sc49erfan15

Members
  • Content Count

    9,677
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

sc49erfan15 last won the day on November 18 2015

sc49erfan15 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,396 All Star

1 Follower

About sc49erfan15

  • Rank
    Mascot Turned Announcer

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Greensboro, NC

Recent Profile Visitors

23,743 profile views
  1. Church's is severely underrated as far as fast food fried chicken goes. Their chicken is on par with Popeye's and Bojangles' (and coming from a Carolinian, that's a huge compliment!) Unfortunately, in my experience, the restaurants are often a little dirty and in need of some serious TLC. Hopefully this refresh will also result in some major updates to the restaurants themselves. The article mentions digital menu boards and rearranged seating - hopefully this is a significant investment, and not the "lipstick on a pig" that the logo "refresh" looks to be. The fact that it's basically just a recolor will allow locations with the old red/blue/yellow logo to "pass" longer without a complete overhaul. A more drastic logo change would stand out more. This makes it seem to me like this entire refresh is going to be half-assed, implemented very slowly, and that some locations will never see a change. I hope I'm wrong. That said, black and yellow is an interesting choice. I can't think of a single fast-food chain that uses only black and yellow (BWW isn't "fast food"; McDonald's golden arches are often shown in only black and yellow, but we know McD's owns red and yellow)... it could work if they really commit to it.
  2. This. Argue the semantics all you want, but the Flag Code clearly suggests against this. Fortunately, the Flag Code is just that - a suggestion - and not a law, so individuals and teams are free to display or use the flag design any way they please. But I'm personally not a fan of any of these.
  3. Enormous upgrade, despite the logo itself (minus the text) looking more like a logo for an individual school than an entire conference. I had quite a lot of interaction with Conference Carolinas members (taught at one, announced at another DII school that frequently played teams from CC) and always detested that logo. I can't believe that old pile of garbage lasted 12 years - I remember seeing it here when it was unveiled (2007!) after the conference changed its name from the Carolinas-Virginia Athletic Conference (CVAC).
  4. Anyway, about the concept: I like the "1960s revival" much better than the "Dome-style." The underlined C and NCSC insignia don't do a lot for me as cap insignia. The NCSC looks good, but there are too many letters there to make a good logo - you might be able to make just an NSC work (I'm thinking small N over small S, interlocked with a larger C) but even that's debatable. And, as others have noted, the underline doesn't work as well under a C as it does the M. The "1960s revival" is rather nicely done. I like that the oval C is distinct enough from the Reds' wishbone C and the Cubs' circular C to be recognized on its own - good job there. The "Carolina" script is fantastic, I really like it on the dugout jacket. The only issue I have with this design is the primary logo - it's a bit busy. There's the "Carolina" text, state map, two heads, an star (that should be moved just a smidge east-southeast), a baseball, and the "Twins" script. I realize this echoes the actual Twins' "shaking hands" logo where there's also a lot going on, but the primary really looks more like an assortment of pasted-in logos, rather than a logo in and of itself. I think you've got something better going with the tertiary logo. Maybe try replacing the "C" in the tertiary with the map/heads and see how it looks? Red/blue color balance may be an issue, if you can resolve that then I think you might have something. Either way, it's very interesting to see this proposed move actually fleshed out in concept form.
  5. Great name - but (imminent disappointment in 5...4...) it seems to be one of those "phantom" unincorporated communities that only really exists on maps and maybe the name of a church or fire department or something. Unfortunately, I've never met someone that identifies that as their hometown (though this may be because they'd get tired of the giggling).
  6. Can't believe UNCG was the first team out. I knew #UNCGatlarge was a longshot, but it almost hurts more to be team #69 out of 68. On the plus side, I get to announce NIT games!
  7. Mexico City is 10x more of a pipe dream than Raleigh. Baseball is at best the fourth-most popular sport in Mexico City (1. soccer, 2. boxing, 3. soccer again), and despite being the center of a 20+ million urban area, the Diablos Rojos recently moved into a 5k stadium in part because they weren't filling the 25k one. They were between 3-5k, which sounds fantastic for "minor league" baseball, but the Mexican League is "major" in a "minor" way... highest level in the country, but a few notches below the highest in the world. It's got a lot of similarities in that regard to MLS (and that's not a knock against MLS whatsoever). The kicker to this is that "actual tickets sold" is much, much lower than that. Nobody pays to go to Mexican League games. Lots of ticket giveaways to lure folks in to spend money on beer and snacks. Which is a fine enough marketing plan, but it won't work for MLB. I've also heard multiple times that baseball in Mexico is more popular among the poor (the wealth gap in Mexico City is enormous) than the upper and middle classes - the type that would actually purchase tickets. There would also need to be a new stadium, which is an entirely different can of worms. Add in the issues of peso-dollar convertibility, travel, luring non-Hispanic free agents to Mexico (ain't that where all them cartels are?!?)... it ain't happening. Unless a Carlos Slim wants to throw away a few billion because he wants MLB in Mexico, of course.
  8. Quoting all for truth. North Carolina's population geography is a conundrum. The state is more populated than a lot of people think (9th in the US, just over 10 million), and in a sneaky way, the state is almost bigger in size than it looks. Drive an hour (or even 30 minutes) out of any decent-sized metropolitan core and things get real rural, real quick - but it's somehow also the 15th-most densely populated. It makes no sense. My point here is that I think people tend to look at the sheer numbers and think "potential for expansion!" but I don't see it as being feasible. The Raleigh-Durham metro area is just above 2 million, but it's incredibly spread out. Not necessarily "sprawling" (because I think "sprawling" infers endless mostly-residential development) but the counties included in that combined statistical area are up to an hour outside of what urban core Raleigh does have. I hate even having to use the hyphenated "Raleigh-Durham" because that suggests they're a dual metro, which they're not. The two cities are more than 20 miles apart! And once again, outside of that spread-out metro, the next-closest urban cores are: Fayetteville (65 miles, an hour's drive, ~375k metro population), Greensboro (75 miles, 90 minute drive, ~725k metro population), and Winston-Salem (100+ miles, nearly 2 hour drive, ~700k metro population). Nobody, nobody is going to drive from Charlotte (150+ miles and a 3 hour drive away) to come to a game, and the other "mid-sized towns" that admiral mentioned like Wilmington (280k), Greenville (180k), Rocky Mount (150k), and Jacksonville (175k) are a combination of too small and too far to make a dent in attendance. Let's pretend people were moving from Raleigh to Buffalo and not the other way around (shout-out to WiB) - it would be like a Buffalo MLB expansion candidate expecting significant attendance draws from Syracuse, Rochester, and Erie. The only thing this proposal has going for it is the potential Raleigh and surrounding areas have to keep growing. If we're looking at a metro area of 3-4 million by 2035, there might be something there.
  9. Bumping this because I went down a rabbit hole looking at designs of old baseball cards. It's not "team branding" per se, but the design of 1959 Topps struck me: I was familiar with this design, but didn't realize it was 1959! I found this interesting, as I (and I'm probably not the only one) associate the "lower case" fad with the '70s, maybe the late '60s.
  10. Dropped by Burlington today. Slovenia, Chile, and Netherlands soccer jerseys for $40. Duke Nike football replicas, $25. And the blank Carolina Panthers Nike Elite jerseys (the $325 ones) are marked down to $25. Pretty wide run of sizes and home/away. If I thought there was even a hint of a market on Ebay for these, I'd snap 'em up. I passed on everything.
  11. Good lord... can you imagine how hot that stadium gets in the summer? It's its own urban heat island!
  12. "Carolina Blue" refers specifically to the shade of blue used by the University of North Carolina. Naming a team the "Carolina Blue Sox" would immediately alienate every sports fan in North Carolina who isn't a fan of UNC. Anyone who's a hardcore fan of Duke, NC State, or Wake Forest would not support a team with "Carolina Blue" in their name. North Carolina sports fans are generally college sports first, professional sports second. Quick ballpark estimate, I'd guess college sports fandom in North Carolina is a solid: 25% UNC, 20% Duke, 10% NC State, 10% combined Wake Forest/ECU/App State, combined 5-10% for other in-state schools (mostly Charlotte, Davidson, NC A&T, Western Carolina), and the remaining 25-30% out-of-state schools.
  13. Is "Suburban Chicago" a thing (sorry) used specifically to refer to places outside of the city limits? If Chicago annexed Cicero or Rosemont or Des Plaines, would those places cease to be Surburban Chicago?
  14. Southern California Angels, maybe? The Padres and Dodgers might have an issue with that, but did those teams (plus the A's and Giants) get up in arms about "California Angels?"