Chuq Von Rospach is a Silicon Valley veteran doing Technical Community Management and amateur photographer with a strong interest in birds, wildlife and landscapes. My goal is to explore the Western states and working to tell you the stories of the special places I've found. You can find out more on the About Page.
New: For Your Consideration
I'm thrilled to announce that I've launched a project I've been working on for the last couple of months. For Your Consideration is my attempt to re-think how we interact with information on the Internet.
My goal of For Your Consideration is to slow down, focus on good and interesting things, give them context. It is one posting per day, seven days a week.
Find out more in the FYC Manifesto. Help me get the word out. Tell your friends about it. Encourage people to try it and follow FYC. When you see interesting content on FYC, share it with your friends.
The Gear Bag
You’ll want this
More to Explore
While you're here, check out more of my work. Here are some of my most popular articles:
- Some Thoughts on Lightroom Keywords
- More than you want to know about backups (the 2013 edition)
- Should you consider upgrading your home network to a NAS?
- How not to be a doofus with a camera
- Getting started in bird photography: Choose Your Weapons
- Getting going in Photography on the Cheap
Free to download Wallpapers
New on the Blog
Search This Site
Monthly Archives: March 2011
So day 3 of the road trip is over. I’m tired, in a good way; sitting in a motel room in Morro Bay looking at the results so far — 1900 images and counting. Tomorrow is another day around Morro; the harbor is full of loons, but the otters are being coy and distant, and as usual, early and late you’re dodging fog. But I’m not complaining…
Just starting to sort through the images, but here are a few that caught my eye…Â
Hits to the head and concussions in hockey seems to have hit a flash point — but it’s not a new topic for me. I remember first talking to some of the Sharks medical staff about concussion issues back in the Cow Palace days, and it’s something I’ve written about a few times (like here (2003), and here (2009), and here (2009)). Â So this topic is not new to me, and this problem is not new to the league.
It was clear from the start many didn’t think that Rule 48 (the new hit to the head rule implemented this year) didn’t go far enough; there are segments of the hockey press that have taken every opportunity to rip the league for not going further. My view on it was that it was clearly carefully considered and that the league thought through the options –and tried to find a balance between protecting player health and not screwing up the game (what Mike Milbury lovingly calls wussification, what I more thoughtfully prefer to call “not wanting to turn hockey into ringette”).
I’ve given the rule some time and the league a chance to see how it worked, and it’s painfully obvious the rule doesn’t go far enough. What’s not so clear is what to do about it.
The first problem: hockey is a sport of violence and physicality. Injuries are going to happen. The fact that an injury happens doesn’t mean someone did something wrong; when two strong human bodies skating at 20 miles an hour collide, injuries are going to happen. So we have to accept that people are going to get hurt playing hockey, and nothing we can do (short of turning hockey into Ringette) is going to stop all injuries. That should not be the goal. Because of this (among other reasons) I have real issues with the “outlaw all hits to the head” rules some are calling for. What’s appropriate and needed in a development league like the OHL doesn’t necessarily make sense in the NHL, and it’s hard to see how a 100% rule banning hits to the head could be implemented in the NHL without significantly reducing physical play and giving some players new opportunities to dive for penalties — to some degree, I think an absolute ban WOULD be a step down the path of wussification of the game, andgod help me, in this case, I kind of agree with MilburyÂ that we don’t want to do that — unless we absolutely have to.
One of the data points that has come out in the last few days is the test results on Bob Probert’s brain, which show clear signs of brain damage. What’s not so clear (and it’s a subtlety some critics of the NHL have forgotten here) is whether that damage was caused by hits to the head or because Bob Probert was a fighter for many years. Â And that leads us to…
The second problem: how in the HELL does the NHL ban hits to the head without taking fighting out of the game? Because what is a hockey fight? It’s two guys beating each other in the face and head with their fists (instead of “hockey hits” where they put an elbow or shoulder or forearm into the head….). If the league tries to ban head hits and NOT remove hockey from the game, it’ll be a farce and an embarrassment, and the league clearly knows this. So what to do? What to do?
I count myself as one of those people who admits to enjoying a good fight at a game, while also admitting that I find some of the staged fighting and goonery rather boring and an embarrassment. And I’m also someone who believe fighting in the game is heading towards an end and wouldn’t mind if it was removed, because ultimately, I don’t think it’s a core aspect of the game I love — but it’s not the travesty anti-fighting people like Ken Campbell of the Hockey News makes it out to be.
This is all tied up with another current controversy, the Chara hit on Pacioretty, where Chara stuffed him into a stanchion, leaving him heavily concussed and with a cracked vertabrae and further inflaming the hit to the head controversy. Some are using this to call for bans to hits to the head, others are simply pissed off because no suspension was given. My initial thought was that there should be a suspension, but on reflection, I think the league did the right thing, because while I think Chara intended to hurt him a bit, I don’t think there was any intention or premeditation to injure. The league has to be very careful assigning intent to an action, because they aren’t mind-readers, and there simply isn’t (to me) any evidence that Chara set Pacioretty up here and tried to smush him into the hospital. This is not, in any way, Claude Lemieux on Chris Draper — even if the result is similar.
I do not remotely pretend to have the answers here. but I do have some thoughts on where the answer might be found.
What’s the core problem here?
The core problem is that hockey players today are bigger, faster, stronger than they ever have been in the game. Today’s hits are the same type of hits the game has always had, but now they’re hits applied by someone who’s 6’2 and 230 instead of 5’11 and 190, who bench presses 270 instead of 200; who’s skating at 22 miles and hour instead of 14. When players collide, they collide with a lot more force and violence, simply because they’re bigger and faster — and the hit contains more energy.
Players are in much better shape physically; in fact, I think eventually we’ll figure out these athletes are over-trained, pushing their bodies too hard, getting too strong and not giving the bodies enough recovery time or having reserves to get through the stress of the season — this is why I think the rash of things like groin strains are plaguing the league; players are in “too good” a shape, actually beating up their bodies too hard to get that ultimate edge. For every guy like Chelios or Brind’Amour who can push their bodies to the very edge for years, there’s half a dozen guys who try and end up on IR for periods of time each season. We still have a lot of learning about what “game shape” ought to be, even though we’ve come a long way from the days when water wasn’t allowed on the benches.
So one reason head injuries are becoming more severe is simply that the hits are more physical. It’s far from clear that rules can fix this problem, because at the speeds and action of a hockey game, hits will still happen that players don’t plan or can’t control — and those hits are simply more than a human body can take. Â there’s an essential failure mode here thatsaying “don’t do that” can’t solve, and putting a player in the box for doing it anyway won’t heal the concussion.
One of the things I give the league credit for that many of its critics don’t is that the league understands that rule changes — especially absolute ones — aren’t necessarily the best solutions. They explore other options, whether it’s equipment changes or better safety gear or whatever. It’s easy to call for bans; it’s hard to solve the problem. At least the league seems to understand they haven’t gone far enough with Rule 48 and seems to understand they can’t wait too long. Even the union seems to be getting it.
I think solving this problem is going to take multiple approaches to get it under control without significantly impacting the game. I don’t think a simple rule change is going to do it. There are many things that need to be considered.
First, building safety. The good news: the last buildings with the rock-hard seamless glass will be retrofitted with more flexible glass systems during the off-season. That removes a set of dangers that have caused concussions for years as players end up going into glass with the flexibility of concrete (these are hockey’s equivalent of artificial turf stadiums, and just about as well-loved by the athletes). That’ll help. the Chara hit and the Doughty hit into the stanchion this week both show there are still safety problems in the arenas that need to be investigated and addressed — don’t blame Chara for the hit, blame the building for having a surface capable of causing that injury, and then find a way to mitigate that danger. I was watching the game a number of years ago when Bryan Marchment went into the open door of a bench head first and sustained a massive concussion and lay on the ice convulsing — there are any number of injuries every year that can be reduced or prevented by fixing the inherent dangers in the building rather than trying to change a rule.
Second, equipment safety. The league has been working to make gear safer for years, and has been fought by the NHLPA as the union dragged its feet. it’s time for both sides to quit screwing around here and get the dangerous gear off the players and ice, and look at other ways to reduce the change of serious injury through improved gear. There’s been some interesting data on helmets showing they aren’t designed to prevent the kind of impacts that lead to concussion, and out of that, we can find improved helmet designs that can make head injuries less severe and hopefully prevent more concussions.
Better safety practices in the arena and with the gear will prevent injuries that no rule or simplistic ban will. So the league really needs to get committed to finding those changes and getting them implemented, Every arena should go through a league-managed safety inspection and a plan made to improve problem areas where a player has a higher risk of injury — like those damned stanchions. Maybe it’s more padding, maybe it’s more glass to prevent those kind of corners from being hittable — whatever, make it happen.
Better safety gear, better helmets, banning gear that leads to injuries, like some of the armor players have been wearing as shoulder pads thelast few years, elbow pads with hard rubber knobs that serve no purpose beyond whacking other players — there’s a lot we can do here. Go take a look at the shoulder pads players have worn recently:
Back when Marty McSorley — not exactly a physical shrinking violet — played for the Sharks, I had a couple of opportunities to see him shirtless. Not what you think, back then, tiedowns weren’t mandatory and he lost his jersey as often as Rob Ray did. And McSorley’s shoulder pads were little more than a couple of pieces of leather on each shoulder. Just think about the change here, and what it means both for the ability for a player wearing THAT thing above to apply a hit — AND for that player applying the hit to feel confident they won’t be injured in applying it. Scale back the equipment, and players will have to scale back their physicality somewhat, and that will reduce the severity of the impact.
So there are many ways of handling this, where rules may not actually solve the problem.
Maybe — gasp — we should “de tune” skate so players can’t skate as fast. They won’t generate as much kinetic energy, so hits won’t be as severe. This may sound like a strange option, but if it’s applied consistently across players, the reduction won’t give anyone an advantage over others — and this strategy is exactly what NASCAR does to cars by throttling down engine power to make sure they can stay on the track and not take flight and end up in the stands with the fans. It can be done, and without impacting the core of the game in a negative way.
Another suggestion: Dress one less player. Make coaches make a decision on who should get ice time. that person who no longer is on the bench won’t be the 25 minute left winger, it’ll be the 7 minute guy who plays fourth line, or the 6th D. The one who doesn’t penalty kill, doesn’t do power play, and doesn’t do much of anything but look for people to bang. By reducing the skating roster, coaches will be less able to find reasons to justify having someone in uniform that “is not a complete hockey player” — which is mostly going to impact marginal guys who survive on hits and/or fights without contributing anything else. Honestly, I won’t miss them if they go.
And one more suggestion: suspensions eat the roster spot. A suspended player can’t be replaced by a call-up. That roster spot is frozen for the duration, and the coach has to juggle a depleted roster. You can bet when you start hitting the team where it hurts, they’ll take a more active role in ‘discouraging’ play that leads to suspensions, and guys who are repeat suspension addicts will find it ever harder to maintain a place on the active roster….
But I’m not convinced that’ll be enough. I’m certainly not going to say we should NOT impose new rules, or even a complete ban on hits to the head. Just that there are lots more things that need to be looked at as well.
But I do know this. There’s no way a ban to hits to the head can be implemented without removing fighting from the game. I, personally, would support that if it’s necessary to maintain player health. Is the league able to take that step? Are you, as a fan, willing to support it?
I don’t know.
We do not want to wussify the game. We do not want to take the hitting and physicality out of the game. I was a season ticket holder for the old roller hockey international summer league, and trust me, you don’t want the NHL turned into “arena hockey”. The reason most of us are fans of the sport IS the physicality.
What we need to do is push the league to be serious about fixing this, but support the league as it looks for solutions beyond simplistic things like rule changes that may or may not fix the problem — while changing the fabric of the game. AS I like to say, if this was simple, it’d be fixed by now. So stop and realize anyone making calls for simple fixes is wrong, because fixing this isn’t like that in the real world…
But what we have clearly hasn’t fixed the problem, and the problem isn’t going away. So what we as fans need to do is keep a voice in it and make sure the league knows they have to keep working on solutions.
And the league needs to get on it…. before fans start turning off because too many players are getting hurt. Â or a player is hurt in a way that could have been preventable.
But at the same time, we need to encourage the league to find solutions that don’t screw up the core of what makes us fans of hockey in the first place.
Because I gotta admit, I don’t miss the old roller hockey league, and I’m not interested in being a fan of ringette. But I’m also quite uncomfortable with teh thought of players having the rest of their lives screwed up so I can be entertained.
Finding the right balance there — it’s not easy. but the league needs to find it, as fast as it can.
(added bonus: Ken Dryden has his say, and illuminates much better than I can many of the issues I’ve been chewing on. As they say, “what he said”.)
And now that I think of it, this is also tied into another one of those continuing discussion points in hockey today, that of “players respecting each other”. Of which I’m working on another piece, to be published whenever I’m happy with the result. Stay tuned.
Agree? Disagree? drop a comment with your opinion.
Every so often, I think it makes sense to evaluate your gear and think about how the pieces are performing and whether you should consider upgrading or adding a piece, or whether there are pieces that aren’t being used enough to warrant hauling them around. I’ve been looking at my gear and considering options, and I thought it might be interesting to talk about that and explain my thinking — and get your suggestions about things I haven’t thought of.
Part 1 is about the bodies and lenses. Part 2 is about bags, accessories and other hardware like tripods and toys. Part 3 is about software and the digital darkroom environment.
I am convinced the same gene that triggers the “Oh! Shoe!” reflex in some women triggers the “Oh! Bag!” reflex in photographers of all genders. I am not immune. Part of this is that I have yet to find a bag that isn’t going to force some decisions or compromises on me, so it seems no matter what I do, I’m always slightly grumpy about whatever my current bag does NOT do for me. Hence a tendency towards a wandering eye and the grass is greener syndrome of thinking the next bag will solve that issue (but end up causing something else to make me grumpy).
That said, it’s been over a year since I’ve bought a bag. Yay me. Not that I don’t hear the call, just that I have the urge under control, mostly. I find my current setup works pretty well — I use aÂ Tamrac 519 Pro Zoom to hold my main body and the 100-400, so if I’m off to bird, I can just grab and go. I keep a 2nd battery and a spare card in storage on the shoulder sling (a black rapid R-strap).
When I want to create a street kit, I use aÂ Tamrac 5684 Digital Zoom 4. It’s just big enough for my body, the Tamron megazoom, and a Speedlite, plus a couple of cards and batteries. It’s small enough to not be too noticable, and it’s light and comfortable.
Everything else (more or less) fits in a photo backpack, anÂ Lowepro CompuTrekker Plus AW Camera Backpack. Other than being a bit worse for wear (“well loved”) and sometimes feeling too small (“I hate to make choices”) the only thing I don’t like about the bag is the way it carries a tripod; since right now I’m not doing a lot of hiking with an attached tripod, that’s not a big deal. But in general, I really like the bag. If and when I do upgrade the bag, it’ll probably be to aÂ Tamrac 5588 Expedition 8x.
Actually, I have a fourth bag I use — aÂ Tamrac 3375 Backpack which I use as my laptop bag for hauling my life back and forth to work. it holds a laptop (actually, two!) and my sundries, and has room for a body with the tamron, and in a pinch, a second lens or a Speedlite. I use it primarily to haul around my street kit when I’m doing other things (visiting customers in the city, for instance) or when I want to carry more than a minimal street kit.
In my storage room I have three other bags. For serious travel, I keep a Pelican softside carry-on capable roller bag I’d use for travel, if I traveled by air much. My original plan when I bought it was to use it to store all my gear, then pack a kit when I was going out so I wouldn’t just carry everything with me all the time, just in case. That lasted two weeks. It’s an awesome bag, just not one that fits how I work right now. I also keep aÂ Tamrac 5608 Pro 8, aka Â ”the big ass wedding photographer bag”. I use it when I feel like I need to shake things up a bit, that I’ve gone stale — and so I retire my backpack bag, repack into the shoulder bag, and carry my gear that way for a while, forcing me to think about what I carry and forcing me out of stale habits. After a while, I find I switch back to the backpack, because I prefer having the weight centered on my back, not hanging off my shoulder.
Yes, I have a strong preference for Tamrac and Lowepro. Both make great bags. The Pelican is a nice bag as well — exceptional build quality.
All of these bags involve various tradeoffs. What’s my perfect bag?
- Well-constructed and waterproof
- Big enough to carry all my gear. Preferably as a backpack. With a laptop compartment.
- Weighs no more than 10 pounds, fully loaded.
- Small enough to be comfortable to wear and inconspicuous.
- Costs no more than $50.
And yes, what I’ve just described isn’t a photo bag, it’s a TARDIS. I’m still waiting. But the fact is, what I have works well. And I’m comfortable with it. Except when it makes me crazy, or some piece of gear I use twice a year isn’t in the bag when I need it because I left it at home (because i never use it).
After bags,the other big ticket item in your kit that isn’t actually a camera is probably your tripod. I keep two in my car at all times — an older metal Slik I use with my spotting scope, and a newer Slik carbon fiber tripod. the carbon fiber is a LOT more expensive than steel or aluminum, but it weights over a pound less than the metal tripods, and trust me, that’s worth the investment. I also carry a Bogen monopod, which I almost never use any more thanks to Canon IS technology and modern camera bodies that can handle 1600 and 3200 ISO with acceptable noise. But there are still times when you want support, and sometimes, the monopod is perfect for that.
Both tripods have Bogen ballheads attached, using a quick release plate. All of this gear is fine; none of this gear is awesome. the carbon fiber tripod is light, but the tradeoff there is rigidity. It’s — bouncy — and in high wind conditions, you get shake and vibration. In very windy conditions, you go home. For now, that’s acceptable, but upgrading the tripod is on my list. Many photographers I’ve talked to are swearing by the Induro tripods. For a new ballhead, I really have fallen in love with the products from Really Right Stuff, and plan to get their BH-40 with a panning option. But right now, spending $500 on a ballhead makes me wince, so I’m going to leave this on the wish list for a while (I will definitely upgrade the ballhead before the legs, but when I’ll want to put a grand into this upgrade, I dunno. but it’s definitely worth it, and I don’t think it’s worth doing an incremental upgrade to something less pricey with compromises…)
Flash gear: for a couple of years, I’ve told myself I need to sit down and get comfortable with flash photography. For 2011, I made if a formal goal. I’ve just added a couple of minor toys to the kit — a Better Beamer fresnel adaptor, and a Phoenix RF46C ring light. As soon as the adaptor ring (on order) arrives, it’ll go on the Sigma. The Better Beamer upgrades a Milagrid fresnel I’ve been using for a while. I own two Speedites, a 580EX and a 580EX II. I’m pretty set here; I just need to use and study them (I also just got Syl App’s book, which is awesome. expect a real review soonish).
What else is in my kit?
Filters — for every size lens I keep a set of filters; I use a UV on the lens to protect it (and I have dropped my camera and had it land lens first, and had the UV die a hero protecting the lens itself… for me, a good investment), and I carry a Circular Polarizer and a 4X ND for each. I’m finding when doing landscapes that I want more darkening, even when stacking the polarizer on it as a 2X ND. This implies I should add an 8X ND, but I think focusing will be an issue, so I’m trying to decide if I want them to be screw on or square. I’m leaning towards the Cokin/Square factor and switching so that only the circular polarizer is screw on. I no longer carry graduated ND filters — between HDR and post-processing techniques, that’s something I deal with later, not on site, and I don’t miss it. Similarly, I don’t carry any of the old-guard school of filters (warming, cooling, black and white modifiers, etc) — but NDs can’t be simulated in post, and many things the polarizer does for you also needs to be done in the field.
I’d love to go with something like the Singh-Ray Vari-ND, but they’re a bit pricey for me still. Typically I go for quality filters, usually Tiffen, Hoya, or B+W. Skimping on filters is, to me, like skimping on memory cards; a foolish idea that bites you when you least expect it.
For memory cards, I carry at least two for each body; for the 7D, I carry 300x 16 gig cards (two each), which gives me about 950 images combined. For the 30d, I carry some of my older 4G and 8G cards. I’m using Lexar cards right now and like them, but also have used Kingston; I stick with name brands and don’t try to save money here, but generally stick to what’s mid-priced among the major manufacturers. No off-brand stuff, but don’t over-spend — and I can’t think of the last time I had a card failure. I generally retire cards after a max two years, just in case.
- I carry anÂ Opteka Bubble Level for landscapes, since otherwise I’m invariably off level by a couple of degrees
- I own twoÂ Giottos Rocket Air Blaster, one in my bag, one in my home cleaning kit.
- I carry a second battery for each body, and spare batteries for anything that needs batteries (usually in the car, not the bag).
- I carry many microfiber lens clothes. I throw them out and replace them every six months max. They’re cheap. they get contaminated with finger oils fast.
- I keep a wet cleaning sensor cleaning kit, which I fortunately rarely need.
- I use aÂ Visible Dust BriteVue Sensor Loupe 7X to monitor and clean my sensors. One thing I’ve found: if you blow your sensors clean regularly, dust doesn’t have a chance to moisture weld itself onto your sensors so you rarely have to do more drastic cleaning. the Loupe lets me check for problems, saving me bigger problems.
- I carry a 12 mm macro extension ring. I need to add a 25mm ring.
- Battery chargers — I use the manufacturer chargers for the body batteries. I wish I could find a charger system I really liked that did fast charging.
- I have a cable release; I’m going to be adding a wireless shutter release and an intervalometer soon Â – time lapses fascinate me as do panoramas, but I don’t have the gear to do them well yet. High on the list. I don’t think I can under emphasize how important a cable release is. I use it ANY time I set up on the tripod. Period. Otherwise, why bother with the tripod? Camera shake from punching the shutter button still impacts your image, tripod or no.
There are many toys I’ve Â considered buying; the combination of staring at the pile of toys I bought and never actually use, and the “every toy you buy depletes the 500mm lens fund a bit” has slowed that way down…
When I posted that we intended to give up our season tickets after 20 years, it generated some interesting comments and a fair number of private emails. Â We heard from a number of long-time sharks fans, folks we’ve known since the early days of the Sharks mailing list, and got similar thoughts from any of them — either they have given them up, or are considering it.
Almost none of them were down on the Sharks, either. Like us, it really was more the time commitment, and how over time other things kick in and make spending that much time going to games more challenging.
Derek’s view is somewhat different:
Get the tickets, pick out, in advance, the handful of games you want to plan to go to, and then immediately just put the rest on Stubhub with electronic delivery. You won’t have to touch them again other than to pull money out of your paypal account.
Then, if you make it to the post-season, you’re in position to leverage it still.
It’s a valid view, but not what we wanted. We talked about that, and decided against it. Here’s why.
First, given where our seats are, full season tickets is a significant chunk of change and an investment — if you include playoffs, it’s likely going to reach $8K for the two seats and can reach $10K if you include a deep run and parking. We’re three rows off the glass in the club, so the tickets aren’t inexpensive, but to us, were always worth it.
We talked with some of our seat neighbors (so they knew what was going on and could coordinate with their account manager to slide to the aisle next season), and the confirmed what we had thought — demand for these seats is pretty thing. There are a couple of singles in our section, and they don’t sell out 100% of the time (but being a single hurts).
If you take the full season, you’re on the hook for that money unless/until the tickets sell. As Derek noted, Stubhub is available and easy, but only if the tickets sell. We have, in fact, put a number of late season tickets up for sale, and so far, a bit more than half have sold. We expect the rest to sell as we get close to game night, but — it’s clear the price of the tickets limits the pool of buyers.
There are basically three ways to handle selling off chunks of a set of tickets:
- Do it yourself, basically, privately sub-lease or syndicate out pieces. Laurie and I just aren’t particularly interested in managing this process, although we could pull in some people who might be interested. But it’s all up to the vagaries of who wants to commit each season, and what happens when the Sharks go into the inevitable down cycle? We just don’t see hanging onto the tickets as worth the work and energy in doing this.
- The Ticketmaster “Sharks Approved” system, which is really painless, but… If you look at the fine print, you can’t sell tickets at below face value, by the time Ticketmaster and the Sharks get their fees, about 25% of the value disappears, and there’s no guarantee the tickets will sell (and if you look at how the program is structured, it’s pretty clearly designed to give priority to unsold Sharks inventory before your tickets will be re-sold, the way the pricing is set up pretty much guarantees that). It’s really easy and convenient, but — the margins charged to it are pretty high.
- Stubhub Â does a nice job of brokering a market in tickets. But again, there’s no guarantee they’ll sell. There’s no guarantee they’ll sell at face value, much less a premium. They also charge a 25% premium — 10% to the buyer, 15% to the seller. that implies we’d need to average sales of 15% above face to break even.
On top of that, since we have used on-site parking for a number of years, we’d have to eat parking on sales through Stubhub or Ticketmaster. to break even on that, we’d need to price another 5% or so above face value, or find some way to private-sale parking for those games we don’t use.
So by the time you get done with all of this, you’re putting $8K down up front, depending on being able to sell tickets at an average 20% above face value to break even on fees, and our history is that the market demand just isn’t that strong, even in the recent years when the Sharks have been competing well. When they hit a down cycle? If the silicon valley economy continues to struggle, or hits another air pocket?
And ultimately, that’s just more risk and hassle than we care to deal with, not when we can invest nothing up front and buy on the open market for the games we choose to go to; we’re talking to some of our seat neighbors so they’ll let us know about seats they might be selling off, and otherwise, we’d simply rather be buyers on Stubhub than sellers.
Now, if we were higher up in the arena at a lower price point, it might be different — demand is stronger at lower priced tickets, that changes the dynamics of the situation.
But really, the bottom line is this: we had a great 20 year run, and now we want to take a step back and go to fewer games, and we want the flexibility to decide how many and which games more or less on the fly; and after 20 years, we just aren’t that worried about giving up our priority and seats. It’s not worth the effort to us to maintain those (for what it’s worth, Laurie was one of the first 100 to put in a deposit when the Sharks franchise was announced, so after all of this time, our priority is probably somewhere in the top 25. but — that and $10 will buy a couple of lattes…)
It’s not about the Sharks, or the cost, or any of that — it’s more about shifting around where we want to spend our time, and give us flexibility to do other things. And some nights, that other thing is simply going to be watching the Sharks from the couch instead of the arena…