Nike Launches New MLB City Connect Uniform Series

[gosioux76]

33 minutes ago, selgy said:

There is a big reason. 

When Charlotte was awarded the Panthers in the early 90s it was still an up-and-coming city with a metro population of around 600,000

Currently Charlotte metro is 26th largest at 2.6million

The Panthers needed the name Carolina. 

Now Charlotte can stand on its own 

 

I had a similar thought, and it makes a lot of sense, but then I remembered that the Charlotte Hornets joined the NBA in 1988 -- 7 years before the Panthers. To me, that kind of undercuts the notion that Charlotte couldn't stand on its own.  

 

EDIT: So, sort of like @NicDB already said above.

[OnWis97]

I'd suspect the NFL is the most regional of the MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, MLS and attendees probably average a much further travel distance than the others. I'm not really sold that this always means a state name is better than a city name. I don't think Vikings fans in Duluth would be less likely to travel. But maybe it makes sense in Charlotte.  When the Panthers started, there were probably plenty of Falcons fans in South Carolina. Perhaps that regional identifier provides a connection that helps tip the scales for parts of South Carolina?  For the Hornets, well, it's not like a lot of people are coming up on Tuesdays from Charleston. So I do see the logic.  Of course, the Carolina Hurricanes being located further from SC and having essentially the same schedule formula as the Hornets is not consistent with that. So ultimately, I suppose new teams are usually named based on one-time rationales (be it gut feeling, cadence of the full name, owner preference, or some sort of strategy to reach more populations, or maybe there's some market research involved?).

[sky1324]

19 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

I'd suspect the NFL is the most regional of the MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, MLS and attendees probably average a much further travel distance than the others. I'm not really sold that this always means a state name is better than a city name. I don't think Vikings fans in Duluth would be less likely to travel. But maybe it makes sense in Charlotte.  When the Panthers started, there were probably plenty of Falcons fans in South Carolina. Perhaps that regional identifier provides a connection that helps tip the scales for parts of South Carolina?  For the Hornets, well, it's not like a lot of people are coming up on Tuesdays from Charleston. So I do see the logic.  Of course, the Carolina Hurricanes being located further from SC and having essentially the same schedule formula as the Hornets is not consistent with that. So ultimately, I suppose new teams are usually named based on one-time rationales (be it gut feeling, cadence of the full name, owner preference, or some sort of strategy to reach more populations, or maybe there's some market research involved?).

I really do the Panthers successfully leaned into the regional thing, but the Hurricanes only adopted it because they spent two years in Greensboro. Playing as the Raleigh Hurricanes in Greensboro doesn't make much sense.

[Ridleylash]

25 minutes ago, QCS said:

I really do the Panthers successfully leaned into the regional thing, but the Hurricanes only adopted it because they spent two years in Greensboro. Playing as the Raleigh Hurricanes in Greensboro doesn't make much sense.

I imagine a good part of it was also Karmanos wanting to avoid another Hartford situation in making their market too small; better to be "the Carolinas' team" than "Raleigh's team" in the late 90's.

[Digby]

Picking Raleigh or Durham gets you both in a Twin Cities situation AND being one of the smallest markets, so casting the Carolina net makes a lot of sense there. Triangle Hurricanes doesn't work I don't think for obvious reasons.

 

Golden State had that brief period of barnstorming with home games in San Diego. Willing to bet they would've switched to San Francisco when they moved across the bay if they hadn't gone on a historic, game-changing run of success that's got us stuck with Golden State forever now. (That embrace of Oakland proper on their way out the door remains one of the most cynical ploys in sports branding I can remember!)

 

The Patriots, we may remember, initially planned to become the Bay State Patriots upon moving to Foxborough. Between having the most exurban stadium in the NFL and the general climate of Boston white-flight during that time, I think we can guess why. Being arm-twisted into becoming "New England" may have been a blessing in disguise given how much sway the Giants held in parts of New England, historically.

[selgy]

1 hour ago, gosioux76 said:

 

I had a similar thought, and it makes a lot of sense, but then I remembered that the Charlotte Hornets joined the NBA in 1988 -- 7 years before the Panthers. To me, that kind of undercuts the notion that Charlotte couldn't stand on its own.  

 

EDIT: So, sort of like @NicDB already said above.

Good point to that about the Hornets. 

[Digby]

Also I know we like to assume that the teams have the data to support these decisions but it’s equally likely that people who think they’re smarter than they really are are making galaxy-brain decisions whether it’s wise or not. So.

[MilSox]

1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

I'd suspect the NFL is the most regional of the MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, MLS and attendees probably average a much further travel distance than the others. I'm not really sold that this always means a state name is better than a city name. I don't think Vikings fans in Duluth would be less likely to travel. But maybe it makes sense in Charlotte.  When the Panthers started, there were probably plenty of Falcons fans in South Carolina. Perhaps that regional identifier provides a connection that helps tip the scales for parts of South Carolina?  For the Hornets, well, it's not like a lot of people are coming up on Tuesdays from Charleston. So I do see the logic.  Of course, the Carolina Hurricanes being located further from SC and having essentially the same schedule formula as the Hornets is not consistent with that. So ultimately, I suppose new teams are usually named based on one-time rationales (be it gut feeling, cadence of the full name, owner preference, or some sort of strategy to reach more populations, or maybe there's some market research involved?).

Football lends itself to regional fanbases because they play the fewest games and the overwhelming majority of them are on weekends when most people are able to travel.  That's why you'd never see a situation like Green Bay in any other sport.  Also why you have college teams playing in the middle of nowhere outdrawing even most NFL teams.

Basketball and hockey play half their games on weeknights during a time of year when travel conditions tend to be less than ideal in much of North America.  Then there's baseball where nearly every game is during the week, so it behooves teams to play as close to a major population center as possible.  Not a lot of people are gonna drive a couple hours down the freeway and back to see their team on a Wednesday night.

 

[MilSox]

1 hour ago, Digby said:

Picking Raleigh or Durham gets you both in a Twin Cities situation AND being one of the smallest markets, so casting the Carolina net makes a lot of sense there. Triangle Hurricanes doesn't work I don't think for obvious reasons.

 

Golden State had that brief period of barnstorming with home games in San Diego. Willing to bet they would've switched to San Francisco when they moved across the bay if they hadn't gone on a historic, game-changing run of success that's got us stuck with Golden State forever now. (That embrace of Oakland proper on their way out the door remains one of the most cynical ploys in sports branding I can remember!)

 

The Patriots, we may remember, initially planned to become the Bay State Patriots upon moving to Foxborough. Between having the most exurban stadium in the NFL and the general climate of Boston white-flight during that time, I think we can guess why. Being arm-twisted into becoming "New England" may have been a blessing in disguise given how much sway the Giants held in parts of New England, historically.

This reminds me... a lot of teams with state names called themselves as such because they actually did play home games in multiple locations.  The ABA was famous for this.  Off the top of my head, I can think of the Kentucky Colonels (Louisville and Lexington), the Virginia Squires (Norfolk, Hampton, and Richmond) and the Floridians (Miami, Tampa, and I think Orlando and Fort Lauderdale).  I think the Pacers may have also played some games in Fort Wayne and/or South Bend.  But I'm sure there were more.  You also had the Memphis Tams, who made their nickname an acronym for Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mississippi... the three states whose metro area Memphis spans.

The Edmonton Oilers were originally the Alberta Oilers because they planned to also play in Calgary, but that never materialized.

Even NBA teams have done this occasionally.  The Bucks have played home games at the UW Fieldhouse in Madison and the Brown County Arena in Green Bay.

[DEAD!]

12 hours ago, Digby said:

Picking Raleigh or Durham gets you both in a Twin Cities situation AND being one of the smallest markets, so casting the Carolina net makes a lot of sense there. Triangle Hurricanes doesn't work I don't think for obvious reasons.

 

At least they did not go with "Raleigh-Durham Skyhawks"

[sky1324]

16 hours ago, NicDB said:

This reminds me... a lot of teams with state names called themselves as such because they actually did play home games in multiple locations.  The ABA was famous for this.  Off the top of my head, I can think of the Kentucky Colonels (Louisville and Lexington), the Virginia Squires (Norfolk, Hampton, and Richmond) and the Floridians (Miami, Tampa, and I think Orlando and Fort Lauderdale).  I think the Pacers may have also played some games in Fort Wayne and/or South Bend.  But I'm sure there were more.  You also had the Memphis Tams, who made their nickname an acronym for Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mississippi... the three states whose metro area Memphis spans.

The Edmonton Oilers were originally the Alberta Oilers because they planned to also play in Calgary, but that never materialized.

Even NBA teams have done this occasionally.  The Bucks have played home games at the UW Fieldhouse in Madison and the Brown County Arena in Green Bay.

The Carolina Cougars played in Charlotte, Raleigh, and Greensboro before moving to St. Louis.

[SCalderwood]

Another thing I was thinking of related to this is teams that downplay their location ID so as to be more inclusive and maybe get more fans.

 

For many years before the Washington Nationals existed, the Orioles had almost no location identifiers anywhere in their identity... they even removed "Baltimore" from their primary logo in the mid-90s.  I don't think they had "Baltimore" anywhere on any of their uniforms during the 80s and 90s.  You could probably look at their entire uniform set and logos from, say, 1995-2004, and see no explicit mention of their location ID (not even a "B" on a cap), and off the top of my head I can't think of too many other MLB teams who have ever had logos and uniform sets like that. I've gotta think that this was to make baseball fans in DC and Virginia feel more included.  Then once the Nationals existed, the Orioles seemed to embrace Baltimore and Maryland a lot more... putting "Baltimore" on their road jerseys, in their alternate logos, even getting an alternate logo that featured the Maryland flag, etc.  So I am not saying that by downplaying "Baltimore" that the team necessarily attracted more fans, but it did seem like a conscious decision on the organization's part to remove almost any explicit reference to the city or even the state they play in, until the Nationals came along.  I guess my point is that it does seem like teams consider emphasis (or lack thereof) of location ID when figuring out how to best cater to (or grow) their fanbases, and don't just depend on being "the geographically closest team" to attract potential fans.

 

 

[selgy]

14 hours ago, DEAD! said:

At least they did not go with "Raleigh-Durham Skyhawks"

Or even worse The Triangle Skyhawks 

[chakfu]

One factor that also strikes me:

 

Older, coastal/lake/river adjacent industrial city: i.e. Cleveland - city based name/identity

 

Newer, central, planned city i.e. Indianapolis - state/regional identity

 

Of course the latter is where there is more growth in current times.

 

 

[tp49]

58 minutes ago, SCalderwood said:

Another thing I was thinking of related to this is teams that downplay their location ID so as to be more inclusive and maybe get more fans.

 

For many years before the Washington Nationals existed, the Orioles had almost no location identifiers anywhere in their identity... they even removed "Baltimore" from their primary logo in the mid-90s.  I don't think they had "Baltimore" anywhere on any of their uniforms during the 80s and 90s.  You could probably look at their entire uniform set and logos from, say, 1995-2004, and see no explicit mention of their location ID (not even a "B" on a cap), and off the top of my head I can't think of too many other MLB teams who have ever had logos and uniform sets like that. I've gotta think that this was to make baseball fans in DC and Virginia feel more included.  Then once the Nationals existed, the Orioles seemed to embrace Baltimore and Maryland a lot more... putting "Baltimore" on their road jerseys, in their alternate logos, even getting an alternate logo that featured the Maryland flag, etc.  So I am not saying that by downplaying "Baltimore" that the team necessarily attracted more fans, but it did seem like a conscious decision on the organization's part to remove almost any explicit reference to the city or even the state they play in, until the Nationals came along.  I guess my point is that it does seem like teams consider emphasis (or lack thereof) of location ID when figuring out how to best cater to (or grow) their fanbases, and don't just depend on being "the geographically closest team" to attract potential fans.

 

 

The Orioles took Baltimore off the roads for the 1973 season and put it back on for the 2011 season.  At least in the mid 90's they even had a team store location in DC proper.  I forget when they closed it down though. 

[Brian in Boston]

On 4/15/2021 at 4:35 PM, NicDB said:

This reminds me... a lot of teams with state names called themselves as such because they actually did play home games in multiple locations.  The ABA... Floridians (Miami, Tampa, and I think Orlando and Fort Lauderdale).

 

The Floridians went the regional route for their last two seasons. Their first season in the Sunshine State saw the Miami Floridians play all of their home games in Miami Beach. During their second ABA campaign the Miami Floridians played all home contests in Miami. The team's third season - the first in which they were identified solely as The Floridians - saw home games split between Miami Beach, Tampa, St. Petersburg, Jacksonville, and West Palm Beach. During the team's final season, 34 home games were contested in Miami and just 7 took place in Tampa.    

[monkeypower]

16 hours ago, chakfu said:

One factor that also strikes me:

 

Older, coastal/lake/river adjacent industrial city: i.e. Cleveland - city based name/identity

 

Newer, central, planned city i.e. Indianapolis - state/regional identity

 

Of course the latter is where there is more growth in current times.

 

But that's not always the case and your choice of an example city even proves it, unless we're just not going to count the Indianapolis Colts.

[tBBP]

Getting back to the original topic of this thread...

 

...I don't know if it's just FS1's cameras or what, but I'm watching this game now between Boston and Chicago on TV--interesting that Boston chooses to wear these City Connect johns when they play the other Sox--but those jerseys and dugout sweaters look dang near neon yellow.  The color scheme on its own doesn't look bad at all--bear in mind yellow is if my favorite color and all--it just looks all kinds of out of place for the Red Sox.  But it's all good...

[McCall]

2 hours ago, tBBP said:

Getting back to the original topic of this thread...

 

...I don't know if it's just FS1's cameras or what, but I'm watching this game now between Boston and Chicago on TV--interesting that Boston chooses to wear these City Connect johns when they play the other Sox--but those jerseys and dugout sweaters look dang near neon yellow.  The color scheme on its own doesn't look bad at all--bear in mind yellow is if my favorite color and all--it just looks all kinds of out of place for the Red Sox.  But it's all good...

Would be great for the Rays.

[MJD7]

Yea, the color scheme is nice on its own, refreshingly bright for baseball, but there’s definitely a mental disconnect seeing the team in those uniforms being called the “Red Sox,” since it diverts so far from the classic brand.