Unpopular Opinions

[Tigers6884]

I don't associate those uniforms with a bad era of Orioles baseball, they make me think of Cal Ripken Jr.'s Iron Man consecutive games streak and his awesome home run in the 2001 All Star Game.

[Crabcake]

I really like the black script. I am also a fan of the front number being a different color than number on the back like the Dodgers. But I prefer the cartoon bird. It's just really original and has been the O's logo for all 3 of their World Series wins. But the realistic bird wasn't bad at all.

[mafiaman]

I think Tampa Bay's current jerseys and logo are far superior to the 2004 look.

[AnPheitseog]

I really like the black script. I am also a fan of the front number being a different color than number on the back like the Dodgers. But I prefer the cartoon bird. It's just really original and has been the O's logo for all 3 of their World Series wins. But the realistic bird wasn't bad at all.

I honestly prefer the Orange script, but would love to see that come back as an alt jersey, with or without the realistic bird cap, preferably with.

I just dunno where it would fit into the jersey rotation though.

[WavePunter]

I also think the other "realistic" bird gets forgotten all too often.. I bought that cap just a few months before they switched to the later realistic bird, then bought that cap just a few months before the cartoon bird was unveiled.. Serious facepalm the second time it happened..

[AndrewMLind]

There were actually three ornithologically correct birds in the '90s-'00s, so you'll have to be a little more specific. Of the three, the most recent is the best looking. However, I'll always have a special place in my heart for the bird they wore on their caps from '89-'97, as it was on the first O's hat that my family bought me as a child.

[OnWis97]

Here they are (apparently there are 4):
 (89-97)

 (98)

 (99-08)

 (09-11)

My favorite is the first one. The beak and head leave something to be desired but I like that it just uses the two colors (plus white). I don't even know if I realized that last one existed. I like it and can deal with the gray. Preferring it to the first one makes sense to me...admittedly, I like the first one because I loved it from day 1 and I own one. Objectively, the bottom one is probably better (except for the feet).

The middle two I think try to hard too be photos. I don't like the gold at all.

Of course they are all preferable to Happy Bird.

[daveindc]

I remember thinking how unnecessary the 98 change was. It also looked too bloated. The 99-08 logo looked too lopsided. The 09-11 logo would have been the perfect update for the 89-97 one.

[FinsUp1214]

The 99-08 bird was my personal favorite. I liked the cream-ish beak and highlights better with the orange and black than the grey of the 09-11 one, and it looked a little better balanced than it also. I always thought the 09-11 bird almost looked like it was going to fall over or something. Just kind of looked awkward.

[daveindc]

The 99-08 bird was my personal favorite. I liked the cream-ish beak and highlights better with the orange and black than the grey of the 09-11 one, and it looked a little better balanced than it also. I always thought the 09-11 bird almost looked like it was going to fall over or something. Just kind of looked awkward.

That's how they often look.

[(probably)notabandwagonfan]

I don't get the love for the 89-97 bird... It's awful, what's wrong with it's face? Why is it's head so round and why is it's beak almost nonexistent?

[Jake3roo]

I don't get the love for the 89-97 bird... It's awful, what's wrong with it's face? Why is it's head so round and why is it's beak almost nonexistent?

exatly!

[FinsUp1214]

The 99-08 bird was my personal favorite. I liked the cream-ish beak and highlights better with the orange and black than the grey of the 09-11 one, and it looked a little better balanced than it also. I always thought the 09-11 bird almost looked like it was going to fall over or something. Just kind of looked awkward.

That's how they often look.

I understand where you're coming from, but the difference there on the pictures is that you can see what it's standing on. You know it's standing, so it looks more natural. On the cap, however, it's got nothing to stand on shown, so he looks more like he just let go and is about to free-fall. Though the 99-08 bird still doesn't have what he's standing on shown, the flat feet still look more like it's standing and is more natural-looking and balanced to me personally. Though the 09-11 bird is still a technically accurate rendering of an oriole, I just felt personally the 99-08 rendering was better suited for a ball cap.

[TheRicSlick]

I still prefer the old Bucks' set to the current. The old logo actually looked like a buck, and it didn't have that cartoony M. While I do like the uniform set the Bucks' just unveiled, I think the previous are better. The red and green color scheme was original and fit the Bucks' perfectly, and no it didn't remind of Christmas.

[swilson160]

Not only do I like the blue/black stripes on the new Bucks uniform, I think the small bit of blue makes the uniform. Without it, it is a nice and clean uniform but somewhat boring. Just that little splash of blue brightens it up and changes its character into something much more interesting.

[1insaneguy]

Not only do I like the blue/black stripes on the new Bucks uniform, I think the small bit of blue makes the uniform. Without it, it is a nice and clean uniform but somewhat boring. Just that little splash of blue brightens it up and changes its character into something much more interesting.

I'm starting to warm up to Blue on the Bucks uniforms as well. I think it's nice how they wanted to make the uniform basic without being boring.

[FinsUp1214]

I know I keep posting here haha, but I keep thinking of more!

Honestly, I feel the Brewers look the best they've ever looked right now. I absolutely love the concept behind the branding, as I think it's much stronger and has more thought to it than many give it credit for. Every mark looks to me like it could easily pass for branding on a beer label or can, and it helps matters too that I feel navy and that shade of gold just look beautiful together. The only things left they could do to perfect the set would be to put "Milwaukee" on the roads and make the "barrel man" a sleeve patch on each uniform. Other than that, I absolutely love them and don't really understand the flak it gets at times. Just because the ball-in-glove logo holds so much sentiment (and rightfully earned, though I still think it an inferior mark to anything they've got now) doesn't make what they have now bad, especially where the current identity embraces the name a whole lot better.

It's not to say the ball-in-glove is bad - it's a good, clever logo - but in my eyes, something came along later in this current identity that was just better. Had they never dropped the ball-in-glove, I probably wouldn't want it to change. But it did change, and they did eventually adopt something even better and much more representative of the name, so I prefer the latter. Just my opinion, though.

*straps up, braces for impact*

[Ark]

Not my own opinion, but apparently a lot of people don't like this

Too silly or something.

[1insaneguy]

Not my own opinion, but apparently a lot of people don't like this

Too silly or something.

The only thing that could make this better is if Ben was holding a cheese steak in the other hand.

[IceCap]

I know I keep posting here haha, but I keep thinking of more!

Honestly, I feel the Brewers look the best they've ever looked right now. I absolutely love the concept behind the branding, as I think it's much stronger and has more thought to it than many give it credit for. Every mark looks to me like it could easily pass for branding on a beer label or can, and it helps matters too that I feel navy and that shade of gold just look beautiful together. The only things left they could do to perfect the set would be to put "Milwaukee" on the roads and make the "barrel man" a sleeve patch on each uniform. Other than that, I absolutely love them and don't really understand the flak it gets at times. Just because the ball-in-glove logo holds so much sentiment (and rightfully earned, though I still think it an inferior mark to anything they've got now) doesn't make what they have now bad, especially where the current identity embraces the name a whole lot better.

It's not to say the ball-in-glove is bad - it's a good, clever logo - but in my eyes, something came along later in this current identity that was just better. Had they never dropped the ball-in-glove, I probably wouldn't want it to change. But it did change, and they did eventually adopt something even better and much more representative of the name, so I prefer the latter. Just my opinion, though.

*straps up, braces for impact*

I used to agree until someone (Goth?) brought it to my attention that the current Brewers wordmark is kind of a mess. A drop shadow and two keylines? Way too busy.

http://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/ttfelv66500qiz4fenp9hphn5/Milwaukee_Brewers/2000/Jersey_Logo

It looks even worse on the primary logo, when all of that visual clutter then needs to be placed in front of something.

http://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/ophgazfdzfdkeugut9bdw3iyz/Milwaukee_Brewers/2000/Primary_Logo

The current Brewers look IS very nice in a lot of ways, and I don't think going back to the ball in glove is the answer. There's still room for the current identity to work with a few tweaks.