The unofficial online home for fans of the Kent State University Golden Flashes. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(12-14-2020 08:45 PM)goldenflash13 Wrote:  What animal is Slider?

Used Handkerchief

(12-14-2020 09:38 AM)Muskrat Wrote:  If I learned anything in my 75 years it's that something that's a big deal one day people get used to quickly and it's no big deal the next.

Almost everyone I know refers to “the Jake” and not “Progressive Field” so I’m sure many will still call the team the Indians or Tribe. And while the Dolans own the team today, the franchise has been around so much longer than there current ownership group. That they sold out a Chief Wahoo logo for the 2019 All Star Game should have been enough. While the name chosen over 100 years ago and might not be the PC term used today, it isn’t exactly racist IMO.

So, the team named the Swifts is a netballing club in Australia. Can anyone figure out the rules for this sport?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5K3KtdKDtY

(12-14-2020 09:38 AM)Muskrat Wrote:  ...I don't get that because it's the owner's team! Shouldn't the owner be allowed to change a mascot name if he wants?

In a free market system, the owner can absolutely make any changes he wants. He can change the team’s name, he can change the logo, change ticket prices and concession items.

He could also relocate the franchise to a different city if he wants.

Agree, Jim Joyce. That's my point. They also change managers and change several players each year. I know why many strenuously object to the name change, but to me it's no big deal.

"Cleveland Sliders?" "Cleveland Aliens?" "Cleveland Minecrafters?" "TechBase Cleveland?"

I was thinking of combining a modern name with "Baseball" and came up with "BaseNet Cleveland" but that's too close to "basement" when they end up in last place again.

of course, I've always felt Slider was one of the lamest mascots out there. That means Cleveland will definitely pick that as a name

(12-14-2020 09:26 PM)Polish Hammer Wrote:  

(12-14-2020 09:38 AM)Muskrat Wrote:  If I learned anything in my 75 years it's that something that's a big deal one day people get used to quickly and it's no big deal the next.

Almost everyone I know refers to “the Jake” and not “Progressive Field” so I’m sure many will still call the team the Indians or Tribe. And while the Dolans own the team today, the franchise has been around so much longer than there current ownership group. That they sold out a Chief Wahoo logo for the 2019 All Star Game should have been enough. While the name chosen over 100 years ago and might not be the PC term used today, it isn’t exactly racist IMO.

I agree, the name "Indians" isn't racist any more than "Celtics' is. I think the Chief Wahoo cartoon character caused a lot of the problems. If I'm an American Indian and I feel people are using that as a image of my ethnic background, I wouldn't like it either. It isn't even close to how people imagine what Indians are like - wrong color, not stoic, etc. If you took the feather off Chief Wahoo, he's as close a representation to any ethnic group as he's representative of American Indians. And if you used that image or something like it and had a name like "Cleveland Africans", it would have been torn down fifty years ago.

(12-15-2020 04:39 AM)JimJoyce Wrote:  

(12-14-2020 09:38 AM)Muskrat Wrote:  ...I don't get that because it's the owner's team! Shouldn't the owner be allowed to change a mascot name if he wants?

In a free market system, the owner can absolutely make any changes he wants. He can change the team’s name, he can change the logo, change ticket prices and concession items.

He could also relocate the franchise to a different city if he wants.

That last point you made is what has me worried. I believe the team's lease with Progressive field is up in 2023. There's already been rumors that we're a franchise that is being targeted by Nashville who wants a franchise. Our poor attendance makes that something an owner might be open to. Now we're about to trade our most popular player and this name change whether you believe it's good or not, will undoubtedly drive away at least some small extreme subset of the fan base.

Ownership just dealt with years of people who aren't part of their fan base protesting them and calling them racists for a name that they had no part in creating. Now ownership is about to have to deal with part of their fan base calling them all kinds of names and likely boycotting them... In a city where they're in the bottom third of attendance every year anyways and have a bottom tier TV contract. It would be really easy to understand if they just wanted to start fresh elsewhere.

(12-15-2020 10:52 AM)anti-zip Wrote:  

(12-15-2020 04:39 AM)JimJoyce Wrote:  

(12-14-2020 09:38 AM)Muskrat Wrote:  ...I don't get that because it's the owner's team! Shouldn't the owner be allowed to change a mascot name if he wants?

In a free market system, the owner can absolutely make any changes he wants. He can change the team’s name, he can change the logo, change ticket prices and concession items.

He could also relocate the franchise to a different city if he wants.

That last point you made is what has me worried. I believe the team's lease with Progressive field is up in 2023. There's already been rumors that we're a franchise that is being targeted by Nashville who wants a franchise. Our poor attendance makes that something an owner might be open to. Now we're about to trade our most popular player and this name change whether you believe it's good or not, will undoubtedly drive away at least some small extreme subset of the fan base.

Ownership just dealt with years of people who aren't part of their fan base protesting them and calling them racists for a name that they had no part in creating. Now ownership is about to have to deal with part of their fan base calling them all kinds of names and likely boycotting them... In a city where they're in the bottom third of attendance every year anyways and have a bottom tier TV contract. It would be really easy to understand if they just wanted to start fresh elsewhere.

Start getting worried if they pick "the Cleveland Banjos" or the "Cleveland Yodelers"

(12-15-2020 10:52 AM)anti-zip Wrote:  

(12-15-2020 04:39 AM)JimJoyce Wrote:  

(12-14-2020 09:38 AM)Muskrat Wrote:  ...I don't get that because it's the owner's team! Shouldn't the owner be allowed to change a mascot name if he wants?

In a free market system, the owner can absolutely make any changes he wants. He can change the team’s name, he can change the logo, change ticket prices and concession items.

He could also relocate the franchise to a different city if he wants.

That last point you made is what has me worried. I believe the team's lease with Progressive field is up in 2023. There's already been rumors that we're a franchise that is being targeted by Nashville who wants a franchise. Our poor attendance makes that something an owner might be open to. Now we're about to trade our most popular player and this name change whether you believe it's good or not, will undoubtedly drive away at least some small extreme subset of the fan base.

Ownership just dealt with years of people who aren't part of their fan base protesting them and calling them racists for a name that they had no part in creating. Now ownership is about to have to deal with part of their fan base calling them all kinds of names and likely boycotting them... In a city where they're in the bottom third of attendance every year anyways and have a bottom tier TV contract. It would be really easy to understand if they just wanted to start fresh elsewhere.

I’m as big an Indians fan as there is but if the team moves the fans can’t *****. They got to the tenth inning of game 7 of the World Series in 2016 and then won 102 games in 2017. That made attendance go up something like 4000 or 5000 per game. Whoopee!! Cleveland is just too small for 3 pro franchises. 800000 people in 1960 is less than 400000 now. The math just doesn’t work. Since 1994 they have been the best franchise in Cleveland and all they get is criticism. LeBron only wins 1 championship in 11 years in Cleveland (3 of 6 in Miami and LA) and we all know about the Browns. The town really doesn’t deserve or probably want the Indians.

I think Nashville is a pipe dream. At least for the next 5-10 years. Otherwise Dave Dombrowski wouldn’t have left that project for the Phillies. The pandemic economic fallout and pending labor negotiations (leading to work stoppage) are going to keep expansion and relocation off the table for a while.

My point on bringing up owner’s ability to do whatever he wants, including move the team somewhere is to show the ridiculous double standard by Joe Q. Fan. When Art Modell moved his team (yes it was his, not yours and not the city’s) people lost their collective minds. Now I see a lot of those same people who are pro-name-change saying the owner has every right to do it.

Can’t have it both ways.

Dolan is a s**tty owner. I read a comment that made so much sense that it stuck; why does Milwaukee with a similar sized city and fanbase do so much better in attendance than the Indians? Because their fans believe they are trying to win. I can't really say that about Dolan. He's always seemed like he is in over his head, starting with the "create a cable sports channel" which was past its time to trading away stars for so-so prospects. Even this name changing is being butchered from a PR point of view from its timing to its handling. Cleveland has been saddled with s**tty owners of their sports franchises for a while (hello, Doug Gilbert, way to win one championship with the greatest player of all time on your club for 11 years).

Again, with the Cleveland is too small to support 3 franchises, I partially agree, but then look at Milwaukee (the Packers are a Wisconsin team). I think it's possible, especially when you look at the region, not Cleveland proper, but the media spends way too much time on the Buckeye love and that hurts the pro franchises in the city.

The Cleveland-Chicago World Series really showed the economic differences in Major League Baseball. You would have thought that games 6 and 7 in Cleveland would have been packed solid with Indians fans. Cub fans actually found it cheaper to buy tickets from a broker, fly to Cleveland, and get a hotel than what it would cost to see the Cubs in the World Series in Chicago.

And what really blew my mind was that the seats that were blocked off in the upper deck stayed blocked off. Apparently, it wasn't profitable to hire someone to open those up.

Not original with me, but I find the Cleveland Rockers very interesting and marketable.

(12-15-2020 02:10 PM)Slinkin Street Flash Wrote:  The Cleveland-Chicago World Series really showed the economic differences in Major League Baseball. You would have thought that games 6 and 7 in Cleveland would have been packed solid with Indians fans. Cub fans actually found it cheaper to buy tickets from a broker, fly to Cleveland, and get a hotel than what it would cost to see the Cubs in the World Series in Chicago.

And what really blew my mind was that the seats that were blocked off in the upper deck stayed blocked off. Apparently, it wasn't profitable to hire someone to open those up.

Oh, I live near Chicago. Cubs fans were dropping serious bread to get those tickets. They’ve been waiting 400 years or something and they all wanted a piece of it. I saw the same thing with the Blackhawks winning the Stanley Cup. It was novel. It’s not now. That wouldn’t happen again.

(12-15-2020 03:28 PM)GFlash68 Wrote:  Not original with me, but I find the Cleveland Rockers very interesting and marketable.

Personally think it's too close to Rockies.

(12-15-2020 04:29 PM)anti-zip Wrote:  

(12-15-2020 03:28 PM)GFlash68 Wrote:  Not original with me, but I find the Cleveland Rockers very interesting and marketable.

Personally think it's too close to Rockies.

And too close to the WNBA Cleveland Rockers. If you want a former Cleveland team name, go Barons, Force or Buckeyes. I’d say Crusaders too, but then, ....

There have been pro sports teams who have changed their names before while not leaving the city. The Titans became the Jets. The Colt .45s became the Astros. The Bullets became the Wizards. Plenty of college teams have, too. There is no doubt in my mind from reading various comments in different places online that the most vociferous opponents of the name change are those who feel it is caving to some "PC" agenda. People have to accept that being a fan of a professional team does NOT make one part of the team or franchise in any way. They are merely customers. Professional sports is merely an entertainment entity, competing for people's entertainment dollar with all other forms of entertainment.

(12-15-2020 12:50 PM)bopol Wrote:  Dolan is a s**tty owner. I read a comment that made so much sense that it stuck; why does Milwaukee with a similar sized city and fanbase do so much better in attendance than the Indians? Because their fans believe they are trying to win. I can't really say that about Dolan.

With all due respect, this just isn’t a good argument. First of all, people in the greater Milwaukee and yes - Chicagoland area - have a lot more money than those of us in NE Ohio. As burden pointed out, the population of Cleveland has shrunk dramatically and those who remain are living paycheck to paycheck. A night at the ballpark is an expensive proposition for a family of four - easily over $100. How many families in this area can do that multiple times a year? Are they going to do it in April, May or September when the weather sucks? Milwaukee’s stadium has a roof for all 81 games.

Secondly, the highest payrolls in franchise history have come under Dolan’s charge. 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020. What has that yielded? A 2-8 playoff record and non-qualifying season in 2019. The players were great in the regular season but choked when the bright October lights came on. That’s not on ownership. They signed Encarnacion, made great trades when in contention and made others to ensure a longer window of contention. How is that not trying to win?

(12-15-2020 11:08 PM)JimJoyce Wrote:  

(12-15-2020 12:50 PM)bopol Wrote:  Dolan is a s**tty owner. I read a comment that made so much sense that it stuck; why does Milwaukee with a similar sized city and fanbase do so much better in attendance than the Indians? Because their fans believe they are trying to win. I can't really say that about Dolan.

With all due respect, this just isn’t a good argument. First of all, people in the greater Milwaukee and yes - Chicagoland area - have a lot more money than those of us in NE Ohio. As burden pointed out, the population of Cleveland has shrunk dramatically and those who remain are living paycheck to paycheck. A night at the ballpark is an expensive proposition for a family of four - easily over $100. How many families in this area can do that multiple times a year? Are they going to do it in April, May or September when the weather sucks? Milwaukee’s stadium has a roof for all 81 games.

The Milwaukee MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) has 1.58 million people. The Cleveland MSA has 2.05 million. If you extend it further, Cleveland is close to bigger cities like Akron and Canton. Racine just ain't that big.

The Cleveland MSA has a GDP of $134.4B. The Milwaukee MSA GDP is $103.7B. That's similar GDP per capita with 25% more people.

My experience is Milwaukee is nice, but quite similar to Cleveland. I'd say that they do use their lakefront much, much better than Cleveland. Chicago is altogether different beast. I don't think that the stadium having a roof makes that much of a difference. Sure, there are crummy days in Cleveland, but not enough to explain the attendance difference. Clevelanders just don't support the club as much as Milwaukeans.

Quote:Secondly, the highest payrolls in franchise history have come under Dolan’s charge. 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020. What has that yielded? A 2-8 playoff record and non-qualifying season in 2019. The players were great in the regular season but choked when the bright October lights came on. That’s not on ownership. They signed Encarnacion, made great trades when in contention and made others to ensure a longer window of contention. How is that not trying to win?

Of course the highest payrolls have come lately because it's up for all of baseball considerably from the Jacobs years. Now, I must be missing these great trades, because the outfield has been the s**ts for the last few years and there really is no excuse for that given a team with such a great infield and starting rotation.