Net54baseball BST 1950s-1970s section expansion & Championship Sports Ring section

[Leon]

I know this isn't a pre-war scenario but I want to address it here to get more feedback. We always look at how things on Net54baseball are going and change the board slow and cautiously for improvements. That being said when things need to change, we do. Right now it looks like we might need another section to ease the growing pains of the 1950s-1970s section. When I look down the first page there, I rarely see more than about 3 days listed. That isn't enough. There is thought to break that section down to 2 sections? Opinions......

Also, most likely the experiment with the Sports Ring section will be coming to an end soon. The amount of activity there doesn't justify it's own section, imo, and it can be rolled into the memorabilia section.

[bobbyw8469]

That is a great idea!! I am a big fan of decades. Maybe separate sections each for the 50's, 60's, and 70's?

[GehrigFan]

Assuming you can/want to only add one section, how about redistributing it as:

1950's-60's
1970's-80's
1990's-Present

[39special]

Assuming you can/want to only add one section, how about redistributing it as:

1950's-60's
1970's-80's
1990's-Present

I like this idea.

[rsdill2]

Just a suggestion, I'd be fine with anything.

How about '50s-'70s Topps
'50s-'70s All others

?

[bobbyw8469]

Just a suggestion, I'd be fine with anything.

How about '50s-'70s Topps
'50s-'70s All others

?

I dont like that one. Topps dominates. Those threads will get buried while the others languish.

[obcbobd]

I'd have:

1950's
1960's
1970's

eliminate 80's and newer, they can go into the everything else category

2nd choice would be
1950's-60's
1970's-80's
1990's-Present

Bob

[MattyC]

Assuming you can/want to only add one section, how about redistributing it as:

1950's-60's
1970's-80's
1990's-Present

+1

[bobbvc]

Assuming you can/want to only add one section, how about redistributing it as:

1950's-60's
1970's-80's
1990's-Present
My choice as well.

[Paul S]

I'm all for however you want to do it. On csome occasions when I list a lot it can be off the first page in 24-36 hours.

[Sean1125]

There's a sports rings section?

[Leon]

There's a sports rings section?

Yeah, it's gone about as well as your dedicated BST section.

and so far am leaning towards this,...

1950's-60's
1970's-80's
1990's-Present



.

[clydepepper]

1950-1959
1960-1969
1970-1980

1981-present

I think you need to have a break at 1980 for the obvious reasons.

The 1981-present could be further broken down, I'm just not too interested myself.

.................................................. .................................................. .....

[bnorth]

Yeah, it's gone about as well as your dedicated BST section.

and so far am leaning towards this,...

1950's-60's
1970's-80's
1990's-Present



.

LOL I actually laughed out loud! Awesome:D

I also like this idea
1950's-60's
1970's-80's
1990's-present

[kailes2872]

Yeah, it's gone about as well as your dedicated BST section.

and so far am leaning towards this,...

1950's-60's
1970's-80's
1990's-Present



.

I just looked on the first two pages and if I counted correctly (and not included broad years like HOFers from 1955-1975 or looking for 50's-70's sets, etc), I only counted 5 posts on the first two pages that were for the 70 - and four of the five were 71 & 72. So, if it is 50's-60's and 70's-80's, I am not sure how much stress and pressure it takes off of the page - versus 50's, 60's , then 70's/80's+, etc. It seems like in the curret 2 pages sample, it runs around 55%/40%/5% 50's, 60's, 70's - but that is unscientific as I did not tally and figure accurately.

[Leon]

I just looked on the first two pages and if I counted correctly (and not included broad years like HOFers from 1955-1975 or looking for 50's-70's sets, etc), I only counted 5 posts on the first two pages that were for the 70 - and four of the five were 71 & 72. So, if it is 50's-60's and 70's-80's, I am not sure how much stress and pressure it takes off of the page - versus 50's, 60's , then 70's/80's+, etc. It seems like in the curret 2 pages sample, it runs around 55%/40%/5% 50's, 60's, 70's - but that is unscientific as I did not tally and figure accurately.

This type scenario will certainly be considered...the goal is to even out the traffic a little bit and try to have categories that make sense.

[Sean1125]

Yeah, it's gone about as well as your dedicated BST section.

and so far am leaning towards this,...

1950's-60's
1970's-80's
1990's-Present



.

I see what you mean.
Useless
LOL:D:D

[Exhibitman]

I kind of like 1945-69 and 1970-88. The rest is shiny stuff that has its own fan base.

[Paul S]

I also would like to see the second half of the 40s in with the 50-60s. Lots of good stuff there. Sometimes I feel the late 40s get lost in the previous era.

I kind of like 1945-69 and 1970-88. The rest is shiny stuff that has its own fan base.

[conor912]

I just looked on the first two pages and if I counted correctly (and not included broad years like HOFers from 1955-1975 or looking for 50's-70's sets, etc), I only counted 5 posts on the first two pages that were for the 70 - and four of the five were 71 & 72. So, if it is 50's-60's and 70's-80's, I am not sure how much stress and pressure it takes off of the page - versus 50's, 60's , then 70's/80's+, etc. It seems like in the curret 2 pages sample, it runs around 55%/40%/5% 50's, 60's, 70's - but that is unscientific as I did not tally and figure accurately.

I was thinking the same thing. I don't think 50's and 60's together is going to solve the problem. To really even it out you'd need something like:

1950-59
1960-79
1980 to present

[Leon]

I was thinking the same thing. I don't think 50's and 60's together is going to solve the problem. To really even it out you'd need something like:

1950-59
1960-79
1980 to present

Definitely will be considered. We don't even necessarily have to conform to an "even" year cut off (as Adam proposed). I am really open to whatever works best. I agree about the break up not solving the issue if we do it the first way it was proposed.

[barrysloate]

Leon- I am a fan of the watercooler section and yet very few people use it. Not only that, but I see watercooler type posts on almost a daily basis on the main board. Why not move some of those posts over there, so that those sections get a little more traffic. I realize I'm probably the only one who cares about it, but it I thought I would get my two cents in.

Plus, as you probably know, I'm a "rules" kind of guy....:)

[ullmandds]

i like the watercooler section too...I don't use it enough...but I will try to start!

[brianp-beme]

i like the watercooler section too...I don't use it enough...but I will try to start!

I never even consider checking it...perhaps because I always forget to pick up some of those cone shaped paper cups when I am at the market.

Brian

[Eric72]

Definitely will be considered. We don't even necessarily have to conform to an "even" year cut off (as Adam proposed). I am really open to whatever works best. I agree about the break up not solving the issue if we do it the first way it was proposed.

I think there are several dividing lines between the eras of cards people collect. Using two that are significant to me, I propose the following:

Early Post-War Baseball (1945 - 1956) This section would include all of the early Bowman cards, along with non-standard sized Topps issues. Additionally, there would be others included (Leaf, Berk Ross, etc.) For me, those oversized, horizontal, artwork themed cards Topps put out in '56 somehow seem like they are from a distinctly different era than the ones they produced the following year.

Vintage Baseball (1957 - 1980) Along with regional issues and a few of the somewhat more mainstream sets, this section would encompass the majority of the era during which Topps began to use color photographs on their cards, shrank them to the "standard" size we still see today, and enjoyed a virtual monopoly. Along with other differences mentioned already, I also believe that it is much easier to find cards from this era in better condition. I am not talking about Gem Mint 10 examples that rake in huge bucks at auction. I simply mean that finding, say, a '59 Whitey Ford in NM 7 is quite a bit easier and cheaper than finding his '56 Topps cards in the same grade. Personally, I attribute this to the advent of individual card storage supplies in the late '70's/early '80's.

Modern Baseball (1981 - Present) Whereas it concerns mainstream sets, there were suddenly three (instead of only one) in '81. Over the following six years, generally speaking, all three companies printed increasingly more product. Then, in 1988, Score joined the fray. The very next year, Upper Deck threw their hat in the ring. The year after that was the start of the '90's, when all hell broke loose. Autographed chase cards, parallels, game used materials (pieces of jerseys, bats, etc.) And so on, and so on, and so on.

Just my two cents here. Others have offered some great suggestions. Whatever Leon decides upon will be fine with me.

One last thing...I agree with Barry Sloate. People should make an effort to post in the correct section. I believe if this was done consistently, the entire board would benefit greatly.

I personally navigate around the entire website and thoroughly enjoy many of the various forums. Personally, it would be much more enjoyable to me if everything was in its proper place. What I find most surprising is the occasional presence of threads within the main forum (for discussion of Pre-War cards) where people open up a conversation (in the wrong forum, of course) about someone on eBay selling modern fantasy cards that appear in their searches for Pre-War material (complaining that the eBay seller is listing their product in the wrong place.)

Oh, well. C'est la vie. Have a great evening, everyone.

Best regards,

Eric

[conor912]

Is there any way to make the "Main Board" the watercooler? I think a lot of OT stuff gets dumped in the wrong spot because the main board and prewar board are the same thing. I have also always thought it was odd that the pre-war boards was the default for new member introductions.

[kailes2872]

I think there are several dividing lines between the eras of cards people collect. Using two that are significant to me, I propose the following:

Early Post-War Baseball (1945 - 1956) This section would include all of the early Bowman cards, along with non-standard sized Topps issues. Additionally, there would be others included (Leaf, Berk Ross, etc.) For me, those oversized, horizontal, artwork themed cards Topps put out in '56 somehow seem like they are from a distinctly different era than the ones they produced the following year.

Vintage Baseball (1957 - 1980) Along with regional issues and a few of the somewhat more mainstream sets, this section would encompass the majority of the era during which Topps began to use color photographs on their cards, shrank them to the "standard" size we still see today, and enjoyed a virtual monopoly. Along with other differences mentioned already, I also believe that it is much easier to find cards from this era in better condition. I am not talking about Gem Mint 10 examples that rake in huge bucks at auction. I simply mean that finding, say, a '59 Whitey Ford in NM 7 is quite a bit easier and cheaper than finding his '56 Topps cards in the same grade. Personally, I attribute this to the advent of individual card storage supplies in the late '70's/early '80's.

Modern Baseball (1981 - Present) Whereas it concerns mainstream sets, there were suddenly three (instead of only one) in '81. Over the following six years, generally speaking, all three companies printed increasingly more product. Then, in 1988, Score joined the fray. The very next year, Upper Deck threw their hat in the ring. The year after that was the start of the '90's, when all hell broke loose. Autographed chase cards, parallels, game used materials (pieces of jerseys, bats, etc.) And so on, and so on, and so on.

Just my two cents here. Others have offered some great suggestions. Whatever Leon decides upon will be fine with me.

One last thing...I agree with Barry Sloate. People should make an effort to post in the correct section. I believe if this was done consistently, the entire board would benefit greatly.

I personally navigate around the entire website and thoroughly enjoy many of the various forums. Personally, it would be much more enjoyable to me if everything was in its proper place. What I find most surprising is the occasional presence of threads within the main forum (for discussion of Pre-War cards) where people open up a conversation (in the wrong forum, of course) about someone on eBay selling modern fantasy cards that appear in their searches for Pre-War material (complaining that the eBay seller is listing their product in the wrong place.)

Oh, well. C'est la vie. Have a great evening, everyone.

Best regards,

Eric

+1

[Sean1125]

I've given it significant thought.

I think this is our best option:

1950-51
1952-53
1954-55
1956-57
1958-59
1960-61
1962-63
1964-65
1966-67
1968-69
1970-71
1972-73
1974-75
1976-77
1978-79
1980-Present

[Econteachert205]

However it works out I think the main thing is for people to follow the already established rules about placing things in their proper place, not bumping often and not commenting unnecessarily on the bst boards.

[Eric72]

I've given it significant thought.

I think this is our best option:

1950-51
1952-53
1954-55
1956-57
1958-59
1960-61
1962-63
1964-65
1966-67
1968-69
1970-71
1972-73
1974-75
1976-77
1978-79
1980-Present

Seriously? If you really thought this through, then the exercise was an epic fail, youngster.

Sincerely,

Eric

[Sean1125]

Seriously? If you really thought this through, then the exercise was an epic fail, youngster.

Sincerely,

Eric

Sarcasm my friend.

[JollyElm]

If you're talking about specifics in the B/S/T section, how about combining the B/S (no pun intended) and giving the T its own section. The board gets clogged with people hawking their stuff (nothing wrong with that), so it would be extremely nice to go into a 'Trading Only' section and find like-minded collectors to communicate with. That would be great!!

[Eric72]

Sarcasm my friend.

Oops. Sorry. My sarcasm meter was down for maintenance. :D

Best regards,

Eric

[Leon]

If you're talking about specifics in the B/S/T section, how about combining the B/S (no pun intended) and giving the T its own section. The board gets clogged with people hawking their stuff (nothing wrong with that), so it would be extremely nice to go into a 'Trading Only' section and find like-minded collectors to communicate with. That would be great!!

I think it would be cumbersome personally. Many times someone will buy or trade for, or sell or trade for. A solution is to start your thread (post) with "Want to Trade..." It's not perfect but it will work..

[Bocabirdman]

If you're talking about specifics in the B/S/T section, how about combining the B/S (no pun intended) and giving the T its own section. The board gets clogged with people hawking their stuff (nothing wrong with that), so it would be extremely nice to go into a 'Trading Only' section and find like-minded collectors to communicate with. That would be great!!

If a separation beyond decades can be done, I would vote for separate selling and buying sections.

[obcbobd]

I think it would be cumbersome personally. Many times someone will, buy or trade for, or sell or trade for. A solution is to start your thread (post) with "Want to Trade..." It's not perfect but it will work..

I agree

Bob

[dougscats]

Just saw this thread today, and my thoughts mirror Eric's.

1945-56 is a natural, the end of the "off-sized" cards,
including the beginning and the end of the Bowman era,
with the '56 Topps left standing alone.

1957 marks the beginning of the Topps reign of cookie-cutter-sized cards,
which size dominates the landscape even today.

[Leon]

I was thinking the same thing. I don't think 50's and 60's together is going to solve the problem. To really even it out you'd need something like:

1950-59
1960-79
1980 to present

Went with this for now, and it is changed now. We will see how it goes. I opted to keep it simple for the year cut offs. In my little experience in herding cats keeping it simple is best. Thanks for all of the suggestions.

1950-59
1960-79
1980 to present



.

[sayhey24]

As a memorabilia guy I never understood the need for a rings section -- there is very little activity there and about 80-90 % of the posting is done by one person.
But I also don't see the harm in keeping it if it's not getting in anyone's way.

Greg

[Leon]

As a memorabilia guy I never understood the need for a rings section -- there is very little activity there and about 80-90 % of the posting is done by one person.
But I also don't see the harm in keeping it if it's not getting in anyone's way.

Greg

Generally we don't keep a lot of forums with minimum activity levels. It is better to have fewer sections with more activity as a general rule.. The rings can be discussed easily in the memorabilia section, as you mentioned. Sooner than later that switch will be made. Michael (Hi Michael) "Mr. Sports Ring Guy", and I have spoken a fair amount about it. It has been an experiment with no downside.

[obcbobd]

Went with this for now, and it is changed now. We will see how it goes. I opted to keep it simple for the year cut offs. In my little experience in herding cats keeping it simple is best. Thanks for all of the suggestions.

1950-59
1960-79
1980 to present



.

Simple is good!

[Leon]

Simple is good!

A quick update. It seems our board had the correct thoughts (as opposed to myself) on the sections in the BST. We went from an average of 3 days per thread, on the front page of the 1950s section, to about 5-6 days on the front page. The new section 1960-1979 is also averaging 5-6 days for each thread on the front page. Nice feedback from our members. Thanks!!

ps...still contemplating the rings section..