Arena Rafters & Banners

[The_Admiral]

Why do they call themselves "World Champions"?

Because it's the highest level of competition in the world. a'duh.

I think there would be a fair amount of teams in Japan or Korea that could take on some of the MLB teams, same with some European clubs with basketball. I'm not sure who they would be because I don't really follow those sports.

The Nippon Ham Fighters could "take on" the New York Yankees in roughly the same sense that a mouse takes on a cat. It's pretty obvious that you don't really follow those sports if you're seriously postulating that overseas clubs wouldn't get wiped by North American clubs.

[PurpleRush]

Nothing can be as dumb as what the Mets do:

Yes, that really does say "Wild Card & NLDS Winners".

What a joke.

I've been pointing this out to people for years. Glad someone else has also recognized this.

As for Philly, I'd go with no flag at all if they were the wild card entry, yet lost the divisional series.

For the Saints, I love the banners, however, I'm one for only having the highest title acheived,

but if they want all three up there for 2009, I would differentiate the division banner from the conference banner by having either one on a white background.

[Ramrod]

Why do they call themselves "World Champions"? I've never understood that when it comes to the NFL, NBA and MLB. For one, it's not an international championship. I know for the NBA, there are other countries in the world besides the US that have domestic leagues and I'm pretty sure they don't put "World Champions" when they win their respective domestic competitions. I might just be picky here but I think the title of "World Champions" should be reserved for international competitions such as the FIBA World Champs (currently going on in Turkey right now), FIFA World Cup and Club World Cup, IIHF World Champs, IRB Rugby World Cup, and World Baseball Classic. I know there are many others for various sports, just too many to list. My point is that the title "World Champions" should not be given to domestic competition winners. What's wrong with "Super Bowl Champions"?

Please identify the club baseball and basketball teams that could take a 7 game series from the MLB and NBA champions, or the club American football team that could win a game against the Super Bowl champions.

You can't, can you?

/Just think of them as the World Club champions in their respective sports.

What a dumb reply. The point is they aren't "World Champions" at all, just of their respective league.

[IceCap]

Why do they call themselves "World Champions"? I've never understood that when it comes to the NFL, NBA and MLB. For one, it's not an international championship. I know for the NBA, there are other countries in the world besides the US that have domestic leagues and I'm pretty sure they don't put "World Champions" when they win their respective domestic competitions. I might just be picky here but I think the title of "World Champions" should be reserved for international competitions such as the FIBA World Champs (currently going on in Turkey right now), FIFA World Cup and Club World Cup, IIHF World Champs, IRB Rugby World Cup, and World Baseball Classic. I know there are many others for various sports, just too many to list. My point is that the title "World Champions" should not be given to domestic competition winners. What's wrong with "Super Bowl Champions"?

Please identify the club baseball and basketball teams that could take a 7 game series from the MLB and NBA champions, or the club American football team that could win a game against the Super Bowl champions.

You can't, can you?

/Just think of them as the World Club champions in their respective sports.

What a dumb reply. The point is they aren't "World Champions" at all, just of their respective league.

What a dumb reply. It's obvious that the NBA, NFL, and MLB are the top tiers of their respective sport, world wide. Yeah, there are some decent baseball teams in Japan and Korea, and some decent basketball teams in the European league, but realistically the champions of those leagues wouldn't stand a chance against the champions of the NBA and MLB in a true seven game championship series. The NFL? There aren't even American football teams in other countries that come close to NFL practice squads. The only league that might offer a challenge is the CFL, and technically that's a different game then what the NFL plays. So really, there's no issue with the NBA, MLB, and NFL champions calling themselves the World Champions. They really are the best in the world at their sport.

The only major North American league that MIGHT have serious competition is the NHL, with the KHL being their biggest rivals (and even that's very VERY iffy). As far as I know no NHL championship team has refereed to itself as the "World Champion" in quite some time. They just use Stanley Cup Champions. Though to be perfectly honest even the KHL champs would have a hard time taking down the Stanley Cup champs so I wouldn't object if the Stanley Cup champions started to refer to themselves as the World Champions again.

[GeauxColonels]

Because "World Champions" sounds freakin' awesome. But seriously, I do think I remember reading an article that David Stern wanted top put a stop to teams referring to themselves as "World Champions" after winning the NBA Finals. I believe it came up the year the Celtics won the finals.

[The_Admiral]

I think the '05 Spurs were the first to tuck their dicks between their legs and deferentially put "NBA Champions" on their banner because they had so much International Flair or something.

[GeauxColonels]

I think the '05 Spurs were the first to tuck their dicks between their legs and deferentially put "NBA Champions" on their banner because they had so much International Flair or something.

The Celts basically told Stern to eff himself and went with "World Champions" anyway.

[Ramrod]

Why do they call themselves "World Champions"? I've never understood that when it comes to the NFL, NBA and MLB. For one, it's not an international championship. I know for the NBA, there are other countries in the world besides the US that have domestic leagues and I'm pretty sure they don't put "World Champions" when they win their respective domestic competitions. I might just be picky here but I think the title of "World Champions" should be reserved for international competitions such as the FIBA World Champs (currently going on in Turkey right now), FIFA World Cup and Club World Cup, IIHF World Champs, IRB Rugby World Cup, and World Baseball Classic. I know there are many others for various sports, just too many to list. My point is that the title "World Champions" should not be given to domestic competition winners. What's wrong with "Super Bowl Champions"?

Please identify the club baseball and basketball teams that could take a 7 game series from the MLB and NBA champions, or the club American football team that could win a game against the Super Bowl champions.

You can't, can you?

/Just think of them as the World Club champions in their respective sports.

What a dumb reply. The point is they aren't "World Champions" at all, just of their respective league.

What a dumb reply. It's obvious that the NBA, NFL, and MLB are the top tiers of their respective sport, world wide. Yeah, there are some decent baseball teams in Japan and Korea, and some decent basketball teams in the European league, but realistically the champions of those leagues wouldn't stand a chance against the champions of the NBA and MLB in a true seven game championship series. The NFL? There aren't even American football teams in other countries that come close to NFL practice squads. The only league that might offer a challenge is the CFL, and technically that's a different game then what the NFL plays. So really, there's no issue with the NBA, MLB, and NFL champions calling themselves the World Champions. They really are the best in the world at their sport.

The only major North American league that MIGHT have serious competition is the NHL, with the KHL being their biggest rivals (and even that's very VERY iffy). As far as I know no NHL championship team has refereed to itself as the "World Champion" in quite some time. They just use Stanley Cup Champions. Though to be perfectly honest even the KHL champs would have a hard time taking down the Stanley Cup champs so I wouldn't object if the Stanley Cup champions started to refer to themselves as the World Champions again.

Obvious to you maybe, but that doesn't stop it from being inaccurate. Your own examples regarding the CFL and KHL just support my point. You can try to disqualify them with words like "might" and "iffy" but you're just trying to deflect the fact that calling oneself "World Champions" is just wrong. I could go into it deeper but your own examples do my job for me.

[IceCap]

Do you read what other people are saying or do you just scan for key phrases and guesstimate the rest?

The CFL, the KHL, the European basketball leagues, the Japanese and Korean baseball leagues, are obviously bush league when compared to the NFL, NHL, NBA, and MLB. The North American leagues are, without a doubt, the highest level of competition for their respective sports. Thus the champions of these leagues calling themselves World Champions is appropriate. Trying to argue that they aren't, that the teams in these other leagues actually have a chance to rival the NHL/NFL/NBA/MLB champs, is naive at best and argumentative at worst.

[kiwi_canadian]

So then what do you call the winners for the World Champs for IIHF and FIBA? What about the World Baseball Classic winners or the Rugby World Cup winners or the FIFA World Cup winners? My point is that these are the HIGHEST level of competition for their respective sports and hence why they should be called "World Champions" not the champions of domestic leagues. The title of "World Champions" should be reserved for countries and/or clubs who are competing in international competitions where there is more then one country involved. An example would be the ZSC Lions of the Swiss National League A for hockey. They won the Swiss league, the Champions Hockey League and then beat the Chicago Blackhawks for the Victoria Cup. In essence they are a club that competed in a international club championship and won it all and would deserve the title of "World Champions".

[BBTV]

Unless it's one big league with franchises in other countries that all play by the same CBA and rules as far as salary caps, etc., then IMO no team can really be called the "World" champions (exception of NFL, since there aren't any other "major" American-rules football leagues.) The term "World Champion" should only be applied to international competition, where it's really the best of each nation competing against each other. It's not right to have a NHL team that is limited by a salary cap and other quirks compared to a team in some other country that has to deal with totally separate issues when fielding teams. The goal of each of the US sports (except baseball... at least now) is to achieve parity so that each team is competitive enough to draw interest. It just doesn't make sense to crown the Blackhawks the "World Champions", when in effect, that implies that if there was some big tournament, they'd win - but I'm sure some country could enter an all-star team that would beat them. So really, the only "World Champion" is the country who's all-star team beats all the other all-star teams.

[rams80]

So then what do you call the winners for the World Champs for IIHF and FIBA? What about the World Baseball Classic winners or the Rugby World Cup winners or the FIFA World Cup winners? My point is that these are the HIGHEST level of competition for their respective sports and hence why they should be called "World Champions" not the champions of domestic leagues. The title of "World Champions" should be reserved for countries and/or clubs who are competing in international competitions where there is more then one country involved. An example would be the ZSC Lions of the Swiss National League A for hockey. They won the Swiss league, the Champions Hockey League and then beat the Chicago Blackhawks for the Victoria Cup. In essence they are a club that competed in a international club championship and won it all and would deserve the title of "World Champions".

Club Sports Teams are different from National All Star Teams. Both have their own competition restrictions in general, and therefore can be World Champions. The NHL, NBA, MLB, and NFL are the highest level of club sports competition in the world for their sports.

[Still MIGHTY]

FWIW, Most NHL championship banners I've seen say "Stanley Cup Champions," and I've also seen many "Super Bowl Champions" banners (but like BBTV said, the NFL is the only major American football league, and therefore "World Champions" applies).

MLB and NBA really proliferate the World Champions thing. Although I've seen a few "World Series Champions" things before.

[IceCap]

Unless it's one big league with franchises in other countries that all play by the same CBA and rules as far as salary caps, etc., then IMO no team can really be called the "World" champions (exception of NFL, since there aren't any other "major" American-rules football leagues.)

I would argue that there aren't any "major" hockey, baseball, or basketball leagues outside of the NHL, MLB, and NBA. Really. Do you honestly think the champs of the KHL, European leagues, or Japanese and Korean leagues would stand a chance in a true championship series against the NHL, NBA, or MLB champs?

Sure a Russian all-star team could beat the Blackhawks, but that's a pretty piss poor comparison. I real question is "could the KHL champs beat the Blackhawks?" and that's a pretty obvious "no."

I think people are confused here. It's not a question of North America vs the world. It's a question of which league has the best assemblage of players. The World Series champs in MLB aren't just made up of American and Canadian players. They'll probably feature some of the best players Japan, South America, and maybe Korea have to offer as well. So if the MLB champs play the champs of the Japanese league they're not going up against a team of Japanese all-stars. They're going up against the best club team Japan has to offer, and they themselves would be playing with some of the best Japanese players out there. Simply put, they'd curb stomp them.

[kiwi_canadian]

Wow, I really created a :censored: storm here lol. All I am saying in this is that in my opinion I believe that the title of "world champion" should be reserved for a club and/or national team playing in an international tournament or against other countries in a world championship format. Didn't really mean to stray off topic here of arena rafter banners.

[HedleyLamarr]

Sadly, the Atlanta Braves are celebrating being the best 2nd-place team in the National League for the 2010 season. The pocket schedule mentions being the "2010 NL Wild Card Champions", and they've even hung a banner at Turner Field to commemorate the occasion:

The Braves should really be above this.

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

Photos from my albums

Washington Capitals

Washington Bullets

The Caps and Bullets have gotten new banners... everything is red, white and blue now...

Oh and thankfully, all the Mystics "Attendance Champions" banners have been removed.

[Hat Boy]

Washington Capitals

The Caps and Bullets have gotten new banners... everything is red, white and blue now...

Have they replaced the old white/blue/bronze 1999-00 and 2000-01 banners with red/white/blue or just added new red/white/blue banners for 2009-10?

[TFoA]

Sadly, the Atlanta Braves are celebrating being the best 2nd-place team in the National League for the 2010 season. The pocket schedule mentions being the "2010 NL Wild Card Champions", and they've even hung a banner at Turner Field to commemorate the occasion:

The Braves should really be above this.

Agreed, I was mildly disappointed when I heard that news. I mean, it's good that they're recognizing it, but it just should've been a section in the yearbooks, the Wild Card isn't banner-worthy.

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

Washington Capitals

The Caps and Bullets have gotten new banners... everything is red, white and blue now...

Have they replaced the old white/blue/bronze 1999-00 and 2000-01 banners with red/white/blue or just added new red/white/blue banners for 2009-10?

Every banner now looks like the 2 Red one's in the picture I posted... The Bullets banners you can see in the background of that same picture have been changed also, each one now looks the same as the new Capitals one's but they are white instead of red. I couldn't find any pictures of the new Bullets banners.