Jump to content

Ted Cunningham

Members
  • Posts

    1,750
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Title
    Let's go Bucs.
  • Location
    West Virginia

Recent Profile Visitors

8,495 profile views

Ted Cunningham's Achievements

480

Reputation

  1. That's it right there. I knew there was something weird about this. I generally like all-white football uniforms. (It's the only "monochrome" look that I like as a rule.) It's a fine uniform in a vacuum. But as we've discussed throughout the history of CCSLC, there is no "in a vacuum" in the real world. So yeah, it's an odd choice for them given their history with Miami and, more importantly, it goes against their established brand. I presume they'll wear this at home, which makes it even more of a head-scratcher.
  2. Same here, @CC97. No need to prorate mine. Thanks!
  3. Hey @CC97, thanks for setting this option up. I've been posting here since 2007, and these boards have been a go-to destination for me consistently since then. So paying a little to support it and getting a better experience in return makes a lot of sense. I signed up roughly 15 minutes ago. My Patreon account is under the email address theodore.j.cunningham at gmail dot com.
  4. Any reason given for Frankfurt not going with purple and orange? (It's good that the identity is returning, but too bad that it's not the same color combination.)
  5. I work in DC frequently and lived there for a while. 1) I've never heard that term before, nor have I heard anyone from DC use it. But 2) I did immediately understand what it was referring to. (Again, likely only because I have experience in/with DC.)
  6. If I'm not mistaken, that goalie's number is 1. The Flyers had some odd 1s back then where the serif (for lack of a better term) came halfway down the number.
  7. I usually hear it go the other way: "Oh, you mean Pittsburgh has a 'Giant Eagle'? You're sure it's not just Giant?" (Giant being a chain of grocery stores in the Mid-Atlantic/Eastern PA/DE/DC/MD.)
  8. That new WS logo has a kind of Web 2.0/early iPhone feel to it.
  9. The numbers are what get me in that concept. Either the concept's creator didn't take the time to ensure the stroke wasn't rounded or else (and worse) the creator chose numbers with rounded corners. While the Viking's uniforms of 2006 to 2012 were pretty bad in total, one element that made them even worse were the inexplicably rounded block numbers. There were no actual corners on those numbers even though they really weren't "round" numbers either. It was as if the designers of those uniforms intentionally looked for ways to make them worse in an almost subliminal way. (I feel like the Cardinals also suffer from this.) And I'm immediately getting the same feeling from this concept's numbers. They're awful and it makes a uniform set that I could potentially live with into something that just makes me question why?
  10. To be clear, this is certainly a valid point. It's not my aesthetic, but it is for others. I just think making it a singular definition of how one views an entire sport's aesthetic (or sports aesthetics, generally?), and going out of one's way to criticize anything that isn't it, is strange.
  11. It's such an oddly specific hill on which to die. And I think it's funny that he makes fun of someone talking about their "paps" playing ball in " '61" in flannel (which is not long before the era of his beloved sansabelt look). Arguing for a look that is fairly singular to one era from 40+ years ago because (ostensibly) it was what was in when he was a kid? It's pretty hypocritcal.
  12. I kind of like that ridiculously huge C Citadel wordmark.
  13. (For some reason, the picture isn't showing up for me. I don't know if others can't see it, but I'll post it for reference.) There are other variations on these two uniforms at this time (with minor differences in striping, explaining the guy with the single red stripe on his pants in that picture a ways back in the thread, and differences in helmet and pants colors). But this was the basic idea and the shadows were only worn in 1955 and 1956. The white jersey was decidedly a "change kit" as opposed to being a regular away uniform. For instance, in 1955, they wore them once against Washington (who was also wearing their darker shade of red). Admittedly, the GUD is a fan-made resource, so it might not be accurate. However, it also strikes me as the kind of pet project that is meticulously researched and cared for, so I'd have to figure it's accurate for the most part. My guess would be that whomever designed the 1994 throwbacks (which, as has been pointed out, are notoriously half-measure, inaccurate throwbacks) kind of guessed the white jerseys were "opposite" of the red jerseys, not realizing the majority of the stripes were actually black. As for the current iteration, I was never quite clear: were they throwing back to '94? If that's the case, the jerseys (and pants, I suppose, too) are accurate. Or was it actually a throwback to the mid 50s? I really like that black drop shadow. I don't know why, necessarily. It kind of feels like one of those quirks of the time: the shadows made the numbers easier to read at distance or something? And as a result, they're grandfathered in? In any event, I think the jerseys look good. But they decidedly clash with the gold helmets and the red-white-red braisher stripes. As I'm thinking about it, does this look weird? Instead of adding gold to the throwback, add the drop shadow treatment to the classic/current uniforms. (I think it at least ties with the black in the logo, but it doesn't go full-on dark-mode like the late 90s 49ers did.)
  14. Just out of curiosity, what would qualify as a better looking, more creative field? (I ask because this field seems pretty standard when compared to the rest; not really any less "creative".)
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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