Ice_Cap

Moderators
  • Content count

    24,695
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4,711 Excellent

2 Followers

About Ice_Cap

  • Rank
    (((Prime)))
  • Birthday 07/22/1987

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Tampa, FL

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

67,478 profile views
  1. I'm hyped. Transformers and Arthurian lore smashed together via the delicate touch of Mr. Bay? YES PLZ!
  2. As I understand it the London Knights just have very good trademark lawyers and were able to lock their name down more securely than other teams in similar situation.
  3. I'm not sure I would call the London Knights protecting their trademark a "temper-tantrum."
  4. The Miz Participation Award. That's stuff you just don't get on Raw
  5. WCW [/WCWhomer] Regardless SmackDown's always been "my" show since I started watching WWE with any sort of regularity, which was around the time of the first brand split. Raw was...Raw...and SmackDown felt like the "rebel" show going against Raw. As a former Nitro fan? That appealed to me. Plus SmackDown was just the better show during that first brand split. It had Lesnar, Undertaker back before the bottom fell out, Edge, Mysterio, Eddie, Kurt Angle, He Who Must Not Be Named, the Crusierweights (lots of old WCW guys), and most importantly Matt Hardy V1 All helmed by Heyman on the creative end. Meanwhile Raw had Vince McMahon giving us Kattie Vick and Bischoff handing HHH the old NWA/WCW belt because HHH wanted to bury the whole show play Four Horsemen. It's really funny how the exact same thing happened this time around. Raw remains the business as usual show while SD is the place where they're allowed to break out of the mould. An announcer who actually knows and calls moves, the old NXT creative team giving us less convoluted and more straightforward, quality stories. And better talent. AJ, Dean, The Miz re-inventing himself as possibly the best pure heel in the company, Calisto, Baron Corbin, the Wyatts, rejuvenated Usos, American Alpha, and a more interesting women's division. Also Dolph Ziggler I guess The biggest problem with SD is the same problem SD had back during the first brand split. The production is too close to the WWE "norm." The WWE feel should be Raw's. SD needs to truly be something different on the production end to sell the idea of different brands. Give the refs different shirts (something they did back then), try different camera angles. Go back to just a two-man booth. Go with a set that doesn't look like your standard WWE set. They're doing some of this, but they aren't pushing it enough, in my opinion. Plus one of the things that made SD unique (Talking Smack) got ported over to Raw (Raw Talk). WWE should be pushing the two brands apart from a production standpoint. Not homogenizing them.
  6. OSU beat the then-#3 ranked team in the country in their last game. That's not backing in.
  7. I don't care what anyone says. I dig Baron Corbin.
  8. I think we all know the Cowboys' success is inspite of Jerry and not because of him
  9. I have no issue with "European style" names, but "Railhawks" is such a cool name. Shame to see it replaced.
  10. Matt Hardy Version 1 was a terribly underrated gimmick.
  11. Those are just tv numbers.
  12. I don't think it's inconsistency. I think it just comes down to teams existing in their own context. The Maple Leafs have been blue and white for ninety-two of their hundred years of existence. That's their look. It works for them. The Lightning, on the other hand, had been black, blue, white, and silver up until relatively recently. People tend to give their current look a hard time not because blue and white looks back, but because it's infringing on the established look of another team. With the Padres? Navy and white works for the Yankees and Tigers because that's their establish look. The Padres though? They're not as established, and have a history with a unique colour scheme. What works for the Yankees and Tigers seems bland in the Padres' context.
  13. Their reasoning was equally enraging. The team claimed they needed to put the primary logo on the sleeve so people would know it was a Chicago White Sox jersey. A jersey with "Chicago" across the chest and a logo featuring a white sock on the sleeve apparently wasn't enough.
  14. Diamond sock logo definitely.
  15. I don't agree. It's too busy to be on the front. The Reds briefly had their mascot logo on the front, and it just looked odd.