Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2015 September 14
| Entertainment desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < September 13 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | September 15 > |
| 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. |
September 14
editmlb schedule
editWhy are all mlb games on 10/04/2015 scheduled to start at 3:10 EST, and has it been similar in previous seasons? 96.254.216.40 (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Just a guess: That's the final day of the regular season, and it might be scheduled that way (3:05 or 3:10 EDST, not EST) to accommodate television coverage. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Since the following day (October 5) is reserved for any tie-breaking playoff games that may be necessary, MLB does not want any night games that day, in order not to potentially force a team to play a critical game after a sleepless night traveling across the country. Making all games start at the same time means East Coast team won't have an advantage by having their games finish earlier than their West Coast opponents either. It also ensures more excitement if there are any races that go down to the wire, as teams involved may not know how their direct opponents are faring ahead of time, forcing everyone to go all out and win that final game at any cost.--Xuxl (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Most likely. So the question becomes, why 3:00? A couple of things come to mind: (1) Optimal time for the various time zones, so no game will start before noon local time; (2) NFL TV coverage, as the first games usually run from noon to 3:00 eastern. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Since the following day (October 5) is reserved for any tie-breaking playoff games that may be necessary, MLB does not want any night games that day, in order not to potentially force a team to play a critical game after a sleepless night traveling across the country. Making all games start at the same time means East Coast team won't have an advantage by having their games finish earlier than their West Coast opponents either. It also ensures more excitement if there are any races that go down to the wire, as teams involved may not know how their direct opponents are faring ahead of time, forcing everyone to go all out and win that final game at any cost.--Xuxl (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is a new thing for MLB for this season. They want to replicate the English Premier League's last-day "Survival Sunday" scheduling and have all the final regular season games happen at the sane time. MLB hopes it would add excitement and drama during the final day, and limit teams from resting starters at the last minute based on early game results.[1] As for a time of 3:10pm, again I would agree and think that it would be an optimal start in all time zones, and avoid the possibility of a team needing to take a red eye flight to make it to a tie-breaking game. Plus it specifically avoids any competition with Sunday Night Football, which tends to generate higher ratings in most areas of the country because it is the only game that is nationally televised (as opposed to the Sunday afternoon games where each one is broadcast regionally). Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Let's hope that's merely a coincidence and that they're not consciously imitating soccer. I would hate to see the World Series decided by a home run derby. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Terminology for those Americans playing American football then Canadian football (or vise-versa)
editAm new to dicussions and had trouble finding an appropriate place to talk about this. Anyway I have noticed recently that some players who first played football in the United States, but then moved to Canada and played in the CFL are now being called gridiron football players. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call them American-Canadian football players or if they started playing football in Canada and went to the NFL or an American college, be called Canadian-American football players? I noticed in the Recent Additions column, players such as Matthew Rea, Derel Walker, and Steven Clarke, were all being called gridiron football players. Gridiron is more of a term used outside North America and the gridiron system of football was abandoned by the 1920s. What are others thoughts on this? EagleTech199 (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- In North America, such people would just be called "football players". However, as Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, different countries would have a different definitions of the word football. As the phrase "football player" would mean something different in places like New Zealand or England; there needs to be something to say "a person who played both American football and Canadian football". Through many years of discussion, the term "gridiron football" was adopted collectively for American football, Canadian football, and other derivatives, such as Arena football. By convention, we use "American football" or "Canadian football" for athletes who have played only one of those codes, and "gridiron football" for players who have played both, such as Warren Moon. Some people eschew that term, and prefer "Player of American and Canadian football" (see Doug Flutie), but that phrasing is a bit awkward. You're likely to see people who prefer one or the other of those phrasings, so you'll see some variance between different articles. --Jayron32 14:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't particularly like "gridiron football" in this context since this seems to exclude college football. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. Gridiron football is the term for all forms of football, at all levels of professionalism, which share a common history and rule set, that includes the sports known as Canadian football and American football. The age of the players and whether or not they are paid is unimportant to the definition. --Jayron32 15:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- The term "gridiron" was associated with American football well before professionalism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Here is an article from 1931, about the 50th "gridiron contest" between Harvard and Yale. And from just a few years ago, Harvard writer using the term "gridiron" several times.[2] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, and in all three of those several times in the modern article, the word is a noun used as a fancy name for the field, not an adjective for the type of football. As a Canadian, I agree with the original poster's complaint that "gridiron football" sounds odd. While I see the point that there isn't any other short phrase with the same meaning, I would argue that WP:MOS#Strong national ties to a topic should apply, and the phrase "gridiron football" should not be used in articles relating only to Canadian and/or American football. But in the end it's a matter of opinion. --65.95.178.150 (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- I would change what you said very slightly. When you said "the phrase "gridiron football" should not be used in articles relating only to Canadian and/or American football", I would change that to read "the phrase "gridiron football" should not be used in articles relating only to Canadian or American football". If the article relates, in roughly equal parts, to BOTH American and Canadian football, the phrasegridiron football is an allowable inclusive phrase that includes BOTH forms of the game, while excluding other forms of football such as association football, rugby football, Australian rules football, Gaelic football, etc. Gridiron football both completely encompasses the Canadian football and American football and closely related forms of the game, and excludes forms that are not related in the same way. It's a perfectly allowable term for use in those situations where otherwise cumbersome or awkward phrasing would result, such as the atrocious "American-born player of American football and Canadian football", where the much more efficient, and equally accurate "American gridiron football player" would work. Of course, if they only are known for playing one of those codes, you don't have to say gridiron. Just "American football player" works. --Jayron32 18:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Instead of "-", "/" can be used, such as Canadian/American football player and not gridiron so that the two home countries in which American/Canadian football are played, would respect more their home turf from where these two types of football are played (pun intended). "Gridiron" would not respect the home turf . One definition of "/" is, it groups two similar things that are slightly different, which there are similarity and differences between Canadian and American football. (That heated discussion can be saved for another day). Of course this shortens the explanation and solves the problem of the player Jason Holmes who plays both American football and Australian Rules Football, or any player that combined any other type of sports that end with football. EagleTech199 (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- That would work if we didn't already have a term that means American/Canadian Football. It's gridiron football. Also, the term refers not to the country it is played in, but the ruleset used. It was still called American Football, even when played by NFL Europa or ONEFA, and the Sacramento Gold Miners played Canadian football, not American football. So the words don't mean the home turf, they mean the sport being played. The collective term for the two sports is gridiron football, not "American/Canadian football" which would be a neologism. --Jayron32 15:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Instead of "-", "/" can be used, such as Canadian/American football player and not gridiron so that the two home countries in which American/Canadian football are played, would respect more their home turf from where these two types of football are played (pun intended). "Gridiron" would not respect the home turf . One definition of "/" is, it groups two similar things that are slightly different, which there are similarity and differences between Canadian and American football. (That heated discussion can be saved for another day). Of course this shortens the explanation and solves the problem of the player Jason Holmes who plays both American football and Australian Rules Football, or any player that combined any other type of sports that end with football. EagleTech199 (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- I would change what you said very slightly. When you said "the phrase "gridiron football" should not be used in articles relating only to Canadian and/or American football", I would change that to read "the phrase "gridiron football" should not be used in articles relating only to Canadian or American football". If the article relates, in roughly equal parts, to BOTH American and Canadian football, the phrasegridiron football is an allowable inclusive phrase that includes BOTH forms of the game, while excluding other forms of football such as association football, rugby football, Australian rules football, Gaelic football, etc. Gridiron football both completely encompasses the Canadian football and American football and closely related forms of the game, and excludes forms that are not related in the same way. It's a perfectly allowable term for use in those situations where otherwise cumbersome or awkward phrasing would result, such as the atrocious "American-born player of American football and Canadian football", where the much more efficient, and equally accurate "American gridiron football player" would work. Of course, if they only are known for playing one of those codes, you don't have to say gridiron. Just "American football player" works. --Jayron32 18:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, and in all three of those several times in the modern article, the word is a noun used as a fancy name for the field, not an adjective for the type of football. As a Canadian, I agree with the original poster's complaint that "gridiron football" sounds odd. While I see the point that there isn't any other short phrase with the same meaning, I would argue that WP:MOS#Strong national ties to a topic should apply, and the phrase "gridiron football" should not be used in articles relating only to Canadian and/or American football. But in the end it's a matter of opinion. --65.95.178.150 (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Another problem using only "gridiron football" is that now in Australian Rules Football, just last month for the first time, an American born and raised, that played American Football now plays Australian Rules Football. Jason Holmes is listed as "American born Australian rules football player" and he plays in the AFL. Maybe how it was treated in his cited wikipedia article, should be treated for players listed as "gridiron players" that play American and Canadian football. It would just take a few keystrokes in the main articles. That's just more of my thoughts on this subject.
EagleTech199 (talk) 05:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- In Wikipedia calling someone a "American-Canadian football players" would look as if you were referring to their birthplace/nationality. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)