gosioux76

And in what appears to be a completely different typeface.

This is a good point, but I think it only adds to the appeal of this game. Those players are under contract and they sit out / tank to their own detriment. They can also use that game as a showcase event to prove that they can perform under pressure. It only helps their case as they pursue their next contract. If nothing else, I'd think you can bank on players playing for pride, if nothing else. The only drawback here is for those seasons in which the worst team is, by far, the worst team. So much so that even a matchup against the second-worst team is lop sided, meaning they're likely to lose a chance to get a top draft pick that could change their trajectory. But even then, I still think it's worth doing.

You've just made the perfect Panthers uniform. (Maybe shrink the collar, but you get the point.) This is all it needs.

Evergreen post.

You could call it a design flaw, I suppose, if the idea is that the Broncos have a uniform element that can't be worn with other elements. But in truth, this is just another example of a team trying to force variety into a design system created in an earlier era where having 12,000 different pairings wasn't necessary (and still isn't.) The February 1997 unveiling of these uniforms shows the only three options for which this set was designed.

I think this is the biggest issue. I understand why they're doing this, particularly in the first year of what could be a make-or-break opportunity with Apple. But this current single-elimination MLS playoff format is ideal, particularly because it doesn't drag out what is already feels like a really long season that struggles to breath within a really crowded field of competing sports options. It makes those games considerably more important and worth tuning into.

This hilarious, but also 100% true. Just the idea of that jaguar print on a helmet evokes a sort-of low-rent chic that just doesn't work. It also makes me think of Washington's faux-leather helmet, which I know some people liked, but looked exactly as its description suggested: fake.

I don't care who's to blame for it, but this is Exhibit A in why TV numbers are an unnecessary novelty in the modern American football uniform. The Chargers and Bengals were smart to not include them. They don't serve the function they used to, and they add clutter to jerseys that aren't cut the way they used to be. If, for whatever reason, there's still a need for an extra set of numbers in this age of big-screen, high-definition television, then I say put them on the pants the way the Packers did in the '80s.

UPDATE: I posted this as a joke, but at the same time, this is how generic grocery products have been displayed in parts of the country and the world for decades. I remember seeing plain, yellow boxes of potato chips in the grocery store as a kid. In fact, these products come from No Name Brand, which is owned by Canadian grocer Loblaws, which has intentionally leaned into this aesthetic. But this sort of brutalist design used to be the standard for grocery generics -- it was either highlighter yellow or plain black-and-white packaging. Recognizing this, it's all the more baffling that Utah would take on a look that can be defined as "generic" on several levels.

If this happened, would most people even notice? Today, if the only NBA games you consume are on national broadcasts, you're essentially seeing the 10-12 teams repeatedly, with a handful of exceptions. In a way, it's almost as if there's already an NBA League 1 and an NBA League 2.

This hits all the points. In essence, there's something to compete for at every level of the EPL: The league, winning the Champions League, qualifying for the Champions League, winning the FA Cup, avoiding relegation, making progress up the table. In baseball, there remains only one prize. And for 50-or-so years now, MLB has been expanding the playoffs in an effort to give more teams a chance at winning that prize and, therefore, enable more markets to retain interest longer into the year. So any complaints about the playoff structure being somehow unfair to these 100+ win teams needs to take into account that this format was borne out of a need to keep the sport relevant to more people at a time when there are a lot more things to take their attention. If anything, any frustration should be limited to the fans of those teams who missed out years ago because the playoff format wasn't as inclusive. I'll never forget watching the '88 Twins as a kid. They won 91 games with a lineup that kept the prior year's championship team mostly intact, but ended the season 13-games behind the brutal Bash Bros. A's. I'd have liked to have seen that Twins team have a shot at a divisional series or Wild Card.

I do this a lot when we know a team is getting ready to unveil new branding, but rarely do I ever find anything. While it could be just that teams are holding off registering trademarks, I think it's probably more about a lag time between when the request was filed, when it's approved and when it appears on TESS.

I'd like to believe that the Chargers guy is a middle-manager in an accounting firm in Dubuque or Omaha who cheers for the team because he just likes the uniforms.

A candidate for plastic surgery.

I think this is particularly true for the Jr/SR/III, etc. I completely understand the argument that, if those are their names and how they identify, they should be allowed to use them. However, in most cases, the bigger point is that those players could easily get by playing without those suffixes. It doesn't serve a function other than personal identification. However, I do think I was wrong in dismissing the trend of longer hyphenated names. If a player and his family go by two surnames, or two family names, then shortening it to something that would more easily fit on a jersey wouldn't be displaying their true name.

I think the issue is that there are no rules. This appears to be guided exclusively by player preference. And in this era of fabricating personal brands, those hyphenations or the Jr./Sr./III denotations serve as ornaments to athletes seeking attention.

This was my first reaction. This looks terrible, but some of it is self-inflicted. The Panthers need to do some self-editing.

I'm no expert, but I suspect it has to do with the descending size of the script from large down to small as it moves from left to right, suggesting it's shrinking, or "vanishing." By contrast, Washington's script is of a more uniform size across the chest.

No, the issue — whether you agree with it or not — is of cultural appropriation. It's about using another culture's symbols, often by accentuating stereotypes, and then assuming the people of that culture should be proud of it, usually without investigating whether that's the case. Tell the University of North Dakota that the issue with the Fighting Sioux was about how they used that name. It was about much more than that. We could all argue all day about whether this has become an overblown issue by the so-called "PC police," but don't undersell the issue.

That's a legitimate dilemma. How do you boycott without also harming the players, who are also victims in this scenario? I've read of some supporters rationalizing that the cost of their ticket alone isn't enough to impact profit margins, and using that logic to justify attending. I'm not sure I agree, but I can understand the desire to rationalize the situation that way. At this point, I'd think airing your grievances through TIFO, or other forms of collective protest, can keep the issue in the public eye while still allowing them to support the players.

So you're saying you're optimistic?

And today, the response continues to be "sell the team." I don't blame them. This, and last week's firings, are positioned as moves meant to remove the primary actors from decision-making roles. But the owner, even divorced from the CEO role, is still the owner. He's still the final say on decisions. There's no way around that.

Is that supposed to represent this?

I completely understand. In general, I feel the same way, but mostly for selfish reasons. I like myself a good wholesale rebrand. But what Cleveland did with the Guardians rebrand, despite its few minor flaws, was nothing short of remarkable. As much as some of us outsiders might have enjoyed a big change, the Cleveland Baseball Club needed to thread the needle between creating a rebrand with minimal disruption to its fans. That way, it satisfies its obligation to sever ties with its old name without alienating those fans who didn't want to see change at all. In the end, they have an identity that's completely new, but bears enough resemblance to what it was before that it isn't jarring to the diehards. Let this marinate for a few years, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the organization take some bigger swings with its brand.

SOURCE: Twins excited for 'cleaner' refresh of uniforms, more