Maroon

Teams Using the State Name Instead of the City Name

Recommended Posts

So a post in the "Charlotte Very Much in Play for 30th MLS Team" thread stated that their pitch to MLS is going to focus on it being a Carolina team rather than a Charlotte team. I started writing a post in that thread but it spiraled into a much longer, off topic post about teams that use the name of their state in their team name rather than their city's name. I'm rather new here, so forgive me if this has been a topic of conversation before, but this is a subject that has always interested me. While I often understand the reason for why clubs across the major sports leagues would use the state name instead of the city name (and I'm a fan of one of them), it just strikes me as somewhat odd each time.

MLB: Minnesota Twins, Texas Rangers, Arizona Diamondbacks, and Colorado Rockies

NFL: Tennessee Titans, Minnesota Vikings, Arizona Cardinals, Carolina Panthers, and New England Patriots (a region, not a state)

NBA: Indiana Pacers, Minnesota Timberwolves, Utah Jazz, Golden State Warriors

NHL: Florida Panthers, Carolina Hurricanes, New Jersey Devils, Colorado Avalanche, Minnesota Wild, Arizona Coyotes
MLS: Colorado Rapids, Minnesota United, and New England Revolution

(I'll add that I realize that any team with "New York" in the name could ambiguously be referring to either the city or the state)


So I'm not really complaining, because teams can do whatever they want, and they're going to do whatever they thinks makes sense for them to maximize their marketability. But from this list we can see that most teams prefer to go by their city name and that these other teams going by their state (or region) name is the aberration. To extrapolate further, it's pretty clear that we have some consistency here with some states.

Minnesota: Makes sense because they don't want to offend one of the two twin cities
Carolina: Appeals to the other respective major N Carolina city and S Carolina

New England: Clearly a marketing opportunity the stretch beyond just Boston
Arizona: Wants to include Tempe? The Cardinals play in Glendale and not Phoenix?
Colorado: I do not for the life of me know why all non-Nuggets franchises use Colorado rather than Denver

Utah makes sense because until Real Salt Lake they were the only major pro franchise in the state. Also, Utah's ABA team also was called the "Utah Stars" so the state name being used was precedent there. In fact, using the state name was much more common in the ABA, considering they had the Utah Stars, Indiana Pacers, Carolina Cougars, Minnesota Muskies and Pipers, Kentucky Colonels Virginia Squires, and the New Orleans Buccaneers were briefly the Louisiana Buccaneers. So that also helps explain the Pacers since they were founded in a league that used a state name more frequently.

I presume Tennessee is to keep Memphis in the fold of fandom. Golden State was to increase the Warriors appeal across the state. New Jersey Devils makes sense because it's the only New Jersey team that doesn't put "New York" in the name since the Nets left. I have no clue why the Florida Panthers would feel audacious enough to claim the whole state when the state of Florida had the Lightning a year before they started playing. Looking it up, it's apparently because the "Florida Panther" is the actual name of the animal, but that rings hollow to me as an excuse to claim an entire state. I have the same feeling towards the Texas Rangers when Houston already had a club.

But to circle back around the original reason I started writing this, I think the reason "Carolina" strikes me as the oddest name to use is because it doesn't just try to make Raleigh fans of Charlotte teams and Charlotte fans of Raleigh teams, it also tries to bring in South Carolina as well. Apart from the New England Patriots, all the other team names are still confined to a singular state, but the teams that claim "Carolina" as their team name are crossing state borders.

Anyhow, I've rambled on quite long enough. Any thoughts? Do you like it when a team uses a state or regional name rather than their city's name? Do you detest it? Thanks for reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Maroon said:

So a post in the "Charlotte Very Much in Play for 30th MLS Team" thread stated that their pitch to MLS is going to focus on it being a Carolina team rather than a Charlotte team. I started writing a post in that thread but it spiraled into a much longer, off topic post about teams that use the name of their state in their team name rather than their city's name. I'm rather new here, so forgive me if this has been a topic of conversation before, but this is a subject that has always interested me. While I often understand the reason for why clubs across the major sports leagues would use the state name instead of the city name (and I'm a fan of one of them), it just strikes me as somewhat odd each time.

MLB: Minnesota Twins, Texas Rangers, Arizona Diamondbacks, and Colorado Rockies

NFL: Tennessee Titans, Minnesota Vikings, Arizona Cardinals, Carolina Panthers, and New England Patriots (a region, not a state)

NBA: Indiana Pacers, Minnesota Timberwolves, Utah Jazz, Golden State Warriors

NHL: Florida Panthers, Carolina Hurricanes, New Jersey Devils, Colorado Avalanche, Minnesota Wild, Arizona Coyotes
MLS: Colorado Rapids, Minnesota United, and New England Revolution

(I'll add that I realize that any team with "New York" in the name could ambiguously be referring to either the city or the state)


So I'm not really complaining, because teams can do whatever they want, and they're going to do whatever they thinks makes sense for them to maximize their marketability. But from this list we can see that most teams prefer to go by their city name and that these other teams going by their state (or region) name is the aberration. To extrapolate further, it's pretty clear that we have some consistency here with some states.

Minnesota: Makes sense because they don't want to offend one of the two twin cities
Carolina: Appeals to the other respective major N Carolina city and S Carolina

New England: Clearly a marketing opportunity the stretch beyond just Boston
Arizona: Wants to include Tempe? The Cardinals play in Glendale and not Phoenix?
Colorado: I do not for the life of my know why all non-Nuggets franchises use Colorado rather than Denver

Utah makes sense because until Real Salt Lake they were the only major pro franchise in the state. Also, Utah's ABA team also was called the "Utah Stars" so the state name being used was precedent there. In fact, using the state name was much more common in the ABA, considering they had the Utah Stars, Indiana Pacers, Carolina Cougars, Minnesota Muskies and Pipers, Kentucky Colonels Virginia Squires, and the New Orleans Buccaneers were briefly the Louisiana Buccaneers. So that also helps explain the Pacers since they were founded in a league that used a state name more frequently.

I presume Tennessee is to keep Memphis in the fold of fandom. Golden State was to increase the Warriors appeal across the state. New Jersey Devils makes sense because it's the only New Jersey team that doesn't put "New York" in the name since the Nets left. I have no clue why the Florida Panthers would feel audacious enough to claim the whole state when the state of Florida had the Lightning a year before they started playing. Looking it up, it's apparently because the "Florida Panther" is the actual name of the animal, but that rings hollow to me as an excuse to claim an entire state. I have the same feeling towards the Texas Rangers when Houston already had a club.

But to circle back around the original reason I started writing this, I think the reason "Carolina" strikes me as the oddest name to use is because it doesn't just try to make Raleigh fans of Charlotte teams and Charlotte fans of Raleigh teams, it also tries to bring in South Carolina as well. Apart from the New England Patriots, all the other team names are still confined to a singular state, but the teams that claim "Carolina" as their team name are crossing state borders.

Anyhow, I've rambled on quite long enough. Any thoughts? Do you like it when a team uses a state or regional name rather than their city's name? Do you detest it? Thanks for reading.

Most go by their city name, but they also tend to have been around for a long time, since before it was common to try to "market" to a state or region.  I wonder what would happen if the Brewers, Broncos, or Nuggets started in 2000.

 

It seems more common to teams in states dominated by one big metro area (Minnesota, Colorado, Arizona).  And the Suns, Broncos, and Nuggets go by the city, while the newer teams go by the state.

 

The Texas Rangers break both rules (one-city state and new teams)...a team established in about 1970, using the State name despite the existence of the Houston Astros.  Were they just that dedicated to the Texas Rangers name or did that back into that as a way to try to appeal to people in other parts of Texas (i.e., to compete with the Astros)?  Similarly the Florida Panthers (newer team, but still the second NHL team in its state)...Are they "Florida" for marketing?  Because they play in Fort Lauderdale and didn't want to be Miami?  Or to try to be the preferred NHL team to much of the state?

 

Despite being from Minnesota, I generally prefer city names...and I definitely don't like state names when there's another team from the same league in the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I detest state names for the most part. Minnesota is the slight exception, but most other locations would be better served by a city name. Not all of these are improvements, but I'll throw them out there.

  • Phoenix Diamondbacks (a f-king mouthful, so just shorten it to "Snakes"), Denver Rockies (Zephyrs/Grizzlies might be better here, since the city is a bit aways from the mountain range), Twin Cities Twins (like Angels, but in English), Dallas Rangers (or a better name, like Chaparrals)
  • Salt Lake/Salt Lake City Jazz, Twin Cities/Minneapolis Timberwolves 
  • Denver Avalanche, Twin Cities/St. Paul Wild, Raleigh Hurricanes, Miami Panthers, Phoenix Coyotes
  • Phoenix Cardinals, Charlotte Panthers, Nashville Titans (the Oilers should stay dead), and Twin Cities Vikings

Playing in the suburbs may allow leeway (e.g., Glendale, AZ; Broward County, FL), as well as being named after an actual creature/object/organization (Colorado Rockies, Florida Panthers, Texas Rangers, etc.). The easy solution would be to not name teams after these things.

 

 The nature of Minneapolis and St. Paul's rivalry makes it neccesary to use the "Twin Cities" or "Minnesota" moniker to avoid alienation, as the Minneapolis Lakers found out the hard way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

I detest state names for the most part. Minnesota is the slight exception, but most other locations would be better served by a city name. Not all of these are improvements, but I'll throw them out there.

  • Phoenix Diamondbacks (a f-king mouthful, so just shorten it to "Snakes"), Denver Rockies (Zephyrs/Grizzlies might be better here, since the city is a bit aways from the mountain range), Twin Cities Twins (like Angels, but in English), Dallas Rangers (or a better name, like Chaparrals)
  • Salt Lake/Salt Lake City Jazz, Twin Cities/Minneapolis Timberwolves 
  • Denver Avalanche, Twin Cities/St. Paul Wild, Raleigh Hurricanes, Miami Panthers, Phoenix Coyotes
  • Phoenix Cardinals, Charlotte Panthers, Nashville Titans (the Oilers should stay dead), and Twin Cities Vikings

Playing in the suburbs may allow leeway (e.g., Glendale, AZ; Broward County, FL), as well as being named after an actual creature/object/organization (Colorado Rockies, Florida Panthers, Texas Rangers, etc.). The easy solution would be to not name teams after these things.

 

 The nature of Minneapolis and St. Paul's rivalry makes it neccesary to use the "Twin Cities" or "Minnesota" moniker to avoid alienation, as the Minneapolis Lakers found out the hard way.

 

I do think that Minnesota gets a pass because their market is two cities that are right next to each other, as opposed to being in one big city and there happens to be another big city elsewhere in the state. Like you mentioned, they need to be a unified Minneapolis and St. Paul team rather than one or the other to be viable. As an aside, I would love an MLB team to use "Zephyrs" as a nickname.

I think part of what bothers me about names like Texas Rangers and Florida Panthers when there was already a team in that league in the state is that I can't imagine something similar happening in Missouri. Teams here are St. Louis and Kansas City, and it would be bizarre and ridiculous if, say, a new NHL team came to KC and they were named the "Missouri Scouts" rather than the Kansas City Scouts. Or, heck, neither city has the NBA, and if an NBA team came to St. Louis (which isn't going to happen anytime soon, mind you) and used the "Missouri" moniker they would be derided and mocked, even if there wasn't another team in the whole state of Missouri. I'm also now imagining a St. Louis MLS team being named "SC Missouri" considering Sporting KC plays in Kansas. It would be so brash and hated it would cause an immense backlash. So how a Dallas team gets away with being "Texas" or a Raleigh or Charlotte team get away with "Carolina" just seems out of place to me.

As an example, now that St. Louis doesn't have an NFL team, the Missouri legislature passed (and the governor signed) a resolution declaring the Kansas City Chiefs the state's official NFL team. There was a similar resolution signed and passed declaring the St. Louis Blues the state's official NHL team. St. Louis was fine with both happening, but there was actually a backlash in the KC press about how they didn't want to be Missouri's team because they should belong uniquely to the people of Kansas City.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being from South Carolina, I've always liked that the Panthers and Hurricanes used "Carolina" rather than their city names. Raleigh Hurricanes just does not sound good to me. Charlotte is a lot more forgiving, but Carolina is a unique pseudo-state/pseudo-region moniker that I'm glad is taken advantage of. It works much better than, say, New England.

 

I don't mind when teams use state names for the most part, but it does bother me when they use a state name when there's already another team in the state. Minnesota doesn't bother me, especially since Minneapolis sounds horrid, but it would be interesting to see "Twin Cities" used. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

I definitely don't like state names when there's another team from the same league in the state.

 

5 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

I detest state names for the most part.

 

My initial reaction is to agree with this.  But then I realise that I like the name "California Angels" better than any other the team has had.  So I am not completely consistent on the matter.

 

 

4 hours ago, Maroon said:

I think part of what bothers me about names like Texas Rangers and Florida Panthers when there was already a team in that league in the state is that I can't imagine something similar happening in Missouri. Teams here are St. Louis and Kansas City, and it would be bizarre and ridiculous if, say, a new NHL team came to KC and they were named the "Missouri Scouts" rather than the Kansas City Scouts.

 

In the third version of the MISL, a team in Independence, Missouri took the name Missouri Comets, naming itself after the Kansas City Comets teams in the original and the second MISL leagues.  The team eventually came to its senses and changed its name to Kansas City Comets, though it still plays in Independence.  It is currently in the MASL.

 

 

4 hours ago, Maroon said:

As an example, now that St. Louis doesn't have an NFL team, the Missouri legislature passed (and the governor signed) a resolution declaring the Kansas City Chiefs the state's official NFL team. There was a similar resolution signed and passed declaring the St. Louis Blues the state's official NHL team. St. Louis was fine with both happening, but there was actually a backlash in the KC press about how they didn't want to be Missouri's team because they should belong uniquely to the people of Kansas City.

 

Here is where I, as an arrogant big-city type, lecture the fine people of Kansas City.  If you want to see yourself as a major city, then you have to be prepared to have fans from outside the city limits.  The Yankees have fans in Europe, just as Barcelona have fans in the U.S.  Having fans from out of town does not diminsh the team as "yours".  Also, we should remember that, before the Rockies came about, the Royals' fanbase extended well into the big square states of the Southwest. 

In addition, when a team moves, jilted fans turning to another team is pretty natural.  The Blue Jays sure have plenty more fans in Montreal than they did when the Expos were around.  And in the period between the move of the Senators away from Washington and the move of the Nationals to Washington, the Orioles were considered to be essentially Washington's hometown team, so much so that presidents would throw out the first ball at Orioles games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 4:29 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Here is where I, as an arrogant big-city type, lecture the fine people of Kansas City.  If you want to see yourself as a major city, then you have to be prepared to have fans from outside the city limits.  The Yankees have fans in Europe, just as Barcelona have fans in the U.S.  Having fans from out of town does not diminsh the team as "yours".  Also, we should remember that, before the Rockies came about, the Royals' fanbase extended well into the big square states of the Southwest. 

In addition, when a team moves, jilted fans turning to another team is pretty natural.  The Blue Jays sure have plenty more fans in Montreal than they did when the Expos were around.  And in the period between the move of the Senators away from Washington and the move of the Nationals to Washington, the Orioles were considered to be essentially Washington's hometown team, so much so that presidents would throw out the first ball there.

 

I don't think KC fans take issue with the Chiefs having fans who live outside of their city. After all, most of the state of Missouri is oddly KC Chiefs and St. Louis Cardinals fans, and it was that way even when the Rams were in St. Louis. It's mostly because both have much longer lasting roots in the state than their cross-state compatriots. But it's always been hard to find a Royals fan in Springfield unless they're a KC transplant, and there were never really Rams fans in Columbia unless they were a St. Louisan going to school at Mizzou. It's just how it was: Cardinals and Chiefs.

 

I think the implication that the KC market didn't like was that the team somehow belongs to Missouri, and therefore also St. Louis, rather than belonging to greater Kansas City (and, of course, the preferences of fans from Kansas also have to be considered). On the flip side, I think the Blues and Blues fans would be more than happy to accept KC fans into the fandom fold, but in spite of being the only NHL team in Missouri they definitely have a very St. Louis centric fan base. Plus, Mahomes coming to a Stanley Cup Finals game definitely did quite a bit to endear St. Louis to the Chiefs and perhaps grabbed some Chiefs fans' attention regarding the Blues.

 

Regardless, my point was less about KC or St. Louis and their desire to attract more fans from around the state or country and more so that they are definitely very distinct markets that don't usually appeal to the cross-state city's sports fans, even if there isn't another team in the state competing for fans and attention in the same league. So therefore, as a Missourian, it's hard for me to wrap my brain around a team from Charlotte claiming to be Carolina's team, or a team from Raleigh doing the same - because St. Louis and Kansas City would never imagine trying to make a similar claim on Missouri. In a state where a single major city dominates the market like OnWis97 mentioned it might make more sense. Denver is the only show in town when it comes to professional sports, so therefore claiming Colorado isn't really audacious or bizarre (it just isn't my preference for how to name a team). But for Tennessee, Carolina, Florida, or Texas it just strikes me as odd considering what I see in Missouri... but maybe their cultures are just different when it comes to rooting for another city's team if it's the only team in the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cardinals/Chiefs duality was one of the weirder things about CoMO sports culture, that and how Mizzou merch seems to come in like nine different shades of yellow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that three of the four MLB expansion teams from the 1990s assumed state names. And the one team that didn't (Tampa Bay) was in a situation where the state name had already been claimed (although I think they would have gone with the regional name regardless).

 

However, I will say that in the case of the Diamondbacks and Rockies, the state name/mascot pairing sounds so much better than the alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think that the Texas Rangers, the Florida Panthers, and the Carolina Panthers are all named after something pre-existing, being, of course, Texas Rangers, Florida Panthers, and Carolina Panthers, though Carolina Panthers are effectively extinct. I generally prefer city names, though I don't mind the state name when the team is the only one in the state, so Colorado, Arizona, Minnesota, etc. all get passes from me. However, it's kinda stupid when multiple teams in the same sport play in the same state, yet one claims the whole state. The MLB Rangers and NHL Panthers are notorious examples of this, but the one that bothers me the most, by far, is the Golden State Warriors. Not only is San Francisco Warriors a better name, but "Golden State" isn't even a region, like Carolina or New England, but a nickname, for a state that has 3 other franchises playing in it (although only the Lakers played in California when they adopted the name, since the Rockets had just skipped San Diego for Houston). It's completely ridiculous, but the name will never change, given their recent success. 

 

Regarding the use of Carolina, I don't mind it with the Panthers, since the whole region made a huge effort to bring the team here. Senators from both North and South Carolina lobbied the NFL, and governors of both states worked together to get the team up and running. The reason the "Carolina" identifier works for the Panthers is because Charlotte is close to South Carolina, and can serve as a hub for both states. It doesn't work for the Hurricanes, because Raleigh is not only not close to SC, but they don't even try anymore, given their use of the NC state flag on their awful black jerseys. It's impossible for fans in SC to get attached as "their team" since it's so far away. Additionally, I think hockey is much more a "regional" sport than football. It's not hard for a mid-sized city to have a minor league team, so you can find plenty across South Carolina (and North Carolina), while the Panthers are the only pro football team for 250 miles in both directions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Maroon said:

I think the implication that the KC market didn't like was that the team somehow belongs to Missouri, and therefore also St. Louis, rather than belonging to greater Kansas City (and, of course, the preferences of fans from Kansas also have to be considered). On the flip side, I think the Blues and Blues fans would be more than happy to accept KC fans into the fandom fold, but in spite of being the only NHL team in Missouri they definitely have a very St. Louis centric fan base. Plus, Mahomes coming to a Stanley Cup Finals game definitely did quite a bit to endear St. Louis to the Chiefs and perhaps grabbed some Chiefs fans' attention regarding the Blues.

 

Not offending Kansas would have been my initial guess, especially considering the ambitious amount of geography covered by their first logo.

 

TlKkKm1.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Here is where I, as an arrogant big-city type, lecture the fine people of Kansas City.  If you want to see yourself as a major city, then you have to be prepared to have fans from outside the city limits.  The Yankees have fans in Europe, just as Barcelona have fans in the U.S.  Having fans from out of town does not diminsh the team as "yours".  Also, we should remember that, before the Rockies came about, the Royals' fanbase extended well into the big square states of the Southwest. 

 

Maybe they don’t want to see themselves as a major city? Not every city is trying to be New York. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Maybe they don’t want to see themselves as a major city? Not every city is trying to be New York. 

 

Kansas City has been a regional "major city" for a very long time. The famous song in the play and movie Oklahoma depicts people from more than a century ago who look to Kansas City as the iconic big city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is also the Saskatchewan Roughriders and B.C. Lions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2019 at 3:01 PM, OnWis97 said:

The Texas Rangers break both rules (one-city state and new teams)...a team established in about 1970, using the State name despite the existence of the Houston Astros.  Were they just that dedicated to the Texas Rangers name or did that back into that as a way to try to appeal to people in other parts of Texas (i.e., to compete with the Astros)? 

 

1.  Yeah, they wanted to go with the reference.

2.  The Rangers have always been located in Arlington, which is between Dallas and Fort Worth.  I suspect this became something of a "Minnesota Twins" scenario in which the Rangers ownership wanted a place-name that didn't favor either city (especially since there were baseball rivalries between the two in the past.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've posted my thoughts on the matter elsewhere but I'll restate them:

 

I am fine with state- or region-named teams if:

  • They are the only team in that state or region (Minnesota Twins, New England Patriots)
  • They are the only team in that particular league or conference (the California Angels originally)

That's about it. This is why I was fine with the Angels going back to Los Angeles (their original name and I always preferred it to Anaheim), and while I think it's a bit pompous, I can accept the New England Patriots (the entirety of New England is probably the size of San Bernardino County in the first place). And this is why I hate names like Golden State Warriors (neither the first nor the only California team) or Texas Rangers (I suppose this is not too bad given the historical name and for a time it was the only AL team in the state, but now I hate the name).

 

This is also why I don't have problems with teams like the Cardinals and Coyotes switching from "Phoenix" to "Arizona." I'd be fine if the Mariners wanted to be the "Washington Mariners," although that would be confusing with the Nationals. I could even accept something like "SoCal Angels" because there are some states that are big enough that different halves or regions of the state are quite different socioeconomically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2019 at 4:20 PM, SFGiants58 said:

Phoenix Diamondbacks (a f-king mouthful, so just shorten it to "Snakes")

 

sorry, dude, but just "Snakes" sounds awful for a team name. the way I see it, it has to be a specific type of snake, like "Vipers" or "Cobras." and I'm 100% certain that in a world where Detroit didn't get a team in one of the leagues until the '90s, they absolutely would've went with one of those. or "Mustangs."

 

back on topic, I'm weird and actually like teams using state names most of the time. "Utah Jazz" sounds a hell of a lot better than "Salt Lake Jazz."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that "state" teams are trying to appeal to a wider market is ludicrous. Even teams with city names market regionally. If you live in Conshohocken or Bala Cynwyd or Upper Darby, your hometown team is the Phillies, not the Pirates. It does get trickier near the mid-point, but changing the teams to the "Quaker State Phillies" or the "Keystone Pirates" would do nothing for fans in Williamsport. It is a little different in Connecticut, where Yankees and Red Sox fans co-mingle. But I sincerely doubt that if the Sox went by "New England", it would sway fans in Bridgeport on the western end of the state. 

 

Are there any markets where it would be virtually impossible to go by a state name? I can't imagine the Seahawks ever using "Washington", although "Pacific" might be an option. And it is unlikely any Chicago team would take on Illinois; the state name conjures up images of bucolic wheat fields, not something that Chi-town embraces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mjrbaseball said:

The idea that "state" teams are trying to appeal to a wider market is ludicrous.

 

:blink:

 

okay, then why do you think they do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.