OnWis97

1 hour ago, -Akronite- said:

I value geographic loyalty over having spent some time arbitrarily rooting for some other team. If you rooted for a team because you had no local choice, it's fair for you to switch you primary fanhood to a new, local team.

 

If you feel you really invested in a franchise and feel a part of that fanhood, feel free to stick with the team you already had, but that kinda thing doesn't work for me.

 

I'm not a big hockey guy but if Cleveland got a team (again heh) I'd swap from Columbus immediately. But I'm not really invested in any sports that don't have teams in Cleveland so it's hard to really match up the situation.

I agree. If for no other reason, you're able to go to the games.  I know that if you want to, you can watch 100% of the Flyers games from Vegas, but having a team to talk about with friends and co-workers and 41 home dates in town is valuable.  There's no right or wrong.  If you are a hard-core Flyers (random team I picked for sake of discussion) in Vegas and want to stick with them, that's cool.  But it makes total sense to cheer for the new home team.

I was 15 when the Timberwolves started.  I'd considered the Celtics my favorite team (though "fan" would be a strong word) because they were good and I liked green.  I was a T-Wolves fan from day 1.  And I don't see that as a problem.

3 hours ago, smzimbabwe said:

1. I think playoffs in any sport are a flawed structure that rely on hype to convince people to watch them.

 

2. There should be no fans over 10 of the Vegas Golden Knights. If you changed to Vegas for whatever reason, I consider you disloyal and have no respect for you. There are always exceptions to this, but they are few and far between.

 

3. Just to make this uniform related - if I hate the team, I hate the uniform. No matter what the New York Rangers, Dallas Cowboys, Wazzu Cougars, L.A. Dodgers or any other team I dislike, come out in, I will hate it. On the flip side, if a team I like wears something I am not happy with, I'll let them know I don't like it. (Washington Huskies and any black).

 

Are those unpopular enough?

Those are pretty unpopular...

1. I'm kinda with you on #1.  As leagues expand playoffs it kinda cheapens the regular season.  That said, if an NBA team with 66 games and another wins 65, is that definitive?  In that case, a best-of-seven probably makes sense to settle who's better.  Of course if one wins 66 and another wins 55 (particularly within the same conference), then you already know who's better (or, with injury, at least who had the better year).  The problem is that the playoff format has to be set in advance.  I prefer each league have a smaller playoff pool to create importance in the regular season.  But if the pool becomes too small and most teams are eliminated by mid-season, the season becomes more of a drag.  But ultimately, you are kind of right...the pre 1969 AL Champ / NL Champ was probably the best way to decide the two league champs with integrity.
2. I think a Vegas/Nevada resident, regardless of age, has every reason to be a Golden Knights Fan.  They finally have a team there...I'd be excited. If the Knights are not your closest team geographically, then I'm with you.
3. I hate plenty of teams with uniforms I think are great.

I think the Twins could be the best blue/red team if they would narrow their image, skip the red-dominated hats and jerseys, and dump the gold.

When the White Sox went to that look, I viewed it as following a trend.  I'd never have thought they'd still have it nearly 30 years later...after all, they were the team that changed uniforms regularly.

And now, after variations of blue and/or red, this is their identity, which is saying a lot for an original AL team.  I think their willingness to keep the brand constant has made it so. I know we all are disappointed about the change to the patch and pants striping on the road, but in the big picture, nothing much has changed.

It's actually a very "Yankees" set.  The road uniforms incorporate enough white to look a bit less traditional than the homes, which don't mess with sleeve piping/stripes and serve as traditional, team-identifying threads.

Interestingly, I always consider the Yankees a top-5 look, but don't really with the Sox.  Part of it, I suppose, is a nod toward the tradition of that Yankee uniform as symbolic of what baseball uniforms should be.  Another part is just general preference that I can't put my finger on.  And finally, the interlocking "NY" is better than the "Sox."  This is particularly true of the hat. While that home jersey is great, the road jersey is solid, and the overall look works really well, I actually put their hat toward the bottom.  I know using "Sox" on the hat is kinda their thing (and the "C" on the late 1980s hat, while serviceable, looked odd), but I personally can't put that with the top hats in MLB.

^

Mine, too.  I love that leaf and I think the shoulder version looked great, even if it was a bit redundant.

I want the Niners to go half way.  Gold outline and sleeve accents but no black or dropshadow.  But they only have overdone it or been very plain.  Guilty (among this crowd) pleasure: I like the dark red.  But regardless of shade, I want a red facemask.

13 minutes ago, DNAsports said:

The lack of stripes on the New York Giants home uniform drives me nuts.

I'm with you.  I also don't really like how the Giants are a blue team at home and a red team on the road.  I wish they'd integrate both colors into each jersey.

2 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

Sorry I can't blame the people of Tampa for not regularly visiting a bad stadium in an out of the way place. All of their problems stem from that fact alone. Their TV ratings tell me there's a fanbase there. I also don't understand why "people who were kids when the team first started are now adult fans with money" is verboten round these parts as if it's been debunked. That line of thinking makes sense. 

 

Baseball is not a commuter sport, not with 81 home dates, many of them during week days/nights. I love going to baseball games, and I've seen the Reds in person10 times this season, but that's mostly because they're conveniently placed and easy. If they were in the St Pete equivalent of Cincinnati I'd probably have gone to 8 or 9 fewer games. I'm not driving 90 minute round trips to go see my team on a weeknight, especially after I've worked a full day downtown and live on the opposite side of the city. That's the reality for a lot of the Rays fanbase. You add that the stadium is maybe the worst in the majors and it's easy to calculate why they're struggling with attendance. 

 

 

I pretty much had to like this post...we both made similar points about TV, ballpark, location, and age of fan base.  Plus we both worked our own teams in.  

However, I'm not convinced that the bold word needs to be there.

23 hours ago, raysox said:

 

Sure if you ignore the fact the Rays still have above average TV ratings

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2016/09/28/here-are-the-2016-mlb-prime-time-television-ratings-for-each-team/2/#7ea293f1791d

 

 

 

 

Most of the stuff I cut out of the post is fairly meaningless (twitter followers, etc.)

But if one is to play devil(ray)'s advocate, this TV rating piece may be the thing...granted, this is just one year and I'm not about to search for more history, but this link puts them in the middle of the pack in 2016.  At face value, this indicates interest.  Now, we all know that "support" has to come from attendance as well...but if the TV numbers indicate interest, is it simply an issue of their outrageously sterile ballpark combined with the terrible location I always hear about?  And would a nice ballpark in a better location (is that possible in this large, congested area with some geographic constraints?) solve the problem?

As an aside, I was guessing the Twins, losers of 103 games last year, would be very low on that list; it was nice to see them at 12.  I'm 43 and the Twins pre-date my birth by 13 years.  They have sort of reached the point of being an "institution" for all generations in Minnesota.  Perhaps that's why they did OK on TV during the dreadful year they had last season.  Perhaps, this lends something to the point that there are still people in the Bay that did not "grow up" with the Rays in the same way and as time moves on, that will become less of an issue.

I'm not really saying the team is (or is not) viable...ultimately, they need to sell more tickets. 

I'm more concerned with the swimming pool end zone.

I think this is unpopular:

I'd rather the Rams stick with the St. Louis colors than go with blue and white.

(Dickerson era is best; change to it now or wait until new stadium...but no interim blue/white helmet)

1 hour ago, vikmurphy said:

That stadium is 19 years old how did it fall into such a spot of disrepair? 

20 years is the new 30 years.

3 hours ago, MCM0313 said:

Don't know how widespread this opinion is, but I think the Pacers' new duds are the best they've looked since at least the Flo-Jo uniforms of the '90s.

I would love it if the home just said "Pacers" and the road* just said "Indiana."  I don't like the circular wordmark.  Everything else is nice, though.

*or whatever those jerseys are designated.

20 minutes ago, HedleyLamarr said:

None to me.  I recognize that watching football is simply an entertainment option, and I don't have any attachment to the participants involved.  They know what they're getting themselves into...a rough, dangerous game.  You're responsible for the decisions you make.

 

I don't have any kids, but if I did, I'd let them play football.  I'd educate the hell out of them (like Sex Ed, Drugs, etc) and let them make that choice on playing or not.  There are plenty of positives of kids and young adults getting involved in team sports, too.

What I am really curious about is your reply to my quote from the CTE thread ended up in the Rays thread...

I love the 1997-2002 look, too.  If the old falcon needed an update, it needed a different update.  I have to admit that it took me an embarrassingly long time to recognize that the logo was a side view of a falcon in flight with its wing pointed down.  I'd always thought it was more of an abstract design.  Once you see it "in flight" it makes sense.  I think the right update would have been to make the "in flight" aspect slightly more obvious.

On 6/20/2017 at 10:39 PM, The Six said:

The Buffaslug is misunderstood genius.

I wouldn't go tha far.  But I don't think it was as terrible as the board thought it was.  I was upset that they pulled the rug out from under us when we were expecting something more like we have now.

25 minutes ago, Bmac said:

I just want pinstripes to return. I don't hate the new primary jersey but the Twins need to be wearing pinstripes at home.

I tend to agree.  They had two iterations of pinstripes broken up by the very non-traditional 1970s-1980s pullover and elastic waist trend (though the first couple of years did have gray roads and buttons).  Up through a few years ago, that era seems like the anomaly.

And while I don't always associate on-field success with best choice of uniform it is worth pointing out that they wore pinstripes for all three World Series appearances and most of their existence.  Non-pinstripe years top out at mediocre.

5 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

That number font is pretty clunky compared to the wordmark.  Should have gone with the "normal" baseball font, like the Dodgers/Cardinals/almost every other team uses.

I think the number font is the least of their problems.  I never noticed it as different from other blocks.  I think the gold drop-shadow hurts the numbers some and maybe gives them a wider (clunkier) feel).

I have not warmed up to these uniforms too much.  The fronts look so bland after decades of front numbers.  the gold is a bit out of place, though the bigger problem is the inconsistency in whether they are using it in a given game.  And, since helmets are no longer representations of the cap, that very photo shows the gold-free helmet on top of the rest of the uniform.  The Twins either need to use the gold or not (hint: the latter). 

These home primary jerseys (which pair with the alternate cap; well-played) are among the blandest in baseball and then the gold drop trim seems a little over-done.  Bland and overdone.  Nice.

I am getting to the point where I'd like to see something like the throwback alt become the primary...I hate that "T" but the rest is nice. Of course, in those days and later days of that scrip (1961-1986) they used "Twins" on both uniforms.  So I'd want to see a "Minnesota" road jersey.

The ones are too far apart.

10 hours ago, WavePunter said:

I hate "Krewe" as a concept/expansion team name..

 

There, I said it..

You only hate it because it's terrible.

I hope this is a popular opinion.

1 hour ago, cmm said:

In their 142nd season, the Boston/Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves' all-time record is currently 10,462-10,462.

Yeah, but they totally got hosed by the ump on that play at the plate in St. Louis on August 17, 1934.  They should be over .500.

The quote a couple of posts above is no big deal.  I have seen few of my co-workers outside of work over the years for the same reason; we just have different lives, ages, lifestyles, etc.  It seems like it's more recent that they've actually stopped getting along professionally.

I like the show, though I only catch about a segment a day while getting ready in the morning.  "Greeny is a wuss" gets kinda old, but when I compare it to local sports radio and all of the time they spend laughing at their own jokes, it's a huge improvement.  I do agree that Greenberg's gotten pretty preachy at times and belabors points that, even if I agree with, a get worn out on (the water at the Olympics, his distaste for college sports, etc.). Generally, I think they were a decent pair. And my big beef with the show was how it grew more and more NFL-centered (starting from a pretty NFL-centric place).  And that's not going to change with the switch to Wingo.

I think people identify with the show because most of us are more like Greenberg, and wanted to be like Golic (i.e., professional athletes).  Greenberg's probably no more a wuss than the average guy but is willing to go all in on the shtick, since that's his role.  Before announcements of the shows end, it had dawned on me just how long it's been on an that's a fairly long run. So one way or the other, I figured it would be coming to an end.

Despite the occasional high horse, I like Greenburg.  That said, the most upsetting thing about this is learning that he makes $6 million a year.  I'd have figured he made a good living, but geez.  If I ever find out what the "Fox and Friends" hosts make, I'll probably just break down crying.

I apologize if this came up...this is the first I've actually seen of it written.  And it's on a little Big Ten football site...

http://saturdaytradition.com/wisconsin-football/popular-espn-show-mike-mike-ending/

Mike & Mike has been OK, though I certainly could throw some criticism.  Greenberg essentially being replaced by Trey Wingo?  Whatever.

But Greenberg having a three hour live show on ESPN (i.e., not ESPN 2)?  So am I to understand that SportsCenter's no longer going to be played over and over in the AM (well maybe on ESPN News)?

This almost seems like big step in the direction away from highlight shows and toward being a sports version of cable news.  Whether it's the internet, short attention spans, or whatever.  

Actually, the original one, with all its symmetry, makes sense.  I still don't like it, but at least I get it.

They should have done something other than just chop the bottom one off.

17 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

This is extensive. They're firing people like Jayson Stark. All the actual journalists are getting canned while Stephen A Smith still has a job and they offered 4 million dollars to Skip Bayless. ESPN. They're even deader to me than they were before and they were pretty dead to me before. 

Sadly, that's partly on the viewers.  Sports news/journalism is kind of like real news/journalism; there's so much of it and the masses reply by watching people shouting opinions at one another.

EDIT: My cynicism had me thinking "yeah, the gotta lay off a baseball guy at ESPNFL."  But Ed Werder was let go, too.