Ice_Cap

Moderators
  • Content Count

    43,076
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    186

Ice_Cap last won the day on March 4

Ice_Cap had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

11,888 Hall of Famer

4 Followers

About Ice_Cap

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Tampa, FL
  • Favourite Teams
    Toronto Blue Jays, Toronto Maple Leafs

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

74,550 profile views
  1. Salt Lake. Arizona, Memphis, Birmingham, and Atlanta have had attendance problems, but I think Salt Lake might be the worst of the lot? I may be completely wrong but it seems like, issues aside, there is something of a foundation to build on in Arizona, Memphis, Birmingham, and Atlanta. That if the league survives and gains traction? You could build something there. In Salt Lake? No one seems to care.
  2. I think it could be a number of reasons. Again, I think the AAF is taking a "primary and alternate" rather than a "home and road" approach. And in Atlanta's case? I think they just wanted to show off their alternate look to the home crowd. I have no idea if AAF teams are selling their "clash" jerseys at on-site team shops, but if they are? That could be extra incentive for Atlanta to break out the whites. Even if these "clash" jerseys aren't being sold? It could be as simple as changing things up to create some local buzz. As for SD and Birmingham? It could be that Birmingham wants to own the very stark "black and silver head to toe" look. The black and silver uniforms, the logoless helmet. It all reflects a very basic and stark brand. A no-frills brand. The AAF is centrally owned, so maybe the league's marketing department thought that Birmingham's identity would be weakened if they introduced a second jersey? If so they could have made the call for SD to be the one to switch. I admit I'm talking out of my on most of these points, but I don't think "the AAF wants white at home" is the only explanation for these occurrences.
  3. I never liked the red helmet for the Bills, honestly. Too many primary colours. The cherry red of the helmet and royal blue of the jerseys were fighting for dominance. I much prefer the white helmet/royal blue jersey look.
  4. Yeah, no one's getting the Dolphins, Bills, or Jets' uniforms mixed up. Even if they all have white helmets. The uniforms are all distinct.
  5. Yeah. High school years are a very important time in the developmental cycle of a human brain. Tackle football should not be a thing we expect kids of that age group to partake in. 18 seems to be the age we as a society have deemed the beginning of adulthood, so if someone 18 or older wants to play tackle football? And they have the facts laid before them? All the power to them. That's their call. Kids though? No. We shouldn't encourage kids to smash their heads into each other. Not while, as @the admiral once said, we're also trying to teach them math.
  6. Either that or an alternate universe Yankees team that kept the Orioles name upon moving to New York
  7. Eh...I'm not so sure. Any business, much less a sports league, has start-up costs that can be quite substantial. You have to ask yourself "ok what's not necessary?" And just looking around here? I've seen plenty of people saying "we need more colour on colour matchups, home v road sets are relics of the past." I don't agree with that sentiment, and I'm well aware that there's probably a user who prefers home and road looks for everyone who wants a colour on colour matchup every week. My point, though, is that the desire for home and road sets is not a universal thing at this point. There are more and more people who are willing to forgo that setup. So. If that's the case and you're the AAF needing to manage startup costs? Going with one primary look for each team with occasional alternate/clash looks as situations demand them isn't the worst idea. Again, it's about not spending where you don't need to. I don't agree with the "we don't need home and road looks in sports anymore" idea, but it is a popular one that justifies the AAF taking a stingy role with that. I'm not sure what else about the league's brand rollout was subpar. Even people who have been quite hard on the AAF seem to admit that, at the very least, the identities are very well put together. Hell, I'm pretty easy on the AAF but I think I've been more critical than most when it comes to branding. I've stated my dislike for the "logo on one side, numbers on the other" look before, and I've called the league's overall branding homogeneous in a bad way (ie you can tell everyone's identity was done by the same group of people, there's no variety in design style). That is, of course, aesthetic preferences in play. So I'm curious as to what about the league's branding rollout you found subpar. The only thing the XFL has done brand-wise has been to unveil their new logo. Which is a tweaked version of the old XFL logo. And I'm sorry. This is a Vince McMahon-helmed project outside of the world of pro wrestling. My expectations for it are not high.
  8. I don't think there's a white at home policy*. I think the league is dedicated to one primary look for each team, with some having alternates. So it's not a matter of home and road sets, but primary and alternate sets. Atlanta and SD felt as if they wanted to wear those sets at home, whereas Orlando and Memphis seem content to only wear them when the opponent essentially forces them to, treating their alternates like clash kits. I think the league's attitude has evolved regarding alternate uniforms. Memphis was the first necessity, because they were on the road against Birmingham. So they got a simple white jersey with coloured cuffs and numbers. Orlando was the next one. They were on the road against SL, so they needed a dark jersey to contrast with the Stallions' light grey. Like Memphis? Simple design. Coloured cuffs and numbers. Things changed with San Diego though. Their white set used design elements from their primary set. The side panels specifically. The same thing was done with Atlanta's set. The side panel design was carried over. Does this mean that Orlando and Memphis' alts will adjust to include proper side panels to more accurately mimic their primary looks? If so I wouldn't expect it until next season. For now though? It looks like the idea of what the alternate looks in the AAF are supposed to be has changed. *except of course Orlando, whose primary look is white.
  9. Nice shot of the future Islanders GM!
  10. It might have been an attempt to fit in with the existing Toronto sports scene. The Maple Leafs and Argos were both blue and white. U of T athletics were blue and white. Various incarnations of the Maple Leafs minor league baseball team were blue and white. So I can see the appeal of a team moving to Toronto going with a primarily blue and white look to fit in. It doesn’t explain the green, but who knows? Maybe it was intended to be an accent colour like the red is with the Blue Jays’ identity? And while merchandising wasn’t much of a thing back then? Debuting in Toronto with a blue and white colour scheme would pay dividends today. You know how the Brewers make a lot of money by selling both the navy/old gold look and the ball-in-glove throwbacks? Imagine a Toronto Giants team selling both blue, white, and green gear AND black and orange throwback inspired gear.
  11. Like @shaydre1019 said, this is a forum for people to discuss sports unis and logos. So anything will have people who both like and dislike it
  12. Like @monkeypower said, Manziel won’t be able to play in the XFL if Vince sticks to his “no past criminal behaviour” stance. Anyway the Apollos lose. Nuts.
  13. Yeah, the Rams only got to wear their throwbacks as often as they did because they petitioned the league and essentially made them their primaries. The Browns would need to do the same thing...ask for permission to tweak the rules.
  14. No. The timeline of uni design does not line up with that being viable.