Quillz

Members
  • Content count

    2,073
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

202 Excellent

About Quillz

  • Rank
    Silence of the Rams
  • Birthday 03/21/1988

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Los Angeles, CA
  • Favourite Logos
    Angels, Bills, Blue Jays, Chargers, Dodgers, Kings, Lakers, Lions, Panthers, Rams, Tiger-Cats

Contact Methods

  • Twitter
    zdrgn37
  • Google Talk
    jmostarda@live.com

Recent Profile Visitors

8,387 profile views
  1. Based on his post, I was under the impression he is aware there is a literal connection to the steel industry, but it's very easy to overlook, especially on first glance. Consider this... How many random people do you think would know that a. the Steelers logo is based on the steelmark, a logo that is not seen all that much on a regular basis and b. the colors are not random, and actually have meaning? I would hazard a guess most random people would be unaware of either, which I think is what he was trying to say when he suggested the Steelers logo is "middling." As for me, I just don't really like the logo to begin with. It almost strikes me as too generic. You could take away the "Steelers" text and give the logo to a team named the "Stars." It's an iconic logo, but there are some things about it I have always disliked.
  2. mod edit
  3. More than half, actually. There are 30 teams and 16 are let in. I think it should be cut down to 12, but of course that will never happen.
  4. That's what I'm saying... The NBA has basically admitted divisions are meaningless at this point, which is why I'm saying to just let in the 16 best teams. Keep divisions around purely for scheduling and regular season rivalries.
  5. Is the top one used on Twitter? It looks identical, except for maybe a richer black?
  6. Same. Seeing the older logos, I didn't like the current one as much, but now I recognize it's a good example of less is more.
  7. This is one of the reasons MLS ignores divisions and even conferences in the playoffs. It simply allows the 16 best teams into the playoffs based on their record and nothing else. Of course, they maintain the "conference" terminology, so you get odd scenarios like Colorado winning as the "Eastern Conference" champ, but otherwise, this is another good way to strike a balance between letting many teams into the playoffs and not favoring weak divisions. Frankly, this is what I want the NBA to do. Especially with how much stronger the West appears to be season after season. Just let the best 16 NBA teams into the playoffs, do the usual seeding (1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, etc.) and call it a day.
  8. What you're describing seems a bit like what the NHL has returned to (and has always been the case in the AHL), where "division champions" aren't actually named until after the first or second round of the playoffs, so the conference final is only the division champions. I like this format, even if it's largely semantics. At least in the NHL, it guarantees the first two rounds are always between division rivals, so the third round can only ever be the winners of divisions A-D. Sure, it takes away a lot of variety since the possible opponents are much more restricted, but I think it's the best way to continue to produce "real" division champions while accepting the wild card format.
  9. Basketball by its very nature is the sport that can be most influenced by the individual, I think. It's the reason the NBA Finals seems to frequently have rematches (Lakers vs. Celtics in the 80s, anyone vs. the Bulls in the 90s, Warriors vs. Cavs in the 10s, etc.) I mean, it's not a coincidence the teams with the most championships generally had some of the greatest players of all time, too. Compare this to, say, hockey. Sure, the Oilers were great, but Gretzky alone couldn't will them to championships, nor could he win with the Kings or Blues. Anyway, that's my problem with the NBA. When one team is full of great players, why even watch? They're just going to dominate. Maybe it's because there are more things in basketball that can be controlled, unlike in baseball where so many elements can't be controlled (weather, etc.) And, of course, the NBA should not be letting more than half the league in. It will never happen, but I would love to see NBA go full old-school MLB: two divisions per conference, only allow in, say, the top two teams from each division. The first round would be a division final, second round would be a conference final. The fact the NBA playoffs take nearly two months is ridiculous.
  10. It does seem to be generational. My parents also complain how division titles "don't matter" anymore in baseball, which is only partially true. Younger fans seem to be more a fan of a larger playoff pool. There's no wrong answer, of course, it's all subjective. It's hard to find a balance: leagues like the NBA and NHL let too many teams in, IMO, so those bottom seeds are usually close to or even below .500. Historically, baseball was seemingly less likely to produce upsets in the playoffs, but you also tended to have very good teams since all were well above .500. Personally, I think the NFL has a good balance between not letting too many teams in, and also ensuring division titles matter (since having home-field advantage is big). But on the other hand, I think the NHL has the most exciting playoffs by far. The NBA playoffs, though, have been truly dreadful. It's the nature of the game, unfortunately. Anyone expecting anything other than yet another Cavs-Warriors Finals have wasted their time watching these playoffs.
  11. One-game "regular season playoffs" still do occur, though. And with the second wild card, there is now an actual one-game playoff every postseason.
  12. 2011 was a truly crazy year... The Red Sox had something like a 97% chance to make the playoffs, but didn't. The problem with the wild card, though, is that it really does take away the "prestige" of being a division champion. Teams like the '07 Rockies, the '11 Cardinals, and the '14 Royals demonstrate that you can be pretty unremarkable all season long, then just got hot the last few weeks, and make it all the way to the World Series. It's not that's bad, not at all. Those teams played exceptionally well towards the end, but it's just... I dunno, it's almost like, why even try until the last couple months of the season? I agree somewhat with Ferdinand that baseball lost a lot of charm in the post-wild card era. But I also think it's a bit shallow to stop watching baseball entirely. I think at some point you have to accept that leagues change and that it's okay. There have been a lot of great postseason series the past few years that one would miss if they gave up on the sport just because division banners don't mean as much as they used to.
  13. I can't say I'm really a fan of the Blue Jays-esque split font the Cavs used to use.
  14. What should we be saying? I agree that the playoffs aren't as meaningful as they once were, but I disagree that records accomplished today are somehow less meaningful just because they are accomplished in the AL (if a NL player) or vice versa. To me, an achievement is an achievement.
  15. I figure at this point, it's easier to keep the Bowl in LA than move it. I can't imagine them enforcing the rule. Also I know for sure that's a NFL-only rule... MLB has never had any qualms about new stadiums hosting the All-Star Game, for instance.