The Texans in 2008. Multiple other teams had to switch bye weeks and dates of games. The Saints also had similar schedule disruptions in 2005. Teams accommodated.
a) I doubt there has been a rainout of 3 games in a city where they knew with 100% certainty more than 24 hours before a series that all 3 games would be rained out. And the ability to plan everything out before the series starts is what makes any of this possible, which is why the scenario is entirely different from the ones you're describing. b) I think the why is relevant. Extremely relevant. When talking about an epic-scale natural disaster affecting the other team directly...its players, families, front office, etc--along with the fans...I think it makes sense to think from a "good for the many" perspective rather than being overly selfish. The series-swap concept was the lowest impact option (baseball-wise) to both teams combined, though it affected the Rangers some--whereas these other options affected them less (but the Astros more). Feels like it's coming down to a philosophy on choosing to think about "good for the many" if it's not overly painful..given the situation.
You really didn't make much of a case for a fan base getting "screwed" Like you said, this is just a 3 game rainout... that happens all the time... right? Games get re-schedule due to weather quite a bit in Arlington... if anything, they're far more equipped to handle it, and most of the time rainouts offer even less advanced notice. More effort on your part next time... more effort.
In 100+ years of baseball, you think it's never rained 3 days in a row? There have been 3 or 4 World Series alone that were delayed 3+ days due to rainouts (not to mention a 10 day earthquake delay). I think the odds of it happening 3 times in October and 0 times all season long over 100 years is ... unlikely. No, they really aren't. The Rangers would have 3 last minute fairly empty stadiums and a bunch of fans who bought tickets and now could go, while the Astros have a month to rearrange plans and fill their stadium. Or the Astros lose 3 home games completely (insurance will cover the financial losses), and the Rangers stay normal. Its not nearly the differential you're making.
Yes - rainouts are acts of nature. Fans expect them. Fans don't expect teams to voluntarily move games when they don't have to. And generally, they get rescheduled LATER in the season, so fans have a chance to make new plans. Not "hey, your game next month has been rescheduled ... for tomorrow". Nice try, though. Sort of. Or not.
The fans have to pay to get in, so not quite "free". Wasn't your original opinion that MLB would do the least disruptive thing? Don't you agree that out of all the reasonable solutions, this one is the most disruptive?
And yet, not a single Ranger fan would have been inconvenienced beyond the degree of needing a refund. And yes... the Rangers did not want to give refunds... THAT is the smarminess that underlies all of these decisions.
Texans game against the Bengals in 2008. They had to switch their bye weeks to week 2 to accommodate the teams. What team wants their bye week the second week of the season. Clearly disrupted the Bengals.
Nice try, but no. The only games moved around were games in Houston (Cinci and Baltimore). No other team had a home game rescheduled and no other team's fans had their plans changed. That's no different than a baseball rainout being rescheduled on an off day. Again, no team had a home game moved in any way. Swing and miss. EDIT: apologies to Nick. Cinci did not move a home game, but Baltimore did. So you're right, this was an excellent example of accomodation.
Save it... he's only responding to posts where he thinks he's going to win. He's dug in... committed... going to stake any sort of reputation on defending a dumb/complicated action that was designed to preserve as much $$$ for that classless organization.
Cincy had their plans changed. Fans had to change their plans and dates they were or were not going to attend games. Exactly... and that is exactly the situation we are all calling for here as well. Accommodating all teams, by changing dates.
LOL. Amusing this was posted just after I edited my post. But yes, keep making assumptions about my motivation. Or thinking I care about the "reputation" of a pseudonym on an anonymous message board. You go ahead and keep defending the absolute critical importance of the Astros not losing 3 home games while the city floods and people die. That's definitely an excellent example of class.
Bengals had nothing disrupted on their home schedule in 2008, except switching their bye week from 8 to 10 and swapping dates of some road games. Baltimore did, though - adding a home game in week 1 and then the bye in week 2. So that's a good example there.
Nobody is arguing or digging in as much here except you. Again, I hope MLB teams will learn from this and adopt more flexibility and set a new precedent here. The Rangers had a chance to be accommodating, and didn't. Its their right... but it was extremely selfish and they deserve every bit of blame for creating the bad PR and ****-storm of a story.
Has it rained 3 straight days non-stop? Probably not even in 100 years without a hurricane... The World Series is different because they are so determined to put those games on at prime time and they aren't going to do double headers. What does what the Astros in September have to do with the Rangers inconvenience? Yes, the Astros and their fan base would have been heavily benefited by not having lost 3 home games. That doesn't change much for Rangers fans. The Rangers would have been in the right to request compensation from the Astros for the difference in attendance. The people that would have been inconvenienced are the people who were planning on going to the games next month. At least they would have had a month to plan differently. What has happened is a inconvenience to both teams now, neither fan base is happy, and the Rangers look bad. Astros fans lose 3 games, possibly more. Rangers fans that go to MMP lose 3 games. Maybe in the end we should have played in Arlington and just given the Rangers 3 extra home games, but if we lost those games, most AL fan bases would be complaining about the unfair advantage the Rangers got.
And you would admit that its far easier to re-accommodate 3 of 81 home games, vs. 1 of 8. All those "people have plans" argument is literally magnified 10-fold for an NFL game, and they found a way to make it work (with even less advanced notice... in venues that schedule a lot more events than what baseball stadiums schedule)... and comparing the disaster of Ike to the disaster of Harvey is as much of an apples-to-apples comparison as there can be.
Yes. 3 World Series have been delayed for 3 consecutive days due to constant rains. I'm pretty it happens fairly regularly during the regular season (at least every several years, I imagine). Another possible solution would have been something like Round Rock, though I'm not sure if they knew the rain status at the time of the decision and not sure Round Rock's schedule. Then you get a full stadium, don't disrupt Rangers fans in the September series, and give central Texas Astros & Rangers fans a chance to see their teams.
Easier, yes. But I'd argue much less important as well. (especially given the Astros road record) Homefield is a bigger issue in football, especially with the limited number of games, so the easier solution (Houston @ Baltimore in week 1) would have been more problematic for Baltimore's division foes if they get 9 home games. I would have just done a neutral site game, though, in week 1 in San Antonio or something - similar to what they did with Minnesota when they had the snow roof collapse.
