TheLavisShow

Members
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Prospect

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Cascadia

Contact Methods

  1. Ok so I don't know if anyone has stated this earlier in the thread or not but can't we all agree in about 20 years we'll all be screwed with the notion of relocations and the rising population centers. Last time I checked all the young people are moving to Austin, in 20 years they'll all be in their 40s, and last time I checked Austin has zero pro teams. Houston will be the 4th or 5th largest metro area in the US and yet they have no NHL team near them. Cinicinnati will want a team that plays in an arena. Baltimore will wonder why it can't have an NBA team when it's an obvious basketball talent hotbed (for those who think Philly and DC are too close that didn't squash the Ravens and Orioles from being born). Canada might want to get in on the action, in particular Vancouver, in the major sports they don't have or have only one team in. Conneticut might want a team in a sport since are slowly becoming NYC's largest suburb. The point is in times like this I look at the model in England and the rest of Europe in terms of soccer. Every city and even suburb (sometimes two in one suburb) has a soccer team, and if the owners want the club to do good it's up to them at what extent. Imagine if every city in America that was over 50,000 people managed to have at least one team in a promotion-relegation system within a pro sport. Imagine if we had a more glorious cup (I know we have the Lamar Hunt Cup for US soccer and the Memorial Cup for Canadian minor league teams) in every sport that was as sought after as the top tier's championship is and is as open to everyone as the FA Cup. Just imagine a third round cup match between Los Angeles and Bakersfield or for the East Coasters a match between NYC and Burlington, VT. I'm sorry if I'm a little soccer heavy but after all this Bradford City stuff in the Capital One Cup I'm really hoping one day a baseball team from Eugene, OR could take down Houston or Chicago in a serious game.
  2. That is my point. And they aren't going to let it happen to VT either. If no one wants UVA, that is their problem, not VT's. And do you get what I was trying to say up there? Obviously it wasn't that the ACC is UVA's safe harbor. If no one wants UVA, that is Virginia Tech's problem, because either both schools with have safe homes or neither. Count on it. The legislature stepped in to force the ACC to add Virginia Tech because of concerns that Virginia Tech was going to be left in a disintegrating Big East that didn't care for football. Fair enough on your opinion. We see it different ways. I think they rather have one successful than none at all. Especially if the Commonwealth was the reason that both went down. My opinion on it. Again, the BE situation was different because VT could only go up and no one could go down. In this situation both schools can go down based on this. It defies the reason to have it to begin with. It's not opinion. It's been stated. The commonwealth controls the power to allow/disallow either school to switch. VT's gonna be fine. They're a big time program. UVa is not. It's not a luxury of salvaging one over the other. I respectfully disagree here, too. I think money and power (legal team) can get you out of anything. The SEC has money and I think they (the school trying to leave for greener pastures) has a valid argument. But hey, if you are right, maybe the SEC will give VA the finger and settle on FSU. I think when your talking about schools that are in-state and have been competing against each other in some fashion for some extended period of time, legislators are looking at the best interest in the longevity of a fanbase and not seeming like they're putting all their eggs in one basket. I'm from WA so I look at UW and WSU. If it weren't for the fact there was no other real contender for a large school in our state, WSU would be long gone from the Pac 8 probably much like in the fashion the conference "had no room" for the University of Idaho back in the day and have been replaced by lets say BYU. They could do that cause who the hell back then was close to the level of UI in the state of Idaho. Plus the WSU would revolt if they thought the state government was favoring UW to prosper. It's along the same reason as to why the University of Montana hasn't taken the leap to the MWC, because the MWC would have to take Montana State as well so the Bobcat fanbase wouldn't revolt. All-in-all its politics. VT and UVA are now handcuffed much like UW/WSU, UO/OSU (both versions), and UNC/NCST. Sure one might not be living up to potential for quite sometime but once they get linked up it's hard to split them up. Watch, if let's say Clemson and Florida St go to the SEC, you just got two more new handcuffs
  3. This is sort of an occasional thought I've had over the years (and sorry in advance if something like this is being discussed on a different topic) and it has to do with the idea of farm systems. I guess my main question why is it, after all these years, the only sport to successfully manage, maintain, and run a proper farm system for it's major league is baseball? Is a farm system good in all sports or is it better to have leagues scattered across the country so that many more cities can say they have a minor league, lets say basketball, team even if it's usually for around 5 years on average if that. If football is considered our most popular sport in this country why hasn't there been a proper farm system for the NFL ever? I know back in the hayday when the original USFL was around there was a party of owners and such that long-term wanted to turn the USFL into essentially NFL's farm league during the spring but of course Donald Trump had other plans. Personally I have an answer I wonder if anyone has thought of. What if back in its hayday, the AFL became the NFL's farm league? You wouldn't have to fill 32 teams with 56 man rosters, in terms of eye appeal 10,000 fans watching an arena football game is a much better atmosphere than having 10,000 fans for an outdoors game, and economically its cheaper to run a team playing in an arena with luxury boxes then a football stadium designed for a FCS college team (btw I'm just using 10,000 as a predictable average estimate seeing how little turnout their was in the USFL in certain markets). And in terms of basketball I guess I ask how long do you think it will take for the NBDL to have one team for every one NBA team (they're at 16 teams right now)?
  4. Another reason I like that the names stay. Think about some of the silly names we may have now. Magic, Wild, Thunder, and Heat are bad enough, but it would really be over-saturated if we kept needing to do this. Kudos to the Baltimore Ravens for picking a great name, but I don't know that it would go that well very often. They could've went with Bees since Utah is the Beehive State (just look at their minor league baseball team over the years). Or personally I think Chinook would've been a pretty cool name that doesn't end in a s if they wanted to go that direction.
  5. Pilots lasted only one season, hardly enough time for a city to grow an emotional attachment to the team especially in the late 60s-early 70s.
  6. There is, but I'm sure that doesn't matter to you. 3 blocks from the stadium to the nearest "jazz-specific" club...it gets even shorter if one simply wants a bar where there happens to be live jazz music. Do people not understand that there are a lot of people in every single state that like/play Jazz music? Jazz is not strictly confined to the city limits of New Orleans. New Orleans was/is a significant city when it comes to the birth and evolution of Jazz music, but it is hardly the only city that is significant in those respects. Chicago and New York (and you could argue for a couple more cities) both had huge impacts on how Jazz music evolved over the years. Music is universal and transparent, it doesn't belong to a specific city nor should it. This is a little bit of a weak argument... YES of course there are Jazz clubs in Utah... that was some assumptive hyperbole by TheLavisShow. But that doesn't mean it makes sense to name the team after something that, while it EXISTS, doesn't have the historical significance to merit branding a team around. I'm not on the "re-name the Jazz" bandwagon.. If you didn't do it 30 years ago you're not doing it now. But i still think the name makes no sense. Having said that, I don't know how many Tigers there are in Detroit. So, sometimes it doens't have to make sense. Tigers is a classic sports team nickname that goes way back, much like Wildcats and Bulldogs. Nicknaming a team "Jazz" on a professional level was invented in New Orleans. All I'm saying is if Utah was given an NBA franchise initially instead of New Orleans, how far down the list of nicknames would've Jazz appeared? Probably wouldn't have made the top 100 easily. There's just zero logic in Utah Jazz. If they're basing their nickname off of Utah's jazz scene then every single NBA team would have the same base. Memphis, Portland, Sacramento, even Minneapolis probably have larger jazz scenes then the Salt Lake City metro area. Hell why we're talking about a utopian-like world of franchises actually having relevant team nicknames why is LA still called the Lakers. Why don't Utah, LA, and Minnesota do a three-way swap of nicknames. All-in-all I think we can agree professional franchises are a lot more lazy and stubborn when changing nickname then minor league franchises (Yakima had their baseball team move to Hillsboro, OR and now they have a completely different color scheme and nickname).
  7. I'm just saying in the Raiders case the Bay Area had the 49ers before they came to town and LA had the Rams before they came to town. Besides the Raider Nation represents more than just a football team playing for a city, it's about a team playing for an urban and rebellious culture. Only way you can remove that is if you change the logo or colors; not city.
  8. Yeah if your doing TATC jerseys then you've got to do the Arizona Diamondbacks.
  9. 1. Utah Jazz lose their nickname so that New Orleans can take it back and its Purple/Green/Yellow jerseys 2. Memphis Grizzlies lose their nickname and give it to Utah and take their colors too. 3. Charlotte takes back the Hornets nickname and color scheme. 4. St Louis Rams go back to the same colors they had in LA. 5. Represenatives from the Kansas City Royals and Tampa Bay Rays get in a room and settle who can use the color scheme of Blue/Light Blue/White (honestly the Rays alternate looks like the uniform manufacteurer just slapped Rays text instead of Royals text on the uni). Personally I think Rays should change to Black/Green/White.
  10. How about the TB Rays Turn Back The Clock Uni they wore this last season.
  11. I feel like this is one of the saddest things in the states. All across the major European sports leagues (in particular soccer) the notion of franchsing is nonexistent. Over there the notion of taking a teams colors and nickname when they move cities results in mass anger (see the Wimbledon move to Milton-Keynes). As a Seattle Supersonics fan I have obvious bias that I acknowledge. But honestly, it's sad we are accustomed to this here because it means the likelyhood of a transition in stance is very weak. The Colts should've changed their name, the Flames should've changed their name, the Grizzlies, Hornets, Jazz, Rams, should've all changed their name (especially the Jazz, honestly I know there aren't a lot of good names for Utah teams but I doubt there's one jazz club within 1000 miles of Salt Lake). The only exceptions are when a team only slightly changes venue such as the Raiders and the Nets.
  12. I guess my major unpopular opinion is I hate the colors of the Dallas Cowboys, NY Giants, and Chicago Bears. Their colors are just so bland and boring and their logos combined with them just make the overall appearance so basic. Also unless it's used as a third color I don't think Navy has any place in a teams primary colors. Not even the likes of Notre Dame or Navy itself looks good in Navy. All I'm saying is what's wrong with Dodger Blue.
  13. I know this might be a bit premature but I'm looking forward to the new Seattle Sounders kit sponsor. I'm hoping it's Amazon so that their third kit could go wild, think the new Eugene Emeralds home jersey but in green and blue.
  14. I feel like the sports teams you root for should be contigent on personal experience. One of my pet peeves is hearing someone lets say rooting the Pittsburgh Steelers because they liked the Wiz Khalifa song or the Dallas Cowboys just cause everyone else seems to be a fan of them. Location is obviously the major sticking point with this but there are other reasonable reasons that are as valid as rooting for the home team. I'll show with my teams I root for. Also I approve of liking more than one team in a league just as long as you have a number one and you aren't liking a team in every conference or something. By the way I'm Northwest grown NFL: New England Patriots-I grew up in Central Washington and Drew Bledsoe grew up 45 minutes north of my hometown and played high school football for a school that was in the same conference as my high school. So yeah, I was a fan before Brady, but just barely. Seattle Seahawks- Hometown team, my aunt and uncle have season tickets and my first football game in person was at Husky Stadium during their one-year gap between Kingdome and Qwest. MLB: Tampa Bay Rays-Watched them their last season as the Devil Rays in Tropicana Cincinnati Reds-Grew up a huge fan as a kid of Ken Griffey JR and my heart followed him to Cincinnati and after losing him and A-ROD my heart sort of gave up on the Mariners. Boston Red Sox- New England Pats fan LA Angels- Saw them in Anaheim the year they won it all. SF Giants-Watched a game out in right field and nearly caught a ball. Also I'm a UO student so there's a lot of Bay Area influence among the student body. LA Dodgers- My dad grew up a fan of them while he grew up in Manhattan Beach and it was at Dodger Stadium I had my first ever hot dog. NBA: Seattle Supersonics-Hometown team, first basketball game I saw in person. Never going to like the Zombie Sonics. Miami Heat- They beat the Zombie Sonics in the Finals thus sparing me of utter heartbreak. Vancouver Grizzlies- Never saw a game of theirs but would've loved to had a true Cascadia rivalry like in the MLS. Dallas Mavericks-Mark Cuban along with the Paul Allen of the Trailblazers voted against the Seattle move. NHL: Pittsburgh Penguins- Grew up loving penguins in general so I latched on. Anaheim Ducks- Watched a game in Arrowhead and they share the same nickname as my school. Vancouver Canucks-Represents the Northwest even though they're in Canada. Soccer: Chelsea FC- I grew up around ManU and Arsenal fans and I felt like I connected with the Blues because before the Roman era they felt like the runt of the litter in terms of major english clubs, and I still feel like they do although I think Liverpool is now picked on the most. Cardiff City FC-My grandpa was born and raised in Cardiff. Seattle Sounder- Local team, watched them as a USL team. Portland Timbers- I'm more of a Sounders fan but I've been to more games at Jeld-Wen and I live in Eugene so it's all I get on TV. Plus I dig the colors and fanbase. College: Univ of Oregon-Current student Ole Miss-Have a close friend from high school who attends Eastern Washington- ^Same^ Central Washington- ^Same^ Univ of Cincinnati- Same reason as Cincinncati T.C.U.- My mom attended Baylor- My sister almost got a job there which I thought was good enough. Also shares same colors as Oregon Other: All the current and defunct teams located in Yakima, WA/Eugene, OR/Seattle, WA/Portland, OR (exc. the Hillsboro Hops for obvious reasons)