DustDevil61

Members
  • Content count

    3,084
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

DustDevil61 last won the day on June 7 2015

DustDevil61 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

343 Excellent

About DustDevil61

  • Rank
    I WILL NOT CELEBRATE MEANINGLESS MILESTONES
  • Birthday 08/15/1985

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    North of Ogdenville
  • Interests
    Science, Following (and sometimes playing) sports, and Roads
  • Favourite Logos
    Cardinals' StL
    Utah Jazz note
    Hartford Whalers
  • Favourite Teams
    Utah Jazz, St. Louis Cardinals, Carolina Panthers, Utah State Aggies, Carolina Hurricanes

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

15,210 profile views
  1. I'll gladly take the W, but that was indeed weird. It wouldn't completely surprise me if Utah had planned to wear those but for whatever reason couldn't (past the deadline, too many uniforms, etc.) I'd say there's a good chance that they bring the mountain throwbacks back next year. (A single purple throwback/alternate would also placate me enough regarding it's use.)
  2. I got it covered: Specifically, the early 1980s look with the near-matte orange pants remind me of the Reeses packaging, specifically the older-style packaging for a Reese's ice cream packaging (which I can't seem to dig up) almost completely devoid of yellow. Their classic brown-over-white, white-over-orange, and white-over-white looks also remind me of this to a lesser extent...but I can't help you with their current set.
  3. I largely feel the same way about the Hawks' set. I actually don't mind the volt (but I'm also a sucker for unique colors too, and that's also a reason I like the Hawks going with a dark gray--perhaps one of my favorite colors--instead of black), though I'd rather have red or slate numbers on white (possibly red "Hawks," gray numbers with a volt outline). The biggest thing that does bug me about the triangular pattern is that it's only on a side panel on the shorts but everywhere on the jersey; either put a side panel with the pattern on the tops, have the pattern everywhere on the pants like the jerseys, or have a pattern-less and/or contrasting solid-color side panel on both. As for the contrasting shorts? I'd probably scrap any such look full-stop, though red over gray isn't nearly as offensive as gray over red.
  4. It seems as "Oh, Almost" applies to the majority of Utah-based teams. The Jazz's previous (and even current IMO) set is a shade of purple away (and a couple tweaks) from being great/long-lasting, BYU's a shade of royal(or even royalish) blue away from looking fantastic, Utah State needs to add serifs to their 1s (and bring back pants stripes for football), and so forth. That said, the Bees hit much closer to greatness than many of them, where the only swap is the cartoon Bee logo for the beloved interlocking "SL." (I, too, have a primarily yellow SL hat and it's excellent.) I've grown on the idea of the Bees introducing just a hint of, say, red to their color scheme for affiliate's. Maybe a silver (or to keep local flavor, copper) halo on the "Bees" B, but that's about it. I believe the original Bees (or the most well-known historical incarnation of them) were a Pirates affiliate IIRC, which leads to the very Pittsburgh-esque color scheme. Oh, and speaking of the Bees and special uniform nights, I so badly want one of those Gulls hats and/or jerseys (and we get to see Albuquerque Dukes uniforms too!).
  5. Agreed. There was definitely some logic to it, given the Jazz's spiritual predecessor in the ABA Stars and their success/support, and the Spirits of St. Louis planning to merge with the Stars and play under the Utah Rockies moniker. Granted, the Jazz' move to Salt Lake had to do with Battistone himself (California Mormon whose wife hailed from Utah), but it still astounds me that Salt Lake City was picked over Minneapolis, Toronto, Miami, or Dallas (OK, they were probably awarded their franchise by the time Jazz moved, but still) when it happened. That said, it would take that combination of someone wanting to set up shop in a smaller market against an NBA team and someone willing to stabilize it (or having the same owner as the NBA team, in Portland's case) for the NHL to work in Salt Lake City or any (near-)NBA-only city (or vice-versa for non-NBA NHL cities like Pittsburgh or St. Louis); I'm not expecting lightning to strike twice in Utah. But maybe Salt Lake gets AAA-level hockey again?
  6. Pretty much, at this point. Going up against the Jazz on a day in, day out, basis would be Challenge #1 for an NHL team wanting to set up shop there. I'm not saying it can't be done there or in any (near-)NBA-only city such as Portland or Oklahoma City, but the odds are pretty heavily stacked against it.
  7. Both fair points to be made, as I've made the Indiana-Utah connection on a more than a few occasions--and the Jazz even have Indiana natives George Hill and Gordon Hayward on their roster! I think NHL hockey could work in Salt Lake, but it would need an owner with Sam Battistone's mild insanity to pick Salt Lake City over Quebec or Portland/Seattle and/or Larry H. Miller's dedication to the market to make it work. But, checking USA Hockey membership numbers, at least from a couple years ago and assuming rates have generally been steady since, Utah has 4100 players to Nevada's 1300 (with probably about 90-95% of that 1300 in Las Vegas). While there may be better markets out there, I have no doubt in my mind that Salt Lake would be an improvement over Las Vegas. In short, though? I'd love to see the NHL in Salt Lake, but I doubt it happens. More realistically? I'd love to see AAA hockey come back, though hopefully with a more independent ownership than that of a parent team who could move the team on a whim, and the ECHL's Grizzlies have done well in a smaller pond the last 10 years.
  8. I know Bill Foley and the Las Vegas Golden Knights are a textbook case #2 of what's wrong with the NHL's decision-making, but I do appreciate his willingness to reach out to Utah (hello St. George!), which is about the only reasonable part of the Rockies that make any geographical (or any other kind of) sense in his statement. Now, if Las Vegas is as big of a flop as most of us think it will be, he could (assuming he'd still own the team then) make the Golden Knights a true Rocky Mountain team by making them the Golden Eagles. You know, the Salt Lake Golden Eagles.
  9. I don't know if it's been brought up, but we never got to see the Baltimore Ravens' inaugural uniforms, winged B-shield and all... ...face off with any team named the Cleveland Browns: As the Ravens switched to their current bird-head logo and (largely untouched) current set in 1999 when Cleveland Browns v2.0 started. Similarly, given that the Oilers also became the Titans in 1999, no team named the Cleveland Browns has played the Oilers since 1995 and Browns v2.0 has never played a team named the Oilers (whether in Houston or Tennessee).
  10. If I had to rank the moves, it would probably be in this order: 1. Cleveland Browns v1.0 to Baltimore. @BringBackTheVet pretty much nailed the reason as to why the Cleveland Deal set such an awful precedent for future relocations. That said, I have an unpopular caveat, but I'm OK with the Cleveland Deal up to the point where Cleveland Browns v2.0 is the Cleveland Browns v1.0; we all know they aren't--just ask Ozzie Newsome. I guess that, since many minor- (and a major-, hello Washington Senators) league teams in a given city have often used the same name as their predecessors, I kind of see team names/records/etc. (but strictly not franchise histories) as more of a title or legacy, like the term Ceasar in ancient Rome or, uh, I dunno, Donkey Kong. Simply put, I'd keep the original Browns as is with an alternate universe's Baltimore Ravens taking the Jacksonville Jaguars' place or a future 2000-ish expansion, taking the spot of Browns v2.0. 2. Seattle Supersonics to Oklahoma City. Speaking of screwy franchise histories...it's the classic Major League scheme...out-of-town owner buys (or otherwise assumes control of) a team, tanks team to destroy the fanbase, and moves the team to their hometown while claiming that every effort was made to keep them there (not really). Of course, Seattle's city council in 2007-2008 wasn't in the most giving mood, and today's council they struggle to let someone build a completely-private arena. That said, I'm not doubting Oklahoma City's legitimacy as an NBA market; in my alternate universe, the Sonics stay and the Thunder would be the re-relocated Hornets, with the Hornets' name (but not the franchise history) returning to Charlotte around 2008 (when the real-world Thunder began). Say what you will about the Cleveland Deal, it only rewrites about 3 years of history; the NBA's Charlotte and Seattle deals have and will do anything but. 3. San Diego Chargers to Los Angeles. If this move happened between 2005 and, oh, say 2007, I'd actually call it a good move. Not Rams-returning-to-Los Angeles good, but low-key, potentially have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too consolation prize smart. Back then, the St. Louis Rams were doing anything but being relevant and thinking of returning to Southern California (note: Georgia Frontiere was still alive). The Chargers could have at least saved some face in San Diego while becoming the regional team of southern California and would've also kept those pesky Rams (according to the Spanoses) from returning about 10 years later. Instead, they abandon the city that's been home to them for just more than half a century to become the pre-Chris Paul/Blake Griffin LA Clippers of the NFL while burning bridges in said city. It's very fitting that their abbreviation will be LAC. TL;DR Dean Spanos' "Los Angeles is too important for us to lose" narrative would have actually been backed up by some degree of logic! 4. Winnipeg Jets v1.0 to Phoenix. Nevermind the poor shape of the loonie or the antiquated arena. The fact that the original Winnipeg Jets--now known as the Phoenix Arizona Coyotes--have never turned a profit in Phoenix speaks for itself. Don't get me wrong--non-traditional markets can and have worked (California, Tampa Bay, and Dallas to a slightly lesser extent), and things could have worked out for the Coyotes if they found a way to get their own (or more hockey-friendly) downtown arena, but moving out to Glendale only sunk them further in red ink and made them the textbook case of why using public money to fund private teams is a bad idea. Sucking your city dry of public funds to support a team that no one besides visiting teams' fans watch is anything but "growing the game." Sure, maybe the Jets could've just gone to Minnesota where hockey was appreciated instead, but Phoenix should never have gotten (and maintained) an NHL team the way they did. 4½. Quebec Nordiques to Denver. I use 4½ because I wouldn't call it a flat-out relocation prevention, as Denver was (is?), at least at one time, a quality hockey market. If I could've controlled it (I can't, but it's the topic at hand), I would've let Quebec stay another year or two to at least depart their city as winners (assuming everything else falls into place). Of course, Denver could've gotten the team that became the Nashville Predators or Atlanta Thrashers (if Winnipeg stayed) instead.
  11. Having had Super Mario Maker on the Wii U, I can attest to the fact that it's pretty fun and addicting. I wish that I didn't sell it along with my original Wii U. I've heard that the down port to the 3DS was a pretty big dropoff in quality.
  12. It's a great, well-thought-out list, as some of my favorites are on there: Mario Kart 64, Donkey Kong Country, Super Mario World, and to a lesser extent Sonic 2 (given that I never owned a Sega system in my life) and Super Smash Bros Melee. Also, I didn't read about sports games and their validity in your list, but there are a few of those that I can mention as well, most particularly NBA Jam: Tournament Edition and Tecmo Super Bowl. I haven't played it yet, but I'd agree that SM3DW is the game that seamlessly adds a dimension to the 2D Mario elements (classic, non-timed SMB powerups, enemies, etc.). (That's not a knock on the earlier 3D games like Super Mario 64 or the Super Mario Galaxy games.) That said, save for the Sonic franchise each of the others have noteworthy entries: Super Mario Bros. 3, Donkey Kong Country 2, Mario Kart 8, Mario Kart 7, Diddy Kong Racing, and heck, even Mario Kart: Double Dash!! has aged pretty well, too. (And yes, my gaming repertoire consists of 90% Nintendo IP and NES/SNES sports games.) Again, these are my opinions, but a few quick (I hope) thoughts on each of these games mentioned above: Super Mario Bros. 3: While SMW did bring great new additions to the Mario formula (Yoshi being the foremost) and it's deserving of being one of the best Super Mario Bros titles out there, it seemed to miss something more than the Tanooki and Hammer Bros. suit. I guess it doesn't seem quite as...expansive, I guess? True, you have above ground/underground/water/forest/sky/ghost house/castle levels, but, for example, there are maybe 2 ice (cave) levels and no airship levels. You do have the Star Road and Halloweenization of the game once you beat said challenging levels (and yes, it is a challenge--I hate Tubular with a passion), but there are only 7 main worlds in the game (you fight the last boss right before entering Bowser's castle), which, by and large, don't have many distinct features, and don't seem to have as many levels (averaging 4-5 per world). Compare that with SMB3, where each world is distinct (grass/desert/water/giant/sky/ice/pipe maze/dark) and largely has its own different mechanic (most of which describe themselves and World 8 is primarily airships/tanks/fortresses), and there are plenty of levels to go around, whether you wanted to play them or not. (The biggest knock on SMB3 as compared to SMW is the lack of a save feature but that's easily fixed by emulators or the SNES port.) You also had different powerups (Raccoon tail, Tanooki/Hammer Bros./frog suit) and could enter a level with them by selecting them on the map screen. That said, this is a debate that can go either way and largely depends on which game you played first. Donkey Kong Country 2: I love the original Donkey Kong Country (and have played it off and on on a Retro Pi), but similar to my comparison of Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario World, the original seems to lack a level of refinement and expansiveness/scope. Don't get me wrong, it's still one of my favorite games and franchises of all time, the music is on a whole 'nother level compared with its era, I absolutely love the environment and theme of the game (including the reboot of sorts for the ape), and ground-smacking enemies with DK or landing a long roll-air jump with Diddy is still very satisfying. That said, it has its share of collision/platforming bugs (especially when timing/platforming/defeating enemies/finding bonus rooms becomes crucial in the final world or two) and kind of left me wanting another world, maybe two, after defeating King K. Rool. Enter the second installment, which makes not only finding--and beating--bonus levels required for the 102% 100% completion, but also requires the gathering of hidden DK coins in order to do so, but also has 8 worlds compared to the original's 6--the final of which is unlocked after beating the bonus levels. The soundtrack is also otherworldly for the SNES, and the levels are challenging (especially in the Lost World). The only knock I have against the game is that DK himself is not unlockable (say, after beating King Kaptain K. Rool the first time), as he's kidnapped and it's up to Diddy--and the newly introduced Dixie, whose main mechanic is that she show her decent by helicoptering--to rescue him. (Of course, I do like the switching mechanic in the original SNES DKC games and am bummed that it's been removed from the Wii and Wii U DKC games.) TL;DR I guess my main critisicm of the original DKC was that, while great, it was not refined enough as its sequel. It seems as though my thoughts are running a little long and it's late, but I'll get back to explaining the rest of the games later on.
  13. Ooh. I forgot about that bit. That's definitely being stuck between a rock and a hard place.
  14. Such a horrid trade. Maybe, just maybe, the Kings should've moved to Seattle in 2013 when they had the chance, because the Ranadive ownership has been nothing but pyritic. OK, I'm only kinda joking here, but it's been awful. My heart goes out to Sacramento.
  15. It'd be a shame to see this happen. I've always loved seeing Utah and Alaska play, as it has felt like the two have been rivals in the last few years.