• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Prospect

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. 100% agreed, they should bring those back. Their current uniforms look so clownish with the extra-wide side panels - that fad is done. And not only is Rodman in the wrong uniform in that pic, he looks like he's not even sure he's in the right game.
  2. If that's real, I don't hate it. I feel like I should, but I don't. I do hate it, so I guess that balances things out.
  3. My Washington Wizards have gotta be on this list somewhere. They definitely at least have the worst uniforms in the NBA.
  4. Maybe it's payback for all the Friday nights on which East coast teams feel like they're playing until 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning.
  5. Someone here worked on the project at one time i think. Didn't say much but if i remember correctly he said something along the lines of uniforms being the best thing in the set. I find it hard to believe that they won't end up looking like Spurs clones, but somehow even more boring-looking. I mean with that color scheme (if you can call it that) and font... wow. I'm ready to be underwhelmed.
  6. I'll get childish for a minute: this is simply absurd. For one thing, we don't know what those regulations really are and what their true intent is. Even still, in all the other cases, the shape of the logo was maintained, and maybe a few inconsequential mods were made, but if printed out in black and white, the other recolored logos would be nearly indistinguishable from their predecessors. This isn't simply a recolor. It's an entirely different shape, different font, brand-new B-ball, no stupid halo thing, etc. It's an entirely different logo. It may have been inspired by the recent NJ Nets shield logo, but any sane person would consider it a 100% brand-new logo. I'd say your response is the absurd one, BBtV. GoForBroke makes a valid point. The argument isn't over whether it's a brand new logo or not, it's whether the BROOKLYN was tacked on because of a regularion or not. When you look at the two most recent primary logo revamps (not recolors) in the NBA - Brooklyn and Philly - both have cities/states awkwardly and clearly forcibly tacked onto the logo as an afterthought; and they both did not previously include cities/states. It would be clear to any sane person that there's a decent chance they're following some regulation.
  7. I really like these new Bobcats uniforms. I don't think they should have put "CATS" on the home primary, though. They should have saved that for an alternate, presuming they were eventually going to come out with one.
  8. Some Sonics fans (not all of them, just the ones who don't know how to move on) are still upset about the Sonics being moved to OKC and becoming the Thunder. I like how this was conveniently posted after the series became 3-1 MIA, though.
  9. I don't even know who Webb Simpson is. I don't think there was a lack of reaction at all. People (with lives) were probably just talking about the game with friends or watching TV coverage rather than jumping straight to CCSLC.
  10. I've been following baseball for almost 20 years, including a healthy dose of Cubs games on WGN, and I almost never hear the term "Cubbie Blue;" on the other hand, I hear the term Dodger Blue thrown around all the time (including during last night's WGN broadcast of CHW-LAD, incidentally) even though I practically never watch the Dodgers. And I'm a little surprised you didn't know your "favorite" baseball team has used red as much as they have, while the Dodgers have stayed true to their almost entirely blue identity. But we all make mistakes, admiral. Just some of us more often than others.
  11. The Cubs are not tied to their blueness as much as the Dodgers, it's not even close. The Cubs have always used way more red than the Dodgers. The Cubs even had red-billed caps for a while. The Dodgers even have their shade of blue named after them, for Pete's sake.
  12. 19 year old against the red hot Yankees. It happens sometimes. Forget the Yankees. He's yet to impress me versus any opponent. Mike Trout >>>>>>>> Douche Harper Mike Trout has been better though. Better average (flirted with .350 for awhile), better OBP, better OPS, and more RBI's, in the same amount of games. Trout's speed and fielding is also at an entirely different level. Both will be great players. Harper will probably have more power, but Trout has a better overall game. Yeah but you are forgetting that Trout is over a year older than Harper. That should be taken into account, too. If they are playing remotely at the same level, you might be able to make an argument that Harper is the "adjusted" better player, simply because he is over a year younger.
  13. I don't think they're any worse this year than usual. I think people are just complaining more this season. I agree that was a terrible call, though, and it unfortunately cost the Nats the game.
  14. Speak for yourself. I think the majority of both fanbases have moved on, or at least the mentally healthy fans. It's been years for both since the Lebron signing and SEA/OKC relocation.