Jump to content

kroywen

Members
  • Posts

    1,490
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by kroywen

  1. Montreal does not have the demographics or the corporate base to support a baseball team, at this point. Bill 101 drove most of the Anglophone population away (mostly to Ontario), and with it, most of the corporate base. It's easy to forget, but up until the 70's, Montreal was the leading financial center of Canada, not Toronto. Businesses fled after onerous language restrictions were placed on them by Bill 101, and that was the end of Montreal being Canada's leading city. Baseball is the toughest sport, of the major four, for a market to support a team successfully. 81 home dates - double that of basketball and hockey - and about 40,000 seats to fill - again, double that of basketball or hockey. A team needs to have a large population base with an interest in baseball, and a large corporate base to buy advertisements and luxury seats. On top of that, they need a centrally-located stadium with fairly easy transportation options. Montreal has none of those, at this point. The dwindling Anglophone population was the Expos' base, and the corporate base likely won't support the Expos in the manner required. Building a centrally-located ballpark might be a bit difficult given the historic nature of Montreal's core. There's no prime relocation options sitting out there right now, but I do think baseball's best bet would be a burgeoning market with only one big 4 team located there. Vancouver and Portland are the two that spring to mind - they're both fairly booming cities that are have room to support another pro sports team. I'd be concerned that Charlotte's pro sports dollar might be tapped out between the Panthers and Hornets (and Hurricanes, really), but that would be an option as well. Question is, would a team in Portland or Vancouver be more or less of a risk than trying to resuscitate the Tampa Bay market with a new downtown Tampa ballpark (with a retractable roof, naturally)? Tampa Bay literally has zero track record of success in supporting the Rays, so it becomes a question of whether that's due to the team's circumstances (fixed-roof dome in St. Pete) or inherent structural problems with the market itself. I tend to think it's a combination of both, but I also do think that the underlying fundamentals of the Portland and Vancouver markets are more favorable than that of Tampa Bay.
  2. I couldn't agree more. In general, I hate black and blue as a color scheme. The two colors are too dark to work together, and wind up competing with one another. When right next to each other, they blend in together, sometimes to the point of creating a hazy purple effect where they meet. It's utterly pointless to have two dark colors that don't play well off one another in your color scheme. The black-and-blue trend (mainly by blue teams that added BFBS) seems to have mercifully died out, and I don't want to see it revived by the Lightning. The Lightning's current set is by far the best in their history. It's a low bar (I strongly dislike all of their previous jerseys), but better to rip off the Maple Leafs and Red Wings rather than continue the "are we a black team, a blue team, or both?" identity crisis they had before. At least now they're taking their cues from the right places, rather than from the BFBS trend. My preferred Lightning identity would probably add in a dash of silver on their jerseys, keeping the logo as-is. Some silver striping and detailing would help set them apart from the Wings and Leafs design-wise. But no need to return to what were honestly ugly jerseys and a hideous logo.
  3. Here's a slightly different take on this topic. 14 years ago, the 2003 NBA Draft occurred. Aside from the legendary draft class (and equally legendary draft bust at #2 overall), take a look at the logo overlaps here: 2003 marked the debut of the Cavaliers' logo seen there, the debut of the Nuggets' new double blue/gold color scheme, while it was the second-to-last season of the horse's head in Detroit. Seeing the horse's head wedged in between those two logos really provides for a clash of eras. The Raptors' logo contributes to that as well - while it would linger around for five more seasons in those colors (looking ever more dated by the year), it's an archetypal 90's logo next to two logos very associated with the 2000s.
  4. That has to be one of the biggest upgrades of the year in any sport, at any level. The old logo was truly hideous.
  5. Interesting. I hate how that looks. Granted, that's a hideous shoe, but the high tops do not mesh well with high socks.
  6. I am a complete traditionalist when it comes to baseball (one of the very few things I can say that about ), so I'd never want to see this actually come to fruition, but as a hypothetical? It's brilliant. Preserves every major historical rivalry, allows for in-division metropolitan rivalries in all 5 metropolitan areas with multiple teams, and would minimize travel. I've often thought a Yankees/Mets/Sox/Phillies + 1 division would be incredibly fun to watch, what with all the rivalries (NYY/BOS, NYM/PHI, NYY/NYM) and money to be thrown around in that group. I'd never actually want it to happen - the history and tradition of two separate leagues is just too great - but what a fun division that would be to watch. And I can say the same for Midwest and Pacific divisions above as well - lots of historical rivalries and big markets in each of those.
  7. I love the Patriots' old AFL uniforms. They're one of my absolutely favorite football uniforms out there, and I wish the Pats would go back to them yesterday. Except for Pat Patriot. Objectively, it's a terrible logo. A terrible logo on an otherwise beautiful uniform, but a terrible logo nonetheless. If the Pats were to go back to those beauts (not going to happen), or a derivative thereof (may happen once the Belichick era is over), I'd rather they put a modified version of Elvis on there. To me, the platonic ideal of a Patriots uniform are a navy blue inverse of the red AFL uniforms (more or less their Color Rush jerseys paired with white pants), with Elvis on the helmets. Pat Patriot, on the other hand, belongs in 1960.
  8. And I thought the creepy portrait of George Steinbrenner's ghost looming over right field at Yankee Stadium was obnoxious and ostentatious...
  9. From the looks of it, Carthage's gym is also larger and more modern than Fordham's: versus It's absolutely incredible that that is an A-10 gym. The A-10, as in a conference that usually sends around three teams to the NCAA Tourney every year, and is often considered a "high-major" conference. The football stadium is somewhat excusable, given that they're on an urban campus in the middle of the Bronx, and space is very, very limited as a result (though I wish Fordham would relocate some of its "minor" athletic fields - baseball, softball, etc. - to a spot in Westchester, to free up space on campus). But there's definitely room to build a larger and more modern gym - the only reason that hasn't happened is lack of funding and general apathy.
  10. Yeah, much of that money was targeted toward repairing damage from Katrina. There wasn't a "like-new" renovation on the Superdome ("like-new" in the sense of Soldier Field, MSG, Yankee Stadium in 1976, etc.). I don't think the Superdome needs a "like-new" renovation at all, and it doesn't seem like the Saints ownership does at this time either, though we'll see if they're singing the same tune in 2025. It's a perfectly serviceable stadium that doesn't need to be replaced at all, but that's rarely stopped franchises from demanding new stadiums in pursuit of new revenue streams. I certainly hope that Saints ownership don't decide to go that route in 2025, but if they think they can get a viably secure a stadium deal that would open up new revenue streams, history tells us that they will.
  11. I thought they had secured a deal already since they have actually sold the naming rights to it already (as part of the package to rename the Ralph), but apparently they haven't, and aren't immediately pursuing one either: http://buffalonews.com/2017/02/11/no-stadium-discussions/
  12. Yeah, there totally are. This is our D-I football stadium, no joke: Yeah, it's not just those super-rich high schools around Dallas that have better facilities than us.
  13. There's probably going to be a need for further renovations to the Superdome in the coming years. There's already chatter in New Orleans about where further work will be needed at the end of the 15 year lease in 2025. (http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/2017/01/new_orleans_doesnt_need_a_new.html, for instance.) New Orleans obviously wants to remain in the regular Super Bowl rotation, so they're going to probably need to make continual updates to the Superdome every decade or so to make sure it remains up-to-date, lest they risk falling off the rotation like Jack Murphy/Qualcomm did. But by no means do they need a new stadium, or are looking for one.
  14. Looking at this list, the two main relocation candidates are honestly London and Toronto. Maybe Vancouver with the right ownership groups and some further upgrades to BC Place, but that's doubtful. But honestly, other than the Redskins and Saints, I don't see any NFL teams needing to strike a deal for a new stadium anytime soon. The Bills are getting a new stadium, the Chiefs seem happy at Arrowhead, and obviously the Packers are going to be at Lambeau for years to come. Other than those teams, every other stadium has either been newly constructed or massively renovated since the Rams and Raiders first moved in 1995 (hell, FedEx Field opened in 1997, they just built it with a terrible design in a terrible location). The Redskins can shop between DC, MD, and VA for a stadium deal, and I don't think there's any viable way for the Saints to get the State of Louisiana or City of New Orleans to fork over money they don't have for a new stadium, for obvious reasons - a Superdome renovation is far more likely. (Luckily, it seems like Saints ownership is fully committed to New Orleans and hasn't threatened relocation at all.) The only real relocation candidate are the Jaguars, and their situation is bleak largely because of the lackluster fanbase, not because of their facility. So at this juncture, I don't think the NFL really needs a super-viable relocation threat in order to secure new stadium deals in existing markets. The NFL successfully milked the Los Angeles relocation threat for new stadiums (or massive renovations) for almost every NFL team, and only have two less-than-ideal stadium situations left in the entire league (New Orleans and Washington). It's not a coincidence that the the NFL waited to fill the LA market until virtually every single team had a new stadium in place - they no longer need a viable relocation threat hanging over municipalities' heads.
  15. This is exactly how I feel about my alma mater, Fordham, as compared to UConn. To be honest, I have no clue how Fordham's basketball team was this season, beyond "not good." I'm far more interested in UConn basketball because there are actually high stakes there. It's a hell of a lot more interesting than watching a team lose in front of a half-full 3,200 seat gym. I can count of one hand the amount of Fordham students and alums who have an emotional investment in Fordham basketball, and can guarantee that almost no one can name a single player on the team. Funny story about that, actually. I went to one single Fordham basketball game during my time there. Sat in the student section behind one of the baskets, and all I can remember was the Sixth Man Club wiggling their fingers in the air and howling whenever a Fordham player was shooting a free throw toward that basket. A friend of mine (who lives and breathes basketball) and I just looked at each other, completely puzzled, and said "wait, they're supposed to do that to our opponents!" And I knew right then that that'd be the last time I'd go to a game.
  16. I couldn't agree more. And what about those of us who go to colleges that don't have good athletic programs, or don't play in D-I, or those who don't go to college at all? I don't think we should be precluded from rooting for a major college sports program for the rest of our lives, just because we're not students or alums of a college with a strong D-I program. I personally went to a school that is D-I, but has a laughably terrible athletics program. I knew tons of students who legitimately had no clue we were D-I, and earnestly thought we were a D-III school. Our basketball gym (most decidedly not an arena) was the oldest, and one of the smallest, in all of D-I, and yet we still couldn't fill it up for home games regularly. Our basketball team hasn't been to the NCAA tournament in over 25 years. Our football field was literally a single grandstand of bleachers on one side of the field, with a parking lot on the other side. There's D-III programs with better facilities than us. Being an urban school, we had extremely limited space of facilities, and were reliant on aging facilities that were the butt of jokes of students and opponents alike. I'll speak glowingly about my alma mater in almost every other facet - academics, our campus, our history, our student body, etc. - but let's just say that I never expect to be watching the old alma mater on the big stage in football or basketball. But I am a Connecticut native, and I've been a UConn fan since I was a little kid. They were the one sports team that could unify the State of Connecticut - the state is famously divided in half between Boston and New York teams when it comes to pro sports. But I grew up when the men's and women's basketball teams were ascendant, and were the pride of the entire state. Being from Connecticut, if often felt like the rest of the country only knew us as that strip of land connecting Boston and NYC, with a bunch of rich people and a name that no one knows how to spell. Or worse yet, "Connecticut? Is that a state? Where the heck is that?" I'm not sure if we're truly the most forgettable state in the country, but it certainly felt like it - we were a tiny state that didn't even have a cool trivia fact like being the smallest state or the first state. But everyone in the country suddenly knew what UConn was, even if they had no clue where that mysterious land of Connecticut was located. They were a point of pride for an oft-overlooked state. I have no personal association with UConn, but they're my home state's team. Not just that, they're our only prominent team, pro or college. So I root for them. Except for that one time years and years ago when they faced my college... and we got trounced thoroughly.
  17. It's the perfect example of the Mandela effect - I bet 99 out of 100 baseball fans who remember that moment would think that he was wearing a front number when it happened. It looks incredibly strange to see that uniform sans front number, to the point that you can tell something is wrong, but can't quite put your finger on it (until realizing what it is).
  18. Willie Mays wearing an 80's era Giants uniform at an Old Timers Day:
  19. I think that's true - I doubt many people even remember that the Cards weren't wearing front numbers back in 1998 during McGwire's home run chase. Personally, I'll never look at that 1998 uniform and not think it looks so weird and incomplete. I will say, for uniform nerds like us with an eye for these things, that McGwire might be the only Cardinal for whom the number-less uniform is the "right" uniform, given that the signature moment of his career happened in that uniform.
  20. Here's a strange one - Jose Altuve on the Astros in 2012: Brett Lawrie with the Jays in 2011: J.D. Drew during his very first month with the Cardinals, as a September call-up in 1998. What's wrong about this uniform? It was the second of the Cardinals' two season experiment without front numbers. The front numbers would return in 1999, when Drew would stick in the majors for most of the season:
  21. Eddie Mathews in his last season with the Braves, which also happened to be the Braves' first season in Atlanta. "A" cap, and uniforms sans tomahawk: And even more jarring yet, here's Mathews during his managerial stint with the Braves in the early 70's, after their complete rebrand: Keyshawn Johnson in the Jets' old threads. He wore these for his rookie and sophomore seasons in the NFL: Kevin Dyson as a Tennessee Oiler in 1998, his rookie year. It was the last year before they became the Tennessee Oilers:
  22. Having the same issue. The site is moving at a snail's pace for me. Browser agnostic for me as well.
  23. Not sure high top cleats and high socks would really go together well, though. Not sure any player has ever really combined the two - I think almost every player who wore high cuff cleats also worse relatively low cut pants.
  24. The Yankees, up until the late 2000s, had very few players who wore high socks (much to my dismay). Then, around 2009 or so, they became much more common in the Bronx again - guys like Damon, Gardner, Robertson, Granderson, occasionally Swisher. I will say that long pants with pinstripes do tend to look better than long 'snow white' pants, but I absolutely love the look of the Yankees' uniform with high socks.
  25. I couldn't agree more. And FWIW, baseball uniforms are meant to be worn with high socks, and always were up until the 90s. Socks provide color balance to a uniform that long pants fail to do. A baseball uniform generally looks best when the color of the cap matches the socks, and when the jersey and pants are either white or gray. The color balance of color-white-white-color is perfect. Even with alts, socks provide a much needed color balance, sandwiching the white (or gray) pants in between two blocks of color. Combine that with the unflattering bagginess and sloppiness that is so common with long pants nowadays (the proverbial 'pajama pants'), and uniforms really did lose a lot when long pants became commonplace.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.