Jump to content

kroywen

Members
  • Posts

    1,502
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by kroywen

  1. I think I might be the only person who prefers the curly W to the DC logo. Attractive and historically relevant, even if resembling Walgreens a little too much. The curly W hat paired with the "Nationals" script on the home would be perfect.
  2. This is sheer perfection. The old color scheme was far superior to the muddled, drab colors they have now, but the current logo is incredibly well-designed. I always hated the "tail end" of the classic logo, and how it just cuts off. Always looked like something was missing or incomplete in that logo.
  3. Travel be damned, if I'm a free agent, I'd choose to live in London over Jacksonville any day. Then again, I probably have next-to-nothing in common with most NFL players, so you're likely right.
  4. This draft is working out perfectly for the Jets: The Giants draft an RB, so the Jets have their pick of non-Mayfield QBs at #3. Get the best QB on the board (or at least someone who's neck-and-neck with Rosen) at #3. Division rivals get enamored with a QB who can play in cold weather, and pass up the measurably superior Rosen. For once, draft night is a good night to be a Jets fan.
  5. The Jets got the guy who probably should've gone #1 overall, and didn't need to lose 16 games to do it. Very happy with the Jets' pick for the first time... ever??
  6. This. I LOATHE the upper deck at Barclays. As steep as Matterhorn, and gives zero legroom. I have no qualms with placing an arena at Atlantic Yards (actually think it was a great idea), but completely mis-designed. Seating is way too tight and uncomfortable, the building looks like a rusted-out spaceship, and it was built too small for a hockey rink despite a team right on Long Island clearly looking for a new arena even at the time Barclays was designed. And given how poorly the arena utilized available space on the east-west axis, I have no doubt that they could've built it large enough to fit a hockey rink.
  7. The Brooklyn dome proposal always seemed fairly dead-in-the-water with the City (and especially with Robert Moses), but I've always wondered what would've happened if the Dodgers took up the city's offer of the Flushing Meadows site for a ballpark (the eventual site of Shea Stadium). I'd imagine the Dodgers would've renamed themselves "New York Dodgers," and the Dodgers-Yankees rivalry would've continued strong into the mid-1960s. The Koufax-led dynasty taking place in NYC would mean the continuance of New York's "Golden Era" of baseball into the mid-60s, which would've been incredible to watch for fans in this corner of the nation. I have little doubt that an NYC-based Dodger team post-1958 would've experienced considerably more success than the Mets have in their history. The Tri-State market would probably be more equally divided between Yankee fans and Dodger fans today. The interesting downstream effects would've been on the west coast - what happens with the Los Angeles and San Francisco/Oakland markets. There's little doubt in my mind that MLB would've expanded or moved to LA and SF by 1961 anyway - either in the form of expansion teams and/or the Senators leaving DC in favor of LA or SF (keeping in mind that the Giants likely would've landed in Minnesota; no way New York was keeping a second NL team into the 1960s). The AL probably would've been first to land on the West Coast, given the Senators' desire to move out of DC. If an AL team landed in San Francisco rather than the Giants, the A's would never move to Oakland. Suddenly you're looking at a very different baseball landscape in the late 1960s - does the AL ever approve an A's move from Kansas City? If not, does the 1969 AL expansion even occur? What happens with the Seattle and San Diego markets? And so on... I think I did a counterfactual alternate history on this exact issue (the Dodgers staying in NYC) in the "Alternate History" thread years ago... I'll see if I can dig it up.
  8. I would contend that it was designed just to do that - to look dated by the time these uniforms' five-year window closes, so that a new set would need to be designed then. And then rinse, wash, repeat. The Jags, Seahawks, Browns, Bucs, and now Titans are all clearly trying to cash in on uniform changes every five years - those uniforms are a hodge podge of super of-the-moment trends and poor design choices. The jury is still out on the Lions, while I think the Vikings are going to stand the test of time and remain in place for quite awhile.
  9. Think your pictures are all down right now. I'm just seeing file names.
  10. Oof, that new jersey does not look good in comparison to the old one. Considerably darker, and the new number font looks hideous in comparison to the old one.
  11. Which makes market size more important. The larger the market, the more subscribers there are, and the higher the subscriber fees generated by the RSN with which a team has a contract. Which translates into larger TV contracts for teams in that market (as long as they can draw sufficient eyeballs to that RSN, of course).
  12. Exactly. The Yankees and Mets are never at the top of local TV ratings lists, despite drawing more households than any other two teams in the majors. In 2017, the Mets had the 23rd ranked local TV ratings of any ML team, but pulled in more households than any team not named the Yankees. https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2017/10/10/here-are-the-2017-mlb-prime-time-television-ratings-for-each-team/2/#1c97b72c63cc I can't find reliable statistics on household data for the NBA, but it seems like the Nets' 0.42 rating equates to about 30,000 households per game - not good, but better than what teams in many smaller markets draw. https://www.netsdaily.com/2018/2/19/17027174/nets-local-tv-ratings-still-worst-but-growing
  13. Yeah, pretty much wherever white people live up north, you'll find a significant group of hockey fans. No, you won't find many hockey fans in Harlem or Brownsville, but in Brooklyn Heights or the Upper West Side? Absolutely. Same goes in a place like Chicago or Philly. Reason I said that the other three leagues would be better able to exploit the NYC market with three teams is just because there's more fans of those sports, in sheer numbers. The Islanders and Devils have solid fanbases for the NHL, but still can struggle at the gate and with TV ratings when they're not good. Put an NBA team in Long Island, or back in Jersey, and it'd be a wild success, even if the team isn't very good. (The Knicks still draw crowds like crazy despite being a laughingstock, and the Nets have solid TV ratings and attendance.) It's just that there's more basketball fans in the area to divide into three fanbases than there are hockey fans.
  14. A third NYC team would be quite a bit more valuable than your average small market franchise in any of the four sports. If it weren't for the Yankees and Mets' unbreakable territorial rights, I'm sure the Rays would relocate up to North Jersey in a heartbeat. The NHL is the one sport exploiting the market to that degree (and ironically, probably the sport least able to have three thriving teams in NYC - I have no doubt that a third MLB, NBA, or even NFL team would probably thrive in this market after ~10-15 years to build a fanbase). Yeah, this is unquestionably true. Brooklyn isn't a good analog to Anaheim - one would be the nation's fourth largest city and has in recent years become a codeword for 'hip', while the other's a small edge city that hosts a theme park and a tangled web of freeways. Everyone in America knows what Brooklyn is (and did long before it was hip), whereas Anaheim sans the sports venues would just be a western Kissimmee. Perhaps the closest analogs to Anaheim are Newark and Arlington, TX. Newark is larger and definitely more prominent than Anaheim, though. Arlington is probably the closest parallel - how many people would know Arlington if it weren't for the Rangers' ballpark (formerly) carrying its name? That said, there's a really good reason the Devils don't carry Newark's name, and the Cowboys and Rangers aren't named for Arlington. The brand values of Newark and Arlington pale in comparison to New Jersey and Dallas/Texas, respectively. The Ducks and Angels should take a hint from those teams. (And FWIW, Arlington is known by most sports fans at this juncture, largely because their name was on the Rangers' ballpark, as opposed to Glendale, Landover, Miami Gardens, etc. So a venue name can enhance a city's national prominence quite a bit, I think.)
  15. I really, really like these, and the presentation is top notch. Great work. I'm generally not a fan of tapering design elements, outside of helmet stripes in football, but it works here, and it'd be unique (and historically appropriate) to the Broncos.
  16. Well, it's both a consonant away from one racial slur for Japanese in WWII, and a vowel away from another racial slur for Japanese in WWII. Also damn close to "Nappy," a derogatory description of black people's hair, so there's that too.
  17. In fairness, I don't think the problem is endemic to the identifier "Orange." It's just how the two nicknames interact with the word "Orange." I don't like the two "g" sounds next to each other in "Orange Angels" (though maybe that's just from it sounding unusual to me), while "Orange Ducks" just sounds like a flock of deformed ducks with strangely colored feathers. I'd agree here. The Angels were explicitly intended to be an LA team (as evidenced by their nickname), and I wish they'd outright identify as such (rather than being in the geographically-ambiguous no man's land). I doubt it'd hurt much with their core OC fans, who seem more than willing to support LA teams in basketball and football (both pro and college). "Anaheim Stadium" is way better than "Angel Stadium," and the City of Anaheim has to know how much of a joke "of Anaheim" is at this point.
  18. I think the Ducks and Angels were saddled with the "Anaheim" moniker because of a clause in their leases with the City of Anaheim that required them to use the Anaheim name. I'm fairly sure that's why the Angels switched to Anaheim when Angel Stadium was renovated, and why the "of Anaheim" persists to this day. I don't think the Angels have made a connection with LA at all, though I wonder if that's even possible in light of the LA/OC divide. Would Angelinos ever root for a team in OC, if there's another LA team already in existence? I think it might be like NYC with the Islanders - even when they played in Brooklyn, NYC never identified with the Islanders. I think NYC always saw them as Long Islanders who moved out of home and rented a tiny place in hip Brooklyn for a few years, and who would inevitably settle down and buy a bigger house back in the burbs. (And looked what happened...) Nobody in NYC, perhaps except for the easternmost parts of Queens, was going to root for the Islanders over the Rangers. The "Los Angeles" branding should help the Angels nationally, but locally? I wonder if those teams would be better off being the "Orange Angels" and "Orange Ducks." Neither sounds particularly good, but "Orange County Angels" sounds uber-minor league, and "Orange County" is the one geographical identifier that their fanbase could identify with. Not sure how it'd play with Inland Empire fans, granted, but it can't be worse than "Anaheim."
  19. Dare I say, branding themselves as an explicitly San Francisco team might help them in terms of building a national presence. The two "San Francisco" teams - the Giants and the Niners - both have a much more enduring 'national' brand than the Warriors, A's, or Sharks (the Raiders are in some weird exception-that-prove-the-rule thing with their brand, of course). No, the Giants and the Niners don't quite have the brand value of the Yankees, Dodgers, Cowboys, etc., but they're definitely seen as 'prominent' and 'historic' teams in their respective leagues, and I think much of that is derived from being explicitly from 'San Francisco.' The Warriors are a charter NBA franchise with 5 championships and Wilt Chamberlain to their name, and yet they're not at all in that upper echelon of 'prestigious' NBA franchises. (And while they did relocate west, the Dodgers and Giants are both in that upper echelon of baseball franchises, as are the Lakers in the NBA, so that's not a great impediment.) Would the "San Francisco Warriors" carry the same kind of prestige that the "San Francisco Giants" and "San Francisco 49ers" do? I tend to think so. They'll never be the Lakers or the Yankees, but they could sure as hell be on the next rung down, so to speak. You know, being the 'second fiddle' franchise in a major market doesn't really carry much prestige - I don't think anyone thinks of the Mets, Jets, White Sox, Clippers, Nets, etc., as being 'prestige franchises' (and I say that as a Jets fan) - but it sure as hell carries a lot of financial value to their owners. Those 'second-fiddle' major market franchises are usually ranked in the top 10 most valuable franchises in their respective leagues (well, at least the New York and LA ones do). And when those teams are good, they attract a ton of attention and money - more than a good team in a small city would attract. So while being the second-fiddle LA team isn't going to build up a ton of prestige, it's a hell of lot more valuable than being Orange County's quasi-team/Disneyland's side attraction.
  20. Might be stripped of a few vital parts that would then be surreptitiously resold on the black market, but otherwise, sure.
  21. Kind of surprised as well. Thought the Phils would've at least worn a patch with his initials, since the guy was (by all accounts) absolutely beloved by Phillies fans. If Dallas Green and Paul Owens got sleeve patches, I'm really surprised that Halladay didn't. Have to say, I was a little bit surprised at how subdued and low-key the Jays' ceremony honoring Halladay was. They did it on Opening Day (rather than having a separate "Roy Halladay Day"), and it was over in a blink of an eye. Nice respectful ceremony, but surprised that it didn't get its own day, so to speak.
  22. I would hardly consider a one-day non-playing contract solely for ceremonial purposes to "justify" using a logo that he never once wore on the field. Roy Halladay did not throw a single pitch in the Jays' current duds. It's totally inaccurate to have the current logo and number font on his banner. The team's identity from when Halladay actually pitched for the Blue Jays might've been far uglier, but for better or worse, it's what he wore as a Jay. Can't retcon that history.
  23. This is across the street from Citi Field: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7584017,-73.8447928,3a,75y,26.49h,78.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG_BHR1SGZfHzwXcguwh1wQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 Hey, they can't all have McCovey Cove beyond th outfield fence. It's really a shame that such a great city as San Francisco has their teams flung throughout a 60-mile long area. Obviously building venues right in the heart of downtown San Francisco isn't really viable for a number of reasons (mostly $$$ and space), but I wish all of those teams were in easy driving distance and an easy train ride away from SF.
  24. Now to make these beauts the primaries... with contrasting color pants, of course: The rest? Burn 'em.* * An exclusion may be made for the Giants' white Color Rush jerseys.
  25. Yes, was a general comment (for instance, I always cringe if I come across a Friends re-run and see Chandler Bing wearing clothes that were 20 sizes too big), but also applicable to sports, at least aesthetically. Basketball was the one sport where the bagginess didn't look absolutely terrible, in my book, though I prefer basketball uniforms a bit more form fitting than what was standard in the 90s. Perhaps part of it was that traditional basketball shorts were a bit too tight and too short, and an overcorrection didn't look as bad in comparison.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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