• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by OnWis97

  1. I stole "too local" from another poster (I don't recall who) that commented on New Orleans's consideration of names like Rugerou (spelling? I think it was some sort of mythic swamp monster) and Krewe (the people that clean up the beads, etc. after Mardi Gras parades). I thought it was spot-on. Steelers makes sense. But those were a bit under-the-radar. (As an aside, I think Pelicans is great; it's the state bird and you don't see it on very many teams. It's just local enough.)
  2. 2018 NBA Post Season

    They both have their merits. But if this team goes to the Finals it, along with 2007, will be among the most impressive individual efforts for a non-championship team ever. Basketball, to a large extent, is about individuals/stars. LeBron is doing things that nobody has ever done, mainly because stars usually have at least 8-seed caliber teammates. It's fun to watch this guy be the best. The irony is that if Cleveland wins this series, it's probably worse for LeBron's legacy since ring-counters tend to hold Finals losses against a player more than earlier-round exits (i.e., 3-0 is seen as better than 3-6). If they beat Boston, he's going to be 3-6 in Finals. That he carried a crap roster on his back for some of the losses is neither here nor there. I definitely hold more appreciation for what LeBron's doing now than for anything he did in Miami.
  3. I absolutely think this could be a negative in the long run. One of the benefits expansion teams have is that fans will put up with losing for at least a few years. You go to games because you're excited to have the team/league. You go to be a part of if from the beginning. Heck, you even go to see opposing teams/players. You pay dues. I don't think it matters whether they win or lose the finals. These fans are conditioned to following a competitive team. When the team drops eight of its first ten some year, it'll be interesting to see what that does to the fanbase. So we seem to have competing theories. First, everything's cool; quit whining (i.e., the expansion draft was not particularly beneficial). Second, the expansion draft was beneficial in comparison with other expansion drafts and this is the case either because it was negotiated to go along with the hefty expansion fee or because they did not want "another Coyotes." IF the NHL gave them a more preferential expansion draft because of the high expansion fee, then they really needed to be less greedy and let this team build like any other expansion team. IF this was about "not another Coyotes" then I'd argue it wasn't a good market in the first place. If they have reason to believe the team won't be successful, then it shouldn't be created.
  4. 2018 MLB Season

    I have never pretended that the 1987 Twins were a great team. But they could be an example of where there is just a bit more than meets the eye. They clinched, with their 85th win, with five games to go. They then proceeded to lose their last five games. I suspect some of that was due to setting the rotation, playing call-ups, etc. Had some team given them a run, they may have won more games (though it's a lot to assume this so-so team wins all five to get to that magical number of 90). But the statement that "they would have finished 4th in the East" is not necessarily true. Teams that win bad divisions may tend to start to play down to that division for reasons that are actually smart. Again, I am NOT suggesting that the 1987 Twins were were not created by terribly mismatched divisions. They were. But I am suggesting that some of the low win totals could be just a bit misleading. Anyway, I agree with your premise that the mathematics pretty much have to work out that two seven-team divisions are going to have a blatantly un-deserving team (like the 1987 Twins) get in less frequently than three five-team divisions. Obviously the former is more likely to produce a really good team from each larger division. Also, only four champs vs. six champs. But it seems to "stick out" a lot more in the old format. Because when, say the 2006 Cardinals win a weak division, there are three other NL teams in the playoffs, including (automatically) at least the two best. The most unbalanced years in the old format just drew your eyes too how many teams in the strong division were better than the winner of the weak division. But more often than not, the old format was definitely better at protecting us from weak postseason teams. One interesting difference is that most (maybe even all) of the old format played a balanced schedule. I THINK that in the 1980s, the Twins played 13 games vs. their west rivals and 12 vs. the East. Now we have this unbalanced schedule (plus interleague) that has the Twins playing as few as six games against some AL West and East teams (and 19 vs. their division). What this should do is protect us from very low win totals. I'm far to lazy to look into this, but in theory the 2005 Padres probably got fat off of their 76 games against their weak division. And (again, in theory) a balanced schedule probably leads them to winning the division a bit under .500. Maybe this is part of the reason for the unbalanced schedule (though I suspect it's more about travel and selling tickets for Yanks/Sox). (A bit off-topic; the unbalanced schedule is OK except for its impact on the Wild Card.) Thanks in part to the unbalance schedule, I think Cleveland (possibly Minnesota) comes out with 85 wins or so.
  5. Teams Due for a Rebrand

    Interesting. They just updated their home uniform. And while there are certainly things I'd tweak on their uniforms, I don't see any rebrand needed. Unless, of course, it includes a name change. Are you thinking of a new logo or colors for the Minnesota Wild? To me, the only positive thing about the name "Wild" is how well they did with the logo and uniforms.
  6. 2018 NBA Post Season

    I am very much with you. As fun as the NCAA tournament is it’s a terrible way to crown a champion. I think the randomness of hockey is enough that the integrity of the championship would be well-served if they cut the number of postseason teams in half. But most fans, particularly the casual ones leagues want to attract in the postseason don’t get to hung up on the integrity of the title race. I think this is something that the NHL could try to exploit.
  7. 2018 NBA Post Season

    Yeah...they can't put the toothpaste back in the tube so they may as well embrace this. In general, the unpredictability of the NHL playoffs is an advantage (particularly at this moment in time, given where the NBA is). I'll take the Golden State coronation over an expansion champion any day, but I know a lot of fans are growing frustrated with what's going on in the NBA right now.
  8. When I was a kid and Jordan started being Jordan, a lot of people wearing Bulls gear would claim they liked the Bulls before Jordan even got there (at least 9 out of 10 were lying). It'll be a difficult claim for non-local fans ofr the VGN. "I liked them when they were bad" isn't going to be a thing.
  9. Many of you know a lot more about the business of the NHL than I do. But is part of this that the last run of expansion teams included four teams in three years? Obviously, they could not give those teams the same treatment that Vegas is getting. I think what the league really wanted was to have Vegas be competitive and it worked too well. Why? Maybe because they were skeptical fans would go out an watch a last-place team (though if so, it's not a great market). Anyway, win or lose, I have to think the NHL did not plan on this and may not like it. That said, I think fans in general love this. I know I have to be careful not to treat anecdotal internet commenting as data, but the ESPN story today is full of commenters who think this is great. The NHL's downfall, if it ever happens, probably won't be attributable to this. But it really, really bugs me.
  10. Admittedly, I did not know about the Lakota connection to the name of White Bear Lake. That said, that would almost make the name too local. To the rest of North America, they're named after polar bears. Still better than Wild, of course. Phoenix Dudes. Buffalo Buzzing Bees. It's like everyone had the sense to skip out on the embarrassing names. Except for the Wild.
  11. Is that a thing Packer fans say or do you have a new screen name? I know someone on this board used to say that (don’t recall who).
  12. At this point I almost hope Vegas wins the Cup. A secon Tampa Cup does nothing for me so I hope the silliness that was this expansion situation gets etched on the Cup. Edit: unless Washington find a way. LOL.
  13. I kinda like your regular season schedule. Having a more regimented non conference schedule with more schedule integrity and fewer cupcakes would be nice. 25 is too many. I like 16 with 11 conference champs and 5 at large. And most think that is too many.
  14. Hall of Very Good

    Actually, I'd put Boomer Esiason in the HOVG. He had a streak of about four outstanding years (including an MVP in 1988) but was just not at HOF long enough. He also belongs in some sort of uniform HOF. His Bengals uniforms were aweome and I am a big fan of the eras he was part of with the Jets and Cardinals.
  15. Opinion: Too many teams with red and blue

    The Royals makese sense, given the degree to which they look like the Dodgers, but I really like the blue and white Royals. I hope they don't focus more on gold, but if they do I can't complain. I'd love for the Phillies to go maroon and powder. But I hate when people tell me the Twins should change...the Phillies are a red team with the exception of a very non-traditional (across much of MLB) era. They should probably stay red but maroon and powder would be great. Orange and brown worked so, so well, particularly against the gray background of the road jersey. But either way, Padres, do SOMETHING. Brown/orange, bown/yellow, brown/powder, just brown, or even blue/yellow (like the temporary home uniform a couple of years ago) I like where the Rays are with color, but I agree with dumping the ray of light and sticking to the sea creature. Reds should definitely drop black. Brewers need to chuck this whole soul-less color scheme and go blue and yellow or even the 1990s era that included green. I'll add: Twins: Dump the gold. It's not working. Giants too.
  16. Padres Honour 98 Champs With Throwback Unis

    It was a nice look but I was disappointed that they dropped brown for it. (particularly since the late-1980s look was easily my favorite they've ever had). Now? Sure, wear it for a night. But with the Mets and Astros around, I really would not want them to go back to it (even if it is better to look like two teams instead of like 15).
  17. Non-Referencing of Nickname in logos

    I think it's OK that some nicknames are not referenced. In fact, I think it is even better sometimes. Some names are simply not conducive. Phillies, Athletics, etc. Other times, I'm glad teams don't try it. I bolded Seattle Sounders above because they could try to draw a "sounder," which I guess would be something like Johnny Canuck. So I am glad they don't. The Lakers could do that as well (though with what, a typical Minnesotan?). The Islanders did do that and my opinion is that the results were disastrous (though this board is split on it). I'm also glad the Bills focus on what I think we'd call city imagery and did not try to recreate Buffalo Bill. (Buffalo, unlike most places, has city options that look like mascots. The Phoenix Suns have dabbled in this, too). My personal preference tends to be a subtle nod. The Colts, the Jazz note (as opposed to something like the un-worn Blues alt of the 1990s), the First-Lebron-era sword, the Devils, the Kings crown. Or a simpler logo like the Lions or Falcons. That said, the Wild, Seahawks, and plenty of others have done a good job. But I'm always afraid a design will become too "fierce" or too detailed. I'm glad that the Bears don't use that bear head logo a lot. It would truly look terrible on a helmet. The two you highlight (Wizards and Warriors) I tend to think look better with City imagery than the two logos you show. The Wizards logos are way overdone, and I kinda think that of the Warriors as well. I think they are both better off right now (though for the Wizards, that's a bit trickier since they look like they are trying to dress up as the Bullets; they probably should have kept the old color scheme).
  18. For Mom, All MLB Teams Wearing Pink

    America's finest news source reports on pink jerseys https://sports.theonion.com/pink-jersey-proves-that-woman-is-sports-fan-yet-also-r-1826035931?utm_content=Main&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_source=Facebook&utm_campaign=SF
  19. And I have to think part of that is so that fan jerseys don't become outdated too quickly. If I bought a Browns jersey year one and they switched from orange numbers to white for year two, I'd be kinda pissed. It would be bad PR.
  20. I tend to agree with most. All the greens are reasonable arguments to make. Some I agree with, some I don't. For the red, though, as much as you vehemently disagree, I don't know that these are unreasonable. Pens: I'm with you on both of those uniforms being worse. But we know how much people hated the Vegas gold for the Pens. Eagles: I like all kelly sets better. They won the super bowl in the dark uniform (does that invalidate the white uniform argument? I think it does if we base the Cavs on the black uniform and not the whole set), which I think was better in 1996 than now. I'd probably color this green, but if you are counting the blue and yellow, it's a stretch. Kings: This may be red. The burger king was just so stupid. I'd also add the set with "Los Angeles" going across the bottom. Golden State: I'm with you. The uniforms you addressed were awful. Mavs: That set is so played out...I'm OK with judging any uniform from this era as their worst. Cubs: I'm with you in all ways. As much as the Cubs road grays are not classics, it would have been far better to see than the blue jersey. But this team goes back to the 1800s and I'd rank some of their non-traditional road uniforms (the dark blue with white pants, the powder with white pinstripes) worse. Not to mention all the goofy stuff teams wore in the deadball era. That said, while I agree that some people are just going to go with "championships in bad uniforms" I have a hard time invalidating any of these opinions as ridiculous. Maybe the Cubs and, thanks to burger king, the Kings.
  21. I agree. Without the five-year rule, NFL teams would look more like college teams in terms of changing all the time, etc. Consistency is important in the NFL (probably more so than college, where teams are not just "football teams" but part of something bigger). Also, fans drop a lot of money on the jerseys. It's bad PR to have jerseys become outdated every year. If I'm not mistaken (but maybe I am) the Rams had the opportunity to change uniforms for the move. Instead, they decided that it wasn't "we're back in LA!" that should ring in new uniforms. They decided that "we have a new stadium!" should be the key. I guess that says something about pro sports ownership culture in North America. If I were an LA fan excited for the return of the Rams, the biggest milestone would be the return to LA...not the new stadium. They made a terrible choice. And they compounded it by trying to partially "de-Saintlouisize" their look by coming up with a mismatched helmet. Once they realized how awful that was (which should have been before they hit the field) they should have just put in for their uniform change. But if they insist on the official change coming with the stadium, then this is what they are stuck with. I tend to agree that the NFL should be stricter...they should still be wearing the gold-horned helmet. Either way, this is entirely on the Rams.
  22. I actually think a lot of these are legit-Mavs, Blazers, Seahawks. And some others like Kings I don’t agree with but are reasonable. It’s more difficult to make such assertions with older teams like the Warriors and Eagles.
  23. O Funny. I’m the opposite. They probably did win in the worst individual uniform they ever have worn. But the primaries from that era are my favorite Cavs uniforms.
  24. 2018 MLB Season

    20 really is the new 30 for MLB parks.
  25. Corporate Sponsorship Examples

    When a manager or pitching coach makes a mound visit during a Twins telecast, it's a "Kwik Trip to the Mound." Kwik Trip is a regional (I think) gas station / convenience store.