Jump to content

NicDB

Members
  • Posts

    1,725
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by NicDB

  1. This is almost as cringe when the Milwaukee AA team chose that goofy Milkmen identity.  Essentially, "Hey, we're a baseball team in Wisconsin" which makes even less sense when the Mallards play in a league with 9 other in-state rivals.  The only thing inherently Madison about this is the capitol skyline in the back.  Even the puddles don't look like the lakes surrounding the isthmus. 

    Also, the old colors tied the Mallards back to the Madison Muskies, the Oakland A's affiliate that broke in the nucleus of their pennant winning clubs from 1988-90.  THAT'S what says Madison baseball to me.  The fact that it had to be pointed out that the new colors (allegedly) came from the city flag tells me they really missed the mark on a local-based identity.

  2. 4 hours ago, Cujo said:

     

    What a fxcking troll job by the Pack -- drafting "A.Rodgers" and giving him Aaron's college number


    Between retired numbers (officially and unofficially) and numbers currently spoken for on the Packers, 7, 8, and 9 were the only single digits available.  I'm gonna guess the new A-Rod wanted a single digit and chose the one that was the most visually similar to what he wore in college (3).

  3. On 5/1/2021 at 2:24 PM, Geoff said:

    How long until the Pacific AHL teams actually break away and form their own league. They've been given a decent bit of autonomy/preferential treatment already.


    I'd be all for that.  I'd even hope for a domino effect where the Midwestern teams reform the IHL. 

     

  4. On 4/25/2021 at 12:32 PM, neo_prankster said:

    This was what I had in mind:

    Milwaukee: Hank Aaron, Robin Yount, Oscar Robertson, Greek Freak

    Green Bay: Vince Lombardi, Bart Starr, Brett Favre, Aaron Rodgers

     

    For Milwaukee, I'd replace Oscar with Bob Uecker.  No disrespect to the Big O... his was the first number retired by the Bucks and rightfully so.  But his career is more associated with Cincinnati (Bearcats and Royals).  Uke is the quintessential Milwaukeean both in and out of the sports world.

    Green Bay would be a lot more political, as I'd avoid controversy by not including any of the Packers iconic QBs.  Rather, I'd try to find a guy who best represented each era of Packers football.  Therefore, I'd go with Don Hutson, Vince Lombardi, Reggie White, and Donald Driver.

  5. 9 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

    Probably so they can avoid an issue similar to Mr. Met wearing 00 and a player wanting to wear number 00. 

    https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/30952640/new-york-mets-taijuan-walker-picks-number-99-mr-met-holds-preferred-00#:~:text=Met wears preferred 00,-Facebook

     

    They actually do issue 3 digit numbers in Japan. 

    spacer.png

     

    As much as I enjoy Japanese baseball, I'm okay if this trend never makes it across the Pacific.

  6. 5 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

    Do you expect people to do that after every pitching change or other substitution? That's silly.

     

    Isn't this exactly why they've always sold programs and scorecards?

     

    I agree "that's the way its always been done" is weak by itself. But literally every ballpark nowadays has a giant video board for this exact reason. Also, aren't NOBs just ultimately a waste of material? 

     

    I dunno... I've just always preferred NNOB. The cleaner look just says "baseball" to me.

  7. On 4/16/2021 at 12:41 PM, LA Fakers+ LA Snippers said:

    On a different note, I don’t think every team needs a dark set of pants. With most teams it’s fine, but the 3 racing stripes will get redundant quickly. Teams like the Cowboys, Rams, and Packers could use white pants with the dark jersey instead.

    Also, could you lighten the navy on my Cowboys? It’s creeping into Raiders territory.

     

    I would honestly rather the Packers have green pants. I always thought their uniforms were a little too bright when they play indoors under the lights. It'd look as good on them as it does on North Dakota State.

     

    spacer.png

  8. On 4/16/2021 at 11:48 AM, dylanjf83 said:

    Green Bay Packers

    Decided to go with stencil numbers to match an updated Packers wordmark. The G returns to the sleeve.

    spacer.pngspacer.png


    Like the green pants, but any change to the Packers font needs to be a block font, even if it is stenciled. Also, drop shadows or even outlines defeat the purpose of a stencil font.

  9. 22 hours ago, DNAsports said:

    Except it kinda does. It’s still derived from the older Native American head logos that Washington used.


    Hence, I said it doesn't reference anything explicitly native.  Feathers can go into a lot of different contexts, especially if the team is named after a species of bird.  That's why a lot of colleges that dropped their native mascots adopted a bird as their new one.

    That said, the more I think about it, the more I'm intrigued by Redhogs.  Hogs became associated with the franchise so organically, and how often do you see a swine related identity in sports?  The Arkansas Razorbacks and Nippon Ham Fighters are the only two I can come up with off the top of my head.

  10. 8 hours ago, Gothamite said:

     

    they really can’t keep any Native iconography at all, even if they’re now going to claim that it has a different meaning.

    And nobody’s claiming that we erase the past.  We just can’t keep condoning that past as if it was somehow okay.

     

    I'm not saying they should. But a Redtail is hawk that's named after its feathers. Therefore the Lombardi R is still appropriate as it doesn't reference anything explicitly native.

  11. The script itself may have been salvageable had they not wiffed on pretty much everything else about that rebrand.  Which wasn't even necessary since they just had a full rebrand not even a decade before then; and after staying pretty consistent (only evolutionary tweaks) throughout the Yount-Molitor years.

    I really think the Motre Bame unis had potential staying power had they stuck with them long enough to become associated with Prince and Braun rather than Jaha and Cirillo.

  12. 1 hour ago, Digby said:

    Picking Raleigh or Durham gets you both in a Twin Cities situation AND being one of the smallest markets, so casting the Carolina net makes a lot of sense there. Triangle Hurricanes doesn't work I don't think for obvious reasons.

     

    Golden State had that brief period of barnstorming with home games in San Diego. Willing to bet they would've switched to San Francisco when they moved across the bay if they hadn't gone on a historic, game-changing run of success that's got us stuck with Golden State forever now. (That embrace of Oakland proper on their way out the door remains one of the most cynical ploys in sports branding I can remember!)

     

    The Patriots, we may remember, initially planned to become the Bay State Patriots upon moving to Foxborough. Between having the most exurban stadium in the NFL and the general climate of Boston white-flight during that time, I think we can guess why. Being arm-twisted into becoming "New England" may have been a blessing in disguise given how much sway the Giants held in parts of New England, historically.


    This reminds me... a lot of teams with state names called themselves as such because they actually did play home games in multiple locations.  The ABA was famous for this.  Off the top of my head, I can think of the Kentucky Colonels (Louisville and Lexington), the Virginia Squires (Norfolk, Hampton, and Richmond) and the Floridians (Miami, Tampa, and I think Orlando and Fort Lauderdale).  I think the Pacers may have also played some games in Fort Wayne and/or South Bend.  But I'm sure there were more.  You also had the Memphis Tams, who made their nickname an acronym for Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mississippi... the three states whose metro area Memphis spans.

    The Edmonton Oilers were originally the Alberta Oilers because they planned to also play in Calgary, but that never materialized.

    Even NBA teams have done this occasionally.  The Bucks have played home games at the UW Fieldhouse in Madison and the Brown County Arena in Green Bay.

  13. 1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

    I'd suspect the NFL is the most regional of the MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, MLS and attendees probably average a much further travel distance than the others. I'm not really sold that this always means a state name is better than a city name. I don't think Vikings fans in Duluth would be less likely to travel. But maybe it makes sense in Charlotte.  When the Panthers started, there were probably plenty of Falcons fans in South Carolina. Perhaps that regional identifier provides a connection that helps tip the scales for parts of South Carolina?  For the Hornets, well, it's not like a lot of people are coming up on Tuesdays from Charleston. So I do see the logic.  Of course, the Carolina Hurricanes being located further from SC and having essentially the same schedule formula as the Hornets is not consistent with that. So ultimately, I suppose new teams are usually named based on one-time rationales (be it gut feeling, cadence of the full name, owner preference, or some sort of strategy to reach more populations, or maybe there's some market research involved?).


    Football lends itself to regional fanbases because they play the fewest games and the overwhelming majority of them are on weekends when most people are able to travel.  That's why you'd never see a situation like Green Bay in any other sport.  Also why you have college teams playing in the middle of nowhere outdrawing even most NFL teams.

    Basketball and hockey play half their games on weeknights during a time of year when travel conditions tend to be less than ideal in much of North America.  Then there's baseball where nearly every game is during the week, so it behooves teams to play as close to a major population center as possible.  Not a lot of people are gonna drive a couple hours down the freeway and back to see their team on a Wednesday night.

     

  14. 4 minutes ago, LA Fakers+ LA Snippers said:

    I completely agree with you, but let’s play devil’s advocate for a moment. The counter argument that I’ve seen on these boards(and that will inevitably come up again) is “We need to erase all connections to the past name.” While I understand that, people are going to still call them “Reds***s” no

    matter the name. Also, it’s etched into history. They won Super Bowls as it. Why not combine the nickname they earned during one of the best periods in franchise history, and the color that they wear that harkens back to the old name, while still moving forward?


    I wanted the Redsk*ns name gone as much as anyone, but I'm not so militant about completely erasing the fact that they were ever called as such.  Redtails would allow them to keep their circle and feather, only replace the Indian head with probably a W or R.  Hell, they could even bring back the circle R logo designed by Vince Lombardi, who actually demanded that he be allowed to have a Native caddy when he golfed at what was a whites only country club in Wisconsin.

    Redhogs would require more of a rebrand, but... as you said... Hogs is tied into the most successful period of the franchise's history and is still a huge part of their fan culture.  It would also, perhaps even more so than Redtails, shut down any arguments that the team is trying to erase history.

  15. 4 minutes ago, guest23 said:

     

    There is enough anecdotal evidence out there that pre 90's expansion in the major 4 sports that states and media markets had rather robust fan support and these markets that lacked a home team would find a team to adopt located hundreds of miles and sometimes several states away. My point being that if the charlotte and surrounding media markets were already supporting a team representing dc would it make a difference if their new expansion franchise was named for charlotte or for the 2 state region? The short answer is that that the location identifier is not relevant to fans. While there is not a ton of public data there's enough qualitative data out there that illustrates regional allegiance with the many of the teams using the city name location identifier. Here's a high level example https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2188163-facebook-data-shows-nfl-fandom-by-counties-throughout-united-states

     

    IMHO location identifier is not a significant enough attribute to use as a determinant for attracting fans but it's fun to talk about in theory.


    I do think the Panthers were named for the Carolinas specifically to garnish support from politicians in South Carolina more than any actual demand from a potential fanbase.  Although the fact that they planned to play their first season at Clemson probably played a role as well.

    Still, it's not like the Charlotte Hornets were hurting for popularity in the mid-90s. 

  16. 23 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

    I tried to say that in my post, but you did it much better.

     

    I think I read here (but haven't found it elsewhere) that the Twins wanted to be the "Twin Cities Twins" to the point that the "TC" hat was designed with the "place name" before the American League said no. So while I always assumed the "TC" was to avoid the perception of an "M" being for "Minneapolis" it's also possible that it lingers as symbolic of a somewhat prototypical name, which would be a pretty cool story.  I'm not aware of the consideration of "Minneapolis Saints," but that would have been an interesting solution and may have flown since naming big league teams after states was so rare back then.

     

    I can't remember if it was here, but I've definitely heard the Twin Cities Twins story.  Around the same time, Earl Weaver was managing a minor league club here in Wisconsin called the Fox Cities Foxes (the current Wisconsin Timber Rattlers), so it's not like such a naming convention was unheard of.

  17. I'm actually glad to see Redhogs on the list.  That's the only name I like as much as Redtails.  Either one would allow them to salvage things that have already been part of their identity for decades.

  18. 16 hours ago, BBTV said:

    The M is... fine.  It's just fine.  But that's just it - it has no character.  The TC makes you think a bit - at least as a little kid collecting baseball cards in the '80s, I had absolutely no idea what TC was for.  I can't remember when I figured it out, but I thought it was the coolest thing.  I never got to see the caps other than the ASG but I wanted one (unfortunately, there was no easy way to get one back then.)

     

    It's not the best that an interlocking TC could be, but it definitely has charm that the M lacks, and should be their cap forever.


    The first conscious memory I have of seeing the Twins was the 1987 World Series when they'd already gotten rid of the TC. But i had a very similar reaction when I started checking out old baseball books at the library and saw Rod Carew in a TC cap for the first time.

    I definitely think there's room for the TC and the M in the Twins identity if for no reason than how do you actually choose between the two?

  19. 1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

    This may be true. The world is smaller now and there are more (for example) Bills fans in Missouri or Orioles fans in Florida than there probably were before so many people had access to all the games or even highlights. Though I still do think most fandoms are based on geography more than anything.

     

    Two early examples were the Vikings and Twins going with "Minnesota" and I think it was to not "alienate" the fans in (presumably) St. Paul by naming the team (presumably) Minneapolis. I don't think it would have hurt the fanbases in the long run but I understand the logic. In more recent decades we've seen more examples, particularly in one-metro states like Arizona and Colorado. I also think the Florida Panthers and Texas Rangers (being the second teams in their state/sports) were probably going for "lets get the fans in the middle." ** Then we have Carolina, New England, Golden State, etc.  I'm not saying it works, but I am saying it's common practice.

     

    **I suppose there are several other factors with the Rangers and Panthers. They sort of have similar situations to Minnesota (though the other three Miami and other three Dallas teams seem to make it work). Also, I am aware that both "Florida Panthers" and "Texas Rangers" make more sense than replacing with city names but maybe that's why they chose those names.


    The choice to name the Twins the way they did was interesting because the Lakers didn't seem all that concerned with alienating potential fans in St. Paul when they were named exclusively for Minneapolis.  Then when the WHA came along, the Minnesota franchise chose a name that specifically referenced the fact that they played in St. Paul.  Perhaps the x-factor was the fact that baseball fandom in the area was already died in the wool on either side of the river thanks to the Millers and Saints.  That didn't necessarily exist when it came to the other sports.

    I always wondered if the name Minneapolis Saints was ever considered for the Twins.  I always thought that would have been a clever way to acknowledging the fans on one side of the river while playing on the other.  It also would have staved off the Pandora's Box of naming teams after entire states for at least a few more years.  Although you could probably argue that with the Angels moving to Orange County, it only would have delayed the inevitable. 

    The Texas Rangers and Florida Panthers cases are interesting since they're named after proper nouns.  You could also make that argument for the Colorado Rockies.  But then you have to wonder if those names were chosen to passively justify using the state's name.  In the case of the Marlins, Florida was chosen specifically because they felt it would win over more fans in other parts of the state before the Devil Rays came along even though Miami Marlins was a traditional name for baseball teams in South Florida.  Arizona Diamondbacks is the one I have a major problem with because you can't even make the argument that they don't play in Phoenix.  It also got rid of the Phoenix Firebirds moniker, which is one of my favorite ever team names. 

    Golden State is just odd, but that was also around the time when the Capital Bullets were a thing.  Perhaps that's how the NBA was trying to set itself apart from the other leagues at the time.  Maybe I should be glad that trend didn't start a few years earlier... I might be rooting for the Lake Michigan Skunks.

     

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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