gosioux76

I liked that white-panel hat, too. I like panel hats in general, so that's definitely something the Angels should explore. My biggest issue with the current look is the red A on a red hat. The outlines around the logo don't do enough to make it stand out. If Navy/Red isn't the answer (which is understandable, but too bad considering how much I like the classic look), I wonder how it would look if the A were rendered in navy/black or white/silver instead.

I can understand in general why someone would think this of Scott Boras. But what particularly about this scenario makes him such a scumbag? I'm not disputing it necessarily. I just feel like I must be missing something. Is there some sense that he screwed over the Giants and Mets?

For the most part, I agree with this. But I think the biggest distinction between football and March Madness is that at least in basketball, those smaller, unheralded schools come in believing they have a chance. And so do their fans, which is what makes the experience so worthwhile. Every now and then, a school like Butler squeaks through and damn near steals the title. It's far more plausible in basketball than it will ever be in football. Having a playoff system is an improvement in college football, at least. A larger playoff field would at least put to rest the justified complaints of undefeated mid-level conference teams that they didn't get a chance at the title. It could also win back more casual fans, because the way it is now, it seems as if fewer than 10 schools have a legitimate chance of winning a title. How much joy can you get from a sport in which your favorite team's peak would be winning the Chunky Stew Toledo Bowl, or something similar.

That's a good assumption. The scheduling could also have something to do with the availability elsewhere. Maybe St. Louis had the MOST flexibility while other teams had schedule conflicts. But the broader point remains: Unike NFL teams, these guys get second (if not third) billing in most of these stadiums, with perhaps Arlington as an exception.

For the sake of the fans in Sacramento who have been tremendous in supporting their club, I hope you're correct. But I'm not sure I agree that a MLS Sacramento franchise is an inevitability. It seems as if the formula for MLS franchises has been cities that are A) in desirable growth markets B ) markets that fill geographic gaps or C ) smaller markets that have shown outsized support for lower-league soccer franchises. Of those three, I could see A or B being options with the most strategic upside for MLS to keep going back to. In my mind, Sacramento was following the option C path, and once you miss your opportunity, I can't imagine there's abundant demand within league leadership to go back a second time. I hope I'm wrong, though.

The Angels would be a good candidate to follow the Padres/Twins route of creating a simpler, modern look imbued with strong references to its past. I'm not as keen to their red-on-red look as the rest of you, but I also understand the interest in avoiding another blue/red team. I still think the red needs something to help add contrast. I don't mind the idea of using navy in small doses. I also really like how the red paired with the cream on the off-white jerseys. Some combination of those colors would be nice. I'm also in favor of going back to the prior 70s-80s Angels logo.

Keep in mind that none of these teams are the primary tenants in their home venues. My guess is that the Dome in St. Louis is probably already booked with previously-planned convention-related events for those opening three weeks.

Alternatively, I've also read some analysis suggesting that the response to this might indicate how U.S. Soccer may be rallying behind Berhalter. The response was kicked-off yesterday by a pre-emptive statement by Berhalter before the accusations ever came to light, which suggests an organized strategy that likely involved executive, legal and communications professionals in the organization. That doesn't make it a certainty that they won't boot him, but it's definitely a defensive posture that seems to favor Berhalter.

I love this idea. Take a page from MLB's Field of Dreams cornfield concept and build a hockey rink in the woods. It's probably impractical, but I'd tune in.

Maybe it's because I'm of a certain age, but I can't look at that Nashville concept without first thinking of the old Albuquerque Dukes of the Pacific Coast League.

I'm willing to offer a hare-brained conspiracy theory: Recognizing a need to completely divorce themselves from prior branding, the Commanders unveil an intentionally terrible set of uniforms they know nobody would like. The idea being that when time passes, and these uniforms remain odious, their fans will begin to clamor for the old look. By that time, calmer heads will prevail and will no longer tie a uniform design to the offensive nickname, allowing the classic look to return (a la the Buccaneers) but under the new team name. Major Tuddy is just foreshadowing. Naturally, this assumes that Daniel Snyder can think strategically and employ some degree of cunning. Which is why this is a hare-brained theory.

I'm fine with it. Let the event evolve. I had no interest in tuning in this year to see another Winter Classic featuring Boston and Pittsburgh in a venue that already hosted the event. There's only so many times I can watch Detroit or Chicago or the Rangers on New Year's Day before it begins to feel stale. It makes sense to showcase the markets that are exhibiting peak success, even if they're brand new. It shows how the game is expanding and rewards those markets for their success.

Agreed. The little details incorporating the Alamo on the sleeves, pants and back of the helmet are inspired. Well done!

It's a fair question, but I'm not really assessing it on those terms. I'm just pointing out that any consternation over City as being exclusionary to the county or other parts of the region doesn't seem to exist. No doubt if you polled a majority of St. Louis sports fans, they'd pick something else. But they don't seem to hate it enough to avoid buying season tickets or merchandise.

When the name was first revealed I had similar reservations. Living here, and being immersed in the debate about our city/county divide, I also felt like it was an odd choice given the circumstances. It's now more than two years later and if there's any lingering feelings that the team is favoring city over county, then I haven't seen it. In fact, if anything, the ownership's gamble here was that sports is something that tends to bring St. Louisans together. And on that front, they were spot on. As much as I generally agree that marketing speak is worth ignoring, in announcing the name the team actually attempted to address this regional parochialism. We can get hung on definitions (city, county, metro area), but they billed it as a region coming together as one city, no matter where you reside. "From Old North to South Grand, from the Metro East to west of 270, come together, St. Louis. Rise like the Gateway Arch and let the world know this is our home, this is our city." If this name choice was a failure on this point, then you'd have a hard time noticing it from the ground here in St. Louis.

No argument from me on Athletic perhaps working better with this logo. I presume one of their objectives in choosing names was to avoid anything that harkened back to one of the various minor league clubs that immediately preceded getting the MLS team. In the case of St. Louis, AC St. Louis lasted one year in the USSF D2 Pro League and had a really strong following before folding in 2011. That might seem insignificant, but even for one year I'm told AC St. Louis still carries some affection with the supporters group. This new ownership group seems to have had no interest in tapping into what used to be.

I stopped in at the new City SC stadium this afternoon because they had hats with the wordless logo in stock at their team stores. Just to give you a sense of how pervasive the wordless secondary mark has become, they're even using it on retail store packaging. If you're in the vicinity of the stadium, that secondary mark is more common than the primary.

Oh, cool. That's interesting. I'd have never considered that anyplace other than NM uses that symbol.

As someone who knows very little about Wichita, other than its status as the home to a few general aviation manufacturers, how is it associated with that Zia sun symbol used in the primary logo? I have only ever associated that symbol with New Mexico.

I don’t think you give people enough credit.

I can see your point, but an abstraction doesn’t need to be literal. You can see the symbol, learn what it represents, and clear up any confusion. That said, I wouldn’t disagree with the thought that some color distinction separating the arch from the rivers would help. But back to the original point, I don’t think the wordless versions of these logos need to be the team’s ONLY logo. The St. Louis one in particular works as a complement to the primary. I would just prefer the simplified version on the jersey. Because at that point, and in that use, what the symbol represents would be clear as day, especially to the team’s supporters.

Yeah, it’s as if St. Louis needs to erect a big arch-shaped monument that can act as a universal symbol.

But you DO know that it's St. Louis. That's the point. Do you need the word "Portland" on the Timbers crest to know that it's the Portland Timbers? Maybe to someone who's completely unfamiliar to the league, but to its fanbase and fans of the league, the symbol is enough.

This word-less mark has become increasingly popular with the team. It's all over the building, including on the seats, and is popping up more in merchandise. It's becoming clear that this symbol is now instantly recognizable, making the words unnecessary.

And which category do you fall into?