new angle.....

[BBTV]

I always just called it baseball. NFL, NBA, NHL, and baseball.

Yeah, that too.

[Gothamite]

Funny - the ESPN video player does that, as well.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

thats a beautiful trophy but it looks a bit fragile to me... i mean... how do they survive all the torture of postgame celebration in the locker room?

If it can survive George Costanza dragging it around a parking lot, it can withstand anything.

[BBTV]

Are the team names still on the pennants or are they blank now.

Blank.

Time to update your sig!

[marlinfan]

thats a beautiful trophy but it looks a bit fragile to me... i mean... how do they survive all the torture of postgame celebration in the locker room?

I remember reading or hearing a few years ago about the Angels needing to replace 6 of the pennants on their trophy after being damaged in the post-championship celebration.

I believe it was in Moneyball or A Number's Game where Sandy Alderson talked about walking into the A's front office in the mid 80s for the first time and discovering the World Series trophies from the 70s serving as coat hangars.

[Bigboy1083]

Me with the World Series Trophy and LEGO Fenway:

World Series Trophy and LEGO Fenway:

The man who brought the trophy, Bill Spanswick, resident of my hometown Enfield CT.

[NJTank]

I hate the Red Sox but Lego Fenway :censored:ing Rules

Back on track MLB is a new thing, I think it only started around 2000 when the NL and AL Presidencies ended.

[TwoRsAndTwoLs]

I think if Lego went and made replica ballparks like that, I would go nuts and have to pick one or more of them up.

[SFCOM1]

I know the 2001 trophy that was awarded to the Arizona Diamondbacks was damaged in the Victory Parade. Several pennants where loosened, and it was sent in for repairs.

Sadly, it is not even shown anymore as the current ownership, in it's efforts to distance themselves from Jerry Colangelo's days. Has all but abandoned the past of the Diamondbacks Purple and teal, for this Sedona Red D-Backs crap. Even the WS Championship banners, pictures and logos are gone from Chase Field. It's as if the current team does not even recognize the WS Victory.

Perhaps they should just give the trophy and title to the NY Yankees. As the current D-Backs sure act like they don't want it!

[TwoRsAndTwoLs]

... and also, I liked having the team names on each flag. I dunno, as a Mariner fan growing up before they had a winning season, I liked knowing that my sucky team was on the trophy. It's like having a player in the All-Star game, y'know?

[OMMF]

Hmm, VitD can weigh in on this, or anyone else for that matter, but as the team name is a singular entity, shouldn't it be "World Series Champion" without the s? I understand that many players make up the team and it seems to be plural but 7 games make the Stanley Cup Final and that has no s.

I'll have to think more about this one.

[Shroinke]

Hmm, VitD can weigh in on this, or anyone else for that matter, but as the team name is a singular entity, shouldn't it be "World Series Champion" without the s? I understand that many players make up the team and it seems to be plural but 7 games make the Stanley Cup Final and that has no s.

I'll have to think more about this one.

No, plural is correct. The title is given to a team, not an individual.

For example, which sounds more correct:

Chicago Cubs is the world series champion.

or

Chicago Cubs are the world series champions.

[OMMF]

Hmm, VitD can weigh in on this, or anyone else for that matter, but as the team name is a singular entity, shouldn't it be "World Series Champion" without the s? I understand that many players make up the team and it seems to be plural but 7 games make the Stanley Cup Final and that has no s.

I'll have to think more about this one.

No, plural is correct. The title is given to a team, not an individual.

For example, which sounds more correct:

Chicago Cubs is the world series champion.

or

Chicago Cubs are the world series champions.

Neither? There are more than two options. I guess I phrased my original question wrong, as well.

To me, gramatically, not aurally, this is correct: The Cubs are the World Series Champion. Or you could even have: The Cubs is the World Series Champion. It depends on how you see the team name acting. It either is a proper name that ends in s or it represents individuals with the same name. This is where my question was in error. I was trying to make the verb agree with the wrong thing. I could be wrong here as well. But, either way, the s should be left off of Champion, imo. The reason? There is only one team winning it, therefore, it should not be pluralized.

It's late. I may look back on this in the morning and wonder why I even bothered typing it.

[Joely]

Personally, I rather like the fact that the trophy now says 'World Series Champions' as it signifies they have won a championship named 'The World Series' rather than being 'World Champions' - which patently they are not...Old argument I now, but I'm praising the *ahem* modesty of the Organisation known as Major League Baseball (Or is it merely a reinforcement of branding?)...

On another note I would love to see the Japanese Champs playing the World Series Champs in a sort of Ultimate Series of sorts...might help improve the standing of Japanese baseball on an international level...

[marlinfan]

On another note I would love to see the Japanese Champs playing the World Series Champs in a sort of Ultimate Series of sorts...might help improve the standing of Japanese baseball on an international level...

The Solar Series

[charger77]

How long had the old W.S. trophy been around?

[Gothamite]

How long had the old W.S. trophy been around?

1967. I don't think they had a formal trophy before that.

To me, gramatically, not aurally, this is correct: The Cubs are the World Series Champion. Or you could even have: The Cubs is the World Series Champion. It depends on how you see the team name acting. It either is a proper name that ends in s or it represents individuals with the same name. This is where my question was in error. I was trying to make the verb agree with the wrong thing. I could be wrong here as well. But, either way, the s should be left off of Champion, imo. The reason? There is only one team winning it, therefore, it should not be pluralized.

Nope, it's a plural noun, and must therefore have a plural verb for agreement.

The Brewers are in first place in the NL Central. Not "the Brewers is in first place."

If you're using the city name, that is a singular noun. Milwaukee is in first place in the NL Central. (Sorry, can't help repeating that sentence)

So no, in your example the team name is plural, and they (because they are "they" not "he" or "she" or "it") are the Champions.

[McCall]

Are the team names still on the pennants or are they blank now.

Blank.

Time to update your sig!

I didn't really care to notice if it was current or not. I was just trying to find a decent trophy pic to use. Was kinda in a rush. I'll fix it when I have some time.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

I was just looking at Marlinfan's sig image:

.............GOOD................................................................................................................BAD............

And, sorry Joely, but the winners of the World Series are indeed the World Champions. Just as the winners of the NBA Finals, the Super Bowl, the Stanley Cup Finals, and even the Arena Bowl are the "World Champions" of each of those sports. It must be pointed out that the fact that all of these leagues have nearly all of their teams in one country is irrelevant. (Additionally, the fact that the NHL opts not to use the term "world champions" for its winner in favour of the title "Stanley Cup Champions" is also irrelevant.)

The confusion and misunderstanding over the term "world champions" in U.S. sports arises from a faulty comparison to club football (soccer). This comparison is not valid because soccer is expressly organised along national lines, with each country having an FA (football association -- the national governing body). The national FAs are then associated in continental confederations, which themselves are associated under the worldwide body FIFA. So, in the context of club football, the title "world champions" can refer only to a winner of a competition pitting clubs from different confederations, under the auspices of FIFA.

(There is such a competition, by the way, involving the champions of the continental confederations. It is rather new, and is as of yet not very prestigious, and so the title "world champions" is not really heard very much in club football. We thus have the strange circumstance of the "world championship" being less prestigious than the continenal championships.)

The U.S. leagues, on the other hand, are not organised by national boundaries, and do not consider themselves subordinate to national or international governing bodies. Each league is essentally its own "governing body".

If a U.S. league decides it wants to put a team in a Canadian city (or, for that matter, a Mexican city, a Japanese city, or a city in any other country), the concerns it must address are strictly practical: logistics of travel, local politics, economic return, etc.

Whereas, in soccer, the national league of one country is strictly forbidden by FIFA from unilaterally placing teams in another country. There are, however, a few instances of this -- but they occur only with FIFA approval. The general criterion is that, if a country does not have a Division I league (as sanctioned by FIFA, of course), then it may have teams in another country's league. This is why there is a Monaco team in the French league, a Toronto team in MLS, and a New Zealand team in the Australian league. There are also Welsh teams in the English league system, but they date from before the creation of the Welsh league. (There has long been talk of finding a way to get the two biggest Scottish teams, Celtic and Rangers, out of the Scottish league and into the much more lucrative English league. However, there appears to be no way of legally doing this under the rules of FIFA and of the FAs of Scotland and England.)

So, in soccer, you have Division I leagues in many countries which are (officially) of equal status. (Note that this is not a claim that the level of play is equal across Div-I leagues; only that each league's official status is the same in the eyes of FIFA.) Compare this to U.S. leagues, where the leagues themselves make the status determination regarding what leagues they recognise as "major", and typically consider all other leagues as officially of a lower status. This is why Ichiro was considered a rookie when he came to the Majors -- he had been playing in a minor league before (even if that league was the top league in another country).

So, to sum up, a soccer leagues in a given country in the world is a creature of its national FA, and can operate only under strictures set by this governing body and FIFA -- such as the rule limiting its scope to its own national boudaries. The U.S. leagues, on the other hand, are fundamentally different -- each is in fact a "world league", whose teams are mostly in the U.S. currently, but could in principle be placed anywhere in the world.

Therefore, the correct term for the team that wins the World Series is "World Champions".

[TwoRsAndTwoLs]

I notice that nobody has yet suggested calling the team the "Major League Champion," which I sortof like over "World Series Champion," although if we assume the superiority of MLB over all other professional baseball leagues, I don't think "World Champion" is necessarily incorrect.