World Series'Interstate Highway Contest

4 views
Skip to first unread message

George Grapman

unread,
Oct 22, 2005, 10:42:32 PM10/22/05
to
How many Series have been played between teams in cities that have
the same interstate highway? The highways do not have to pass the
ballparks, just connect the cities. For arguments sake, lets' start the
interstate era at 1955.
The following come to mind:

Yankees/Braves-I-95
Yankees/Marlins-I-95
Royals/Cards-I-70
Mets/Orioles I-95
Mets/Red Sox I-95

--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell

Scott M. Kozel

unread,
Oct 22, 2005, 11:18:06 PM10/22/05
to
George Grapman <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>
> How many Series have been played between teams in cities that have
> the same interstate highway? The highways do not have to pass the
> ballparks, just connect the cities. For arguments sake, lets' start the
> interstate era at 1955.
> The following come to mind:
>
> Yankees/Braves-I-95
> Yankees/Marlins-I-95
> Royals/Cards-I-70
> Mets/Orioles I-95
> Mets/Red Sox I-95

Orioles/Phillies - 1-95, in 1983.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

George Grapman

unread,
Oct 22, 2005, 11:53:21 PM10/22/05
to
P.S. Not an interstate but just for fun-1959-White Sox /Dodgers -Route 66.

B.Schultz

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 12:48:26 AM10/23/05
to
95 doesnt go through atl...

Oscar Voss

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 4:06:36 AM10/23/05
to
"George Grapman" <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote in message
news:sMC6f.5599$q%.4359@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...

> How many Series have been played between teams in cities that have
> the same interstate highway? The highways do not have to pass the
> ballparks, just connect the cities. For arguments sake, lets' start the
> interstate era at 1955.
> The following come to mind:
>
> Yankees/Braves-I-95
> Yankees/Marlins-I-95
> Royals/Cards-I-70
> Mets/Orioles I-95
> Mets/Red Sox I-95

Giants/Athletics, I-80 (connection severed temporarily by earthquake damage
after that Series started).

--
Oscar Voss - ov...@erols.com - Arlington, Virginia

my Hot Springs and Highways pages: http://users.erols.com/ovoss/


sta...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 5:05:30 AM10/23/05
to
Mets/Yankees I-87? I-278? I-678?
Mets/Oakland I-80
Yankees/Dodgers '56 I-278?

SP Cook

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 8:10:50 AM10/23/05
to

George Grapman wrote:
> How many Series have been played between teams in cities that have
> the same interstate highway? The highways do not have to pass the
> ballparks, just connect the cities. For arguments sake, lets' start the
> interstate era at 1955.
> The following come to mind:
>
> Yankees/Braves-I-95
> Yankees/Marlins-I-95
> Royals/Cards-I-70
> Mets/Orioles I-95
> Mets/Red Sox I-95
>
>

I-95 does not pass anywhere near Atlanta.

If we start in 1955, then the Brooklyn-New York series of 55 and 56 are
the same as the New York-New York series of 01.

Yankees-Giants in 62 - I-80
Orioles-Phillies in 83 - I-95
A's-Giants in 89 - I-80 and derivitives

The fact that I-5 bypasses the SF Bay region knocks out five series.

If you consider, as the Advantage 75 / Advantage 401 program does, that
ON 401 is the extension of I-75, then 92's Atlanta-Toronto qualifies.

SP Cook

Stephane Dumas

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 8:45:28 AM10/23/05
to

"SP Cook" <pac...@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1130069450....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

>
> If we start in 1955, then the Brooklyn-New York series of 55 and 56 are
> the same as the New York-New York series of 01.
>
> Yankees-Giants in 62 - I-80
> Orioles-Phillies in 83 - I-95
> A's-Giants in 89 - I-80 and derivitives
>
> The fact that I-5 bypasses the SF Bay region knocks out five series.
>
> If you consider, as the Advantage 75 / Advantage 401 program does, that
> ON 401 is the extension of I-75, then 92's Atlanta-Toronto qualifies.

I-75 goes north to Sault Ste-Marie. However, ON-402, a ON-401 spur, who
link to I-69, and once I-69 will be extended south to Houston, maybe we
could talk about a Toronto-Houston World series in a more or less near
future ;-) Or IF the Blue Jays will move from the American League to the
National League, we could imagine a Toronto-Detroit "401" World series
rivalry (there was once a Stanley Cup rivalry between them)

on a light off-topic subject, why the Angels formely known as LA Angels,
California Angels, Anaheim Angels goes back to LA Angels? (And any chances
to see the Texas Rangers becoming the "Dallas Rangers" if the MLB might
accept a team to San Antonio? also the NHL Florida Panthers should be called
the Miami Panthers, Tampa is also in Florida with the Lightning, same with
the Marlins)
>
> SP Cook
>
Stéphane Dumas


SP Cook

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 9:18:18 AM10/23/05
to

Stephane Dumas wrote:

> on a light off-topic subject, why the Angels formely known as LA Angels,
> California Angels, Anaheim Angels goes back to LA Angels? (And any chances
> to see the Texas Rangers becoming the "Dallas Rangers" if the MLB might
> accept a team to San Antonio? also the NHL Florida Panthers should be called
> the Miami Panthers, Tampa is also in Florida with the Lightning, same with
> the Marlins)
> >

Back in the day, teams thought that renaming was necessary when they
moved out of the city limits. The Angels moved from LA to Anaheim and
started the deal, followed by the Boston, now New England, Patriots.
However, now about 1/3 of teams play in suburbs, and use the core city
name, with no problems.

Its dumb. In the US, state names imply major colleges, relative to
sports. Colorado Rockies, Florida Marlins, Texas Rangers, Arizona
Cardinals, California Angels, Carolina Panthers, etc are all dumb.
With the exception of the Minnestoa Twin Cities, all sports teams
should be named after cities. IMHO.

SP Cook

Elmer

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 10:54:25 AM10/23/05
to
I-95 does not go through Boston. It was cancelled in the 1970's and
never constructed.

George Grapman

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 11:49:40 AM10/23/05
to


In is a common misconception the I-80 enters New York. It ends at
I-95 in New Jersey.

George Grapman

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 11:53:10 AM10/23/05
to
That would make me a fan of the East Rutherford Jets.

Michael D. Adams

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 11:28:41 AM10/23/05
to
"SP Cook" <pac...@msn.com>:

> Its dumb. In the US, state names imply major colleges, relative to
> sports. Colorado Rockies, Florida Marlins, Texas Rangers, Arizona
> Cardinals, California Angels, Carolina Panthers, etc are all dumb.

Of course, one could think of those teams being named after their
markets, rather than their states, in which case the names make sense.

Of course a few teams seem to have an exaggerated sense of
self-importance. For example, consider the Tennessee Titans who had a
very cold reception in Memphis while their stadium was being built in
Nashville. It might have a little something to do with Nashville having
usurped Memphis' decades-long bid for an NFL franchise.

And then there is the silly naming of the new Houston football team.....

--
Michael D. Adams -- Windsor, Connecticut -- http://www.triskele.com


Andrew Tompkins

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 12:57:22 PM10/23/05
to
"George Grapman" <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote...

> How many Series have been played between teams in cities that
have
> the same interstate highway? The highways do not have to pass the
> ballparks, just connect the cities. For arguments sake, lets' start
the
> interstate era at 1955.
> The following come to mind:
>
> Yankees/Braves-I-95
> Yankees/Marlins-I-95
> Royals/Cards-I-70
> Mets/Orioles I-95
> Mets/Red Sox I-95
>

Is this info in the FAQ? If so, read the FAQ. If not, why not? We
seem to go through this discussion 4 times a year, year after year
after year, with the same results.

--Andy
--------------------------------------------------
Andrew G. Tompkins
Software Engineer
Beaverton, OR
http://home.comcast.net/~andytom/Highways
--------------------------------------------------

George Grapman

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 1:13:11 PM10/23/05
to
Michael D. Adams wrote:
>
> And then there is the silly naming of the new Houston football team.....
>
> --
> Michael D. Adams -- Windsor, Connecticut -- http://www.triskele.com
>
>

At one time there a tea was called the Dallas Texans. They became
the KC Chiefs. The Jets started out as the New York Titans.

SP Cook

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 1:56:13 PM10/23/05
to

George Grapman wrote:
> >
> That would make me a fan of the East Rutherford Jets.
>
No, the New York Jets. Just because a team plays in a suburb does not
prevent it from representing a city. Los Angeles Angels. Boston
Patriots. New York Jets. Miami Marlins.

Marc Fannin

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 2:09:39 PM10/23/05
to
Andrew Tompkins wrote:

> "George Grapman" <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote...
>
> > How many Series have been played between teams in cities that
> > have
> > the same interstate highway? The highways do not have to pass the
> > ballparks, just connect the cities. For arguments sake, lets' start

> > the interstate era at 1955. [snip]


>
> Is this info in the FAQ? If so, read the FAQ. If not, why not? We
> seem to go through this discussion 4 times a year, year after year
> after year, with the same results.

I'm not sure it belongs there because it's one of many variable items
which contain a theme in which something is located in multiple cities
and is connected by a single road. (I myself just noted the recurrence
of these lists yesterday in another thread.) I'm not sure where to
draw the line with these, because there are an indefinite amount of
examples of these lists (just wait about three months and we'll be
getting one about the Superbowl). For MLB in particular, it's easy
enough to find out which ballparks are AL and which are NL, and a plain
old RMcN will show what connects those. IMO it doesn't deserve space
in the FAQ. If anything, the next time this comes up (see above), just
provide links to the m.t.r archive (or I will). Anyone have a
differing take?

________________________________________________________________________
Marc Fannin|musx...@kent.edu or @hotmail.com| http://www.roadfan.com/

George Grapman

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 2:11:00 PM10/23/05
to
I was replying to a comment that a team should have the name of the
city it play in.

The correct names are New England Patriots,Florida Marlins and LA
Angels of Anaheim.

Stephane Dumas

unread,
Oct 23, 2005, 3:13:19 PM10/23/05
to

> Back in the day, teams thought that renaming was necessary when they
> moved out of the city limits. The Angels moved from LA to Anaheim and
> started the deal, followed by the Boston, now New England, Patriots.
> However, now about 1/3 of teams play in suburbs, and use the core city
> name, with no problems.
>
> Its dumb. In the US, state names imply major colleges, relative to
> sports. Colorado Rockies, Florida Marlins, Texas Rangers, Arizona
> Cardinals, California Angels, Carolina Panthers, etc are all dumb.
> With the exception of the Minnestoa Twin Cities, all sports teams
> should be named after cities. IMHO.

And there New Jersey with the Nets (NBA, who might become the Brooklyn Nets
if the relocation to Brooklyn is approuved
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Nets ) and the Devils (NHL)

And I'm agree with you, "Denver Colorado" and "Denver Avalanche" instead of
"Colorado Rockies", "Colorado Avalanche", same for "Nashville Titans"
instead of "Tennessee Titans"
>
> SP Cook
>
Stéphane Dumas


Message has been deleted

Pete from Boston

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 2:21:15 PM10/24/05
to
SP Cook wrote:
> Back in the day, teams thought that renaming was necessary when they
> moved out of the city limits. The Angels moved from LA to Anaheim and
> started the deal, followed by the Boston, now New England, Patriots.
> However, now about 1/3 of teams play in suburbs, and use the core city
> name, with no problems.
>
> Its dumb. In the US, state names imply major colleges, relative to
> sports. Colorado Rockies, Florida Marlins, Texas Rangers, Arizona
> Cardinals, California Angels, Carolina Panthers, etc are all dumb.
> With the exception of the Minnestoa Twin Cities, all sports teams
> should be named after cities. IMHO.

The California Angels were the only American League team in California
at the time, for what it's worth. Same with Texas (still are).

The Florida Marlins were the only team of any league in Florida when
enfranchised, as are the Arizona and Colorado teams. Part of it may be
marketing, part of it may be politics. The city of Anaheim, you'll
note, agreed to help fund restoring Anaheim/Edison/etc. Stadium to its
baseball-only configuration only if "Anaheim" remained in the team
name, which is why "of Anaheim" is there now. Perhaps similar
agreements existed elsewhere, or other jurisdictions were at least
warmed to the idea of kicking in funds by having their name included.

The Angels current awkward inclusion of "Los Angeles" was done, says
owner Arturo Moreno, with an eye on expanding marketing outside the
United States, where no one knows where Anaheim is.

The New England Patriots, upon arriving in Foxboro, were called the Bay
State Patriots. The name was changed before their first game as such
was played.

There are some interesting twists and turns if you follow team names
around. The NBA's Cincinnati Royals, for example, became the Kansas
City Kings for obvious reasons when moving to that city. Then you have
the Lakers, who started in the Land of Ten Thousand Lakes, who kept
their name when moving to semi-arid LA. Charlotte tapped its reputation
as a "hornet's nest" during the US Revolution in naming its basketball
team, only to have its heritage swiped when that team moved to New
Orleans, whose former team the Jazz similarly kept their name when
moving to un-jazzy Utah.

George Grapman

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 2:44:02 PM10/24/05
to
{STP} wrote:
> In article <1130090173....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "SP Cook" <pac...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Los Angeles Angels.
>
> [ahem]
>
> Los Angels Angels of Anaheim.
>
> Dumbest.
> Name.
> Ever.
>
> {STP}

There is logic behind the name. When Anaheim refurbished the stadium
the contract called for Anaheim to be part of the name. Wanting to be
part of the LA market the Angels adopted the two city name.
The city sued. he court ruled that the deal only required that
Anaheim be part of the team name.

George Grapman

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 2:51:57 PM10/24/05
to
Pete from Boston wrote:
> SP Cook wrote:
>> Back in the day, teams thought that renaming was necessary when they
>> moved out of the city limits. The Angels moved from LA to Anaheim and
>> started the deal, followed by the Boston, now New England, Patriots.
>> However, now about 1/3 of teams play in suburbs, and use the core city
>> name, with no problems.
>>
>> Its dumb. In the US, state names imply major colleges, relative to
>> sports. Colorado Rockies, Florida Marlins, Texas Rangers, Arizona
>> Cardinals, California Angels, Carolina Panthers, etc are all dumb.
>> With the exception of the Minnestoa Twin Cities, all sports teams
>> should be named after cities. IMHO.
>
> The California Angels were the only American League team in California
> at the time, for what it's worth. Same with Texas (still are).
>
> The Florida Marlins were the only team of any league in Florida when
> enfranchised, as are the Arizona and Colorado teams.


I assume you only mean baseball leagues.The NFL was in FL,AZ and CO
well before baseball,

Part of it may be
> marketing, part of it may be politics. The city of Anaheim, you'll
> note, agreed to help fund restoring Anaheim/Edison/etc. Stadium to its
> baseball-only configuration only if "Anaheim" remained in the team
> name, which is why "of Anaheim" is there now. Perhaps similar
> agreements existed elsewhere, or other jurisdictions were at least
> warmed to the idea of kicking in funds by having their name included.


I believe when the Meadowlands was built NJ wanted the Giants to be
the New Jersey Giants but they backed off when it became a deal breaker.


>
> The Angels current awkward inclusion of "Los Angeles" was done, says
> owner Arturo Moreno, with an eye on expanding marketing outside the
> United States, where no one knows where Anaheim is.
>
> The New England Patriots, upon arriving in Foxboro, were called the Bay
> State Patriots. The name was changed before their first game as such
> was played.
>
> There are some interesting twists and turns if you follow team names
> around. The NBA's Cincinnati Royals, for example, became the Kansas
> City Kings for obvious reasons when moving to that city. Then you have
> the Lakers, who started in the Land of Ten Thousand Lakes, who kept
> their name when moving to semi-arid LA. Charlotte tapped its reputation
> as a "hornet's nest" during the US Revolution in naming its basketball
> team, only to have its heritage swiped when that team moved to New
> Orleans, whose former team the Jazz similarly kept their name when
> moving to un-jazzy Utah.
>

David Jensen

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 3:13:19 PM10/24/05
to
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 18:44:02 GMT, in misc.transport.road
George Grapman <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote in
<SX97f.7395$Zv5...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>:

Couldn't they have made it shorter? Los Angeles de Anaheim.

Andrew Tompkins

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 6:05:30 PM10/24/05
to
"Marc Fannin" <musx...@kent.edu> wrote...

Well, then maybe the next person that poses the question should do
something with the information collected, like make up a website,
instead of wait until next year and pose the question again. A set of
usual suspects comes up with the same responses and another set comes
up with the same mistakes with another set making the same corrections
each time the question is posed. The thread doesn't garner very much
new information and yet gets asked on a frequent (several times a
year) basis (thus a Frequently Asked Question).

Steve

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 6:17:18 PM10/24/05
to
George Grapman wrote:

> Pete from Boston wrote:
>

> Part of it may be
>
>> marketing, part of it may be politics. The city of Anaheim, you'll
>> note, agreed to help fund restoring Anaheim/Edison/etc. Stadium to its
>> baseball-only configuration only if "Anaheim" remained in the team
>> name, which is why "of Anaheim" is there now. Perhaps similar
>> agreements existed elsewhere, or other jurisdictions were at least
>> warmed to the idea of kicking in funds by having their name included.
>
>
>
> I believe when the Meadowlands was built NJ wanted the Giants to be the
> New Jersey Giants but they backed off when it became a deal breaker.
>

Have you ever seen the NEW JERSEY GIANTS helmets/shirts/etc.? A lot of
NJians want their own football team, and due to fan bases, that team is
the Giants and never the Jets. (Jets fan base is Manhattan and Long
Island, for the most part.)

--
Steve Alpert
MIT - B.S. '05, M.S. (Transportation) '06
http://web.mit.edu/smalpert/www/roads

Douglas Kerr

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 7:41:29 PM10/24/05
to

"SP Cook" <pac...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1130090173....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

But the Jets train and have their offices in Hempstead, NY, pretty much
across the street from where the New York Islanders call home, in Uniondale.


George Grapman

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 9:27:23 PM10/24/05
to
Douglas Kerr wrote:
>
> But the Jets train and have their offices in Hempstead, NY, pretty much
> across the street from where the New York Islanders call home, in Uniondale.
>
>

That predates the Meadowlands.Part of the reason was that in the
early part of the season they used to share Shea with the Jets.
The Meadowlands practice facility is solely for the Giants. The
proposed new stadium will have practice fields for each team.
The 49ers offices and practice facilities are in Redwood City even
though they no longer share Candlestick.

william lynch

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 11:23:06 PM10/24/05
to
George Grapman wrote:

Bzzzzt. The Niners moved to Santa Clara in 1988.

George Grapman

unread,
Oct 24, 2005, 11:54:24 PM10/24/05
to

Right. I meant to say Santa Clara. Brain lock.

Rappin' Ronnie Raygun

unread,
Oct 25, 2005, 9:56:56 AM10/25/05
to
TV's Michael D. Adams wrote:
> "SP Cook" <pac...@msn.com>:
>
>> Its dumb. In the US, state names imply major colleges, relative to
>> sports. Colorado Rockies, Florida Marlins, Texas Rangers, Arizona
>> Cardinals, California Angels, Carolina Panthers, etc are all dumb.
>
> Of course, one could think of those teams being named after their
> markets, rather than their states, in which case the names make sense.
>
> Of course a few teams seem to have an exaggerated sense of
> self-importance. For example, consider the Tennessee Titans who had a
> very cold reception in Memphis while their stadium was being built in
> Nashville. It might have a little something to do with Nashville having
> usurped Memphis' decades-long bid for an NFL franchise.

They were still the "Tennessee Oilers" when they played in Memphis. Almost
as misnamed as the Utah Jazz.

--

Rappin' Ronnie Raygun

unread,
Oct 25, 2005, 9:57:56 AM10/25/05
to
TV's George Grapman wrote:
> Michael D. Adams wrote:
>>
>> And then there is the silly naming of the new Houston football team.....
>>
>> --
>> Michael D. Adams -- Windsor, Connecticut -- http://www.triskele.com
>>
>>
>
> At one time there a tea was called the Dallas Texans. They became
> the KC Chiefs. The Jets started out as the New York Titans.

I have read that when Lamar Hunt moved the team to KC, he originally was
considering keeping the Texans name.

Now Arkansas is indeed overrun by Texans, but Missouri is too cold for them
to survive.

Rappin' Ronnie Raygun

unread,
Oct 25, 2005, 10:13:31 AM10/25/05
to
TV's Pete from Boston wrote:
> The New England Patriots, upon arriving in Foxboro, were called the Bay
> State Patriots. The name was changed before their first game as such
> was played.

Weren't they the "Boston Patriots" in the early 60s?

George Grapman

unread,
Oct 25, 2005, 10:34:01 AM10/25/05
to
Yes. The original AFL teams were: NY Titans, Boston Patriots, Buffalo
Bills,Dallas Texans,Houston Oilers, Denver Broncos, Oakland Raiders, LA
Chargers.

william lynch

unread,
Oct 25, 2005, 2:47:48 PM10/25/05
to
They were until they moved to Foxboro in 1971. The "Bay State"
thing was simply a trial balloon.

william lynch

unread,
Oct 25, 2005, 2:53:26 PM10/25/05
to
George Grapman wrote:

> Rappin' Ronnie Raygun wrote:
>
>> TV's Pete from Boston wrote:
>>
>>> The New England Patriots, upon arriving in Foxboro, were called the Bay
>>> State Patriots. The name was changed before their first game as such
>>> was played.
>>
>> Weren't they the "Boston Patriots" in the early 60s?
>>
> Yes. The original AFL teams were: NY Titans, Boston Patriots, Buffalo
> Bills,Dallas Texans,Houston Oilers, Denver Broncos, Oakland Raiders, LA
> Chargers.
>

Actually the original franchises included one from the Twin Cities
area, but at the last moment they accepted an offer from the NFL
and became the Vikings. The Oakland group was waiting in the wings
with their proposal. Ironically the Oakland team was first named
the "Señors".

william lynch

unread,
Oct 25, 2005, 2:55:18 PM10/25/05
to
Rappin' Ronnie Raygun wrote:

Not as bad as the Los Angeles Lakers.

Marc Fannin

unread,
Oct 25, 2005, 6:39:46 PM10/25/05
to
Andrew Tompkins wrote:

> "Marc Fannin" <musx...@kent.edu> wrote...

> Well, then maybe the next person that poses the question should do
> something with the information collected, like make up a website,
> instead of wait until next year and pose the question again. A set of
> usual suspects comes up with the same responses and another set comes
> up with the same mistakes with another set making the same corrections
> each time the question is posed. The thread doesn't garner very much
> new information and yet gets asked on a frequent (several times a
> year) basis (thus a Frequently Asked Question).

Several times a year to me doesn't necessarily translate to
"frequently" for me; however, since the stats are usually static, I can
see your point about adding something. However, the line between
useful and superfluous is still there, and I'm not sure where it is.
I'd think that MLB and NFL are good to go; should I add the NBA and
NHL, just in case? I know that the NCAA will fit in here somewhere,
too. Any suggestions where to draw the line?

(Please don't take a sarcastic or condescending tone from the above,
it's all legit - I really do need feedback or I'll be debating this
with myself for much longer than I'd care to....)

________________________________________________________________________

Steve

unread,
Oct 25, 2005, 7:36:57 PM10/25/05
to
Marc Fannin wrote:


> Several times a year to me doesn't necessarily translate to
> "frequently" for me; however, since the stats are usually static, I can
> see your point about adding something. However, the line between
> useful and superfluous is still there, and I'm not sure where it is.
> I'd think that MLB and NFL are good to go; should I add the NBA and
> NHL, just in case? I know that the NCAA will fit in here somewhere,
> too. Any suggestions where to draw the line?
>
> (Please don't take a sarcastic or condescending tone from the above,
> it's all legit - I really do need feedback or I'll be debating this
> with myself for much longer than I'd care to....)
>

My vote is pointing people to the archives.

Andrew Tompkins

unread,
Oct 26, 2005, 12:53:12 PM10/26/05
to

I guess that depends on your definition of 'frequent'. You can
predict when this question is going to come up and be within a day
most times. Most questions come up once. Not once per year but once.
The person is looking for a piece of information that is then used for
some purpose.

I guess this particular question just pushes all of my buttons because
it comes up before every major team sport championship, each year,
which indicates that the information is not important enough to the
question poster to do anything with before the next year's event. So
why ask the question again?

>
> However, the line between
> useful and superfluous is still there, and I'm not sure where it is.
> I'd think that MLB and NFL are good to go; should I add the NBA and
> NHL, just in case? I know that the NCAA will fit in here somewhere,
> too. Any suggestions where to draw the line?
>

I agree that the FAQ may not be the appropriate place to put this, but
it needs to go someplace since the information is relatively static
year-on-year and the question gets asked predictably regularly. I'd
post the archival link myself if I was any good at rooting this kind
of information out, but I'm not. I'm just asking that the OP actually
do something with the information collected this time rather than let
it rot and ask again next year.

>
> (Please don't take a sarcastic or condescending tone from the above,
> it's all legit - I really do need feedback or I'll be debating this
> with myself for much longer than I'd care to....)
>

I never take anything said about controlling the content of the FAQ
lightly. I know that its probably a real job for you to keep under
control. Particularly with the size of ours.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages