raysox

Unpopular Opinions

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, TenaciousG said:

 

Yes! I loved all the bird teams when I was a kid. I had an orioles hat, a Blue Jays hat and a Cardinals hat (even though that was just the STL, but still a classic).

Me too. I liked the Cardinals' BoB logo even though I'm an Ohioan and the Cards are a chief rival of the Reds, the team I grew up watching and listening to on the radio. I also rooted heavily for the Orioles against the Indians in the 1996 ALDS and 1997 ALCS. Would've rooted for the Jays too had they ever been in the playoffs. (1994 was the first year I followed MLB at all, and the strike that wiped out that year's World Series weighed heavily on my psyche...till the next season.)

 

2 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

OMG I'm not the only one!

 

Yea, I'd rather them not be just navy and white but if they ARE gonna be just navy and white then well, at least they don't look THAT bad. Some consistency would be nice too. Say they wear this uniform set for the next 20 years? People might actually start thinking they're pretty decent looking. And yes I agree on them looking "clean." A few teams have pulled off a decent blue and white look so it's not impossible for the Padres to eventually do the same. 

Problem is, the Yankees and (home) Tigers have had navy and white on lockdown for decades. Even if the Padres kept their mediocre current look for 20 more years, they'd still be have only the third-longest tenure in those colors minus any other in MLB (longest in NL, but still)...plus, when you add in those that pair navy with a secondary color, the list encompasses practically half of MLB. Brown is unique. The Padres are the only MLB team of their lifetime to feature it. It blows my mind that they'd rather blend in.

 

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

That’s only unpopular here, where a bunch of people ignore that the team won three Stanley Cups in red/black and that fans prefer it. Heck, you’ve got people saying that red/green are their “true colors” despite all of their success coming in red/black. These people also do the same for the royal/yellow Mariners, which I find silly (but slightly more understandable, given the M’s problems).

 

As with navy and white (Padres), red and black is generally a boring, generic color scheme. The Devils can share it with Chicago (granted the Blackhawks have lots of other colors in their logo) and Carolina, or they can choose to stand out. As for the Mariners, I don't understand how anyone could think their blasé "M's" set was all that great, but they at least had some decent logos before it. I think navy and "northwest green" suit them better though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MCM0313 said:

Problem is, the Yankees and (home) Tigers have had navy and white on lockdown for decades. Even if the Padres kept their mediocre current look for 20 more years, they'd still be have only the third-longest tenure in those colors minus any other in MLB (longest in NL, but still)...plus, when you add in those that pair navy with a secondary color, the list encompasses practically half of MLB. Brown is unique. The Padres are the only MLB team of their lifetime to feature it. It blows my mind that they'd rather blend in.

Oh I totally agree with this. Just saying that if they really really reaaallllllyyy wanna be a navy and white team they CAN look good doing it. Many of us don't like their current look because it pales in comparison to many, if not most, of their past looks... but if we were too look at the current Padres uniforms in a vacuum, independent from any of their other previous looks, then it's really not *that* bad, or at least not that bad for a team that only uses one color and a negative color. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

OMG I'm not the only one!

 

Yea, I'd rather them not be just navy and white but if they ARE gonna be just navy and white then well, at least they don't look THAT bad. Some consistency would be nice too. Say they wear this uniform set for the next 20 years? People might actually start thinking they're pretty decent looking. And yes I agree on them looking "clean." A few teams have pulled off a decent blue and white look so it's not impossible for the Padres to eventually do the same. 

 

The Padres also use a brighter shade of navy than the Yankees and Tigers, and their letters are completely different. You'll never mistake them for any other team. Nice, distinct look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, daveindc said:

 

The Padres also use a brighter shade of navy than the Yankees and Tigers, and their letters are completely different. You'll never mistake them for any other team. Nice, distinct look.

Booooooooriiiiiiiiing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, daveindc said:

 

The Padres also use a brighter shade of navy than the Yankees and Tigers, and their letters are completely different. You'll never mistake them for any other team. Nice, distinct look.

 

I was about to say the same thing.  Great point except for the last sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, rjrrzube said:

 

You know, that's not really that bad. Although I would say have a LITTLE orange, just to tie it to their history. But brown and white ain't awful.

Purely as an on-field look, it's not bad. As an overall identity package, it suffers from all the weaknesses that the previous Browns did. There's no obvious team logo or identity, and nothing that marks this look as clearly "Browns." That's semi-excusable if you're just attempting to maintain 50 years of tradition, but if you're going to move away from the traditional look (yes, I know they wore white helmets briefly once upon a time, but that makes this a fauxback at best), you may as well fix the other glaring flaws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best logo the Pirates have ever had:

 

6068_pittsburgh_pirates-alternate-1997.p

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2018 at 2:25 PM, DNAsports said:

There should be more gray alternates in the NFL.

Get rid of the color rash, and I'd be all for it.

 

On 3/9/2018 at 2:32 PM, daniel75 said:

Devil Rays name and colors are far superior to the Rays.

I'll back you up on this.  Every time I hear "Rays" I don't think sun.  I think of my brother in law.  Or Ray Romano.  If they *had* to rebrand, which they didn't, they should've went with Stingrays, or went all the way and picked something so completely different that it never would be considered similar (e.g., the Houston Colt .45's going to Astros).

 

On 4/4/2018 at 10:51 PM, kroywen said:

Okay, unpopular opinion: I grew up during the 90s, and I hate the retro 90s trend going on right now. Fashion was never tackier than in the 90s, and sports uniforms epitomized that.

The "let's go back 20-30 years" thing has been going on my entire lifetime.  In the 70's the 50's were retro.  In the 80's, people thought it cool to either look like hippies, or go the complete opposite direction and call themselves 'yuppies.'  Fashion in the 1990's was nothing compared to the 70's when it came to being tacky - including when it came to sports uniforms... and with respect to the latter, the NFL of the 2010's alone makes this decade dwarf every past decade, in all sports, combined.

 

On 4/7/2018 at 1:53 AM, Jimmy Lethal said:

While it needs some green in there, the orca is the best logo the Canucks have ever had.

Because nothing epitomizes Johnny Canuck like a whale.  It's like Uncle Sam being represented by a rabbit.

 

On 4/11/2018 at 12:48 PM, SFGiants58 said:

I know now that I’ll get heat for that opinion, but I’ve long felt this way. The “Browns” name should rest in the same grave as the Oilers’ identity.

 

Also, Baltimore Ravens > Baltimore Browns. When a local name is that good, you can’t pass it up.

I won't argue with you on Ravens > Browns, but I'll take the rest of the argument in the opposite direction and suggest that not only should the Browns identity not have been mothballed, but that Bob McNair should've demanded that for his $700 million franchise fee, Houston should've got the Oilers name and branding so as to revive it.  I've got nothing against the Houston Texans, but the Houston Oilers identity and brand were inconic, even when the team sucked wind.

 

On 4/12/2018 at 10:25 AM, KRZYBDGRZ said:

Ok I just found out that my high schools hockey team is using the buffaslug home jerseys, with a new logo on it. Is it wrong that I love it?

You love the jersey design?  No problem.  You love the Buffaslug logo?  See below.

 

24 minutes ago, FinsUp1214 said:

Best logo the Pirates have ever had:

 

6068_pittsburgh_pirates-alternate-1997.p

 

 

You should, immediately upon reading this, go to Google, look up your nearest psychiatrist, call them and arrange an appointment.  Because you are in obvious need of help.

 

Now, my unpopular opinion, in the form of a question:

Where's a John Wilkes Booth, Charles Guiteau, Leon Czolgosz or Lee Harvey Oswald when you really need one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Mac the Knife said:

 You should, immediately upon reading this, go to Google, look up your nearest psychiatrist, call them and arrange an appointment.  Because you are in obvious need of help.

 

Nope, I assure you I’m fine. I just have a different opinion than you and that should be okay. Thanks for the concern though. ;) 

 

Seriously though, in comparison to this goofy thing:

 

g5lsaihwwpgba65gdhri.png

 

...Neil Diamond over here:

 

7xkp9hnp9jq11e1zia4tdcqjh.png

 

...This guy that’s irked at how poorly drawn he is:

 

2309.png

 

...And a cap logo that’s good but lacking as a primary?

 

1250_pittsburgh_pirates-primary-2014.png

 

...I’ll take the ‘97 Pirate every single time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FinsUp1214 said:

 

Nope, I assure you I’m fine. I just have a different opinion than you and that should be okay. Thanks for the concern though. ;) 

 

7xkp9hnp9jq11e1zia4tdcqjh.png

 

Aw, c'mon... if that guy's not the epitome of "70's macho despite wearing a friggin' hoop earring," what is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of all of the potential new names for the Cleveland Indians that get thrown around on social media and on these boards, "Naps"/"Napoleons" is my least favorite.

 

While "Spiders" has the stigma of "worst team ever" (counterbalanced by "Cy Young played for them, and the 'worst team ever' was because their owners owned another NL team) and "Blues" sounds too much like Blue Jays, "Naps" is just a bad name all around. Allow me to explain:

 

1. The name was an homage to Nap Lajoie, one of the best deadball-era players and a player-manager. However, he has descended into relative obscurity compared to similarly-abled deadball players (e.g., Ty Cobb) and Cleveland baseball players (correct me if I'm wrong, but there are no dedications to him at Progressive Field or in the city at large). I guess the name could be an educational opportunity for some fans, but his overall significance to the franchise has lessened over time. Names like the "Cleveland Fellers" or the "Cleveland Dobys" would be more appropriate.

 

2. They could always shift the name to a certain French general/monarch. However, that produces problems. There is a standard anglophonic antipathy towards Napoleon Bonaparte, hence the historically-inaccurate idea of the "Napoleon Complex" for short guys and unsympathetic depiction in historical media. Just look at Goya's "The Third of May, 1808" and see why it's a bad idea to name a team after the guy.

 

3. "Naps" sounds too much like a certain WWII-era slur for the Japanese. When getting away from a "racial" name, don't switch to something that's one vowel away from a racial slur.

 

Names like "Spiders," "Blues (guitar-themed, to not infringe on the St. Louis NHL team)," "Guardians (for those cool statues right by Progressive Field)," and even "Fellers/Dobys" are all better choices than "Naps"/"Napoleons." I'd rather they keep the "Indians" name over bringing back "Naps" or some "Cleveland Baseball Club" moniker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2018 at 10:18 AM, rjrrzube said:

 

You know, that's not really that bad. Although I would say have a LITTLE orange, just to tie it to their history. But brown and white ain't awful.

 

I’m a Browns fan, and I love their classic look, but I’m okay with them adopting a new look as long as it’s well done. I’ve gotta say, I’ve long been intrigued by this idea (among others). Throw some orange stripes on either side of the brown stripe (and add matching pant stripes), and I think you’ve got a nice, clean look that has historical roots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

Of all of the potential new names for the Cleveland Indians that get thrown around on social media and on these boards, "Naps"/"Napoleons" is my least favorite.

 

While "Spiders" has the stigma of "worst team ever" (counterbalanced by "Cy Young played for them, and the 'worst team ever' was because their owners owned another NL team) and "Blues" sounds too much like Blue Jays, "Naps" is just a bad name all around. Allow me to explain:

 

1. The name was an homage to Nap Lajoie, one of the best deadball-era players and a player-manager. However, he has descended into relative obscurity compared to similarly-abled deadball players (e.g., Ty Cobb) and Cleveland baseball players (correct me if I'm wrong, but there are no dedications to him at Progressive Field or in the city at large). I guess the name could be an educational opportunity for some fans, but his overall significance to the franchise has lessened over time. Names like the "Cleveland Fellers" or the "Cleveland Dobys" would be more appropriate.

 

2. They could always shift the name to a certain French general/monarch. However, that produces problems. There is a standard anglophonic antipathy towards Napoleon Bonaparte, hence the historically-inaccurate idea of the "Napoleon Complex" for short guys and unsympathetic depiction in historical media. Just look at Goya's "The Third of May, 1808" and see why it's a bad idea to name a team after the guy.

 

3. "Naps" sounds too much like a certain WWII-era slur for the Japanese. When getting away from a "racial" name, don't switch to something that's one vowel away from a racial slur.

 

Names like "Spiders," "Blues (guitar-themed, to not infringe on the St. Louis NHL team)," "Guardians (for those cool statues right by Progressive Field)," and even "Fellers/Dobys" are all better choices than "Naps"/"Napoleons." I'd rather they keep the "Indians" name over bringing back "Naps" or some "Cleveland Baseball Club" moniker.

Your #3 is a bit of a reach.. Also, it's a consonant away from the racial "slur" (although more of an abbreviation than a slur.. Kinda like how "Naps" is short for a longer word).. I don't think anyone would ever mistake them for being anything other than the Naps..

Although, I agree it's a terrible name for several other reasons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, WavePunter said:

Your #3 is a bit of a reach.. Also, it's a consonant away from the racial "slur" (although more of an abbreviation than a slur.. Kinda like how "Naps" is short for a longer word).. I don't think anyone would ever mistake them for being anything other than the Naps..

 

Well, it's both a consonant away from one racial slur for Japanese in WWII, and a vowel away from another racial slur for Japanese in WWII. Also damn close to "Nappy," a derogatory description of black people's hair, so there's that too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, kroywen said:

 

Well, it's both a consonant away from one racial slur for Japanese in WWII, and a vowel away from another racial slur for Japanese in WWII. Also damn close to "Nappy," a derogatory description of black people's hair, so there's that too.

It's closer to either of the slurs than "Nappy", imo.. Another reach.. But, as I've stated, I think it's a ridiculous name anyway, so if you feel like that lends justification to opposing the name, more power to ya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ajunk1_zpsdu2wzrga.png

 

Number fonts rarely bother me. It has to get really goofy, like the Bucs' new font. A lot of people have been complaining about the Dolphins' font, but only the 7 looks a little off to me. I probably wouldn't even notice that if I weren't studying the numbers specifically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unpopular opinion:  where football jerseys are concerned, with rare exception, all jerseys that don't use the old-school, varsity style numeral font?  Suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Phillies have the goofiest number font in professional sports. And this is coming from a fan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be okay with sponsor logos in the NFL ONLY if it were limited to helmet bumpers. They did that in the short lived UFL and it was visually tolerable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2018 at 7:12 AM, daveindc said:

 

The Padres' uniforms have grown on me. My first reaction to them was "boring blue and white", but they're actually pretty clean and distinct. Pinstripes might have been nice, but I like the way the white pops on these too.

Maybe this is an unpopular opinion but I think that a yellow outline and the 2016 hat would've got (most) people to shut up about brown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now