bosrs1

2 hours ago, GDAWG said:

 

Until the A’s say they have a deal, this is politician hot air...

1 hour ago, Geoff said:

The Big XII has been dying for over a decade. I doubt any of the remaining members want to remain in a conference where the commissioner said just days before this all leaked that conference realignment wasn't a thing at this time. Bowlsby has bungled this whole thing and has been reactive since. It seems like he hasn't even tried to improve the future of the conference, likely because he knows it's dead. The best thing he and the remaining 8 can do is say, "sure , y'all can leave for 2023 ... if you pay us everything."

Yeah the XII is dead. Now it's just a matter of where everyone ends up when the music stops. And who if anyone takes their place in the Power 5. 

17 minutes ago, Brian in Boston said:

Dissolution, as in the act or process of dismissing, dissolving, ending, or separating an assembly, body, or partnership into component parts.

Of course, I'm quite sure that many fans of the Big XII and its member-institutions besides Texas and Oklahoma are feeling mighty disillusioned right now. 

Autocorrect is a :censored:...

5 minutes ago, Red Comet said:

As a Missouri fan, I’m glad we left the Big XII before Texas collapsed another conference yet again. 
 

I wonder who else is going to participate in the partition of the Big XII?

Are we thinking Big XII partition/disillusion is the far more likely outcome rather than the Big XII trying to save itself and acquire replacements? 

Is anyone else reporting an issue with certain ads causing problems with the forums. Specifically you'll be typing and when an ad loads, usually in one of the side spaces, the cursor on the forum section will deactivate like you've clicked away from the comment window and you have to click the cursor back into place to resume typing? It's only started happening recently. 

And so it begins...

https://www.ajc.com/sports/georgia-bulldogs/oklahoma-texas-make-first-official-move-toward-joining-sec/TDBSBQXG7ZFIPCUOMPCVNYRNJY/

On 7/23/2021 at 10:00 PM, GoHawks said:

Here's some more pics for y'all to judge 

Man between this, the Niners bringing back the '94 look, the Rams fixes, the Edmonton Elks rebrand... it's turning out to be a good football uniform year. Nice contrast with MLB where it's been one :censored:show after another this season. 

3 hours ago, Skycast said:

 

As a Colorado fan I'd like to see the Pac12 at least bring in Colorado State and Boise State into the fold, those certainly make sense geographically. CU/CSU is already a rivalry game and Boise State could fill that niche for Utah...the Pac12 tried to manufacturer a rivalry game between Colorado and Utah, but that's just not the same. 

 

As a side note, when the Pac12 expanded last I never did understand why they didn't just take the number of teams out of the conference name. Something like the Mountain Pacific (I know, close to the Mountain West, but still) makes a lot more sense given that they have many teams not on the Pacific coast and in the Rockies region.

 History. The Pac-8, Pac-10, now Pac-12 is a very old historic name that no one wants messed with, particularly those involved with the old guard schools which are all on the coast. 

5 hours ago, heavybass said:

We definetly  be seeing the death of the Big 12 conference within the next week.
 

 

Jesus if the SEC and Big 10 start hoovering up the Big 12 you'd have to think the Pac-12 will make some move to expand too, right? 

6 hours ago, heavybass said:

Big 10 will take West Virginia and Iowa State, ACC takes both Kansas and then the Pac 12 takes Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State.... if imploding is happening.

Actually they’re talking now like the Big 12 would start poaching MWC and Pac-12 schools. Which if the latter happens you’d have to think would lead to the Pac-12 raiding the Mountain West.  Silly season has begun again!

2 hours ago, tBBP said:

 

As does Minnesota United.

Again, not St. Paul branded, or even in a Big 4 league. 

19 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:

    
Bingo!

Frankly, the argument can be made that Oakland was lucky to have ever landed major pro sports in the first place.

 

If the ownership group behind the American Football League's planned Minneapolis-based franchise hadn't announced that it was bolting for the NFL just eight months before the upstart league was set to kick-off, AFL leadership wouldn't have been forced to find a replacement market on short notice. Further, Los Angeles Chargers owner Barron Hilton wouldn't have been afforded the opportunity to throw his weight around and insist upon said replacement market being a California city that would provide his team with an in-state rival and help to somewhat reduce his travel expenses.

By no means was Oakland a "get" market for any major pro sports league in 1960. At the time, the city's population of 367,548 marked it as the 33rd largest municipality in the United States. The only less-populated markets playing host to major pro sports in the AFL, NFL, MLB, NBA, or NHL at the time were Syracuse (NBA's Nationals) and Green Bay (NFL's Packers). The Nationals would relocate to Philadelphia by the start of the NBA's 1963-64 season. As for Green Bay, the city served  as an NFL market in 1960 - indeed, continues to survive as an NFL market today - due to the existence of an iron-clad legal agreement dating to 1923 that  establishes the Packers as a publicly owned, non-profit entity.

Today, Oakland's estimated population according to the U.S. Census Bureau is 424,891... ranking the city as the 46th most populous in the United States. As you point out, it isn't the largest city in its metropolitan area or Nielsen DMA, trailing behind both San Jose (#10 nationally - 1,013,616) and San Francisco (#17 - 866,606). In fact, it's the 8th most populous city in California behind Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Fresno, Sacramento, and Long Beach.  

Akron, Anderson, and Canton. Dayton, Decatur, and Evansville. Fort Wayne, Hamilton, and Hammond. Hartford, Kenosha, and Louisville. Massilon, Moline, and Muncie. Newark, Omaha, and Orange. Portsmouth, Pottsville, and Providence. Rock Island, Rochester, and Sheboygan. Staten Island, Syracuse, and Tonawanda. Troy, Waterloo, and Worcester. All played host to major pro teams at one time or another. All have seen major pro sports move on. Like each of said cities, Oakland may be a major pro sports city that time has passed by.

I mean really Oakland's time passed it by around the time the Coliseum opened. If not for the Raiders situation  you detail above, or the fact Charley Finley was desperate to move out of KC from the moment he bought the team (remember he had tried to move the team to Dallas, Louisville, and Oakland a first time in the years prior to the ultimately successful request to move to Oakland) and the fact SF just didn't have an arena really capable of hosting the NBA with the Warriors bouncing around 3 different sub standard venues in and around the city, Oakland likely never would have acquired teams. It was the perfect storm of timing, desperation and lucky circumstances to Oakland's benefit. There's an argument to be made that Oakland has the most successful on-spec stadium construction project ever in that the Oakland Arena had no tenants planned when it was planned, and the Coliseum was made multipurpose instead of football only for its then only expected but not signed tenant, the Raiders, on the slim hope of attracting a baseball team. They ultimately ended up with teams in all 4 major leagues within 5 years of opening, with an ABA team and NASL team briefly stopping by for good measure.

One they benefitted from for close to half a century longer than they likely should have. The fact they were able to hang on to the 3 teams they did for as long as they did is actually somewhat shocking and impressive. 

8 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

The Wild say "hi".

Corrected that while you responded. Point stands, they're not the St. Paul Wild. 

2 hours ago, flasah said:

Oakland is more like Ft. Worth and St. Paul than you might think

 

Twin Cities	Metro Pop.	1st City	Population	% of Metro	2nd City	Population	% of Metro	Pop. Diff.	% Diff
Dallas-Ft. Worth	7,694,138	Dallas	1,197,816	15.6%	Ft. Worth	741,206	9.6%	456,610	5.9%
SF-Oakland	4,696,902	San Francisco	805,235	17.1%	Oakland	440,981	9.4%	364,254	7.8%
Minn.-St. Paul	3,657,477	Minneapolis	382,578	10.5%	St. Paul	285,068	7.8%	97,510	2.7%

"Small" distinction though, in Minn-St. Paul and Dallas-Ft. Worth, there's no city in the same region even bigger than Dallas or Minneapolis as there is with San Jose in relation to the smaller San Francisco and Oakland. The Bay Area is really a tri polar region of San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland. With Oakland being a distant third to SJ-SF. 

And as it is Fort Worth and St. Paul don't have any named sports teams. All of the regional teams are either in Dallas, or it's suburb Arlington (but of course they're not named after Arlington, they just play there) and in Minneapolis or named generically. Heck, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Dallas-Fort Worth are good examples of why Oakland either shouldn't have teams, or the ones it has should be named either San Francisco, San Jose or some generic "Bay Area" name (like the Warriors were and Golden Seals went to after trying out the Oakland moniker). Heck, the closest analogue in the US to the Bay Area situation is likely Dallas-Fort Worth. With Dallas being San Jose, Fort Worth being San Francisco, and Oakland being Arlington. 

Beyond a new ballpark, that may be one solution to help some of the A's problems, rebrand regionally or to one of the two larger cities to broaden appeal. The Angels did so arguably to their benefit. Instead Oakland's new term sheet precludes the A's from doing so much like Anaheim's tried to do in the 90's.

2 hours ago, TBGKon said:

Oakland has the distinction of being a twin city in a large market.  

It also has the distinction of being the most divided off second (really third) city in a market with the A's, Raiders, Stompers all being Oakland teams instead of San Francisco or Bay Area teams. San Jose too for that matter with 2 iterations of the Earthquakes and the Sharks.

In Chicago, NY and LA the non-city teams are still generally Chicago, NY and LA teams. The only exceptions today that I can think of are the Anaheim Ducks and NJ Devils (if you consider them a NY city team). Brooklyn is an oddity but only as they're named after what today is a sub-city level political unit (ie: a neighborhood name) but that's a pretty unique to NY situation given the city is made up of multiple counties/boroughs. 

If the Bay Area were any other location the teams would all be San Francisco teams or Bay Area Teams. But most other regions aren't in the same boat where there's a huge body of water dividing the region's titular city (SF) and third cities (Oakland) from each other, and the titular city not being the largest city, but rather the second largest to what has become the second city, San Jose, which usurped the second city role from Oakland less than 10 years after Oakland started acquiring sports teams (San Jose became the second largest city in the region by 1970 of course became larger than even San Francisco by 1990).  All of which probably helps explain why Oakland ended up in this mess in part. Oakland began a protracted era of decline, particularly relative to it's two neighbors, shortly after the A's, Raiders and Warriors moved in. One from which it's never really recovered. Oakland's population today is barely higher than it was in 1950, it's lost all of it's military presence, it's port has long since been surpassed by the LA area, the largest companies in the Bay are in SF or SJ, average household income is by far the lowest of the 3 major Bay Area cities in Oakland... Really if it hadn't acquired the 3 teams in that narrow window when it did, Oakland would never be a choice destination for teams today. They'd all be going for SF adjacent or San Jose adjacent, and they'd be so named after the bigger cities.  

I was trying to think of some analogy in another two team region, or even one team region where a clear second city existed when it got teams, but then quickly declined to a distant third city, and I really can't think of one. 

1 hour ago, ManillaToad said:

It's kinda crazy seeing a city lose its viability to host major pro sports teams. I'm pretty sure a city that has hosted a team in all four major sports has never lost all of them like Oakland might. The closest I can think of is San Diego, but you'd have to count the short-lived Mariners in the WHA  just to get to three different

major leagues

Yeah I don’t count the Mariners. And of course San Diego hasn’t lost the Padres. There are a couple cities that have lost teams in 3 but never 4.

16 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

Hopefully this keeps them in town. The way A's ownership has been dragging their heels on everything indicates to me they're trying to pull a Stan Kroenke "fight and say no until they give up and let you off to a new market" tactic.

I mean it's not what the A's wanted. It's good they voted yes, but they voted yes on something the A's have already told them is a "no". So really all the city has voted to do is continue negotiations from their side. The A's on the other hand have said this was a no. Whether they stick to that or if they come back to the table *shrug* who knows. But it's not the term sheet the A's had asked them to vote on and they're still almost $400 million apart. 

To say nothing of still needing the county's buy in on the TIF financing that the city just rejected in their term sheet. In any case the A's are going to Las Vegas for another scouting trip tomorrow. 

32 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

I was just told about something similar by a friend who's former player (he's a high school coach) is playing A ball in Peoria (Cardinals organization).  He said the players prefer road trips because they lose money at home.

That's pretty pathetic. I wonder how many organizations are doing it. Of course being a local SF Bay Area article they don't elaborate on the other teams beyond the Astros. But the implication was that most are doing right by their players, similar to the A's recent food for MiLBers fiasco. Clearly the Cardinals aren't one of them if what your friend is saying is true. 

Meanwhile, the A's just landed on the receiving end of yet another bad piece of news, of their own making regarding their half assed treatment of their minor leaguers in Stockton  just hours before the Oakland vote.

https://www.sfgate.com/athletics/article/Exclusive-Most-Oakland-A-s-single-A-players-in-16323267.php?utm_campaign=CMS Sharing Tools (Mobile)&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

Even the Astros, loathesome as they can be seen, aren't hanging their Single A guys out to dry like this...

1 minute ago, GDAWG said:

 

1 vote against - 0 votes for...

7 members of the council yet to make their position known. Of course we've yet to find out what they're actually going to vote on. 

On 7/17/2021 at 4:30 PM, 4_tattoos said:

So how many years until we see the Rams introduce a yellow version of these?

Probably next year. You'll see a non-gradient number change for the blue, with maybe one or two other tweaks, and you'll see a yellow alt jersey. 

49 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

Tomorrow is a big day for the A's as the City Council will vote on their Howard Terminal plans.

It's a big day, but not for the reason you list. Tomorrow the city council will vote on their own Howard Terminal plans that they released on Friday. The A's have already said if they vote yes on that plan, it's a no vote on the project. 

The A's have implored the city to vote on the plan the A's presented back in April and asked for a prompt vote on (the OCC thinks 3  1/2 months is prompt). But so far no indication the OCC will be voting on the A's plan for Howard Terminal. The A's are already planning another trip to Vegas for Wednesday. 

Looks like Vegas wouldn't be much of a downgrade attendance wise. The Las Vegas Aviators drew just under 6,000 fans yesterday, despite the weather being humid, brutally hot and intermittently broken up by thunderstorms. The currently playoff qualifying A's on a perfect sunny 75 degree day in Oakland,  only drew 8,572.

3 hours ago, GDAWG said:

 

Also:

 

Oakland A's president Dave Kaval says July 20 vote is 'last at bat' for team in Oakland - ABC7 San Francisco (abc7news.com)

God I called it. Oakland produced their own term sheet that only made minor concessions toward the A’s term sheet and they’re going to vote on that next week instead of the A’s sheet as they were asked to. They’ll vote yes on their sheet because it’s theirs and they can say “we said yes” thinking it’ll make the A’s look bad. The A’s will promptly start packing... Oakland pols are so damn predictable. 

2 minutes ago, DustDevil61 said:

Of course my mind goes over what all 6 of those cities would be.

 

The only 2 Canadian cities without a team that I would think are viable are Montreal or Vancouver. In the States, we know that Nashville and Portland have been mentioned, so there’s 4 total. What could possibly be the other two?

Charlotte & Raleigh/Durham? I’ve head both mentioned over the years.