right thats-a-balk!...let's steer it right back to baseball where this tread started...

The Talented Mr. Chávez by: Franklin Foer

A Castro-loving, Bolivar-worshipping, onetime baseball-player wannabe, Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez is perhaps the world’s most openly anti-American head of state. With Latin America in the midst of a leftward swing, how dangerous is he?

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200605/chavez





He's a baseball-player wannabe nut!

How's that?

that's-a-balk,

Woodrow is onto something. There is a perfect correlation between baseball-playing ability and political sensibility. Ahem. In layman terms, the bad ballplayers tend to be socialists.

(My theory is they shy away from competition.)

How's this for remaining on-subject? Someone take a -3 Easton bat and teach that bugger Chavez the merits of wearing a helmet.

One problem with baseball and getting American minorities is that it's too expensive.

A good bad - $300
A good glove - $150
A bat bag - $100
A pair of cleats - $120
A pair of batting gloves - $35

Total of - $705

And those are low end estimates of what the costs are.

Now you have to consider the price of private instruction and playing on select teams and showcases and camps - the costs are now astronomical. Can you honestly say an average person (regardless of race) can afford this?

Why wouldn't a kid want to choose playing basketball or s****r where all you need is a ball. You can find hoops and open fields all over the place.

Also, don't get me started on all the "all star" teams to boost parents egos being a problem.

I agree, coach2709. The problem as I see it is the 11.7 scholarship rule. If a kid wants a decent scholarship offer he had better be one of the elite players who spends that sort of money for good equipment and instruction.. or play football. It takes the sport out of reach for most Americans, regardless of color.

How about the NCAA dump the scholarship mandates and instead issue one simple rule.. each institution must spend as much money on women's sports as men's sports. Then leave it up to each university as to how much they'll spend on each program. Isn't competition rather than regulation the American Way?

Good idea but how much cain would college football coaches raise if some of their scholarship money went to women's cross country?

quote:

Originally posted by thats-a-balk!:

I'll take that as a compliment. I know I'm on target when I elicit a response like that!

Thanks that's-a-balk!

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:
Good idea but how much cain would college football coaches raise if some of their scholarship money went to women's cross country?

That's not what I'm saying. By law 1/2 the money must go to women's sports anyhow. That's my understanding of Title IX rules (am I wrong?). What I'm saying is.. if the school feels football is #1 let them spend their money on football! But if the school feels baseball is (relatively) more important (it is a more of a money sport down South) then let them have more scholarships for baseball and fewer for football.. it's their choice! But overall, the school must still fund 1/2 to men and 1/2 to women.

Why should the NCAA have say over how these schools spend their money?

Y'all get off on these tangents that have nothing to do with getting our sons to the next level. Sometimes we would be better served if we were to get off the keyboard and get on a 5gal bucket and do a little soft tossing. Having said that I will answer a couple of questions...

quote:

Why should the NCAA have say over how these schools spend their money?

Society has rules and regulation that we must follow for the betterment of all (or at least the most) of us. We tend to look only at our individual wants and needs --- let’s turn the tables and ask: How you would feel if a college dropped baseball altogether, split ALL their money between football and women's softball because they felt as if it was in THEIR best interest?

quote:

How about instructional summer camps for American kids? Instead of having parents travel the country and pay a kings ransom to attend showcases and to pay former ball players for instruction? Afterall who is buying the tickets to see your product?

I'd like that too but why would MLB spend their money on developing American kids when American parents are squandering a LOT more money than MLB could possibly spend on showcases, recruiting services, select teams and private instructions? Besides, why should anyone of us have a say how the Devil Rays spend their money? They are simply trying to improve their product (team), to sell more tickets, win more ballgames, make more money and are "developing" a portion of their product outside the US because it is to their advantage to do so. This has been going on for years in all industries and touches virtually every aspect of our lives. I guess it’s called a global economy? Why is it OK to have a computer or a car made in Japan or China; buy clothes made in Viet Nam but not OK to have a baseball team with foreign parts?
Fungo

Fungo, many programs DID drop baseball already. They can drop baseball still.. they're just limited to the 11.7.

Bum, I’m not sure I know all the ins and outs of why schools drop men's "minor" sports such as baseball or how the NCAA allocates 11.7 scholarships to baseball but I think Title IX is partly to blame. I think some schools have to drop a men's minor sport to comply with gender equity. I think everyone agrees we need an NCAA to "oversee" collegiate sports ---- However those of us associated with a men's minor sport tend to disagree with how they do it. Everyone is for equality until they have to give up something to make someone else equal.

Fungo,

I also believe the NCAA serves an important purpose. But to me, telling us how to divvy up scholarships, percentages, etc. is like mom telling us what to eat and when. Who cares so long as sister and brother both get fed equally?

quote:

Originally posted by Bum:

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:
Good idea but how much cain would college football coaches raise if some of their scholarship money went to women's cross country?

That's not what I'm saying. By law 1/2 the money must go to women's sports anyhow. That's my understanding of Title IX rules (am I wrong?). What I'm saying is.. if the school feels football is #1 let them spend their money on football! But if the school feels baseball is (relatively) more important (it is a more of a money sport down South) then let them have more scholarships for baseball and fewer for football.. it's their choice! But overall, the school must still fund 1/2 to men and 1/2 to women.

Why should the NCAA have say over how these schools spend their money?

My bad I see what you are saying and it makes sense to me.