gosioux76

Members
  • Content Count

    4,184
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by gosioux76

  1. I’d like the Saints look much more if they just darkened the shade of gold on the helmet ever so slightly. It’s far too light.
  2. And still easily readable.
  3. That picture also makes it look like they used light blue stitching on light blue fabric, which certainly doesn't help. Put the crest in navy or white, and enlarged on the jersey, and you'd recognize it just fine.
  4. But you can read the full crest from a distance? I'd think removing the monogram from the crest, and making it larger on the front of the jersey, would make it a much clearer symbol than a roundel full of other distractions.
  5. The more I look at this — and genuinely can't believe its real — I think the Bloomington seal somehow looks MORE Canadian than the Montreal logo.
  6. The quote in this story from Andy Dolich, a former executive with both the Golden State Warriors and Memphis Grizzlies, in which he outlines the "ABCs" of what will make for a viable expansion market, should help frame this expansion wishlist.
  7. Yeah, the snowflakes thing is hilarious. I haven't been in Canada for a while. It's possible they've completely divorced themselves from all American political rhetoric over the past four years. Maybe a snowflake there is just a snowflake. Sounds nice, actually.
  8. I like the logo just fine. I'm just here to lobby for "Stilted Dung" as the team's new nickname.
  9. If my memory isn't making things up, didn't it essentially come down to Louisville and Memphis? I remember there being a pretty robust debate right on these here boards (i've been here that long?) about two name proposals, which were largely driven by corporate backers: a return of the Kentucky Colonels (KFC is based in Louisville) and the Memphis Express (FedEx is based in Memphis.)
  10. I couldn't help but think that the blue looked oversaturated on TV last night. It might be, as @CreamSoda said, just something that will take time getting used to. Maybe it's more to do with the burgundy and blue touching without separation, as @_RH_ mentioned. But I didn't see it as this cathartic righting of a wrong as many of you did.
  11. The club is featuring tomorrow's date prominently on its homepage, so I presume this will be released officially sometime tomorrow.
  12. I really used to admire the NBA for its willingness to be the only game in town in so many cities. That worked really well when it was still a fringe league trying to gain more exposure. (The MLS has done well with this, too, in recent years.) I question, though, whether that model would still work in the modern NBA, especially the way the league's superstars tend to favor playing in major media markets.
  13. Definitely a possibility. At one point in 2019, Bill Foley was one of two billionaires vying to bring a Major League Soccer club to Vegas. Doesn't seem to be many updates about Foley's interest in MLS since then, but the other group — which includes Boston-based hedge fund executive Seth Klarman — appears to be making progress. My point, albeit a long-winded one, is that Vegas doesn't appear to have a shortage of billionaires interested in buying pro sports franchises.
  14. I know it's fun to play "fill in the map," and entertain "let's give every big-league city a team" fantasies, but keep in mind that the apparent going rate for a new NBA franchise is a minimum of $2 billion, and likely $2.5 billion. This isn't about a city without a team saying, "hey NBA, look at us!" It's the NBA saying, "who's got $2.5 billion to spare?" Chances are, there aren't a lot of people in many of these cities with that kind of scratch to drop on a team. I have no doubt that there are enough wealthy investors, and certainly enough desire, in Seattle to get in on this cash grab by the league. Can we say the same about Vegas or Vancouver or KC or Louisville or Saskatoon or whatever EA sports create-a-team location we can dream up next?
  15. Looks to become the league's eighth roundel (ninth if you count that weird oval Chicago uses). I'm now more curious about that image of a t-shirt with a fleur de lis crest from earlier in the thread. It would seem odd -- or at least, out of the norm -- for them to use the fleur de lis as anything other than a secondary while a snowflake is the primary visual in the club crest.
  16. I'm not going to pretend the Jets updates are better than those '80s uniforms, but they've grown on me. It probably has more to do with their predecessors, and the horrible mismatched shades of green over the years, that these look so vibrant every time I see them on TV. The color is gorgeous. I say this also understanding that the wordmark with the football shoehorned in the middle is ridiculous and they should have updated or just re-adopted the '80s Jet logo.
  17. I'm sure it gets tough for kit designers to come up with fresh interpretations for teams like Atlanta, much like we've seen before with Barcelona or AC Milan and Inter Milan. Which is why I wish they'd just ... stop ... trying. Blah blah blah, but jersey sales! blah blah blah. Looks cease to be iconic when you keep screwing it up in the name of innovation. /soapbox
  18. For a uniform that exhibited very little restraint, especially when it comes to color choices, these jerseys stand out to me as bare, especially on the shoulders. I'm surprised they didn't try to slap another Buffalo logo on the sleeves and move the numbers to the shoulders. That's not to say I approve of such things. But with the train wreck that these were, there were plenty of opportunities to make it much worse.
  19. This is starting to look like an ABA 2000 thread.
  20. First off, I'm not arguing that there isn't enough talent in the league. I'm just saying that having more talent in the league doesn't necessarily make the league any more competitive. I think it's great that every team has someone who could be an all star. But only a very small number of those superstars are of a caliber to win a championship, and there are even fewer -- if any -- that could do it without multiple superstar-caliber players at their side. I'm well aware of the league's star-driven structure. I'll even concede that it's always been that way: the Lakers, Celtics and Bulls of yesteryear all dominated the league with a collection of superstars. The difference is how teams are built and who's actually the driving force in building them. In the modern NBA, Lebron, and his ability to coalesce talent in locations of his choosing, is a bigger determinant of NBA championships today than any GM or the NBA draft can ever be. The Warriors felt like an exception to the rule, up until Kevin Durant chose the path of least resistance to an NBA title and left OKC on the league's dust heap. The ability of a team in an undesirable location to rebuild itself through the draft has become fantasy. And if you're a fan of one of those teams, it has to be demoralizing. The Cavaliers would have never won an NBA championship had Lebron not had some personal affinity for the location. Maybe it's just me, and everyone else is fine with the sort of power structure that leaves most of the league looking like the Washington Generals to the Harlem Globetrotters. I just think that adding two more teams to that sort of environment would build upon the league's already growing collection of have-nots. But if they're hell bent on expansion, then considering markets like KC or Louisville or Vancouver would make far less sense than Las Vegas. Superstars will want to play in Las Vegas.
  21. I get that. But what’s the point of having a stronger bottom half of the league if they still don’t stand even a remote chance of winning it all? A successful season for most NBA franchises would be getting into the second round of the playoffs. Like, that’s the pinnacle — the most that can be hoped for. I can’t imagine why, as a fan, that’s appealing.