• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ManCalledAmp

  1. Um..."Holy Cow!" [8-0 (There's no good way to do a Harry Caray emoticon...)
  2. I'm torn on Dallas and on Atlanta. Dallas: Yes, it's a wordmark...but as stated it's done in an NCAA-hockey style, so it's not as bad. The original North Stars' look and logo was class...then morphed into the look which (basically) the wordmark replaced. However, that look seems somewhat dated to me. So it's a push. ATL: Again, a push. They went from double blue, to just the crazy powder jerseys, to now emphasizing a red which has subtly been in their scheme all along, like if the Tennessee Titans had actually worn the fan jerseys. The bad news is that they look more like football jerseys. The good news? Well, they kinda look like football jerseys...and don't look terrible. Plus, that means they don't wear the name-down-the-arm powder blues. Just give them the old navy cyclone-bird and be done with it. And I agree on the 90s versus EDGE argument. The 90s jerseys looked terrible, on occasion, but with character. Now, many of the bad jerseys in the league just look uninspired, flat, dull, and soulless. I'm not sure which is worse, to be honest. Though I do think NYI needs more Fishsticks. Take out the wonky waves and fix the numbers...that's a damned good set. Also, Buffalo's goat-head was decent too...miles beyond the Slug...
  3. I still like the NOB below the numbers. Triple-stripe isn't as horrendous as I've seen it, or I may just be immune. Sublimation, I don't really mind. I'm not sure about color vs. color...but didn't they also make both teams' "road" uniforms for recent NBA ASGs, despite only one being worn? My biggest beef? Those back numbers look ridiculously huge.
  4. What is that swirley-majig on the Swiss kit? Is that the crest, because if so, why is the red-box-white-cross cross opposite it?
  5. Wow. Those Rogues kits would be incredible, were it not for that damned elephant. And that Toros franchise was just marred by a whole lot of bad ideas. Oh, and has there been more of a cluster-fudge in this series than the LA Aztecs? Style flips, color flips, collar and stripe changes...and then in their final set, they look like the modern day Galaxy (color-scheme wise, anyway). Bizzare. I'm also somewhat irritated that the "Blue Raider font" (Revue BT), used by the MTSU Blue Raiders after their 1997 rebrand, was used by the Aztecs first...which somewhat excuses the LA Sol for using it now. Still bush league on the Sol's a lot of ways. However, all of these examples are ridiculously good. Well, well done. I am very impressed.
  6. Well played, sir. But where is the anniversary logo for the creation of the Alley-Oop?
  7. Yeah, Houston's kits were pretty much perfect...and went downhill over time. The LA kits are proof that soccer kits don't need to resemble those of any other sport. The logo and colors are exceptionally solid, but the football/basketball script-over-numbers look just fails, to me. And is it just me, or are there a ton of widely available fonts being used for wordmarks in this league?
  8. It's so subtle...but yes, the actual logo choice is miles better than the one they chose. Notice (aside from the star differences) that they kinda mirrored things. They straightened the serif, then angled the arrow. Is that more of a substantial change...or is it the star?...I'm not 100% sure.
  9. Agreed with all points on the RUAC rebrand. The change is a complete improvement, and the crest is just a few tweaks from incredible. Also, I recommend going "Reading United" or "Reading Utd" on the banner, then "A" and "C" on separate sides on the little...ribbon-y things. (No clue what they're called.)
  10. Ah, well. A restaurateur and a runner of websites? He's a true renaissance man... If this guy was part of the Coyotes, never would have been a problem. I, for one, bet his apartment smells of rich mahogany as well. FHL concept sounds fun, though I didn't bother to read the details yet. Logo is sharp, but needs a tweak or two as stated.
  11. Completely, but respectfully disagree. While the lack of wonky shoulder panels and addition of traditional striping cleans up the look, the color-on-color wordmark muddies the look, and I personally think the lack of front numbers makes the '84 look seem like it's missing something. I'd rank the 3 prospects as: '78 whites (home scheme, the letters/numbers pop with the brown (or black?) trim on a simple yellow print, and I can handle the crazy shoulders...adds more brown to the look) '78 browns (unique look, and contrasts with most of the road unis in the league anyway. Good to get some color out there. The plain (or gold outlined) gold front numbers/letters are unmuddled, but not as clean as the whites' look. Still, solid #2.) '84 whites (make the wordmark either like the 78's, or make it solid red-orange or yellow, lightly outlined in the other color or brown/black, and add front numbers and this may jump to the front of the list.) I know the current look is uninspired...but it's very clean, and to me it's very professional, and screams baseball. I'm not a fan of a major return to these looks, or a major color shift...but I do love me some throwbacks.
  12. Personally, I think it looks terrible. Put on a NOB. Or if not, leave the space blank. Or, if you absolutely must, put a team logo on there. Only if you must. Bowl logos go on the front of the jersey. No one else needed to do this, to this point. Wyoming looks relatively classy in this game, and their patch is where it is supposed to go. Fresno looks bush league here...and the aesthetics gods payed them back for it with the wackiness that was a pair of botched 4th down conversions in extra time, and a loss. My two cents.
  13. Bump for sheer unadulterated awesomeness. This thread rules, and I'd love to see more. Although I'm disappointed in how Dallas shifted after 1975. The random flex to navy and red...the phasing out of blue...only to bring it back again in another new style...kind of jarring.
  14. Solid pirate logo. Looks like a solid identity. I'm Impressed.
  15. Wow. It took me multiple looks to see the differences...but yes, it does appear that they got all of that correct. Bravo, Simpsons' artistic team.
  16. MTSU men's home is unchanged. MT Women's home has subtle changes, particularly to the side panels and shorts. Last year: Go Blue Raiders gallery... And this year: New gallery.
  17. These are incredible. I'm quite, quite impressed, and very happy to have these. Excellent resource. Well done.
  18. I'm a little torn. I prefer the old one, if only for nostalgia, clean look, and the fact that it fits with minor league, indoor football. The new one looks too fierce, and a bit clunky and contrived...though I agree with the snake correction, and to an extent with the new name. (Why not just "Huntsville?" Works for the Havok, Stars, UAH, and the defunct Channel Cats...) It's a solid B logo, and may grow on me...but I'm not blown away.
  19. Blazers' look is very cool, and I agree about how progressive it is. Not sure how I feel about the Jazz in green. The Houston and 80's Cleveland looks, as stated, are rather bad. And the Magic retro is solid.
  20. I doubt it will happen, but I'd be curious of the execution for an unrelated reason. I do play by play for a high school team that went to great lengths to look just like Auburn when it opened 30+ years ago (Dickson County Cougars, Dickson, TN)...then added an orange alternate a few years back. I haven't seen confirmation of whether or not the alt has changed at all...but this year, it was too bright (almost Tennessee orange), had no trim or details (no AUB stripes or anything), and had plain numbers (I think in a different font than the home and road) done in white with a plain navy outline. Plus, they were worn with the team's plain navy football pants (no stripes)...meaning white helmets, off the rack dull-yet-too-bright orange tops with hard to read numbers, and plain blue pants. Triple color + no details + hard to read numbers = ClusterFAIL. I'm curious to see how an orange top would look with the proper accoutrements, with white pants, and with the proper colors. Then I could take pictures to the coaches and tell them that's how it's supposed to look. Side note, the kids continue to prove that kids have little uni taste, as they love the all blue look, the all white look, and that hideous alt mess outlined above. I have no real love for the War Eagles, but they have maybe the best look in college football when it's done right...why mess with it?
  21. Wow, thanks for this as always. I completely missed that MTSU wore Silver pants for the first time in years...and somehow, I don't like them. Looking at the gallery, they just look dirty. Silver/Blue/Silver sounds like what they're supposed to wear...but the execution is off. Perhaps the silver shade... Also, it made me look at the Blackout look again...and while I hate it, the look (on an island) is executed well, and isn't terrible. However, we're not the Black Raiders, so it still needs to go.
  22. Make the pants and helmet gold...and I'm sold. Solid design, impressive implementation. Well done. I'm expecting this to be the next big thing next year also.
  23. Impressed. Execution is a little off, but not much more could be done. Very nice.
  24. Daaaaaang. Those are impressive, guys. Well done.