OnWis97

59 minutes ago, MiK said:

The thing about Vegas is the draw of away-game fans. Is that a sustainable business model? No. But it's definitely a bigger factor there than most other markets.

I want to see all the MLB ballarks. But I'm not planning a July trip to Vegas to do so. (There's a reason that I haven't been to a D-backs game or games of Texas or Florida teams).

I guess people travel there year-round though.

Is there data about visiting team fandom for the Golden Knights?

1 minute ago, the admiral said:

New Orleans Hornets, Memphis Grizzlies

Ah, the Grizzlies.

I missed that one. If ever there was a case to make a change, that might be one. Minimal history/success (far less important to the league than the Sonics). But I'm still glad they kept it.

I really hope the A's do. MLB doesn't need the Las Vegas Rolling Bones or the Sin City Night Owls

Recent teams that have kept names:

• Nets (but does that count?)
• Raiders
• Chargers

But what's the last team to move to a far away city with no connection and keep the name aside from the Radier?. The Oilers changed after a few years. The Hornets, but they ultimately changed. The Stars (if you count that).

Could it be argued that aside from the Raiders (who I maintain are a bit of a different case) the last team to 100% keep the name on a relocation of more than a two-hour drive is the Colts?

1 hour ago, Walk-Off said:

 

Even if baseball requires more of a local connection than does football, it seems quite clear to me that baseball requires also more of a historical connection than does football or any other team sport with a traditionally large following in North America.  For many decades, baseball has tended to attract lots of North American fans who have cared more deeply about the history and traditions of that sport than the average North American fan of football, basketball, or hockey has cared about that particular sport's history and traditions.

 

Thus, I think that keeping the championship-filled, Hall of Famer-laden, geographically very portable Athletics / A's brand upon relocating to the Las Vegas area would be much safer and much wiser than conjuring a new, patently Las Vegas-centric identity.  As I see it, that latter alternative would make decidedly more sense for a team that has a geographically far more specific nickname and/or plays a sport with a clearly less history-conscious fandom.

I agree. However, I think the main factor here could be that times are simply changing. The Raiders are a bit of an exception because, well, "the Raiders." What's the last relocation before that where a name was kept? It feels like it's been a really long time.

This will be a very interesting test. The A's make total sense for keeping the name because they're an original AL franchise, have at least some history of success, a distinctive color scheme,  and a name that pretty much fits everywhere (unlike, say, Senators).

I feel like this might be the unpopular opinion (in contrast to BBVT thinking his was the unpopular opinion); I really hope they keep it. Of course, that's in large part because I tend to favor that approach in general but this means more to me than if it was the Rays or someone.

Always bet on sun belt to beat Canada.  

18 hours ago, TrevorBotting said:

Did a quick search and didn't see any results, but whats the general consensus on teams keeping names as they move cities? I feel this fits as an Unpopular Opinion but I am 100% for it. 

 

Give me the Colorado Nordiques, the Minnesota Senators and the Oklahoma City SuperSonics. 

 

And I realize its gets muddled with some instances, or how far to go back (do you want the New Jersey Rockies or the New Jersey Scouts in the NHL?), but I do like the premise. 

 

(if this is the wrong section for this, please let me know). 

I think this is an appropriate page for this, but it has the potential to open up a can of worms related to how we track franchises pre- and post-Browns/Ravens, etc.

That said, I think your opinion is unpopular and I tend to agree with it. The Indianapolis Colts, SF Giants, LA Dodgers, etc. make the history of sports easier to track. My default is definitely keeping the same name. I understand why the Twins didn't but we celebrate the full histories of the Giants and Dodgers so much better than we do for the Twins/Sens simply because of this factor. (I know, the Senators were generally terrible but they won the same number of World Series as the Brooklyn Dodgers).

To me, the Baltimore Colts are remembered and the Houston Oilers are largely forgotten even though both franchises did the same thing outside of the name change.  Most fans, however, consider it insulting to the old fans to keep the name. (As someone who grew up with the North Stars, I am glad Dallas didn't totally rebrand and that they acknowledge their Minnesota history). And Dallas kept as as much as they could; "Dallas North Stars" is probably worse than Utah Jazz.

I get it with the Senators, Rockies (though it would be Scouts), etc. But I tend to agree with you in principle. 

On 4/12/2023 at 8:12 AM, Sport said:

The train conductor look Astros of the early 2000's was a good look, but wrong for the Astros. Plus it took the shooting star and made it static and slow. 

 

Give me the 90's look every time. 

There was a designer here (I don't recall the name, so maybe they're even one of the recent respondents to this thread) that used to frequently talk about brand vs. aesthetics and that the latter sometimes needed to be sacrificed because it was of secondary importance to the former.   

This might be the best example for me. I think the 2000s Astros could be the best example of that...at least for me. Aesthetically, I like everything about the earthy look better. I like the "slow" star better. I view it as bold and solid and the "trails" on the 1990s star are just too long. I also think the colors in the 1990s are just completely drab; like a more boring version of the 2000s Brewers. That all said, giving the Astros earthy tones is like coloring the Stanford Cardinal in blue and yellow. As great as that Astros uniform was, the designers should never have gotten anywhere near the point of completing the design. The drab 1990s look is more fitting. (That all said, I favor aesthetics enough that I hate the look so much that I don't think it was sustainable; going back to blue and orange was always the way to go).

2 minutes ago, Cujo said:

 

What's the current bar in the NBA? Charlotte dumping Kobe for Divac?

Didn't Kobe refuse to play for them, though?

The worst trades in NFL and NBA history both occurred in Minnesota.

I think UConn is something like 10-1 in Final Four games. They come out of nowhere to make a run, just like Michigan State, but then they win in all. I think they were about a seven seed in 2014.

I don't know the Xs and Os of these teams but San Diego State winning just doesn't seem like a thing that's going to happen.

On 3/30/2023 at 9:42 AM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

F no!  There aren't enough curse words available to sufficiently condemn this idea.  Shame on the Yankees, of all teams, for advancing such an anti-historical proposition.  It's one more reason to be glad that I retired upon the introduction of the abomination of interleague play after the 1996 season.  The only current aspect of Major League Baseball that I follow is the uniforms; so this absurd idea (along with the unsightly practice of players not showing any sock) still has the power to irk me. 

 

The article mentions that "Very few players want higher numbers typically associated with NFL offensive tackles, hockey defensemen[,] or back-of-the-roster scrubs." So the obvious solution presents itself: give those undesireable numbers to the manager and the coaching staff. Problem solved.

 

It's definitely true that the Yankees have retired too damn many numbers.  Therefore the onus to remedy the problem that they themselves caused must be on them, not on all of Major League Baseball by means of an offensive practice that spits in the eye of history.

Your reaction is really over-the-top. And I am with you. I know I'm in the minority but I like uniformed coaches...they have a different relationship with the field.  Base-coaches are on the field at at all times. Other coaches go to the mound. It's not the same in other team sports. As ridiculous as an NBA, NFL, or NHL coach would look in full uniform, I think MLB coaches would look strange in street clothes. 

They can still dress the same, I guess (pretty much only base-coaches wear jerseys, now) so it' not like they'll be wearing suits or even khakis and polos. But I like the numbers being issued to them and as you point out, their coaches can wear numbers like 67 and 83.

I think the black really dulls the logo as it does for the Clippers.  I don't really have strong feelings on the font. Blue letters would  make this pretty solid.

Are these omitting some corporate logos?

Even so, I'm glad the league seems to have moved on from the huge caproate front with the team logo patch.

I assume this is unpopular: I like the bottom photo better. I know the top one makes a ton more sense for a team called the "Astros" but the dark blue and gold is just soulless.  The really love the earthy color scheme and I wish the D-backs would have come up with it first and kept it forever. 

On 3/22/2023 at 11:19 AM, BadSeed84 said:

I loved the Phillies sleeve numbers, it's damn shame they are gone, and especially the reason why.

I hated them and at one point in realizing how long they'd been on, I was blown away at how long they'd made it. 

I'd have preferred they not be there but, yes, the reason is terrible and I'd rather one team have sleeve numbers I don't like than all (or most) teams have "corporate partners" on the sleeves.

As a North Stars fan back in the day and a (far less passionate) Wild fan today I like these a lot, especially #2 (original). #1 is great too, though as much as I love the old North Star uniforms, I tend to prefer the Wild with red and green. The wheat makes tons of sense given the team's name, the polarization of "Christmas colors," and the connection to the old Devils. The white uniform in your first post looks very Devilsh. And I love it. In fact, I'd be curious to see the green uniform without white.

I like all of these, though and I think either white uniform (green/red) would be a big improvement and the green from #2 would be a bit of an improvement, as well.

19 hours ago, DCarp1231 said:

Disliking your favorite team’s rival’s uniform simply because they’re rivals is such a dumb argumentative point.

 

I’m a Commanders fan, but have always held the Cowboys navy uniform as being one of the best in the league.

 

Surely there’s some Ohio State fans out there who appreciate Michigan’s uniforms and vise versa.

 

The “well you’re just not a true fan!” high horse crowd can gtfo, too. I’ll show love to whatever uniform I see fit.

I'm very capable of liking the uniforms from a team I don't like.  And I do agree "I don't like the Cardinals uniforms because I'm a Cubs fan" is a poor rationale. That said, an element of why we "like" something is our personal experience. That can contribute subconsciously, kinda like how some people dislike a song they liked before it became overplayed.

For me, I generally like the Packers uniforms (especially the yellow shell with the traditional green/white/green stripes). But I really don't like the logo. And I think a part of it is how often I saw it when I was in college in Madison. When I first arrived, the team was coming off of a pretty rough couple of decades. By the time I graduated, they'd won the Super Bowl. And during that time, the prevalence of that logo on jackets, hats and shirts skyrocketed (Yes; even fanbases with good reputations can have local bandwagons.) I got sick of the team and I think the logo started to bug me. Add that that the prevalence here in the Twin Cities (I don't think most Packer fans ever leave the house without some gear) and the light bulb this board put over my head about how using a "G" is like the Yankees/Giants using an "N," and a logo that I might think of as middle-road is near the bottom.  It wasn't a conscious decision, but much of my distaste for it is from personal connotations (along with the "Greenbay" thing). 

The closing credits music on TWIB was terrific. I also didn't have cable and the limited access and shows like this gave baseball more of a mysticism than it has when you can see highlights from every mlb game if you'd like now.

I miss utilitarian stadiums. Do I actually think I'd be happier if my home ballpark was Metropolitan Stadium than Target Field? No. But I have fond memories of going to games at Met Center (North Stars), County Stadium, and even the (really terrible) Metrodome...places that were built with plenty of flaws but also not with the revenue - maximizing features of now. Just seats pointed at a rink/field/court. I really love going to the few remaining old places (Fenway, Wrigley, Dodger Stadium, Mount Davis, several college venues)...just feels "simpler."

17 hours ago, the admiral said:

I thought it was lame when Packers fans disowned Favre and pretended that he was never that good anyway and that Rodgers was the real GOAT, Packers and maybe ever. That's not the way I remembered the Favre years. But now it's happening again, where Rodgers is somehow being framed as an encumbrance to the team. It's a 180 from when it was all the coaches and office men who were the ones making the least of their HoF quarterback.

 

Me, I'm placing the Packers' underachievement squarely on the shoulders of one man: a Mr. Ron Diertzke of Menomonee Falls. He knows what he did. 

I tend to agree with this. The Packers are essentially just another organization that happens to have had hall-of-famers under center for 30 years. Nothing else (coaching, player personnel, etc.) was anything special.  Favre and Rodgers were the reason that they went into every season with a chance to come out as champs. If they start to have the QB situations of most teams, they'll probably just be another team making the playoffs three or four times a decade.

The idea that either QB stopped them from winning more is laughable.  

As a fan of a division rival, I assume that Jordan Love is going to extend the hall-of-famers-under-center streak another 10 to 15 years. Even though I remember the 1980s, it's really hard to imagine the Packers entering a season as a non-contender.

PS: Please give me a 25-year stretch with two championships. I'll take that disappointment any time.

In the below link is a picture of Kirby Puckett the day he announced that he had to retire. He's in a home jersey with a name on back. He never had a name on his back on the home jersey when on the field, as the Twins were just about to start their first season with that feature on that jersey.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MNTwinsZealot/status/1546914341651374084

I just did the Petco Park tour and went into the pro shop. Authentic jerseys have the swinging friar on one sleeve and Motorola on the other. The replicas only have Motorola. I am irrationally upset about it.

It's really amazing to think that the Rays entered a long-term lease on that warehouse in 1998. Three years later, MLB was talking contraction for teams that could not get modern ballparks.  The Suncoast Dome was probably a year or two away from going down as a (even more) colossal waste of money.

I went to an A's game on July 3, 2007. I thought the BART trip in from SF was OK and the walk, while partly a bridge that appeared to be made entirely of rust, didn't seem that bad. I went by myself because my wife was hanging out with friends. I told her I'd be back at about 10:30 (which turned out to be true). The game went something like 2:09.  But there were fireworks, so we were not allowed to walk the rusty bridge and had to take shuttle buses back to the station and it took that would-be-saved hour back. That left a terrible taste in my mouth (and I assume people that drove had no extra delay; don't get me started on preferences toward the car).  That said, I assume it's normally OK.

As for the ballpark, I loved every second of being there; sure I wish I'd seen it without Mount Davis but it was really kinda fun to be in a big ol' hunk of concrete with no amenities except for flag-waving fans. So, to be clear, I know it's an outdated dump that can't sustain an MLB team beyond next week, but it was a fun nostalgia trip and a college football like atmosphere (just days earlier I'd been to Pac Bell or whatever it's called and that was such a different experience. Beautiful ballpark but also just a cool place for people to be. Fan rabidity was only fraction in SF of that in Oakland. After all, who is going to go to an A's game just for something cool to do?).

Does this mean I like the Coliseum better than Pac Bell? No. Would I want it as my home ballpark? Hell no. But I kinda hope I get to go once more.

19 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

"As your governor, I plan to make sure no taxpayer has to foot the bill for another dildo bridge ever again! I can't be bought by the dildo lobby!"

You mean Big Dildo?

I am totally with the absence of black. KC looks perfect from the neck-down and the fact that they don't have any yellow on the helmet is too bad (even if I understand why they use black and no yellow).

The logo is really sharp and well-rendered. But I feel like a yellow "KC" would be better on the helmet with the wolf playing the same role the Vikings primary plays. (Admittedly, that's just my preference away from detailed/fierce logos on helmets)