sorcerer77

Members
  • Content Count

    185
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Prospect

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Shameless Plug Alert: Nice job on that Pirate logo, I would add the rectangle borders from the 1968-86 design, giving it the look of a treasure map background. Ironically, the 68-86 design never did appear on the sleeve of a Pirate uniform. I like the current uniform set, but wouldn't mind a black pant option with the black alternate. Not to be worn in the summer, but like the connection of solid black with the team nickname. Fairly or unfairly, the current logo is strongly linked with bad baseball. Now that the club is improving, the timing seems right for a logo which has some association with the winning eras of Pirate baseball. The 68-86 logo was used during the great decade of the 70s, so that has appeal to fans who experienced that championship period.
  2. Nice job on those Pirate concepts! It will be interesting to see if any changes to their existing set will happen next year with the new Pirate logo. I would like to suggest black pants with the black top, that look seems to fit the club nickname. Another idea I have is to bring back the gold pinstripes, this time with a black "P" on the chest. The jersey number would also be on the front, the gold pins may not be popular, but I liked them anyway.
  3. The idea that fans are anything other then spectators is naive, at best. Like rams said, the history being made on the court, field, or ice is essentially being made by mercenaries. They often have little connection to where ever they're playing. And it's been that way, for the most part, longer then most people remember or care to admit. What I ultimately find troubling about the "fans are part of the team"/"fans are the team" mentality is that it represents either an inability or unwillingness to separate one's self from what should be a momentary escape from reality. Despite what you may think due to my stance on this topic, I do understand and enjoy the joys of being a fan. The emotional connection we're willing to forge with a team is great, and it's part of the experience. That's just it though, it's an experience. Something way pay for. Either by buying tickets, paying the cable bill, or through purchasing merchandise. It's like going to the movies. Over the course of a film, if it's a well made one anyway, you grow connected to the characters, you want them to succeed in whatever their goal is, and you develop a dislike towards the antagonists. Like a sporting event though, that's just an experience you pay for, and if you're level headed enough you leave the theatre, admit you had a good time, and move on. So why do we treat sports differently? We do so many of us assume that because we opt to pay for the experience of fandom we're somehow part of something? Ultimately we're only part of a team so much as we're a part of Coca-Cola every time we order one at a restaurant. We certainly contribute though payment, and we have an emotional attachment, but we're not part of the team. When we leave the arena or turn off the tv after a game we should be able to separate the fun experience we were just a part of from the reality of the situation, that teams are private businesses, and we're the customers. And please, don't you or anyone else try to claim this is me trying to diminish what it means to be a fan. Like I said I'm quite capable of both recognizing this reality and losing myself in that experience. The two are not mutually exclusive. Finally the teams themselves are entities onto themselves, not expansions of the community. The Charlotte Hornets did not cease to exist because they left their community (in fact poor support in the latter years is part of why they left for New Orleans in the first place). They simply moved to a new base of operations. The records, the history from the Charlotte years most definitely is recognized as being attached to Charlotte, and there's no doubt in my mind that the majority of people who care about those years are from Charlotte. It doesn't change the fact that the team that created those memories is in New Orleans now, though. Again, if the Bobcats wish to rebrand themselves as the Hornets that's fine. What isn't fine, however, is moving the history. The history should belong to the organization that created it, the one in NOLA. The team in Charlotte, even if they become the Hornets, will never be that old team, and to re-write the history books to make it seem as if they are would be a lie. Simple as that. It's a confusing issue to be sure, but we just can't escape the fact the memories of the Charlotte Hornets happened in Charlotte, and fans in New Orleans today can't be expected to appreciate it, because it didn't happen in their city. Sports will always be unique in this regard, and that's what separates it from other business ventures. This connection goes way beyond the bottom line, so when a team relocates, it's like a divorce. And it's much worse when the team has a long, storied history like the Cleveland Browns. NFL Films had a documentary about the 1995 Browns, and the players and staff were very emotional after the last game. The fans took it the hardest, of course, but this was so much more than a corporation leaving town. Now the Hornets are on the opposite side of this issue, a short history in Charlotte, but some good memories nonetheless. I have no problem at all, as confusing as it is, to let Charlotte reclaim the Hornets name. New Orleans can have the records, but players like Larry Johnson just don't mean anything to the City of New Orleans. The horrible terrorist attacks in Boston, and the reaction of the sports teams(and visitors), is one of many examples of how a sports team is so much more than a business. It's a generational bond, and can help begin the healing process for a city devastated by this tragedy.
  4. Wish I had a photo to post, but miss the 1977 Detroit Pistons uniform. It featured lightning bolts down the sides, and the wordmark had that look as well. May have been a one year experiment, and the team was bad, so that must have hastened the demise of the uniform.
  5. Trottier was a valuable contributor to those back to back Cup teams, and later was an assistant coach with the Pens.
  6. I'm not sure I would include those... mid-season or not, this was an official change in colors, not an alternate; and they were chosen for specific reasons, not "for black's sake." EDIT: ^What he said. A couple of years later, the Pens would roll out one of the NHL's early alternates, a gold jersey. The gold jersey was worn randomly along with the usual white and black. The gold jersey would be phased out in the mid 1980s.
  7. I liked those older Boise State uniforms with the school name in bigger lettering. One of my pet peeves has been the trend in recent years to miniaturize the name of the school or nickname on the front of the jersey. Texas and Oklahoma are among the colleges who are still doing it correctly, but I almost feel if you're going to micro size the name, just leave it off the jersey completely.
  8. Yes, I enjoy looking at the vintage facemasks of the past, especially the Dungard model from the 1970s. Colleges and pro teams wore that style, Alan Page of the Vikings is one famous player which comes to mind.
  9. Agreed with these choices, and would add the purple and gold clad Los Angeles Kings.
  10. If you don't like any of those 1998 Brewers, go with Robin Yount from the past, or a Brewer of today. I liked that set better than what the Brewers currently wear.
  11. It's perfectly normal for cap monograms to be a little more "refined" so-to-speak than similar font letters on the jersey. It's a stand-alone letter so you tweak it more to make it work by itself. Letters in wordmarks just need to be similar enough because as a group, they may be restricted on some areas. As far as the bigger P only on Pirates, that's fine as well. Plus I actually think the wordmarks on the home and road look best as they are. Thickening them up or any changes might make that font look to clunky. As it is, it looks and feels like its been that way for decades. And though they have messed with it, the Pirates are a pretty classic franchise, so it works. Pirates are definitely a storied franchise with a winning tradition from a historical perspective, so aside from the white border, the "P" should always basically unchanged. With the 2014 new logo on the way, it's interesting to look back at the last three Pirate logos and how they performed on the field. The 1968-86 logo was extremely successful, with six division titles, and a pair of world titles. The 1987-96 less so, with three straight division titles, and the 1997-present struggles. Ironically, the first year of the current logo was the most successful, as the team was a serious contender in the mediocre NL Central until the tail end of the season.
  12. Nice job on those concepts for the Pens, I think we'll see the club throwback to the gold jersey in the future. I would like to see a gold triangle on the pants, which was black, in the mid to late 1970s when the team had blue pants.
  13. True story, around 1994 the Storm brought out these uniforms for the second half of a game in which they trailed at home. The crowd went nuts, the helmet was silver from the silver and black uniforms the Storm was wearing at the time. I don't recall another football team changing uniforms at halftime at any level of play.
  14. This issue of branding and team relocation is a complex one, from record keeping, to honoring past great players. It's a matter of proportion, in my view. Great players from the Los Angeles Rams should be remembered by St. Louis, regardless if the team changed nicknames or not. But it would be over the top for St. Louis to build a statue outside their stadium to a legend who only played for the LA Rams. The Atlanta Braves made this mistake when they put a statue of Warren Spahn outside Turner Field, he never pitched a day for the Atlanta Braves. While Spahn was a great pitcher, he should have been honored in a lesser way inside Turner Field. It would have been more fitting to save that space for a real Atlanta legend like Chipper Jones, for example. Yes, technically, virtually all sports franchises are set up as a private business, but we can't deny the numerous differences that make them unique. Fans just aren't consumers, they play a role in the success of a franchise, and this is a generational matter, which affects the level of support. One major reason for the struggles of the Tampa Bay Rays is this lack of generational fan support for such a young franchise. It's why there's so much pain when a team leaves, even though the number of actual employees pales in comparison, to say, a General Motors plant relocating. Of course, teams are free to self congratulate themselves and claim anything, there's no laws being broken. But the reality of where these events happen is a black and white issue. The bond or connection will always resonate more with the fans from those areas, even when they themselves move. John Unitas will never be called an Indianapolis Colts legend because he excelled in Baltimore. We just can't change the past. It's the same reason we never routinely refer to current news as the Minneapolis/Los Angeles Lakers winning or losing or making a transaction.
  15. What I find ridiculous is that you could see a team that, for seventy years was the Royals/Kings, but say "oh yeah, this is the same franchise that won the 1979 NBA Championship" just because they're wearing Sonics uniforms. You're thinking of it too literally. It wouldn't be the same franchise, no. But imagine you're a Sonics 2.0 fan, and you're at a bar talkin trash with a Blazers fan. If the subject of titles won comes up, isn't he allowed to say "Oh yeah?! Well we won it all in '79!"... he'd be right. The Sonics won it all in '79. He is a Sonics fan. Its not like Blazers fan would say "NO! That's the Thunder's!" Well no. He didn't win a damn thing. I don't go around saying "we haven't won it since '67." It goes back to my opinion that fans who think they have some sort of ownership over teams are either naive or delusional. Packers fans excluded, of course. A fan of the Sonics 2.0's just going to be a fan of the Royals/Kings. The team he's rooting for didn't "win it all in '79." Like it or not, the Oklahoma City Thunder are the team that won the 1979 NBA Championship. They were just wearing green and gold and going by the name "Seattle SuperSonics" at the time. I think we need to distinguish between the ownership reality, and the greater reality of fans. The ownership view is that the clinical, technical sense of tracking franchise history will always include the different cities a franchise has played in. But sports is much different than regular business, the city name is a major part of how we refer to these teams. I've never seen a non-MacDonalds employee wear a uniform inside that restaurant while eating. In rare cases we do see the history and identity staying with a previous city, and my view is that should have been mandated many decades ago. The NBA(or any sports league) will never change history by officially changing past champions, the Seattle Supersonics will always be the 1979 NBA Champs. The fans in Oklahoma City has nothing to do with that, just like the overwhelming number of fans in Atlanta never experienced the 1957 Milwaukee Braves. Conversely, the people in Seattle only had Kevin Durant for his rookie season as a Sonic, so the vast majority(and stronger connection) should rest with Oklahoma City. There's just a huge disconnect for the fanbase when a team departs, and we just can't get around it. How many other non-sports entities have the name of the city so prominent on their uniform? The link between a city and sports team is so strong, there is usually a major uproar when it relocates, for good reason. By contrast, outside a few huge employers, you don't hear about the pain in the non-sports area.