Today, Colin Cowherd on ESPN Radio discussed the future of sports in "Rust Belt" cities such as Detroit, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, and others. He went over some census data detailing the decrease in population for these once great and proud bastions of American Industry.
He went on to say that these cities will not be able to be part of the American sports scene with regard to professional teams in the coming years, and forecast that in as little as TEN years some teams currently in these cities will not be there.
He specifically mentioned Detroit as the prime example. With corporations and people fleeing Michigan, how long, he asked, can Detroit support four professional franchises? He of course went on to throw in the weather as part of the problem such states as Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvani, Wisconsin, and others have.
Well, what do you guys think? Is Cowherd on "the money" with this dire prediction, or is he "off his rocker"?
I think there is alot of merit to what he was saying. The cnesus numbers and the plant closings don't lie. There is an exodus out of the Rust Belt (Pittsburgh has lost 60,000 people in six years), and many, many are moving south. Detroit has lost HALF its population in 50 years, and cities such as Omaha are reaching current Detroit population figures. What's up?

sports talk guys should stick very strictly to sports. this guy doesnt have a clue.

1) he doesnt know crap about detroit's future

2) detroit hasnt been able to supports its franchises for a while. but its metro area (5+ million) can, and will beable to forever.

3) the lions, now tigers, and pistons, are obviously financially healthy here. and the wings are the healthiest franchise in the nhl (the one sport i'd worry about contraction).

im at work right now, so im giving a tame response. if i was drunk, this message would have been littered with f bombs.

Dude is from Portland. How many pro teams are in that city? How many teams total in the Pacific Northwest?

This thread is why I shouldn't be a mod. I would seriously swat any thread that even contained the name "Cowherd". Dude is worse than Dan Patrick. WORSE THAN DAN PATRICK. I mean come on.

Detroit is like what? The 9th biggest media market? The whole reason the guy is bringing up the topic is to get more listeners from the mid-west which generally tunes out his nasally NFL only bullshit.

Well, let me put it this way:
Currently, the Detroit market is healthy. But like he said, what about ten years from now? Will they even be making cars in Detroit ten years from now? When is the last time a major corporation moved TO Michigan? And not just Michigan, but what about the scene in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and the Ohio cities?
As for "stick strictly to sports", um, how, exactly, would that topic NOT relate to sports?
You can get all provincial if you want. But Michigan in general, and Detroit in particular is a decayong, if not dying city. You worry about baseball especially. No salary cap. No financial constraints on big spending owners, especially in larger markets such as New York, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, and the growing southeastern part of the country.
As for him being from Portland or not knowing anything about Deroit's future, Detroit's future is BLEAK, baby. You can bury your head in the sand and pretend that this is your Grandpa's Detroit all you want, but those years are gone.

Part of the reason midwesterners tune out Cowherd's "nasally NFL only bullshit" is that midwesterners are a stubborn bunch who still live with the attitude that they "built this country, goddammit" and still think they do. They don't want to hear the truth: That the country has changed drstically and will continue to change and the changes are unrecognizable to those who still get a boner from the fact that the Mustang used to roll off the assembly line and be gobbled up by anybody with an extra dollar in their pocket to blow.
Better face up, man: The landscape is constantly evolving, and like Cowherd says, the pretty new stadiums that the taxpayers have paid for and will continue to pay for (and be held at gunpoint under the threat of the team moving to get a new one for) will only work for so long.
YOU keep asking the shrinking wallets in Detroit to spend thousands of dollars a year just to be a Tigers, Lions, Pistons, or Red Wings fan, and to keep getting bent over by the taxman so some fucking billionaire can get a pretty new luxury box equipped stadium to satisfy his ego.
Or did you miss all the news about home auctions in Detroit just a few short weeks ago?

Do you really want to start this thread Zip? I mean, I'll be happy to participate if you want to flush out your "Michigan will be North Dakota in 10 years because the sports guy on ESPN Radio said so" theory.

Yes, yes I do.
It's a good concept, and it is good food for thought. But can you get past your "homerism" and give it some serious thought?

Michigan as Norf Dakota is not a scenario I envision. But lemme ax ya dis: Other than maybe a dislike for Cowherd (for whatever reason), what do you disagree with?
Is the economy in Michigan supporting the population it serves? Is the future bright? Are people leaving Michigan faster than coming in? Is there a "Brain Drain" from Michigan?
And lastly, is Detroit considered a "big market team" in whatever sport? In baseball it's not.
I'm not banging on Michigan or Detroit, I am merely relaying the facts concerning how things are there. It pains me, because I am from Michigan and love it, but I'm not going to pretend that the future looks anything like rosey at all.

i think your being ridiculous. no homer glasses. the metro area is HUGE. there is a ton of money. detroit could land in complete anarchy and the 4 teams could still do better than 80% of the other teams in their respective leagues.

this thread is a joke, zip. of all the teams on the danger to leave to radar, not one detroit team is in the top 15 for their respective league. thats not changing in 10 years.

like i said, sports radio guys are barely qualified to even talk about sports, let alone ecoomics.

Well, b-diddy, if you are going to disagree with the premise, then let's see some facts. These are QUESTIONS being raised based on shifting population demographics and economic concerns.
And, exactly WHERE is all that money in the Detroit area?
Again, if the Tigers go into the tank again, and it's back to 4500 people at every game, and if the Pistons and Wings go south, and the economy in Michigan continues (and can you please give me some reason to believe otherwise, other than being yet another chat board genius who knows more than everyone in the national media?) to sour, what does the future hold? The unthinkable happened to Cleveland and Baltimore.

I'm not banging on Michigan or Detroit, I am merely relaying the facts concerning how things are there.

You're not relaying any facts. You are regurgitating headlines. You are also making many different wide ranging statements. Its 6:20 Zip. I'm outta the office in 2 seconds. I'm taking the wife bra shopping and if Mxy doesn't get to this before I'm home we'll start in on facts.

Note: You're initial claims are much more inflamitory than your last post. No one's going to disagree with the broad claim of "Man that auto industry sucks and is in trouble, bet that hurts Michigan." But we'll talk about sports franchise viability, the overall health of the state, and the extent to which it depends on carz.

I'm ready. I'd LOVE to be proven wrong on this. And don't patronize me with "oh Zip, you just rely on Colin Cowherd for yer stuff" and other assorted bullshit.
And please, unless you got some HARD info, don;t you DARE try to tell me that Michigan isn't as dependent on the auto industry as everyone thinks.
Maybe up in Marquette or Copper Harbor they aren't, but be honest with me.
Make that bra a "push up", black leather thing with tassles on the end, just for fun.
Wait a minute: Did you just say you are going "bra shopping" with your wife? And I commented on it without really thinking. Wow.

You're not relaying any facts. You are regurgitating headlines. You are also making many different wide ranging statements. Its 6:20 Zip. I'm outta the office in 2 seconds. I'm taking the wife bra shopping and if Mxy doesn't get to this before I'm home we'll start in on facts.

Note: You're initial claims are much more inflamitory than your last post. No one's going to disagree with the broad claim of "Man that auto industry sucks and is in trouble, bet that hurts Michigan." But we'll talk about sports franchise viability, the overall health of the state, and the extent to which it depends on carz.

Fingerbang, I don't see where my comments were terribly "inflamatory". I have re read all my posts, and other than the "Boner for a Mustang" comment, these aren't "inflamatory" remarks. I'm not here to flame. I'm here to engage discussions. But, I will definitely argue as much as the next guy. To wit:
b-diddy: Is this thread any more ridiculous than the other 5,000 threads that generate about eight posts per day from the entire board membership?[smilie=peepwall.gi:

ha, maybe not, but this one isnt entertaining me.

and im not the type of guy to go do research, especially for a message board discussion.

but i do have evidence, the anecdotal kind.

bagdad has lost ~2 mill citizens since war broke out (of its ~27 mill). thats not even 10% of its pop. your boy might refer to bagdad as detroit east, but detroit is paradise compared to bagdad. we're not losing 10%, we might lose close to that still (which will still leave us more than capable of supporting the teams). money is in the burbs, if not in the city.

i will concede that alot of teams will be heading south soon. pretty soon everyone will be living in arizona, and we'll all be speaking spanglish. but my tigers, lions, pistons, and wings arent going nowhere.

You're right about one thing: This isn't Baghdad, and we're not talking the Baghdad Tigers.
Also, Detroit is well under one million within the city limits.
Now, keep in mind, Cowherd is basing his opinion on the trends continuing. They could reverse, or even stabilize. I mean, ALL the people aren't going to leave Michigan, and ALL the people aren't going to live in Charlotte, NC.
But lemme ax ya dis: You keep talking about the Detroit "Metro" Area, and isn't that where Michigan's problems are going to be felt most, and the consequences felt deepest?
Today, a Metro population of 4.5 million. Tomorrow???? (Tomorrow being 10-15 years down the road).

Face it. Peeps in Michigan don't like him because he's always busting Lloyd's jiblets proclaiming that "no one has done less with MORE!!!" He also has MSU football pegged for the joke that it has sunk. Ouch! Could the guy be more correct? Even the most "M-yopic" of Blue-Ade guzzlers are starting to admit that may be the case. I heard the Cowherd dealio and he was not bashing Detroit exclusively. He was all over the "rust belt", a name he cannot be dredited with originating, and querying what the future might hold for these franchises. I love Michigan. I'm from there but have an aversion to the cold. I have two brothers & a sister there who are doing fine. They are not in the Metro Area. As Zip said Cowherds argument is based on population shifting, jobs etc. He cited a program started at Penn State a couple of years ago dubbed "Stay in P A" which tried to reason with grads not to abandon their state. Failed miserably. This all just may be some pop phenomenon but I'm skeptical. I'm sure many saw the articles in the Detroit newspapers a couple of months ago about the big moving companies that detailed how Michigan is the #1 state for departure for their moving vans. Hell there are peeps taking jobs in Green River, Wyoming in mines, fucking mines, who previously would never been able to find Wyoming on a fucking map. Let alone Green River. Do the math. Costs in running a franchise escalate. Is family income in Metro Detroit on the rise or even closely commensurate with what it will cost to take ONE SON to a Lions, Piston, Wings game for ducats, swill a couple of $4 cokes, $5 Hot Dogs, and God knows what else? I thought it was a very thought provoking segment. I'm a fan but too often when we don't hear what we want to hear we kill the messenger.

Shit, I forgot about this thread last night. I'll see what I can pull together while working today but the easy thing to address is Cowherd.

I regularly listened to ESPN Radio when Kornheiser was on and when he got the boot Cowherd was his replacement. I gave the guy about 2 months and that was all I needed. I don't give a shit if he bags on Lloyd or MSU (hell, I'm one that wants Lloyd gone every year). I even liked the fact that he gave a shit about the Pac-10. What I didn't like was that the dude's knowledge about basketball is non-existent. I mean, the guy started in Portland and he doesn't know shit about the only sport that's in his city. (No shit the dude didn't create the term "rust belt", welcome to the 1980s.) I'm sure if you are a football honk then you probably want to slob his knob as last I knew he still had a segment a day devoted to football, literally all year round. His claim to fame was brought to Detroit radio in the guise of his former Portland producer who got a morning radio host job here (fuck if I can't remember his name) on 1270. It was a segment called "Around the Globe" (or something similar) where he calls up beat writers and has then summaries their latest columns (riveting). BTW, his former producer took Cowherds personal 100% and barely lasted the duration of his one year contract (John Lund, I believe). I wish I had listened to him in the last 3 or so years I suppose its been because I might have some more current references but when I did listen Cowherd he was throwing around "pay for dinner at Morton's", like everyday Morton's was brought up somehow. As though his 90K a year (that's an estimate drawn from the fact that Dan Patrick was pulling down 110 K for his radio gig the year that Dream Job started on ESPN) is spent exclusively on fine dinning. The guy's a condescending prick who uses logic like "I trust Las Vegas because the line makers are paid to know the final score" (even though the line makers are paid to know where the public will place their bets, not who's going to win).

Mainly however, I didn't like his obviously dumbing-down of sports topics by his ever present ridicule of "nerd" subjects like stats and stratedy. Topics on his show never had any depth because as soon as anyone would turn toward something that wasn't superficial the guy would say "I don't care about stragedy, I like points and cheering. I want to be entertained and points are entertaining." To an extent we all agree with that, but taken to the level this fuck-nut took it its ridiculous. I'm a sports fan. The hype is everywhere and easy to see. I don't need to listen to a show that only covers the hype. I want to hear about why people think the 4-3 is better than the 3-4 for whichever team. I want to know how zone defense has affected shooting %s league wide. I like finding out that D'antoni plays his running style because of his belief that defenses are at their weakest in the first 10 seconds of the shot clock.

That's just Cowherd, I'll see what I can get to on Michigan.

Just a quick hit:
Stats and Stragety make for bad radio. Kornheiser NEVER talked stats and stragety.
You are right to say that Cowherd falls short of Tony The Korn, because that show was the best ever. But Kornheiser was more irreverent than Cowherd could ever hope to be. That show was almost surreal. I remember one time when some dink like Greg Beikert of the Raiders was in the studio and they asked him on air if he wanted to talk Raider football with the guy for some upcoming game, and he just about barfed all over his mike, exclaiming "Hell no I don't want to talk to Greg Beikert! Who the hell is Greg Beikert"
So much for diagramming the 4-3 defense for ya.

True. But Kornheiser didn't play it off like those things didn't matter. He always just came out and said he didn't know shit about them. I've no problem with someone not doing what they don't know. I don't like listening to a guy pretend he knows it and then claim they aren't important and deride those who are interested in the topic. Kornheiser certainly covers superficial shit (btw, he's on Washington Post Radio currently if you want to listen to him, though this version of the show is pretty terrible as its only barely sports related being on the newspapers radio lineup and half his sidekicks are commited to other shows so he's got a bunch of laughing hyenas in the booth with him) like fucking American Idol which I couldn't care less about. But he didn't run from depth like it was the plague as Cowherd does. Plus TK is funny and Cowherds little impressions are lame and sleep inducing.

Well, then it's a personal taste issue, which is OK by me.
But I don't think you give enough credit to Cowherd on sports related info. He does, I'll agree, have those moments when all the sudden he goes on a rant about stats and shit and derides a guy, but I think he'll get specific, like when he goes off on a guy who speculates how Penn State will do with Morelli as the backup. That, in his words, and I'll agree, is local hack stuff. So is positing about who your team will trade so they can acquire a third string backup center.
Tony was WAY better, also, at moving on to his next bit, whereass Cowherd can get bogged down with something he thinks is golden, like his currently too long running gag on female body builders.
But I think his opinions and takes, if you can put them into context, are pretty dead on most of the time, and one should be able to sift throught the hyperbole to get to the heart and soul of what he's saying.
I'll say this: Local hacks all over the country are still busy trying to blatantly imitate Kornheiser's show, and alot of them claim not to like Cowherd but still quite often morph into Cowherd imitators.

Dude knows his football. I'll never say otherwise. Spends all year talking about it, so I hope he knows it.

I guess, also, that it depends on how "deep" into sports you want a national show to go. For instance, the acquiring of a third string center by the Pistons might be great talk for Detroit, but the guy in Atlanta is switching over to the "Crazy Morning Show with Giggles and Humpy" quicker than you can say "Who the hell is Greg Beikert". I think both Kornheiser and Cowherd do a fantastic job of keeping a national radio show moving along with general topics and spreading the wealth of interests around so that they can entertain the masses.
Now, how's about that Michigan stuff from yesterday?
BUT FIRST: You referenced Dan Patrick, whose show is about as lame and boring as anything ever. That show is all about Patrick and Patrick. He shmoozes with every guy he interviews for the first two minutes AND the last two minutes, asking about things like what the guy had for dinner last night and who they each look like. When Patrick does the RARE "interview", actually asking questions, he's the best. Other than that, it's name dropping and discussions of his hair and how many times he mows his lawn per month.

The Michigan stuff will come Zip, but it involves links and stats which require more time than just throwing back a comment on a talk show goof.

Well now, Finger bang, there IS the matter of how and why YOu disagree, your opinion also. I've stated mine, and I would like to know yours. And Cowherd just looked at population shift, and applied some of his own math and logic.
I like his style because he thinks outside the box, which, of course, is part of his job.

Do you want me to just say "The prognostication skills of a sports talk show host are seriously lacking when it comes to the economic foundations of the state of Michigan, migration patterns, and the conditions that cause sports franchises to move" or do you want me to show you why people who think Michigan will live on after the shrinking of the automobile industry aren't "putting their head in the sand", pretending they are in their "Granda's Detroit", or denying that the nation goes through changes and that the viability its major sports teams aren't in trouble unless something drastic (like say a hurricane wiping out most of the metropoitan area) happens on top of what we are already going through.

Bullshit you weren't being inflamatory with a thread that said "Your state is shit and dead in 10 years. Deal with it! You'd know if you weren't deluding yourself over there in Michigan! I've got a better perspective here in Omaha." BTW, I always love the "its cold, people leave" in particular. Like it just happened yesterday that Michigan lost year round summer climate or something.

Its a recession with obvious causes based on the abnormal dependency of the region on one major, and now shrinking, source of manufacturing. The entire fucking country went through The Depression and Detroit somehow managed not to disappear.

"Bullshit you weren't being inflamatory with a thread that said "Your state is shit and dead in 10 years. Deal with it! You'd know if you weren't deluding yourself over there in Michigan! I've got a better perspective here in Omaha." BTW, I always love the "its cold, people leave" in particular. Like it just happened yesterday that Michigan lost year round summer climate or something."

I know Senor Goshboots personally and I know that he harbors the desire to move back to the Great Lake State "when the time is right" for he and his family. Peculiar desire for a guy who thinks "Your State is shit!!"

Fingerbang, take a breath, step back, a re read my posts. They were NOT inflamatory.
There is no need to get defensive. I never called Michigan shit.
But, I do think people are lost in the past if they think this current situation is a "recession".
This sir, is a pradigm shift. A way of life that built Michigan and supported it for over 100 years and is THE workhorse for the state is on life support, and the people standing around looking at the patient cannot WAIT to pull the plug.
I would like you to address the realities of Michigan that you claim to know so well.
And I get ALOT of information from my father and brother, who are second and third generation auto industry lifers, my friend, working and living in Detroit.

Fingerbang:
Let's reset this thing. There's no need to get defensive. Prove Cowherd wrong.
I started this thread because I thought it would be interesting (and THANK YOU for participating, by the way). It's got three variables: Four old, historic, and venerable franchises in one of America's oldest, most historic, and proudest cities. It's got personality in the form of a HIGLY RATED nationally syndicated radio talk show host questioning the viability of the teams in this city, which is suffering greatly.
So I thought maybe there would be some participation, and discussion (yes, I knew it would get heated, as it can be a polarizing topic).
So now, let's reset it:
What do the members of this forum think? If you think Cowherd is off his rocker, let me know, and why. I'm not even interested in "statistics" and "data". I said the other day to Dr Tre that talking heads say things, make predictions, and relay info all the time that is wrong. Is this an instance of it, or not?
I happen to think there is alot of merit to what he said. Population figures show the state of Michigan shrinking, and Detroit as well. In fact, since 1970, Michigan has lost, I believe, four electoral votes. Detroit has lost HALF it's population in 50 years. Is that skewed by white flight? Yes. People moved to the suburbs in droves.
I think Cowherd is actually very right about one thing: The trend will continue, people want to go where they can get a good paying (or any) job, and they will leave areas which seem to have very little in the way of opportunity. Michigan and the Detroit are, right now, is the kind of place people are leaving. And yes, throw in the weather, and the rapidly developing southern part of the country, with jobs, jobs, jobs, and warm weather.
Is it CRAZY to think of Detroit without the sports teams? FUCKIN A RIGHT MOTHERFUCKER! FUCK YEAH! I'LL KICK YER ASS IF YOU SAY THAT AGAIN!
But is would probably have sounded REALLY FUCKIN INSANELY BIZARRELY WAY CRAZY to think that Ford, GM, and Chrysler would all be as solvent as, well, Zip Goshboots one day.
I take that bakc. I think I'm in better financial shape than the "Big Three".

Don't worry. My next thread will be titled, "What kind of boogers does Rip Hamilton like to eat, and which kind does he stuff under his car seat while driving to a game"
THAT should get the WTF rolling!

Detroit and the surrounding area may be shrinking and they may be having some economic difficulties but I don't think that will lead to these teams leaving in the near future. They have owners that understand the fans passion and understand that they'll still make a profit in this area no matter what. I mean, if the economy got bad enough that people stopped following Detroit sports, I think these franchises leaving would be the least of our concerns. But again, I don't see that happening any time soon.
Is Detroit shrinking? Yes, but there are much smaller cities with sports franchises that are still chugging along and I am confident that we will do the same.

The question wasn't if Detroit could continue to support a professional franchise if the trends continue. I mean, Columbus has a friggin' team for crying out loud. The question was whether Detroit could be a viable city strong enough to support FOUR professional franchises.
I agree with you ,though. If things were that bad, there wouldn't be many people worried about the Wings playoff chances that year. They'd be either LONG gone or worried about eating.

As long as ticket prices remain stable, I believe all four teams will be OK.

However, if attendance drops, ticket prices might rise to accomodate the loss of revenue, which would make tickets less accessible.

I suppose the wildcard here would be the strength of the teams. The Tigers have a solid core. The Pistons are good for a little while longer, and the Red Wings are the Red Wings.

Sport spectating is a viable form of escapism that seems to strengthen in the worst of times (baseball survived the Great Depression... in fact, it's first All Star Game came in the heels of national economic disaster, not to mention the great Yankee teams of the late 20's that never had a problem filling the stadium.... and we're talking the worst economic disaster in U.S. history, here).

IMO, if ticket prices remain stable, fan support might INCREASE, not decrease.

if decrease in demand leads to a raise in prices, its time to pack it up. but generrally, prices are positively coorelated with demand (see pistons).

and the depression hit at the end of the 20's. the 20's were booming, or swinging, if you prefer.

Yes, you're right. The 1927 Yanks wre before the Depression. But I don't think any teams folded during the economic downturn. I'll have to check on that.

Also, is that an Intimate Dating ad at the bottom of the page when non-members are viewing (I logged in late)? WTF???

You guys are making some great points.
The Great Depression is a very good comparison to what is going on now.
But with regard to teams folding, I think the question is MOVING instead. The shifting population is creating large numbers in other areas, and I do think that somewhere, sometime soon, shockwaves are going to be felt. Michigan needs a tourniquet or something to stop the bleeding. It's not just that people are leaving, but that the ones who don't are going to still need good jobs.
I don't think Cowherd (nor I) was trying to make the point that we're at the point of the last man leaving better turn out the lights, or that Detroit or cities like it are on any verge of losing teams, but again, unless trends are reversed, some questions will be raised about the ability of Rust Belt cities to support as many teams as they do now.

I didn't forget about this thread Zip. But Easter landed at a bad time for me to roll out time for message boards.


You guys are making some great points.
The Great Depression is a very good comparison to what is going on now.
But with regard to teams folding, I think the question is MOVING instead. The shifting population is creating large numbers in other areas, and I do think that somewhere, sometime soon, shockwaves are going to be felt. Michigan needs a tourniquet or something to stop the bleeding. It's not just that people are leaving, but that the ones who don't are going to still need good jobs.
I don't think Cowherd (nor I) was trying to make the point that we're at the point of the last man leaving better turn out the lights, or that Detroit or cities like it are on any verge of losing teams, but again, unless trends are reversed, some questions will be raised about the ability of Rust Belt cities to support as many teams as they do now.

(Opening tangent: The Great Depression is a good comparison to what is going on now? Here read up (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#Responses_in_the_United_States)). The nation isn't even in a recession and you are comparing Michigan's problems to a world changing event like the Great Depression?)

You (and ESPN guy) were very much saying Detroit was on the verge of losing teams in your opening posts.


in as little as TEN years some teams currently in these cities will not be there...
He specifically mentioned Detroit as the prime example...
Will they even be making cars in Detroit ten years from now?

10 years. That's pretty damn close to "on the verge" IMO. You went so far as to forecast the demise of the auto industry in America in 10 years. Because if they don't make cars in Michigan, they don't make them in America. Not because we Detroiters are "stubborn" or think "we made the country" (I don't "make" shit at my job and neither do plenty of Michiganders, btw) but because even in this horrible period for the industry, Michigan is still the core of the American auto industry and is even becoming more concentratedly the core.


Complicating the economic landscape, much of the downsizing in the domestic transportation equipment manufacturing sector actually has led auto companies to close facilities in other states more often than in Michigan. While those states were already less reliant on transportation equipment manufacturing, the changes have made them even less dependent. However, this "retreat-to-the-core" strategy means that Michigan's economy has become less reliant on transportation equipment manufacturing at a slower rate than the rest of the country.
As a result, while that strategy has preserved more transportation equipment manufacturing jobs in Michigan than might otherwise have been saved, it means that the Michigan economy is likely to remain far more vulnerable to swings in the domestic vehicle manufacturing industry
than other states. (link (http://www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa/Publications/BudUpdates/EconomicOutlookJan07.pdf)) (this is also a nice little summation that backs the "core" statement drawn from job cut estimates in 06, link (http://www.nationalcity.com/content/corporate/EconomicInsight/documents/rTheRegionQ1.06.pdf))

The conclusion from that end of that quote means Michigan is just as open to the financial swings its always had since becoming the hub of American automotive interests so being "the core" isn't exactly the banner to wave that it used to be.


Population figures show the state of Michigan shrinking and Detroit as well.
In fact, since 1970, Michigan has lost, I believe, four electoral votes. Detroit has lost HALF it's population in 50 years. Is that skewed by white flight? Yes. People moved to the suburbs in droves.

Part of the problem with trying to respond to what you have been saying, is that you haven't really been saying anything specific (which I've already mentioned in my original "You are also making many different wide ranging statements" reply). Michigan hasn't been shrinking, its been growing. It's almost always grown. (See this link (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/hal/lm_census_cMichPop1900-2006_181777_7.pdf))

Its percentage of the national population has certainly been shrinking, if that's all you are saying then its unquestionably true.

Because of differences in growth rates, the regional shares of the total population have shifted considerably in recent decades. Between 1950 and 2000, the South's share of the population increased from 31.2 to 35.6 percent and the West increased from 13.3 to 22.5 percent. Meanwhile, despite overall population growth in each of the past five decades, the Midwest's share of total population fell from 29.4 to 22.9 percent and the Northeast's proportion declined from 26.1 to 19.0 percent. (link (http://www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa/Publications/BudUpdates/EconomicOutlookJan07.pdf))

But that's not new to this automobile crisis. And it certainly doesn't forecast the end of Detroit basketball. The Northeast has fallen in % of population just as much as the Midwest and is even less of the nation's population then the Midwest is. Are you saying the the Patriot's have a similar 10 year life span? If you are seriously projecting the end of Michigan because of population migration, I'm guessing you were close to killing yourself in the 80s. link (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/hal/lm_census_c2NetMigTrend_181722_7.pdf)

As I said, its tough to reply with you all over the board since your initial "Detroit sports are on life support" but one thing I wanted to make sure I touched on was this:

But, I do think people are lost in the past if they think this current situation is a "recession".
This sir, is a pradigm shift. A way of life that built Michigan and supported it for over 100 years and is THE workhorse for the state is on life support, and the people standing around looking at the patient cannot WAIT to pull the plug.

You can call it whatever you want but the state's employment centering on auto-industry manufacturing has steadily declined from the 50s. Entering 2000 Michigan auto-industry manufacturing was 50% of all manufacturing in the state but manufacturing itself was only about 20% of Michigan jobs (down from 45% in 1950s).(link (http://www.milmi.org/admin/uploadedPublications/419_mfgstudy.pdf)) If this is a paradigm shift, its an auto-industry one (the Big Three waking up to their problems), or perhaps a conceptual one (of the American companies not being the pinnacle of the auto-industry which your whole "this ain't your daddy's Detroit" statement seemes to be talking about), moreso than a Michigan employment one. If it is a Michigan employment one, this is the end of it rather than the begining.

The auto-industry aborting plants and jobs all over the place certainly hurts Michigan and I'm in no way saying that the Michigan economy is doing well right now when its got the highest unemployment rate in the nation, but all of Michigan isn't going down the drain because cars are doing bad.


Fingerbang:
Let's reset this thing. There's no need to get defensive. Prove Cowherd wrong.
I'm fine for reseting the thread (now that I finally got a chance to throw something meaningful, outside of my oppinion on Cowherd, actually into it) but as for "proving" the dude wrong. You'll actually have to make a concrete statement as to what you and he are saying. Are you or are you not spelling the end of the entire northern-middle portion of the US because of cold weather and falling automotive market share?

Let me address your last point first, because I can have it onscreen simulatneously with my usual witty retort:
I think I am speeling the end of Michigan as we know it, but I don't think I'm stating any revolutionary or new idea there. If Michigan can re invent itself, I'm all for it. I AM spelling doom for the Auto Industry as we know it, and again, I don't fancy myself as some economic forecasting genius, I just believe the signs are there that the Big Three are done with American Auto Workers, at least as far as the unions are concerned.

As for the Depression, I mean that if teams didn't fold then, they certainly won't now. Times were much worse then and sports survived. That's the comparison I attempted to draw. It was a conciliatory remark.

As for the Patriots: I do not know much about Boston or New England, other than I would tend to believe that they are more diverse economically, and less given to the swing in manufacturing that we are seeing now. There are poor states in the upper northeast, but I would think Boston is not facing the problems Detroit is.

Let me say this about weather: I called Valenti and Foster a couple weeks ago after Cowherd poo pooed Detroit as a sprts town. He said the same things: The bad weather and the economy have made Detroit sports fans more passionate, basically insinuating they have nothing else. I disagreed with the weather on that point, as, at least as far as my experiences there, Michiganders are outdoor people. I brought up boating in the summer and the winter stuff like hunting and whatever else in the cold months. As for does the weather make people move, I think that it is a factor, and multiplied by the other factors (economy).

As for population decrease, slipping from 21 electoral votes in 1970 to 17 now means people have left. You get one electoral vote for every 500,000 people. It isn't that the government walks in and takes them away because you have less sunny days than Texas or California, it is because your people have moved there.

I find that stat about employment in manufacturing to be fascinating. You said that in 2000, manufacturing was only 20% of Michigan jobs. BUT, auto manufacturing was 50% of that. So the question is, what KIND of jobs have replaced manufacturing? AND, what kind of jobs does the other 80% constitute. (If that is in your link, I apologize, cuz I'm going to read it after I respond).

With the kind of statements Cowherd made (and I backed), you are absolutely right in calling them broad brushed vagueries. "Well, I just think things look bad for Detroit" is easy to say, and vague, and hard to knock down. But you have added to this and I will check out your links, and ask for any more you can send my way.

As for the "This ain't your Daddy's Detroit": I grew up in MY Daddy's Detroit, and it was vibrant, powerful, and sensual. Detroit was one hell of a place in the 60's and 70's, the riots notwhithstanding. Some of us sensed a gradual snuffing out of the fires of life in Detroit, though, and alot of times statements are made relating Detroit now to Detroit then. Kind of like "We had to walk up hill to shcool both ways in ten feet of snow, but we LOVED it". Detroit has always been tough, dirty, and gritty, but you LOVED it.

Now I'm going to read your links and get back to you. Thanks alot!

one electoral vote for every 500 k? where'd you get that?

you get one electoral vote for every senator (all states have 2) and every member of the house of representatives (determined by pop census, figure frozen at 435 total).

fool pretty much summed it up. the only thing missing was mason screaming "deeeeeeeeeeeeeetrooooooooooiiiit baaaaaaaaaaskeeeeeeeeeeetbaaaalll" directly in zip's face.

diddy: It's my understanding that you have one representative and one electoral vote for every 500,000 people, and yes, the two for the senators.
And I never specified "basketball" as the sport marked for elimination. Unless, of course, you are talking about the "Shock".

Zip, checking the math on your own theory will show its wrong. Cali has 55 electoral votes. Its population has been over 27.5 million for a long time. There have been 538 electoral votes for the country as a whole since the 60s, you saying the country hasn't grown by 500,000 people in 40+ years?

diddy: It's my understanding that you have one representative and one electoral vote for every 500,000 people, and yes, the two for the senators.
And I never specified "basketball" as the sport marked for elimination. Unless, of course, you are talking about the "Shock".

shit's frozen, dogg.

and ps: im surprised that the tiny lesbian population in ann arbor is able to support the entire shock organization. never let it be said that those bull dykes arent go getters.

It's distribution. I'm not saying I'm not wrong on this, just that I've always understood that that was how electoral votes were distributed.

Fingerbang and diddy:
I called my friend Leonard. He's the guy I'd use for my one call if I was ever having a discussion with Regis Philbin, if you know what I mean.
You guys are correct in that the electoral college is broken down into congressional districts. There seems to be no "set" number, as in 500,000 people, but they attempt to keep districts in that area. Suffice to say that Wyoming or Norf Dakota don't have 500,000 people in their respective states, but they are guaranteed one electoral vote anyway.
I also stand corrected in that Michigan has 18 electoral votes, not 17.

Fingerbang:
I have been able to look through two of the links you posted.
I think I'm going to have to concede "ownage" to you on two very important points:
First, the job cuts within the auto industry, whole severe, do not indicate at this point that they should "cripple" Michigan. The cuts indicate the loss of about 23,000 jobs, but in a seven state region consisting of Michigan, Missouri, Kentucky, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and Pennsylvania.
That is actually not bad at all considering the current state of the Big Three, with them at least seeming to float the idea of the "B" word now and then. It will affect Michigan the most, apparently, but I actually find a couple positives.
First, Michigan (and the other six states in the region) have time not only to cushion these EXPECTED losses, but to sense that this may not be the last of it, and can do something about it. Second, Michigan can always hope that as the American auto industry constricts even further in the future, the "core"--Michigan, will be the place that it restricts to, securing a permanent place for Michigan as the center of the American Auto industry.
The population figures state a very different picture than I thought. Michigan, according to that link, is either at or just beyond 10,000,000 inhabitants, if I'm reading that chart right. Of course it is "estimates", and we will not know until the next census three years from now.
In fact, at http://www.classbrain.com/artstate/publish/article_1243.shtml, we find an increase of almost 200,000 in population in Michigan from 2000 to 2005. Not bad.
Now, the important thing becomes this: With Detroit's Metro population at about 4.5 million (my estimate), that means there are about 6.6 mill in the rest of the state, and I would guess most of those folks are in the southern half of Michigan (below, say, Houghton Lake). What is the auto industry's influence on them, and what kind of jobs are replacing those lost.

Now, let me go back to the "verge" of ten years. I need to say at this point that Cowherd did not say something to the effect that in "ten years, teams will be GONE". His initial premise was 15 to 20, and by the end, when he had a little too much time to think about it, he went to ten years as a time frame for something to happen.
The point, I think, beyond the issues Cowherd raised (and I backed), and it being deftly relegated by your links to a mere "talking point", is these figures show, as usual, that "Detroit Bashing" is just good sport and maybe not grounded in a whole lot of reality. However, I still think it is food for thought. If these cuts are (I think you said this) the end, rather than a beginning of a larger end, then things are definitely OK and Cowherd is off his rocker.

Sorry again, I forgot something:
Ownage: Fingerbang

Just heard Cowherd say something that I actually agree with.

"I like women. I like basketball. Doesn't mean I have to like women's basketball."

He also said, "I like lasagna. I like pudding. Doesn't mean I like lasagna pudding."

I'll bet the son of a bitch has NEVER actually tried lasagna pudding. Suspend the fucker NOW!

This week has sucked: I'm spending the whole week waiting for contractors to come by to bid on shit I need done, it's the last week before school starts up, and Colin Cowherd is on vacation.

Re: sitcom about his life

Damon Wayans as Cowherd?

Eliza Dushku as Cowherd's wife?

Fired, I see. Just read that he had previously announced that he was leaving anyway. Heard he was considering political talk radio.

Looking forward to not listening to that

Making racist comments is a good way to start courting the right wing extremist radio audience.