• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

972 Excellent

About TheOldRoman

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

20,724 profile views
  1. Well, yes. That would be fine by me, but it defeats the point from New Era's perspective. It's less exposure. Even with HDTV, it's something most fans wouldn't notice in 90% of the close-up shots. NE definitely gave MLB a bunch of extra millions to include that logo on the hats, so they're going to get their money's worth.
  2. I've tried taking the NE logo off two different hats. The logo is too small with too many turns. It doesn't work out well. Even if you don't end up poking a hole in it, there's a distinctive fraying of the material and ghosting behind the logo.
  3. That's a trash uniform honoring a franchise nobody watching today cares about and most weren't alive to see. It would be adding yet another color scheme to the Padres' history, and once again promising the fans what they want and delivering something that will displease both people who like current stuff and classic stuff. So, that's gotta be it. Switching to that uniform would be the most Padres thing ever.
  4. I don't agree with that. Basketball tanktops were developed out of functionality and had been worn for, like, a hundred years by teams above junior high level. A shoe company trotted out sleeved jerseys a few years back to drum up sales. Just their presence is an affront to the sport. Of course, baseball vests have been around for probably 100 years, so they don't seem out of the ordinary to me. I agree that sleeved jerseys are ideal for most teams, but certain teams, like the Pirates and Reds, looked good to me wearing traditional vests. Nobody looks good in modern Majestic sleeveless jerseys, however.
  5. Great googily-moogily!
  6. He sounds like a drunk castmember at a renaissance fair. And that was possibly the single worst thing I've ever watched.
  7. The Steelers wore a patch.
  8. Personally, I'd love to see you shut your mouth. Seriously, I'd hate to see them go navy and yellow. That's the worst possible outcome. At least with the current drab crap, it could be justified with the fact that they've worn it for 16 years. Royal blue and yellow look much better together than navy and yellow, and the Rams obviously have an extensive history in those colors. Navy and yellow might look better than their current stuff, but it would look worse than they *could* look. And what's more, it would elicit a Sabres-esque masturbatory "we're going back to our roots by wearing something we've never worn before and keeping a current color which is considerably less popular than the classic one it's replacing."
  9. "Well, I've always been a huge fan of Memorial Day, and my favorite player is Juan Nicasio..."
  10. Because the Yankees are the only team that deeply cares about how it looks. They previously resisted the template dugout jackets and the crappy S&S caps as long as baseball allowed. The Yankees are surely paying extra to have the side panels removed (as well as the manufacturer logo), but it's worth it. The rest of the teams in sports say, "Eh, close enough" when given designs which are altered due to either manufacturer laziness (Jets, Colts) or specifically to highlight a manufacturer's template (Saints' collars, Grizzlies' numbers).
  11. Yep. That looks awful and cheap.
  12. It's a new Pac Man logo, though, and it's in a different color scheme. The throwback merchandise for the original Hornets is still a top seller, and the team ended up going back to basically the same colors, so the league wasn't going to let them limit sales by reproducing gear that's already for sale. A better example would be the Sixers. They went back to the old logo, then tweaked it. But I don't think the Sixers had huge throwback sales to begin with, and also the jerseys are "honoring their past" by wearing uniforms they've never worn before. Plus, the Sixers are the actual franchise that used the logo previously, while the Hornets aren't.
  13. Legitimate competition would help them. But more specifically, the threat of extinction will lead them to take chances. WCW was going to put them out of business, so they fundamentally changed the product. These days, there's probably never going to be any real competition again, so most of the people who love wrestling are always going to somewhat follow the product no matter how bad it gets. But if they're disgusted enough with the product, the regular audience could start tuning out. Most of us bitch and continue watching. Two years from now, if Ambrose, Owens and Cesaro are still held down, and Reigns wins the Royal Rumble for the third time in four years, fans might actually be at a breaking point. Right now, Vince thinks the fans will eventually love Roman, and taking any dramatic risks could, of course, lead directly to the extinction the company hoped to avoid. So the company is underachieving, but until fans hit that breaking point and the company starts losing money, they'll keep underachieving and pushing Reigns. Also, let's take a moment to remember when Vince "lost 60% of his fortune" on the WWE Network. They had early issues and weren't broadcasting outside of the US. Well, within a year, Vince had made back the money he lost and more. He's going to keep doing his thing.
  14. Eh. Purchasing the Impact Zone probably costs little more than purchasing McDonald's franchise. With $115 million, he can almost buy an NHL team.
  15. I think it's just the lighting. His suit is a few different shades of gray and red. Also: