www.GameInformer.com
Switch Lights

The lights are on

What's Happening

Sports

Let the trash talk begin. Your team stinks and we're number one. It goes 'round and 'round forever. Here everybody agrees on at least one thing: The refs screwed their favorite team.

New England

  • rated by 0 users
  • This post has 3 Replies |
  • 0 Followers
  • Something has bothered me for quite some time now.

    Out of all of the NFL teams, the Patriots are the group that I don't understand. Well, not so much the team, but the team name. 

    New England isn't a city. It's not a state. It's a region. Why does an entire region have a football team? New England consists of smaller states but that doesn't mean they should be grouped togetherto have a team. 

    Boston Patriots.

    It just sounds better.

    "I'm a dude, playin' a dude, disguised as anotha dude! You a dude that don't know what dude he is!"  -Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder

  • I actually like the New England moniker for the Patriots.  I think it unifies the region more.  When they were looking to build a new stadium in the '90s Boston, Hartford and Providence were all trying to get them to locate in their cities, because the Patriots belong to all of New England.  Living in New England with sports kind of sucks because everything is so Boston-centric.  Don't get me wrong, I love Boston, and it is the largest city (by far) in New England.  But it seems all of New England has to bow-down to Boston and eastern Mass.  All our sports teams are Boston, and New England is made up of six fairly different, though comparatively small states.  It works for the Patriots because Gillette Stadium is in Foxborough, Mass. which puts it on the fringe of the Boston metro area, accessible to everywhere, I think it might even be closer to Providence RI.  It really fits as a true New England team where as the TD Boston Garden and Fenway Park are right in the heart of Boston.

    I'm not usually a fan of names like these.  I hate how a lot of new teams have state names.  I think they should be names after the cities there in.  I know hockey more that football teams.  New NHL teams like the Minnesota Wild, Florida Panthers, Carolina Hurricanes, Colorado Rockies.  They really just couldn't call them Minneapolis or Twin Cities (the rink is in St. Paul), Miami (I know the rink s in Sunrise which is more Ft. Lauderdale.... but it's all Miami to the rest of the U.S.  lol) Raleigh or Denver..... come on....

    I actually wish we had more New England teams.  The only other one we had was the defunct NHL team the Hartford Whalers.  For a time they were the New England Whalers...  but how can you "New England" a team with the Bruins there....  not too smart...

  • I would actually be okay with teams being named after the states rather than the cities. It would be a problem for California, but thry have too many teams anyways.

    "I'm a dude, playin' a dude, disguised as anotha dude! You a dude that don't know what dude he is!"  -Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder

  • its probably just economical reasons. probably the cost to first found the team and pay for the stadium was aquisitioned from multiple sources throughout new england, rather than just boston or mass. also, it was probably done to expand the fanbase and thus expand the sales of tickets, viewership, merchandise, and anything else the team can sell to make money.

Page 1 of 1 (4 items)