Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Tucson, AZ via Aurora, CO

Recent Profile Visitors

4,916 profile views

tyst13's Achievements



  1. I mean, yes. I still am not used to calling them the LA Chargers and it will sound weird for awhile. This is mostly habit, but the move was so dumb that it still just sounds unnatural. But Washington changing their name makes a lot more sense, so I'll have no problem adjusting. As for what to, Warriors sounds so generic to me, especially if they steer clear of any Native imagery, as they should. Red Wolves sounds less generic than other *Color* *Animal* names because it is a specific species of wolf. And wolf mascots are underused in the pros. I would not be disappointed if that's the name they go with. That said Redtails is my favorite. It has been interesting seeing this logo everywhere as people have discussed new names. I'm 90% certain I first saw that as a concept on these boards years ago, right?
  2. This recent Ringer article prosing the NBA return with a 20 team group stage that leads directly into the 8 team second round of the playoffs has me thinking. I'm not sure if it is a good idea, but it is definitely exciting. So I was thinking what if that just became a permanent fixture going forward? What if the NBA playoffs replaced the first round with a 20 team group stage? While it would add 4 more teams (which I don't think is a good thing in isolation), it would result in a more interesting round of basketball than the first round normally produces with only 2 or so exciting series and several 4 or 5 game series. It would also guarantee every playoff team plays 8 games (assuming it is a round robin format with each team playing a home and away with the other teams in the group, like the article suggests). That would add up to a total of 80 meaningful basketball games instead of 44 or so (guesstimating each 1st round series lasts an average of 5.5 games). Now here is were I start brainstorming some new ideas. The NBA season is long enough anyways, and I'm sure star players don't want to give up the potential of a 4 game sweep and rest in the first round, so let's shorten the season to 72 or 74 games. Now we're down 114 games (if we cut 10 per team), which I know will cause problems with tv deals, revenue sharing, etc. From a fan standpoint though, we probably don't lose too many meaningful games. To balance it out, let's throw the 5 teams from each conference that missed the playoffs into their own groups to play another 8 games each. From there, the top 2 teams from each group advance and are joined by the 12 teams eliminated from the playoff groups for a 16 team, single elimination tournament. What are all these teams playing for? Well, the number 1 overall pick (maybe a draft lottery still exists for picks 2-5 while the rest slot in order of record, or something like that). Now, this tournament for the number 1 pick adds another 55 meaningful games (40 from group play and 15 from the tournament). We're still down 63 games, but every team gets to end their season with 8 or so meaningful games. There are some obvious criticisms, like the worst team would probably never get the number 1 pick and would have a challenge improving. We're still losing games. The best teams might feel group play is less fair than giving them a number 1 seed and home court advantage against a lower seed. There could also be a scenario where a top team gets upset in group play and then routes the teams in the consolation bracket for the number 1 pick (I'd call this a feature, not a bug, but you might not like it). It probably also favors mid-tier playoff teams getting the top draft pick. Though only 1 team can actually win the number 1 pick while the rest still draft based on record, and a single elimination tournament is more open to chaos that could allow a weaker team to upset a better team. Anyways, this was just an idea I wanted to put out there. For this season, I like the group stage idea (in a vacuum where we aren't really debating whether or not the NBA should even return), and it made me think about what could happen permanently. If you think this is the dumbest idea you've ever read, I won't take it personally. If you have some tweaks or suggestions, share them! I don't think it is realistic to expect this kind of change, but it is a fun thought experiment and we don't have sports right now to have real discussion about.
  3. I wonder, while the other teams have been able to put out proper announcements (see the Brown pics of an impromptu photo shoot in a garage) despite the circumstances, is it possible the Patriots were impacted more than others? Hence the bare bones release and inconsistencies of the pants from the announcement, mascot pics, and style guide (according to canzman)? I mean, all the early announcements may have been a little better off because they started preparing a little earlier, but if the Patriots were always planning to announce this week, the circumstances could have left them scrambling to make due with what they had.
  4. Apparently, Tucson is making a pitch to the Raiders. I love Tucson, but this idea is hilarious. No way it makes it any farther than this, but now that it's even been suggested, I want it to. I have no idea how it could work, but I could see the Raiders fitting in with the weird culture of the Dirty T. And I'd definitely go to the Broncos game when they're in town.
  5. What was the scoring based on?
  6. To be fair to the skyline alt logo, the mountains are a part of the Denver skyline. It would feel weird without them, and apart from the cash register building (on the far left, I think, but this isn't the right angle for it) the Denver skyline isn't that recognizable, imo. The logo is definitely overcrowded, and the extra mountain in front with a star is unnecessary. It's just that if you're going to do the Denver skyline, you're also going to include the mountains behind it.
  7. For all the talk of putting the Bull logo on the waistband be "over-bulling" the shorts, wouldn't that be kinda appropriate for this team?
  8. When you see Lonzo Ball, you're going to wonder what Drake is doing playing for the Lakers. Just kidding, that's Drake in Degrassi, but Lonzo Ball does bear a striking resemblance to Toronto's biggest fan.
  9. Seeing it like this, I don't mind the mismatch as much, except for the logo on the sleeves. I think it's because of the horns mismatch, and the gold in the logo ends up being just a bit more than I can tolerate. If they could switch that for the navy and white version, I don't think it would look half bad. As is, you do you, NFL. Imagine if the Rams were to win the Super Bowl with this look? Then it would have a place in sports history and show up every year in highlights, and it may even have some fondness from fans after that. What if they were the road team and forced to wear the navy uniforms instead? Fortunately, I don't think the Rams are at risk of playing in a Super Bowl any time soon, and this can just be a blip in their history.
  10. The Raiders have a new plan for financing the Vegas stadium with Bank of America filling in for Adelson and Goldman Sachs (source). At this point, is there anything that could keep the Las Vegas Raiders from happening? (I say fully aware that this is Mark Davis and the Raiders we are dealing with. There's nothing they couldn't mess up)
  11. Say in several years or so, if the Chargers struggle in LA and never can gain their footing, Spanos sells the team (their family wealth is mainly tied up in the Chargers, right?), and the person who buys them does so with the intent of moving them back to San Diego. Would there be much resistance? I know typically the NFL prefers relocation as a last resort, but would they still think in this situation? What about the fans? Would San Diego fans welcome the Chargers back with open arms? I'd imagine so, especially with the new owner. And what about the city? Since San Diego would still need a new stadium, would San Diego help pay for it to get the Chargers back? Or would it have to be privately financed, another sign of good faith and "repentance"? Would San Diego Chargers fans even consider this a win? New stadium, Spanos out, all in exchange of a decade (give or take) without a team?
  12. Those all look pretty great. I'd love for the broncos to look like that full time. I'd just switch the D for the current logo on the helmets, but add a modernized D logo as an alt (I've seen some concepts on this board that show how it should be done). The Chargers look great with the royal instead of navy. Shows how much better the league would look if it generally moved towards brighter colors.
  13. You make a good point. It would be really nice for the Rockies to have a park with a mountain view. I mean, could you imagine the sunsets at that ballpark every summer night? Beautiful, but not until we replace that drab Coors Field with a new Vikings stadium style dome that finally gives us that perfect mountain view. Here's a rough mock up of how that might look.
  14. John Oliver's main topic on yesterday's Last Week Tonight was all about publicly funded stadiums, and he talks about the current LA situation for a good part of it - how it's been used to secure stadiums for other cities as well as the situations in San Diego, St Louis and Oakland now. It's worth watching through to the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs
  15. That's a much better design than the first one. Apparently that tesla coil (or whatever it is), will shoot electricity whenever the Chargers score. Crazy. Don't know what would happen when the Raiders score, but that's pretty unlikely anyways.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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