Quillz

4 minutes ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

Isn't that what the NFL is for?

No. The NFL has too many peaceful protestors, too many rules, isn't any fun, and everyone on the roster needs to be fired.

33 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

I think XFL came out with that strategy at the outset when it was competing with a rival spring league. Now that the AAF is dead, I doesn't really need a gimmick to set itself apart.

But now all the true blue patriots that were going to watch a real league with real Americans playing real football will feel betrayed.

25 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

 

That has seemed to change.  One of the tryouts had former TCU WR Ka'vonte Turpin, who was arrested for assault of a family member.  He was at the St. Louis tryout this weekend.  The Dallas tryout had Trayvon Boykin. 

Oh, so Vince was just riding that "'Murica" wave. Got it.

1 minute ago, WideRight said:

I also hope he doesn't go full MAGA with hyper-patriotic names.

But given how much emphasis was on the XFL only employing "clean" football players and having "simple" rules, it seems this is exactly what the team names should reflect. Something like "Outlaws" and other names that are "fresh and kewl" would seem to be against the whole purpose of this league.

Or it could be Vince was just riding a trend and doesn't actually intend to follow through on any of his promises.

Given the XFL's stated purpose to only imply Honest Americans(TM), it would make sense all the names are simplistic and dignified. Boring, generic, but non-offensive seems to be what they'll want to latch onto.

6 minutes ago, insert name said:

I think he spent a good amount of time with the team so I wouldn’t count it as “wrong”. 

That's exactly what I said. He was with the Broncos long enough (and took them to two Super Bowls) that I can easily identify him with the Broncos as quickly as the Colts. But if, say, Tom Brady went to the Chiefs and won a Super Bowl, it would feel wrong to me. So it's always situational. 

7 hours ago, Brandon9485 said:

I agree, the Kawhi take is a bad one. It can’t be a wrong uniform if the player not only won a championship but was the Finals MVP. 

I would agree with this if the player has significant time spent on multiple teams. Suppose something happened where Kobe in his final season instead played for the Heat and won a championship. Seeing him in a Heat jersey would just seem wrong. Or something like Tom Brady playing one final season for any other team and still winning a Super Bowl. (But on the other hand, I actually don't find Peyton's Bronco jersey "wrong.")

I don't mind the monogram changes they made. Nor the monogram being larger on the cap. But the Tigers actually have some of the best uniforms in the league but the NOB really muddies the look.

The Tigers should be a team that is NNOB. Don't change anything else about their home uniform except get rid of the names. They also don't need white outlines on their road jerseys since they are already outlined in orange. (Or make orange the outer outline and white the inner outline).

5 hours ago, kroywen said:

shifted down to LA

And a big reason (of quite a few) it didn't shift farther south to San Diego was because the original transcontinental highway system of 1926 favored Los Angeles over San Diego, which at the time had nothing more than a plank road through the desert. There was a time where there was effectively a competition between LA and SD to see which one would "win" SoCal.

Here's something that bothers me:

I'm fine with #0, it's a perfectly valid number, but what's the deal with #00? It really bugs me. And I'm almost positive at one point I saw both #00 and #0 in play.

9 hours ago, colortv said:

LeBron is at summer league wearing an "LA"  logo Lakers colored hat with a "LeBronLand" logo(aka Disneyland logo).

 

Guess where Disneyland is?

Tokyo

Speaking of the Lakers, their primary logo really could use an update. The Vikings did a good job of simplifying their logo while also making the line weight thicker. The primary could use something like that.

On 6/22/2019 at 6:29 PM, EddieJ1984 said:

 

They made the striping of the cuffs and pants thinner this year on the road, it looks less dated now.

 

Though, I won't lie that 2's overhang is hideous, I think they could just modify the number font, keep some of the same feel to it,but improve it.

For me, the only way I can see it being improved is to dump it in the garbage entirely. I always felt like it was trying to reinvent the wheel. The Phillies would look just fine with a standard MLB block (the thicker one used by the Yanks, Braves, etc. would be good).

On 6/28/2019 at 4:09 PM, Brian in Boston said:

However, four years ago, the Dodgers began exploring the possibility of shifting their Class A-Advanced farm team operation from Rancho Cucamonga to the Woodland Hills neighborhood of Los Angeles. The plan was for Peter Guber (a member of the Dodgers ownership group and part-owner of their Triple A affiliate in Oklahoma City) to partner with his friend Peter Lowy (then the CEO of shopping center development/management company Westfield Corporation) on bringing a California League team to the southwestern corner of the San Fernando Valley.

Westfield Corporation was just about to open the Village at Westfield Topanga, a major extension and reimagining of the existing Westfield Topanga shopping center. The resulting facility was the deathblow for the Westfield Promenade, an aging and obsolete mall that had been struggling for the better part of a decade. Lowy had been brainstorming what to do with the land on which the Promenade was located. What if Westfield were to pay to demolish the Promenade and construct a 7,000-seat minor league ballpark on its site, Guber were to secure a California League franchise, and the Dodgers were to run the day-to-day operations? Westfield owned the land on which the stadium was to be built and was willing to foot-the-bill to construct the stadium. Between spaces at the Village at Westfield Topanga and land that would exist around the stadium, ample parking already existed. The project wasn't looking for a dime of public funding. 

Lowy put Westfield architects to work designing a stadium, Guber cleared the idea with Dodgers brass and began lining up financial partners, Dodgers president Stan Kasten broached the subject with MiLB president Pat O'Conner, and Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti was brought into the loop. All the parties loved the idea, so it was floated by MLB commissioner Rob Manfred. Manfred also thought it was a winning idea. It just needed one final approval... that of Arte Moreno, owner of the Angels.

The Dodgers pitched their plan to the Angels. They pointed out that the proposed Woodland Hills ballpark site was a 57-mile drive from Angels Stadium, 19 miles more distant than the trip from Anaheim to the stadium of the Dodgers' current California League affiliate in Rancho Cucamonga. They offered a variety of incentives, including the opportunity to host more of the games in the annual Angels-Dodgers pre-season Freeway Series. The Angels weren't biting. 

They did have a question for the Dodgers: if the Angels someday wished to move a minor league affiliate into the shared Los Angeles/Orange/Ventura County territory of the big league teams, would the Dodgers grant them permission to do so? The Dodgers wanted to know, might such a move be into the City of Los Angeles? The Angels conceded that could be a possibility. The Dodgers said they couldn't envision ever granting the Angels permission to operate a minor league team within the City of Los Angeles.

The Angels refused to sign-off on the plan to allow a Dodgers farm team to set-up shop in Woodland Hills.

Wow, as someone who lives in Woodland Hills, I didn't know any of this. (Granted I really don't follow minor league news at all). For what its worth, that Promenade location is being redeveloped into apartment complexes (probably for the best, really). And that mall has been dead for way more than a decade. I remember it being half abandoned by the late 90s, with the only thing really keeping it going was the movie theater.

On 6/27/2019 at 6:02 PM, Gothamite said:

No, the Dodgers don’t.  The Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles markets are evenly shared by the two home clubs. Neither can veto a move within that market.  And baseball wouldn’t dare disturb those balances by trying to intervene.

 

Contrast that with the Bay Area, where the market has been carved up and the A’s can’t move to San Jose without the consent of (and therefore a very generous payment to) the Giants.

Why is the Bay Area market different from the other markets? What about something like Dallas-Fort Worth? Could MLB add a National League team to that area?

On 6/24/2019 at 1:31 PM, Waffles said:

I should clarify that I also think records should also reside with the team's lineage, and not the franchise's

I agree with this in that history always belongs to the franchise/club/team and NOT the city. This is why I have a big problem with agreements where Oklahoma City can claim they won the 1979 championship, but cannot claim the Sonics identity. It's messy and we all know it's wrong. Simply put, the Thunder won the 1979 NBA Finals, with a note they were based in Seattle under a different name at the time. Simple and honest.

I'm a Dodgers fan and they've won six World Series. I don't "not count" their first one because it happened in Brooklyn. Whether they won it in Brooklyn, Los Angeles, or Detroit, I only care that the franchise won the championship.

To me, the biggest offender is the NFL. The NFL has seemingly erased all existence of the pre-Super Bowl era, to the point they only really measure their franchises now by the number of Super Bowls they've won. This makes people think of the Browns as hapless and horrible, because so few people realize they were very good pre-Super Bowl. Both San Diego and Buffalo won championships during their AFL years, but the NFL again seems to pretend a merger never happened.

The implosion of Papa John is the New Coke of the 2010s. (And the New Coke logo ought to be posted here.)

14 hours ago, M4One said:

 

I'm pretty sure the We The North is more of reference to being the only Canadian team in the NBA, being north of the border, and not actually saying we are the most northern city in the league.

Yes I know, I was kidding. But I think it’s a dumb marketing angle regardless. Unless they plan to move to Alert. 

21 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Actually, there should be no player names on any jersey. If every player on a team has a unique number, then names on the uniform are redundant.

I agree with this for the most part. However, I think an acceptable compromise is what the Red Sox and Giants do, in that they have NOB for their road jerseys. Of course, they also do NNOB properly, with larger and slightly higher numbers to balance things out. To me it's the best of both worlds.

On 6/18/2019 at 9:00 AM, DoctorOfGravity said:

It's a stupid ass name for one of the southernmost cities in all of Canada.

Also doesn't help they aren't even the northernmost team in the NBA. The Trail Blazers have them beat, and before that, both the Sonics and Grizzlies were farther north.

For years the Royals had a black drop shadow in their logo even though they dropped black years ago on their jerseys. However, this was addressed this season so it's no longer an issue.

The one that I keep mentioning: the Dodgers use too-thin numbers on the back of their jerseys. It was fine when there was a white outline, but that was removed around 2006 or so and they didn't revert to the standard, thicker numbers. Their red numbers on the front of their jerseys are the right weight, the Royals use the proper weight, the Dodgers this very season had the proper weight on their Jackie Robinson jerseys. So why can't they fix this simple thing on their jerseys?

A lot of teams with a red-yellow color scheme tend to put a yellow outline around red elements. Yet it almost always seems to provide much better contrast (especially on a white background) when it's reversed, i.e. a red outline around yellow elements. This also applies to the A's, where I always feel it would look so much better if there was a green outline around the yellow elements. This is because yellow just doesn't contrast well against white at all.

On 6/18/2019 at 4:19 PM, mjrbaseball said:

This thread is all about businesses that went under, right?

             

I hate to be "that guy," but White Star Line actually was pretty successful. They existed for decades before Titanic and another two decades afterward. They were forced to merge with their rival in exchange for effectively getting a government bailout.

On the other hand, the International Mercantile Merchant, which was White Star's parent company, was a failure. It was an attempt by J.P. Morgan to effectively monopolize the entirety of naval transportation (both cargo and people), but largely failed by 1919. (Although it actually did live on somewhat as the United States Line which was around until the 1970s or so).

Maybe this actually common amongst the people here, but I really, really hate the Phillies numbers. I give them props for being unique, but that's not always a good thing. They just look really goofy, and the white outline doesn't help since on some of the numbers, like the 9, the outline touches itself and just makes a really weird look. And given the age of the Phillies, it seems like a number font style that should be worn by a newer expansion team.

I remember watching "Sonicsgate" and thinking Seattle was silly for letting the Sonics leave, and that I was upset their decision was largely influenced by a local group that was against using public funds for building stadiums. But more than a decade later, I realize now they made the right decision. People are realizing that billionaires can build their stadiums without public funds, and their promises of x and y almost never pan out. I wonder if the Rams would have gotten public funding for their stadium had Seattle done so to keep the Sonics there. I think a major precedent was set when that happened.