Jump to content

Giants/Jets new endzones


xxvnyg80

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply

1 with the neutral 50 yard line carpet in place and 1 without. The one without is the more recent photos. I cant wait to see the Giants and Jets logo on the 50 instead of the NFL logo

NewMeadowlands019-1.jpg

5688010.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we really arguing over this NY/NJ thing again? The stadium's 10 freakin' minutes away from the Lincoln Tunnel. It's quicker to get to the Meadowlands from Manhattan than it is to hop on the LIE to Citi Field in Queens for goodness sakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we really arguing over this NY/NJ thing again? The stadium's 10 freakin' minutes away from the Lincoln Tunnel. It's quicker to get to the Meadowlands from Manhattan than it is to hop on the LIE to Citi Field in Queens for goodness sakes.

It really is annoying to hear. Guess what? Washington Redskins... They dont play in the District of Columbia, they play in Maryland. Their training facility is in Virginia. But they're in the Washington DC metropolitan area

Now even though the Giants and Jets play in Jersey. East Rutherford and Newark are part of the NYC-metropolitan area. As well as parts of Connecticut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The city/state name attatched to the team should be of who the team represents... not neccesarily the exact location of the stadium in which they play their home games.

Redskins have been mentioned, how about the Pistons, how about the Cowboys? The location of the stadium is just one element of the team. Just because the Jets and Giants play 5 miles from the Lincoln tunnel it doesn't mean they represent New Jersey rather than New York.

The Jets and Giants are NFL teams representing the city of New York. That is the major metropolitan city they represent. Yes they have fans in NJ, Long Island, Connecticut, and also all over the country. But they are representing New York City.

And NO ONE ... and I mean NO ONE in New Jersey (and I've lived here for 26 years) cares about being the New York Giants/Jets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember when the Saints and Tulane used the Superdome (maybe still do, not sure) and one end zone said "Saints" in thier colors and the other said "Tulane" in theirs?? Why not just do that?

I'm not sure Jets and Giants fans want "Saints" in one end zone of the new stadium and "Tulane" in the other...seems kinda odd... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Semi-related gloating, my uncle is a escalator mechanic and was working the New Meadowlands stadium and snagged me a piece of the fieldturf. Pretty sweet.

Theft is nothing to be proud of.

It's a piece of scrap approximately 1'x1.5' in dimension found in a dumpster, but thanks for :censored:ting on the parade :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember when the Saints and Tulane used the Superdome (maybe still do, not sure) and one end zone said "Saints" in thier colors and the other said "Tulane" in theirs?? Why not just do that?

Probably because it would be dumb.

Great informative take, d-bag. Appreicate the input.

He was right. It would be dumb. Deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it's my user name, but for the life of me I could never figure out what the stars throughout NJ meant in this logo:

(I know you can't really see it I'll try to find a better one after South Park).

1993GiantsStadium2.jpg

I don't remember where I heard or read it, but I thought the stars represented different NJSEA facilities. There's a good chance I'm wrong though so if anyone knows any better, feel free to correct me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember when the Saints and Tulane used the Superdome (maybe still do, not sure) and one end zone said "Saints" in thier colors and the other said "Tulane" in theirs?? Why not just do that?

Probably because it would be dumb.

Great informative take, d-bag. Appreicate the input.

He was right. It would be dumb. Deal with it.

Why is it dumb? Because we have two contrary opinions? NFL teams have plenty of money now, but if this was the 1960's or a stadium shared by two colleges or high schools, that would be a sound solution.

Think like a business owner. If you could avoid paying for the extra turf pieces and the time and expense of changing them out all the time, wouldn't you at least consider the dual endzone idea? So it's not as dumb as you guys make it out to be.

If you're going to call something dumb (or a good idea for that matter), at least substantiate your view. Just because someone likes or dislikes an idea doesn't make it good or bad. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we really arguing over this NY/NJ thing again? The stadium's 10 freakin' minutes away from the Lincoln Tunnel. It's quicker to get to the Meadowlands from Manhattan than it is to hop on the LIE to Citi Field in Queens for goodness sakes.

It really is annoying to hear. Guess what? Washington Redskins... They dont play in the District of Columbia, they play in Maryland. Their training facility is in Virginia. But they're in the Washington DC metropolitan area

To pile on with the Redskins, they also own a chain of Redskins merchandise stores, none of which are in DC and they own 3 radio stations, none of which are in DC as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember when the Saints and Tulane used the Superdome (maybe still do, not sure) and one end zone said "Saints" in thier colors and the other said "Tulane" in theirs?? Why not just do that?

Probably because it would be dumb.

Great informative take, d-bag. Appreicate the input.

He was right. It would be dumb. Deal with it.

Why is it dumb? Because we have two contrary opinions? NFL teams have plenty of money now, but if this was the 1960's or a stadium shared by two colleges or high schools, that would be a sound solution.

Think like a business owner. If you could avoid paying for the extra turf pieces and the time and expense of changing them out all the time, wouldn't you at least consider the dual endzone idea? So it's not as dumb as you guys make it out to be.

If you're going to call something dumb (or a good idea for that matter), at least substantiate your view. Just because someone likes or dislikes an idea doesn't make it good or bad. cool.gif

Why would one business want another rival business to have prime advertising space in front of their fans and on their broadcasts if there was any other way to do it? Does it make any sense for a Giants logo to be prominently displayed during a Jets vs Patriots game if there is any other way around it? Reebok certainly wouldn't allow for a Nike logo to be on the left sleeve of an NFL jersey.

What they did 50 years ago is irrelevant - he said "why not just do that" - and in 2010, it would be dumb. I think that (and I'd bet that most marketing types would agree that) no logos is better than your logo + a competitor's logo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember when the Saints and Tulane used the Superdome (maybe still do, not sure) and one end zone said "Saints" in thier colors and the other said "Tulane" in theirs?? Why not just do that?

Probably because it would be dumb.

Great informative take, d-bag. Appreicate the input.

He was right. It would be dumb. Deal with it.

Why is it dumb? Because we have two contrary opinions? NFL teams have plenty of money now, but if this was the 1960's or a stadium shared by two colleges or high schools, that would be a sound solution.

Think like a business owner. If you could avoid paying for the extra turf pieces and the time and expense of changing them out all the time, wouldn't you at least consider the dual endzone idea? So it's not as dumb as you guys make it out to be.

If you're going to call something dumb (or a good idea for that matter), at least substantiate your view. Just because someone likes or dislikes an idea doesn't make it good or bad. cool.gif

Why would one business want another rival business to have prime advertising space in front of their fans and on their broadcasts if there was any other way to do it? Does it make any sense for a Giants logo to be prominently displayed during a Jets vs Patriots game if there is any other way around it? Reebok certainly wouldn't allow for a Nike logo to be on the left sleeve of an NFL jersey.

What they did 50 years ago is irrelevant - he said "why not just do that" - and in 2010, it would be dumb. I think that (and I'd bet that most marketing types would agree that) no logos is better than your logo + a competitor's logo.

It's only feasible because Field Turf figured out a way to do interchangeable logos, and at a cost agreeable to the teams/league. If not for that, the 'dumb' solution might have been exactly what they did. So while I don't necessarily agree with your view, at least you supported it with some logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember when the Saints and Tulane used the Superdome (maybe still do, not sure) and one end zone said "Saints" in thier colors and the other said "Tulane" in theirs?? Why not just do that?

Probably because it would be dumb.

Great informative take, d-bag. Appreicate the input.

He was right. It would be dumb. Deal with it.

Why is it dumb? Because we have two contrary opinions? NFL teams have plenty of money now, but if this was the 1960's or a stadium shared by two colleges or high schools, that would be a sound solution.

Think like a business owner. If you could avoid paying for the extra turf pieces and the time and expense of changing them out all the time, wouldn't you at least consider the dual endzone idea? So it's not as dumb as you guys make it out to be.

If you're going to call something dumb (or a good idea for that matter), at least substantiate your view. Just because someone likes or dislikes an idea doesn't make it good or bad. cool.gif

Why would one business want another rival business to have prime advertising space in front of their fans and on their broadcasts if there was any other way to do it? Does it make any sense for a Giants logo to be prominently displayed during a Jets vs Patriots game if there is any other way around it? Reebok certainly wouldn't allow for a Nike logo to be on the left sleeve of an NFL jersey.

What they did 50 years ago is irrelevant - he said "why not just do that" - and in 2010, it would be dumb. I think that (and I'd bet that most marketing types would agree that) no logos is better than your logo + a competitor's logo.

It's only feasible because Field Turf figured out a way to do interchangeable logos, and at a cost agreeable to the teams/league. If not for that, the 'dumb' solution might have been exactly what they did. So while I don't necessarily agree with your view, at least you supported it with some logic.

They didn't use both logos when they had actual grass in the stadium a few years back either, so I'd be willing to be that 100 out of 100 times if the alternatives were slanted lines in the end zones or mixed end zones, they'd pick the slanted lines.

Instead, didn't they just use plain white paint that was sprayed over with green? I know late in the seasons they had to spray the corners of the end zones green to cover up the areas where there was no grass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember when the Saints and Tulane used the Superdome (maybe still do, not sure) and one end zone said "Saints" in thier colors and the other said "Tulane" in theirs?? Why not just do that?

Probably because it would be dumb.

Great informative take, d-bag. Appreicate the input.

He was right. It would be dumb. Deal with it.

Why is it dumb? Because we have two contrary opinions? NFL teams have plenty of money now, but if this was the 1960's or a stadium shared by two colleges or high schools, that would be a sound solution.

Think like a business owner. If you could avoid paying for the extra turf pieces and the time and expense of changing them out all the time, wouldn't you at least consider the dual endzone idea? So it's not as dumb as you guys make it out to be.

If you're going to call something dumb (or a good idea for that matter), at least substantiate your view. Just because someone likes or dislikes an idea doesn't make it good or bad. cool.gif

Why would one business want another rival business to have prime advertising space in front of their fans and on their broadcasts if there was any other way to do it? Does it make any sense for a Giants logo to be prominently displayed during a Jets vs Patriots game if there is any other way around it? Reebok certainly wouldn't allow for a Nike logo to be on the left sleeve of an NFL jersey.

What they did 50 years ago is irrelevant - he said "why not just do that" - and in 2010, it would be dumb. I think that (and I'd bet that most marketing types would agree that) no logos is better than your logo + a competitor's logo.

It's only feasible because Field Turf figured out a way to do interchangeable logos, and at a cost agreeable to the teams/league. If not for that, the 'dumb' solution might have been exactly what they did. So while I don't necessarily agree with your view, at least you supported it with some logic.

They didn't use both logos when they had actual grass in the stadium a few years back either, so I'd be willing to be that 100 out of 100 times if the alternatives were slanted lines in the end zones or mixed end zones, they'd pick the slanted lines.

Instead, didn't they just use plain white paint that was sprayed over with green? I know late in the seasons they had to spray the corners of the end zones green to cover up the areas where there was no grass.

Well, for one thing in the past it was Giants Stadium, not both teams' stadium, so that makes a difference. The marketing angle is overblown, it's not like some Big Fan-type guy's going to be sitting there in Giants gear from head to toe and suddenly he sees the Jets logo in the end zone and says, "Ya know what? Screw the Giants. J-E-T-S Jets Jets Jets!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose they could just put "The Meadowlands" in the endzones, but then that might be product placement for a Wrens album.

Aside: am I mispronouncing "Meadowlands" by saying it with a schwa in "-lənds," like you'd say "Iceland" or "Ireland"? Some broadcasters say "MeadowLANNNds" and it sounds really contrived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose they could just put "The Meadowlands" in the endzones, but then that might be product placement for a Wrens album.

Aside: am I mispronouncing "Meadowlands" by saying it with a schwa in "-lənds," like you'd say "Iceland" or "Ireland"? Some broadcasters say "MeadowLANNNds" and it sounds really contrived.

I've always said it Meadow LANds. If more than two syllables, I don't think I use "-lənds."

I'm from Downingtown. "tOUn." When I was in West PA, people would pronounce it DOWNINGtun. For some reason when I hear the schwa in a multi syllable city name I immediately think redneck, but that's just my own personal bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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