Jump to content

Jamikel

Members
  • Posts

    2,440
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Jamikel

  1. The name currently feels like it's a too-late attempt to be trendy, but I think it'll age well as it becomes further and further removed from the recent pop cultural context. Because Kraken is/are a cool monster to name a team after.

    The logos look pretty good, but feel a bit off to me. The S looks like it should be a secondary logo, and the anchor feels like it's more fitting for the Mariners than the Kraken. I was hoping that if they went with Kraken, they would go with a House Greyjoy style crest (and maybe they could make the squid's head form the shape of the space needle?)

     

    Overall though, this is a good looking identity. Navy uniforms often look so blah, but they've avoided that here by having such thick light aqua stripes and pops of red.

  2. On 6/19/2016 at 9:29 AM, hormone said:

    Mlb: rays. Are you a sting ray like in your aquarium in the outfield and on your home/road sleeve patch or a ray of light like on your wordmark and bp hats?

     

    I like to imagine them as a bunch of guys named Ray.

     

    carl-b.jpg

     

    (I know his name's Carl, but this is the image that pops into my head when I think of a guy named Ray.)

  3. I like where they began with the logo but a couple issues for me. First, the chin is way too pointed and needs to be rounded. Second, there are no chubby cheeks which is also a defining characteristic of a Billiken. If the face was not as smooshed, it would probably be fine. Here's my take tweaking the logo.

    billiken_logo.jpg

    Still looks pervy, but not it looks like a pervy Mickey Rourke.

  4. I personally think that's a bit farfetched. Although, I've always thought that the name, "Dodgers", was just another old timey name like the Red Sox, Giants, Reds, or White Sox.

    True. Even though I know where the name came from, to me, a Dodger is just someone who plays baseball in LA. And a Laker is someone who plays basketball in LA.

  5. The acceptable color schemes for any sport.

    Like how white pants/shorts are acceptable, even standard, in basketball, football, soccer, and baseball, but entirely wrong in hockey.

    Or how striping continues from the shorts to the jersey on most basketball uniforms, but are very rare in other sports (well, they've become common in football, but those are almost uniformly* ugly.)

    Or how hockey jerseys look incomplete without hem stripes, but other sports don't have them at all.

    Or how basketball has white home/colored away, football (mostly) dark home, white away, baseball has white/gray, and soccer has a main kit and a clash kit.

    Or the position of numbers, wordmarks, and logos on various jerseys.

    *pun not intended

  6. I feel that the "Jazz" nickname is, in many ways, more synonymous with Utah than New Orleans. Stockton and Malone, the '97 and '98 Finals against Jordan's Bulls, and Jerry Sloan's long tenure in Utah have all made it such an appropriate fit.

    I don't see how that makes it an appropriate fit. Just because they have more history in Utah doesn't mean that the name makes more sense than it does for New Orleans. Jazz music is one of the things New Orleans is best known for. Utah is about as well known for jazz as Winnipeg is for beaches and bikinis.

    People grew up saying "Utah Jazz", so when people say it, they don't give it a second thought, it's just "right" to them. Sure, "New Orleans Jazz" makes more sense when you think about it. Heck, if the Jazz moved from New Orleans to Utah today, I bet they would have renamed to something else.

    Right. I am 41 and have probably been familiar with all NBA team names for 35 years. And I am not old enough to Remember the New Orleans Jazz. It's been Utah Jazz that entire time.

    I hear the argument that they should have changed names when they moved, but now they have 35 years of history in Utah. They have a fan base that is accustomed to that being the team name. The ship has sailed and there's not much benefit to going back now. I don't think anyone in Utah is clamoring for a new name. And I don't think we have a Bobcats/Hornets situation in New Orleans where the entire community's support is dependent on the old name.

    And yeah, Jazz is not great for Utah. But Dodgers was a very Brooklyn name and makes no sense for LA. Same with Lakers, which makes much more sense in Minnesota. Grizzlies in Memphis?

    The Jazz move is a product of a different era. Some teams back then kept names (Flames, for Example). And while Jazz may not be the best one, it's reflective of the unique history of sports. Would they have kept the name if the move occurred today? No way. But sports history is fun and I think it's great to see that stuff like that happened. Why try to bury it?

    If it were up to me, a team would either change names right upon relocation or never. So we'd have the Tennessee Oilers, New Orleans Hornets, etc.

    Dodgers actually does make some sense for LA. That area is notorious for having some of the worst traffic in the country, so Dodgers could now refer to having to dodge your way through LA traffic, rather than Brooklyn trolleys.

    And here's a much simpler (and possibly unpopular?) reason why the Jazz name should never go back to New Orleans: Because Pelicans is better.

  7. I don't understand why people prefer the Saints' older, mustard color gold over the appealing gold they wear today (speaking strictly about the color). Can anyone explain?

    Mark+Ingram+Houston+Texans+v+New+Orleanshi-res-1842f56f135b1983801314d928dbdf36_

    Because khaki is a boring color for a sports uniform.

    It also helps that everything else about those uniforms is far superior to what they currently wear.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.