• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Prospect

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,212 profile views
  1. Nope Just nope. As a local I am beyond disappointed. Love everything but the name.
  2. Love the update, just wish I missed the Supes as much as I like this update. I will say though that the NBA has to much blue in it now, so I think the navy should be toned down to accent level only, only because it seems everyone is adding some shade of blue. Also I know you were going for an SST look but it looks too much like the Space Shuttle, makes me think Rockets not Sonics. Using something like what the Jets had on their previous helmets may work better. And lastly the lattice on the space needle in the secondary logo is really distracting. I think you may be trying to represent the girders of the elevator column with the lattice work, but it looks really out of place. It took me minute but I realized that the primary is somewhat reminiscent of the 1995 NCAA Final Four Logo. Was that intentional?
  3. Royals does not work for London, as Sacramento still owns the rights from the Rochester/Cincinnati Royals days. I understand this is not necessarily for business management though. Perhaps Towers, Ravens, or Knights.
  4. Downgrades on both counts. The main problem with MLS is that Adidas is the only supplier so there is only so much variation to be had. So long as one league relies on one vendor to produce the uniform, you can count only a handful of designs being repeated. Piping, bibs, etc are ways to modify a base template to make it look different, but that only goes so far.
  5. They are minus signs. You know positive and negative, so the jersey is really a battery.... Oh nevermind
  6. The Grizzlies were mismanaged and the greedy owners pulled the plug much to early. They were never given a chance in Vancouver. The NFL is entirely different than the NBA. Football has a long history in Canada, certainly much longer than Basketball. Charlotte was obviously somewhere between 1st and 2nd tier when it was awarded. The Panthers have been very successful. Jacksonville was a calculated risk and the jury is still out on that one. I don't think the Jags are close to moving at this point, but it would be difficult for them to turn down a sweetheart deal (City of Industry development anyone?) Vegas is a bit of a gamble (pun intended). No pro sports to speak of, and I think the casino and gambling culture ultimately hurts the chances. But then again wave a billion dollar retractable roof stadium at the NFL and I am sure it will be drooling like Pavlov's dog. But then again 33% population increase since the last census is hard to argue. The region is definitely growing. It will probably be like Phoenix was with regards to pro teams. I think Salt Lakes history of supporting the Jazz and the new Real Salt Lake soccer team proves that the area is capable of supporting pro sports. I also think there is enough affluency despite the relatively small size to make it desireable for the NFL. There are very few domestic options left for the NFL for at least the next 2 decades or so. Chicago expansion would require a huge payout to the Bears for territory infringement. While a second team in the second city makes sense I just don't see it happening. Now if Chicago wins the Olympic bid and builds a new Olympic Stadium instead of using Soldier Field then this may be possible after all. Otherwise I doubt it. Columbus, OH not without a stadium of their own, there is no way OSU allows an NFL team to share Ohio Stadium during the same season. The only reason the Glory played there in 1992 in the WLAF was because it was a spring season. San Antonio is still larger than Austin but Austin is growing nearly twice as fast. I think if this happened in the next couple years San Antonio would get the nod, but in 20-30 years it may very well be Austin. Thereafter it may be easier to look at CSA's instead of MSA's. Orlando, Sacramento, Vegas, and Raleigh - Durham are all top 30 CSA's without the NFL.
  7. I understand the desire to do this as a concept, but some of the suggestions seem to be a bit unrealistic. I think any further NFL expansion will be as follows: LA Area x2. I say this because I think you need to be able to balance the LA market between the two networks bidding for the main TV rights. Toronto assuming the Bills don't move here first. Maybe Vancouver BC. Other possible US locales Salt Lake City (needs stadium, I doubt Rice Eccles works for the NFL) San Antonio (probably needs to replace Alamo Dome, first, sadly) So this may account for up to 6 new locations. Beyond them I would say London and some other euro city is likely. I do not think Mexico is viable at all at this time.
  8. If its not Scottish its crap..... and this definitely ain't Scottish. Whoever green lit this should be taken out back and shot, just like the poor coyote was.
  9. It is not just the football expense, but all sports. The pac-10 has for as long as I can remember had natural travel partners. Meaning in hoops you traveled to Arizona and played a game on Thursday and Sunday. That does not work easily with UH. To Clarify, ASU Girls are hot , but ASU is a great institution, we may not be PrinC!eton or Yale, but Arizona State is a great institution for students The simple fact of the matter is that all Pac-10 schools are very highly rated academically, ASU is just blessed with lots of eye candy to boot.
  10. This topic has come up on a few occassions at a college sports board. I had a long drawn out post ready for that site, but the db crashed before saving my post. I never tried again, and can no longer find the data that supported my posts so I can only summarize here with a disclaimer that the information was accurate as of a year ago or so, but I cannot provide supporting evidence. So on to the actual post. Pac-10 expansion should it occur will need to bring strong academic schools, at least one new major market, and the schools must be strong athletically as well. It must be remembered in the early 90's when PSU joined the Big-10 the Pac-10 sent overtures to Texas and Colorado. Neither school is likely today. In the data I found the exising Pac-10 members were all in the top 80 or so academically in the US. So candidate schools must fit this profile. Most if not all are also top 100 research institutes as well, again this probably needs to be matched as well. ***BYU is a non-starter for the Pac-10. It is not because they are private but rather because they do not play on Sunday. This will not work for Pac-10 scheduling, and is unlikely to change for either instution or conference. BYU was very good academically IIRC, not so much on the research front. They would bring the Salt Lake city market. ***Utah is a very likely candidate, they are getting stronger athletically, probably the best of the non-BCS schools for the revenue sports. I don't know much about their 'Olympic' sports which are important in the Pac-10, perhaps moreso than other conferences. But joining the Pac-10 would allow for gradual improvement of these sports due to more income. Utah ranked very highly in terms of academics and research and therefore fit this requirement very well. They would provide the SLC market as well. ***UC Davis, perhaps a lesser known UC system school that has just recently moved to D1. Athletics are strong for a newly transitioned school but are not even currently WAC level let alone Pac-10. Academics and Research are good to very good. No new market included though this would strengthen the Sacramento market. Doubtful that any 'lesser' UC or Cal State school is ever allowed in as a full member. ***UC San Diego, see UC Davis. Currently D3 non-scholarship, athletic powerhouse. Also a research and academic powerhouse. If this school ever wanted to be D1 it could probably do so easily. No new market, but solidifies the San Diego market. Doubtful that any 'lesser' UC or Cal State school is ever allowed in as a full member. Correction, now D2 with limited scholarships due to D2 by-laws. ***Hawaii, this school has a fantastic location, and a decent sports program. No natural travel partner. Not sure about academics or research, I suspect both are good if not outstanding. One possible advantage is that I believe UH grants in state tuition to all residents of the pacific coast states. Brings the Honolulu market. ***Boise State, this school was a juco in the not to distant past. Rising athletics programs. Not a big academic or research institute at this point as far as I know. This would be a surprise pick. ***San Diego State, part of the Cal State System. Probably just does not offer enough, mediocre athletics, nothing special academically or in research, not likely. Solidifies San Diego market. ***Fresno State, see San Diego State only better athletics. No real market to speak of. ***San Jose State, see SDSU or FSU. ***Colorado State, the Pac-10 wanted CU but that is not going to happen. CSU is strong academically, and fit the research profile as well. Athletics are not as strong as Utah, but could be a good match in time. I think Olympics sports are a bit better off at CSU. Would bring a decent share of the Denver market, CU would still dominate that market, but this would be a toehold for the Pac-10. Would provide a travel partner for Utah, while not rivals the two have been in the same conference since the 60's first the WAC and now the MWC. ***Air Force Academy, this 'school' would probably be an ideal candidate from an academic stand point. Olympic sports are well represented, as I believe the service academies pretty much carry everything. Just not sure the Pac would go for an academy. This school while close to Denver probably does not provide a market to speak of, as the students are much less likely to settle in or around Denver or the Springs post graduation. ***UNLV, would bring the Las Vegas market and a nice trip but nothing else. Athletics are not that good, academics are not great, not sure about research. ***Nevada, nothing special here either. Athletics are improving, but it would take a long time to be competitive in the Pac-10. Academics and research are not bad but are not Pac-10 caliber at this time either. So in summary Utah is the most logical fit, and assuming BYU is not acceptable, the only non-bcs attached school in the west that could conceivably partner with Utah is Colorado State. Though to be fair I did not look at UNM. But at this time Pac-10 expansion does not seem likely. That could change if the Big-10 ever goes to 12.
  11. Very well done. If ever a school was in need of a rename UWGB would be it. From what I have read they were once the Bay Badgers. Which is not terrible but not very original either.
  12. Per Forbes, the DC United figure does take into account the VW sponsorship deal. Bear in mind that the value of said deal is spread out over the duration of the contract. In the case of DC United, the 5-year, $14-million deal works out to $2.8-million per year. Further, while DCU keeps the majority of that figure, Major League Soccer does receive a percentage of the fee. Well that is what I get for not reading the actual article.....
  13. Red Bulls pay a massive game day rental to whatever entity operates Giants Stadium... United pays a sizeable rental for RFK, Houston pays a modest rental for Robertson. Take away the rental fees and these three just about break even or better. Columbus is 'losing' money most likely due to retirring construction costs on Crew stadium. If they had a naming rights deal in place they would most likely be profitable. Yes that is probably the case as these numbers would have been crunched prior to DCU signing the VW sponsorship.
  14. Kansas City should also get short term relief this year assuming rent is less then at arrowhead. Real Salt Lake opens their stadium this October so that should help them NYRB open their park next year and this should provide immediate relief. Seattle should be 'profitable' out of the box Only Columbus is losing 'big' money in a venue that they control. Not sure how many concerts they are staging this year but additional income nights should help.
  15. I do not see OKC in this logo either I see 0KC. Even if this is an interim stand in logo it is utter crap.