Unpopular Opinions

[San Diego]

Well, to be fair I never said I like that logo. I just said they could have something better than a ugly C as their primary especially some sort of bear.

[ltjets21]

I do not know if this is unpopular for sure but the Tennessee Titans should have kept their name the Oilers even in Tennessee.  That was one of the best brands in the history of sports and it is a shame it is no longer used. They could have even switched to the name Titans with the original colors. 

[Quillz]

Even if they wanted to, they couldn't retain the name for legal reasons. And "Oilers" doesn't really fit in Tennessee, although that hasn't stopped plenty of other teams from keeping names that don't make sense in new cities.

[Chromatic]

1 hour ago, ltjets21 said:

I do not know if this is unpopular for sure but the Tennessee Titans should have kept their name the Oilers even in Tennessee.  That was one of the best brands in the history of sports and it is a shame it is no longer used. They could have even switched to the name Titans with the original colors. 

Disagree completely, a team's nickname should be a homage to the city/state/region's character. Whether thats geographical, cultural, etc, it doesn't really matter. That's the entire point of a nickname. Its bad enough when you get generic ones like "Bulldogs" or "Warriors", even worse when they kept a nickname from a city where it no longer makes sense, like Utah Jazz. 

 

Imagine for the sake of argument the Colorado Avalanche or New York Islanders moving to Kansas City. "Kansas City Islanders" or "Kansas City Avalanche" is a bit absurd.

 

Also I never understood what was so great about the Houston Oilers identity. The colours were pretty unique, beyond that they had a clip art oil derrick for a logo and a a generic striping pattern. Nothing about it screams "untouchable" or "iconic" to me.

[BJ Sands]

On 10/23/2018 at 10:19 AM, ScubaSteve said:

 

I'd go as far as to say the Bears have one of the most boring identities in professional sports. Both logos are bland as are the colors. And their uniforms are completely uninteresting.

 

Are they really iconic though? I'd argue one Super Bowl does not an iconic identity make. They can easily pull some of the magic the Lions are doing right now and call back to the past while embracing the future.

The Bears and their uniforms arent just about one Super Bowl. But it’s late and I don’t feel like fighting this fight. 

[mafiaman]

8 hours ago, Quillz said:

Even if they wanted to, they couldn't retain the name for legal reasons. And "Oilers" doesn't really fit in Tennessee, although that hasn't stopped plenty of other teams from keeping names that don't make sense in new cities.

What “legal reasons” prevented the owner of a sports team from keeping the name “Oilers” after he moved the franchise?  

[_DietDrPepper_]

I don’t know how people think about this, but everyone I know that I’ve asked says Nike is doing a great job, off the top of my head, I can’t remember a single upgrade theyve made yet, maybe LA, maybe Philly , otherwise no they’ve all been down grades, and they’re alternate “city” uniforms, should be abolished, 99% of them are complete garbage, along with the whole “association” “”city” stuff. Dumb ideas. The only thing I like about this is the teams the didn’t touch, Boston, Chicago, Golden State. All amazing looks that I’m honestly waiting for Nike to ruin

[mafiaman]

On 10/30/2018 at 10:51 PM, Chromatic said:

Also I never understood what was so great about the Houston Oilers identity. The colours were pretty unique, beyond that they had a clip art oil derrick for a logo and a a generic striping pattern. Nothing about it screams "untouchable" or "iconic" to me.

Along the same lines, what's so "untouchable" or "iconic" about the New York Yankees, Chicago Bears, or Boston Celtics?  

[SFGiants58]

I wish the Ottawa Senators would change their name to the Centurions. The Roman theme has the potential to be far more distinctive than any barberpole or “O” variant used by either the original or modern team. Just go all-in on it.

 

The name Ottawa Senators should occupy the same historical dustbin as the New York Americans, Philadelphia Quakers, and Quebec Bulldogs. Sure, they won a bunch of Stanley Cups, but they didn’t have the power to outlast the Great Depression like the six surviving pre-1967 teams. Let the name fade into the past, while keeping their color scheme and minor allusions to that history.

[Prince Harry]

Worth a try. The team would still have the same nickname, just spelled differently (Sens vs Cens).

[Chromatic]

On 11/1/2018 at 10:37 AM, mafiaman said:

Along the same lines, what's so "untouchable" or "iconic" about the New York Yankees, Chicago Bears, or Boston Celtics?  

Mostly just history I'd say. I don't think any of those looks are particularly great, but I can see why they won't ever be touched. I absolutely hate the Yankees uniforms, but when you hear the term 'pinstripes' they're the first team to come to mind.

[WavePunter]

On 10/30/2018 at 11:51 PM, Chromatic said:

Disagree completely, a team's nickname should be a homage to the city/state/region's character. Whether thats geographical, cultural, etc, it doesn't really matter. That's the entire point of a nickname. Its bad enough when you get generic ones like "Bulldogs" or "Warriors", even worse when they kept a nickname from a city where it no longer makes sense, like Utah Jazz. 

 

Imagine for the sake of argument the Colorado Avalanche or New York Islanders moving to Kansas City. "Kansas City Islanders" or "Kansas City Avalanche" is a bit absurd.

 

Also I never understood what was so great about the Houston Oilers identity. The colours were pretty unique, beyond that they had a clip art oil derrick for a logo and a a generic striping pattern. Nothing about it screams "untouchable" or "iconic" to me.

Disagree completely, there are no Tigers in Detroit, Bears in Chicago, Rams in LA, Pirates in Pittsburgh, etc.. a great brand is a great brand, regardless of local ties.. sure, it can certainly work, but often feels too forced and cheesy.. Especially more modern examples.. maybe i feel better about some of the older ones because i'm more used to them, but either way, i don't think it's a critical part to building a strong identity/brand.. in fact, i'd say it's often more of a hindrance.. 

also, some might argue that the Lakers' brand is one of the strongest in all of pro sports - and it fits your "absurd" definition.. so, even then i don't mind it, because it still contributes to the team's identity by linking it to its past.. 

at the end of the day, i think if a brand is executed well with colors/logos/uniforms, and has some success, it'll gain fan support and be a strong identity.. i don't necessarily think regional character plays a significant role in that..

[Chromatic]

5 hours ago, WavePunter said:

Disagree completely, there are no Tigers in Detroit, Bears in Chicago, Rams in LA, Pirates in Pittsburgh, etc.. a great brand is a great brand, regardless of local ties.. sure, it can certainly work, but often feels too forced and cheesy.. Especially more modern examples.. maybe i feel better about some of the older ones because i'm more used to them, but either way, i don't think it's a critical part to building a strong identity/brand.. in fact, i'd say it's often more of a hindrance.. 

also, some might argue that the Lakers' brand is one of the strongest in all of pro sports - and it fits your "absurd" definition.. so, even then i don't mind it, because it still contributes to the team's identity by linking it to its past.. 

at the end of the day, i think if a brand is executed well with colors/logos/uniforms, and has some success, it'll gain fan support and be a strong identity.. i don't necessarily think regional character plays a significant role in that..

Every club you listed has a wealth of history behind it, which is why those names don't come across that way. They've built up enough brand recognition over the years that it comes across as iconic, but if Detroit got a brand new team and it was announced they'd be called the "Tigers", the general consensus on this board would be 'Wow, thats really generic, underwhelming, etc'. In a vacuum, the name is pedestrian, you can find 10 high schools in every city called the Tigers. But since they've been around so long, they've shaped that great identity. 

[agentrygraphics]

The NBA's introduction of, and subsequent allowance of otherwise "off-brand" jerseys for their respective teams - diverting away from just "home" and "away" denotations and the color schemes thereof - is a slippery slope of cash-grabbing brand dilution that is not unlike the jersey stunts we have seen in Minor League baseball.

 

...Change my mind. 

[WavePunter]

15 hours ago, Chromatic said:

Every club you listed has a wealth of history behind it, which is why those names don't come across that way. They've built up enough brand recognition over the years that it comes across as iconic, but if Detroit got a brand new team and it was announced they'd be called the "Tigers", the general consensus on this board would be 'Wow, thats really generic, underwhelming, etc'. In a vacuum, the name is pedestrian, you can find 10 high schools in every city called the Tigers. But since they've been around so long, they've shaped that great identity. 

i don't disagree with those specific points, as the nickname "tigers" is overly generic (although i've seen it argued on these boards that the more general nicknames like Tigers are more "professional" sounding than nicknames like Bengals - but that's a different discussion) and those teams having great history - but other nicknames like "Falcons" and "Panthers" are similarly generic, but have built strong brand identities as well - and with much less history.. i think you can go slightly less generic without selling out into the campy, local side of things.. again, i think the local identity concept is one that's tough to pull off without feeling forced, and i also think you can easily paint yourself into a corner where folks feel like you chose the wrong local thing to build an identity around, or you lose the ability to play off of multiple different local things... 

for example: the Miami Heat's "Miami Vice" uniforms - great and interesting one-off uniform set that plays into the colors and art deco style associated with Miami, as well as the iconic television show, etc.. but by having a general nickname like "Heat", they're able to pull off such things.. then looking at their crosstown baseball counterparts - i feel like the Marlins went all-in on the art deco theme way too much, resulting in a diluted, cheap-looking brand, with random additional colors and an awkward logo (i know some folks here love it, but i hate it).. so i feel like it's just as divisive (if not more so) to sell out on local themes than to go a bit more generic with some loose local ties that make enough sense to not be questioned, but aren't overly-specific..

[MCM0313]

7 hours ago, agentrygraphics said:

The NBA's introduction of, and subsequent allowance of otherwise "off-brand" jerseys for their respective teams - diverting away from just "home" and "away" denotations and the color schemes thereof - is a slippery slope of cash-grabbing brand dilution that is not unlike the jersey stunts we have seen in Minor League baseball.

 

...Change my mind. 

Agreed. I have no problem with one or two alts, but when they have these one-year-only things that aren't even in team colors...I think it's a bit ridiculous even if some of the designs look pretty good.

[FroBroStudio]

As we enter into year two of Nike/NBA, I actually have an appreciation for the Adidas Sleeved Jerseys. Sure, a lot of the designs for the jerseys were atrocious and/or needed tweaking but the more I see the ads on jerseys now, the more I begin to realize the Nike Swoosh and the ads don't belong on the jerseys since it ruins the balance of the design elements of the jerseys.

 

I Like both.

Get rid of the swoosh and the ad and you have a great uniform.

 

Again though, this is just an opinion.

[Ray Lankford]

21 hours ago, agentrygraphics said:

The NBA's introduction of, and subsequent allowance of otherwise "off-brand" jerseys for their respective teams - diverting away from just "home" and "away" denotations and the color schemes thereof - is a slippery slope of cash-grabbing brand dilution that is not unlike the jersey stunts we have seen in Minor League baseball.

 

...Change my mind. 

You say Minor League Baseball, I say European soccer.

[Ray Lankford]

11 hours ago, cwilz305 said:

As we enter into year two of Nike/NBA, I actually have an appreciation for the Adidas Sleeved Jerseys. Sure, a lot of the designs for the jerseys were atrocious and/or needed tweaking but the more I see the ads on jerseys now, the more I begin to realize the Nike Swoosh and the ads don't belong on the jerseys since it ruins the balance of the design elements of the jerseys.

 

I Like both.

I'd like to see them bring back sleeved jerseys for players who wear shirts under their jerseys. This is awful:

[jn8]

West Virginia football currently looks the best they ever have, specifically in these combinations:

Getting rid of the under arm pit stains was a huge improvement and i honestly don’t mind the black and the number font is actually pretty cool IMO.