Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing most liked content on 10/22/2015 in all areas

  1. 4 likes
    Yeah, but Queens is just a borough, Brooklyn is a magical fantasyland that represents the cauldron of America, people who move from China to have kids named Steve and people who move from Michigan to have kids named Caydenne.
  2. 3 likes
    Yes, it is. A large suburb, perhaps, well-developed with its own identity, perhaps, but you're unquestionably within the circle of the large city next to you. http://i.word.com/idictionary/suburb Thing about megaplexes is that their suburbs can be larger than many other cities across the nation, but still be suburbs by virtue of proximity to the larger anchor city. I know people in Orange County don't like to acknowledge it, but facts are what they are.
  3. 1 like
    The 'Flames' red sweater should be there. Iconic and appealing, aesthetic-wise. Triggered merchandise sales. And of course, the unexpected magical run in '04.
  4. 1 like
  5. 1 like
    Doubt it would happen for similar reasons to the Angels. The "larger" your name, the more you can (theoretically) appeal to a wider audience. Something like the Queens Mets would pigeon-hole them. Of course, didn't stop the Dodgers or the Nets.When the Brooklyn National League team was founded, Brooklyn was a separate city. Now it is a section of New York City. Something like "Flushing Mets" would be terrible. Neither Brooklyn nor any other section of any city (such as Hollywood, for example) should be the locality name of a major-league team.I never thought that a major-league team would take a name of a section of a city nowadays; but the Nets proved me wrong. I believe that this was a mistake, as it limits their appeal in their home market. And that name really annoys me as a New Yorker. Even though I was born in Brooklyn and have lived for nearly 30 years a few blocks from the Brooklyn/Queens border, my attachment is to New York City, not to any borough. So, in order to root for that team, I have to overlook the name -- and also the bland uniforms, of course. Ironically, I was less uncomfortable with the name "New Jersey Nets" than I am with the current name. (Though the old name is not without problems, as mentioned below.) I also like the Nets' New Jersey uniforms a lot more than the current uni. So that team's move into my city has actually reduced my emotional connection with it. State names as locality names are a different issue. When the state has only one major metropolitan area, the use of a state name is tolerable, as the teams really do represent the whole state. This accounts for Minnesota, Arizona, and Colorado. Still, the city names Minneapolis (sorry, St. Paul, but Minneapolis is the recognisable one), Phoenix, and Denver would be preferable in those cases. Note that the Thunder choose not the state name but the city name, despite the fact that they play in the state's only really large city, and that they are the state's only NBA team. All other uses of a state name are problematic. For New Jersey, its biggest cities are suburbs of New York; and the names of the teams located there should reflect that. Likewise, the name of any major-league team that might play Camden should reflect the fact that that city is a Philadelphia suburb. For the states with multiple big cities, the use of the state name is very unfortunate, and really should be avoided. The change from "Florida Marlins" to "Miami Marlins" is to be applauded for this reason. I get that "Texas Rangers" was already a phrase long before the baseball team existed. But this does not make it an appropriate name for a team located in one city in a huge state. And alliteration doesn't justify "Tennesse Titans"; they should be the "Nashville somethings". Similarly, while "California Angels" is the name that we grew up with, and which therefore sounds "right", that name is untenable in such a big state with many diverse cities. So it seems clear to me that "Los Angeles Angels" is the only appropriate name.Great take. I agree about most of this, except for the Titans. They had to do so because of the stadium deal they made with the state of TN for additional funding. The two conditions that were made were that they would use the name "Tennessee" and they would allow Tennessee State Univ. to play their home games there.
  6. 1 like
    I totally agree with this part on principal. But in both the Angels' and Rangers' defense, they were the only MLB club in their respective leagues of their respective states. The Texas Rangers obviously existed before the Houston Astros moved to the AL (even though the Astros are older), and the California Angels were around a few years before the A's moved in. Both are still kind of dumb given, as mentioned, the Astros already existed, as did the Giants and Dodgers, but I was more forgiving of the names because they kind of made sense on a league level. And, as you pointed out, the Texas Rangers were a real thing. What I can't excuse is something as presumptuous as "New England Patriots." Not only are they already 30 miles outside of Boston, they think they represent six or so other states? I realize we're getting off-topic, but I pointed out in another topic my disdain for region-named teams, especially when the regions are large and usually have various sub-cultures within.
  7. 1 like
    4.) People who actually are born and raised in suburban LA, have frequently been to Anaheim, and see that other than a theme park and a couple sports venues that it's part of the same blob as Brea, Fullerton, Orange, La Habra, Buena Park, Cerritos, Whittier, Costa Mesa, Yorba Linda, Lakewood, etc. It's a 25 mile drive on one freeway for me to get there. A tad shorter than driving from Alameda to Reno.
  8. 1 like
    That's pretty ironic, considering that the city suburb of Anaheim paid the team to use it. No. Not even. As much as they wanna push it like that, Anaheim is NOT a suburb of LA (God this is an old and tired debate). Thing about megaplexes is that their suburbs can be larger than many other cities across the nation, but still be suburbs by virtue of proximity to the larger anchor city. I know people in Orange County don't like to acknowledge it, but facts are what they are. Gothamite is correct. Also, people get confused by the fact that "suburban" as an adjective stands in contrast to "urban". Nevertheless, one city can be a suburb of another. For instance, the small cities of northern New Jersey such as Hoboken, Jersey City, and Newark, while all gloriously urban (rather than suburban) in character, are nevertheless suburbs of New York City. The fact that Anaheim is its own city does not prevent it from being a suburb of a larger city, nor does the fact that it's very different from L.A. And the fact that it's in another county is utterly irrelevant. Practically every city has suburbs in other counties; some, as noted above, have them in other states. The real test is the TV market. The networks have no Anaheim stations; the local stations for Anaheim are the L.A. stations KCBS, KNBC, KABC, KTLA, etc. And even if a station were licenced to Anaheim, it still would serve the entire L.A. area, the way the New York area is served both by stations licenced to New York City proper and also by WWOR (licenced to Secaucus, NJ), WNET (licenced to Newark), and WLIW (licenced to Garden City, Long Island). The point of all this is that "Los Angeles Angels" is an entirely appropriate name for a team in Anaheim. And, of course, the Angels aren't the first L.A. team to play in Anaheim: the L.A. Rams played in Anaheim for the last 15 years before their move away; and the L.A. Kiss have played there the past two seasons.
  9. 1 like
    Is it an unpopular opinion to think the Phillies looked best during the 70s-80s in their maroon and white jerseys? I especially liked the "P" logo, and maroon isn't a color seen anywhere else in the MLB right now.
  10. 1 like
    Under Armour deserves a round of applause...It's almost as if the company is reading this forum and took notes on how to make jerseys classic, simple, sleeveless, and not black for black's sake.
  11. 1 like
    I loved the maroon jersey when we wore the cavfanatic version
  12. 1 like
    In a vacuum, the Mariners' Sunday alts and their logos look good in blue and gold; dare I say great, even. That said, the right Mariners look to me is navy and teal. Their best teams and best players wore those colors, and as others have said, those colors represent almost a "second chance" for them considering they almost didn't make it there. I hate to toss around the word "iconic", but navy and teal represent so much more to that franchise than meets the eye. It is, in that regard, an "iconic" color set for them. So should the Mariners switch to blue and gold, they'll look good. But they won't look like the Mariners should.
  13. 1 like
    whoa.... Kings and Nuggets are alot better and huge upgrade!
  14. 1 like
    I really like the silver alt but this one doesn't do anything for me. The side panels don't go well with the standalone logo. I wish they'd gone with the full San Antonio writing across the chest like the roads from the Gervin era.
  15. 1 like
    What stadium is this? It's Joe Albi Stadium.
This leaderboard is set to Toronto/GMT-04:00