2012 MLB & Logo Changes

[HighCheese]

WOW...for some reason that looks way too minor league for me. I guess I need to wrap my head around the whole "They don't play in Oakland anymore" idea. Must have been what the Brooklyn fans felt about the Dodgers when they first saw 'Los Angeles' on their unis.

I'm on Bring Back the Vet's side on this one. I hope the de-emphasize the city and stick with the nickname on the unis like the Dodgers did for so long. I like 'Los Angeles' on a jersey partly because the name is so well known and recognizable. I just don't think 'San Jose' has earned the right to have their name on an MLB jersey yet...but thats just me.

i totally agree with you

"Athletics" on all jerseys would work for me

[phutmasterflex]

I think the main reason why San Jose doesn't look as good on the jersey as Oakland does is just for the fact that Oakland is a well known major city. Having a jersey with a big city name just looks so much better. Psychologically, it just looks and seems more professional with a team jersey with a big city versus one that isn't known (even though San Jose is bigger than Oakland).

[FiddySicks]

Ehh, nope. Don't buy that argument. San Jose is the biggest city in all of the bay area (third largest in the whole state) with nearly a million people and it's a huge center for computer technology. The reason I think it doesn't look good is because while the photoshopped picture is well done, the script isn't rendered very well.

Oh, and San Jose was also the states first capital.

[phutmasterflex]

Ehh, nope. Don't buy that argument. San Jose is the biggest city in all of the bay area (third largest in the whole state) with nearly a million people and it's a huge center for computer technology. The reason I think it doesn't look good is because while the photoshopped picture is well done, the script isn't rendered very well.

Ask someone outside of California if they know that about San Jose. I am under the impression that if you ask someone from outside of California to locate San Jose, they probably can't. San Jose may be big in terms of population, but it's still not popular compared Oakland.

Correct me if I am wrong in this assumption.

[FiddySicks]

As a Californian, specifically a bay area native, I can't say what others outside of the state feel. But it's known as the capital of Silicon Valley which is a HUGE computer technology center in this country. It may not have the brand name recognition that San Francisco or Oakland does, but that's because it's actually in some senses still relatively new. It's growing every year and is a MUCH more thriving location than Oakland. Within the next decade, probably sooner, San Jose is going to break a million people (that'll actually happen any time now, really) and teams like the Kings have looked into moving there. It may not have the recognition the other two major bay area cities have, but it soon will.

Frankly, I'm baffled the Niners and Raiders didn't look into San Jose more.

[phutmasterflex]

As a Californian, specifically a bay area native, I can't say what others outside of the state feel. But it's known as the capital of Silicon Valley which is a HUGE computer technology center in this country. It may not have the brand name recognition that San Francisco or Oakland does, but that's because it's actually in some senses still relatively new. It's growing every year and is a MUCH more thriving location than Oakland. Within the next decade, probably sooner, San Jose is going to break a million people (that'll actually happen any time now, really) and teams like the Kings have looked into moving there. It may not have the recognition the other two major bay area cities have, but it soon will.

Frankly, I'm baffled the Niners and Raiders didn't look into San Jose more.

And in maybe in a decade, my perception of San Jose in the big picture will change.

And at least for the 49ers, Santa Clara/South Bay is their future home.

[Gothamite]

Exactly. And Santa Clara is essentially a San Jose suburb.

[Eye]

I don't live in California, but I thought Oakland wad a much bigger market than San Jose. Moving from Oakland to San Jose will probably be considered (by people who aren't entirely familiar with the size of the two cities, which is probably a lot) a move to a smaller market.

[BBTV]

Honestly, if Oakland didn't just always have teams, would most people born in the 80s or later have ever heard of it? If teams hadn't moved there back in the day, would anyone be mentioning Oakland as a landing spot for a struggling franchise? I think that goes for other "major league" cities as well, which is an intangible that I think can almost justify the lengths to which cities will go to acquire or hold on to their teams.

As for whoever said that San Jose hasn't "earned" the right, well "earned" is a stupid word to use there. I posted about this a while back, but it comes down to an east coast "urban" bias, and by that I mean that the country has changed and what most of us think of as the characteristics of a "major league" city just doesn't apply anymore. I haven't been there, but have family there that I've spoken to, and by all accounts, San Jose is what most of us who are used to the east coast would consider a suburb (I won't go as far as to say "office park with a mayor", but still.) But so what? The population is there, the money is there, the infrastructure is there (remember, most of the "traditional" major league cities got teams before car transportation was feasible for everyone, and those cities did not (and some still do not) have modern infrastructure in place.)

As a major piece of the SF Bay Area, there's not really a good reason that I've heard that SJ shouldn't be home to a major team or teams. They're still drawing from the same overall market, but are now better positioned to draw from a younger and more affluent part of it. Granted there's a lot I don't know, but it seems to me like Oakland is dying economically, and isn't really a true rival to SF anymore (not just from a sports perspective). If you're going to have teams "represent" sub sections of markets, maybe in 2012, SJ is a better rival to pit against SF.

That being said, I'd still go with just an A on all jerseys and caps.

[GriffinM6]

Instead of going with Athletics on all jerseys, how bout useing the A's script. Make the home unis have that script, then the roads with Athletics on them, keep the green alt the same, and keep the yellow alt from this year.

[FiddySicks]

Honestly, if Oakland didn't just always have teams, would most people born in the 80s or later have ever heard of it? If teams hadn't moved there back in the day, would anyone be mentioning Oakland as a landing spot for a struggling franchise? I think that goes for other "major league" cities as well, which is an intangible that I think can almost justify the lengths to which cities will go to acquire or hold on to their teams.

As for whoever said that San Jose hasn't "earned" the right, well "earned" is a stupid word to use there. I posted about this a while back, but it comes down to an east coast "urban" bias, and by that I mean that the country has changed and what most of us think of as the characteristics of a "major league" city just doesn't apply anymore. I haven't been there, but have family there that I've spoken to, and by all accounts, San Jose is what most of us who are used to the east coast would consider a suburb (I won't go as far as to say "office park with a mayor", but still.) But so what? The population is there, the money is there, the infrastructure is there (remember, most of the "traditional" major league cities got teams before car transportation was feasible for everyone, and those cities did not (and some still do not) have modern infrastructure in place.)

As a major piece of the SF Bay Area, there's not really a good reason that I've heard that SJ shouldn't be home to a major team or teams. They're still drawing from the same overall market, but are now better positioned to draw from a younger and more affluent part of it. Granted there's a lot I don't know, but it seems to me like Oakland is dying economically, and isn't really a true rival to SF anymore (not just from a sports perspective). If you're going to have teams "represent" sub sections of markets, maybe in 2012, SJ is a better rival to pit against SF.

That being said, I'd still go with just an A on all jerseys and caps.

You're pretty much correct in every remark you made except for the Part about San Jose being a suburb. But I can still see why you feel that way and you do make a good point. What has to be taken into account is how vastly different the setup of east coast and west coast cities are. In the east, as you know, there is very little room and a TON of people. Out west, everything seems like a suburb because there is so much land and relatively few people. Even Los Angeles, which is the second largest city in the country in terms of population, is vastly spread out in comparison to the east. Cities like San Francisco, which is high density and little land, are pretty rare out this way. San Jose has the infrastructure to where it is enough of an economic hub to be considered a major city. Like I said, it's fairly new and the west is a whole different bear than the east, so a lot of people in other parts of the country probably don't see that yet. But they will soon enough.

[BBTV]

Honestly, if Oakland didn't just always have teams, would most people born in the 80s or later have ever heard of it? If teams hadn't moved there back in the day, would anyone be mentioning Oakland as a landing spot for a struggling franchise? I think that goes for other "major league" cities as well, which is an intangible that I think can almost justify the lengths to which cities will go to acquire or hold on to their teams.

As for whoever said that San Jose hasn't "earned" the right, well "earned" is a stupid word to use there. I posted about this a while back, but it comes down to an east coast "urban" bias, and by that I mean that the country has changed and what most of us think of as the characteristics of a "major league" city just doesn't apply anymore. I haven't been there, but have family there that I've spoken to, and by all accounts, San Jose is what most of us who are used to the east coast would consider a suburb (I won't go as far as to say "office park with a mayor", but still.) But so what? The population is there, the money is there, the infrastructure is there (remember, most of the "traditional" major league cities got teams before car transportation was feasible for everyone, and those cities did not (and some still do not) have modern infrastructure in place.)

As a major piece of the SF Bay Area, there's not really a good reason that I've heard that SJ shouldn't be home to a major team or teams. They're still drawing from the same overall market, but are now better positioned to draw from a younger and more affluent part of it. Granted there's a lot I don't know, but it seems to me like Oakland is dying economically, and isn't really a true rival to SF anymore (not just from a sports perspective). If you're going to have teams "represent" sub sections of markets, maybe in 2012, SJ is a better rival to pit against SF.

That being said, I'd still go with just an A on all jerseys and caps.

You're pretty much correct in every remark you made except for the Part about San Jose being a suburb. But I can still see why you feel that way and you do make a good point. What has to be taken into account is how vastly different the setup of east coast and west coast cities are. In the east, as you know, there is very little room and a TON of people. Out west, everything seems like a suburb because there is so much land and relatively few people. Even Los Angeles, which is the second largest city in the country in terms of population, is vastly spread out in comparison to the east. Cities like San Francisco, which is high density and little land, are pretty rare out this way. San Jose has the infrastructure to where it is enough of an economic hub to be considered a major city. Like I said, it's fairly new and the west is a whole different bear than the east, so a lot of people in other parts of the country probably don't see that yet. But they will soon enough.

That's exactly what I was saying in my second paragraph. Not that it's a suburb by the dictionary definition, but that it seems suburban by the East Coast definition of a city. Maybe it's more accurate to say that the life style is suburban, even if it's an independent cultural and economic center of influence, or part of a combined one with SF. The West is just different than the East, and for many of us, it's tough to grasp. But it's 2012, not 1930, so we have to grasp it.

[Gothamite]

If we are to generalize, I'd say that people on the East Coast are much more likely to understand the concept of "suburb" as it relates to the West Coast than people in the Midwest or South.

In the Midwest, larger cities tend to be surrounded by more space. That results in a clear geographical and cultural distinction between, say, Chicago and Milwaukee or Cleveland and Columbus. But on the coasts, population sprawl tends to blur those lines. Cities like Newark or San Jose (that would have their own independent identities were they in Missouri or Ohio) become suburbs, effective or otherwise, to the larger or more prominent cities nearby.

[bosrs1]

I think the main reason why San Jose doesn't look as good on the jersey as Oakland does is just for the fact that Oakland is a well known major city. Having a jersey with a big city name just looks so much better. Psychologically, it just looks and seems more professional with a team jersey with a big city versus one that isn't known (even though San Jose is bigger than Oakland).

I think that's one reason that they WOULD put San Jose on a jersey. Oakland is only thought of as a big city in large part these days because they put their names on the teams and the uniforms of two major sports teams. Fact is Oakland hasn't been a major city in over 30 years back before the military and a ton of industry bailed on them (it's down to 8th largest and falling). Oakland is actually the only city over 100,000 people in California that is shrinking. San Jose is almost 3x bigger than Oakland both population and land area and is the largest city in NorCal. And SJ has more political, financial, and social capital these days too thanks to being a city people are coming to rather than fleeing. It's a major city by any measure and people might finally make that leap to mentally recognizing it as such after it appeared on a jersey (since it still doesn't thinks to the Sharks not having their name anywhere on their jersey).

[Gothamite]

Well, that and hockey being the largest of the niche sports in the US.

I will mourn the loss of Oakland, but only because I liked the Oakland/San Francisco rivalry. The two cities had such distinct, and in some cases opposite, cultures, that it made sense. But other than "old city/new city", I don't get the same kind of feel from a San Francisco/San Jose rivalry.

Admittedly, I haven't spent much time in the Bay Area lately, so I'll agree that my perception may be woefully out of date. But I used to spend a lot of time in SF, and my sense was that most people in "The City" would never view a team named Oakland as well and truly "theirs". So the basketball team had to adopt a regional name, while the Bay Area's hockey and soccer franchises could do just fine with their city-specific names.

[bosrs1]

Well, that and hockey being the largest of the niche sports in the US.

I will mourn the loss of Oakland, but only because I liked the Oakland/San Francisco rivalry. The two cities had such distinct, and in some cases opposite, cultures, that it made sense. But other than "old city/new city", I don't get the same kind of feel from a San Francisco/San Jose rivalry.

Admittedly, I haven't spent much time in the Bay Area lately, so I'll agree that my perception may be woefully out of date. But I used to spend a lot of time in SF, and my sense was that most people in "The City" would never view a team named Oakland as well and truly "theirs". So the basketball team had to adopt a regional name, while the Bay Area's hockey and soccer franchises could do just fine with their city-specific names.

Hasn't changed much. People in SF still view SJ will a fairly high level of disdain. It's a view akin to a "there's no there, there." The term "cow town" is still spouted by many San Franciscans in relation to San Jose. San Jose for it's part has developed a healthy dislike of "the City" for their dismissive view of their now bigger brother to the south and is viewed as an out of touch ultra liberal wasteland stuck in the past when they were the region's biggest city...

That brings up a big distinction between the two regions, politics. SF is nationally known as one of if not THE liberal bastion of the United States. San Jose is decidedly more conservative politically due in large part to it being so business centric and friendly.

Point is however there's no love lost between the regions. You can see that in how resistant a lot of Niners fans are to their team moving the 40 miles south. They view it as their city losing out to their former suburb.

[PJBenterprises]

I'll second what Eye said - I live on the east coast (Rochester, NY) and I barely know anything about San Jose. My (uneducated) guess before reading this thread would've been that it's a smaller-market city, like Buffalo or Green Bay. Little did I know! I don't know why it's not a well-known city, or given its due as being a "big" city, but I doubt I'm the only one in the East that would've guessed it a minor market.

[poser]

The Bay Area is made up of a bunch of smaller cites plus San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose. The cities tend to blend together so that you can cross the street and be in a different city. I live 3 minutes from the Apple campus and live in San Jose while the Apple campus is in Cupertino and they seem the selves as their own city. I hear about places in Texas or wherever and they will have a city that is something like 20 miles away from a big city and be considered a suburb of the bigger city. But in the Bay Area you can travel 20 miles and hit 4-5 cities depending on your direction of travel. It's a similar to the situation in San Diego.. the actual city of San Diego is not that big but is surrounded by smaller cities. I lived in a small city called El Cajon for a bit and when locals asked I said El Cajon but anyone else I said San Diego. Here if I lived in Saratoga or Campbell I would gives those cities regardless of who is asking.

[zpqmaowl]

By population:

1. New York

2. Los Angeles

3. Chicago

4. Houston

5. Philadelphia

6. Phoenix

7. San Antonio

8. San Diego

9. Dallas

10. San José

11. Jacksonville

12. Indianapolis

13. San Francisco

?

44. Miami

45. Cleveland

46. Tulsa

47. Oakland

48. Minneapolis

[BBTV]

By population:

1. New York

2. Los Angeles

3. Chicago

4. Houston

5. Philadelphia

6. Phoenix

7. San Antonio

8. San Diego

9. Dallas

10. San José

11. Jacksonville

12. Indianapolis

13. San Francisco

?

44. Miami

45. Cleveland

46. Tulsa

47. Oakland

48. Minneapolis

That's not that important though, since SF, OAK, and SJ are all part of the same Combined Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is what really matters. They (and more importantly their adertisers) are selling their product to the entire region, including Freemont, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, etc. In fact, that's all the more reason why Oakland (and eventually San Jose) shouldn't really wear a specific local on their uniforms and just market more regionally. I don't think that most would argue though that San Francisco is still the "center of influence" for the region though. In fact, the metro statistical area is called the SF Bay Area.