goforbroke

Brooklyn Islanders?

139 posts in this topic

Not mine:

Pbw3v.png

DAMMIT! You beat me to it.

lol.

But really, I do believe the logo (not the colors) will change to reflect Brooklyin when they move in. And on a side note, I think moving into this:

IHV7o.jpg

.... is stupid as hell.

That was just for their pre-season game this year (obviously did not happen). Those back end seats will be modified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though technically Brooklyn is on Long Island, it makes more sense to change the name. No one who lives in Flatbush says they live in Long Island. No New Yorker really considers Brooklyn and Queens being in Long Island, and since it's part of NYC it isn't in much more than technicality.

Team name changes usually suck, and I'm often opposed to them, and this is my favorite team in my favorite sport. But it makes zero sense to leave it. The logo become in error once they move as well. I say new logo and new name time. I hope they decide to do that by the time they start there. Not because I want to, but because it will bug me more that the name and logo will be essentially false.

Also for the colors, they need to stay the same. Even moreso being in NYC where the flag colors are blue and orange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I missed the part where they're currently called "Long Islanders." I don't care if Brooklyn was on a different island, the name fits even if it was in the middle of Wall Street ... or Hawaii for that matter. Of all the debates we have on here...

As for that seating chart... they've got a few years to improve it, even marginally. I imagine their hope is that the 14,000 tickets they sell at Brooklyn will be at a premium compared to the 14,000 they sell now. It doesn't always have to be about selling more. Just sell each one for more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I missed the part where they're currently called "Long Islanders." I don't care if Brooklyn was on a different island, the name fits even if it was in the middle of Wall Street ... or Hawaii for that matter. Of all the debates we have on here...

As for that seating chart... they've got a few years to improve it, even marginally. I imagine their hope is that the 14,000 tickets they sell at Brooklyn will be at a premium compared to the 14,000 they sell now. It doesn't always have to be about selling more. Just sell each one for more.

People refer to the team as "Long Island" quite a bit, actually.

Many of the 14,000 seats in Brooklyn will be obstructed-view, so they'll be selling fewer seats and inferior seats for more money. #hellobrooklyntheblueprintforgreatness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I missed the part where they're currently called "Long Islanders." I don't care if Brooklyn was on a different island, the name fits even if it was in the middle of Wall Street ... or Hawaii for that matter. Of all the debates we have on here...

As for that seating chart... they've got a few years to improve it, even marginally. I imagine their hope is that the 14,000 tickets they sell at Brooklyn will be at a premium compared to the 14,000 they sell now. It doesn't always have to be about selling more. Just sell each one for more.

People refer to the team as "Long Island" quite a bit, actually.

Many of the 14,000 seats in Brooklyn will be obstructed-view, so they'll be selling fewer seats and inferior seats for more money. #hellobrooklyntheblueprintforgreatness

Well, then you guys can debate until you're blue in the face on culture vs. geography on that nickname. But it still stands that their official name is just fine for a variety of locations and reasons. Accurate, even. I really don't see how it's an issue that a team called Islanders plays on an island and is moving to a new location on that island inside city boundaries of a metropolis largely made up of islands.

And I see the seating chart above is different than the one posted in the other thread. Do the color areas represent the 14,000? If so, the section 4 that people complained about is not being sold. I keep hearing that many seats will be bad... but just how many is it? And has the team already taken that into account?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Well, then you guys can debate until you're blue in the face on culture vs. geography on that nickname. But it still stands that their official name is just fine for a variety of locations and reasons. Accurate, even. I really don't see how it's an issue that a team called Islanders plays on an island and is moving to a new location on that island inside city boundaries of a metropolis largely made up of islands.

Not to mention the one (and only?) part of Brooklyn that just about everybody in NYC goes to is called "Coney Island". So if you don't like Long Island you can still interpret the name that way.

And I see the seating chart above is different than the one posted in the other thread. Do the color areas represent the 14,000? If so, the section 4 that people complained about is not being sold. I keep hearing that many seats will be bad... but just how many is it? And has the team already taken that into account?

The seating charts posted so far were for the cancelled preseason game that the Islanders were to play in. Presumably, since the arena doesn't even have separate locker rooms for hockey teams, there will be a ton of work done to make it hockey ready before the Islanders take ice, and the seating modifications might be part of that.

Keep in mind that the Nassau Coliseum had a capacity of 13,000 for hockey when it first opened... They managed to increase that by 3,000 seats during the Islanders' glory years. They should be able to make things work now seeing as how the Islanders will be playing there until 2040.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RoccoT: That's an unappealing mishmash of failed logos and the Kings' color scheme. Also, your personal logo seems to be inspired by Brazzers.

I keep hearing that many seats will be bad... but just how many is it? And has the team already taken that into account?

Seeing as the layout is highly similar to America West, in which the rink is not centered but rather juts into one end with the upper deck hanging over, we can safely assume that, as at America West, an entire third of the seating bowl will have obstructed views. Cocktail napkin math would say about 5,000 to 6,000 seats will be compromised. I don't think this is very good, and I can't think of what kind of voodoo construction will allow for those views to be unobstructed within a footprint that is now and forever too small for NHL hockey.

Keep in mind that the Nassau Coliseum had a capacity of 13,000 for hockey when it first opened... They managed to increase that by 3,000 seats during the Islanders' glory years.

Built for hockey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Built for hockey

Most of the arena will have no issues (I've watched basketball games in there and made sure to note down how the hockey rink would look). Yes, one end would have obstructed views of a small part of the rink, and yes, its not ideal, but obviously the Islanders are fine with that seeing as how they just signed a 25 year lease with no opt-out clause.

The thing about the seating bowl is that there are quite a few dead spaces right now that they should be able to take advantage of and add seating in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt Beahan posted this to Uni Watch:

BrooklynIslanders.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BrooklynIslanders.jpg

i love this.

also, LOTS of assumptions in this thread about islanders fans, long islanders, brooklynites, etc.

just saying, most of it is purely anecdotal conjecture.

this is a game changer for the franchise. i don't think it's out of the realm of possibility to think islanders fans will follow the team to brooklyn.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I missed the part where they're currently called "Long Islanders." I don't care if Brooklyn was on a different island, the name fits even if it was in the middle of Wall Street ... or Hawaii for that matter. Of all the debates we have on here...

As for that seating chart... they've got a few years to improve it, even marginally. I imagine their hope is that the 14,000 tickets they sell at Brooklyn will be at a premium compared to the 14,000 they sell now. It doesn't always have to be about selling more. Just sell each one for more.

People refer to the team as "Long Island" quite a bit, actually.

Many of the 14,000 seats in Brooklyn will be obstructed-view, so they'll be selling fewer seats and inferior seats for more money. #hellobrooklyntheblueprintforgreatness

Well, then you guys can debate until you're blue in the face on culture vs. geography on that nickname. But it still stands that their official name is just fine for a variety of locations and reasons. Accurate, even. I really don't see how it's an issue that a team called Islanders plays on an island and is moving to a new location on that island inside city boundaries of a metropolis largely made up of islands.

And I see the seating chart above is different than the one posted in the other thread. Do the color areas represent the 14,000? If so, the section 4 that people complained about is not being sold. I keep hearing that many seats will be bad... but just how many is it? And has the team already taken that into account?

Exactly. I don't even consider this a relocation, but as far as nickname changes in relocation go, a way to look at it is like the Flames. They moved from Atlanta, where the Flames name made sense, to Calgary, another place where Flames makes sense. Although Islanders is meant to reference Long Island, I always considered it a reference to any of the islands in New York.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. I don't even consider this a relocation, but as far as nickname changes in relocation go, a way to look at it is like the Flames. They moved from Atlanta, where the Flames name made sense, to Calgary, another place where Flames makes sense. Although Islanders is meant to reference Long Island, I always considered it a reference to any of the islands in New York.

The only issue with that is the logo. If they do choose to go the route of either keeping the logo the way it currently is, or put the entire geographic Long Island in there, neither of those would be appealing to anyone in either Brooklyn or NYC in general who aren't already Islander fans. NYC folk simply do not want to associate with Long Island and I think any graphical representation of it would hurt the brand among people in the city. It'd be like the Nets keeping New Jersey references in their move.

So if they do keep the Islanders name (which I don't have a problem with), they definitely need to take that picture of the island out. Keep the rest of the logo if they want to. Just put something else in there, maybe stars or something to reference the old NY/Brooklyn Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only issue with that is the logo. If they do choose to go the route of either keeping the logo the way it currently is, or put the entire geographic Long Island in there, neither of those would be appealing to anyone in either Brooklyn or NYC in general who aren't already Islander fans. NYC folk simply do not want to associate with Long Island and I think any graphical representation of it would hurt the brand among people in the city. It'd be like the Nets keeping New Jersey references in their move.

I don't agree. And I'm born and bred.

By that logic, nobody would go to Long Island College Hospital in Cobble Hill. Or attend Long Island University in Downtown Brooklyn. Or live in Long Island City in Queens.

I don't think New Yorkers will have any problem taking this team to heart. Yes, they should probably extend the map in the logo. But an association with the rest of Long Island won't hurt this franchise in Brooklyn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only issue with that is the logo. If they do choose to go the route of either keeping the logo the way it currently is, or put the entire geographic Long Island in there, neither of those would be appealing to anyone in either Brooklyn or NYC in general who aren't already Islander fans. NYC folk simply do not want to associate with Long Island and I think any graphical representation of it would hurt the brand among people in the city. It'd be like the Nets keeping New Jersey references in their move.

I don't agree. And I'm born and bred.

By that logic, nobody would go to Long Island College Hospital in Cobble Hill. Or attend Long Island University in Downtown Brooklyn. Or live in Long Island City in Queens.

I don't think New Yorkers will have any problem taking this team to heart. Yes, they should probably extend the map in the logo. But an association with the rest of Long Island won't hurt this franchise in Brooklyn.

I think there's a big difference between how people choose to root for a sports team and how people choose to go to a particular hospital...

But anyway, if they do choose to feature Long Island in their logo, I think they need to add Manhattan Island and Staten island in there as well. Otherwise it just doesn't make sense from a geopolitical/cultural perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I think you're way over thinking it.

This seems to me to be another instance of the "people in Pasadena won't root for a team named LA" that we get from time to time. Do baseball fans in Maine boycott the Red Sox because the name is geographically exclusive?

The Nets will draw just fine from the other boroughs despite being named for just one, and the absence of their home island from the logo is not going to keep New Yorkers outside of Brooklyn and Queens from following the Islanders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Islanders built a glorious legacy under their current name.

Then they spent the following decades taking a protracted dump all over that glorious legacy, also under their current name.

Futility in the late 90s/2000s does not offset 4 straight Cups and the legacies of Trottier, Potvin, Bossy, et al.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate when people call the '80/'81/'82/'83 Islanders "the forgotten dynasty." If you've forgotten Mike Bossy scoring 50 in 50, Billy Smith beating the crap out of people, Bryan Trottier being an all-time great hockey captain, or the fact that a team won four straight championships, man, like, what do you remember?

EDIT: that the team won its four straight championships is especially amazing considering the organization was built from the ground up only eight years prior to their first championship, and was hastily established for the sole purpose of freezing the WHA out of the Greater New York market. I find that quite remarkable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it was a relatively long time ago.

And the NHL has worked hard in recent years to make site nobody gives a crap about hockey anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the Giants have always been a team for the entire New York metropolitan area. The Islanders have been a team for Long Island, as the Devils have been for Jersey. That segmentation is what has always made it cool to have three teams in the same region. It's the closest we can get to how London has like eight soccer teams.

Did the Rangers ever really have all of NYC though? I was always under the impression that at least Queens leaned more towards the Islanders.

I don't think so. I mean, the Rangers fanbase permeates Long Island and North Jersey as it is. I don't even think you start hitting serious Devils territory till south of Newark.

Not true. While there are Ranger fans all over the damn place in Jersey, Bergen County is definitely major Devils country, especially northern Bergen County (think your Upper Saddle Rivers and the like), I grew up in Livingston (West Essex) and that's also Devils country as is Morris County just west of that. Once you get south of Rahway-ish, that starts to already wane as you're getting further and further from the Meadowlands where those first couple of generations of fans would've had to have gone to see them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt Beahan posted this to Uni Watch:

BrooklynIslanders.jpg

I was just coming here to post that! Literally took 2 minutes, just to see how it'd look with the whole island on there - a nice, simple tweak that I think works. The Islanders logo is one of my favourites, and it'd be a real shame to see it go altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate when people call the '80/'81/'82/'83 Islanders "the forgotten dynasty." If you've forgotten Mike Bossy scoring 50 in 50, Billy Smith beating the crap out of people, Bryan Trottier being an all-time great hockey captain, or the fact that a team won four straight championships, man, like, what do you remember?

EDIT: that the team won its four straight championships is especially amazing considering the organization was built from the ground up only eight years prior to their first championship, and was hastily established for the sole purpose of freezing the WHA out of the Greater New York market. I find that quite remarkable.

I had no idea that people even forget or refer to those teams as "the forgotten dynasty". Four years is a long time in sports, so yes, I'm with you as far as wondering what one would remember if they can't remember those Islanders teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the Giants have always been a team for the entire New York metropolitan area. The Islanders have been a team for Long Island, as the Devils have been for Jersey. That segmentation is what has always made it cool to have three teams in the same region. It's the closest we can get to how London has like eight soccer teams.

Did the Rangers ever really have all of NYC though? I was always under the impression that at least Queens leaned more towards the Islanders.

I don't think so. I mean, the Rangers fanbase permeates Long Island and North Jersey as it is. I don't even think you start hitting serious Devils territory till south of Newark.

Not true. While there are Ranger fans all over the damn place in Jersey, Bergen County is definitely major Devils country, especially northern Bergen County (think your Upper Saddle Rivers and the like), I grew up in Livingston (West Essex) and that's also Devils country as is Morris County just west of that. Once you get south of Rahway-ish, that starts to already wane as you're getting further and further from the Meadowlands where those first couple of generations of fans would've had to have gone to see them.

Yeah most of the Devils fans I know live in the area near Newark. Strangely, I'm down near Princeton and it's almost entirely Rangers fans. I went to Rutgers and even there it was a 50/50 split at best, more like 65/35 in favor of the Rangers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm. I have been made to believe by several people that the nice parts of Bergen, like I dunno Hackensack, are pretty Rangers-heavy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BrooklynIslanders.jpg

i love this.

also, LOTS of assumptions in this thread about islanders fans, long islanders, brooklynites, etc.

just saying, most of it is purely anecdotal conjecture.

this is a game changer for the franchise. i don't think it's out of the realm of possibility to think islanders fans will follow the team to brooklyn.

Now that is how the Islanders should do a black alternate, rather than the ugliness they have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now