Unpopular Opinions (sports edition)

[kenarmy]

- Franchises should always be named after a city, not a state.

How do you feel about teams named after multiple states or a region?  (Looking at you, Panthers & Patriots)

I dislike these the most. Carolina is understandable, but New England is just- no.

Also, I am ok with our continent I just think that international events are fun.

[Roadgeekteen]

On that note.

- Franchises should always be named after a city, not a state.
- We don't need a Bears, Bengals, and Browns..
- Drew Brees> that brady guy.
- Duplicate colors should be gotten rid of. There's too many damn colors for them to choose navy blue  .
- We should normalize watching tennis. I know a ton of people that only watch when Serena plays.
- Carmelo Anthony deserves more praise.
- MMA is boring.
- Major League players going down to the minors is funny.
- We should normalize playing sports after college unprofessionally!
- International games should happen more often in any league.
- TEAMS SHOULD PAY FOR THEIR OWN STADIUM
- NBA has too many games.
- The NFL draft needs to be eliminated.
- There should be "4-pointers" in NBA
- Bowling> Golf.
- Washington Football Team isn't that bad of a name. Better than the "Bengals"
- Calling the "Cowboys" the "cowgirls" is unnecessarily disrespectful.

NBA 4 pointers? Do you want to kill paint play and make every shot just chucked up?

[jp the roadgeek]

- Franchises should always be named after a city, not a state.

How do you feel about teams named after multiple states or a region?  (Looking at you, Panthers & Patriots)

I dislike these the most. Carolina is understandable, but New England is just- no.

Also, I am ok with our continent I just think that international events are fun.

The ONE thing that drives me crazy is when a team uses the state name when there is more than one team in that state.  I'm fine with Arizona, Colorado, and Minnesota; but the Florida Panthers when you have Tampa Bay and the Golden State Warriors when you have 2 other LA teams and Sacramento drives me nuts.  The only exception I tend to allow is Texas Rangers, because Dallas Rangers just doesn't sound right.  New England Patriots is fine because there are no other teams in New England, plus Foxboro is far enough away from Boston (and closer to Providence) to not have to use Boston (at least they didn't use "Bay State" as they proposed for the first couple weeks while the old stadium in Foxboro was being built).

[hbelkins]

- Calling the "Cowboys" the "cowgirls" is unnecessarily disrespectful.

Yeah, that one is going to fall on deaf ears. The fact that it's disrespectful is only half of it - the term has really just been watered down to the point of being used exclusively by people who really don't follow the NFL and think they're making a funny, original joke. A lot of people will continue to make that joke until the end of time.

I don't use that term to insult the team. I use it to insult their bandwagon fans who live in another team's geographical market but still root for them. Yes, there are other teams in all sports for which that happens, but Dallas fans are the most obnoxious, followed closely by Duke/North Carolina/Tennessee fans who live in Kentucky and have ties to none of those schools.

[kphoger]

The only exception I tend to allow is Texas Rangers, because Dallas Rangers just doesn't sound right.

I'm surprised you wouldn't rather they change both words.

[I-55]

On that note.

- Franchises should always be named after a city, not a state.
- We don't need a Bears, Bengals, and Browns..
- Drew Brees> that brady guy.
- Duplicate colors should be gotten rid of. There's too many damn colors for them to choose navy blue  .
- We should normalize watching tennis. I know a ton of people that only watch when Serena plays.
- Carmelo Anthony deserves more praise.
- MMA is boring.
- Major League players going down to the minors is funny.
- We should normalize playing sports after college unprofessionally!
- International games should happen more often in any league.
- TEAMS SHOULD PAY FOR THEIR OWN STADIUM
- NBA has too many games.
- The NFL draft needs to be eliminated.
- There should be "4-pointers" in NBA
- Bowling> Golf.
- Washington Football Team isn't that bad of a name. Better than the "Bengals"
- Calling the "Cowboys" the "cowgirls" is unnecessarily disrespectful.

NBA 4 pointers? Do you want to kill paint play and make every shot just chucked up?

At that point the three point contest would become the four point contests and it would be called an exhibition game

[Big John]

Being fouled while making a 3-point shot and making the free throw can be considered a 4-point play.

[thspfc]

- Calling the "Cowboys" the "cowgirls" is unnecessarily disrespectful.

Yeah, that one is going to fall on deaf ears. The fact that it's disrespectful is only half of it - the term has really just been watered down to the point of being used exclusively by people who really don't follow the NFL and think they're making a funny, original joke. A lot of people will continue to make that joke until the end of time.

I don't use that term to insult the team. I use it to insult their bandwagon fans who live in another team's geographical market but still root for them. Yes, there are other teams in all sports for which that happens, but Dallas fans are the most obnoxious, followed closely by Duke/North Carolina/Tennessee fans who live in Kentucky and have ties to none of those schools.

For what it's worth, the same could be said of Kentucky basketball fans who live outside of Kentucky . . .

[hotdogPi]

I don't use that term to insult the team. I use it to insult their bandwagon fans who live in another team's geographical market but still root for them. Yes, there are other teams in all sports for which that happens, but Dallas fans are the most obnoxious, followed closely by Duke/North Carolina/Tennessee fans who live in Kentucky and have ties to none of those schools.

For what it's worth, the same could be said of Kentucky basketball fans who live outside of Kentucky . . .

Parts of Ohio and Indiana (the states, not the universities) are much closer to the University of Kentucky than areas like Paducah or even Owensboro.

[thspfc]

I don't use that term to insult the team. I use it to insult their bandwagon fans who live in another team's geographical market but still root for them. Yes, there are other teams in all sports for which that happens, but Dallas fans are the most obnoxious, followed closely by Duke/North Carolina/Tennessee fans who live in Kentucky and have ties to none of those schools.

For what it's worth, the same could be said of Kentucky basketball fans who live outside of Kentucky . . .

Parts of Ohio and Indiana (the states, not the universities) are much closer to the University of Kentucky than areas like Paducah or even Owensboro.

Which is in part why geographic definitions of who is allowed to be a fan of a certain team and who is not are stupid. Sorry, but bandwagon fans are a part of sports. Think about the NFL. What teams have the least fans, and are, in turn, the least valuable franchises? They're the same teams who are bad year after year after year. The Jaguars, Bengals, Browns, Cardinals, Lions, Chargers, and others. There are some teams, such as the Giants and Jets, who have been bad for the majority of the last decade, but retain their value because of their huge markets. But the Chiefs, Packers, Seahawks, and Steelers have a lot of fans because they've been pretty good for the last decade or so. The Buccaneers are rapidly gaining fans while the Patriots are losing fans. If bandwagoning didn't exist, the competitive structure of the NFL, and all sports leagues around the world, would be destroyed. If everyone remained loyal to the team that they grew up closest to, there would be little incentive for team owners to do anything, because they wouldn't be gaining any extra fans or selling any extra merchandise no matter how good the team gets. Are bandwagon fans annoying? Sure. But in a way, they are the lifeblood of the national NFL following.

[NWI_Irish96]

I don't use that term to insult the team. I use it to insult their bandwagon fans who live in another team's geographical market but still root for them. Yes, there are other teams in all sports for which that happens, but Dallas fans are the most obnoxious, followed closely by Duke/North Carolina/Tennessee fans who live in Kentucky and have ties to none of those schools.

For what it's worth, the same could be said of Kentucky basketball fans who live outside of Kentucky . . .

Parts of Ohio and Indiana (the states, not the universities) are much closer to the University of Kentucky than areas like Paducah or even Owensboro.

I lived in Jeffersonville/New Albany, IN for 10 years and in that area, fans were split about 40/40/20 for Indiana/Kentucky/Louisville

[JayhawkCO]

Which is in part why geographic definitions of who is allowed to be a fan of a certain team and who is not are stupid. Sorry, but bandwagon fans are a part of sports. Think about the NFL. What teams have the least fans, and are, in turn, the least valuable franchises? They're the same teams who are bad year after year after year. The Jaguars, Bengals, Browns, Cardinals, Lions, Chargers, and others. There are some teams, such as the Giants and Jets, who have been bad for the majority of the last decade, but retain their value because of their huge markets. But the Chiefs, Packers, Seahawks, and Steelers have a lot of fans because they've been pretty good for the last decade or so. The Buccaneers are rapidly gaining fans while the Patriots are losing fans. If bandwagoning didn't exist, the competitive structure of the NFL, and all sports leagues around the world, would be destroyed. If everyone remained loyal to the team that they grew up closest to, there would be little incentive for team owners to do anything, because they wouldn't be gaining any extra fans or selling any extra merchandise no matter how good the team gets. Are bandwagon fans annoying? Sure. But in a way, they are the lifeblood of the national NFL following.

I agree with you for the most part, but I would never include the Chiefs, Packers, or Steelers in a bandwagon categorization.  Obviously more fans jump in when they're good, but those teams, good or bad, have huge followings no matter what.  Chiefs fans were still Chiefs fans when they had Matt Cassel.  Packers fans were still Packers fans when they had Don Majkowski.  Steelers fans were still Steelers fans when they had Tommy Maddox.

Chris

[Alps]

All of you are probably going to be annoyed by me because I'm a Cowboys fan living in Wisconsin. Well, I'm here to make my case: literally nobody cares. Get over it.

Honestly, I don't see a problem with that either. It's only annoying when people are just doing it to bandwagon or change teams often.

It's only annoying if you're a Cowboys fan, a Yankees fan and a Lakers fan (and yes, I know one such person).

Red Wings?

[texaskdog]

On that note.

- Franchises should always be named after a city, not a state.
- MMA is boring.
- TEAMS SHOULD PAY FOR THEIR OWN STADIUM
- The NFL draft needs to be eliminated.
- There should be "4-pointers" in NBA
- Bowling> Golf.
- Washington Football Team isn't that bad of a name. Better than the "Bengals"
- Calling the "Cowboys" the "cowgirls" is unnecessarily disrespectful.

No sports team should ever be named "FC".
If a team leaves a city they should always have a new name.
MMA fighters fight twice a year.  How manly are you when you only have to fight twice a year? Why not monthly?
Cleveland is an expansion team, there is no gap.
Agree with all these!

How about if a team doesn't win a championship in 32 years they are free to move anywhere...without the name.  All the stink on the Lions, Cardinals, Bills, Vikings, Falcons, Bills, Jets, Dolphins, Bears.

[texaskdog]

I don't use that term to insult the team. I use it to insult their bandwagon fans who live in another team's geographical market but still root for them. Yes, there are other teams in all sports for which that happens, but Dallas fans are the most obnoxious, followed closely by Duke/North Carolina/Tennessee fans who live in Kentucky and have ties to none of those schools.

For what it’s worth, the same could be said of Kentucky basketball fans who live outside of Kentucky . . .

Parts of Ohio and Indiana (the states, not the universities) are much closer to the University of Kentucky than areas like Paducah or even Owensboro.

Which is in part why geographic definitions of who is allowed to be a fan of a certain team and who is not are stupid. Sorry, but bandwagon fans are a part of sports. Think about the NFL. What teams have the least fans, and are, in turn, the least valuable franchises? They’re the same teams who are bad year after year after year. The Jaguars, Bengals, Browns, Cardinals, Lions, Chargers, and others. There are some teams, such as the Giants and Jets, who have been bad for the majority of the last decade, but retain their value because of their huge markets. But the Chiefs, Packers, Seahawks, and Steelers have a lot of fans because they’ve been pretty good for the last decade or so. The Buccaneers are rapidly gaining fans while the Patriots are losing fans. If bandwagoning didn’t exist, the competitive structure of the NFL, and all sports leagues around the world, would be destroyed. If everyone remained loyal to the team that they grew up closest to, there would be little incentive for team owners to do anything, because they wouldn’t be gaining any extra fans or selling any extra merchandise no matter how good the team gets. Are bandwagon fans annoying? Sure. But in a way, they are the lifeblood of the national NFL following.

Agreed.  Why is there such value in following an awful team?  If the Cowboys stink why am I obligated to watch.  When my favorite TV show has a bad season I stop watching.  I haven't watched WWE since 2009.  If it improves I will watch again.  Do I have to watch the bad years to be a real "fan"?  Is it bad to like a team that is doing well?  Very snobby to have that attitude about "bandwagoning fans" that some people have.

[JayhawkCO]

No sports team should ever be named "FC".

Europe's sports naming traditions far precede our own.  I'll defer to them as far as "what's allowed".

If a team leaves a city they should always have a new name.

Agreed.

MMA fighters fight twice a year.  How manly are you when you only have to fight twice a year? Why not monthly?

CTE.

Cleveland is an expansion team, there is no gap.

Eh, the fanbase didn't move.  Art Modell did. I think they should keep their traditions.

How about if a team doesn't win a championship in 32 years they are free to move anywhere...without the name.  All the stink on the Lions, Cardinals, Bills, Vikings, Falcons, Bills, Jets, Dolphins, Bears.

I mean, any team is allowed to.  Whether or not they should is a different story.  It's not easy to move to a new metro area and earn as much money on merchandising with no tradition.

Chris

[kphoger]

I don't understand the hate for out-of-region fans.  If a team is consistently good, then why wouldn't someone grow to like that team?  It seems only natural.  Now, being an out-of-region fan of a bad team, though...  That makes no sense.

If a team leaves a city they should always have a new name.

Hmm......  I have mixed feelings about that.  In a way, it's kind of like requiring a family to change their name if they move to a new city, or requiring a company to change its name if it relocates to a new headquarters.  After all, it's still the same team.  But I also dislike team names that don't make any sense for their new location.  The Tennessee Oilers would have been a bad name, but the Athletics works just as well in Oakland as in Kansas City or Philadelphia.

On the other hand, I think the Browns should have chosen a different name for their 1999 reboot.  They're not the same team, so they shouldn't get the same name.

[hotdogPi]

Now, being an out-of-region fan of a bad team, though...  That makes no sense.

When the Cubs got to the playoffs in 2015 and 2016, almost everyone wanted them to win.

[Flint1979]

Now, being an out-of-region fan of a bad team, though...  That makes no sense.

When the Cubs got to the playoffs in 2015 and 2016, almost everyone wanted them to win.

Not me

[Flint1979]

I like Michigan football but don't hate the Buckeyes like the rest of the fans. My dad is a full blown diehard Michigan fan and hates ohio state. Every time I'm in Ohio county clinching he asks me why I'm there lol.

[SP Cook]

No sports team should ever be named "FC".

Europe's sports naming traditions far precede our own.  I'll defer to them as far as "what's allowed".

Key word is "Europe".  "FC" has a meaning.  In Europe.  As do terms like "United", "City", "Inter", "Dynamo", and "Sporting".  In Europe.  Further many are tied up in ethno-religious, political, or social divisions.  In Europe. 

The words are applied, in North America, as an affectation.  To places with totally different histories.   

[formulanone]

No sports team should ever be named "FC".

Europe's sports naming traditions far precede our own.  I'll defer to them as far as "what's allowed".

Key word is "Europe".  "FC" has a meaning.  In Europe.  As do terms like "United", "City", "Inter", "Dynamo", and "Sporting".  In Europe.  Further many are tied up in ethno-religious, political, or social divisions.  In Europe. 

The words are applied, in North America, as an affectation.  To places with totally different histories.   

I think it's also time to realize that every possible "predatory animal" and "dynamic masculine role" has been exhausted for U.S. sports teams. Some of them do sound silly; if there's four teams out of 28 in a league with "F. C.", some of the meaning gets lost.

Can't wait to see the Parkersburg Antivivisectionists and the Peoria Caterpillars battle it out for the big match tonight on ESPN/7 ("The Virgule!").

[kphoger]

Now, being an out-of-region fan of a bad team, though...  That makes no sense.

When the Cubs got to the playoffs in 2015 and 2016, almost everyone wanted them to win.

I don't equate rooting for an underdog team for a few games to being a fan.

[jp the roadgeek]

I don't understand the hate for out-of-region fans.  If a team is consistently good, then why wouldn't someone grow to like that team?  It seems only natural.  Now, being an out-of-region fan of a bad team, though...  That makes no sense.

If a team leaves a city they should always have a new name.

Hmm......  I have mixed feelings about that.  In a way, it's kind of like requiring a family to change their name if they move to a new city, or requiring a company to change its name if it relocates to a new headquarters.  After all, it's still the same team.  But I also dislike team names that don't make any sense for their new location.  The Tennessee Oilers would have been a bad name, but the Athletics works just as well in Oakland as in Kansas City or Philadelphia.

On the other hand, I think the Browns should have chosen a different name for their 1999 reboot.  They're not the same team, so they shouldn't get the same name.

Technically, the 1999 reboot is the same team.  Part of the agreement with Modell moving his franchise to Baltimore is that it would be considered a new franchise, all the team records would stay in Cleveland, and that there would be a new franchise in place by 1999.  Essentially, the franchise was considered dormant for 1996-98.  Another situation was the Charlotte Hornets/New Orleans Pelicans.  The original Hornets franchise moved to New Orleans along with the name, and a couple years later, a new franchise, the Bobcats, started.  As part of an agreement, the records of the New Orleans franchise from the Charlotte days, along with the nickname, would be given to the Bobcats, and the New Orleans franchise would be renamed the Pelicans and keep all records subsequent to the move to New Orleans.
I'm surprised the Sharks do not have the records of the California Golden Seals.  After the Seals moved to Cleveland and became the Barons, they folded and many of their assets and players were absorbed by the then Minnesota North Stars.  Part of the agreement was that if a new team returned to the Bay Area, that team would be allowed take players from the North Stars. So when the Sharks became a franchise, the NHL held a dispersal draft from which they chose several North Stars players, in addition to the traditional expansion draft. However, the Seals/Barons records were not part of that.

[kphoger]

Technically, the 1999 reboot is the same team.  Part of the agreement with Modell moving his franchise to Baltimore is that it would be considered a new franchise, all the team records would stay in Cleveland, and that there would be a new franchise in place by 1999.  Essentially, the franchise was considered dormant for 1996-98.

Yeah, well.  Did it have the same owner, coaches, players?