IceCap Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 The CFL expanding into the States? Why hasn't that been tried yet? They tried it before... and didn't do so well.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFL_USAThat was my point. Hence the PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illwauk Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 My bad, meant to say the Bucks.As good as I think that would be for Milwaukee in the long run, it's not gonna happen while one of the longest tenured U.S. Senators owns the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnWis97 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 My bad, meant to say the Bucks.As good as I think that would be for Milwaukee in the long run, it's not gonna happen while one of the longest tenured U.S. Senators owns the team.Why would contracting the Bucks be good for Milwaukee? To avoid paying for an arena?If so, then the same could be argued for the T-Wolves. Other than the arena issue, I don't know that it would be good to contract the Wolves, but it makes total sense. I don't want it to happen, but I cannot argue if it does. Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse." BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD POTD (Shared) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakonius26 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 The truly sad part is, while contraction would probably be better for three of the four major sports leagues, their respective commissioners and player unions are so against the idea, that they'd rather continue to water down the product and destroy their respective leagues that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCall Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 The truly sad part is, while contraction would probably be better for three of the four major sports leagues, their respective commissioners and player unions are so against the idea, that they'd rather continue to water down the product and destroy their respective leagues that way.I wouldn't say they're "for" it, but both Selig and Stern have mentioned it as possibilities, so I'd say the commissioners aren't against it. Players are because it takes away jobs. https://dribbble.com/MakaioCall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakonius26 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 The truly sad part is, while contraction would probably be better for three of the four major sports leagues, their respective commissioners and player unions are so against the idea, that they'd rather continue to water down the product and destroy their respective leagues that way.I wouldn't say they're "for" it, but both Selig and Stern have mentioned it as possibilities, so I'd say the commissioners aren't against it. Players are because it takes away jobs.Exactly. Just because they have mentioned it doesn't mean they want to deal with the public and union backlash of having to say... "you know, this expansion thing... I think we might have overdone it a bit." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 My bad, meant to say the Bucks.As good as I think that would be for Milwaukee in the long run, it's not gonna happen while one of the longest tenured U.S. Senators owns the team.Why would contracting the Bucks be good for Milwaukee? To avoid paying for an arena?Yeah, there's really no sense in raising taxes to build a brand-new arena. Perhaps Kohl should've built his Kohl Center in Milwaukee instead of Madison if he really believed the Bradley Center was in desperate need of replacement. There's the state of Wisconsin basketball in a nutshell; even the guy who owns the NBA team seems to prefer the college game at heart. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Well, that and building a college arena provides certain tax breaks that a home for his own pro team wouldn't. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockstar Matt Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Los Angeles Clippers move to Anaheim, CAand become...The Anaheim Clippers of Lights Out World....No, really. The Anaheim Clippers. Make it happen Sterling. Cowboys - Lakers - LAFC - USMNT - LA Rams - LA Kings - NUFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still MIGHTY Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Los Angeles Clippers move to Anaheim, CAand become...The Anaheim Clippers of Lights Out World....No, really. The Anaheim Clippers. Make it happen Sterling.Personally, I thought if the Clippers ever actually did move to Anaheim, they would be better off going with the Orange County Clippers.Sounds enough like Orange County Choppers (different OC, though), making it easy enough to market. I like the OCC abbreviation. I enjoy alliteration in team names. And really since Anaheim doesn't have a port, Clippers makes more sense to be put with the entire county and it's coastline.Idk. I'd always liked that idea if a move were to ever happen. | ANA | LAA | LAR | LAL | ASU | CSULB | USMNT | USWNT | LAFC | OCSC | MAN UTD | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakonius26 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 No offense to Orange County or anything, but the Orange County Clippers sounds very minor league, much like the Golden State Warriors. At least with the New England Patriots, it can be said that they're a professional sports franchise for an entire region, and counties aren't regions. However, if they do indeed move to Anaheim, a switch to Black and Orange (minus the gold, to not be a basketball rip-off of the Ducks) would be unique (I believe only the Buffalo Braves used the combo), and very good from an identity standpoint since it's usually hard to up a Black and Orange uniform. As for the name... not sure, Avengers came to mind, but I don't know about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Los Angeles Clippers move to Anaheim, CAand become...The Anaheim Clippers of Lights Out World....No, really. The Anaheim Clippers. Make it happen Sterling. PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrh31584 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 The truly sad part is, while contraction would probably be better for three of the four major sports leagues, their respective commissioners and player unions are so against the idea, that they'd rather continue to water down the product and destroy their respective leagues that way.I wouldn't say they're "for" it, but both Selig and Stern have mentioned it as possibilities, so I'd say the commissioners aren't against it. Players are because it takes away jobs.Couldn't they simply expand rosters in the event of contraction, at least for a few years? Cut 2 NBA teams and add one roster spot for the remaining 28, you have basically the same number of jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 The truly sad part is, while contraction would probably be better for three of the four major sports leagues, their respective commissioners and player unions are so against the idea, that they'd rather continue to water down the product and destroy their respective leagues that way.I wouldn't say they're "for" it, but both Selig and Stern have mentioned it as possibilities, so I'd say the commissioners aren't against it. Players are because it takes away jobs.Couldn't they simply expand rosters in the event of contraction, at least for a few years? Cut 2 NBA teams and add one roster spot for the remaining 28, you have basically the same number of jobs.Problem is you don't have as many starting jobs to offer, even if you expand rosters. That is what both the union and indeed the league are concerned about. It's why you'll never see contraction in MLB and it's not likely in the others sports either. Contraction isn't a real threat so much as it's a bargaining tool to use in stadium/arena negotiations (hence the teams threatened with contraction aren't necessarily the worst teams on or off field, they're just the teams that the league would like new ballparks for) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 The truly sad part is, while contraction would probably be better for three of the four major sports leagues, their respective commissioners and player unions are so against the idea, that they'd rather continue to water down the product and destroy their respective leagues that way.I wouldn't say they're "for" it, but both Selig and Stern have mentioned it as possibilities, so I'd say the commissioners aren't against it. Players are because it takes away jobs.Couldn't they simply expand rosters in the event of contraction, at least for a few years? Cut 2 NBA teams and add one roster spot for the remaining 28, you have basically the same number of jobs.Job loss isn't the issue so much as the reduced salary pool. The cap isn't going to go up to compensate for the boost in roster size. On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said: You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now. On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said: Today, we are all otaku. "The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010 The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakonius26 Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 The truly sad part is, while contraction would probably be better for three of the four major sports leagues, their respective commissioners and player unions are so against the idea, that they'd rather continue to water down the product and destroy their respective leagues that way.I wouldn't say they're "for" it, but both Selig and Stern have mentioned it as possibilities, so I'd say the commissioners aren't against it. Players are because it takes away jobs.Couldn't they simply expand rosters in the event of contraction, at least for a few years? Cut 2 NBA teams and add one roster spot for the remaining 28, you have basically the same number of jobs.Job loss isn't the issue so much as the reduced salary pool. The cap isn't going to go up to compensate for the boost in roster size.That's true, but if David Stern and the NBA owners have their way during the upcoming negotiations, then there's already the chance that there's going to be a reduction in player salary across the board, so I would imagine the possibility of contraction is still very much alive for the NBA. It doesn't mean it will happen, but one can't be so sure that the association won't resort to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 The truly sad part is, while contraction would probably be better for three of the four major sports leagues, their respective commissioners and player unions are so against the idea, that they'd rather continue to water down the product and destroy their respective leagues that way.I wouldn't say they're "for" it, but both Selig and Stern have mentioned it as possibilities, so I'd say the commissioners aren't against it. Players are because it takes away jobs.Couldn't they simply expand rosters in the event of contraction, at least for a few years? Cut 2 NBA teams and add one roster spot for the remaining 28, you have basically the same number of jobs.That is just looking at the "top of the pyramid".There is still an impact for the non-players involved in a franchise of a team is contracted. All of those current and future Sport Management just lost out on jobs in Ticket Operations or Marketing since two franchises are gone. The support staffs at all levels are also without jobs. Those part-time jobs within the facility on gameday are also lost. I do not know how many jobs would be lost locally, but it is likely to be between 50-150, but we are somewhat aware of their revenues and how that is either dispersed in other areas locally or just lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakonius26 Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 The truly sad part is, while contraction would probably be better for three of the four major sports leagues, their respective commissioners and player unions are so against the idea, that they'd rather continue to water down the product and destroy their respective leagues that way.I wouldn't say they're "for" it, but both Selig and Stern have mentioned it as possibilities, so I'd say the commissioners aren't against it. Players are because it takes away jobs.Couldn't they simply expand rosters in the event of contraction, at least for a few years? Cut 2 NBA teams and add one roster spot for the remaining 28, you have basically the same number of jobs.That is just looking at the "top of the pyramid".There is still an impact for the non-players involved in a franchise of a team is contracted. All of those current and future Sport Management just lost out on jobs in Ticket Operations or Marketing since two franchises are gone. The support staffs at all levels are also without jobs. Those part-time jobs within the facility on gameday are also lost. I do not know how many jobs would be lost locally, but it is likely to be between 50-150, but we are somewhat aware of their revenues and how that is either dispersed in other areas locally or just lost.Here would be my question to you dfwabel. If a team has been losing money for quite some time, and becomes a drain not just on the owner, but the league through revenue sharing (depending on how exactly it's shared), wouldn't a better option be to put the franchise out of business.I mean, let's say 50-150 jobs are lost and the local economy is obviously effected in some way (stadium/arena vendors, or sports bar, etc.), how could that be any different than let's say a company who chooses to let go of 50-150 employees, because the position is no longer needed. I would imagine, a business would want to do that to cut costs and run more efficiently in the long-term. Certainly, contraction can't be too bad of an option for the NBA or other leagues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lights Out Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 Los Angeles Clippers move to Anaheim, CAand become...The Anaheim Clippers of Lights Out World....No, really. The Anaheim Clippers. Make it happen Sterling.Jesus Christ on a cracker. How many times does it have to be explained to you people that the Clippers aren't moving to Anaheim? It makes no financial sense for them, therefore it will not occur. Simple as that. Give it a rest.Oh, and the "(city) (team name) of (other city)" joke got old a loooooong time ago. POTD: 2/4/12 3/4/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.