Jump to content

Bmac

Members
  • Posts

    4,306
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Bmac

  1. I may have posted this a few times before, but I don't think the Houston Rockets should ever sway from their current look...at least not for a long while. I think they're a modern classic.

    I'm not as sold on the current look as you (a slightly simplified version would be ideal), but I feel like I'm one of few who dislikes the original red and yellow set. The combo gives off a dated feel and I don't think it should return for Houston.
  2. 281495-dec-1992-quarterback-jeff-hostetl

    Here's an unpopular opinion:

    THAT IS THE WORST NY GIANTS UNIFORM EVER.

    I cannot stand it. The color balance is horrible. Red/white/red striping is disgusting. These and the Bills uniforms from the same time are my least favorite football uniforms of all time. I could go on and on about how much I despise this uniform, but I'll spare you all.

  3. The Memphis Redbirds are revealing a new look on Thursday:

    B87nJogIUAAtE-N.png

    (Source Tweet)

    Having seen the new logo set, I can verify it puts their brand more in-line with St. Louis (see image #2 here), which makes sense now that the Cardinals own the Redbirds.

    I can also say this is not the final reveal in MiLB...

    West Virginia Black Bears, that's the last one right??
    And the Frisco RoughRiders.
    When is that rebrand due
    Don't recall the exact date, it's a few weeks out still I believe.
  4. I'm probably in the minority in wishing the Cubs set included a swinging bear logo. Something about that just screams Cubs to me, perhaps because of Chicago's history of bat wielding bear logos. But I understand those who are against it due to the prevalence of bat swinging logos these days.

    The only bear-with-bat logos I recall the Cubs using were from the early 1900s, and that bear was just holding the bat nonchalantly instead of in a legit batting stance.
    Yeah, that's what I was thinking of. I feel like a modernized version of that would be neat. Take the blobby bear holding a bat and turn it into a bear swinging a bat. Or at least in a batting stance.

    Again, too bad that's been overdone lately.

  5. 1. The fans liked the RedHawks name.

    2. If the name HAD to be changed, the fans would've liked it to be the 89ers.

    3. The Dodgers IGNORED their fans and dumped the successful brand and mascot.

    That's how I see it.

    You're not wrong. The weird thing about this is that the fans are now forced to be (LA) Dodger fans. You don't have to be a fan of the big league team to be a fan of the minor league team. I know it's just a business strategy, but I feel like everyone has figured out to go the opposite direction.
  6. The only time the minor league team should have the same name as the parent team is never.

    Wrong. it's great for regional teams like the Cubs, Cardinals, and Braves. It doesn't work quite so well for teams on the coasts, for some reason. While farm systems of Cardinals and Braves dotting the heartland sounds right, I can only associate "Dodgers" with Brooklyn, Los Angeles, and Vero Beach. I would never think to associate them with Oklahoma City in any way.
    It would probably help if the affiliates were located anywhere near the parent clubs on the coasts. There's no need to brand a team in Oklahoma based on a team in Los Angeles, California. It feels very forced. Nothing about Oklahoma City connects with the Los Angeles Dodgers. Don't brand them as such.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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