monkeypower

2 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

I mean, this is the same league with franchises bearing names like "Swamp Rabbits", "Ghost Pirates" and "Solar Bears", so I really don't see what's so bad about "Knight Monsters" comparatively to the rest of the ECHL, especially when it's blatantly obvious that Vegas will pick them up as an affiliate once their deal with Savannah is up with how the current trend of affiliates is to have them closer to the NHL team.

 

The league just has some franchises with corny-sounding names, past alumni of which include the Grrrowl, Road Warriors, Riverblades, Boardwalk Bullies, Whoopee and Mysticks. Besides, it gets people talking about the franchise more than if it were the 30,0000th team just called the "Monsters" or "Dragons".

Because it's a bold move unofficially naming your brand new minor league team after a professional team you currently have no affiliation with. Plus, a knight monster isn't a thing and since they got too cute with the name trying to force a connection, it also doesn't follow the naming convention of using an adjective to further describe a team name.

A swamp rabbit is a real animal while a ghost pirate and a solar bear are obvious plays on tangible things and all three of those teams follow the "adjective-name" convention as well. Same with the Golden Knights being the knights of gold, the Silver Knights being the knights of silver, the Sound Tigers previously being the tigers of the Sound, the Oil Kings being the kings of oil, the Wheat Kings being the kings of wheat, etc.

They are the monsters of (the) knight. What does that mean? Obviously, it's intended to be a play on Night Monsters, aka, monsters of the night, but that's not what the name is and isn't nearly as tangible of a thing like a type of knight or a king or a pirate or a bear. Night Monster sounds like someone who was terrorizing co-eds with Zodiac and BTK. Plus, the logo is a water serpent of some kind, who I don't think have ever been really associated with night when talking about animals, real or cryptid.

It's fine. 

I don't like the plain one-colour block numbers though.

1 hour ago, Cujo said:

So Perry smashed or tried to smash a Blackhawks staff member.

 

Moving on.

I have to think that it's either that or possibly some sort of substance issue and he refused treatment? Neither of those things necessarily have to rise to or result in a criminal matter.

As a Ducks fan, Perry never was labelled as an off-ice problem nor problematic person, if anything he was made fun of by other Ducks teammates for being quiet/milquetoast, and every team he's played on during his current journeyman phase has seemed to make him out to be a great veteran presence.

I guess it really does only take one incident/opportunity for a person to do something wrong.

I quite like the wave pattern but I don't think that lighthouse T in the wordmark on the back works.

2 hours ago, BBTV said:

Are the D-Backs still trying to get a new stadium?

 

If this is the type of promotion they have to run to get fans - after a pennant - maybe they don't belong there.

 

 

That's less than $4 per game.  Contract them.

I don't know, I think that's a pretty cool deal.

Looking at the site, it's only Upper Level seats and people have to claim their tickets at the beginning of each home series, so it's not like they're handing out primo seats.

13 hours ago, GDAWG said:

 

The Cowboys are so established that a second NFL team in the area would be a disaster.  

4 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

1. doubtful, however if they go on another 5-6 year sellout streak where ticket prices are prohibitively expensive, the other team could become the one where families can actually afford to take their kids, who might grow up to be fans.  OR, when the Phillies blow, the other team could be the only place to see AL stars like (based on 2022) Otani.  Back in the day, people would have packed an AL stadium to see some of the players that rarely appear in NL parks.

I just picked Dallas NFL and Philadelphia MLB because those were the two most recently listed in this thread. I don't seriously think it would work there, it was just examples

4 hours ago, BBTV said:

2. Re: Constitutions - can we stop naming teams as if they're come up by a board room full of 70-year-old white guys?  I'm not saying to name them the Dirty Dawgzzz, but something more younglings can relate to that's not embarrassing for their parents to wear.

I don't seriously think Constitutions would be a good name. I thought that might have come across since I named the Dallas team the Fort Worthers, but I guess not. 

Sure there might be a high enough population in a given city/market, but will there be enough people to switch their existing allegiance for a second team? Be it the Philadelphia Constitutions baseball club or the Dallas Forth Worthers football team, is there enough space to wiggle in a build a fanbase?

6 hours ago, JohnnyCowboy5 said:

 

 

 

The sock proportions are off and I also prefer the old, non-red all the way down sock style.

1 hour ago, dont care said:

TD Garden isn’t close, the Celtics hang less banners than the hitmen. Now if the hung individual banners for their retired numbers rather than consolidating them the Celtics would nearly double them. Regardless the bruins wouldn’t have enough banners to top them still I believe.

I forgot the Celtics do that for the retired players.

I was at the Saddledome last weekend and I counted 46 banners spread across 4 teams. That's got to be one of the most in terms of teams and combined banners, right? The only ones off the top of my head that I can see being higher is Staples and the TD Garden, but those both have less teams. Any other thoughts?

For the curious, the Hitmen have the most with 21, then the Flames with 18, the Roughnecks with five and the Wranglers have two.

The Flames and Hitmen banners are on big pipes at the opposite far ends of the arena, while the Roughnecks are on the first blue rafter to the left of the scoreboard (in this picture below from however many years ago) and the new Wranglers ones are on the first blue rafter to the right of the scoreboard (not in this picture).

I'm in the Saddledome mostly for Hitmen games and first noticed last season that they started pulling the Roughnecks banners up into the rafters for those games, which I overheard an usher answering someone else saying that those were pulled up because of the Flames flamethrowers. Two weekends ago I was at a Hitmen game and the Wranglers banners were down as the Wranglers had only raised them the day before but during the Hitmen game last weekend, the Wranglers were pulled up also.

I'll be at the Ducks game in Calgary this season and plan to attend at least one Roughnecks game, so I'll have to remember to see which banners are out when.

43 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

I'd disagree with the assertion that the Canes' branding is inconsistent, personally. Theirjerseys aren't, sure, but jersey design inconsistency to some extent is kinda common in the NHL (Vancouver does it, Calgary does it, the Rangers do it, Chicago does it, etc). All three uniforms they currently use as their main set have overlapping brand elements to tie them all together, like the logos, color scheme, NOB font, pants, etc.

 

Brand inconsistency, to me, is when nothing about what a team looks like really matches with itself over their history, creating a situation where fans of that team all prefer vastly different looks as the "true" look of the franchise (see: LA, Vancouver, Anaheim and to a lesser degree Tampa, Calgary and Dallas) and arenas turn into less of a unified front and more of a sea of different colors, which we don't really see in Carolina.

I don't think I agree with knocking a team's brand consistency because they don't look the same over history because each look is essentially a different brand that needs to have it's own level of consistency, plus that ignores other factors that go into a team rebranding including relocation, ownership changes and larger design trends at the time.

I think "brand inconsistency" in  can only be applied to the current branding and maybe how a team includes different aspects of previous branding. People wearing different jerseys from a team's history doesn't mean a brand is inconsistent, it just means that people prefer one look over the other and that the team decided to change colours. (I also think a "true" look of a franchise is an overblown discussion).

For example, the Ducks have worn two different looks. The first for 13 years and the second/current for 17 with a clear throughline that can be drawn in the current look. I would say that's pretty consistent. Calling the Ducks inconsistent also ignores just how much the first look was uniquely tied in the ownership at the time and that the new ownership kept the same, consistent, branding of a duck. The Ducks aren't out here wearing a black/orange/gold home and an [insert name of purple]/jade away right now. Nor do they have different logos for different jersey templates.

Tampa has also only had two looks over 31 years. Dallas has had four over 29 but that includes a relocation scenario where Dallas didn't really have their own jerseys for a handful of years (which would most likely never happen again in a relocation). Calgary has had four over 43.

All these teams are way more consistent currently that Carolina currently is and those teams don't have people saying "um ackchyually, Carolina may wear three different jerseys with three different logos but their names are the same font", Carolina just didn't change happen to change colours ever.

23 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

As I've said countless times, it does not matter how difficult it is to prove. If it can't be proven, he is presumed innocent. This is an extremely basic, easy-to-grasp concept in this country. I do not understand where the confusion is coming from.

Yes, it does matter how difficult it is to prove because it is not an extremely basic, easy-to-grasp concept unless you are thinking in the most surface level understanding.

Yes, "innocent until proven guilty" is the baseline and how guilt is legally doled out and how people should be assumed to be, but it is often used as an over simplified rebuttal without considering how the legal system functions, how certain crimes and people are dealt with, the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty", etc.

You can keep caping for Watson by using semantics and saying he wasn't found guilty so that must mean he is innocent, but that ignores the realities of the justice system and the various outcomes/offshoots/repercussions of starting at "innocent until proven guilty". Especially for something of what Watson was accused of.

I'll just be done with this now.

27 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

Let me make it as simple as possible: 

 

Guilty = Guilty

 

Anything else = Innocent

 

What about the phrase " innocent until proven guilty" do you not understand?

 

You literally need to ask yourself one question. Was he proven guilty? If not - as per the beginning of the phrase - he is innocent.

By the strict legal definition, he is 'innocent" as in he has not been found criminally guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. However, what he "allegedly" did is infamously hard to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law and many such cases will never even come close to a criminal trial because of it.

As stated by others, there is also a difference between "innocent" and "not guilty". They are not the same thing.

I bet a lot of you will just absolutely love what the Moose Jaw Warriors do for their helmets.

I might just be done with the Jets unless something majorly drastic happens. At least I know I'm done doing anything this season besides getting the game start and game end notifications. I was even able to get some fun out of recent seasons but it's just not enjoyable anymore.

The organization appears to not be able to do anything correctly, the online fanbase is becoming increasingly more and more miserable to interact with and I am not even from NYC/State so there's not even a connection there.

I guess I'm still a Jets "fan" until I'm not but I am getting less and less invested each day.

On 11/17/2023 at 10:40 AM, GDAWG said:

 

 

The fact that one of the "official" photos posted by a team was a selfie with a couple of those Times Square characters (that they would have had to pay for) is very apropos.

Yes!

I'm wondering if it's because they are going to be the "home" team for Sunday's game and didn't want to bring both sets of helmets.

Oh no. One of the most make-work positions in a make-work industry admits to making up things for tv hits that nobody seems to enjoy doing?

2 hours ago, CDCLT said:

It's funny you say this because it actually does the opposite for me. I recognize I'm probably in the minority on this, but I feel no particular identification with the region of "Carolina". I do feel slightly more strongly for the state of North Carolina, but I feel very strongly for the city of Charlotte. I know I'm not really the target demo, but home markets do draw me in, especially if Charlotte has a team. I don't care for the "legacy" of the Chaos LC brand, I'd rather have a Charlotte-specific team. The NLL has the PLL beat on this one, at least, to me.

I'd tend to agree with you. Some people out there are pretty dumb but I don't know if going with a vague description of Carolina or California or New York is going to fool somebody once they announce the sites where the team is going to play their limited home games.

There is an argument for going broad and try not to alienate any potential fans but you can go too broad and not get anyone to care if you're seemingly too flighty or non-committal. Especially in case like this where, as an outsider, there seems like issues could arise getting people to buy in to a home team.

Not that I've watched or followed the PLL at all, Roughnecks and the NLL for me, but I can't see the vision in (seemingly) randomly assigning home cities, when most of the cities aren't cities, to teams after teams have been established for a couple years and then still doing the touring method.

Like how much of a home fanbase can be cultivated when the home team will only play two home games every handful of weeks, if that? How many existing fans are actually going to switch allegiances because their team isn't their home team now? I also know from the NLL that a large portion of players don't actually live in the city the team is based out of and I assume that's even more the case in the PLL, so it's not going to be as easy to have players show up to city or community events to build support/rapport/advertise if they aren't going to be playing in the city.

I wonder how much of these jerseys, and the fact there's still no names yet, was impacted by the widely negative response to the leak of the names?

16 hours ago, M4One said:

I would say it's less lazy and more practical for the gloves/helmets/pants to be the same.  A player gets called up or sent down, they bring their equipment with them and all the team needs to provide is the jersey and socks.  Also, we all know how players can be particular with their equipment.  It's lazy, but standard practice, for the AHL team to use the same template with the parent club.  Even if the jersey design was different, it still would make sense for the helmet/pants/gloves to be the same.

There was part of an article during either this most recent baseball season or the one previous talking with Angels minor league/tweener players where some were commenting on how it was a bit of a hassle to have two sets of cleats/batting gloves/accessories when moving between the black and yellow Salt Lake Bees and the red Angels.

I would agree with you mostly but the one question I have is, is it simply practicality or is it the NHL team wanting their AHL team to look similar and the practicality is a result? Because all AHL equipment is CCM, so it's not like an AHL team has to source different equipment brands and a player could conceivably want to wear a different brand in the NHL when they have the choice.

Also, the majority of AHL teams don't use the same jerseys as their NHL counterparts.

Double post because I forgot, the Hitmen's radio colour guy for about a dozen years up until 2017 (I can't seem to find a start date but if memory serves, probably since around the same time the current play by play guy started) was a long time and active police officer who got pretty high up within the Calgary Police Service by the time he was done on colour. He's since retired from the police and is now the Senior Director of Corporate Security for CSEC.

Calgary has had some pretty lengthy ones on the radio. The Flames a guy for their first season of 1980-81 and then Peter Maher from 1981-2014 and now the newest guy from 2014 to present. The Stampeders have had the same radio broadcast pairing for 25 years and the Hitmen have had the same play by play guy for 18.

For as much guff as they sometimes get, Brian Hayward has been there as TV colour since day one of the Ducks and John Ahlers has been play by play for 21 years now.