Jump to content

Nike Launches New MLB City Connect Uniform Series


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, SCalderwood said:

I have no stats or evidence to back this up, but I would think that using state branding would draw in more fans than city branding.

Not necessarily. Depends on the state. A state like California is so big that it has extremely diverse portions of the state that are completely different in culture, politics, geography, etc. There's a reason you've got the State of Jefferson movement with the northernmost counties and the southernmost Oregon counties. Because that part of California is hugely different from anywhere else in the state. I doubt they'd identify with the Angels no matter what they were called.

 

But for smaller states like Arizona that also has most of the population only within 1-2 areas, sure, I could see it working. It is notable the Cardinals switched from "Phoenix" to "Arizona" for precisely this reason, along with the Coyotes more recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Quillz said:

Not necessarily. Depends on the state. A state like California is so big that it has extremely diverse portions of the state that are completely different in culture, politics, geography, etc. There's a reason you've got the State of Jefferson movement with the northernmost counties and the southernmost Oregon counties. Because that part of California is hugely different from anywhere else in the state. I doubt they'd identify with the Angels no matter what they were called.

 

But for smaller states like Arizona that also has most of the population only within 1-2 areas, sure, I could see it working. It is notable the Cardinals switched from "Phoenix" to "Arizona" for precisely this reason, along with the Coyotes more recently.

 

 

I said that state branding would attract more fans, which seems pretty indisputable.  I never said it would cause every single person in every single part of the state to become a fan.

 

Pretty much EVERY state is diverse in its own ways, but you catch more fish by casting a wider net.  That doesn't mean you catch every fish, just more fish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we’re overthinking how much a location identifier affects fandom.

 

People like teams for the players and the winning, not necessarily if it’s a state or city team name.

 

I don’t think anyone in Monterrey will be like “Oh now they’re the California Angels? Ok that’s my team now.” That’s not how things work these days. 

 

If state-based teams attracted more fans, every team would use the state identifier. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, QCS said:

Splitting heads here, but the Panthers did it first and they wanted the regional draw.


Not just the regional draw, they used the political pressure from two sets of Senators to lobby the NFL into giving Charlotte a team.  The Panthers were a regional expansion group long before the franchise was awarded. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WSU151 said:

I think we’re overthinking how much a location identifier affects fandom.

 

If we are, then so are the teams. They’re the ones building their businesses on that model.  

 

1 hour ago, WSU151 said:

I don’t think anyone in Monterrey will be like “Oh now they’re the California Angels? Ok that’s my team now.” That’s not how things work these days.

 

Not Monterrey, but when Autry moved his team he had a legitimate concern about whether fans in Irvine and Santa Ana would support a team wearing “Los Angeles”.  

 

1 hour ago, WSU151 said:

If state-based teams attracted more fans, every team would use the state identifier. 


There are times when it presumably helps.  And then you have the too-wide net like the UWSL’s “New Jersey/New York Gotham FC”, where New Yorkers look and say “putting our name in there twice still doesn’t cancel out that first one.” 😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

If we are, then so are the teams. They’re the ones building their businesses on that model.  

 

Yeah, I would guess the teams are overthinking it too. Majority of teams have city identifiers, and they draw people in by winning, not by location name. I would say there's stronger correlation between fans and winning than fans and location ID.  If the Phoenix Cardinals won two Superbowls in the early 90s and had a bunch of 10-win seasons they'd still be called the Phoenix Cardinals today, I think, even playing in Glendale. 

 

Quote

Not Monterrey, but when Autry moved his team he had a legitimate concern about whether fans in Irvine and Santa Ana would support a team wearing “Los Angeles”.

 

That was the 60s though. I don't think it matters as much these days because it's a different era of sports and technology and accessibility. People in Irvine and Santa Ana still support the Dodgers. 

 

Again, people will follow good teams quite easily, no matter where they live. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WSU151 said:

I think we’re overthinking how much a location identifier affects fandom.

 

People like teams for the players and the winning, not necessarily if it’s a state or city team name.

 

I don’t think anyone in Monterrey will be like “Oh now they’re the California Angels? Ok that’s my team now.” That’s not how things work these days. 

 

If state-based teams attracted more fans, every team would use the state identifier. 

 

 

Fair points, maybe I am overthinking it.

 

In terms of liking teams for the players and winning... I agree with this when it comes to casual, fairweather, and fake fans.  I live on the east coast, and it's amazing how many Golden State Warriors fans have magically "appeared" here from 2014-2019.  I don't remember ever meeting a single Warriors fan around here prior to 2014, and then all of a sudden I started to run into them everywhere I went.  So if that's what you mean, I agree with that.

 

I've only really lived long-term in two geographic regions in my life, and in both cases, I just kind of naturally started to follow, watch, and root for the teams that were geographically closest to me, no matter how horrible they were.  So for me it's never really been about the players or winning, to be honest.  But that is just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WSU151 said:

I think we’re overthinking how much a location identifier affects fandom.

 

People like teams for the players and the winning, not necessarily if it’s a state or city team name.

 

I don’t think anyone in Monterrey will be like “Oh now they’re the California Angels? Ok that’s my team now.” That’s not how things work these days. 

 

If state-based teams attracted more fans, every team would use the state identifier. 

This might just be me, but I like the teams for where they are. If every Vikings player got traded for every Packers player, id still be a Vikings fan because they are Minnesota's team still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, ProfessorBigShots said:

This might just be me, but I like the teams for where they are. If every Vikings player got traded for every Packers player, id still be a Vikings fan because they are Minnesota's team still.

I think the point WSU was making is that it's not necessarily the location identifier (i.e. using Minnesota vs Minneapolis) that draws in fans, but the locality and also success of a franchise that will bring people in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NicDB said:

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.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 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.

 

 

I completely agree with you, but then again, these boards are a community of people who debate things like sports logos, uniform details, colors, etc.  It would make sense that the same type of people who obsess over stuff like that, would also obsess over things like sports team city/locale identifiers and maybe overthink them. The city/locale identifier appears on the logo/uniform and becomes part of the branding, so I would argue that logos, uniforms, branding, and city/locale identifiers are all kind of linked in a way.  But I would not take the discussion taking place here to be representative of what most sports fans care or even think about, so I do not think you have much to worry about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, WSU151 said:

Yeah, I would guess the teams are overthinking it too. Majority of teams have city identifiers, and they draw people in by winning, not by location name. I would say there's stronger correlation between fans and winning than fans and location ID.

 

Winning will always create success.   Well, everywhere except Florida baseball. 😉

 

But most teams don’t win every year. The trick is how you generate/sustain interest in the slow periods.  
 

I don’t like state identifiers, at all, but some teams really do believe that they create an emotional connection, and I have nothing but my own personal preferences with which to counter. 
 

I think they’re equally cynical and mealy-mouthed, I just wish I had some data to indicate that they are cynical, mealy-mouthed and also don’t work. 🤷🏽‍♂️

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I honestly don't think the Angels ownership want the team initials of A.A. or sound smaller market than LA. 

Say what you want about the Ducks using Anaheim. It is Hockey. Their local competition are the LA Kings who are not a prestigious landmark known as the Los Angeles Dodgers.

I have no Issues with California Angels. Its the name that I grew up with and I don't think it devalues that attachment to the Anaheim region. The Angels ownership (Moreno) recently reupped the lease for the land to stay in Anaheim. There are questions as if that means remodeling the stadium or building a new stadium and complex (like Atlanta) on that giant parcel. With that, Anaheim might have made some naming requests. We will see. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, selgy said:

 I honestly don't think the Angels ownership want the team initials of A.A. or sound smaller market than LA. 

Say what you want about the Ducks using Anaheim. It is Hockey. Their local competition are the LA Kings who are not a prestigious landmark known as the Los Angeles Dodgers.

I have no Issues with California Angels. Its the name that I grew up with and I don't think it devalues that attachment to the Anaheim region. The Angels ownership (Moreno) recently reupped the lease for the land to stay in Anaheim. There are questions as if that means remodeling the stadium or building a new stadium and complex (like Atlanta) on that giant parcel. With that, Anaheim might have made some naming requests. We will see. 

But if anything having the LA dodger trying to be other LA team makes you look like the little brother. Same issue the clippers have. But Atleast the Angles play in a completely different county and can play off of that. 

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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