• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


B-Rich last won the day on March 26 2013

B-Rich had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

365 Excellent

About B-Rich

  • Rank
    Competent Goofball Dad

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Old Metairie, LA

Recent Profile Visitors

8,256 profile views
  1. 2018 NBA Post Season

    In honor of the western conference finals....
  2. Failed Franchise Expansion & Relocations

    Now that you mentioned it, I do remember that one as well... good one, Ferdinand.
  3. Forrest Gump Night in Montgomery to feature Greenbow Biscuits

    If it's "Greenbow" Alabama, why couldn't they use green in the color scheme?
  4. Opinion: Too many teams with red and blue

    This is totally untrue. Do as I did, and look at each team's uniforms during that era in this classic refererence book: There were no changes as a result of WWII especially in regards to US participation in the war. About the closest thing to your statement is that the Phillies and Braves wore blue and gold for 1938 ONLY, then went back to their traditional colors of red and blue in 1939-- three years before the US entered the war.
  5. Bobby Hebert and Morten Andersen- Saints and then Falcons. There's a lot of others that have moved between those two teams, or the Saints and Panthers , but other than Sam Mills (already mentioned) none were that significant.
  6. Failed Franchise Expansion & Relocations

    Dilbert, Mac --good points all around. Kansas City-Omaha Kings didn't really work, either. Speaking of regional franchises, when I was about 10 yrs old in the mid 1970s, after seeing that model being done, I thought it would be cool to have a regional franchise called "Deep South Rebels" who would split time between Memphis, Birmingham and Nashville. Pretty dumb (especially since Tennessee is not considered in the Deep South) but like I said, I was 10.
  7. Failed Franchise Expansion & Relocations

    Having lived through that era as a kid, things were very different then, and at the time, Birmingham WAS seen as one of the next southern sun-belt cities that would be moving up to the major leagues; "the next Atlanta". It was happening with all the bigger southern cities back then; the people all knew their cities were going to become "big league", and local officials and movers and shakers were jostling to be next in line, whatever it took. You've also got to think of the expansions and mergers that occurred in that time frame. With 3 mergers in about a decade, having a team in the 'challenging' league was seen as akin to being in a major league market. Coming in as an outside league team was a lot more accepted/common in those days Also, look at the MSA numbers in comparison for Birmingham and other now-big league southern sun belt cities (I am including OKC in this mix) between 1970 to 2000: 1970 1980 1990 2000 Birmingham 737,837 815,286 840,140 921,106 Charlotte 840,347 971,391 1,162,093 1,499,293 Jacksonville 612,277 722,252 1,100,491 1,173,051 Memphis 856,698 938,777 1,007,306 1,135,614 Nashville 699,142 850,505 985,026 1,231,311 Oklahoma City 717,825 860,969 958,839 1,120,081 Orlando 522,575 804,925 1,224,852 1,801,741 Raleigh-Durham 536,952 665,236 855,545 1,296,350 Tampa Bay 1,105,553 1,613,603 2,067,959 2,395,997 In the early 70s, Birmingham was bigger than Jacksonville and Nashville (which now have NFL teams) as well as Oklahoma City, Raleigh-Durham and Orlando, which are now major league markets. It wasn't far off from Memphis and Charlotte in size. As the table above shows, though, those other areas have all grown quite a bit, while Birmingham has grown much more slowly. It had a shot in the 70s, I think, it missed it. For context: Prior to 1960, you have NO big-league teams in the sun belt south. In 1960, Dallas Cowboys and Houston Oilers are added; Dallas and Houston become "big league". 1965 Braves move to Atlanta, Atlanta becomes "big league" 1966- Atlanta Falcons and Miami Dolphins begin play; Miami becomes "big league". 1967 - New Orleans Saints and New Orleans Buccaneers (ABA) begin play; New Orleans becomes "big league". Kentucky Colonels(ABA) begin play; Louisville becomes "big league" (for quite a while). Dallas Chapparals and Houston Mavericks (ABA) begin play. 1968 - St. Louis Hawks (NBA) become Atlanta Hawks. 1969 - Houston Mavericks become Carolina Cougars, Charlotte becomes "big league" (for a while) 1970 - N.O. Buccaneers move to Memphis; Memphis becomes "big league" (for awhile); Washington Capitols (ABA) move to Tidewater area of Virginia, Virginia becomes "big league"(for a while). 1971 - San Diego Rockets (NBA) move to Houston; 1972 - Atlanta Flames (NHL); Houston Aeros (WHA) begin play. 1974 - New Orleans Jazz (NBA) begin play; the WFL begins; Birmingham, Orlando, and Jacksonville become "big league" (for a while). even Shreveport, LA is "Big League' for a short while. 1976 - Toronto Toros become Birmingham Bulls (WHA), Tampa Bay Buccaneers begin play. Tampa Bay becomes "big league". 1983-1985 - USFL begins play; Birmingham, Orlando, Jacksonville and Memphis return to "big leagues". 1988 - Miami Heat and Charlotte Hornets enter NBA, Charlotte returns to "big leagues". 1989 - Orlando Magic begins play; Orlando returns to "big leagues". 1993 - Charlotte and Jacksonville awarded NFL franchises, Jacksonville returns to "big leagues". 1997 - Houston Oilers announce planned move to Nashville; Nashville awarded an NHL franchise; Nashville becomes "big league". Hartford Whalers move to Carolina; Raleigh-Durham market becomes "big-league" 2001 - Vancouver Grizzlies move to Memphis; Memphis returns to "big leagues". 2008 - Seattle Supersonics become Oklahoma City Thunder, Oklahoma City becomes "big league" The only southern-sun belt cities that had a 'taste' of the big leagues that have NOT ever made it in were Louisville, the Tidewater area of Virginia, Birmingham, and Shreveport. Shreveport was a kind of fluke, with WFL and later CFL teams and will never be major league; Louisville may one day have a shot with the NBA, though I doubt it. Tidewater had its best shot with the NHL, but is done; and of course, Birmingham is done.
  8. Non-Referencing of Nickname in logos

    Similar to the claim that the basketball background on the Pistons' logo was the big end & rod cap part of a piston, I'm not buying it. It's more of a case of seeing what you want to see to make something "fit". No way that the primary logo was ever intended to be or suggest a "magic wand": 1. It was originally designed as and referred to as "the monument ball"; 2. Also serves as a stylistic seam line on the basketball; 3. Wand is not physically/graphically connected (or combined with) the silver star; 4. Clearly, the shadowing and straight angles and edges indicates an evenly four sided column. If that's a wand, it would be very uncomfortable to hold. 5. The wordmarks, which use the Washington Monument shape in the Washington "h" and Wizards "d", reinforces that it's the monument that is the main feature: Incidentally, in thinking about it, the old Bullets logo (both the lower-case older one shown above and the later upper-case one) also did not reference the nickname at all. You have to go back to the old days of Baltimore, pre-1969 to find such a representation:
  9. Non-Referencing of Nickname in logos

    Are you kiddin' me? Ever seen these? Herbie Husker? The Boomer Sooner Schooner? Brutus Buckeye? The Hokie Gobbler? Davy Crockett/Rifleman? Big Al? All are /were licensed by the colleges and used in merch sales. Definitely part of the imagery. Granted, a lot of older college imagery is based on mascots, costumed or real, which in some cases does not tie-in to the name (Alabama's elephant/Big Al, UNC's Ram/Ramses, Navy's goat/ Bill, etc.). The Indiana Hoosiers for awhile had a (costumed) buffalo mascot which was also licensed and used (a buffalo is on the state seal). Teams named after colors-- Harvard Crimson, Dartmouth Green, and Stanford Cardinal-- well, what can you do? Cornell (Big Red) has used a bear mascot; Stanford has that tree.
  10. Touching on a post in the Lost Sports Logos thread, during the 1st round of the NBA playoffs, it hit me how the Washington Wizards now have no reference at all to a very specific nickname, a nickname that is rich with visual opportunity. Of course up until a few years ago, they did have these, but now they are gone: All reference, imagery, and color scheme now used by the franchise has no connection to the name "Wizards"; it's more centered on the location itself. The team literally could have any other nickname in existence and keep the same logos and uniforms. I also noticed the same was true of the Golden State Warriors. "Warriors" is a very fierce-sounding name, with much opportunity for some type of visual interpretation. Like many teams named "warriors", the franchise originally focused on a Native American warrior, using a dribbling brave or in some instances a chief's bonnet. But shortly after their move to the west coast, they have focused more on the location's imagery: Golden Gate Bridge, cable cars, outline of state of California, new Bay Bridge, and finally an oak tree. The one exception (for a short time) was during this era below, with at least a stylized mythological warrior wielding a lightning bolt as a weapon: So I began to look into it a little more, and noticed how many teams actually fail to use their nickname in ANY aspect of their branding/imagery. And as I am wont to do, I also started to categorize them. What I postulate is that there are four basic categories: Use nickname in imagery: Clear examples include teams like the Celtics, Falcons, Spurs, both Cardinals, Redskins, Penguins, Lightning, etc. I would also include those that use a clearly associative item, such as the Braves' tomahawk, Buccaneers' pirate flag, Sacramento Kings' crown, etc. Imagery may even come in secondary logos not used on uniforms (Chicago Bears, Detroit Tigers, etc.) Use location in imagery: This would include the afore-mentioned Wizards and Warriors, current Seattle Sounders and old Sonics logos, old Nuggets 'rainbow skyline', etc.. Dallas Cowboys (other than some really old logos with the football player riding a horse) would arguably be in this category with their Texas Lone Star. The Saints' fleur-de-lis would normally place them in this category as well, as it is the symbol for the city (and on the city flag) as well as being ubiquitous in New Orleans; but it was also the symbol of an actual saint, St. Louis, King of France, so it could also be in category 1) Wordmark/initials with or without equipment/ball as imagery: baseball (Dodgers, Giants, A's) basketball (Nets, Lakers, Pistons), and in football, usually with initials in a football shaped oval (Jets, Packers, 49ers). Very rare in hockey. Abstract logos/imagery. Rather rare; the only ones that leap out at me are the Portland Trail Blazers and the OKC Thunder. The old NASL Cosmos logo fit into this category as well. Personally, it REALLY bugs me when a team has a great nickname, but doesn't use any imagery for it. Like I said earlier, it's as if they could name themselves ANYTHING in the same set, just change a few letters... case in point, the old 80s Supersonics logo: what's worse is when OTHER, non-related imagery is brought in... a good example a few years back was when the Padres went to blue and gold with the "wave" imagery on a home plate shape: Any other thoughts, examples?
  11. Lost Sports Logos?

    I get where you're coming from, but the thing is, that 90s design is not an ABSTRACT or purely WORDMARK design like most of your examples above, it features a picture of an actual THING (wave) that is almost always associated with another nickname [wave(s), breakers, tide(s), surf]. I think "non-referencing of nickname in design" would be a good topic for discussion, and in fact was thinking a lot about it recently during the 1st round of the NBA playoffs. To keep this thread on topic, I will open new thread on that very topic using some of the examples you listed above.
  12. I have, and compared to almost every other MLB stadium, they are dumps.
  13. Lost Sports Logos?

    Not sure, but i would guess no. The deal was that then-owners Einhorn and Reinsdorf were moving, not selling.
  14. Lost Sports Logos?

    Yeah, very 90s, colors and all, but it is a STUPID logo. For a team called the Clippers, that is. What does a crashing wave and sun rays have to do with a very fast sailing ship? Nothing. Change the name to the Breakers, the Waves, the Surf, and you've got something. Otherwise-- fail. BUT, speaking of Lost Sports Logos, here's a real doozie. The proposed logo to be used for the White Sox if they had moved to Tampa Bay in 1989 and become the Florida White Sox: I remembered seeing this logo on a TV news piece back in '88, when the Illinois legislature was voting on the new Comiskey. Finally found it online.
  15. Went to the best source, our old friend Donovan/Colorwerx's site. They did change over time, three different burgundys since 1972, and it is darker now: