Thing is, though, there are very few announcers out there who are better; other people would probably be saying worse things.

That’s awesome and paradoxical!

For those of you who have actually gone to Citi Field, as opposed to those of you who haven’t, but just like to parrot the comments of other people who have been there, for the sake of "sounding good", answer me a question: Where is there “too much” Brooklyn Dodgers, as opposed to “too little” Mets, in Citi Field? I hear this complaint ad nauseum, and having finally gotten to go there myself, and see the new stadium myself, I feel a bit confused.

Maybe I am blind, dumb, deaf, and stupid, but when I was at the stadium, I only saw two television sets, set to loop, in which the Brooklyn Dodgers were featured, mainly focusing on Jackie Robinson, and one banner in the Jackie Robinson Rotunda, in which Jackie Robinson sat in uniform alongside some of his teammates from the Dodgers. Other banners included Jackie Robinson at UCLA, Jackie Robinson out of uniform, and Jackie Robinson in his later years, when he entered into political activism. The plaques on the ground have to do with Jackie Robinson, and his values of teamwork, citizenship, and so on- only one or two mention the Dodgers by name. Can someone please share with me where all of the Brooklyn Dodgers emphasis is? The architecture of the Jackie Robinson Rotunda? It sure is nice to have something that makes the stadium look nice, and unique, as opposed to Shea Stadium, which looked fairly bland, having nothing particular that made it stand out, saving maybe the colors.

Now, let’s look at what Mets memorabilia is there. Going down the stadium’s perimeter down the first and third base sides are various pennant banners, depicting important figures in Mets history: Casey Stengel, Tom Seaver, Jerry Koosman, Doc Gooden, Daryl Strawberry, Mike Piazza, David Wright, Jose Reyes, and innumerable others who I didn’t list, since I didn’t take pictures and record every single player. On the outside wall near the Left Field Gate, there is a massive banner that is, again, a collage of important Mets: Tom Seaver is featured most prominently. In front of the main entrance is the ‘Fan Walk’, which is paved with innumerable bricks with messages from fans, almost all of which are somehow tied to the Mets: "The McDonald family has always believed!" "The Joe and Pat will always remember the ’69 season!" "Let’s go Mets!" I happen to recall seeing a certain large apple in a turned-over top hat lying around. There’s a certain scoreboard over the "Shake Shack" as well.

Now, let’s compare all of this to Shea Stadium. What, specifically, asides for being the home of the Mets, and having memories (something that Citi Field now is, and will generate in the years to come) did Shea Stadium have, that perpetuated the stadium marking it as the home of the Mets? Well, there were those neon guys…Yeah, pretty generic. Well, the outside was nice to look at…Okay, that was pretty generic, too. The inside, then? Well, there were, periodically, banners that were put up on the inside, that depicted scenes from Mets history, like Tom Seaver pitching, or Mookie jumping over that ball, or everyone jumping into each other’s arms, at the end of Game 7 in 1986. There was, of course, the apple, and the scoreboard. But, Citi Field has both of those, however. And, banners? Citi Field has those, too. So, what was there at Shea that made the stadium itself- not the memories that were made there- feel like the Mets’ home? Negating the things that Citi Field has as well- banners, apples, and scoreboards, what are we left with? A bunch of generic neon people?

We already know that more is going to be done with Citi Field. There’s going to be that "Mets Hall of Fame", and apparently, there’s going to be some kind of "Mets Wall of Fame" as well. Seems to me that Citi Field does, and will be doing, more to make itself feel like the Home of the New York Mets than Shea Stadium did. But, what do I know, right? I’m still looking for all of those overt Brooklyn Dodgers homages. You know, the same ones that are blocking view of anything Mets…

That is not to say that there isn’t room for improvement. I think plenty can be done to make the place more reflective of the Mets. I am all in favor of painting the black outfield “space” blue and/or orange, the color of the Mets. I think that would be an excellent idea. I think it would also be a good idea to add the division and league pennants. I noticed that only the 1969 and 1986 championship banners were flying. Like the Braves do, I am in favor of adding images on the outfield wall padding, depicting Mets personalities and scenes, in lieu of either blank space, or paid adds (though, paid adds are certainly good, generating revenue and all). I don’t see the new stadium being a “travesty”, as I’ve heard it described, however. All in all, I think the people who say such things, and truly mean it, are really simply “afraid of change”, as the saying goes. The new stadium isn’t Shea Stadium, and as such, well…It’s not Shea Stadium.

I immediately thought of The Dark Knight?