OnWis97

Members
  • Content count

    9,357
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by OnWis97

  1. 2018 MLB Hot Stove Season

    I prefer the 156-game schedule. It has some historical precedent (or was it 154? go to whatever it was) and either ending earlier or having more off days are both positives. The rest of this sucks for these reasons: 12 playoff teams with a bunch of one-game play-ins. No. Baseball's playoffs need to be special to make and once you've made it, you (and the fans) deserve a series hat highlights the starting rotations. All the intra-city matchups now being in the same division...I am sure some see it as a positive. I don't. I like that they are in opposite leagues and those cities/metros have a team in each league that don't interact with each other a lot. Getting rid of the NL and AL. Nothing more needs to be said. Well, except that this would mean the end of baseball the way it should be played; without the DH. Too much like the NHL...need to have the cachet of AL and NL pennants, etc. The geographic alignment. OK, there are some positives (reduced travel) but it's just spitting in the face of tradition. Yeah, yeah, too many anal traditionalists...but history is a big part of what makes baseball what it is. As aside, the weird placement of the Twins away from teams like Chicago, Milwaukee, KC, etc. would be a silver lining for me. Lots of early road games. I like that...I hate the Wild and T-Wolves having so many late ones. I guess one positive is that there's a bit more schedule integrity since it does not have to be quite as unbalanced and set up for "inter-league rivalries."
  2. Now that we are close to having LA teams, I am surprised there is no thread in this forum on what they may look like. Is there any way we are looking at an identity overhaul? I'd say it's unlikely, particularly given the three teams we are talking about.. Both the Rams and Raiders have history in LA (so do the Chargers, but not as memorable). It would be really odd to see the Rams, who've been the Rams since, what the 30s (?), change names. I don't think whatever sympathy there is for St. Louis will cause much momentum for a Cleveland Deal, thanks to the history in LA, the lacking certainty that St. Louis will have a team again, and the lack of "lunchpail/blue collar fan" reputation. The Raiders also have LA history and while they've had a rough decade plus, their brand has historical importance. I think their brand would stay the same not only if they moved to LA but to San Antonio or London. Also, like St. Louis, there will be nothing near a guarantee that Oakland will ever get another team. San Diego is the most likely to overhaul, but probably still unlikely. Given the proximity of San Diego to LA, they may even retain some fans. Plus it's a brand that's been around for 50 years or so and, once again, no Cleveland Deal is likely for San Diego. Truth is, I don't like the identity (curved lightning bolts?) but I certainly don't want to see it change, diminishing those 50 years and resulting in something likely to be worse. I have no horse in the race, so as a neutral fan, I'd like to see the names remain the same, and the identities essentially the same. Predictions: If Raiders move: No identity change save for "Oakland" to "Los Angeles." If Rams move: No name change. The horns stay. Move to the old blue/yellow scheme (60%). Otherwise, stay with current look (35%) or move to old blue/white scheme (5%) If Chargers move: No name change. The bolts stay on the helmet. Stay with current look (80%). Otherwise go to some old look (15%) or a new variation of the "bolts" (5%) Any thoughts?
  3. Why root for the home team?

    I've tried. When the North Stars moved, I decided I was a Red Wings fan. Why? Why else? Uniforms. After all, I needed to still have a hockey team and the North Stars were dead to me. It didn't take. In fact, their first finals appearance was against the Devils and I was kind of ambivalent about who'd win, as I enjoyed seeing Neal Broten get a ring. When they finally did win, I was about as happy as I usually am when the team I kind of prefer wins a championship. Meh. Interesting. I've never actually been a fan of a team I wanted to dislike. But sometimes I find myself surprised in neutral games. For example, I cheer against the Indians because of Wahoo. I want them to lose all the time. Or, at least, I want to want them to lose all the time. But I found myself pulling for them vs. the Yankees. That I suspect the Yankees are going to be around for a long, long time and maybe Cleveland's drought outweighed my hate for the logo. I'd remind myself "cheer against them" but ultimately, I just admitted that I was pulling for them. As for the topic at hand, I don't think there's a right or wrong. I grew up in what has been, off-and-on, a four-team town. Growing up cheering for the Twins, Vikings, T-Wolves (and North Stars) embedded these teams in me. It's corny to say, but there's a sense of community, if you will. The Twin Cities was buzzing in 1987 when the Twins made their first postseason appearance in my life. When I moved away, I remained a fan. Now, I've never lived anywhere else with pro teams (College in Madison, grad school in Iowa, jobs in Peoria IL and Connecticut). Had I lived in, say, Philadelphia, would any of their teams have supplanted my teams? Doubt it but given that I'd never lived in Minnesota with the Wild, maybe I'd have been a Flyers fan. (of course Wisconsin replaced Minnesota in college, but I think being on campus is a huge part of that) That said, if you want to have no team (as some here tout of themselves) or be, for some reason, a fan of a team from elsewhere, that's OK. There's no right or wrong. I admit I'm put off by frontrunners; for example I have two friends that are Patriots fans (though one did like them as early as the mid-1990s). I don't understand changing teams over time and how you get excited when your Lakers, Patriots, Cubs, and Blackhawks win championships...but I guess it's none of my business. My friend who liked the Patriots in the mid-1990s is also a Cubs fan. And has been since before I knew him...why? Because he grew up babysitting his younger brothers and watched the Cubs on WGN. All the day games brought him in. I was always with the home team. To each their own I guess.
  4. 2017 NFL Season

    On the Patriots/Jets play, I felt like that was one of those "whatever the call on the field was" kind of reviews. Possession-related replays bug me because they always seem to be arbitrary and, of course, tend to favor the high-profile teams. But let's accept for a moment that the call was correct...I HATE, HATE, HATE the touchback rule for the end-zone fumble. If that ball goes out of bounds an inch on the "field" side of the pylon, it's Jets ball at the 1-inch line but if it goes one inch further it's a turnover? It's just so arbitrary. There has to be a better way. I've thought this for years. I suspect that the rule exists because "where are you going to put the ball?" Couldn't the rule be that if the ball goes out in the end zone it simply returns to the spot where it was last possessed?
  5. Football and CTE

    I think this is related to something that we still don't know enough about. Is the problem with CTE derivative of what happens in the game or is it the culmination of all the time one's head spends rattling around that helmet all week? I tend to think it's more the latter...more the accumulation of sub-concussive hits and that the safest thing might be to totally stop contact in practice so the only contact players are ever subject to is in games...that would probably hinder how "textbook" the hits are (and cause other issues with quality of play). And the in-game hits, on average, would be a bit more dangerous. However, I think the "good hits" are bigger contributors to the problem than we want to believe. And the "quality" of hits may not be as impactful as the "quanitity." Of course this is just my gut and we can't rely on that...we have a long way to go to truly understand.
  6. Football and CTE

    OK, people are all over the snark on this one (since the door is so wide open). First, it's anecdotal evidence. But the point I think that this misses is that we are not trying to keep people from getting "hurt." You can tear an achilles jogging or playing basketball. You can sprain an ankle by landing on the base funny running out an infield grounder. We all know this and we all know that you can't just put yourself in bubble wrap. Your brother I assume had a musculoskeletal injury. It's an unfortunate possibility in essentially any sport. The CTE issue is different than simple "injuries" we are all used to. It provides long-term loss of quality-of-life and potentially even the ability to function. Many think it hastens dementia. So the differences are 1) the long-term quality-of-life impacts and 2) the unknown factor. We're just scratching the surface in terms of our understanding of what's going on here. For the most part, we've always been aware of the potential "traditional" injuries and likelihood of long-term impact. After all, the NFL can't hide things like ACL tears or broken legs. While athletes try to tough-out sprains and other pains, some injuries just don't allow that. Sometimes you just can't play. And when athletes do tough it out, I think they have a decent sense of the long-term risk (sometimes great, sometimes negligible). It's different with the head...nobody else can see it. Only you know what's going on in your own head. It's also different because the effects are not likely to show themselves for a long time. If football's going to give your brother CTE, nobody's going to probably even recognize that until well into adulthood. CTE was never going to cost him a scholarship. Who knows, maybe that track injury was the best thing that ever happened to him, maybe four more years of football would have ruined his 50s and 60s. But whatever did happen is apples and oranges with what we're talking about here.
  7. 2017 NFL Season

    The reason others are not all free agents is because unlike Kaep, they are not the face of the movement and, therefore, do not bring with them nearly as much negative publicity.
  8. 2017 NFL Season

    Who wins the NFC? Nobody looks too great. Carolina? Philly?
  9. 2017 NFL Season

    The Jets are up 14 on New England. What is going on with the Jets? I would have taken the under on two wins.
  10. 2017 MLB Postseason Thread

    I think this sums up any predictions for me. Given the seasons both teams have had and their recent (and long-term) postseason histories, who knows. Cubs in 4, Dodgers in 4 and anything in between makes sense to me. My gut says Cubs because they seem to find a way and that becomes habit-forming (as does losing; I don't have to tell Cubs fans). I want the Astros in the AL because the Yankees are going to go to a lot of World Series in the near future and because there's just something so weird (and, therefore, cool) about seeing the Astros in the World Series against any NL team...if you're old enough (and I am) you may still think of them as an NL team (I do).
  11. Unpopular Opinions

    I think it's OK, too. Baseball is a sport built on tradition been around a long time for a lot of teams. I don't expect teams that have had the colors since before 1960s expansion to change. Specifically blue and red, which teams like Cleveland, Minnesota, Boston, etc. have had for a long time. Actually, dark blue with other colors still adds variety in my opinions. The Rays and Astros (and even the Brewers and Padres*) don't create a lack of variety in my opinion. Blue and red is the only scheme really flirting with that problem, but like I said, those teams have had those colors forever. Now, if a new team went blue and red, that would bother me...or that rumored (a few years ago) Padres change to blue and red to match the Ted Williams minor league Padres. That would be a travesty. *The Brewers and Padres bug me in vacuums...not so much because they detract from variety (they don't) but because the Brewers went so drab (and who would really want them to highlight that gold more?) and the Padres because they were unique and had a very "Padres" brand and chose, as the fifth most recognized team in their own state, to totally blend in. I don't think that blue needed to be off limits for the Rays just because they are new (blue and red? that would have been another story) and their light blue trim is different and nice.
  12. 2017 MLB Postseason Thread

    Guy I hate that I shouldn't: Brett Gardner. Based on his games vs. the Twins, I knew how that 12-pitch at bat would end.
  13. Unpopular Opinions

    Yeah, you're getting into the cheesy, but it's true. In 1987 and 1991, there was just a "buzz" around the Twin Cities. That has happened around some other playoff runs out of our teams as well. When the Twins went back to the playoffs in 2002, I was living in Illinois and as glad as I was they were back in, I lost out on the camaraderie.
  14. 2017 NFL Season

    Pretty low-risk move for the Cardinals. Still, one has to expect they'll actually play him (of course one would have had the same expectation of the Saints). Even with the issues the Vikings have (now, ugh) at RB, I am content that we've moved on from AP.
  15. 2017 MLB Postseason Thread

    So now Strasburg is starting today. What a bizarre story this has been. This is probably as much as I've ever felt that public/media/social media reaction has ever impacted a team's approach to a high-profile game. Whatever pressure he'd have felt as the starter anyway has to be magnified given the perception that he might not have wanted to the ball.
  16. Unpopular Opinions

    Interesting. I'm trying to recall whether that was going on with either the Timberwolves or the Wild. I was not back in the Twin Cities until 2008, so my I don't have a ton of insight on the Wild. The Wild were probably a bit different, anyway, since we were seven years removed from having the NHL...probably less likely for hard-core fanships to be built. I don't really recall a lot of people sticking with any old teams when the Wolves started. That first year, I went to a handful of games (including Bulls, Lakers, Celtics) and it seemed like a partisan Wolves crowd. I mean, yeah, go to any arena and you'll see opposing Jordan, Kobe, LeBron, Bird, etc. (depending on year, of course) jerseys but my sense, and I can't prove it...it's all anecdotal, is that the Wolves were pretty much "the" team from Day 1. Another small twist is that we had a Big Ten team in town...I come from a family of college hoops fans and this may have limited the interest in following an out-of-town NBA team. And, of course, the access to out-of-town teams was minimal in the 1980s and perhaps this is a key variable in comparing the Wolves and the "Predwings."
  17. Unpopular Opinions

    I agree. If for no other reason, you're able to go to the games. I know that if you want to, you can watch 100% of the Flyers games from Vegas, but having a team to talk about with friends and co-workers and 41 home dates in town is valuable. There's no right or wrong. If you are a hard-core Flyers (random team I picked for sake of discussion) in Vegas and want to stick with them, that's cool. But it makes total sense to cheer for the new home team. I was 15 when the Timberwolves started. I'd considered the Celtics my favorite team (though "fan" would be a strong word) because they were good and I liked green. I was a T-Wolves fan from day 1. And I don't see that as a problem.
  18. 2017 NFL Season

    I wonder how a poll of NFL fans would turn out.
  19. 2017 NFL Season

    http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20980456/roger-goodell-sends-letter-nfl-teams-wants-players-stand-national-anthem
  20. Unpopular Opinions

    Those are pretty unpopular... I'm kinda with you on #1. As leagues expand playoffs it kinda cheapens the regular season. That said, if an NBA team with 66 games and another wins 65, is that definitive? In that case, a best-of-seven probably makes sense to settle who's better. Of course if one wins 66 and another wins 55 (particularly within the same conference), then you already know who's better (or, with injury, at least who had the better year). The problem is that the playoff format has to be set in advance. I prefer each league have a smaller playoff pool to create importance in the regular season. But if the pool becomes too small and most teams are eliminated by mid-season, the season becomes more of a drag. But ultimately, you are kind of right...the pre 1969 AL Champ / NL Champ was probably the best way to decide the two league champs with integrity. I think a Vegas/Nevada resident, regardless of age, has every reason to be a Golden Knights Fan. They finally have a team there...I'd be excited. If the Knights are not your closest team geographically, then I'm with you. I hate plenty of teams with uniforms I think are great.
  21. R.I.P Y.A. Tittle

    That's a funny little quirk during the evolution of football equipment. My gut reaction was so he could carry it, but the facemask would serve that well...but what else could it be? Seems like a bad idea since it's another thing for a defensive player to grab...and back then the only penalty was Murder 1.
  22. https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/tom-petty-on-life-support-after-being-found-unconscious-tmz/ This is a great way to make a crap day even worse.
  23. 2017-18 NCAA Football Thread

    I've heard all of these, with the academics being the most common. But maybe we don't want to admit that it's Alvarez.
  24. Winter of Discontent: The 2017-18 NHL Season

    I liked the Penguins as a kid. Pretty much for their uniforms. So when they met the North Stars in the finals, the worst case was a consolation prize. And I never held ill will for the result. And even though they are just getting back to having their best look, I always kinda liked them and they are a rare team with a lot of wins that I don't mind seeing win. (Ducks tomatoes)
  25. New Orleans Saints - A Uniform Odyssey

    Probably an unpopular opinion, but I think that black helmet is better than the gold.