Entertainment desk
< February 27	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 29 >

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.

February 28

Playoff formats in North American Sports

Why are NBA and NHL playoffs formats a little longer as opposed the MLB format is? I'm not really sure what MLS (Major League Soccer) playoff format and etc. None the less I'm interested in all, but not NFL one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 04:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have some articles that might help you, specifically NBA Playoffs, Major League Baseball postseason and NHL playoffs. --McDoob AU 93 04:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it probably has to do with weather. Hockey and basketball are indoors, and American football can be played in really nasty conditions (10 degrees F, blowing snow, etc.). Baseball is more like golf in that ideally the weather should at least be decent, and even now the MLB postseason pushes the limits regarding climate if the games take place in northern cities. AlexiusHoratius 05:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what you mean by "longer". Both the NBA and NHL are "longer" in terms of more playoff rounds because 16 total teams qualify for the postseason in each of those two leagues, while MLB currently only wants 8 total clubs to qualify for the MLB playoffs. Now as to why both the NBA Finals or NHL Finals span more than two weeks, while the World Series only spans a little over a week is because of the physicality of these sports during the playoffs. Basketball and hockey players usually require a days rest between games, while baseball players can usually go at the next day (unless it's a day reserved for traveling between cities). Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Jessica A Bruno 18:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC) Thank you for all of your answers so far to my question here. Sorry, for all of the confusion that I caused here so far. Basically, meant that in NBA and NHL that each playoff round takes about two weeks unless if its a quick one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 18:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two possible ways to answer this question, so I'll try both:

Baseball has a longer regular season (162 games vs. 82 games) so it has a shorter playoffs; the idea is that the regular season should count for more. In the NBA/NHL 16 teams make the playoffs, half of the league. In baseball, 8 teams make it, or slightly more than 1/4 of MLB. That's because MLB doesn't want to "water down" the importance of the regular season. There has been some push to expand MLB playoffs to 12 teams or even 16 recently, but such a proposal has been sharply criticized.
Baseball is a much more leisurly sport than basketball or hockey; you can play baseball almost every day with minimal chance of fatigue-related problems. In basketball or hockey, teams generally can't play every day; at best a team may play two days in a row before needing a day off. So, a "round" of baseball playoffs can be finished in 9 days at most (traditionally 2-3-2 format with a day off for travel between each homestand; though in recent years this has been tweaked). In basketball and hockey, there are more off-days and travel days built into the schedule (Basketball runs a 2-2-1-1-1 format for example, and so has more "travel" days built into the schedule, needing a minimum of 11 days to run a round, and usually even more). Additionally, the NBA tries to avoid running games concurrently on TV, so during the week that usually allows for at most 2 games per day, sometimes up to 4 on the weekends. That puts a LOT of downtime in the first round of the playoffs.

Does any of that help? --Jayron32 21:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add the historic resistance to changing the baseball format, or indeed anything material about baseball. I would imagine that it stems from the great stability, that basically, from 1905 to 1953, baseball's franchises did not move, and the World Series was played every year between the league champions (and mostly 4 out of 7, which set the standard for basketball and hockey). None of the other major sports enjoyed that degree of stability (hockey to some extent, for a quarter century). The great expansions of the 1960s and 1970s saw much less change to the baseball format. And in addition, the long baseball season argues for giving more weight to the regular season. Also, in baseball, it is harder to expand the season due to the weather issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey has always had the most diluted playoff format, historically. There have almost always been more than 1/2 of the teams making the Stanley Cup playoffs. During the Original Six era, four of the six teams made the tournament. When the league expanded to 12 teams in 1967, the playoffs expanded to 8 teams, keeping the same ratios. When the league expanded to 16 teams, they kept the 8 team playoff, which was the lowest ratio of playoff teams to total teams. In 1974-75, the expansion to 18 teams caused the league to expand the playoffs to 12 teams; the league dropped to 17 with the dissolution of the Seals/Barons franchise, but the league kept 12 teams; making 12/17 teams. When the league added four teams from the WHA in 1979-1980, the playoffs expanded again to make 16/21 teams making the playoffs, which I believe is the highest ratio (76.1%) of any of the major sports in history. --Jayron32 22:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball has always been the most conservative of the big four team sports with the most purist of fan bases. While the other leagues have often experimented with their rules, there have been very few major changes to baseball's rules since the early days. The biggest exception is the designated hitter, which took decades of argument to implement and only caught on with half the league. It's this conservatism that limited baseball's postseason to two teams until 1969 and four teams until 1994-95. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NBA restricted free agency & other leagues

I know that restricted free agents in the NBA could be prevented from joining other NBA teams if their original team matches their offer sheets, but does this also apply to offers from other leagues and/or other countries? (i.e. If a restricted NBA free agent signs with an overseas league, could the player's NBA team prevent him from leaving the NBA the same way it can prevent him from joining other NBA teams?) 173.52.209.154 (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on what kind of contractual agreement, if any, that the NBA might have with that other league. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Care Bears question

God help me, I can't believe I'm asking this. Last night, whilst chatting to my girlfriend about childhood, she remembered a tape she had which included a song which stuck in her head. I thought it would be relatively amusing to get her another copy, for preference, a digital version. However, she didn't know the name of the song or the cassette (one of the Care Bears ones). All she could do was sing one line/verse repeatedly.

The Care bears are here,
let's give them a cheer,
in the hall of the hearts
they're ready to start
caring for you

Now, I've tried googling it, but the results basically appear to be people having the same problem. I did come across some sort of hint that it was something to do with Cheer Bear, but it ended up in a dead end. Wondering if anyone might be able to help. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this fairly complete list of mp3s. Not knowing very much, I picked a few at semi-random but couldn't find your particular song. Perhaps it might bring back memories of the correct cassette? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 15:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, remember I mentioned the dead end? It was that site... I've listened to far too many Care Bears songs from that site. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you're friend couldn't say if it was one of those cassettes? Or maybe one of the names of other cassettes mentioned at the bottom? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 15:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was hoping it'd be a surprise, but I think that may be my only option. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. I did also note that one internet-ee referred to those lyrics as part of the "original" Care Bears song, btw, although actly what (s)he meant by that is quite another matter. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 15:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of bears and dead ends, one of the authors of the Berenstain Bears, Jan Berenstain died very recently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing rights to Orange Colored Sky

Hello:

I am writing on behalf of the Georgian Sound Big Band, a group of enthusiastic amateurs, who have recently celebrated 25 years of making music together.

As part of our celebration we recorded several tunes to be pressed onto a CD. This is a very limited edition of 500 CDs, most of which are to be gifts for family and friends of the band. There will be few if any sold.

To make the pressing legal we need to secure the mechanical licensing rights for all the tunes. To this end we have been successful except for one song.

The song is entitled "Orange Colored Sky" and it was a huge hit in the 1950's for Nat King Cole and several others.

You have an excellent article about the song but I cannot find any information regarding the Publisher of it. The company that owns the rights to this particular piece of music.

Can you assist me in finding the publisher? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.63.190 (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found a title search at ASCAP that might point you in the right direction: [1]. A search for Orange Colored Sky returned two results. RudolfRed (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Die Hard with a Vengence

I have a question on my college final for tomorrow from this movie. Not sure why as it is a childhood education class, but it is for extra credit.

In the movie 'Die Hard with a Vengence", Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson have to defuse a bomb by pouring exactly four gallons of water into a jug. Their challenge is that they have only a three-gallon jub and a five-gallon jug to make their measurements with. How do they do it?

I said measure half of each one and pour them together into the 5-gallon jug. Can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.136.25.253 (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know.. Come back tomorrow after your exam, and we can tell you the answer. RudolfRed (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of helping the OP grasp the problem: Measuring half a container is not going to be an acceptable approach to this problem, since you are explicitly told that you only have three- and five-gallon measurements. Best of luck, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this solution is everywhere, and its quite an old brainteaser, here's a tip: You'll need to pour water back and forth between the jugs until you get two gallons exactly in the three gallon jug. You should be able to figure it out from there. --Jayron32 20:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever wrote that into the script was probably vexed by that "story problem" as a kid, and making it a plot element was his own kind of "vengeance". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to just come out and save the OP the Google search since the riddle is discussed on the talk page for the article about the film: Talk:Die Hard with a Vengeance. Dismas|^(talk) 00:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't watch the movie but note that the talk page discussion presumes you only have (or want to use) the 2 jugs and no other containers. If you have another container that can fit an unknown amount but at least 4 gallons (or perhaps 5 since you can test this) you have other options then discussed there. Nil Einne (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have only those two containers, and you need exactly 4 gallons of water. There are, of course, multiple solutions, but the standard method is to fill the 5-gallon first. Then pour off 3 gallons into the other container. Empty the three gallon container. Now pour the remaining two gallons into the 3-gallon container. Fill the 5 gallon container again. You now have 5 gallons of water in a 5-gallon container, and 2 gallons of water in a 3-gallon container, which means you have room for one more gallon. --Jayron32 22:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Pour that one more gallon out of the now full 5-gallon container into the 3-gallon jug, and you will have 4 gallons in the 5 gallon container. QED." For clarity sake, you should add the bolded text. Mingmingla (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]