Jump to content

NicDB

Members
  • Posts

    1,725
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by NicDB

  1. 3 hours ago, dont care said:

    But are they really getting that much more sponsors being the other LA team?

     

    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.

  2. 7 hours ago, guest23 said:

     

    When are people going to realize that the city/locale identifier is nothing more than a rough approximation for the media market the franchise plays in? Since the advent of nationally televised sports the physical location of the franchise means less and less. Combine that with the near universal availability of merch via ecommerce, the ability to pick a favorite team from outside one's home market is easier than ever. The concept of hometown team in reality is the closest team within several hours drive and has been that way for 70+ years.

     

    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.

  3. 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.

  4. 2 hours ago, QCS said:

    Splitting heads here, but the Panthers did it first and they wanted the regional draw. The Hurricanes probably adopted it because they spent their first two years in Greensboro, not Raleigh.

     

    The Panthers also played their first season at Clemson. So the Carolina moniker was even more appropriate for them.

  5. 18 minutes ago, QCS said:

    And both of those teams were named for minor league teams from beforehand. Baseball is a very tradition-driven sport, since the beginning.


    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.

  6. 1 minute ago, Ridleylash said:

    I mean, to be fair, which name has more significance to the MLB franchise; the one of an unrelated minor-league team from the 1900's-1950's (even if one of the best of all time) or the one that was used when the franchise won its only World Series title?

     

    The main reason the name isn't changing isn't because it's a "legacy" name, unless the "legacy" is being out of the playoffs for much of your team's history. It's because Arte Moreno doesn't want to lose the prestige of owning an LA-branded team.


    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.

  7. 25 minutes ago, QCS said:

    They were all used by minor league teams before being adopted by the major league team. The Padres and Angels played in the Pacific Coast League, the Brewers in the American Association, and the Orioles in the International League.


    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.

  8. 4 minutes ago, dont care said:

    What? How are those legacy names? Each of those teams play in those actual cities unlike others like the Atlanta Braves that play in a different county.


    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.

  9. 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.

  10. 58 minutes ago, BBTV said:

     

     

    At what point is it the players' fault and not anyone else's?  Not that I blame him for taking the money, but Trout chose to play in anonymity and obscurity, and to my knowledge has no national TV deals (of course... does he even need/want the money for those?)  Since he's on a team I never see, I've actually seen him more at Eagles games than playing the sport at which he's considered the best.  As for those other guys, doesn't one of them have a silly BMW or Porsche ad?  But that's it.  Do they even speak English fluently (I really don't know - maybe they do) but if not then that doesn't help either.

     

    The answer to the problem might be for MLB to engineer its league, and "move" players to places where they can be better marketed or at least well known.  Not unlike when Gretzky was traded to LA.

     

    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.

  11. 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?

  12. 16 hours ago, Discrim said:

    Admittedly, I'm surprised UWM hasn't done anything resembling the Pirates, given the color scheme.  Maybe they have and I'm merely unaware of it, though.


    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.

  13. 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.

    baseball2004.png

  14. 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. 

  15. 6 hours ago, tBBP said:

    Not that my opinion of it matters one ioda, but I've long thought the Footballs' yellow gold masks as garish. It may just be because yellow is so bright on its own, but I never understood why they went that route rather than color-keying the masks to the helmets. 


    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.

     

  16. 13 hours ago, colinturner95 said:

    Has anyone come in with the "it depends on the team?" comment yet? 

     

    The Packers are a good example to me that could work with a grey facemask but look better in a team color facemask. The Cowboys on the other hand, I think would look better in a navy facemask opposed to their current silver one. 

     

     

     

    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.

  17. 2 hours ago, Dnice said:

    Some folks  are suggesting Milwaukee. 

     

    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.

     

  18. On 3/5/2021 at 11:11 PM, BBTV said:

    These last two pages just make me appreciate the NFL's logo system even more.

     

    MLB should have the NFL's system and vice versa. The Super Bowl being at a predetermined site means the logos miss out on all the localized imagery that made them so distinct.

  19. 8 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

    OK, so here are the Brewers and Padres, which finishes off the entire MLB. I actually feel like both of these teams made major upgrades when they changed last year, but both dropped the ball a bit and the same ways. The navy the Brewers went with is inferior to royal blue, for them anyway. And the Padres brown is nice, but still a little darker/duller than I would've used... it's like they're still just a bit embarrassed by the fact that they're wearing brown.

     

    spacer.png

     

    No complaints on the home and road. But for sone reason, the glove on the home alt and the state outline on the road alt feels more "intuitive" to me. Perhaps because I don't think Barrel Man's head makes a very good logo on its own. But maybe that's me.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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