Teams In The Wrong Stadium

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

1 hour ago, McCarthy said:

 

They played each other in the playoffs at least once that I can remember. That must've been really strange for old Colts fans. At least when the Browns play the Ravens Browns fans don't have to root against their old uniforms. 

 

The difference is the Giants came back to the Polo Grounds after 5 years and played as a road team in their old stadium. When the Colts came back it was 14 years and a different stadium later. If that game had been in Memorial Stadium that would've been bizarre. 

 

1 hour ago, leopard88 said:

 

I can safely tell you that @kroywen is 100% correct.  I wasn't at that game, but I feel pretty confident in saying that there were no Ravens fans cheering for the Colts.  Old Baltimore fans had no positive feelings for the Colts.

 

That game was 15 years after the move, so there were no Baltimore Colts on the field.  However, I'm fairly certain the feelings would have been the same if the game took place 4 years after the move, as was the case with the Mets and Giants.  That is especially so because I don't think there were any legends/future legends who made the move (no, Nesby Glasgow, Mike Pagel and Curtis Dickey don't count).

 

 

Strangest of all must have been the Minnesota Twins' first visit to Washington in 1961 to play the expansion Senators.  Imagine seeing your entire team from the previous year, intact, but as the road team with a different name and wearing different uniforms. 

I have never been able to find any news stories about this event.  And it would seem that the local fans weren't terribly worked up about it, as Baseball Reference shows attendances of only 14,000, 9000, and 19,000 for the three-game series of May 26-28, in stark contrast to the huge crowds that greeted the Dodgers and Giants on their first visits to New York in 1962.

And get this: the last two games between the teams at Washington that season, in mid-September, drew fewer than 2000 and 1500 fans!  (Though the fact that this was a two-game series with games played on a Tuesday and a Thursday suggests a rainout on the Wednesday in between, and therefore possible bad weather for that week.  But still -- fewer than 2000 fans at each game!!)

[leopard88]

25 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Strangest of all must have been the Minnesota Twins' first visit to Washington in 1961 to play the expansion Senators.  Imagine seeing your entire team from the previous year, intact, but as the road team with a different name and wearing different uniforms.

 

I hadn't thought about this scenario before.  That really would be a little strange.

 

It was probably a little strange for some of the players too.  It's one thing to come back to your old city after a trade.  In this case, it would be like most of the 25-man roster coming back after a trade (especially since roster turnover was less significant in the reserve clause days).

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

50 minutes ago, leopard88 said:

 

I hadn't thought about this scenario before.  That really would be a little strange.

 

It was probably a little strange for some of the players too.  It's one thing to come back to your old city after a trade.  In this case, it would be like most of the 25-man roster coming back after a trade (especially since roster turnover was less significant in the reserve clause days).

 

If any of us ever meets Jim Kaat, we must resolve to ask him about this.

[Gothamite]

On 3/24/2017 at 10:47 AM, McCarthy said:

The difference is the Giants came back to the Polo Grounds after 5 years and played as a road team in their old stadium. When the Colts came back it was 14 years and a different stadium later. If that game had been in Memorial Stadium that would've been bizarre. 

 

And no old Baltimore players in uniform.  Seeing Willie Mays wearing the right colors but with the wrong city across his chest must have been difficult.

[Gothamite]

New York soccer continues to be played in ballparks.  Next week the Cosmos will open their new home, the home of the short-season single-A Brooklyn Cyclones.

 

 

And people complain about Yankee Stadium...

 

 

[raysox]

Lightning-Blues at the Amway Center in Orlando for a preseason game

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

2 hours ago, Gothamite said:

New York soccer continues to be played in ballparks.  Next week the Cosmos will open their new home, the home of the short-season single-A Brooklyn Cyclones.

 

 

And people complain about Yankee Stadium...

 

 

 

 

I would first like to mention that this doesn't really fit the category, because the Coney Island park is now the Cosmos' home stadium.

 

Also, the complaints about Yankee Stadium (including my own) are getting less and less.

Anyway, the interesting thing about the graphic above is that it implies that the field will be recoloured. Compare that graphic to a graphic that the team used for an earlier game in that park:

 

 

 

 

And that is indeed how the field looked.

 

 

Of course, there is no actual dirt there, as the basepaths are just brown field turf.  So using sod, as is done in the Yankee Stadium infield, is not possible.  But if they have figured out a way to recolour the basepaths, that would be great.

In any case, even a non-recoloured baseball diamond isn't as bad as the lacrosse lines on the Hofstra field.

[kroywen]

Why are the seats behind home plate $10 more than the seats on the 3rd base line for the Ottawa match? The seats behind home seem super removed from the pitch, and look like they'd have terrible sightlines. While the 3rd base seats are on an angle, they seem better than the ones behind home.

 

Also, who the hell is paying $95 to go to a Cosmos game?

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

14 minutes ago, kroywen said:

Why are the seats behind home plate $10 more than the seats on the 3rd base line for the Ottawa match? The seats behind home seem super removed from the pitch, and look like they'd have terrible sightlines. While the 3rd base seats are on an angle, they seem better than the ones behind home.

 

Also, who the hell is paying $95 to go to a Cosmos game?

 

I would bet that the Cosmos adjusted their prices according to what they learnt from observing which seats sold and which did not sell on the previous occasions when they played at that park.

[Gothamite]

They didn't sell all that many seats the previous times they played in this park, not enough to sustain operations.  Maybe they just need to maximize profits on the same number of seats.

 

5 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

And that is indeed how the field looked.


 

 

Of course, there is no actual dirt there, as the basepaths are just brown field turf.  So using sod, as is done in the Yankee Stadium infield, is not possible.  But if they have figured out a way to recolour the basepaths, that would be great.

In any case, even a non-recoloured baseball diamond isn't as bad as the lacrosse lines on the Hofstra field.

 

Yes - they will be bringing in a new artificial pitch, which they will lay over the regular Cyclones artificial turf (that brown is just colored turf, not dirt).  So no baseball lines, and no brown patches.

 

And yeah, I know this is their new regular home.  But just as Shea was the new regular home of the Yankees in 1974 and 75, that doesn't make it any less the wrong stadium.  

 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

They didn't sell all that many seats the previous times they played in this park, not enough to sustain operations.  Maybe they just need to maximize profits on the same number of seats.

 

 

Yes - they will be bringing in a new artificial pitch, which they will lay over the regular Cyclones artificial turf (that brown is just colored turf, not dirt).  So no baseball lines, and no brown patches.

 

And yeah, I know this is their new regular home.  But just as Shea was the new regular home of the Yankees in 1974 and 75, that doesn't make it any less the wrong stadium.  

 

 

It's good to read that a pitch will be laid over the baseball diamond!

And I don't want to be pedantic [I am lying; I don't mind in the least being pedantic], but there is a fundamental difference between this situation and the Yankees at Shea Stadium.  Unlike the Yankees' temporary move to Shea, which from day one had the end date built in, the Cosmos at Coney Island is not a stopgap or a temporary move; it is "permanent".  

Of course every contract is in effect for a determined length of time; and no one can predict the future.  But the important point is that there is no other plan here, no notion that the team will be at Coney Island for X number of years and then go elsewhere.  The proposal for a stadium at the City line near Belmont Park fell through a while ago (before the current ownership came in); and there are no other proposals being considered.  This is it; this is the only plan there is for this team; this is their home.  Just as Yankee Stadium is NYCFC's actual home, this Coney Island ballpark is the Cosmos' actual home.  There's no "wrong stadium" about it in either case.

[PrimalCookie]

9 hours ago, raysox said:

Lightning-Blues at the Amway Center in Orlando for a preseason game

I'm pretty sure I was at that game. I completely forgot that it existed. They should do that again.

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

I don't want to be pedantic [I am lying; I don't mind in the least being pedantic], but there is a fundamental difference between this situation and the Yankees at Shea Stadium.  Unlike the Yankees' temporary move to Shea, which from day one had the end date built in, the Cosmos at Coney Island is not a stopgap or a temporary move; it is "permanent". 

 

Not to be equally pedantic, but it's not "permanent" at all.  It's indefinite, but that is in no way the same thing. 

 

They never had a serious stadium plan when they played at Hofstra, but they made lots of empty promises that they'd build one.  And now their new loudmouth owner is spouting the same nonsense as the old, with vague and empty rhetoric about building a SSS in NYC.  Same situation; new indefinite stadium with lots of empty rhetoric about their next one.  Until then, they're stuck at MCU for want of a better option. Even if it's not a great option.

 

At least Yankee Stadium offers NYCFC room to grow.  MCU Park will set a very low ceiling on what the Cosmos can do.  And yet it's still a huge upgrade over Hofstra.  And FWIW, I was advocating this move for years, I just fear it's too late now. 

[kroywen]

45 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Not to be equally pedantic, but it's not "permanent" at all.  It's indefinite, but that is in no way the same thing. 

 

They never had a serious stadium plan when they played at Hofstra, but they made lots of empty promises that they'd build one.  And now their new loudmouth owner is spouting the same nonsense as the old, with vague and empty rhetoric about building a SSS in NYC.  Same situation; new indefinite stadium with lots of empty rhetoric about their next one.  Until then, they're stuck at MCU for want of a better option. Even if it's not a great option.

 

At least Yankee Stadium offers NYCFC room to grow.  MCU Park will set a very low ceiling on what the Cosmos can do.  And yet it's still a huge upgrade over Hofstra.  And FWIW, I was advocating this move for years, I just fear it's too late now. 

I think it's fair to say that MCU Park is for the Cosmos what Jarry Park was for the Expos or Exhibition Stadium for the Blue Jays. (Unfortunately, I think Yankee Stadium is quickly becoming that for NYCFC.) It's technically a temporary stadium meant to fill the gap until they can build a permanent venue, but there's nothing on the horizon in terms of doing so. They're years and years away from finding a location, getting funding, finalizing a deal, and actually constructing a venue.

 

In the case of the Cosmos, I suspect they'll never actually reach that point, at least not with a significant financial turnaround for both the team and the league. I'm sure at some point NYCFC will finally find a location that's agreeable to both the team and the city, but that's seeming ever further and further away, much to my dismay. Who knows how long they'll be at the Stadium at this point.

 

I suppose the best term to describe it is "semi-permanent," which might be the worst stadium situation of all to be in.  

[Gothamite]

Semi-permanent seems to sum it up well.  I don't see how NYCFC spends less than three more years at Yankee Stadium, even if they were to announce a groundbreaking tomorrow.

 

Realistically, when all is said and done I think NYCFC will have spent a decade playing at Yankee Stadium.  And we'll all consider them lucky - by then the Cosmos (and the NASL) will have been folded a long time. 

[kroywen]

9 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Semi-permanent seems to sum it up well.  I don't see how NYCFC spends less than three more years at Yankee Stadium, even if they were to announce a groundbreaking tomorrow.

 

Realistically, when all is said and done I think NYCFC will have spent a decade playing at Yankee Stadium.  And we'll all consider them lucky - by then the Cosmos (and the NASL) will have been folded a long time. 

 

Yeah, a decade at Yankee Stadium sounds about right. They're in a tight spot in terms of a stadium - they've clearly branded themselves as a New York City team, emphasizing their connection to the 5 boroughs (not to say that's a bad thing - as a New Yorker, I love it personally). But you can count on one hand the amount of locations in the five boroughs proper that can a.) fit a soccer stadium, b.) have mass transit and roadway connections, and c.) would be available for NYCFC to build on. I've continually wanted them to build either at Willets Point/Flushing Meadows or in Inwood (at Wien Stadium), but obviously both are uphill climbs both politically and financially.

 

I struggle to see NYCFC sealing a stadium location and deal, and designing and building said stadium, by 2025.  So a decade+ it likely is. And that'll seem positively fantastic compared to wherever the Cosmos wind up.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

14 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Not to be equally pedantic, but it's not "permanent" at all.  It's indefinite, but that is in no way the same thing.

 

In the context of sports, "permanent" and "indefinite" do indeed mean the same thing.  When a manager or coach is fired, we sometimes see an interim manager/coach.  Then, when the new head man is named, he is called the new "permanent" manager or head coach.  This of course does not mean that he has the job for all of eternity; it means only that he is not a stopgap.  Likewise, a team's "permanent" stadium is one to which it is committed without any plan of a move.

 

The Cosmos' Belmont Park stadium was a serious proposal; but the owners of the land there have backed out of it, presumably because they could see that it was too big for the Cosmos, who would never have filled it.  By contrast, the Coney Island park is the right size; if the Cosmos can fill that park, then it would be a fine home for them for as long as they are in the second division (be it the NASL or the USL, a league to which a couple of NASL teams have jumped).

And the second division is where the Cosmos will be staying.  The only other possible fate for the team would be for its owner to buy the Red Bulls and move the "Cosmos" name over there (thereby giving that team its first-ever name that is is not the name of some company).  We'll see if Commisso is still around when Red Bull decides to sell its owner-operator stake in MLS.  But that is all speculation about imaginary scenarios.  The reality right now is that the Cosmos have a permanent home in New York City.

As do NYCFC.  We have to acknowledge that there will likely never be a separate stadium built for them -- and maybe that's not so bad.  The team pays no rent to use Yankee Stadium, on account of the Yankees' ownership stake.  And they average almost 30,000 fans a game, ranking near the top of the league, with the ability to open the upper deck for derby matches or for any other game in which a big crowd is expected.  Notwithstanding my previous complaints about the narrow pitch at the Stadium, the fact is that NYCFC had a good home record last year, and so are presumably on the way to turning their unusual playing surface into a home-field advantage.

 

So, rather than seeing the Cosmos' and NYCFC's stadium situations as problems needing solutions, we should probably see them as settled matters that largely work in the favour of the teams.  Both teams are playing in the City, at locations that are very convenient for their fan bases, and in parks whose seating capacities match their drawing abilities.

[Gothamite]

31 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

In the context of sports, "permanent" and "indefinite" do indeed mean the same thing.  When a manager or coach is fired, we sometimes see an interim manager/coach.  Then, when the new head man is named, he is called the new "permanent" manager or head coach.  This of course does not mean that he has the job for all of eternity; it means only that he is not a stopgap.  Likewise, a team's "permanent" stadium is one to which it is committed without any plan of a move.

 

I can't agree with you there.

 

While it is true that even finished stadiums have a shelf life, neither the Cosmos nor NYCFC are willing to sign a long-term lease to play in their current parks.  Neither is willing to commit to being there more than year-to-year, nor should they.   That's not the same thing at all.

 

31 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The Cosmos' Belmont Park stadium was a serious proposal; but the owners of the land there have backed out of it, presumably because they could see that it was too big for the Cosmos, who would never have filled it.  

 

There is a serious question as to whether the Cosmos owners ever had the money to develop the site, even if they had ever been given it (there was never a deal for the state to "back out of").  So no, it wasn't really a serious proposal, and Empire State Development obviously saw that.

 

31 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

As do NYCFC.  We have to acknowledge that there will likely never be a separate stadium built for them -- and maybe that's not so bad.  The team pays no rent to use Yankee Stadium, on account of the Yankees' ownership stake.

 

What makes you think that?  I've never heard anything conclusive either way, but expect that they do indeed pay rent.  They're separate companies, after all, and it's common for one division to pay another.   The benefit that NYCFC gets is that they can rent Yankee Stadium at all, and they probably get a very reasonable rate.  But rent-free?  That seems highly doubtful to me.

[johnnysama]

Sorry to bring this back after a year, but much in the same vein as the Pistons @ the Silverdome, the Toronto Raptors spent their first several seasons @ the SkyDome (now Rogers Centre).

[Jer15]

On 3/27/2017 at 10:23 PM, Gothamite said:

by then the Cosmos (and the NASL) will have been folded a long time. 

While we're bringing this thread back.....

 

I hear something funny about the Cosmos. Apparently they inquired with the Canadian Premier League as to what they would need to do to be included. 

From what I've been told the answer was basically "be in a Canadian market". lol. They quickly dismissed the Cosmos.