Jump to content

NicDB

Members
  • Posts

    1,729
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by NicDB

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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?
  4. 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.
  5. Good question. I would think there is indeed a bigger market for sponsors willing to pay for a LA brand rather than an Anaheim one, even if they are the "other" LA team. Granted, it does beg the question of why haven't the Ducks followed suit.
  6. These things may be less relevant than they were decades ago, but I really think you're underestimating how much having a local rooting interest figures into fan culture. It's how a lot of teams' fan culture has crossed over into the mainstream culture of many cities.
  7. There really is no rhyme or reason to this sort of thing. The Packers are the most popular team from Wisconsin, yet they're named for a "city" of just over 100,000 (and acts like it's much smaller). They're also the one team in the state that has cultivated a national following. After them, the Badgers are the most followed team in most of Wisconsin. The Brewers have smatterings of fans in other parts of the state, but their following is mostly in SE Wisconsin. And if you follow the Bucks closely, you're probably from Milwaukee County.
  8. I thought the topic of conversation was whether or not MLB was enforcing a rule regarding team names. As far as I know, no such rule exists.
  9. Sticking as close to the actual helmets is definitely the direction to go with this series.
  10. The Panthers also played their first season at Clemson. So the Carolina moniker was even more appropriate for them.
  11. I'm splitting hairs here, perhaps. But IIRC, the first Milwaukee club to be known as the Brewers is actually the one that currently exists as the Orioles. They were in the Western League when it mutated into the American League. Before then, Milwaukee teams were known as the Cream Citys, Creams, Grays, and Unions at various points. But yea, the history of baseball nicknames has always fascinated me. It's why the current trend in MiLB names really frustrates me. A lot of those cities probably already had a team with a unique and out there name from the 19th or early 20th century if they would bother to do a little bit of research.
  12. I'm not denying that cashing in on the LA brand is the true reason the Angels represent Los Angeles. The other is just debate fodder for us logo nerds.
  13. In the case of the Brewers and Orioles, they were used by teams in the American League even before that. Ironically, those Brewers are the current Baltimore Orioles.
  14. All of those teams were named after another team (and in some cases, several) that had previously played in those cities. This also applied to the Angels at first. They played at the LA Wrigley Field (where the original LA Angels of the PCL used to play), and then Chavez Ravine before moving to Anaheim. They're called the Angels because that's what "Angeles" means in Spanish. I've always made the argument that they should have been called the LA Stars, so as to pay tribute to both of LA's PCL clubs. Then it wouldn't have been so awkward when they eventually became the California Stars or Anaheim Stars. That, or adopted a whole new identity upon moving to Anaheim altogether. But that horse left the barn a long time ago.
  15. From what I understand about the LA market, it's probably accurate to say the Dodgers are LA County's team and the Angels are Orange County's team. The Angels have the Los Angeles moniker mostly because it makes them more money in sponsorship/ad revenue. There's also the point that Los Angeles Angels is a "legacy" name like San Diego Padres, Baltimore Orioles, or Milwaukee Brewers; and it really wouldn't make sense to call them the Angels without it. Still, LA and OC are the same media market. So unless I'm missing something, I'm not sure how that should effect MLB's ability to market one of its biggest stars. In the early 70s, the NFL didn't use the excuse that Joe Namath played for the Jets and not the Giants, even though the Jets fanbase was very localized to Long Island at the time. They hitched their wagon to his star power and propelled the league into the pop culture mainstream because of it.
  16. Except Trout already plays in the LA market. Even when Yelich was the reigning MVP, you still never saw the Brewers on national television except for the occasional match with the Cubs or Cards. I'm blaming the league because the NBA would never allow this to happen. They don't give the Nets the shaft the way MLB does the Angels because they're not the "glamour" team in that market. And playing in Milwaukee hasn't stopped them from promoting Giannis as one of their top stars and putting the Bucks in the national spotlight. Even when MLB steals ideas from the NBA, they can't even figure out the right ones to steal.
  17. I have to agree it was a coincidence more than anything. What always perplexed me is that the Mariners chose such similar colors to the Brewers in the first place. Sure, the Brewers colors were technically a hand me down from Seattle. But if you're the Mariners, why align yourself in any way with the disaster that was the Pilots franchise?
  18. I feel like it'd be weird if they did that now, given that the Pirates are in the Brewers division. Granted, it'd probably still look better than anything they've trotted out in the past decade or so. If ever there was proof that no one in the UWM athletic department gives a :censored:, just look at some of their baseball uniforms. Baseball uniforms are the hardest uniforms to mess up.
  19. In the late 90s, the UWM Panthers were wearing the 1994 Brewers "MILWAUKEE" script. It's always perplexed me that, given how popular the 80s Brewers are locally, that the Panthers haven't thought to swipe the road script from that era and build their brand around that. I bet they'd sell an ass load of merch. EDIT: Turns out we were also one of the schools who ripped off the Padres in the mid-2000s. This is the best pic I could find.
  20. I've been wanting numbers in the NFL to be more like college for quite some time. I feel like the idea of a numbering system is a bit of an antiquated concept nowadays, for many of the reasons that have already been cited. Especially the tendency of modern players to either line up at multiple positions or specialize in something that isn't accounted for (i.e. edge rusher). If nothing else, simplify it so that QBs, Ks, and Ps get 1-19. OLs, DLs, and LBs get 50-79 and 90-99. RBs, WRs, TEs, and DBs get 1-49, and 80-89.
  21. I never cared much for Washington using them. But they just seem to "work" for the Chargers. Perhaps because the Chargers have built their brand around flashy and outlandish uniforms.
  22. I always thought the Packers should look as much as possible like the unis worn in SB 1&2. But I really wouldn't mind keeping the green mask.
  23. If they truly want to pay tribute to Hank Aaron, Milwaukee is the only other place that makes sense. Also they owe us for that sham of an ASG they stuck us with in 2001.
  24. Your Bucks and rainbow Nuggets are pure beauty.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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