leopard88

On 7/7/2019 at 7:03 PM, MCM0313 said:

That's a Padres shirt. I thought the bizarre 09 was only worn with the Marlins. Not doubting its authenticity. It's just so odd that it was ever allowed to be worn with one team, let alone two.

On 7/7/2019 at 5:38 PM, Hat Boy said:

I didn't know there was a 0 or a 00 in baseball.  That is still not baseball's craziest uni number:

 

 

If I remember the story correctly, Benito Santiago switched from 9 to 09 because the center strap on his catchers' gear blocked/ran down the middle of the number when he wore 9.

12 hours ago, Quillz said:

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.

I'll second this.  The NFL is getting ready to celebrate its 100th season, but it acts in many ways as if championships won before 1966 don't count.

16 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Often, but not always.  Twenty years ago, the Brewers became the first team to wear Pilots throwbacks.

 

 

I had forgotten about this.

If they really wanted to be accurate in throwing back to 1969, the Brewers should have at least dressed as the road team.  The White Sox and Pilots played in Milwaukee in 1969 . . . but the White Sox were the home team.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/life/green-sheet/2018/05/08/when-chicago-white-sox-called-milwaukees-county-stadium-home/576362002/

The White Sox played one game in Milwaukee that year against each of the other American League teams.

1 hour ago, Waffles said:

 

This is where I come down on it too. Each team has its own history and can decide what parts of it are relevant to its current iteration and to its fanbase. Some teams have maintained a connection to former cities and some have prefered to emphasize their current home. Some have even embraced the history of other franchises that preceded them in that city. All of these things are fine. Nobody's taking a sharpie to the history books.

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

The Browns, Hornets/Pelicans, the Quakes, and maybe the Thunder (if Seattle gets a new team) did, but they are outliers.

 

When these folks just say "rebrand," I'd assume that the records would remain. The only difference would be that the team would de-emphasize their past in their imagery. The Devils under Lou Lamoriello didn't give a crap about the Scouts or Rockies, the Brewers have often avoided their one year as the Pilots, and good luck getting the Winnipeg Jets to honor the Thrashers (aside from taking their light blue, producing the best-looking identity in Winnipeg hockey history). 

 

This isn't Black Athena, denying war crimes, anti-Stratfordianism, or the perpetuation of the "Lost Cause of the South." It's just sports.

This is more or less the model the Orioles have followed.  There isn't a lot of St. Louis Browns imagery in Camden Yards or on their website (with the "Franchise Timeline" and "Logos & Mascots" sections of the site beginning in 1954).  However, the year-by-year records part of the site goes back to the 1901 Milwaukee Brewers and the top 19 players on the season batting average list are all St. Louis Browns.

https://www.mlb.com/orioles/history/timeline

https://www.mlb.com/orioles/history/logos-and-mascots

http://baltimore.orioles.mlb.com/bal/history/year_by_year_results.jsp

http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/sortable.jsp?c_id=bal#sortColumn=avg&sectionType=sp&playerType=ALL&statType=hitting&season=&season_type=SINGLE&game_type='R'&elem=[object+Object]&tab_level=child&click_text=Sortable+Player+hitting&league_code='MLB'&page=1&ts=1561395802664&split=&timeframe=

This just seems like an unworkable situation.  Teams have played parts of the schedules in other cities before (White Sox in Milwaukee, Expos in San Juan, Bullets in Baltimore, Dodgers in Jersey City). Teams have also shared/rotated among cities (Virginia Squires, Floridians, Carolina Cougars, Kansas City-Omaha Kings).  However, the latter situations all involved either one primary city (more or less) and/or teams with some regional/geographic connection (usually being within one state).  This would involve a team playing in two cities located about 1,500 miles apart with no apparent/realistic connection.

If you're a fan in Florida, it seems like it would be difficult to retain an attachment to a team that you know won't be in town for the home stretch of any playoff race.  Meanwhile, if you're a fan in Quebec, you know you won't be able to watch your team in person for several months of the season.

9 hours ago, chcarlson23 said:

Way to go you ruined it for me

Me too.  I can't unsee it.

15 hours ago, Seadragon76 said:

There's 10 Division III schools that play in Division I.

 

Five of them (Clarkson, Colorado College, Johns Hopkins, RPI and St. Lawrence) were grandfathered in since these schools have played at the highest level for many years. There were a few others that were grandfathered in but have gone back down to Division III. These were the men's soccer teams at SUNY Oneonta and Hartwick along with the men's volleyball team at Rutgers-Newark.

 

The other five (Franklin and Marshall, Hobart, MIT, RIT, and Union) were not grandfathered in. Therefore they can't give out scholarships in these sports.

 

Of these ten schools, 5.5 of them are for hockey (the half is for Colorado College, who doesn't have women's ice hockey). The others are women's soccer, lacrosse, men's wrestling and women's rowing.

 

This doesn't include the teams in sports that compete in a single division (like Bowling or Beach Volleyball)

I can safely say that I had no idea F&M was D-1 in wrestling.

Also, I'm old enough to remember when Hartwick was a legitimate national power in soccer.  They had a pretty nice run in the 70s and 80s.  Six College Cup appearances in twelve years, with one championship.

39 minutes ago, sc49erfan15 said:

 

I remember there being a similar rule back in the '90s (or even the late '80s) that prohibited D2/D3 schools from playing D1 in football or men's basketball. The big result (or at least one of them) was Georgetown football moving to D1. No idea why they set a new grandfather clause in 2011.

The football and basketball rule was already in place around the time frame you mentioned.  Besides Georgetown moving up, a lot of mid-majors moved up then too (e.g., Butler, Dayton, Drake).  The second round dealt with other sports, like hockey and lacrosse (though I'm sure there are other examples).

I can't recall whether they just allowed grandfathered schools to continue in D-1 or continued allowing schools to play up in sports other than football and basketball.  I just know that JHU is still D-1 in lacrosse only (men's and women's) and that there are still a lot of schools that are still D-1 in hockey only.

7 minutes ago, sc49erfan15 said:

 

I'm pretty sure that's only for large revenue sports (namely, men's basketball and football). I think you can "play up" in one sport - like Dallas Baptist in baseball, provided you sponsored that sport at a D1 level prior to 2011.

I knew there was a grandfathering date that was established after a proposal to prevent teams from being able to play up.  I just wasn't sure what the date was.  For some reason, I thought it was farther back than 2011.

My recollection is that JHU was rumored to be a candidate for the Patriot League if it had been forced to move its other sports up to D-1 to join lacrosse.  Obviously, that never happened, but I think they would be a good fit . . . even now.

8 minutes ago, sc49erfan15 said:

Bellarmine (Louisville, KY; formerly D2 GLVC) moving to D1 (Atlantic Sun) in 2020.

 

Private, Catholic school with just over 2,500 undergrads. Have at it, I guess?

I thought Bellarmine was already D-1 in lacrosse.  The article confirmed that.

Now, I'm just not sure how they were able to be D-1 in lacrosse and D-2 in everything else.  I thought schools had to be grandfathered in some time ago to be D-1 in only one sport (like JHU in lacrosse and multiple colleges in hockey).

On 6/8/2019 at 1:21 PM, Magic Dynasty said:

To add to the topic, and slightly related, I hate when teams put wordmarks on the front that aren’t the city or team name. You’re not “Buzz City”, you’re the Charlotte Hornets. You’re not “North”, you’re the Toronto Raptors. Even nicknames like “Cavs” irk me, but I’ll let that slide.

Congratulations to North on its thrilling Game 6 victory over Town!!!

23 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

I agree with the general thrust of this.  But I don't mind "Cavs".  An abbreviation of a long nickname is fine; it's no different than "Sox" on the White Sox' uniforms. Or, come to think of it, no different than "Sonics" on the SuperSonics' uniforms. (Though "D-Backs" is really pushing it.)

But things like "Buzz City" or "Rip City" make me itch.  This goes not only for the newfangled examples, but also for longstanding ones: the Warriors' "The City" jersey (which spawned an unfortunate recent spinoff "The Town" jersey).  And for this reason I have always strongly disliked the Twins' cap logo.  We know that the original plan was to call the team the Twin Cities Twins.  But, once that plan was scrapped, the TC logo should have been tossed out, as well, in favour of an M.

I will second, third, fourth and fifth this!!!!!!!*

* -- Except the part about the Twins' TC logo.  I'm not sure if I would feel differently it was introduced today.  However, it has been around as long as the team has played in Minnesota, so I have no problem with it . . . even if 7-year-old me didn't get in back in the mid-70s.

On 6/8/2019 at 1:21 PM, Magic Dynasty said:

To add to the topic, and slightly related, I hate when teams put wordmarks on the front that aren’t the city or team name. You’re not “Buzz City”, you’re the Charlotte Hornets. You’re not “North”, you’re the Toronto Raptors. Even nicknames like “Cavs” irk me, but I’ll let that slide.

I will second, third, fourth and fifth this!!!!!!!

On 5/27/2019 at 11:17 AM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

I recently saw a television commercial for a life insurance company called Haven Life. I loved their logo, which combined the letters H and L by means of negative space.

 

 

This looks more like LH than HL — though it is hard to think of a location with either of those two sets of initials. (Lake Havasu?) So maybe the logo would be used in the Colorado Rockies' style, to show both the locality and the nickname. If a justification could be found for either set of initials, this logo would look sharp on a baseball cap.

 

Anyway, this logo reminds us that sometimes straight lines and two colours are all you need.

Lock Haven, PA (home of Lock Haven University).

It reads a little too much like L7. The problem is the white portion on the right is superfluous.

5 hours ago, 1insaneguy said:

 

It's also interesting to consider what direction the NFL franchise that came to Baltimore about a year after would've gone in terms of identity if this happened. 

 

It's safe to say this team would have had a different name.

National Lacrosse League -- 2002-04

On 1/27/2019 at 11:01 PM, Darth Brooks said:

This fits here,  https://imgur.com/a/RsJh9

 

A bunch of football helmets with band logos on them.

 

1,000,000 points to the person who found the Ricky Williams picture to use for this.

The wordmark is an upgrade, though I'm not sure why the U is smaller than the other letters. The D logo is a downgrade, in part because it almost doesn't read as a D (particularly in isolation) and in part because an Old English D makes sense for a team named the Dukes.

This looks familiar.  I saw it on a van earlier this morning.

1 minute ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Yeah, it absolutely is. I wasn't sure if anyone would call me on it!

Remember, there are a few us of around who are old enough to remember the USFL (and, in my case, to have lived through part of the AFL era, though I'm not old enough to remember it).  

That said, I can't fault the choice.  I love that style.

You also managed to improve the Carolina Panthers helmet by getting rid of the stupid curved stripes (though they're still no match for the classics worn by the Michigan Panthers).

On 4/11/2019 at 8:43 AM, oldschoolvikings said:

Since the Jets stole my design for the Panthers, I decided to rework it...

 

 

Thoughts appreciated.

Ummm . . . this one is basically the Michigan Panthers recolored . ... and without as cool a helmet.

6 minutes ago, pianoknight said:

 

I always liked the cover that BS&T did

 

 

Not bad, but now I feel like I have to listen to "Spinning Wheel".

On 4/18/2019 at 10:48 AM, Survival79 said:

 

Why is he wearing sunglasses?

 

On 4/18/2019 at 6:34 PM, Discrimihater said:

He's Bono's cosplayer brother, that's why.

I'm pretty sure it's Corey Hart.

On 3/8/2019 at 8:17 PM, WideRight said:

Tampa Bay Mystery Ships?

On 3/9/2019 at 11:46 AM, Wings said:

Ride captain ride upon your mystery ship

Damn, you beat me to it.

For you youngsters who don't what Wings is talking about . . . 

I will only accept it if the starting pitcher is required to wear a garter belt . . . rose in the front.

That is one of my favorite scenes in the movie (out of many great scenes), but this still seems like a little much.