Title Town!

Celtsno1

Yeah, we know this is a baseball blog.  But forgive us this diversion. Last night (as most everyone knows by now) the Boston Celtics – a team we used to adore in diehard fashion – won the NBA championship, thus giving Beantown half of the major North American sports league titles currently held (2/3 if you don’t count the NHL, defensible, or 2/5 if you include the MSL, indefensible!).  We’ve had an on/off relationship with the Celtics since Larry, Kevin, and the Chief left town, what with the tragedy of Reggie Lewis, the incompetence of Rick Pitino and ML Carr, and the bad luck of missing out on Tim Duncan.  But we did watch this year following Danny Ainge’s risky acquisitions, with the hopes that the "big three" weren’t on the downside.  We got nervous once the playoffs came, fearful that the stutter-steps against the Hawks in the first round of the playoffs might be a sign of fatigue or a fatal dose of nerves.  But last night really redeemed all of those other fans who stuck it out year-after-year and never looked away, never gave up on the hopes that the Green could return to Auerbachian glory.  To the Celtics and to those diehards we say congratulations, your elation is truly deserved.

67 comments… add one
  • It’s a hell of a time to be a Boston sports fan, it’s almost a joke.

    LocklandSF June 18, 2008, 9:17 am
  • David Tyree, in retrospect, spared countless New Yorkers from horrible self-inflicted physical pain. Just imagine if his helmet hadn’t been in perfect position! I can only imagine my adopted city trying to deal with Boston holding all three major sports titles at once. I am sure we will get countless “eh, we don’t concern ourselves with Boston, it is you guys that worry about us”, but we know the truth, right!?

    SF June 18, 2008, 9:21 am
  • Hey, why knock the MLS when it supports your argument–New England is top of the table without their best striker and fixing to make it 3 of 5 for the year, at long last.
    Come on, you Revs!

    rcolonna (sf) June 18, 2008, 9:22 am
  • ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ…
    Whats the NBA?

    Sam-YF June 18, 2008, 9:51 am
  • Here we go again…now there will be thousands of “Celtic’s Fans” that mysteriously appear. Kinda like all the Patriots fans that came out of the woodwork in 2002. I don’t live in New England of course, so I’m taking about outside of Boston.
    A related question…does it bother you true Sox fans that the bandwagon is overflowing now with people that didn’t go through the wars with you guys or do you not care???

    krueg June 18, 2008, 9:59 am
  • That was just an embarassing showing by the Lakers. The Celtics were playing well enough together now that I think a Laker victory would have been impossible, but I literally can’t recall a single time last night when the Lakers out-hussled the Celtics. They looked flat-footed, bored, and as if they were waiting for the inevitable. Lots of Kobe-bashing today, but I think primary blame goes on his surrounding cast for not being physical at all.
    As for Boston being on top of the sports world, this too shall pass.

    IronHorse (yf) June 18, 2008, 10:02 am
  • SF: i just actually read your post…
    “…a team we used to adore in diehard fashion…”
    So when they were winning titles in the 80’s you liked them but gave up when they were bad…hmmm. A lot of that going on up there aside from the Sox. As a HUGE hockey fan, Bruins fans started drying up in the middle 90’s too…so now that they made the playoffs, we should see a resurgence in Bruins fandom too??? Can’t mess with you chowdaheads Sox fandom but with the rest of your teams…shady, very shady.
    disclaimer: again, outside of New England fans I’m talking about…

    krueg June 18, 2008, 10:03 am
  • As for Boston being on top of the sports world, this too shall pass.
    Without a doubt, such is the reason we should soak this in now.
    So when they were winning titles in the 80’s you liked them but gave up when they were bad…hmmm.
    My point in this post was to pinpoint both the Celtics and the true diehards, while also being honest about my on/off allegiance to the team. I rooted for them when Bird arrived (I was 11 at the time) and stuck with them until about 2000 (a couple of years after they missed out on Duncan and Pitino drove the team into the ground), so I was there for 20 years and didn’t stop paying close attention until long after the Celtics hit hard times. I am under no delusion – I am no longer a diehard, but I have followed the team even through the bad times. I am no bandwagoner, though I am also no diehard. It’s not all-or-nothing, krueg.
    As for the Bruins, I can’t see myself ever rooting for them like I used to, at least not until the Jacobs’ sell the team to an Ownership group that gives a crap. I lost my love for that team when I grew up enough to recognize why the team has accomplished what it has in the past decade+. I don’t imagine that if the Bruins win it all I will be putting up anything like this post. And I loved that team, watched every single broadcast game, regular and post-season, from the time I was 10 or 11 until the time I was 22, and probably went to about 75 in person over that time.

    SF June 18, 2008, 10:14 am
  • Just to reiterate, krueg, I suggest you read the last couple lines of the post.

    SF June 18, 2008, 10:17 am
  • SF: My post wasn’t an attack on you…
    “…so I’m taking about outside of Boston.”
    and
    “disclaimer: again, outside of New England fans I’m talking about…”
    …I think I made that pretty clear?
    Different strokes for different folks SF. You’re right, it’s not all or nothing I suppose but there certainly is a name for middle-of-the-roaders…fairweather fans. I have never given up on any of my teams, never will. I’m a Buffalo Sabres fan for heaven’s sake! What ownership group/franchise has caused more pain and heartache to their fans than the Sabres??? (OK, maybe the Bills)
    It just irks me when people (not you old buddy) have the nerve to act as if they were there the whole time when they are fairweather fans. Granted, most people have lives, kids, etc. I don’t. I watch every single Yankee, Sabres and Dolphins game every season. That’s what I like, that’s what I do.
    This isn’t an attack on you, just the mindset I think of some chowdaheads and wannabe chowdaheads, you know, the dudes down here yelling at me in the bar with a southern accent about the Sox and how bad the Yankees suck??? You guys love your Sox, no doubt about it, but no one cared about the Pats, Celtics or Bruins in the lean years so it’s kind of a joke now to celebrate a championship of a team that you had nothing to do with…

    krueg June 18, 2008, 10:39 am
  • Pittsburgh was once Title town too.
    It’s amazing to me is how quickly NBA teams can go from nothing to something and back to nothing again. It happens in all sports, but really NBA fortunes get dramatically turned with one singular player. This year it wasn’t just Garnett but also Gasol and Manu (injury) too.
    By contrast – look at the Mets. They get the best pitcher (for similarly peanuts) and he doesn’t change anything.
    Funny to me that you guys and I were on the same side last night. I can’t stand Kobe – never have really and especially not with the forced comparisons to Jordan. Glad that’s finally over – I hope. Plus, Garnett, Allen, and Pierce are very easy to cheer for.
    And since (according to SF) it only takes two championships to declare yourself “Title Town” does that mean when the Yanks win it this year, they take back that crown too?

    A YF June 18, 2008, 10:53 am
  • Last night I was at my first, last and only game at Yankee Stadium (the old one anyway), so I only caught the last few minutes of the Finals game, plus the celebration. So, the good part then.
    I can’t call myself a Celtics fan (if I’m feeling audacious enough to say I’m an NBA fan at all, then I root for the Suns), but I was very happy to see the Celtics win for many reasons. I think remembering the 24-point comeback to win the one they needed in LA will continue to make me smile for years to come.

    FenSheaParkway June 18, 2008, 10:57 am
  • Ah, got it, krueg, didn’t read it quite closely enough. But why did you write this, then?
    So when they were winning titles in the 80’s you liked them but gave up when they were bad…hmmm.
    Not a big deal, I understand where you are coming from.
    My take on “carpetbagging bandwagoners” is that everyone has a right to root for whomever they want whenever they want, but I personally find them annoying. The worst are those fans who look at Yankees and Sox hats as fashion accessories – you see these around playoff time (and parade time) in obnoxious fashion. Give me a loud, obnoxious diehard Yankee fan with silly opinions any day over newly minted investment bankers who decide that, all-of-a-sudden come October 3rd, they need to own a Yankees hat but don’t know what number to put down on the scorecard for the shortstop position.

    SF June 18, 2008, 10:59 am
  • In SF’s support, I am a huge Knicks fan, but I haven’t really been following the last 4 or so years because they’ve beeen awful. Celtics were pretty much the same until this year..

    Lar June 18, 2008, 11:00 am
  • And since (according to SF) it only takes two championships to declare yourself “Title Town” does that mean when the Yanks win it this year, they take back that crown too?
    Sure. Two titles is a pretty amazing thing.

    SF June 18, 2008, 11:00 am
  • Also to prod, it’s easy to win a title when you steal Garnett and Allen.. =P

    Lar June 18, 2008, 11:01 am
  • Just think – *three* titles would have been that much more impressive! :)

    A YF June 18, 2008, 11:02 am
  • You guys love your Sox, no doubt about it, but no one cared about the Pats, Celtics or Bruins in the lean years so it’s kind of a joke now to celebrate a championship of a team that you had nothing to do with…
    But I think you are describing a couple of different types of fans, krueg. Those that stand in the bar having not really every locked onto a team and yell are not really fans. I can’t stand that type, regardless of whether they root for Boston, Pittsburgh, New York, etc. But fans, like me (and yeah, this is self-serving to an extent) who were diehards but through life changes, location changes, priorities, ups/downs of teams in a league, lose that diehardism, we aren’t “fairweather”. I always rooted for and followed the Celtics, but admittedly without the passion and attention I did in the deeper past. Like I say in the main body of the post, I am no longer anything like a diehard, that’s who I was acknowledging in the post. But that doesn’t make me into a fairweather fan either, or a dilettante. I think this is far too black-white a judgment.
    I am certain that many other fans who have families get this – I moved to New York. I got married, I have two kids. I have limited abilities (and desires, more importantly) to devote myself to the ins and outs of all Boston teams. I chose the Sox and Pats over all these years, the Sox because baseball is the sport with my deepest history, the Pats because I grew up going to cold games at Shaefer Stadium and also because they only play once a week! If I immersed myself in the Celtics and Bruins like I did with the Sox and Pats, I’d still be a single, childless man, and I’d be a hell of a lot worse off because of it.

    SF June 18, 2008, 11:08 am
  • SF: I was messing with you about the Bruins…but got it twisted in my head with the Celts! (Bruins didn’t win any championships in the 80’s but were damn good!) Just going back to the couple times we talked hockey…

    krueg June 18, 2008, 11:08 am
  • Just think – *three* titles would have been that much more impressive! :)
    Yeah, but you wouldn’t have acknowledged that third title even if it had happened, right?

    SF June 18, 2008, 11:14 am
  • SF: I get it totally…most people grow up and have families. I didn’t. The wife and I have no desire to give up the rest of our lives raising kids so we travel and watch sports! Sometimes we even travel TO watch sports!
    I guess I haven’t made it clear in my posts that I’m talking about people outside of New England??? If you are a New Englander and a fairweather fan, it’s your right. That’s your hometown team. Just don’t run your mouth to me about how badly my team sucks when you can’t even name 5 guys on your suppossed team. I’m already getting it at work from a couple dudes from TENESSEE about Boston being titletown…TENNESSEE!!! These inbred hicks couldn’t find Boston on a map! They even do the New England accent…I want to hurt them. THESE are the people I am talking about…
    In closing, not you SF. Not actually New Englanders that live in New England. It’s the bandwagoners and fairweather ex-patriots (clever pun?) that I am refering to…

    krueg June 18, 2008, 11:15 am
  • I guess I haven’t made it clear in my posts that I’m talking about people outside of New England???
    I get it! I think this is an interesting discussion, which is why I am keeping at it.

    SF June 18, 2008, 11:18 am
  • I just didn’t want you to think I was going off on you…I am on the forefront of the whole bandwagon/fairweather fan thing. People in Buffalo love to throw those monikers around. If you don’t embrace the pain and misery of being a Buffalo fan…you are fairweather! “How dare you do something else during a Sabres/Bills game, you are a fairweather fan!!!” And now that the Sabres are getting better, the Sabres fans that were there all along are jumping on their fellow fans based on tenure of service. “You’ve only been a fan since 1999? You are a bandwagoner!”
    Buffalonians are sick people. Was Beantown that way pre-2004???

    krueg June 18, 2008, 11:22 am
  • A lot of broad brushstrokes here. Obviously, as SF said and kreug agreed, there is not just “diehard” and “fairweather,” but there’s also not just “passive native rooting.”
    For example, I’m a former New Englander living in Texas. I root for all Boston sports, but really only follow the Red Sox. So I watch and root for the Patriots in the Super Bowl and cheer when they win, am disappointed when they lose, then immediately turn my attention to spring training with barely a second thought. The loss to the Giants sucked, but it didn’t crush me. Not even close. 2003 ALCS, that crushed me. I watched and rooted for the Celtics last night, despite only having an allegiance that was born with the following logic as a child: “I like all the other Boston teams. I guess I like the Celtics, too.” I’ll never be very passionate about the Celts, B’s or Pats, but I’ll still root for them in their respective championship series/games.
    But let’s not forget something. We all have our roots in fairweather fandom. I grew up loving the Red Sox. Why? My dad loved the Red Sox. Why? Because of Yaz and the 1967 season. Most Red Sox fans trace their roots to that season, when Boston fans suddenly rediscovered their love for the Sox. To an extent, most Red Sox fans were jumping back on a bandwagon they’d long since abandoned.
    Many from-birth Yankee fans likely trace their allegiance back to the days when Joe DiMaggio was the star for immigrant Italians across the country. Why Joe, and not Dom? Well, Joe was better — and Joe won World Series titles.
    Success breeds fandom. If the Sox and Yankees’ records were switched with the Royals and Pirates — both franchises with long, successful histories — I suspect this blog would not be nearly as successful. Might never have even gotten started.
    So I don’t have much against fair-weather fans. You’ve got to start somewhere. Many of them are indeed annoying, going to games and rooting for teams simply so they can be seen doing so, then ditching the club when times get tough again. But many of those fair-weather fans — from New England, Tennessee, California or Japan — will never give up their love for that team. Are they lesser fans for the reason they climbed aboard the bandwagon? I don’t think so.

    Paul SF June 18, 2008, 11:35 am
  • Was Beantown that way pre-2004???
    I haven’t lived in Boston for a long time. My memory of Sox fans is that there was universal devotion and misery; there wasn’t much of a bandwagon to jump on or off. They just weren’t really that good with any consistency. Of course there are always bandwagon-jumpers, but the last few years has seen such an influx of people claiming to be lifelong fans it breeds cynicism about the truthfulness of their claims.
    My guess is that every city has a contingent of bandwagon jumpers whenever there is great success, and the high visibility teams with longer histories (Sox, Yanks, etc.) get more of them. Blessing and a curse, right?

    SF June 18, 2008, 11:36 am
  • Well said, Paul.

    SF June 18, 2008, 11:38 am
  • Isaih basically turned this Knick fan off basketball. We’ve still got the core problem (Dolan), but I’m nonetheless hopeful that the Walsh/Dantoni tandem can put an entertaining product on the floor in the relatively near future.
    In the 80s, for a NYer and a Knick fan (aside: Bernard King!), it was easy to loathe both the Celts and the Lakers. But these teams are different. Thanks to Isaih, there hasn’t been much rivalry with either, in recent years. (Also, the Celts have sucked for ages.) How can you not be a fan of KG and Ray Allen. Shit, Allen starred in a Spike Lee joint. He’s practically one of us! Doc WAS one of us. These Celts play great d, share the ball, think about the game intelligently…..What’s not to like? They don’t even play in “The Garden.” Those green unis are awful, but what can you do.
    On the other side of the ball, I’ve also found it hard to hate the Lakers. Kobe’s personal life aside, he’s just amazing to watch, and that Laker team, even if they played zero defensive, gave us some truly spectacular offensive basketball. Carp about Zen Master Phil all day, but he sure gets teams to move the ball around beautifully. Of that, at least, Red Holtzman would have been proud.

    YF June 18, 2008, 11:44 am
  • Let me also say I really appreciate the candor and genuine warmth of SF’s post and subsequent comments. No getting around reality. This is a great day to be a Bostons sports fans. We NYers had our day back in January. (Or was it February? Are they really holding the SB in Feb these days???) And I’m sure we’ll have many more. Anyway that’s why we all come here.

    YF June 18, 2008, 11:47 am
  • I find the fairweather witch-hunt amusing. It reminds me of the equally quixotic search for ‘sell-outs’ in any art/music scene. A fan is going to seem obsessive to some, fairweather to others.
    I think fandom is sort of like citizenship: once you become a fan of a team, you’re always a fan of that team until you relinquish it, either by becoming a fan of another team at the expense of the first one, or by renouncing the team or even the whole sport. But drifting away from the team because of other activities, or even just naturally waxing/waning interest, doesn’t preclude fandom, in my opinion.

    FenSheaParkway June 18, 2008, 11:48 am
  • “Give me a loud, obnoxious diehard Yankee fan with silly opinions any day”.
    Done! I’m right here!!!!

    IronHorse (yf) June 18, 2008, 11:54 am
  • I used to despise fairweather bandwaggon jumpers. That’s what the Mets were all about, as far as I was concerned. I was a little kid for the Yankee dynasties in the 70s, and then stayed true through the awful 80s years until finally things turned around with the late 90s dynasty. I like to think that all that suffering made the winning so much sweeter, and for me, personally, it probably did.
    But in recent years a part of me has grown to admire those who can simply turn on their enthusiasm, and take all the joy from winning without suffering through the lean years. I think when you’re a kid, you’re taught that sports are about “life lessons,” and with that a moral obligation to stick through the hard times, to understand that their part of a continual process of life/history. But the older I get, the more I’ve come to look at sport as more rightly a form of entertainment. I think MLB, in it’s business side, is always pushing us this way, even as they claim hold of our allegiances. But if sport is merely entertainment, when it becomes less than entertaining, I think there’s a lot less onus to stay tuned. If sports teams want to be paid like entertainers, they better bring the goods. They’re basically asking us to be fair-weather fans.

    YF June 18, 2008, 12:06 pm
  • Walking around Boston this morning, I just want to know why the city’s teams don’t have a uniform color. It’s all over the place! You got that awful green template, Red sox with blue hats (traditionally), and silver and blue thrown somewhere in there.
    NYC is blue (and white or orange).
    PGH is black and gold.
    STL was red and white.
    What the hell, Beantown? Can all the teams get together and agree on a common template? Green would be ugly but at least it would be unique and true to the town’s heritage. With all the history, especially of sports too, it’s a damn shame really…

    A YF June 18, 2008, 12:15 pm
  • I think a counter to YF’s excellent (and somewhat pragmatic, some would say cynical!) comment is that you are always learning life lessons. So the idea that you gain some sort of maturity as a fan and then only need (or want) the team when the goings are good is and that that is admirable is, in the end, a thin admiration – I don’t share that “admiration”, even as I do understand it on a personal level. In marriage, you are asked to stay through thick and thin, and diehard fandom is, in a minor and much less significant way, like a marriage. It’s a very loose metaphor, but I still maintain that admiration for those fans who are 100% devoted even as the ship starts sinking. It’s a kind of genuine romanticism, I think, even though that romanticism may be tinged with a hint of delusion.

    SF June 18, 2008, 12:24 pm
  • And of course, I forgot the Bruins and their PGH impression! Really, Boston, is it really about profit through different merchandise!? Actually, that probably explains it :(
    Yeah, I think Beantown should do green all over. Who can make that happen!?

    A YF June 18, 2008, 12:26 pm
  • A YF: Boston’s teams have maintained their color traditions for ages, which is admirable. They actually picked up the red in the 19th century, ripped off from the original Cincinnatti Red Stockings, one baseball’s first great dynasties. (When the coach and players decamped to Boston, they took their knickers with them.)
    For the record, NY has just as wide a disparity. The city colors are blue and orange (Mets, Knicks, historically the isles). But the Yanks don’t hew to that, nor, really, do the Rangers or the Gints. The Jets are green, which is out of nowhere.

    YF June 18, 2008, 12:28 pm
  • A:
    You have left off the Jets.
    And the Giants have red in their logo.
    And the Mets’ blue and the Yankees’ blue are not the same color, despite sharing “blue” in their descriptive.
    The Knicks and Mets share colors, and the Giants and Yankees share a couple of colors, but otherwise there’s not really a consistency here in NYC. Realize that the Mets’ logo is taken from Brooklyn Dodger blue and New York Giant orange, too, an amalgam of two dissimilar color schemes.

    SF June 18, 2008, 12:29 pm
  • And of course, I forgot the Bruins and their PGH impression!
    Uh, what? The Bruins were an original six team and have worn black, brown, and gold since the twenties. The Pirates actually wore blue and black with red in the 20s.

    SF June 18, 2008, 12:33 pm
  • I’m just sad I didn’t see green everywhere this morning. Thought it would be cool. No dice. Not one green hat anywhere to be seen. I saw a brown Yankee hat though on the T.
    The Jets don’t really count. They’re like a minor league club trying to get attention. NYC I think of as a “blue” town probably because the Yankee hat is so iconic as representation. Sadly, the B seems like a ripoff with the primary color. Now, green or red hats!
    Thanks for the history though. What’s the deal in STL and PGH though? I was always impressed that they seemed united in their fandom.

    A YF June 18, 2008, 12:38 pm
  • But St. Louis (now) has the Rams. And the Blues have been around for decades. There’s no unity in St. Louis, on a lot of levels!
    And jeez, another swipe at Boston, denigrating the city because it wasn’t awash enough in green for your tastes. I imagine if it had been covered in Celtics garb we would have heard about all the johnny-come-latelies from you.

    SF June 18, 2008, 12:42 pm
  • The Bruins have brown in their uni? Really? Obviously, I know not a lick of history in this area. I just have general impressions of the last few decades.
    The Gints going to a red uni was very glaring. – all in search of the mighty dollar. It just seemed wrong.

    A YF June 18, 2008, 12:42 pm
  • “And jeez, another swipe at Boston, denigrating the city because it wasn’t awash enough in green for your tastes.”
    You really need to take a chill pill sometimes.
    STL had the two Cardinals for a while. That was really cool!

    A YF June 18, 2008, 12:44 pm
  • A:
    You should check out Paul Lukas’ Uniwatch blog, if you haven’t already.
    http://www.uniwatchblog.com/

    SF June 18, 2008, 12:44 pm
  • SF: If it’s a marriage, it’s an abusive one! Are you aware of the divorce figures in this country!
    Maybe I should hire Raul Felder. We could take the Dolans to the cleaners! (And then the Steinbrenners, the Wilpons…..)

    YF June 18, 2008, 12:48 pm
  • Unfortunately, YF, the prenup is only as good as the small rights-sucking type on the back of your ticket stubs.

    SF June 18, 2008, 12:49 pm
  • Thanks for the link.
    Along the lines of what I’m thinking, I mean I already hate the color red (because of them). I can’t imagine what it would be like if the Sox had Red hats everywhere. And the Celtic green is so iconic…

    A YF June 18, 2008, 12:51 pm
  • Interestingly, the Penguins changed their colors in 1980 to unify the city palette, and the Bruins protested to the NHL since they staked a claim to the scheme. Their protests were rejected.

    SF June 18, 2008, 12:53 pm
  • Really? Do you have a link? That seems like a cool story.
    Here’s the thing too, going back to the hats. B on red or green would mean something bigger than the teams (like the NY on blue). Going to back to the “Title Town”, the gold P on black seems to do that for me. It’s represents the city. The more time I spend here, the more I wish the history was obvious in some iconic brand.

    A YF June 18, 2008, 1:01 pm
  • See, these red on green things exist. They are horrid. At some point style needs to trump unity. Sometimes you just need to look marvelous. And

    these

    don’t.

    SF June 18, 2008, 1:06 pm
  • Oh, yeah, those are horrid. I was thinking the same stylized B, but white on a green background seems like it would be a good fit. Or even a blue or white B on a red background.

    A YF June 18, 2008, 1:10 pm
  • “I saw a brown Yankee hat though on the T.”
    Prominent public figures ride the T?

    LocklandSF June 18, 2008, 1:11 pm
  • Bloomberg rides the Subway. Besides what kind of schmuck pays for a taxi?

    A YF June 18, 2008, 1:16 pm
  • Now I know when the Pats were rolling and the sox had won their title Boston fans were talking about winning all the major sports titles, (by the way how can you discount hockey? the boston bruins have much more bostonian history than the pats)but common-Boston won their first 2008 title last night, so until then they were 0-2…obviously no super bowl and no cup. and really new york had just as good a chance at taking home multiple titles (super bowl obviously, the rangers had a shot at the cup and the yanks are always contenders). so congrats to bostons first (and sorry, but hopefully only) title of 2008. as for defending titles, well just have to wait and see.

    Smitty YF June 18, 2008, 1:27 pm
  • ha, smitty, splitting hairs. Boston currently holds two of the four championships. Calendar years are pretty irrelevant, since at least three of the four sports span year changes during their seasons.

    SF June 18, 2008, 1:46 pm
  • Long before one gets into the question of rationalizing the Patriots’ colors and logo with those of other Boston teams, someone should address the much larger identity issue of that team. They are named after a freaking region. How ridiculous is that.
    You can have them. I’ll be rooting for my Mid-Atlantic Yankees, Rust-belt Steelers, and Northern Hemisphere Hornets.

    IronHorse (yf) June 18, 2008, 2:13 pm
  • OK, IH, you really want to get into this, considering where NYC’s football teams play?

    SF June 18, 2008, 2:24 pm
  • a- the st. louis browns kinda blew up the nice uniform uniforms theory.

    sf rod June 18, 2008, 2:55 pm
  • For that matter, IH, the Yankees are named after a group of people most closely identified with…. New England!!

    Paul SF June 18, 2008, 3:06 pm
  • or Connecticut, if you want to ride that Twain, har har.

    SF June 18, 2008, 3:08 pm
  • So, just to be clear… If I moved to California 20+ years ago after following the Celtics my entire youth and never rooting for another NBA team ever, am I allowed to enjoy this moment? How many fans of *any* pro sports organization follow their teams as close through the lean years as they do when the teams are good? That applies to any market anywhere…
    FWIW, I’m sure there were no NY Giant bandwagons fans… Just nothing but all die hard Tom Coughlin supporters.

    Anonymous June 18, 2008, 3:17 pm
  • Wow, SF, that was terrible.

    Paul SF June 18, 2008, 3:18 pm
  • Where does that put the Golden State Warriors?
    Personally, I wish that naming technique was more common:
    – Show Me State Royals
    – Sunshine State Rays
    – Old Line State Orioles
    See? Magic.

    FenSheaParkway June 18, 2008, 3:51 pm
  • I think it’s tough to have a “template” or whatever in New York because we have all these sports with two teams – I mean, they probably purposely make them distinctive for obvious reasons..

    Lar June 18, 2008, 4:44 pm
  • “OK, IH, you really want to get into this, considering where NYC’s football teams play?”
    It just so happens we have lots of teams who want to affiliate with us and so use our name even if we don’t have space for them in the city. It’s the burden of being in what is pretty universally deemed to be the greatest city on earth. If they play well enough over time, maybe we’ll make room for them in New York proper. At least they are not hedging their bets against us by affiliating themselves with 6 surrounding states.
    As for: “For that matter, IH, the Yankees are named after a group of people most closely identified with…. New England!!”
    By that rationale, we all play for the Ngorongoro Crater All-Stars (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngorongoro_Conservation_Area), or the Garden of Eden Fallen Angels, depending on your degree of religiosity.
    If you think anything I am adding to this thread at this point is meant with any seriousness than either I have failed miserably or you may need to return to the Ngorongoro.
    Or you play for the 3rd Planet from the Sun Football Patriots.

    IronHorse (yf) June 18, 2008, 4:58 pm
  • My brain just exploded.

    Paul SF June 18, 2008, 7:47 pm
  • When I was 12 and the Ngrongorno Crater All-Stars picked Duadne “Green Alien” Smith with the ninth pick in the draft I swore off them. I don’t think I can ever truly return to being a “craterman”, as diehard NCAS fans are called, but if they ever sniff a Universal Championship I might start watching again.

    SF June 18, 2008, 9:25 pm
  • The best part about this whole thread is knowing that my Giants kept Boston from truly being “Title Town.” I admit, I was rooting for Kobe and the Lakers simply because they were playing Boston…But in the end it’s still the NBA, not MLB or the NFL…that’s one step up from the team that won the Stanley Cup. (I honestly don’t know who that is)
    18-1

    John - YF June 19, 2008, 3:12 am
  • “craterman”
    I like it. Nice one SF…

    IronHorse (yf) June 19, 2008, 10:23 am

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.