Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by B-Rich

  1. Another thing to think of is the nature of the LEAGUES in regards to the teams named "Oakland". When Oakland's first major league team (the Oakland Raiders) came about, it was in a different LEAGUE, the AFL, which had its own TV contract. TV markets being what they were (and are) this meant that the AFL had a foothold in the major Bay Area TV market, just as they did in NYC (and originally, LA). With the merger, for many years you still had the two basic TV network contracts (AFC/NFC) plus the ABC Monday Night Football contract. Today, in the realm of cable, NFL Network, Sunday Ticket, flex scheduling and such, having two team in this major market is not as important. Similarly, when the A's moved from Kansas City to Oakland, it was when the leagues were still much more separate entities who only played each other in exhibition games and the World Series. In a major market like the Bay Area, it made sense to have a team in each city ( just as it did in NY, Chicago, and LA, and if you want to stretch this factor, that's why Texas, Missouri, Ohio, and later Florida worked so well with a team in both the NL and AL ). Not just for broadcast factors, but because the local sports fans (of which there were many) could ostensibly see ALL of the teams (and star players) of both leagues over the course of a season. With interleague play and unheralded media coverage of all games, these factors are no longer important. To me, the Bay Area (specifically San Francisco/Oakland) has always been less a New York/LA type of place that merited two franchises in football and baseball, but more like a Tampa/St. Pete, or Minneapolis/St. Paul, and probably most like a Dallas/Ft. Worth "twin city" kind of situation. I think that the Bay Area is just "right-sizing" in terms of sports franchises: one each in all the five major sports. It is kind of interesting, though, that the result in terms of NAME will be two with "San Jose" (Sharks and Earthquakes), two with "San Francisco" (Giants and 49ers) and one regional (Golden State), but in terms of physical location/home stadium/arena it will be two in San Francisco (Giants and Warriors) but THREE in the south bay (Earthquakes, 49ers and Sharks).
  2. I'll say it before and say it again (and this is especially relevant to me regarding Southern Miss, which about half my family went to school over the last 70 years)-- if you are going to have a name like GOLDEN Eagles, RED Raiders, GREEN wave, etc., for goodness sake, play up THAT color in your logos and particular uniforms. I like the yellow (gold) pants as an option and love the yellow (gold ) jerseys, too. I wish there was some way to make the yellow/gold a more common and visible element, such as making it the permanent helmet color and maybe pants color. I could live with the black jerseys if that were the case.
  3. One of the key things that led to early "success" of the USFL as a spring/summer league was their placement of teams not just in non-NFL cities at the time (Phoenix, Birmingham, Jacksonville, Memphis, San Antonio, Tulsa, even Oakland; and for the last year relocations to Orlando, Baltimore and Portland) but also their placement of teams in NFL cities WITHOUT MLB teams, whose season they almost overlapped: (Washington, Denver, Tampa Bay, New Orleans). It was "something to do" at that time in those places, and support was pretty strong in three of those 4 (Washington being the outlier, but they sucked terribly on the field and that didn't help). With expansion and relocation in sports over the last 35 years, that particular situation has changed tremendously. IMHO, Tampa Bay, Washington, Denver, Baltimore, and Phoenix are definite no-gos. Back in those days before the explosion of cable options and now internet streaming, you also wanted to get "major (TV) markets" which is why both the WFL and USFL had franchises in not only the really big markets (L.A., NY/NJ, Chicago) but also Philadelphia, Detroit, and Houston (note: the WFL originally tried and failed to get major market franchises in Boston and Washington, but the USFL did). Today, having teams in those non-"Big Three" markets doesn't make as much financial sense as it did in the 70s and 80s. So what are we left with for possible team locations? NFL formers and the usual list of NFL wanna-bees/maybes: Oakland San Diego St. Louis Memphis Birmingham San Antonio Maybe some other big-league US cities without MLB baseball or MLS soccer in the summer: Raleigh-Durham Sacramento New Orleans Oklahoma City Jacksonville Maybe a couple of other wild cards: Louisville Virginia/Tidewater That's about all I see, along with MAYBE a ubiquitous NY/NJ franchise. And that's not even getting into stadium availability issues, though WideRight did a pretty good analysis of that above. Speaking of that guy: Bulls anywhere in the Raleigh-Durham region is too close to the AAA Durham Bulls. Similarly, you can't have the Carolina Panthers in there, either. Would be great to use the old Michigan Panthers livery and logos and call them the Carolina Cougars, though (slight nod to the old ABA). Outlaws seems way out of place in San Diego; not so much a wild west town and great fit like Arizona and Oklahoma were. Maybe Express, but change the LA speed mark logo to "SD" (hey, they did a similar treatment for the Atlanta/Calgary Flames and it worked well for the last 40 years or so) Why is Seattle even in the conversation as a franchise site?
  4. Back in 2012, when Pensacola got their AA southern league team, they had a name-the-team poll/contest, and as most of us know the name Blue Wahoos was selected. By all accounts, it has been received rather well and done well in merchandising. In 2016, they had a one-off promotion of "What If?", with the team gearing up in the runner-up name, the MULLETS. Last night I was flipping through the channels and came across the Pensacola/Birmingham AA game, and Pensacola was once again sporting the Mullets look, so I looked it up. Apparently, this year EVERY Thursday home game will be Mullet night, with special Mullet features in addition to the Mullet unis: as per the team owner: "On Thursdays, we’re going to get rid of the ceremonial first pitch and replace it with a mullet toss…the ceremonial first fish! We’ll have a barber giving free mullet haircuts on the concourse. Mullet-eating contests. Each Thursday will be about cheap drinks, good times, and holding a party in the stands.” The name refers to not only the fish, but also the haircut. The team logo is a mullet in sunglasses, sporting a mullet. My favorite little thing, though, are the jerseys, complete with a brown splotch extending down from the back color indicating mullet hair:
  5. Back in 1987, I moved to Atlanta to attend graduate school at Georgia Tech. In addition to becoming a life-long Yellow Jackets fan in all sports, being a follower of pro sports, I also became a fan/follower of both the Braves and the Hawks. The LA Dodgers had been 'my' baseball team since I was a kid, but I switched to the Braves as they were now my hometown team. Similar thing with basketball-- the Jazz were dead to me once they left New Orleans in 1979; I had a brief interest in following the Spurs when I went to Trinity University for my freshman year in college, but moving to Atlanta in 1987 at the height of Dominique Wilkins, Spud Webb, Doc Rivers, Kevin Willis et als, they quickly became my team. Being from New Orleans, there was NO WAY I was becoming a Falcons fan. I was content to go to the one Saints/Falcons game in Atlanta every year. I moved back to New Orleans in the early 1990s, but kept those Atlanta fandoms for awhile. I quit following the Hawks when we got an NBA team back in New Orleans in 2002, but followed the Braves as 'my team' until they moved out to the 'burbs in Cobb County.
  6. Good call. I thought this was would have been a good name for the Oilers franchise around the time they announced that their place name would be "Tennessee" and not "Nashville": Tennessee Generals. Had the same idea of multiple generals in the state's history as you (particularly Nash and Jackson), but I also included the idea of the generals involved in the various battles in the state during the Civil War. Of course, there was a civil war Battle of Nashville, and multiple battles in nearby (basically now suburban) Franklin and Murfreesboro, so the Civil War generals reference is still pertinent.
  7. Quite right, Skycast. More on that in this post (with pics) from this thread from a little over a year ago (shameless plug) : Top 16 Pop-Culture Derived Team Nicknames
  8. B-Rich

    USFL Tweaks

    Although not ocean waves, the breakers of Lake Pontchartrain say hello...
  9. This is generally acknowledged as all the Saints need to do. You are spot on. ONLY thing I would change is the removal of uni set # 3 (black jersey/white pants) and #4 ( white jersey/black pants). Three uni sets are enough in my book, but then again I'm a curmudgeonly old man....
  10. Brings to my mind a song lyric from Public Enemy back in 1990, shortly after the change: "For what they play Aunt Jemima is the perfect termEven if now she got a perm"
  11. Checked out their field/stadium when I passed through Pittsburgh a few years ago:
  12. And while it's not officially official, Drew Brees will be retired.
  13. Nitpicky point: those jerseys (which incidentally are from my two alma maters) were actually GOLD, as in 'metallic gold' or 'old gold', a little darker than the newer faded 'Vegas gold', but not YELLOW (AKA 'athletic gold'). Some more: Mizzou has worn these often in the last few years, with a variety of helmets and pants-- Going a ways back, the New York Stars of the WFL. That's a fine look, IMHO. The following year, when they became the Charlotte Hornets (after a short time at the end of the 1974 season as the Charlotte Stars), they kept the colors but reversed everything. Helmets and pants became yellow, and the jerseys became black. But they had this sweet white away jersey with yellow numbers outlined in black, also a bit unusual:
  14. This literally happened for Super Bowl IX in January 1975. The game was awarded to New Orleans in 1973, with the expectation that the Superdome would be open by then. Because of construction delays, the Superdome was NOT ready by then, and the game was moved to Tulane Stadium (which had already been the host of two previous Super Bowls, IV in 1970 and VI in 1972). Fun facts: That game was the last professional football game played in Tulane Stadium. The 1975 novel Black Sunday by Thomas Harris (more famous as the creator of Hannibal Lecter) takes place at the same time as this Super Bowl, and mentions the Goodyear (changed to Aldrich in the novel) blimp flying over the as-yet completed Superdome on its way to open-air Tulane Stadium. A big-screen, star-studded movie version was filmed and released a couple of years later, with the locale changed from New Orleans to Miami:
  15. Figured it was time to start a separate topic like we've done in previous years, so here we go. I'll start with this year's meal menu. Half of it will be the same as last year's meal, obviously (the half on the left): That's KC-style burnt ends and brisket barbecue, with Bess Truman's Ice Box Pie (no, Red Comet, not gonna do Russell Stover chocolates); which I will do again this year (right side from last year was San Francisco cioppino, sourdough bread and Ghirardelli chocolates). Many years back when the Bucs played the Raiders in the Super Bowl, I did grilled gulf shrimp for Tampa Bay. But this year I'm going to go with something a little less generic and much more Tampa-specific, deviled crab, which are actually neat crab croquettes (not crab cakes) and in an appropriate irony, they are usually made and shaped like little footballs: Still not sure what I'm going to make as a 'Tampa Bay' dessert. Maybe something with orange, like this Florida orange cake: Football-wise, it should be a good game. Don't think I'll be pulling for anyone. Normally, I'd be pulling for Tampa Bay, as I have liked the Buccaneers since their inception (probably my second favorite team after the Saints); even had a Mike Alstott jersey back in the day, but I really don't like Brady, Gronk, Suh, Antonio Brown and Mike Evans.
  16. YA THINK!?! (yours truly in the Superdome at Photo Night, 1978, alongside workman-like forward Paul Griffin)
  17. Re: NBA expansion. No doubt Seattle would be a shoo-in for no. 31. It rights a clear wrong from when Stern allowed the team to be sold to Clay Bennett and after a season move the team to OKC, and puts the Seattle Supersonics back in their rightful place in sports world. A suitable arena is now FINALLY in place. And Seattle would takes their rightful place in the hierarchy as one of those cities with all four major league sports teams (five if you count MLS). That hierarchy and another key point come to mind when thinking about locating the 32nd franchise. Something that has NOT been mentioned yet in this thread. And that point is that both basketball and hockey share the same season, almost exactly. And when you think of places that have BOTH basketball and hockey teams, it never works as a two league city and rarely as a three-league city. As of now, IT IS THE FOUR LEAGUE CITIES that have both of those sports, mainly because they are big enough to maintain BOTH during the winter season: New York Boston Philadelphia Chicago Detroit Minnesota/Twin Cities Washington, DC Miami / S. Florida Denver Dallas Phoenix San Francisco Bay Area Los Angeles (Now, for arguments' sake I am not considering Canadian cities in this equation, due to the nature of hockey as the national pastime in that country, and the CFL/NFL situation. Toronto is a three-league city and has both basketball and hockey. But Vancouver was a two-league city with JUST basketball and hockey as their major league sports, and that only lasted 6 seasons). In the US: You had Denver (well before they were the humongous metro area they are today) as a a three-team city with basketball, hockey and football for only 6 years, and then the hockey team left. You had Buffalo with basketball, hockey and football for only 8 years, then the basketball team left. For the entirety of the time Kansas City had two winter sports teams, they were a four sports town (Chiefs, Royals, Kings, Scouts). For the entirety of the time Cleveland had two winter sports teams, they were a four sports town (Browns, Indians, Cavaliers, Barons) Washington, DC was kind of the outlier; they got their hockey team right after the baseball team left and for 33 years they were a 3 sport town with 2 of them being winter sports teams. But they were ALWAYS trying to get a baseball team back. So, that being said, despite so many on this board fawning over Las Vegas as the 'flavor of the month' and a slam-dunk for NBA expansion, I have my doubts. I agree with those who say, too much, too fast... Vancouver as an expansion site would be the same scenario as before; limited fan dollars being chased in the same season... Montreal ain't going to work, either for the two winter sport thing or the whole cultural thing (an NBA team going up against les Habitents?)... St. Louis already has a hockey team and just a baseball team; the Hawks have been gone for over 42 years, and the Spirits didn't do so hot in the ABA... Pittsburgh is not big enough to be a 4-team city... Nashville not going to happen with Memphis having the Grizzlies in the same state, same as Tampa Bay not going to happen with the Magic just down the road... Jacksonville is far too small, really, to even successfully be a host to just the Jaguars. I'd think more about the following: San Diego -- 17th largest metro area in America; arena plans are in the works, only has ONE TEAM right now which is the opposite season than basketball; local (more-or-less) deep-pockets ownership would be needed. Kansas City -- has very new arena in place built to host major league sports; has schedule room for a winter sports team; big metro area that at one point had all four sports teams, but again, local (more -or-less) deep-pockets ownership would be needed. Virgin territory -- NBA has a history of being the league to put the first pro team in a city (Seattle, Phoenix, Portland, San Antonio, Utah, Sacramento, Orlando, Charlotte, OKC)... Louisville, most likely would be in the works (pretty new 10 year old arena); maybe the Hampton Roads area of Virginia. Mexico City would be a stretch to me, but who knows with the NBA? I'm still remembering in the late 1980s when it was projected that the NBA would be the first league to have a European division by now. But clearly, the return of the Seattle Supersonics is job 1, which makes me happy (pre-Hornets/Pelicans, they were one of my favorite teams)
  18. Second response post. Third one with serious observations about expansion will be up after lunch: Yes to part one, no to part two. No. Sorry-- nope. HAHAHAHA!!! Finally, talk with SOME semblance of sanity re: the New Orleans NBA franchise. However, the point is (as I have posted on these boards before) Gayle Benson isn't selling a damn thing. Not even the Pelicans (which are more her baby; she picked the name and color scheme). She's announced several times her commitment to the city. She's a very healthy 73, has no children ( i.e. greedy heirs), owns both teams outright, and has more money than she ever would need (the Bensons give away money charitably like the Rockefellers). She has also gone on record as stating that she is setting up a trust for the long-term security of both of these franchises in New Orleans after she passes on. So, sorry vultures and haters.
  19. Just got finished going through the whole thread. My first response post.... GDAWG, with the responses to date, I'm thinking either your recall or knowledge of history is not that good: I'll pile on. Atlanta: Braves in 1966, Falcons in 1966, Hawks in 1968, Flames in 1972.
  20. ...and my boy Joe Burrow...
  21. BLUE Devils!! (And, as an aside, it's now Pontiff Playground, renamed after early 2000s LSU baseball team captain Wally Pontiff, who played there as a kid. He died suddenly at the age of 22, of a genetic heart disease which caused a thickening of the heart muscle.... I volunteer coached my daughters and many other kids for years at Pontiff; they are still the Blue Devils and now typically use a variation of the old AZ State logos Found out that these clear shell helmets WERE quite a thing back in the day, and much more prevalent than I realized at ALL levels in the 1970s and early 80s. Here are several examples: LSU version Detroit Lions Miami Dolphins University of Pittsburgh The biggest aesthetic drawback seems to be the two rounded bolt heads very prevalent on the sides of the helmet, usually right in the middle of the logo.
  22. Came across a post on a local history page about playground football in my area back in the 1970s. The poster included a photo of his old Metairie (colloquially, Metry) Playground Blue Devils helmet from either 1978/1979 (he should have turned it in to the playground at the end of the season, but that's another story). Anyway, after looking at the photo closely, it jogged my memory. I played for another playground (Lakeshore Playground Indians) in the same time period and I had forgotten that our helmets were like this one, and very different from traditional helmets in terms of the logo. As most of us know, generally college and pro helmets (and I assume high school helmets today, at least they were that way back when I played in the early 80s) have decals directly on top of the helmet shell, and most are replaced each game. These playground helmets had the logo decal on a 'base' helmet surface, which was then covered with a clear "outer" shell. The clear outer shell got worn, scuffed, and aged, but the logo decal stayed protected underneath and unmarked: Pretty sure this was done as a cost-saving measure for public playground use, too-- these helmets could be used over and over each fall and still have a clean logo, maybe with a sanding/polish of the clear surface? Anyone else ever seen this type of helmet or familiar with it?
  • Create New...

Important Information

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