Warriors to Keep Golden State Name Despite 2019 Move to San Francisco

[WSU151]

9 hours ago, Still MIGHTY said:

Point of order, because it's come up here, as of last season, the Angels are now officially just the "Los Angeles Angels". No more "of Anaheim" (fortunately, and unfortunately.) It was part of Arte Moreno's negotiation on a new lease with the City of Anaheim. The stadium will retain the name "Angel Stadium of Anaheim" and the team is the "Los Angeles Angels".

 

Also, the Angels changed their name from California to Anaheim and the Ducks were the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim due to Disney ownership. Obviously, Disney with Disneyland was trying to market them all as Anaheim under their Disney corporate umbrella. (Technically speaking, Angels and Mighty Ducks players at the time were designated as "cast members" in the same way that Disneyland employees are. Sigh... Dark times, in retrospect.)

 

Also Also, it wasn't part of the lease originally, but in a relatively recent lease negotiation between the Ducks and Anaheim, it was put in the Honda Center lease that any team that plays there has to be known with "Anaheim" with the main city identifier. There was specific language to avoid any sort of "of Anaheim" situation again. They will be the Anaheim Ducks for the long foreseeable future.

 

Are ABC and ESPN employees known as Disney "cast members"?

[WSU151]

1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Landover is definitely well known to anyone that grew up a hockey fan in the 80s/90s since that's where the Cap Centre was and they always made a point to say "from the Capital Centre in Landover MD".  I couldn't tell you the first thing about Landover besides that, but I've heard of it.  I don't think the same applies to Glendale or any other suburb that currently hosts a team, probably due to corporate sponsorships.  Pontiac and Auburn Hills were similar examples to Landover since they were so prominently represented in teh arena names.

 

Perhaps Rich Stadium in Orchard Park, NY would be a similar example. 

[BBTV]

2 hours ago, WSU151 said:

Perhaps Rich Stadium in Orchard Park, NY would be a similar example. 

 

Yeah kinda, maybe to a lesser extent.  If you're a fan of an AFC East team or if you followed them when they were in their heyday in the Thurman Thomas years, then yeah definitely. 

 

To me it was.  I drove past it once and still cannot believe there's an NFL stadium there.  

 

[Still MIGHTY]

3 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

Are ABC and ESPN employees known as Disney "cast members"?

 

Technically, yes. But it's usually referred to the employees at Disney Parks because they're "putting on a show."

[The_Admiral]

4 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

LOL - you don't think that playing in LA and wearing black and silver was the reason NWA adopted them?

 

In the Straight Outta Oakland 30 for 30, Ice Cube says something about how L.A. fans sort of admired the Oakland Raiders from afar or had family from Oakland telling them how cool the Raiders were, something like that. So the silver and black were already working their magic before they moved.

 

God, the Vegas move bums me the hell out, I hope another disgruntled gambler who gets his sushi comped bombs the construction site or something.

[Discrim]

I've had this thought, and here's as good a place as any to voice it...I'm wondering whether the Raiders have ever considered ditching the idea of using a location name at all, and simply being the Raiders.  No Oakland, no LA, no Las Vegas, just the Raiders.

[Gothamite]

On 4/14/2018 at 6:03 PM, kroywen said:

I think the Ducks and Angels were saddled with the "Anaheim" moniker because of a clause in their leases with the City of Anaheim that required them to use the Anaheim name. I'm fairly sure that's why the Angels switched to Anaheim when Angel Stadium was renovated, and why the "of Anaheim" persists to this day.

 

No, it doesn’t.  The naming right agreement expired a couple years ago, and the club didn’t renew it.   They went back to simply being the “Los Angeles Angels.”

[Digby]

21 hours ago, kroywen said:

 

A third NYC team would be quite a bit more valuable than your average small market franchise in any of the four sports. If it weren't for the Yankees and Mets' unbreakable territorial rights, I'm sure the Rays would relocate up to North Jersey in a heartbeat. The NHL is the one sport exploiting the market to that degree (and ironically, probably the sport least able to have three thriving teams in NYC - I have no doubt that a third MLB, NBA, or even NFL team would probably thrive in this market after ~10-15 years to build a fanbase).

See I think the NHL is actually the best sport to have three teams in the NYC metro -- provided order is restored and the Isles go back to Long Island. Northern suburban townies love hockey. 

[Digby]

5 hours ago, Discrimihater said:

I've had this thought, and here's as good a place as any to voice it...I'm wondering whether the Raiders have ever considered ditching the idea of using a location name at all, and simply being the Raiders.  No Oakland, no LA, no Las Vegas, just the Raiders.

 

Feel like basketball will be the first league to go that route (soccer excluded), what with the Clippers officially making their name "LA" and so many new jerseys eschewing the city name. It also occurs to me that the Warriors have two jerseys that have both the place name AND the nickname, and two jerseys that have neither? Weird trivia.

[daveindc]

5 hours ago, Discrimihater said:

I've had this thought, and here's as good a place as any to voice it...I'm wondering whether the Raiders have ever considered ditching the idea of using a location name at all, and simply being the Raiders.  No Oakland, no LA, no Las Vegas, just the Raiders.

 

West Coast Raiders

 

[andrewharrington]

19 hours ago, Discrimihater said:

I've had this thought, and here's as good a place as any to voice it...I'm wondering whether the Raiders have ever considered ditching the idea of using a location name at all, and simply being the Raiders.  No Oakland, no LA, no Las Vegas, just the Raiders.

 

I actually love this idea, and I’ve thought about it a lot. I envision an annual auction where cities bid for the home games, and the Raiders are this nomadic team that travels around the country all year playing in whatever city wants to host a multimillion dollar party on a given week, making every game a unique event for whomever is hosting them.

[The_Admiral]

They're going to be nomads at traveling parties, it's just that the party is in Las Vegas every week.

[The_Admiral]

14 hours ago, Digby said:

See I think the NHL is actually the best sport to have three teams in the NYC metro -- provided order is restored and the Isles go back to Long Island. Northern suburban townies love hockey. 

Northern city folk love hockey too. Is this supposed to be more NBA snobbery? 

[kroywen]

13 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Northern city folk love hockey too. Is this supposed to be more NBA snobbery? 

 

Yeah, pretty much wherever white people live up north, you'll find a significant group of hockey fans. No, you won't find many hockey fans in Harlem or Brownsville, but in Brooklyn Heights or the Upper West Side? Absolutely. Same goes in a place like Chicago or Philly.

 

Reason I said that the other three leagues would be better able to exploit the NYC market with three teams is just because there's more fans of those sports, in sheer numbers. The Islanders and Devils have solid fanbases for the NHL, but still can struggle at the gate and with TV ratings when they're not good. Put an NBA team in Long Island, or back in Jersey, and it'd be a wild success, even if the team isn't very good. (The Knicks still draw crowds like crazy despite being a laughingstock, and the Nets have solid TV ratings and attendance.) It's just that there's more basketball fans in the area to divide into three fanbases than there are hockey fans.

[Digby]

10 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Northern city folk love hockey too. Is this supposed to be more NBA snobbery? 

 

...No? Who said they didn't? The demographics of hockey are such that it makes sense to have the 'burbs covered as well as the city center if you're going to have multiple teams in the same metro, that's all.

[The_Admiral]

Sorry for snapping, referring to hockey fans as townies just felt too basketblogger for me. But I agree with your point about the northeastern megalopolis. Hartford and Hamilton should be covered too.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

 

19 minutes ago, kroywen said:

(...the Nets have solid TV ratings and attendance.)

 

The Nets' local television ratings were the worst in the league for the fourth straight year, and the ninth time in the last eleven years.  Their attendance was second worst (29th), after having ranked 28th and 27th in the previous two seasons.

 

 

1 hour ago, andrewharrington said:

...making every game a unique event for whomever is hosting them.

 

A brief grammar aside: "for whoever is hosting them".  We'd need "whomever" if that word were the object of a preposition or of a verb.  But the object of the preposition "for" is the entire clause "whoever is hosting them"; and, within that clause, "whoever" is the subject.  

 

[The_Admiral]

You have to be careful with local ratings in NYC. The Devils and Islanders have low ratings, but due to market size still pick up more eyeballs than teams in smaller media markets. Maybe that's the same for the Nets, but LOL if they're still crappy relative to other markets. It's what they deserve.

[Digby]

I think the Barclays moves for the Nets and Isles have both been underwhelming in ticket sales, but the Nets were worse off pre-move. Maybe perception is skewed because of all the hats they sold that first year. If memory serves the Nets drew terribly (like below even the worst Isles seasons) in their Uniondale years, but I'm not sure how to tell if that would be radically different today/how much was a relic of the NBA not being that popular in the 70s.

[kroywen]

42 minutes ago, the admiral said:

You have to be careful with local ratings in NYC. The Devils and Islanders have low ratings, but due to market size still pick up more eyeballs than teams in smaller media markets. Maybe that's the same for the Nets, but LOL if they're still crappy relative to other markets. It's what they deserve.

 

Exactly. The Yankees and Mets are never at the top of local TV ratings lists, despite drawing more households than any other two teams in the majors. In 2017, the Mets had the 23rd ranked local TV ratings of any ML team, but pulled in more households than any team not named the Yankees.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2017/10/10/here-are-the-2017-mlb-prime-time-television-ratings-for-each-team/2/#1c97b72c63cc

 

I can't find reliable statistics on household data for the NBA, but it seems like the Nets' 0.42 rating equates to about 30,000 households per game - not good, but better than what teams in many smaller markets draw. 

 

https://www.netsdaily.com/2018/2/19/17027174/nets-local-tv-ratings-still-worst-but-growing