Someone on YT said that the weather played a role. Chicago is set to play more like a speed game, and rainy matches doesn't work as well when the ball is slippery.
I also give credit to Miami.... they were more ready than anyone probably believed.
As a whole, this is going to be a great year for the MLB.
This is going to be a great match for Chicago. They improved quite well towards the end of last year, and picked up some great talent in the off-season.
Yep, definitely want an updated Roku app. Chromecast works well now though.
If TRN came and said that with a paid streaming service came improved video services I'd probably subscribe. Not sure how many others would though.
One thing that MLR and TRN did very well is take essentially nothing and turn it into a service that has 170K subscriptions. They undoubtedly proved that rugby is a sport that not only has a fan base, but has a lot of potential growth.
There is a fine line with allowing fans to enjoy the sport while making a profit, and using the fans to feed ones greed. The NFL is proof of the pendulum towards the latter. I hope the MLR and TRN see that as well.
I don't mind paying for the Priemership (I've been paying Peacock for the last two years) but I agree that paying for the MLR would be difficult to accept unless they made serious improvements to the quality of game video and audio coverage.
I don't have an issue with 90% of the announcers, but the video is not very good, especially when they get close up. There are some close ups where my 10-year old flip phone could provide cleaner pixels.
Steaming services are changing, and the next 2-5 years are going to really test the patience of everyone. I really hope I'm wrong, but it wouldn't surprise me that we have to endure a period of a-la-carte streaming before providers wake up and realize that it is just pissing off their customer base.
There’s a pervasive view by people on Reddit (and I’m guessing Lemmy now too), that if the neighborhood contains mostly black people, it’s somehow bad.
There are some really bad black neighborhoods. They are portrayed that way on TV and movies, even glorified in many respects due to music, and therefore the perception is that black neighborhoods are bad.
However, there are bad neighborhoods from every ethnicity - depends on the city. If you look at Tulsa/Oklahoma City, Tucson/Phoenix, Miami, even LA's latino suburbs, the same can apply.
Cheap housing is not the primary focus for "good" people to move into a neighborhood. Gangs aren't necessary going to leave just because a nice, white family moved in next door. In fact, the gang is more likely to taunt them into either fearing them into staying in their house or getting them to leave. Gangs make money from fear and hate. They will hurt, even kill, to maintain their territory and reputation.
"It takes a village" is a cliche, but it works. Your multi-ethnic neighborhood worked because together they allowed the group as a whole to be positive. These neighborhoods are going to have to do the same, collectively. The local government can help, along with dedicated organizations like the CDA, to work with those neighborhoods to do that. But in the end, it's up to the neighborhoods. If they don't want to, not much is really going to change.
The alternative is a developer swooping in, strip all the properties outright, and just putting in what he wants with bribes to the city under the guise of "fixing the blight". It will no longer be a "neighborhood"; just a condo or apartment building, with tenants instead of owners.
It's not that negative - unfortunately, there are neighborhoods where people don't want to live in because of crime, gangs, homelessness, etc. Housing there is cheaper because the homes are not well maintained. Put up a new house and neighbors will not like it because if the property values go up then their property taxes go up - many are on a fixed income and can't afford it.
It also means they can't really fight the nearby gang activity because they have no other place to go.
Not saying you are wrong, but there is a lot more to it. That being said, there are options, and hopefully it leads to positive solutions for everyone.
Rugby is the only reason why I have Peacock. I also got it on discount so that helps too. Sign up via email - every few months they come out with annual discounts.
I would pay for TRN, but not if they continue to use their less-than-stellar AV providers. Most of the announcers are good, but the video production could be much better. If you watch any other rugby game in the world, then watch a rugby game on TRN, you can definitely tell the difference.
One thing I think TRN has shown is that there is a solid rugby base in the US. They need to acknowledge what they have, and understand that if they want more viewers than they have to provide an even better product to the fans.
The first season showed that they needed work. The last two and a half games showed that they learned a lot, and fans like me have a lot to look forward to next year.
I could see Austin. When I first started watching MLR I was looking for a team to cheer for since we didn't have a team here in WI.
The team management in Austin worked hard to bring in fans, with local bands playing before and after the game, etc. Their TV side line reporter did a good job of interviewing the fans and pumping up the crowds. It had a similar type of atmosphere that I would see going to football and baseball games here.
I'm sure a lot of cities could fit the bill as well, especially in the Midwest, but I think Austin deserves another look. The Gilgronis didn't leave because of the fans, or the lack thereof.
I am so going to try this - thank you!
IMO Chicago got outplayed by Utah. Utah had at least 4 set plays that Chicago couldn't defend well, while Chicago offense was pretty standard.
We won a lot of lineouts but couldn't do much with them.
Hoping for better as the season goes on. First home game is in two weeks.... me, my daughter, and my granddaughter will be there!