Ice_Cap

Moderators
  • Content count

    24,128
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,617 Excellent

2 Followers

About Ice_Cap

  • Rank
    Fiel Pero Desdichado
  • Birthday 07/22/1987

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Kitchener-Waterloo, ON, Canada

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

66,341 profile views
  1. So this is happening in southern Ontario. An Arabic language newspaper in Ontario that is government-recommended blames the Jews for the Holocaust. Just so you Americans can rest assured you don't have a monopoly on stupid.
  2. Even if he did manage to get by Clinton in 2000? He still would have crashed and burned in 2008. Hell, Obama practically beat him in that election.
  3. He said the league, as in the whole league. I responded in kind.
  4. They're having issues with Black Knights.
  5. You're describing the NHL of ten years ago. Now? The Oilers, Penguins, and Islanders have all turned from their drab late 90s/early 2000s dark colour schemes in favour of bright, vibrant older looks.
  6. Have you been watching the news? That's not going to fly.
  7. Too many "s" sounds, too many "ah" and "a" sounds. My preference for Knights comes down to three factors. The first is that it has no ties to gambling. Some people don't like that, and I'm not saying they're wrong necessarily. It's just that the NHL has made it abundantly clear that a gambling-related name is a no-go. Secondly? I think it sounds good. "Las Vegas Aces," even if divorced from its gambling connections, is too awkward. Too many peaks and valleys in the pronunciation. "Las Vegas Knights" just flows better. Finally? Knights, of all the choices presented, has the best imagery to draw from for a strong brand. In my opinion. Shields, swords, lances, chargers, helms...there's no shortage of solid imagery to choose from when constructing an identity. It just seems to me that the name Knights, and the imagery associated with it, could be used to construct a brand that could endure. It's not trendy or gimmicky. It's just a solid name that would have worked fifty years ago, twenty years ago, or would work ten years from now. The biggest problem with "Knights" is that it does infringe on the Los Angeles Kings' identity a bit. Which is where I feel Outlaws has an advantage, if not for the XFL connection. I don't see the similarities as that big a deal though. The Carolina Panthers and Jacksonville Jaguars entered the NFL at the same time with big cat names, and things worked out. Besides. People are pushing for "Aces" and playing up Nevada's USAF history. When the team will play in the same conference as the Winnipeg Jets. A team from a city with strong RCAF history. To the point that they use the roundel as the logo. "Knights" no more infringes on the medieval theme of the Kings than "Aces" infringes on the military aviation theme of the Jets.
  8. Let's see how they do with the Senate, House, and State elections before declaring the GOP dead in the water. The last eight years have proven that they don't need the Presidency to successfully push through a reactive social agenda.
  9. I see Recep has re-read his copy of Nineteen Eighty-Four.
  10. Neither team name has anything to do with the city, by the way. "Sharks" works for the location, but was imposed on the team by management that had completely rejected the fan choice. Ah, now you're moving the goalposts. You used to argue in favour of names with a local connection. Now you're claiming that the only good options are names with a local connection or generic names chosen by the fans. Look, if you don't like "Knights"? That's fine. Don't try to play it up as anything more than your personal opinion though, because right now? You're on track to change your argument yet again to "the only names that work are ones with local connections, were chosen by the fans, or ones I personally like." No, it doesn't. You keep dodging the point, so I'm going to keep bringing it up. "Cavaliers" in Cleveland, like "Knights" in Las Vegas, has no local connection. Yet in the former case? It worked because it sounded good. There's absolutely no reason, outside of your own personal preference, to believe that "Knights" in Las Vegas can't build just as enduring a brand for the city's NHL team as the Cavs' name has for Cleveland's NBA team. Which is ultimately where I stand. No viable name (ie one with no gambling connections) so far seems as solid a choice as "Knights." No other name seems like it has enough to it to last for decades without seeming stale. EDIT- Outlaws could work, and would be pretty unique in the NHL. The problem is the XFL history. That may not want to be something the NHL wants to reference.
  11. Have they? Take the Sharks' original branding, which we can all agree was pretty on-target. The fans chose "Blades." The decision to go with "Sharks" came from the top, and the team created a great and enduring brand around that executive decision.
  12. Eveyone's scheduel is different, but for me? Hockey season overlaps with work. So if I'm heading out to Vegas in the fall or winter? Which is when I usually go, due to the weather? I'm going to line my trip up with a break in the school year. Thanksgiving,Winter, or Family Day (though a few of those will probably be adjusted once I start working in the States in a few months). Aligning a potential Vegas trip with friends to line up with my free time and their free time can be difficult enough. More so when you try to factor in trying to catch the Leafs in town. So I'll probably never make my way out to Vegas to catch a hockey game. If the Leafs happen to be playing? Maybe, yeah. If not? I'm not sacrificing something I can only do in Las Vegas to watch a hockey game. It's not a lack of a love for hockey. It's just not what I'm there for. As for it being showy, it reminds me of the Mighty Ducks' first season. That started with a Disney on Ice show, and had a Tinker Bell video play every time the Ducks scored at home. Ducks fans didn't like it and it was dropped, because they didn't want their team to just be a punchline. They didn't want to just be "the Disney team." I don't think I'm reaching when I say that local LV fans may not want a showy NHL hockey experience. They're going to want their team to be taken seriously. I mean the line between silly and fun is really thin when it comes to "sports traditions" so maybe it takes? I donno. It's a fine line that you can't always easily spot. The thing is that from our perspective? It's sunbelt fans who treat any city where it snows with mockery, and sunbelt teams banning opposing teams' sweaters during the playoffs, that leads to a "bitter OTH" attitude. You say you have a low tolerance for "bitter OTH" attitudes. What you don't realize is that from our perspective? A lot of us have low tolerance for this "sunbelt exceptionalism" attitude that seems to have sprung up. The problem is that NHL has been a terrible steward for this sport. And has been for a long while now. This expansion never should have happened. The realignment that was tailor made to hand-deliver Seattle and Vegas never should have happened. The league twisting it's scheduel in knots because the Red Wings couldn't be arsed to play in the West never should have happened. There's always the need to keep the league realities in mind. I've known Vegas was coming for months now because of that. That doesn't mean I shouldn't call the league out for it's idiocy. Even when it's expected idiocy. This is the best sport in the world, being run by the worst of the worst of pro sports ownership and management. They deserve all the scorn fans across the league shower upon them, and more. It's the best option for a new team, period. The fact that we have to hope they get one by cornering embattled Hurricanes ownership while Vegas gets an expansion team and Arizona gets fourth and fifth chances is part of this problem causing all of this frustration among northern hockey fans. And partly why our tolerance for sunbelt exceptionalism is so low. Our teams make the most money for this dog and pony show, but we feel like we're constantly being jerked around for the benefit of the sunbelt organisations. That's what they are though. In the most objective sense of the word, they were experiments. What I don't get is why so many southern fans freak out if you suggest that maybe not all of them took. Look. Dallas, Tampa, Nashville, Anaheim, LA...they all managed to make it work. Suggesting that the league would be better off moving South Florida, Arizona, and Carolina doesn't take away from what's been built in Tampa, Nashville, and Anaheim. Again, this works both ways. Northern fans are tired of having our teams and communities mocked and shunned, and our fans turned away for wearing their team's sweaters to your arenas come playoff time. I keep going back to Winnipeg vs Atlanta, and I'm left with a blank when I try to think of why this league is so terrified of traditional markets even after a small Canadian prairie city proved it could make everyone more money than a sunbelt metropolis. The league is definitely stronger because of its successes in the sunbelt, but the fact remains that northern franchises make the most of this league's money. I don't think it's "OTH elitism" to state that fact. Yet Arizona gets chance after chance and LV gets an expansion team with the league setting it up to succeed right out of the gate. Yet we're all conceding that Quebec City can't get a team unless Quebecor corners Peter K into selling. It's frustrating to see that double standard from this side of the line.
  13. When I'm able to get to Vegas it's for two nights. Two shows, some fun at the casinos. The shows are key, because I can't do that anywhere. This is just me, but I'm not forgoing one of those to watch a hockey game. I love the sport. I grew up with it. I'll always love it. It's not something I want to do in Vegas though.
  14. I can watch NHL hockey any night of the season. If I'm going to Vegas? I want to spend that time doing what Vegas is known for. World-class shows and some gambling. You keep throwing around "bitter" as if that's going to scare me away from my stance. No. I am bitter. I admit that. I have every reason to be as a Canadian hockey fan. Your inability to comprehend why I could possibly feel that way only proves my assumptions. Also? Stop projecting. I'll let you in on a secret. This "bitter OTH" attitude you bemoan? It exists as a reaction to the attitudes of southern fans who assume any market where it snows deserves only mockery. It exists to counter the your fellow southern fans who faint at the sight of a road team's sweater at a home game. Your position seems to be "I want Quebec to get a team! Totes! Just...not when the opportunity presents itself." It's a very convenient stance to take. It wouldn't shock me if, come the time when Carolina moves, you're making an impassioned plea for Houston. Let's compare the financial success of the Thrashers in Atlanta compared to the financial success of the Jets in Winnipeg. Small prairie town in Western Canada beats out sunbelt metropolis. Sacreligious? Please. My opposition to LV isn't based on any sort of "hockey gods" nonsense. I'm interested in seeing as many stable, financially viable NHL franchises as possible. History and economics point to QC having the edge there. History and economics indicate that traditional markets, by and large, make this league more money than sunbelt experiments. Or to put it this way? Let's see how long your Preds last without the Leafs, Habs, and Rangers' revenue streams. Haha! You really don't understand Canadian hockey fans, do you? You don't understand why many of us are frustrated with this league, our own players, or our teams. So I'll explain it a bit for you. Acknowledging that our teams' managements do stupid things is nothing new. Take the Habs. A franchise with a pedigree that rivals any team south of the border. Montreal's GM traded one of the best defencemen in the world to your Preds because he'd rather have a boring white guy on the tail end of his career then a dynamic, exciting player who happens to be black. My point being that bad, self-defeating decisions are par for the course when it comes to Canada's hockey teams. You're not striking a nerve. Just emotional scar tissue. Now again, I'll lay it out for you in tl:dr form. I'm frustrated as a Canadian fan. If you can't understand why? If you can't understand where this "bitter OTH" attitude comes from? Then you're exactly what I thought you were.