Ennjay Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Sigh. A little bit of sports history: The Dodgers moved to LA in 1958 from Brooklyn. The name referred to Brooklyn "trolley dodgers," since Brooklyn, unlike Manhattan, had overland trolley cars. LA doesn't know from trolleys. When the team moved to LA they didn't change the name. The Lakers moved to LA in the early 60's from Minneapolis. Minnesota is still called the land of 10,000 lakes (check out their license plates). LA doesn't know from 10,000 lakes. When the team moved to LA they didn't change the name. And BTW, the Rams started in Cleveland. I don't know that the name has anything to do with Cleveland, but it wasn't changed anyway. (The old AAFC team was the Los Angeles Dons, which did have something to do with LA's history -- see any Zorro movie). The point is, they would name (or not re-name) a new team in LA anything they liked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Sorry if posted. I was watching Cold Pizza and ESPN was reporting that there are meeting being held this week to KEEP the team in San Antonio. Id hate to see it. Would just further kill the hearts of their die hard fans going through loss right now. But NFL does not care about the people who buy tickets. On the other end. I dont see that city ever returning to normal. 429505[/snapback] Maybe the wrong time to post this, but the Saints aren't exactly known for their die-hard fans. They're more known for fans whjo wear bags over their heads. They'd be crushed if anything happened to their beloved LSU Tigers. Just asking, what does the name Saints have to do with NO? And what does hornets have to do with Charlotte? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 And having the Saints become a vagabond team playing all their games on the road will almost certainly make them the most popular team in the country. They'll take on that underdog survivor label America loves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyemike Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Wow, it's amazing how fast a topic gets off track. Per a CBSSportsline article this am " The Saints said Sunday three options are being considered: LSU's Tiger Stadium in Baton Rouge, La; the Alamodome in San Antonio; or at the stadiums of all their opponents." As to what has already been decided: " The Saints open Sunday at Carolina, then play at Giants Stadium on a date to be announced. Their third game is at Minnesota, so the first game still in flux is Oct. 2 against Buffalo." 429549[/snapback] TSN is reporting the same thing, almost verbatim. I agree with SNR (and this is twice in the last week...amazing) that maybe Los Angeles doesn't really want an NFL team. If you lived there, which would you rather see, USC or a Los Angeles Saints team? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Just asking, what does the name Saints have to do with NO? And what does hornets have to do with Charlotte? 429579[/snapback] <trumpet> Oh when the saints... go marching in... Oh when the saints go marching in! </trumpet> And having the Saints become a vagabond team playing all their games on the road will almost certainly make them the most popular team in the country. They'll take on that underdog survivor label America loves. 429581[/snapback] Don't know about the feasibility of that. Every team besides the Globetrotters needs a home base. No one wants to live on the road the entire season. Not to mention schedule-wise, for both the paper schedule and scheduling an actual place to play the games, as lots of venues are tightly booked. Eight teams would have an extra home game per season, three in the NFC-S. Not really fair to everyone else, add into that, not as much ticket/luxury box $ for the Saints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyemike Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 And BTW, the Rams started in Cleveland. I don't know that the name has anything to do with Cleveland, but it wasn't changed anyway. 429572[/snapback] Supposedly, Rams founder Dan Reeves went to Fordham University, whose sports teams are known as the Rams. The team, when founded in 1937 in Cleveland, was named in their honor. After winning the NFL championship in 1945, they were moved to Los Angeles, b/c the Rams never drew very well and the Browns (with former OSU head coach Paul Brown) were moving in the next year. Cleveland couldn't support two football teams, so the Rams went west, becoming the first major league team on the West Coast. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillnutinHouston Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 LA doesn't know from trolleys. LA doesn't know from 10,000 lakes. 429572[/snapback] What kind of English is this? What does this mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 What kind of English is this? What does this mean? 429599[/snapback] It's in the common lexicon. You've seriously never heard or seen this phrasing? I remember it being in Garfield all the time e.g. "You don't know from sarcasm, pal!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 What kind of English is this? What does this mean? Some form of ebonics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Lost in all this discussion is a question that no one seems to want to address: why the hell are you watching "Cold Pizza." Seriously. You're crying over Hulk Hogan. You're watching "Cold Pizza." You're freakin' me out, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keuka Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Urban SprawlFrom the first, New Orleans turned to technology to impose order on its environs. Since engineers began to figure out how to drain the city adequately in the mid-19th century, they have struggled mightily to do so. Over time they built a network of enormous pumps (several of which have failed in the face of Katrina) and hundreds of miles of canals—a quantity to make a Venetian feel at home. Their feats, however incomplete, have allowed the city to expand off the relatively high ground near the Mississippi and to spread out into what used to be a huge cypress swamp along the shore of Lake Pontchartrain. If New Orleans is below sea level, why isn't it underwater? "Because it's protected by natural and artificial barriers. The city sits on the banks of the Mississippi, where sediment from the river had created areas of elevated land called "natural levees." New Orleans' earliest buildings sat on top of these levees, but as the population grew, houses were built farther inland at lower elevations. To create usable land, water had to be pumped out of the area, which in turn caused the ground to sink even lower. It's possible for part of New Orleans to exist below sea level because the levees that surround the city protect it (most of the time) from floods." According to Rick McCulloh, research associate with the Louisiana Geological Survey at Louisiana State University, modern New Orleans is sinking for a number of reasons. "If you have a wetland soil, it has a very high clay content and a high content of organic matter," said McCulloh. Much of New Orleans outside of the Vieux Carré -- the French Quarter that was Bienville's original city -- has been built on swampland drained by pumps and canals. Water seeping from the clay into the canals, which is then pumped uphill into Lake Pontchartrain, leads to volume reduction in the soil. It compacts down. "The other issue is oxidation of organic matter," said McCulloh. "The sediment in a wetland is in a sort of pickled state -- it's prevented from exposure to oxygen. As soon as you dewater the soil, atmospheric oxygen then invades that top part of the soil column which was not previously exposed." The resulting decay of organic material can have a tremendous effect on the volume. "Of course, the leveeing of New Orleans from both lake and river prevents fresh sediment from accumulating and restoring height lost to volume reduction in the clay. But, McCulloh said, while clay dehydration can occur at deeper levels too, these issues are mainly just on the surface where people are active. "The biggest process of all is the one in which the entire coastal zone is warped across a hinge zone by the deposition of sediment in the Gulf." The Mississippi River washes incredible amounts of sediment downriver and dumps it in the Gulf of Mexico at the shelf between shallow and deep water. The weight of this huge lobe of sediment is such that it can actually create ripples which lift other parts of the landscape. Like a seesaw, when one end sinks down, the other end of the board rises. Great news if you are on the "updip" side of the seesaw's fulcrum -- but bad news if you are on the sinking side. And New Orleans, McCulloh believes, is on the wrong side of the hinge zone." Sounds like the people of NO are more stubborn than the folks born in Western NY that won't move to get away from bad winters. 429536[/snapback] Great Post As a former resident of N.O. I can tell you that the city will be back. The French Quarter, Garden District and Uptown experienced very little flooding. This was the heart of the city. Mardi Gras, the oil industry, the chemical plants, and the port of New Orleans will fuel the rebuilding of the city. The spirit of New Orleans won't be crushed by this disaster. The food will still be cooked, the music will still be played and the people will always know how to celebrate. I hope the Saint do come back. Although I've always been a Bills fan I also went to about twenty Saints games in the superdome. I always said they were my favorite NFC team. Saints fans are a lot like Bills fans. They have been through tough times and still support their team. They deserve to taste success after all of these years. All of the idiots who have been saying that the people of New Orleans should have known better can bite my A##. People still live in San Francisco and all along the California fault line, people still live in the Ohio flood zone, people live in tornado alley, and people still live along the coastal low lands. I have a lot of friends who can't return to their homes and have no job for the forseeable future so please don't respond to this post with some mindless uncompassionate tripe. I don't want to hear it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Maybe the wrong time to post this, but the Saints aren't exactly known for their die-hard fans. They're more known for fans whjo wear bags over their heads. They'd be crushed if anything happened to their beloved LSU Tigers. Just asking, what does the name Saints have to do with NO? And what does hornets have to do with Charlotte? 429579[/snapback] Orleans is a city in France. Before 1803, the entire area (and much more) surrounding NO was a French territory. Jefferson bought it from Napolean, which is why there is a "french quarter" and the Fleur dis lis. The Charlotte Hornets moniker was given to the region during the Revolution by none other than Lord Cornwallis himself. September 8, 1780, Cornwallis and the Brits left Camden SC victorious, bound for Charlotte to occupy the city, to fortify it, and to gather loyal supporters. But when they got there, the citizens of Mecklenburg county put up 16 days of fierce fighting, pounding away at the British resolve, causing Cornwallis to proclaim the area a "hornets nest of the rebellion"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTS Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 I thought Clutch had the scoop days ago that it was a done deal that New Orleans was definitely playing in San Antonio for the season....? 429532[/snapback] That was as Fox News and CNN reported, but as I re-posted later that day, they seemed to do a 360 on the story as the news wasn't what people from that affected areas wanted to hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookie Gilchrist Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 And especially b/c the name "Saints" fits right in for the "City of Angels" (in name only). No need to re-name, re-design uniforms, etc.... I don't see this happening this year tho, until/unless there is a solid determination by the powers that be that NO will not be rebuilt or rebuilt to the previous size. Based on what the reality will likely be, a move to LA would be the best business decision the Saints owner could make. Only hang-up would be if they insisted on a new stadium, rather than using the Coliseum, to move there. Not something the city or state can handle. 429551[/snapback] The nickname is a perfect fit for the Saints owner's hometown of San Antonio (Saint Anthony). The stadium is decent. A new helmet logo (crossed Bowie knives/Alamo silhouette/coonskin cap) is all he needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 A new helmet logo (crossed Bowie knives/Alamo silhouette/coonskin cap) is all he needs. 429745[/snapback] Picturing that in my mind, Paris Hilton would sue for appropriation of her likeness. And win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Semantics. They should have NOT built in areas below sea level and at least not without levees that could withstand the most severe of hurricanes. I can understand originally not building them to withstand greater than Cat. 3 hurricanes (as they did), but there have been enough close shaves in the past to have undertaken strengthening/rebuilding of the levees and it was never done, mostly because of lack of funding and/or foresight. Well now look at it. It's a pity. 429517[/snapback] The port city of New Orleans grew over a few hundred years. It's at the end of the Mississippi with historical and ongoing commerce. That it would not be occupied and built up would be the curiosity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Allan in MD Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 What about splitting games between Baton Rouge, San Antonio, and possibly other cities. No one city deserves getting this team, with the possible exception of Baton Rouge, which is close enough to New Orleans that loyal fans will still be able to see "their" team and retain something positive, win or lose, in their existance. Agreed that this is not the time to be discussing permanent moves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 they NO, need to do every thing they can do to keep this teem in NO just think of the money they lost from us bills fans . if i was going to run away from home that is where i would go . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawnboy1977 Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 When the city was "built" it was above sea level and at the mouth of the Mississippi. 429511[/snapback] Thats half true. The firt part of the city was built on solid ground above sea level. Sometime in the early 1900s, they decided to build on swamp land, with their complicated system of pipes and sewers. New Orleans history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillnutinHouston Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 It's in the common lexicon. You've seriously never heard or seen this phrasing? I remember it being in Garfield all the time e.g. "You don't know from sarcasm, pal!" 429605[/snapback] Oh, it's from Garfield. Gee, am I embarrassed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts