IceCap

I think you took a joke too personally. Which kind of proved the joke's point

To everyone who hates "32s" Sorry you all hate fun.

The Replacements has provided more quality football over the past twenty-two years than the Washington NFL team has. Why not lean into it?

So first off...everyone trying to get logos out of reflections in windows and helmet cases...y'all need to calm down Secondly...it sucks it won't be Redwolves or Red Wolves. That was my choice, and I even like the concept logo for it everyone seems to be crapping on. As for what we're seeing uniform wise...they're giving us snippets. I've seen enough "snippet reveals" from teams to know that you can't really extrapolate anything from them. There's some stuff that I think looks good, some stuff I'm unsure about...we just have to wait and see. I'm not excited about any of the potential names though, or Admirals.

They've needed it since Wilson through that INT in the Super Bowl.

WTF was that false start call?

I'll refer back to my comments re: the Packers/Bears game. The Packers get calls.

I've been saying it for most of the season...HEAD COACH JR! The Khans already have him under contract!

This is a beautiful uniform set.

Sorry for last night. I had typed up a long post that addressed this rule, and when I hit "post" I got a blank screen. Hitting refresh showed that my post just...wasn't there. I didn't have the time for a lengthy reply and so posted a quicker one. Then you decided to quote the rule I had tried to address and I went "aw come on..." and posted a less than cordial response. To which I apologize for. Anyway... To bolded point one- It looked to me like Kindle Vildor of the Bears (the penalized player) and Rasul Douglas of the Packers were jostling for position and both went out of bounds as a result. I'm not saying Douglas pushed Vildor out of bounds, but it's clear that Vildor didn't just voluntarily go out of bounds either. There is definitely some leeway for interpretation there. So now we get to bolded point two- Vildor and Douglas are jostling for position and force each other out of bounds. Ok. Now Vildor needs to get back in bounds "in a reasonable amount of time." Again, room for interpretation there. Once Vildor is out of bounds he attempts to get back in but is blocked by Packer Isaac Yiadom. What constitutes a "reasonable amount of time" is itself open to interpretation but I think an unbiased and objective view of things would see that Vildor was hampered in his ability to get back in bounds by Yiadom and, in fact, got back in bounds as quickly as one could reasonably expect given that he was jostling for position with two opposing players. The call may have been "correct," but only in the most Draconian sense. Both parts of the rule in question leave a fair bit up to the discretion of the officials, and I'm pretty confident that if the teams were reversed the Packers would have gotten a more liberal interpretation than what the Bears got.

The whole thing is contingent on the Leafs agreeing to it, since any Toronto 2 team would fall within their market. And MLSE isn't going to let someone else squat in their market for less than a billion up front in territorial fees. On top of the expansion fee. So at that point Toronto 2 would have to charge Leafs-esque prices just to have a prayer of getting back in the black. Also we don't need the hockey Clippers

Yes. You are. I said I had a write-up and the forum ate it. I didn't write it again because once my attempt to post didn't work I didn't have the time. Are you trying to angle for a fight? 'cause I don't want one.

I typed up a whole response but apparently it didn't post so Short version is there's leeway on the rule in question. The Bears didn't get it. Packers would have.

My favourite Avs sweater was the 2001-2007 alternate. It's just a straightforward hockey sweater design. Not gimmicky and it looks good. It's dumb for the Isles and dumb for the Blues. The wavy-ness makes the Isles' attempt worse aesthetically but both fail in my opinion.

The NHL over-expanding AND giving them no out to a no-win scenario in Arizona would be hilarious. But that list is meaningless. For one, Toronto 2 isn't happening. Not unless a potential ownership group feels like handing a billion dollars over to MLSE.

The punt that the Packers miffed and the Bears recovered for a TD. The call that brought that back could have gone either way and I'm sure if the team were reversed the Packers would have gotten a more favourable decision.

Bears got screwed hard.

Gary Bettman- If the new Jets don't sell at least 15,000 tickets every game I'll move them! Also Gary Bettman- The Coyotes can play in a 5,000 seat arena, no probs.

Thank you I don't like it though. That's just my opinion, but that's what this board is for, right? Like... @Morgan33 already pointed out that the Stars had a great jersey that called to mind they idea of green on black- the skyline concept. The ones they have now are, to me, bad because...well...I just don't like how they look I get that there's a reference but that doesn't make it worthwhile design in and of itself. On its own merits it's gaudy and lame and reminds me of something a teenager would come up with, in a bad way. I guess my micro point is I think they look bad and my macro point is I think they look bad because of an annoying trend where teams or designers (or both) fall so in love with local references that good, solid design comes secondary.

That's part of the problem. Sports design these days is all about jerking off over how many "references" you can fit in. Yeah, sure, a building in the Dallas skyline has green lights and the jersey is black and neon green. It still looks bad though. Design has lost the plot. It used to be "what looks good?" Now that comes secondary to "what's the reference?" Not everything has to mean something and not everything that means something is good by virtue of meaning something.

The Tempe process, from what I can tell, hasn't been a slam dunk. They've had to shift proposed sites a few times and their most recent option will cause problems with an airport. I'm sure there are rubes in Tempe who will be swayed by the idea of a NHL/NBA sized arena to bring events to the area, but the Coyotes have dicked around in the state enough. It's not just Glendale they've messed with, the it's the state too. So it wouldn't shock me if the powers that be in Tempe have gotten a few memos along the lines of "be weary with these people."

Well that's the other problem. That the stadium's location is a red herring being used by people with an ideological motivation to keep this team in Arizona at the expense of potential profitability elsewhere. What happens if the Tempe rink gets built and they still don't draw? How long do the "GROW THE GAME!" people expect us to wait before we judge the success/failure rate there? Ten years? Another twenty five? Are there people who seriously think millions upon millions upon millions of dollars - both public and private- should be wasted over the course of half a century just to acknowledge that hockey in Arizona won't work? Yes. There are people who think that. And we should be free to point out how dumb that opinion is. Even if the NHL insists on humouring them for the sake of Bergman's ego.

The whole team, outside of the actual coaches and players, have embraced meme culture. And that "Dallas Skyline" stuff sounds like design speak for me, where they try to shove as many "references" into a uniform or logo as possible. And it's always lame. The whole thing just seems like "the focus groups told us the kids would like it" to me. And hey if that's what they want to do all the power to them I guess. I'm just over all the "this is a reference to that!" design-talk that has infested the sports logo and uniform scene.

"The three sleeve stripes represent the Scouts, Rockies, and Devils eras."

The problem is...no one in KC seems interested. The arena owners built it for a NHL team but then figured out that they didn't need a NHL or NBA team to make a profit off of it. The ownership group in Arizona isn't paying their taxes, and is getting evicted at the end of the season anyway. Their only options are an ancient ice rink at the fair that is WAY below NHL standards and a stadium proposal in Tempe that, even if it were approved, would take the better part of ten years to build. And it may not even get approved. Houston is interesting, but has the same issues Atlanta and Phoenix had. It just hasn't had the chance to fail yet. Even then though...the Rockets' ownership has indicated they don't want to buy a hockey team and just want them to exist as a tenant. So you need to find a billionaire to buy the team and also be ok with paying someone else rent. I don't see any takers. No doubt the NHL's preferences are... 1) Stay in Arizona- Gary's ego can't take the hit 2) Houston- big city and media market, still in the Sunbelt, can still do that song and dance 3) KC- at least they don't speak French and you don't need to realign the divisions But all three have their problems/lack interested partners. Which leaves... Quebec City. They have a rink. Ownership that wants a team and can afford a team. And a fanbase that will pack the rink every night. QC has everything ready to go and you could begin the transition as soon as the season ends. It's the easiest, most hassle free option and the option with the most guaranteed upside, financially speaking. They don't want to take it though, because of OITGDNHL reasons. What's interesting is that they may not have a choice. And that's where the fun stuff happens.