Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Is Charlotte the worst sports city right now?


hepcat
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 6/16/2024 at 7:41 PM, ProcessBlue2 said:

Can revisit when/if Charlotte gets an MLB team. It has been discussed lately and I think Charlotte and Nashville are supposedly high on the list. 

I'd feel so bad for Raleigh. It just doesn't make sense in Charlotte. Too close to the Braves and you won't get a better location than the Knights have already. Even Greensboro I think is a better option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MechaZain said:

I'd feel so bad for Raleigh. It just doesn't make sense in Charlotte. Too close to the Braves and you won't get a better location than the Knights have already. Even Greensboro I think is a better option.

I don't know. Depends. Especially if they have success. The Orioles and the Nationals are only an hour apart, but the Nationals aren't hurting for fans. Winning a championship doesn't hurt though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/17/2024 at 9:31 AM, djp14 said:

I went to a Canes game 6-7 years ago. It was half empty.

Amazing what good ownership and winning can do.

People forget the 9 year playoff drought. I have been through the great, the good and the bad times as a Canes fan.

Doesn't matter where you are in the state, if you fuging stink, you are gonna suck wind when it comes to fan support.

The reason Charlotte is a dramatically worse sports city is both of those professional teams are fuging awful and have been for a while. Raleigh looks better because the Canes are currently experiencing one of the best eras in team history. 

 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2024 at 3:08 PM, CamWhoaaCam said:

Let it all out bro.

 

At the end of the day Charlotte fans just aren't that passionate as other fans. The Panthers and Hornets crowds are wack. 

 

Go to a Canes game and you will understand this. Tell the family I said hi and Happy Father's Day.

My man’s im from Raleigh and still live here. You gotta relax. Let the canes (who only a certain demographic here follows) start being bottom feeders of the NHL for almost a decade. PNC would be absolutely empty. 
 

 

we get it…you love Raleigh but you have to relax. 
 

trying to compare the NHL to the NFL is pure insane. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Smitty will punch you said:

My man’s im from Raleigh and still live here. You gotta relax. Let the canes (who only a certain demographic here follows) start being bottom feeders of the NHL for almost a decade. PNC would be absolutely empty. 
 

 

we get it…you love Raleigh but you have to relax. 
 

trying to compare the NHL to the NFL is pure insane. 

I'm chilling.

 

Raleigh just better than Charlotte. No big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2024 at 9:51 AM, hepcat said:

Is right now the worst time in the history of Charlotte pro sports?

The Hornets (formerly Bobcats) have been a dumpster fire since rejoining the NBA 20 years ago. The Panthers were a respectable but frustrating team before David Tepper bought the team, but now they are easily the worst team in the NFL.

Charlotte only has 2 sports teams so it's unfair to compare to every other city in the country with a Big 4 pro sports team, because when you have all 4 of even 3, you tend to have one franchise that ends up being successful. If we're taking into account the Hurricanes and ranking NC's pro sports teams as a whole, the Hurricanes make everything look better in NC pro sports.

But just taking into account cities with an NFL and NBA team, and excluding their respective NHL and MLB teams, in the last 5 years, Charlotte easily takes the crown for the worst city for pro sports. The only other city coming close is Detroit since the Pistons have been awful, but the Lions were in the NFC Championship last year and should probably have made it to the Superbowl if it weren't for some questionable coaching decisions. Indianapolis could be mentioned because the Colts and Pacers have had a somewhat rough go the last 5 years, but both the Colts and Pacers have had more recent success than either the Panthers or Hornets.

Sadly enough I think the Panthers have a better shot at success than the Hornets since the NBA is structured more towards star player driven success and the NFL is a team driven sport where there is more parity year to year. But I'm fairly confident this level of misery will continue for some time. 

Awesome thread, some of these takes are so bad it forced me to make an account. Is this the worst time in charlottes sports history? yes, competitively we suck. But the hornets moving to NOLA is above this on the list, Rae Carruth, Jerry's scandal, etc. all trump this period in my book. 

For the Raleigh support group, i love you guys but you don't even qualify for OP's conditions. OP is only referring to city's with an NFL team and an NBA team, and it's a short short list. I could be wrong, but I have 13 cities. Dallas, DC, Boston, New York, Charlotte, Phoenix, Atlanta, Denver, Minneapolis, Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago, and LA. If we want to be technical, the Patriots play 90 minutes from Boston, the Cowboys play in the equivalent of Concord to us, and both of New York's teams play in a different state. The name on the jersey is just branding, not actual location. That leaves 10 cities, that meet the requirements. 

Charlotte can be the worst of these 10 sports cities.... but we all know Philadelphia is a poo hole.  🙂

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...