SFGiants58

Defending Paterno should be cause for blacklisting.

Also, I love how you've handled the Titans in each iteration! I've always held that the name and logos have far more potential than either of the uniform sets have ever exhibited, and you've teased it out. The powder helmet set is probably my favorite, as it uses red and silver very well.

Well, that turned out pretty well! I like how you used the contrast between the two shades effectively and kept the striping simple. Leaving the pewter behind doesn’t detract from the overall look, it enhances it.

It's still the "first template" and the same white jersey, so I'd say it counts. On the contrary, it demonstrates that they had a versatile color scheme and could use multiple good combinations (powder/white, white/powder, navy/white, white/white, and maybe navy/powder). They knew what they wanted to be, then lost the plot when they thought a redesign would reinvigorate the club. Either way, I like it more than the garbage that was the Oilers. Texans and Titans forever, Oilers never.

True, but they haven't worn the all-red in years. I completely forgot they did that! The Texans (well, Toros could also be the name) have a much greater identity potential than the Oilers. Their logo also passes the doodle test, but without looking like clip art. Had the Titans not switched up their uniforms, I'd give them the same defense (minus the doodle test). At the end of the day, Oilers nostalgia is going to fade in Houston (and I'm sure it has already in Tennessee). Some of us uniform nerds will try to keep that Luv' Ya Blue flame alive, but not me.

I get where you’re coming from, but I vehemently disagree. The Titans’ first set looked great in the powder/white and white/powder combos, while the Texans look good in every setting (yeah, red socks on the road would be better). The flaming thumbtack and the flag bull will always look better to me. The Oilers will never not be an awful identity, AFAIA. Yes, they passed the doodle test with clip art logo. That doesn’t mean it was good. Those floating stripes will always be hideous. The light blue was nice and all, but it needed a dark accent color. The Texans shouldn’t be forced to become the Oilers and I’m glad the Titans switched to navy helmets (the one part of the redesign I liked) to prevent them from trotting our their old designs. Let the Oilers die.

I don’t mind that the Oilers moved, as it killed one of the NFL’s worst brands and created two brands that were fantastic (old Titans in some combos and nearly all of the Texans’ designs). Let the Oilers stay dead. This is why I also wish the Cleveland Indians became the Seattle Indians in the ‘60s, where they would have likely had to dump the moniker in the ‘90s. With an expansion team in Cleveland unable to use the name, MLB’s worst identity would be gone!

At the very least, a fantasy-style separation would be best for the two sections.

I'm a guy who loves the Texans' identity and the '99-'17 Titans' look, so that's a big no from me. That's all true, even though it feels like the logo is the equivalent of this (Oilers on top, Roughnecks on bottom): It's adding a bunch of unnecessary stuff to an image to make it look "new" and "inventive," or in the case of the XFL, avoid the NFL's legal team. The original Oilers' design looked dull, while this just shoehorns in a bunch of unneeded crap that messes up the whole piece. I'm willing to forgive none of it. It strikes me as playing it safe, retreading an old, undeservedly beloved identity instead of innovating and creating a fresh IP. It's the same school of thought that gave us the LA Wildcats, the Dallas "insert repainted UNLV or Texas Tech concept here" Renegades, and the Seattle Dragons' logo (I like the name and idea behind it). We complain about WWE not being able to really develop new stars. Those same complaints apply here with their XFL identity developments. For all the goofiness of the first XFL, they certainly didn't play it safe with names. I appreciate that a little bit more than aping existing IP's.

Yeah, this an overall whelming package to me as well. We’ve got: -a lawyer-friendly Oilers clone -the Renegades, who look like a Texas Tech or UNLV concept -a decent Vipers design -the Dragons, who look pretty good -the LA Wildcats, whose inventive “LA” makes up for the generic nickname -the Battlehawks, who have a serviceable logo and a bland name -the New York Guardians and their boring name, at least compared to Gargoyles (which the logo kind of supports) or something like that -an unremarkable DC Defenders logo, perfect for a nondescript name I get wanting to play it safe. However, it’s not worthy of that much praise.

Well, I would show the image from Warrior’s comic where he violated Santa, but I think it violates forum rules. Rumors of a few gay encounters have surfaced over the years about Hellwig, so perhaps he was overcompensating? Either way, I do enjoy the trolling of a pro-LGBTQ Warrior. I don’t enjoy the whitewashing or the burying (like WWE tried during the mid-00s), but rather I prefer the honest depiction of him as an insane, homophobic, and difficult dick with excellent organizational timing (the cartoony WWF and the “pay them everything” WCW) and good branding sense.

This is just a friendly reminder about the kind of guy Jim Hellwig was before WWE and his estate whitewashed him.

I'm thinking it's day-for-night sky! A blue filter on the lens can save a bunch of money and is union hours-friendly.

The NFL should have retired the “Browns” name, much like they did with the “Oilers” sobriquet. The ‘99 expansion team could certainly dress like the Browns of old (right down to the logoless orange helmet), but dropping the name saves us a historiographic headache.

The BiG needs the white webbing. Aside from that, I like the resize. Good work.

Have you ever heard the tale of Matti Nykänen? Booze, ski jumping, stabbings, and music releases abound!

@Gothamite once made the argument that part of the reason why the throwback script looks so terrible is due to poor digitization. It's not like the '59-'60 Senationaltors or the 2010-present Twins were incapable of making a good cursive script: That "Minnesota" script should have been the base for a new "Twins" script, akin to mine.

It seems somebody in the Twins’ social media department loves my script concept:

It annoys me that the Penguins have never properly digitized/switched over to the crest versions of the Skating Penguin. vs. While the modern one is closer to its print equivalent, the crest design still has better line weights and details on the eye.

Said sewage eventually manifested itself in the form of hypersensitive Cardinals fans and people who think that Provel (a Milwaukee creation, I apologize on behalf of my former residence) is the perfect cheese topping. But back to the point at hand, MTL-TOR matters in a way that few rivalries do in the rest of North America. I guess you could argue that New York-Brooklyn used to be this (especially since the Giants played in Manhattan), but that's getting into some civic stuff that I don't know very much about. I would argue that SF Bay Area-LA only really matters for the Giants/Dodgers and the Sharks/Kings/Ducks. The Rams/49ers and the Lakers/Warriors have rarely been good at the same time. I guess Warriors/Clippers is a recent rivalry (one that will end once one team falls out of contention). Angels/A's should be a rivalry, but they've rarely had big series against each other and both teams seem more focused on their NL rivals than their geographic ones.

Milwaukee proper, on the other hand, will be a bit of a fight. The Milwaukee PD’s ineptitude when it comes to race (and sexuality, see Konerak Sinthasomphone) is legendary. Publicized incidents of the MPD harassing Bucks players will not go unnoticed, no matter how competitive the Bucks or Brewers are. I would agree with this assessment, to an extent. With waves of immigration into the city, being black would be less of a problem. Language laws may be annoying, but there are workarounds.

I’ve always figured that Montréal was the most trouble-free relocation in the same way DC was for the MK I Expos (no realignment, decent temporary stadium, etc.).

Yeah, I’m being an utter hypocrite caring so much to tell people about why they shouldn’t care. I apologize. I’m just irritated with how people act like the Browns went full Jack the Ripper on the history books. It just seems ridiculous to me as a historian. Ultimately, the extensive documentation from additional parties makes it slightly less offensive to me. I don’t view it as all that harmful. However, I still think that it’s a crappy way to inflate the importance of an expansion team in an intellectually dishonest way. I still would prefer if the records followed the team to Baltimore (renamed as the Ravens and downplaying their pre-Baltimore past) and the Cleveland expansion team (not named Browns - the NFL had the right idea with the Oilers) gets to start anew. I would prefer if the NBA didn’t pair team histories with historic logo trademarks (that was confusing AF). I would like for my Quakes to stop pretending that they’re the 1996 team or the NASL squad (I kind of abandoned them over this). I don’t like the histories being messed with to make some locals happy (even though the locals probably don’t care that much about the minutia). I believe in relegating that stuff to “city history,” a separate category from the franchise books. “City history” enables the Hornets MK II to honor Bogues and Mourning without falsifying records, while also allowing the Cleveland team to honor Jim Brown. It sometimes overtakes franchise history in branding, such as the Nats, Winnipeg Jets, Twins, Grizzlies, RedBlacks, Avs, etc. You can dress up as the old squad and honor the great players/games all you want, just don’t go pretending that you went on an extended hiatus to inflate your resume. I gotta praise the NHL here for going back on this type of deal. The arrival of the expansion Ottawa Senators included the presentation of a franchise certificate calling this normal expansion team a “continuation.” However, when the team later wanted to acquire the records, the NHL rightfully told them to eat dookie (for lack of a better term). Not that it stopped the Sens, of course. In the words of Lo Pan: Putting the modern logo of an unrelated team on a banner is a dick move. Ultimately, I’m not as upset by this, because it’s just sports. However, it still upsets me a little and comes off as entirely pathetic. This was once about the Angels, wasn’t it? Either way, this discussion is far more fascinating than anything to do with where they’ll try to play.

Don’t get me wrong - I LOVE history. I have a degree in it, obsess over it, and even have the only thread on the boards that uses Turabian citations to prove that I’ve done my primary and secondary source research. Heck, I’m one of the few Sharks fans who will list the team’s establishment date as “1967, re-established 1991” since I believe in the un-merger, not a traditional expansion. I want statues of John McGraw, Carl Hubbell, and Mel Ott outside of Willie Mays Park, alongside Lefty O’Doul in a Seals uniform. If you’re promoting the history in your branding, go all the way! The reason I keep saying that “it’s just sports” is that I’ve seen the many ways that people have weaponized history. Academia and governments have often used it to reinforce racial hierarchies, obscure atrocities, and lionize/demonize influential figures. Even those outside the academy or official positions twist history or archival sources to their advantage, using it to promote conspiracy theories or radical religious beliefs. Compared to all of that, the lineage of a sports team is shockingly trivial. The Cleveland Browns misrepresenting themselves in the record books didn’t obscure conspiracies or lead to systemic oppression, all it did was set the bar too high for an expansion club and give the Ravens a clean slate. The Hornets/Pelicans/Bobcats switchover was a mess and points to a significant problem in NBA branding policies (tying logo trademarks to team records), but it didn’t misrepresent artworks influential to the development of popular literature or performance art. Yes, sports are important, but they’re not that important.