BBTV

Agreed. The Blue Jays have a two-tier system (a "Level of Excellence" for the team's great players; you get your number retired if you go into the HoF as a Jay). The Level of Excellence had the players' numbers on it until it was re-done last year, and rightfully so. There's no need to emphasize the number if you're just "honouring" it. Related, I wish teams who had two-tier systems would have specific requirements like the Jays. There's no reason why Nieuwendyk and MacInnis shouldn't have their numbers retired. The way the Flames do it seems so arbitrary. The Phillies and Flyers have a tiered system too. The team HOF, which honors players but doesnt include retiring their numbers. that is saved for players that enter the League HOF, which is why it took so long for mark howe's #2 to get retired, he only was recently entered into NHL HOF.. I think that's dumb. If there's even a chance that you may want to retire a guy's number, at least hold it out of circulation for a while so 20 other players don't wear it before it's retired. The whole point of retiring a number is that it's become forever associated with that player, or because nobody will ever be able to do honor t that number like the guy for whom it's getting retired, etc. It's stupid that numbers get retired after other players wear them. The HOF thing is stupid as well - if Adam Oates makes the HOF, does 77 get retired? Granted Mark Howe was a pretty big part of some good Flyers teams, but they obviously didn't think he was number-retired worthy when he left.

The thing with the "ring of hono(u)r" and "forever a flame" is that they should leave out the number, and just hono(u)r the player.

yeah, that would've been more appropriate, but at least Iverson did wear the "classic" colors (though like you said, for inky a short time). And seeing as how he's probably the only player from the black and gold era wholl get his number retired, I'm actually ok with them using the red and blue to keep all their banners matching.He also wore the classic colors his rookie season when he had his most famous personal moment (breaking MJ's ankles). I'm fine with his permanent banner being red & blue, but the temporary patch probably could've been in black and gold. This was easily his most memorable personal moment: If you ask anyone in Philadelphia who followed the Sixers back then what (on court, anyway) comes to mind first when they hear the name Allen Iverson, I guarantee it's him stepping over Tyron Lue.

It's where he started Oh what could've been for the 80s and 90s Phillies if they had kept him. Nothing would have been any different for the 80s or 90s. Not sure how old you are but that was an organization that was not run in a way that was conducive to winning, or even competing. Also, not a single negative word has been said about him, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. When the team flops (or players start dying on the field due to old age or osteoperosis or something, because old), it will be on RAJ, not Sandberg.

76ers are retiring Allen Iverson's #3 tonight. It'll be interesting to see which logo they use on the banner. He started and ended with the current logo, but is known more for what he did while wearing the black and gold one. They used the black and gold when they retired Charles Barkley's number (even though he never wore it) but then changed it to the old logo a couple of years ago. I'm betting they use the old / current logo for Iverson, though it wouldn't shock me if they used the black and gold.

Sometimes... not all the time: (Geoff Jenkins)

So it would be a guaranteed losing money situation? No chance of earnings outweighing subsidies?

What ever happened to KC anyway? Do the sprint center owners not care about an anchor tenant anymore? It's a real small market but has to be better than Florida, Nashville, Phoenix, and a few others that I'm forgetting.

Is it ALL png and gifs? That happens to me when I'm at work, because Photobucket and Flickr are blocked. So it could be the source.

..

What's his right uniform? Or are we now just posting pictures of players?

.

What I don't get is that pro sports team owners aren't dummies. You don't get to the point where you're in position to own a pro team if you're an idiot (or just got a large inheritance.) How do these guys not see how poorly the league is being run, and what a laughing stock it's become? I realize that they're businessmen, and technically some of these decisions have been "good for business" even if they've been bad for the league, I would have to think that enough of them are also fan enough to want to make the league better, even if it cuts in to profit margins a little bit. What's Bettman's contract situation? At what point do they have to either renew it or wish him well in his future endeavors? I think that the CBA is killing the league, even if it's helped the poor teams. Player salaries are forcing the teams to make decisions solely based on finances, rather than the greater good. They have to maximze revenue to continue to overpay these guys. NHL players want to get paid the same as athletes in other pro sports, but they have to realize that they're not in MLB, NFL, or NBA. $7M / year shouldn't be looked at as the going rate for "good athlete". It's the going rate for "good MLB player", etc. It doesn't matter if they train harder, play a harder sport, play more games, win more titles, etc - the league simply can't continue if these guys are getting these contracts. That being said, go back to the old system, and stupid teams like the Flyers will continue to give out these deals just for reasons. Maybe the only way to proceed is to just start cutting losses, moving teams, forgoing expansion fees, etc., and if it drives revenue down, then that would be reflected in the salary cap and might reduce salaries that way. I don't know. I'm tired and need to take a dump and then a nap.

How goddam hard would it be to get the font right? It's not even close!

Sarcasm? What I meant was of course I know that the laws of physics allow for banners to be hanged that way, but for some reason (probably because I'm so used to how the Flyers and Sixers do it) I never even thought of hanging them facing the sides instead of the ends. Maybe it's just easier with the rafters to bunch them all at the ends, but it seems like they would be more visible the other way. Maybe you could do both, and then the Flyers wouln't have needed to go to a single division banner with multiple years added to it. So, hyperbole? Yes. Sarcasm? No.

My mind is blown. I had no idea you could hang banners in that direction. Wow.

That logo and typeface is right up there with Bosak, Simon, and Radom, each of whom I have a tremendous amount of respect for.

$186 face value? Like the price the team charges at the box office? Near top row on an end? Do they do variable pricing or something? If so then it's understandable that there will be incredible demand for that one.

Speaking of former Jets,

That's what the flyers started doing - just tacking on years to a single Atlantic division banner. Guess with the new division name they'll have to start a new banner even tho there's space left on the current one.. Probably not going to have to worry about it for a long time though

Pittsburgh is a good example. In 2013, If it didn't have an NFL or an MLB team, it probably wouldn't be on anyone's radar to get one (it's right in the NHL wheelhouse though.) If the Pirates had moved after last season, then I'm sure Pittsburgh would be a candidate for the Rays or A's. Without the Pirates, I doubt they're in the discussion. Same could be said of several cities that have major league teams. As a result of typing this post, I'm proposing that Oakland and Tampa Bay merge and become the RA's.

I did say that about Winnipeg, and so far have been wrong. I think it's fair to say that hockey and mlb are very different when it comes to revenue sources, and hockey in Canada... anywhere in Canada, is just different. They also had a top notch ownership group doing everything possible to make it work. The only way a former team is relevant would be like a Cleveland Browns situation, where nobody doubts it would work, but political and ownership factors resulted in the team going. There were certainly those factors here too, but was Montreal ever really a success? Weren't they routinely near the bottom in revenue even before the loria / mlb fiasco? Not even taking in to account your reasons for it not working there (which I read a while ago and make a lot of sense) I think it's a non starter, unless a "true north"-esque group comes out of nowhere.

I don't understand why Montreal keeps being mentioned. Not just because it failed once (because as many have stated there were a Lot of factors in play there) but if it never had a ML team, NOBODY would me mentioning it now. It's just nostalgia and love if the old elb logo, IMO. I vote for Portland, despite its small size, only because I'd like to see the beavers name in the major leagues.

I think a situation like this is more likely to work in the northeast as opposed to retiree land in the south. I just don't think there's a convenient / centralized / safe place for them to play.

Who are you?