• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by gosioux76

  1. The bigger issue is that spring training hats exist at all. Totally unnecessary. Also, am I imagining this, or did teams just used to wear simple mesh trucker hat versions of their regular caps in spring training?
  2. I agree that this would look better, but there's also something distinctly unsettling about seeing your favorite player co-playing in the uniform or look of another team. Also, I'd personally never be in the market for an all-star jersey, but every now and then I'll see a MLB jersey pop up on eBay or somewhere and think, man, that's a nice Pirates jersey, only to realize it was, like, a Derek Jeter all-star game jersey from when they played in Pittsburgh. If you're a fan of that player, would you buy a jersey that looks like it belongs to another team? I think the jersey buying public, though, might be more inclined to purchase all-star gear that appeared more neutral, that was more about the event than the place in which it's held. Honestly, the worst thing to happen to all-star games (OK, probably not the worst, but let me be hyperbolic) was straying from standard red-white-blue designs. The 70s-80s Pro Bowl and NBA All-Star Game uniforms should still be the standards. I'll stop shaking my fist at the clouds now.
  3. This is the Frankenstein monster of sports uniforms. It looks like the blue arms of one jersey were ripped off and sewn onto some other team’s green jersey. They just don’t belong together.
  4. Gah, so atrocious. I don’t think the sponsor logo is the problem. I’m a Timbers fan, so take this at face value, but I’ve never seen a Sounders kit that i wouldn’t objectively consider unattractive. The colors are garish, and the intent to overcome that with weird sublimated patterns does it no favors. Just an eyesore.
  5. I know nothing about modern turf technology, but doesn't it seem more than reasonable to make turf in which design elements can be interchangeable? Like, replaceable endzone designs, etc. I might be asking too much.
  6. The Seattle Times' NHL beat writer last week wrote that March remains the most likely timeline, "but possibly late February." https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/hockey/nhl-seattle-mailbag-when-will-we-get-a-team-name-what-to-expect-in-the-expansion-draft/
  7. I agree entirely, that white is jarring. But, dare I open this can of worms, a gray facemask would work great, too.
  8. Is the silver included as a 25th anniversary thing? It has me confused. It's not one of the Galaxy's colors, right?
  9. I mean, this isn't the greatest design, but I'm not sure it's enough to just outright dismiss an entire league. Seems kinda harsh.
  10. I think it's going to be a real challenge for the St. Louis franchise to come up with something distinct, especially for a region that leans so heavily toward blue and red, thanks to the existing franchises. A red, blue, yellow combo would made sense, considering the colors of city's (fantastic) flag, but would hardly stand out in the league. The navy and dark green of Saint Louis F.C. would be unique to MLS (and before you start, yes, I know the Sounders are blue and green, and no it's not the same) but MLS4TheLou appears pretty intent on distancing itself from the USL franchise.
  11. I really like the uniforms, and considering the franchise's history with powder blue, it's not pandering to consumer trends nearly as much as the Rangers, which, frankly, did it all wrong. But I have one big criticism of this set: I think the emphasis on Navy over Royal hats makes it seem a bit too dark. I'd love to see how this simplified logo looks on the white-panel hat structure. Adding just a small dose of white could make a big difference. And if there's one part of this set that sticks out as adopting a trend for trends' sake, it's the hat with the powder blue bill. It's completely unnecessary and not very attractive. If they wanted an alternate hat to tie in with this set, the white-panel hat would've been a smarter choice.
  12. It's possible neither the league nor the ownership knew at the time that they weren't going to lean heavily on the Sonics past. What this says to me is that the league must have still had some concerns about the Oklahoma City market and wanted to make sure the team had as many marketing triggers it could pull as possible. They likely had enough success marketing the team on its own that it didn't need to emphasize its history.
  13. I think the key word here is "symbolic." I've been on this board for more than 15 years and have genuinely enjoyed this debate, even when it gets silly. I can't recall, but has anybody considered looking at each organization's incorporation documents? We keep referring to these as franchises, which they are, but they're also companies, typically LLC's registered with a state corporations division. Thinking of it in those terms, did Art Modell simply relocate his corporation to Maryland? If that's the case, then you have a direct continuation of the organization only with a different "dba" -- doing business as -- title. I'm not suggesting it would end the debate — What fun is that? — but it might advance the discussion beyond symbolic gestures to real, meaningful documentation. That whole Celtics/Braves thing, though, is a different can of worms.
  14. A powder blue version of their current sets would be fantastic, and certainly in line with their brand history. I just hope they avoid what the Royals did in adapting a powder blue jersey, but keeping white pants. It's gotta be all powder blue or nothing. Own it or leave it alone.
  15. The Nashville badge on its own isn’t great, but it’s even worse when lost in a sea of yellow. There has to be a better way to apply this badge. This wouldn’t be an issue if the primary were blue or if the logo was applied in reverse. Also, another disappointing teamwear approach to an inaugural season kit. It didn’t used to be this way.
  16. On its own, I kind of like the number font, but the league logo looks really forced into the design. Ruins the whole thing. Might take a bit to warm up to the nameplate font. I wonder whether it will look too slight from a distance, too insignificant. No strong feelings at this point.
  17. I wonder how much of this facemask debate is generational. I hate the 49ers, Colts, Cardinals, Browns and Giants in anything but gray, regardless of whether or not that color is in their scheme. I'd like to see the Bears adopt it, too. But that's about it, really. The rest have adapted to color nicely.
  18. Admittedly, I haven't paid much attention to what the Rams have been using as wordmarks since the move back to L.A. But the mark they're using at the top of the team's homepage seemed unusual to me. Have they been using this for a while?
  19. Maybe it’s because they’re wearing so much white, but the Saints’ gold helmets look especially washed out today. The color seems way too faint.
  20. I was watching some NFL Films season recap documentaries from the late '70s and early '80s on YouTube yesterday (nerd alert!) and can't imagine a better look for the Falcons than what they wore in that era, which I'll forever think of as the Bartkowski Era. The bright red, black and gray was really unique. I'd be in favor of a modest modernization of that look.
  21. I completely understand this perspective. I have bought a few authentic jerseys over the years and also have a fair amount of replicas and Mitchell & Ness throwbacks. Admittedly, I rarely wear them. With the exception of hockey sweaters, which are quite comfortable, and soccer jerseys, which aren't that different in shape from a typical t-shirt, most sports jerseys just don't look good as casual wear. A lot of this, in my opinion, is because I don't care much for tucking in shirts when I don't have to, and almost all sports jerseys (again, outside of hockey and soccer) are meant to be tucked into a uniform. The evolution of more visually appealing replica jerseys has helped with this somewhat (It's now possible, for example, to buy an NFL jersey that doesn't double as a human drape). NBA jerseys, though, are completely useless to the layman. Yet, for some reason, I still covet jerseys, particularly M&N throwbacks. (I own a Kent Hrbek M&N throwback that sits on me like a powder blue tarp, but man do I love it.) There's something oddly comforting about going into my closet and seeing them there, like my own personal museum for my benefit. Call me a weirdo. I'll own it.
  22. I kinda think this is cool, too. However, I'd be really surprised if the team -- should they choose Sockeyes -- used any imagery referencing someone getting punched in the eye. Not that hockey isn't a violent sport that still celebrates the occasional fight, it just doesn't really seem like an image the league openly embraces anymore.
  23. This can't really be all you known of salmon, right? That it's a fish people occasionally like to eat? Spend 5 minutes in the Pacific Northwest -- hell, even on a layover at the airport -- and you'll recognize it's one of the defining symbols of the region, along with Mt. Rainier, the Space Needle and evergreens. As @DastardlyRidleylash pointed out earlier, this is a legitimate identifier unique to the region and with deep spiritual meaning to native populations. It's far less of a novelty than Penguins or Ducks or (heaven forbid) Kraken.
  24. That Leeds 2019 badge is just awful. This isn't the first example of Leeds attempting drastic rebrands, right? I seem to recall there being some strong opinions about this 1970s era rebrand, though I don't know the whole story. ALSO: Cool thread.
  25. I think this debate stands to illustrate one thing: that whichever regional identity the Angels use doesn't really make a difference. Using the name "Anaheim" means more for the city than it does the team. Using "Los Angeles" likely means more for the team than it does Los Angeles, at least when it comes to global brand recognition. Maybe it's the my nostalgia kicking in, but I'd be in favor of splitting the difference and going back to California Angels.