- 02:08 AM
- 11/24/24
kirkaracha, you're getting warm. True enough, the Mighty Ducks are named after a Disney product, but I'm talking about the next, inevitable step: replacing city names with corporation names. Like, right now they are the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim, right? What I'm talking about is the day when they will simply be the Disney Mighty Ducks. Or, the Mighty Ducks presented by Disney.
posted by qubit at 04:16 PM on February 03, 2006
You're right, nyfan. That's exactly what I meant. Either corporations will replace city names or team names, or any combination of both. It sounds cynical, but I really do think this can happen in the not-too-distant future. There has already been talk, here in Chicago, of selling the naming rights to city parks, playlots, plazas and other public spaces. Let's brace ourselves, shall we?
posted by qubit at 02:51 PM on February 03, 2006
I wouldn't place Wrigley Field in the category of corporate sponsorship/naming rights, because it is also the name of the man who owned the team. There was, and is, a personal connection between the city and the Wrigley name. The same used to be true for Comiskey Park. You could put a face on the name, whether you loved him or hated him. Both Wrigley and Comiskey are part of Chicago lore. Too bad the Sox sold out this connection for a couple extra mil. That said, naming rights are sadly here to stay it would seem. I dare say in our lifetimes, we will see corporate purchases of actual team names. Sound unbelievable? Maybe, but I personally don't see an end to it.
posted by qubit at 01:59 PM on February 03, 2006
Hey Fan, the '72 Dolphins are on the list.
posted by qubit at 04:49 PM on February 02, 2006
I think his name is Ben Christiansen.
posted by qubit at 03:55 PM on February 02, 2006
Being a Bears fan from Chicago, I certainly remember the '85 unit's great defense, but had completely forgotten that the offense led the league in scoring. I'll bet most football fans did.
posted by qubit at 03:47 PM on February 02, 2006
My response was to rcade, not wfrazerjr, by the way.
posted by qubit at 05:28 PM on November 22, 2005
I disagree. Truly great players get into the Hall. What I meant by exceptional are those whose play transcends that of other great players almost to the point of defining their respective eras. Ruth, Williams, Mays, etc. Guys like that. Ryne Sandberg is in the Hall, but I wouldn't say he was an exceptional talent in the way those others mentioned were. His play certainly can't be considered legendary. Rose, on the other hand, had the stuff true legends are made of.
posted by qubit at 05:26 PM on November 22, 2005
Kennesaw Mountain Landis, the commissioner of baseball when Shoeless Joe played, banned he and the other Black Sox from baseball for life. The ban included not just donning a uniform and playing the game, but also from being an official ambassador of the game in any context. If the Hall existed in 1917, one could presume the ban would have extended to membership in the shrine as well. I can only speculate on this point, but, given Landis' stern reputation, it would seem a safe bet (no pun intended). To respond to rcade, yes, I suppose letting Rose into the Hall would end this debate, but would certainly start new ones such as this: Which players can and which players cannot violate the game's integrity and still be enshrined for the ages? Grum@work is right. If Dave Kingman or Tony Perez gambled on the game, there wouldn't have been a Hall debate in the first place.
posted by qubit at 03:51 PM on November 22, 2005
He should remain banned. It's not like betting at the track is what got him into hot water. It's not even so much that he bet on baseball in general. As we all know, he bet on games he managed; games he helped control the outcomes of. This crosses a major line. By admitting Rose into the Hall, the message sent is clear: if--and only if-- you are an exceptional talent, you can aid in throwing games for financial gain and still get a pass into the Hall. Does anyone really want to see that Pandora's Box opened up? Where will it end?
posted by qubit at 01:19 PM on November 22, 2005
I didn't know this. Thanks, mbd1 and goddam for clearing this up.
posted by qubit at 10:16 AM on November 03, 2005
Some of the comments above are confusing. I always thought the Gold Glove was a statistics-based award only, not a popularity contest like All-Star voting. Didn't each of the winners have the highest fielding percentage based on the minimum allowable innings played? Young? Old? Reputation? Somebody please clarify.
posted by qubit at 09:40 AM on November 03, 2005
I don't understand why Studs (and many others) continue to propogate the myth that folks who show up at Cubs games know nothing of the game, couldn't care less about the outcome, and are only interested in being seen at a hot spot. It's a pretty broad brush he paints with. I'm a Cub fan, have been to many games, and, while the people he maligns can be found at any given game, there remains many more who love the game and the team. Taking buses in from the suburbs? Can't the same be said of any professional team's fan base these days? Do the White Sox disproportianately draw more inner city fans than suburban fans? I don't think so. However, I do agree with Studs that the Cubs/Sox rivalry isn't what it once was when the South Side, like many American cities, had a strong manufacturing base. But those days are history, much like the outdated drivel pouring forth from one Mr Terkel.
posted by qubit at 10:17 AM on October 28, 2005
No matter how beautifully designed, in my opinion, the new and proposed ballparks are tainted by those ridiculous names.
posted by qubit at 11:04 AM on September 16, 2005
The Decline of Civilization - Bambino #3? ... Ease up
The matter of race probably won't be put to bed until after Bonds passes Ruth's mark and goes after Aaron's. It'd be pretty darn hard to make the case for racism then, for obvious reasons. And frankly, I hope Bonds passes Ruth soon so all this talk of racism can end. It's tiresome.