• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Prospect

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I might be the only person who prefers the Bills white-on-white look. I was honestly hoping they'd never introduce the blue pants, since the white-on-white look is superior, and it wouldn't open the door to a hideous blue-on-blue look. The blue pants aren't bad by any means (well, when paired with the white jersey and white socks), but I still prefer the white pants for the Bills in all cases.
  2. The Jets green pants are truly terrible, especially when paired with the green jersey. They don't look good with the white jersey either. It won't happen, but the green pants should be burned after yesterday's game. They've been worn too often in the past for this to be the case, but since the green-on-green combination hadn't been broken out for awhile prior to yesterday, I kind of hope it becomes associated with that nightmarish game in people's minds. I doubt it will though.
  3. Wild guess: I actually think the "umm, what changed?" is going to be the Buccaneers. Jags will almost certainly be the horrible one. As for the other two, it could go either way, but I have a slight feeling that the more detailed one will be the Vikings, while the Dolphins are the modernization. I can't see the Vikes doing a modernization of the hideous stuff they wear now, but I could be wrong there.
  4. That cap would be so much better if they took out the trophy from the patch on the side. Just let it be that World Series logo, and not overpower the cap.
  5. These are so much better than the godawful Division Champion shirts. I actually really like these. (And yeah, the nicer ones are indeed being shipped to Nicaragua. )
  6. MySpace has been cooperating with Facebook for a long time now. They've been aiming to be a more music-centric site than a competitor to Facebook for awhile now. In fact, MySpace Tom left MySpace a couple years ago and basically hates the site now (he's very active on Google+, from what I gather). I haven't been on MySpace for 2006, and I this (while a nice redesign) is not about to draw me back.
  7. Since we're discussing Oregon uniforms in an "unpopular opinions" thread: I think this is by far their best look ever. As in, this uniform is miles and miles better than any of the "modern" stuff they wear now. I have a feeling that'll be an unpopular opinion on these boards.
  8. The Devils have sweaters from every high school in New Jersey with a hockey team around the concourses of the Prudential Center.
  9. This. I live in Connecticut, but I've always considered myself as living in a suburb of New York. I've even had some people from outside the area not understand why I'm a New York sports fan rather than a Boston sports fan (but you're from NEW ENGLAND!), which is unbelievable, because I live way, way closer to New York than Boston. Just because we're spread across 3 different states doesn't mean we're not one metroplotan area that's entirely centered on NYC. As said above, there is no Jersey City or Stamford without NYC. Really, everything from New Haven County, CT down to Monmouth County, NJ would not exist as we know it today without NYC. Im L.A . 'til I die so forgive my east coast ignorance but, what do you mean when you say those places wouldn't exist without NYC? They wouldn't exist as we know them today - there wouldn't be businesses flocking to those cities, there wouldn't be extremely dense, often extremely wealthy suburban areas, and New Jersey and Connecticut certainly would not be two of the richest states in the nation (as well as two of high population densities in the nation). The presence of a gigantic city that's a financial and cultural nervecenter of both the nation and the world has obviously transformed not just the city itself, but its suburbs into very bustling, prominent places. We have a TON of large corporations and lots of capital housed in the NYC suburbs - many of which fled from Manhattan into nearby suburbs during the 1960's and 1970's during the city's nadir. Without that, and without millions of people living in the suburbs and commuting into the city as well, this area would look so dramatically different that it might as well be a completely different place then it is today. Most of the place names would be the same, but that's about it. (Think of Orange County, San Bernardino, etc., without LA. Those places wouldn't exist as we know them without LA - hence why it's totally reasonable for an Anaheim team to use the "LA" name, IMO.)
  10. This. I live in Connecticut, but I've always considered myself as living in a suburb of New York. I've even had some people from outside the area not understand why I'm a New York sports fan rather than a Boston sports fan (but you're from NEW ENGLAND!), which is unbelievable, because I live way, way closer to New York than Boston. Just because we're spread across 3 different states doesn't mean we're not one metroplotan area that's entirely centered on NYC. As said above, there is no Jersey City or Stamford without NYC. Really, everything from New Haven County, CT down to Monmouth County, NJ would not exist as we know it today without NYC.
  11. It's 38 minutes without traffic. Granted, if you're heading to a Pats game, you won't be able to do it without traffic, but still, to say they're 2 hours apart is very inaccurate. It's 28 miles or so driving distance, and I think 22 as the crow flies. (BTW, I didn't realize Gillette Stadium was about 4 miles off of the highway. That is a truly terrible location, especially considering how long the drive down is there anyways. I don't know what the Pats were thinking when they decided to stay in Foxborough. I get that Kraft wanted "Patriot Place," but that was their chance to get out of a terrible location, and they blew it.)
  12. Here's my wish-list of changes: Arizona Diamondbacks to Phoenix Diamondbacks: I much prefer city names to state names, and there's no good reason for them to be the "Arizona Diamondbacks" rather than the "Phoenix Diamondbacks" other than branding to a wider area. It's not like the Texas Rangers or Colorado Rockies where they're referencing the law enforcement agency or the mountain range, respectively. Plus, since Phoenix is unquestionably the most prominent city in Arizona, I don't think anyone in that state would have any problem identifying with a Phoenix team, rather than an "Arizona" team (they never have with the Suns). Plus, "Arizona Diamondbacks" is too many syllables: Phoenix at least cuts out one of them. Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim to Los Angeles Angels: The Angels name was MADE for Los Angeles, and the team is fairly close to LA. Right now, their name is a complete joke, and they basically refuse to use a location moniker. I know why that pesky "of Anaheim" is there, but this is a wish-list, so I suppose my wish is for the City of Anaheim to give up and let the Angels choose their own name. Tampa Bay Rays to Tampa Stingrays: Naming a team for a body of water is a bit odd, even though that's become a "regional" name. Still, I much prefer city names, and it cuts out a completely unnecessary word. And Stingrays sounds so much better than Rays. Carolina Panthers to Charlotte Panthers: There's no such formal location as "Carolina" - they're two different states, and two very different states in many respects. This is worse than a state name, it's a bizarre regional name for a region that has barely existed as a cohesive unit since the 1700's. Charlotte is a very well-known city, and a metropolitan area that does indeed span both states. Plus, Charlotte Panthers sounds good. Carolina Hurricanes to Raleigh Hurricanes: See above. Plus, most people from outside that region think they play in Charlotte. The only problem is that Raleigh doesn't have tremendous name recognition nationwide, but you'd think the city would really want the team to carry the name Raleigh for that reason - increase their visibility. Arizona Cardinals to Phoenix Cardinals: See the Diamondbacks entry. Tampa Bay Buccaneers to Tampa Buccaneers: I'd get rid of the "Bay" in every team name. Tampa Bay Lightning to Tampa Lightning: See above. New England Patriots to Boston Patriots: Naming a team after a region is even worse than naming it after a state. They represent one of the most prominent cities in the country, and Patriots name makes so much sense for a Boston team. There's zero problem with the Red Sox, Bruins, and Celtics being "New England's Team" in their respective sports, so I don't think there's any sort of branding issue either. Golden State Warriors to San Francisco Warriors: Self-explanatory. The current name is one of the worst is sports, and certainly not because of the Warriors. You're an NBA team, not a D-III basketball team. Colorado Avalanche to Denver Avalanche: I'm not a fan of names that don't end with "s" (or "x" in the case of the two Sox), but I'll let that fly for now. Unlike with the Colorado Rockies, there's no such thing as a "Colorado Avalanche," so this one doesn't function as a direct reference to something. Denver Avalanche sounds perfectly fine, and it also cuts down on the length of the name (the 4-syllable Colorado makes team names sound quite long). Utah Jazz to Salt Lake Jazz: They've been the Jazz while playing in Utah for over 3 decades now, so even though the name does not fit the location at all, at this point, why change it? No reason why they can't use "Salt Lake" as their location name rather than "Utah" though. I'd go with Salt Lake rather than Salt Lake City - it's a very common name for the city itself, including being used in the 2002 Olympics and in the name of the city's most famous landmark (the Salt Lake Temple). I think it flows better too. I have no problem with the Minnesota names since they're representing two largely equal cities, and "Twin Cities" would be an awful name.
  13. I'll give a very concise reason why the "Giants/Jets should be named for New Jersey!" argument is bogus. MetLife Stadium is about the same distance from 42nd and Broadway as Citi Field is (in fact, I think it's a little closer to Times Square than Citi Field is, but I don't have the numbers on me). Yankee Stadium, while slightly closer, is a comparable distance from Times Square as the other two stadiums. East Rutherford is more than just "a part" of the NYC Metropolitan Area. It's right next to New York City. Extremely, extremely close. There are lots of parts of New York City proper that are a greater distance from Midtown than is East Rutherford. Just because the slightly wider of the two rivers separates the southwestern part of Bergen County from Manhattan doesn't mean it's not anywhere close to the city, or that the teams can't identify themselves using their metropolitan area's name. Having an issue with the Giants and Jets names would be just as asinine as having an issue with the Redskins, Bills, Cowboys, and Dolphins names. In fact, the Giants and Jets play CLOSER to Midtown Manhattan than most of those teams do to their respective downtown areas.
  14. Easily the Obama logo. That logo was something completely different in terms of branding a Presidential campaign. In some ways, it was the first campaign with a really cohesive brand (as opposite to just a wordmark and a few modifications of it). If you ever look at any Obama campaign materials (or the White House website, for that matter), they all use the same fonts and same designs. There's nothing that's overlooked, and to take it a step further, Obama took the branding of the White House website and perfectly melded it with his 2008 campaign's website. It's important to note that the White House website graphics were directly derived from the old 2008 campaign website. Those were slightly updated and modified for his 2012 campaign website, so the two, while looking sort of similar, do not perfectly match in terms of graphics (ultimately a wise decision, since I think most would agree that the White House website shouldn't be an extension of the President's campaign site). The "O" logo is very recognizable and an example of very good design. The Romney logo looks like a cheap ripoff of the idea behind the Obama logo, that's incomplete and very flawed. Also, it most definitely belongs on a toothpaste bottle.
  15. The above mockups are a gorgeous example of minimalism in uniform design. This is a million times better than many of those overdesigned uniforms with random piping, gaudy wordmarks, "modern" designs, etc. There is a place for that, but there is also a place for sublime, minimalistic designs like this one. This is the beginning of a new attitude in designing sports uniforms, I think. We've seen this type of minimalism in corporate branding for years now - Apple, Google, Facebook, now Microsoft, and so many other companies (and brands as well). It's only logical that it would eventually carry over into sports as well. This isn't the first minimalist sports identity unveiled in recent times, but it's unquestionably the prime example of it now. Expect other teams to begin following suit. This could be the best trend to hit sports in years (it could be the best since the retro trend in both ballparks and baseball uniforms, IMO). The logo and wordmark have caught on like wildfire in New York and the surrounding areas, and other teams having stale identities who are having problems moving merchandise would be idiots not to notice. One other thing to note: this has a much greater potential to become a "classic" uniform than those overdesigned, "modern" uniforms that follow whatever trend is in that day. Look at how dated some of those uniforms from the 70's, 80's, and 90's (in all sports) look today. Yet the ones that followed a fairly simple design in line with the traditions of their respective sport still hold up well today. Bettman stripes, swooshes, non-contrasting numbers and wordmarks, etc., are going to look hideously dated in a short matter of time. This uniform has a much better change of standing the test of time. Assuming these are fairly accurate (and I'd be very surprised if they aren't), I just hope these don't get thrown in the wastebin whenever the current minimalist trend ends. They have the potential to be modern classics, regardless of trends.