Alignment history question

[The_Admiral]

I know the Redskins didn't want a team in Charlotte, but once it happened, you'd think they'd have authorized a Panthers/Cardinals swap so they could get some gate money from one "home" game a year in the Carolinas.

[Luigi74]

8 hours ago, the admiral said:

I know the Redskins didn't want a team in Charlotte, but once it happened, you'd think they'd have authorized a Panthers/Cardinals swap so they could get some gate money from one "home" game a year in the Carolinas.

The Cardinals would have blocked any move out of the NFC East at that time, they didn't want to lose home games against the Cowboys and Giants.

[leopard88]

15 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

The FRANCHISE. The team was decent most of its run. They were the reincarnation of an already failed team in Baltimore from the AAFC. The scraps of the last failed NFL team, the Dallas Texans. Washington did not want them in their division to draw away any of their fans. And that was in 1953 when they got plunked down into the NFL West.  It's easy to start counting five years later when they started to get good. But by then that was firmly entrenched in the 'can't compete in Washington's territory' camp by the NFL. Go back and read up on Washington and their 'territorial claims'. They were one of the outspoken critics of the Carolinas getting a team. And way before that the only way they changed their tune on the Cowboys (who Washington felt all of the south was their territory) was because the Cowboys bought the song rights to Hail to the Redskins and threatened their continued use of the song.

 

So, just as with the Cardinals, the Colts were continually separated from their local competition on purpose. And forcing them to play in a division with San Francisco and Los Angeles was about as far away as you could get.

 

I'll buy the description to the extent it refers to 1953.  I read your original post to be describing the Colts as "moribund" at the time the 4-division setup was created in the late 60s.  That is why I took exception with it.

[Mitch B]

One of my biggest frustrations with American sports is the trend to replace or prevent natural rivalries to appease certain team owners, college conferences and the tv networks.   I understand the motivations, but can you imagine if the Orioles and Nationals were in the same division and playing meaningful games against each other in the late season?  How about an NFL division with Washington, Baltimore and Philly?  It would be fierce like the derbies in European football.

[BBTV]

1 hour ago, Mitch B said:

One of my biggest frustrations with American sports is the trend to replace or prevent natural rivalries to appease certain team owners, college conferences and the tv networks.   I understand the motivations, but can you imagine if the Orioles and Nationals were in the same division and playing meaningful games against each other in the late season?  How about an NFL division with Washington, Baltimore and Philly?  It would be fierce like the derbies in European football.

 

Where's Baltimore?  

[Mitch B]

2 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

Where's Baltimore?  

 

I've been in Baltimore during interleague play and it appears that fans of the Phillies travel well in support of their team.

[BBTV]

9 hours ago, Mitch B said:

 

I've been in Baltimore during interleague play and it appears that fans of the Phillies travel well in support of their team.

 

Oh yeah - not sure how it is now that the team isn't competitive, but for a while, they'd take over any stadium within a 6 hour drive.  My point is that Baltimore isn't really a rival city, from a sports or any other perspective.  Maybe being in the same division would change that, but just geographically and socioeconomically, NY / NJ and DC are the teams that Phila teams need to be paired with no matter what.  

[Mitch B]

I have a question for the great sports minds of this board:

 

Prior to professional sports expansion in the 1960s, were the St. Louis Cardinals the MLB "Team of the South"?

 

I have only ancedotal evidence to support this thesis, but growing up I rembember my maternal Grandfather, a southerner, and other men of his generation waxing nostalgically about the great "Gas House Gang" and the Cardinals' Nation of the first half of the 20th Century.

 

My perception has always been that the Cards were the NY Yankees of the South at one time.

 

Any thoughts?

[The_Admiral]

Pretty much, yeah, though probably more so east of the Appalachians. KMOX had a booming signal, the Cardinals had a strong farm system, and they were the southernmost/westernmost team until the Dodgers moved. The Orioles had a strong following in the southern Mid-Atlantic as well.  And Sykotyk touched on it, but the Redskins thought so much of their claim to the entire South that their fight song went "fight for old Dixie" before being changed to "old DC."

 

Incidentally, the rapid Yankification of Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina is a topic of minor interest to me. I'd like sc49erfan's thoughts on it.

[Mitch B]

4 minutes ago, the admiral said:

 

Incidentally, the rapid Yankification of Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina is a topic of minor interest to me. I'd like sc49erfan's thoughts on it.

 

The Federal Gov't., the military, and lower cost of living have brought many northeasterners here .

[The_Admiral]

Northern Virginia isn't too surprising, but now Raleigh seems to think of itself as the new end of what was the Boston-Washington corridor.

[dfwabel]

16 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Pretty much, yeah, though probably more so east of the Appalachians. KMOX had a booming signal, the Cardinals had a strong farm system, and they were the southernmost/westernmost team until the Dodgers moved. 

 

This.

KMOX can broadcast in all directions with their 50,000 watts.

 

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/10/30/sports/baseball/trying-to-outrun-the-long-reach-of-cardinals-baseball.html?pagewanted=all&

 

Quote

With a 50,000-watt signal originating from a transmitter across the Mississippi River, in Illinois, KMOX is said to be heard in 44 states and as far away as the Netherlands, East Africa and Guam, spreading the gospel of St. Louis Cardinals baseball across the planet.

 

KMOX was first granted a license by the Department of Commerce in 1925, according to the current director of programming, Steve Moore, and called itself the Voice of St. Louis. KMOX was soon permitted to use a 50,000-watt transmitter to send the signal in all directions, and the government protected the station by limiting the power and direction of subsequent stations broadcasting on the same frequency.

 

That allowed KMOX’s signal, like other regional stations around the country, to dominate huge areas of the continental United States.

 

[Mitch B]

13 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Northern Virginia isn't too surprising, but now Raleigh seems to think of itself as the new end of what was the Boston-Washington corridor.

 

Virginia and the Carolinas are business friendly with lower taxes and fewer regulations.  Businesses expand or relocate here, which in turn attracts folks from the northeast and the rust belt who are drawn to lower costs of living and relatively milder winters.  Over time, we are seeing it change the political leanings in some areas.

[The_Admiral]

56 minutes ago, dfwabel said:

This.

KMOX can broadcast in all directions with their 50,000 watts.

 

Funny story here: KMOX used to have billboards around St. Louis that just said "1120 KMOX" if even that much, may have just been the calls. No taglines or calls to action, just these ambient reminders to the community that the station existed. A cost-cutting CBS Radio executive demanded they come down because they served no purpose, then called a staff meeting, noticed too many people worked for him, and fired a bunch of them so there wouldn't be so many people on staff. And that's how some anonymous beancounter casually fired Bob Costas.

 

I have nothing to prove this but I feel as if the 50,000-watt clear channels were a lot clearer back in the day than they are now. WBBM sounds like crap now.

[The_Admiral]

59 minutes ago, Mitch B said:

Virginia and the Carolinas are business friendly with lower taxes and fewer regulations.  Businesses expand or relocate here, which in turn attracts folks from the northeast and the rust belt who are drawn to lower costs of living and relatively milder winters.

 

I'm just glad this is completely sustainable.

[B-Rich]

7 hours ago, Mitch B said:

I have a question for the great sports minds of this board:

 

Prior to professional sports expansion in the 1960s, were the St. Louis Cardinals the MLB "Team of the South"?

 

I have only ancedotal evidence to support this thesis, but growing up I rembember my maternal Grandfather, a southerner, and other men of his generation waxing nostalgically about the great "Gas House Gang" and the Cardinals' Nation of the first half of the 20th Century.

 

My perception has always been that the Cards were the NY Yankees of the South at one time.

 

Any thoughts?

 

They were in my grandparents household in Biloxi, Mississippi.

 

My dad was on one of 6 boys (and 2 girls) born between 1937 and 1959.  All of the family were Cardinals fans.  As my uncle/godfather told me, growing up they would all listen to the Cardinals games on the radio (not sure if it was KMOX, more than likely it was a local station on the Cardinals radio network).  And as my second youngest uncle related, before Houston joined the league and the Braves moved to Atlanta, the Cardinals were the closest team to them geographically—closer than the only other “southern” team, the Washington Senators (who were also perennially bad).

 

I’ve also heard the story about how sometime in the early/mid-1960s, after the older portion of their children had grown-up/moved out, my grandparents took their remaining kids on a road trip vacation and they made sure to pass through St. Louis, where they finally caught a Cardinals game.

[sc49erfan15]

5 hours ago, the admiral said:

Incidentally, the rapid Yankification of Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina is a topic of minor interest to me. I'd like sc49erfan's thoughts on it.

 

Hmm, thoughts on what, specifically?

 

FWIW, I've always thought of Maryland as undoubtedly more "Northern" (or at least "Mid-Atlantic") than "Southern." I realize that this is something that certainly changes over time (see: "Fight for old Dixie/DC" and Cincinnati as a "Southern" team in the MLB c. 1940s).

 

As for North Carolina, it's definitely in a state of flux. Lots of non-Southerners moving into the larger cities (Charlotte and Raleigh/Triangle for sure, as well as Greensboro, Winston-Salem...) but also smaller areas - Asheville, Boone, Wilmington, and the Pinehurst/golfing regions.

 

Coincidentally, I'm teaching about this in class on Wednesday. The theme is regions, and I'm having students come to class with 1) a definition of where "the South" is, 2) characteristics of "the South," and 3) what makes a person "Southern."

[sc49erfan15]

5 hours ago, the admiral said:

Northern Virginia isn't too surprising, but now Raleigh seems to think of itself as the new end of what was the Boston-Washington corridor.

 

If we're talking cores and peripheries, I think Raleigh is definitely more closely connected with D.C. than Atlanta. I have no particular data to back this up, but it just feels that way.

[The_Admiral]

17 minutes ago, sc49erfan15 said:

Coincidentally, I'm teaching about this in class on Wednesday. The theme is regions, and I'm having students come to class with 1) a definition of where "the South" is, 2) characteristics of "the South," and 3) what makes a person "Southern."

 

Well, we know what makes someone a Yankee: to the South, it's anyone from the North, to the North, it's anyone from New England, to New England, it's anyone from Vermont, and to Vermont, it's anyone who eats pie for breakfast. Or something like that. I may have left out a step.

 

But yeah, I figured you had some perspective as a geography instructor in the Carolinas. But do follow up on this homework; I want to see if the kids say that the South is defined by Coke-as-soda, the SEC, and guys with stupid bangs.

[sc49erfan15]

20 minutes ago, the admiral said:

But yeah, I figured you had some perspective as a geography instructor in the Carolinas. But do follow up on this homework; I want to see if the kids say that the South is defined by Coke-as-soda, the SEC, and guys with stupid bangs.

 

I've found "Coke-as-soda" to be a generational thing. Most of my students find it ridiculous.

 

My favorite map about "where the South is" is unequivocally this map of "where kudzu grows."

 

 

I think kudzu has expanded in range since this map was created, but it's pretty good. I think we can at least say: If kudzu doesn't grow there, it's not the South!