Metal Sludge Gossip Board

Does it make you angry that the New York Jets and Giants play in New Jersey? If you live in New Jersey and are a fan, does it upset you that they are called the New York Jets and Giants? Jets fans especially, do you feel like a red headed step child because your team has played in a place called Giants stadium for over two decades?
Not trying to stir the pot, just curious.

I was a Giants fan living in Jersey. I think it's a crock of shit.

But New York can 'have' the Jets. No problem.

JakeYonkel wrote:I was a Giants fan living in Jersey. I think it's a crock of shit.

But New York can 'have' the Jets. No problem.

Please elaborate on "crock of shit." Is it the fact that New York gets credit for a team that plays in New Jersey?? I am aware that the New York Jets actually have facilities on Long Island, but I know nothing about the Giants. Is the whole organization based in Jersey??? Is it simply a matter of geography, or do Giants fans in Jersey really hate the fact that the team is called the NEW YORK Giants? Do New Yorkers detest having to cross the river to see the "home" team. When the Cavaliers played in Richfield they were technically closer to Akron, a buddy and I were discussing this, which is what brought about this thread btw....

Actually the Jets' facilities are now in Florham Park, New Jersey and the Giants are in New York.

I can't speak for New Yorkers. I don't think it really bothers people from Jersey that much, but it's one thing when you've got somebody like the Bills who play in some other city but get called Buffalo, but they're still in NY... the Jets/Giants are in a totally different state. And when all the hub-bub about new stadiums came about a few years ago they were both actually going to move into NY... but that didn't happen.

I don't understand why they're not called the NJ Giants/Jets... the Devils and Nets play(ed) at the exact same complex at the Meadowlands and were referred to by New Jersey.

Anyway I'm getting longwinded, but suffice to say I think it's a load of shit as do most people but really don't care all that much. I think most NFL fans know they play in Jersey anyway.

It's rather silly that the largest city in the country can't find room for a football stadium. It's also rather silly that both teams out right refuse to call themselves the New Jersey Jets and or Giants. Just my two cents.

The New Jersey Giants actually sounds menacing. I don't feel like looking it up, but how long have both "New York" teams actually been Jersey teams?

I think the Jets were playing at Shea Stadium into the 70s. The Giants played at the Polo Grounds waaay back in the day, or I could be making that up. But I'm pretty sure that Giants Stadium was built in the late 70s, so probably then.

JakeYonkel wrote:I think the Jets were playing at Shea Stadium into the 70s. The Giants played at the Polo Grounds waaay back in the day, or I could be making that up. But I'm pretty sure that Giants Stadium was built in the late 70s, so probably then.

Without Wiki, I think Giants stadium was built around 76. The Jets played at Shea until 1984, I think.

Doesn't bother me one bit. With the amount of New Yorkers that spend their time in Jersey and the amount of Jersey people that work and hang out in NY, they're pretty much one in the same.

Obviously there is one main reason why both teams don't call themselves New Jersey Jets or New Jersey Giants. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Lot more money to be made by using the name of the greatest city on the planet than there is using one of the smallest states in the country.

I'm sure the fact the Jets had to play for 25 years in Giants Stadium was more annoying to most fans. It's like they were the JV team!

There was talk of a new Jets stadium in NYC a few years back but that was pretty much thrown out the window when the local government realized most New Yorkers were opposed to having the Olympics in town.

I'm sure getting a football stadium developed in the city was made more difficult when both the Yanks and Mets were getting new digs. And look how long it's taken to get that new Nets building in Brooklyn to break ground.

The Cusack wrote:2. The Jets and Giants shared a stadium. It's not like they're college age kids moving away from home for the first time and need to be roommates with somebody! They're two NFL teams in the biggest media market in the league.

3. Both teams play in New Jersey. I would like to have seen either Ground Zero or the old Yankee Stadium or old Shea Staduim site get turned into a new football stadium for either one or both of the teams. Hell they could play anywhere in New York state and still represent New York.

4. The Jets played in a stadium named after another NFL team for more than 20 years. Even if the Giants no longer played there it would be embarrassing for the Jets.

And, despite all the negotiations, they are building ANOTHER shared stadium merely across the parking lot from the old one! At least this one won't be named after either team.

At around a billion dollars it would be stupid to not share and if you take it out of NJ that state would be left with nothing but nuclear waste.

Having it in NJ would seem to draw more then moving it deeper into NY.

I dunno if I'd say that. New York is so close that you can get to Yankee Stadium (or Citi Field) by train pretty damn quickly. I don't think Jerseyans would be dissauded by football stadiums being in the city proper. Besides, the 49ers and Raiders play close enough to share a stadium and they don't. Baseball is a better example since there are several cities with multiple teams, but still.

Jersey doesn't need them. But with the Devils moving out of the Meadowlands and now Nets moving out, I guess it's all they're left with.

Are the Nets ever gonna move? I thought that whole situation was mired in muck...

As a Jets fan who was born and raised in NJ and now lives in Brooklyn I have some comments

First, the Jets stadium that was supposed to be built on the West Side for the Olympics was not built due, in part, to the Dolan family. They own MSG, Cablevision, the Knicks, Rangers, and Liberty. Having a stadium right there would cut into MSG's events.

The JETS basically HAD to move their facilities to NJ if they wanted this new stadium done.

Don't know if anyone has ever been to NYC, but the "metro" area is fucking massive. You can see the skyline 40 miles away in some spots. If people are going to get fired up about NY/NJ then "tri-state area" should piss off CT, NJ, and NY people. I don't think it does.

There really isn't alot of room in NYC proper for 1 NFL sized venue (the west side would have been a disaster) let alone 2.

Speaking of the NY and Buffalo thing....When people say Buffalo is the only NY team...well that's true. But the Jets and Giants certainly are named after NYC not NYS. Just look at the names.

As for the Nets....you can thank Mayor Mike, the MTA, and a host of "community groups" for this shit not getting done. I can walk to the site in about 10 minutes and it's still a desolate looking area right in the middle of where 2 of the busiest roads in BK meet.

Who would want the Nets anyway? There are the East Coast's version of the Clippers...

Tymaster wrote:Who would want the Nets anyway? There are the East Coast's version of the Clippers...

Very true, but Brooklyn NEEDS a pro team. Jay-Z is one of the owners. He's talked about like he's a God in some circles around here. I think it's more about BK getting a team.


At the same time, the Nets made 2 finals in a row not long ago. They're better than the Knicks recently (and I like the Knicks).

Tommy wrote:

Tymaster wrote:Who would want the Nets anyway? There are the East Coast's version of the Clippers...

Very true, but Brooklyn NEEDS a pro team. Jay-Z is one of the owners. He's talked about like he's a God in some circles around here. I think it's more about BK getting a team.


At the same time, the Nets made 2 finals in a row not long ago. They're better than the Knicks recently (and I like the Knicks).

I like the idea of a team in Brooklyn. The Nets have had a lot of "homes" over the years.

JakeYonkel wrote:I dunno if I'd say that. New York is so close that you can get to Yankee Stadium (or Citi Field) by train pretty damn quickly. I don't think Jerseyans would be dissauded by football stadiums being in the city proper. Besides, the 49ers and Raiders play close enough to share a stadium and they don't. Baseball is a better example since there are several cities with multiple teams, but still.

Jersey doesn't need them. But with the Devils moving out of the Meadowlands and now Nets moving out, I guess it's all they're left with.

As a season ticket holder, I must have gotten a million surveys from the Jets about the West Side Stadium. Fact is, season ticket holders shit all over the idea of it being a mass transportation only facility. People wanted to be able to drive to games and tailgate, the Jets ownership (not being sports people) didn't understand this. I kept getting more and more surveys about, "How essential is tailgating to your live event experience?" "Do you think you are less likely to attend events if tailgating is not an option?" "Do you think others will be less likely to attend if tailgating is not an option?" I wish I would have saved some of those surveys, as it was mind boggling how out of touch it seemed ownership and management were with the fans.

So with the Dolans, other groups in NYC, and their own fanbase working against them, the new stadium was never a realistic option. It was a dozen or so suits and a few lazy fucks from Long Island vs. several million people.

Sabu wrote:

JakeYonkel wrote:I dunno if I'd say that. New York is so close that you can get to Yankee Stadium (or Citi Field) by train pretty damn quickly. I don't think Jerseyans would be dissauded by football stadiums being in the city proper. Besides, the 49ers and Raiders play close enough to share a stadium and they don't. Baseball is a better example since there are several cities with multiple teams, but still.

Jersey doesn't need them. But with the Devils moving out of the Meadowlands and now Nets moving out, I guess it's all they're left with.

As a season ticket holder, I must have gotten a million surveys from the Jets about the West Side Stadium. Fact is, season ticket holders shit all over the idea of it being a mass transportation only facility. People wanted to be able to drive to games and tailgate, the Jets ownership (not being sports people) didn't understand this. I kept getting more and more surveys about, "How essential is tailgating to your live event experience?" "Do you think you are less likely to attend events if tailgating is not an option?" "Do you think others will be less likely to attend if tailgating is not an option?" I wish I would have saved some of those surveys, as it was mind boggling how out of touch it seemed ownership and management were with the fans.

So with the Dolans, other groups in NYC, and their own fanbase working against them, the new stadium was never a realistic option. It was a dozen or so suits and a few lazy fucks from Long Island vs. several million people.

I had a wine salesman years back that was from NYC. He was a Jets fan. He said the tailgating is GREAT and that's one the "appeals" of the Meadowlands. He made mention that often when the Jets had a 1 o'clock game, many people would stay in the parking lot and continue tailgating after the game while they watched Giants games in the parking lot!

JakeYonkel wrote:Besides, the 49ers and Raiders play close enough to share a stadium and they don't.

The Raiders share a stadium with the A's and the 49ers shared with the Giants up till this decade.

As a owner I wouldn't want to share a stadium but as a city....Having 4 huge obnoxiously expensive stadiums to house baseball/football is overly redundant. The cost to the tax payers and ticket hopefuls doesn't make sense to me.

I'd rather see the Raiders and 49ers split a field if it meant I could go to a game without having to talk with a loan officer. Went to a game 10 years ago and the ticket alone was over $100, thank god I didn't have a wife and several kids.

UtahRatt wrote:

JakeYonkel wrote:Besides, the 49ers and Raiders play close enough to share a stadium and they don't.

The Raiders share a stadium with the A's and the 49ers shared with the Giants up till this decade.

As a owner I wouldn't want to share a stadium but as a city....Having 4 huge obnoxiously expensive stadiums to house baseball/football is overly redundant. The cost to the tax payers and ticket hopefuls doesn't make sense to me.

I'd rather see the Raiders and 49ers split a field if it meant I could go to a game without having to talk with a loan officer. Went to a game 10 years ago and the ticket alone was over $100, thank god I didn't have a wife and several kids.

It's hard to rationalize building an NFL only stadium if tax payers are paying for it. At most, you're talking 12 home games......

I'm not a fan of either team, or a resident of the area, but I don't see it as that big a deal. It's not like it's 50 miles away. It's right across the river. Both teams sharing a stadium makes sense finacially as well. At least it's an NFL stadium and you don't have to watch your team play on a baseball diamond like a lot of teams still do. Yeah, it probably sucks to see another team's banners hanging in what is your team's stadium, but I'd trade that for an affordable ticket.

Tymaster wrote:

Sabu wrote:

JakeYonkel wrote:I dunno if I'd say that. New York is so close that you can get to Yankee Stadium (or Citi Field) by train pretty damn quickly. I don't think Jerseyans would be dissauded by football stadiums being in the city proper. Besides, the 49ers and Raiders play close enough to share a stadium and they don't. Baseball is a better example since there are several cities with multiple teams, but still.

Jersey doesn't need them. But with the Devils moving out of the Meadowlands and now Nets moving out, I guess it's all they're left with.

As a season ticket holder, I must have gotten a million surveys from the Jets about the West Side Stadium. Fact is, season ticket holders shit all over the idea of it being a mass transportation only facility. People wanted to be able to drive to games and tailgate, the Jets ownership (not being sports people) didn't understand this. I kept getting more and more surveys about, "How essential is tailgating to your live event experience?" "Do you think you are less likely to attend events if tailgating is not an option?" "Do you think others will be less likely to attend if tailgating is not an option?" I wish I would have saved some of those surveys, as it was mind boggling how out of touch it seemed ownership and management were with the fans.

So with the Dolans, other groups in NYC, and their own fanbase working against them, the new stadium was never a realistic option. It was a dozen or so suits and a few lazy fucks from Long Island vs. several million people.

I had a wine salesman years back that was from NYC. He was a Jets fan. He said the tailgating is GREAT and that's one the "appeals" of the Meadowlands. He made mention that often when the Jets had a 1 o'clock game, many people would stay in the parking lot and continue tailgating after the game while they watched Giants games in the parking lot!

For Jets/Bills this year we got there at 7:00 for a 1:00

Tymaster wrote:

UtahRatt wrote:

JakeYonkel wrote:Besides, the 49ers and Raiders play close enough to share a stadium and they don't.

The Raiders share a stadium with the A's and the 49ers shared with the Giants up till this decade.

As a owner I wouldn't want to share a stadium but as a city....Having 4 huge obnoxiously expensive stadiums to house baseball/football is overly redundant. The cost to the tax payers and ticket hopefuls doesn't make sense to me.

I'd rather see the Raiders and 49ers split a field if it meant I could go to a game without having to talk with a loan officer. Went to a game 10 years ago and the ticket alone was over $100, thank god I didn't have a wife and several kids.

It's hard to rationalize building an NFL only stadium if tax payers are paying for it. At most, you're talking 12 home games......

Since both the raiders and 49ers are looking for new stadiums (both are in ancient buildings by NFL standards) the league has been pushing for them to explore the option of a shared football stadium like the new Meadowlands in the bay area.

Of course both teams will likely drag their feet for a while seeing how that new stadium in L.A. is going...

The new Giants stadium with the long overdue rail connection is going to make a lot more people forget about the NY/NJ bullshit. The biggest headache with that place was getting out after a game, the train should alleviate a lot of that.

bane wrote:Yeah, it probably sucks to see another team's banners hanging in what is your team's stadium, but I'd trade that for an affordable ticket.

Despite it being a 30+ year old stadium AND shared by two teams, it still isn't really that cheap anyway. The only affordable ticket in town are the Mets, probably. And they're awful.

JakeYonkel wrote:

bane wrote:Yeah, it probably sucks to see another team's banners hanging in what is your team's stadium, but I'd trade that for an affordable ticket.

Despite it being a 30+ year old stadium AND shared by two teams, it still isn't really that cheap anyway. The only affordable ticket in town are the Mets, probably. And they're awful.

The Mets are cheaper than the Islanders or the Nets?

I can't speak much about hockey, but the Islanders are actually a bit of a trek out on Long Island. I really don't consider hockey much at all to be honest.

As for the Nets, I'm not sure. I haven't been to a game since probably 2000. I know the Knicks were always expensive as hell... the only game I've been to at MSG was a preseason one back in '98.