spottedbadger

Members
  • Content Count

    409
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by spottedbadger


  1. I'm a bit surprised at the number of people on here who don't like the color scheme. I think the cream and green go really well together and the blue and green has made for some really nice looks for Tulane's football team throughout the years.

    As for the logos, I'm down with the majority of it outside of the M. That thing just does not look pretty. But the thing that sticks out to me is that all of the logos figure to lend themselves well to merchandising. Marc Lasry in particular has been outspoken about the lack of gear and merchandise associated with the Bucks and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he went to the designers with the Brooklyn Nets logo (that has been subsequently printed on millions of hats and shirts) and asked for something as similarly accessible. Hence the roundel logo and some of the shield logo sketches that have made the rounds. You can throw that tertiary logo on a black hat and it could sell.

    These owners are shrewd businessmen if nothing else. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if they soon announce that they'll play a couple of exhibition games in Madison and/or Green Bay to try and reintroduce and re-engage their profile throughout the state.


  2. In the end United know they needed to increase revenue so they don't get hit by the Fair Play rules like City did. Adidas is willing to overpay. The problem is they will now have to do the same for Real Madrid. Amazingly it's the opposite of what happened between Nike and Germany. Nike almost doubled the offer that adidas put in but was turned down by the Germans because the leadership was more familiar with adidas. The league teams weren't happy about that. Adidas also wants every team in London and I'm sure they will try for Arsenal when the Puma deal ends. The only thing I'm certain won't happen with adidas are those horrid grey uniforms they made in the 90's.

    I don't think it really has much to do with FFP rather Man United just capitalizing on another opportunity to make a :censored:load of money. United aren't really in danger of FFP because they generate such huge profits that help service their debts. Their yearly "losses" are minuscule compared to the City's and Chelsea's that are under the FFP gun.


  3. From twitter:

    @darrenrovell

    Sources confirm that Nike has informed Manchester United it will not match adidas for future kit rights. Deal worth $100M+/year.

    Sucks, as ManU always look pretty clean (minus the dumb sponsor this season). Curse you, adidas!

    Nike has stated they haven't made a decision on this yet. I really am not looking forward to adidas kits for the Red Devils if they don't match.

    Seems to be a done deal. I'm actually pretty shocked that Nike's walking away from the table and allowing Adidas to take over. Adidas now has the biggest club in Spain, England, and Germany and 4 of the top 5 jersey selling clubs in the world. Nike obviously has more information and a better business acumen in weighing the value of continuing the United partnership, but it still seems a little puzzling to cede such a big piece of the market to Adidas.


  4. ^I never understood that myself, considering how beloved they are locally. But then, Herb Kohl never really did understand his teams' fans, and it showed. Often.

    He didn't just fail to incorporate those colors and give fans something to be excited about, but he, along with Buck's marketing, actively antagonized the diehard fans who would love to see the Bucks back in those colors with this:

    Yeah, that's a great way to sell season tickets. For being such a champion of Wisconsin sports and Wisconsin in general, Herb Kohl was fantastic at alienating a massive amount of fans throughout the state. Unfortunately it would appear as those the new owners will bring a different brand of poor ownership decisions to the Bucks.


  5. The question comes down to this:

    Do you believe in conference seniority and perhaps nepotism (advantage Wisconsin), or do you believe in historical prowess and on-field achievement (advantage Nebraska) as the criteria for uniform ownership? Or maybe, you're more level headed and realize that two teams can have a similar look without trying to kill each other.

    Obviously I'm biased, but consider that Wisconsin's greatest success as a program came from hiring a former Cornhusker to coach their team and then head up their athletic department. I have nothing but respect for Barry Alvarez and what he was able to accomplish. You can't take that away from him. But just as you can't take away his Rose Bowl victories and long streak of wins at UW, you also can't take away his Husker roots as a player being mentored by legends like Bob Devaney and Tom Osborne. Sorry, Irrational Badgers, Barry's the same guy and you can't get all choosy about which part(s) of him you want to claim.

    Some Wisconsin fans (clearly not ALL) want to claim sole ownership of the Red & White. I think most Nebraska fans would be satisfied if those folks realized that the history of Nebraska football helped birth a lot of what goes on in Madison. That's not to claim that the Cheeseheads are carbon copies of the Cornheads - they have their own traditions and pageantry just like any other unique program - but to act like Alvarez didn't grab inspiration from his days in Lincoln is foolhardy.

    Again biased - but if you're going to model yourself after a college football program - you can do a lot worse than Nebraska.

    I love all of this self aggrandizement. "Well I clearly don't have a problem with Wisconsin and their fans, but it's just all too clear that they are jealous of Nebraska and our color read."

    This is all just asinine. Yes, Barry Alvarez went to Nebraska. No, Barry Alvarez did not model Wisconsin's uniforms after Nebraska's. Do you credit Nebraska's uniforms and use of red and white to Hasting College and their uniforms simply because that's Tom Osborne's alma mater? We also hired Barry Alvarez from Notre Dame and Iowa before that. If we're following your logic, shouldn't we have adopted blue, black, and gold?

    And if this is true: "Some Wisconsin fans (clearly not ALL) want to claim sole ownership of the Red & White. I think most Nebraska fans would be satisfied if those folks realized that the history of Nebraska football helped birth a lot of what goes on in Madison."

    Then how come Nebraska hasn't changed their helmet decal to a syringe yet?


  6. Having seen both rainbow unis in the 80s in person and up close at the old Mecca Arena, the rainbow with red trim was far more crisp, fun to watch and I knew right away it was the Bucks on TV. Imo, removing the red in 85 (thanks Herb) dulled the rainbow effect and overall look of the unis, and at times it was hard to tell whether the Bucks or Celtics were playing on an analog TV. Maybe seeing them in motion in HD would change my perception, maybe not.

    I also watched them in both sets, and I have the opposite reaction.

    Red is green's complimentary color. It provides the strongest contrast to green, and overwhelms anything else in the scheme.

    Without red, the Irish Rainbow effect shines through. The various shades of green have their maximum impact. Add red, even a little, and all of a sudden the red compliments the green and becomes the focal point. The Rainbows become background noise in the red/green uniform mix, muddying the trim and cluttering the uniform. The best thing the Bucks did was removing the red and allowing the shades of green to assume a prominent role.

    As for contrast with the Celtics, I think high definition has mooted that issue. I don't have any trouble at all telling the Spurs' and Nets' road uniforms apart on my television.

    I totally agree with this. Without the red the multi-green is seamless and really flows. it's a design element that has a lot going on but it's not conspicuous. Plus, this might just be me, but it just feels better on the eyes. The addition of red is overwhelming and it makes it feel as though the panel design is at odds with the plain front jersey.


  7. Look, if you're going to be contrarian, then own it. It's not inherently negative, it just sort of becomes that when you deny that's your mindset despite the fact that it clearly is. If you root for the Clippers because you just want to say you're not Lakers fan then fine. Admitting that's the source of your fandom and moving on (which I do with my Hamilton Ti-Cats fandom) is much less grating then you denying the fact despite it being obvious to everyone else.

    I'm pretty sure it's up to the fans themselves to decide why they root for the team, not everyone else.

    I could just as easily say that the Lakers don't have any real fans and it's all just a matter of when they hopped on the bandwagon, but that wouldn't be fair to the legitimate hardcore fans of the team.

    Yep it's up to the fans to decide why they want to root for the team...and those reasons can have no actual connection to the Clippers franchise. If you are a "fan" of the Clippers simply because you don't want to root for the Lakers, are you really a fan of the Clippers?

    And what I said isn't false. Those are the kind of people who attend Clippers games. It may sound condescending but it's still the truth.

    And I'm also curious as to when and why you became a Clippers fan?


  8. Just because a team has a lot of bandwagon fans, doesn't mean they don't have die-hards.

    I'm not being flippant or sarcastic. Sure there are a few odd die-hards like "Clipper Darrell" but the Clipper "fanbase" is probably the oddest in all of North American sports.

    People in SoCal have never had any legitimate reason to root for the Clippers, especially when the Lakers are in town. Instead the people who call themselves Clipper fans are likely one of three people: 1.) they are transplants who like basketball but can't bring themselves to root for the Lakers. 2.) They are simply contrarians who love to say they aren't Lakers fans 3.)They just buy tickets to watch the other teams because Lakers tickets are too expensive.

    None of that inspires a great deal of passionate fandom. I mean Billy Crystal, probably the most public Clippers fan, is literally option number 2.


  9. Clippers change name:

    Die-hard fans continue to watch franchise as they always have

    Clippers stay Clippers:

    Die-hard fans continue to watch franchise as they always have

    The Clippers don't have die-hard fans.

    As for the name change, I think there are some real possibilities to make it "more LA." Given that people seem to have a proclivity for shortening team names such as: Warriors=Dubs, Wizards=Wiz, Clippers=Clips, etc, I say the Clippers should just streamline the process and go with something like the Hollywood OD's or the Santa Monica DUI's.


  10. I don't think the uniforms/colors/logos will change for a couple of years. First off, it takes a while for the league to approve such a thing, and second of all, the new owners have a lot more pressing issues and needs to attend to, including building a new arena that their ownership literally hinges on.

    With that being said, I'm all in for the irish rainbows. If they don't go down that path, then I've always thought that green and silver is a nice, clean combination.


  11. I don't really understand all of the ire for these. Sure, they aren't all that great, but I'd take unimaginative and plain change over ridiculous monstrosity-type change in today's redesign climate. But I mean, I think these Kansas uniforms are better than the set they wore during the regular season with the red shoulder.

    As for the dots, it's jut a stupid Adidas motif. (Yay for brand synergy! :censored: ) Stupid? Yes. Unsightly? Maybe. Clownsuit? Hardly.

    adidas-crazyquick-release-reminder-4.jpg


  12. Man Nike really mailed it in this year for the Army v. Navy game. Those Navy jerseys are nearly exactly the same as the new West Virginia jerseys they put out this year. Really unfortunate considering some of Nikes best work over the last couple of years came from this matchup.

    And are psychedelics included with whatever those A&M jerseys come to be?


  13. I think TCU comes second only to Oregon when it comes to adding new helmets. I don't know if it's the color purple that just meshes with the technology or what, but i've really liked all of the stuff they've done recently from the vinyl matte with the frog print, to the chrome, to this, the purple has always looked great.


  14. I think Wisconsin needs to make some changes in their uniform to give them their own identity than they currently have. When Barry Alvarez went to Wisconsin and tried to turn them into a Nebraska of the 1990s they've copied the general idea of the uniform. Would like to see something to separate the two.

    Wrong.

    What's 'wrong' about that. Alvarez was a Nebraska guy, went to Wisco and changed their uniforms into near copies. I think i've even seen an interview on the BTN where he said his goal was to imitate the look.

    What's wrong about it, is everything. I think I've run through this at least 3 times now. You can associate the look with Nebraska all you want based on their past success, that's fine, but this misconception that Barry Alvarez became head coach at UW and changed the uniforms to look like Nebraska is just not factual. People misattribute a quote by Barry saying he patterned the program after Nebraska to include the uniforms, when in fact he was talking about building the team around a strong offensive and defensive line with in-state talent and fostering a strong walk-on program and tradition.

    As was pointed out above, Wisconsin's uniforms have looked the same since the 1970's with very small changes here and there. The only thing Barry changed about the uniforms was replacing a block W with the "motion W." In all acutality, Nebraska has experienced more change when it comes to things like the two stripes and where they're placed.

    mjs-74gamea.jpg


  15. I think Wisconsin needs to make some changes in their uniform to give them their own identity than they currently have. When Barry Alvarez went to Wisconsin and tried to turn them into a Nebraska of the 1990s they've copied the general idea of the uniform. Would like to see something to separate the two.

    Wrong.


  16. Badgers getting new helmet. It's the exact same as the regular white helmet but all the red and white is flip flopped, so red shell white face mask white stripes white W. Heres the link to the YouTube video straight from the Badgers. I'm having trouble posting it and posting a screen shot so if someone would do that that'd be great. It's not a spam link it's just a link to the video. start at the 4:10 Mark.

    http://youtu.be/dLgeenjjIo4?t=4m10s

    I'm not a very big fan of it at all. I know it's just a simple inverse of the regular helmet, but I'm just not a big fan of the way a red shell with a white facemask, especially with a huge white, blob-looking W. And white/red/white looks better than red/red/white.


  17. This is very small, but United have added a red hem to the back of their black shorts. I think it looks really nice and is just one of those little added details that brings the full design together with the slim black collar and the new striping on the socks.

    PA_SOCCER-Swansea-185526_6662808-5746538


  18. Wisconsin with the Tech Fit uni.

    1013841.jpg

    Maybe Adidas gave schools more that one Techfit option because there appears to be an extra seam in the shoulder panel.

    The new UCLA home jerseys may also have an extra seam in the shoulder panel (although I can't tell for sure):

    2ab99af4487c5736186e67ed3b42565b.0_stand

    I'm fairly positive that's just a different cut made specifically for quarterbacks. No one else had sleeves like those and the numbers were in the regular spot just above the stripes instead of on top of the shoulders like Stave's.