IceCap

Ok. How viable is Houston, really? 

The arena in town is owned by the Rockets. Who have stated they don't want to own a NHL team. At most they'd like to have a NHL team owned by someone else paying rent to play in the Toyota Centre. 

So who's going to take that deal? 

Not to mention that Houston has a lot of the same issues that plagued Phoenix/Glendale/local rec centre and Atlanta- large sprawling Sunbelt city. 

Sure it's a big market but so is Phoenix and so is Atlanta. People need to figure out when it comes to hockey that market size isn't the be-all-end-all because all the people in the world won't matter if not enough of them want to pay for tickets. 

The best argument in favour of Houston is a rivalry with Dallas, a Sunbelt team that made it work. 

Almost like people think with enough hope, prayer, and Stars/Aeros Winter Classic mock-ups they can siphon some of the Stars' success into a hypothetical Houston franchise. 

The problem is that Sunbelt hockey is still precarious. Look at Florida. Two teams in the same state. One is thriving the other has always struggled. Why? One team was very smart in how it built itself up in a market with no history with the game, the other wasn't. The Sunbelt success stories have all featured management teams that knew what they were doing. There's very little margin for error down south. And if you can't make it work you end up like the Coyotes. 

So no amount of the Stars' success will rub off on a Houston team if the Houston team doesn't know exactly what they're doing. 

All in all Houston is yet another risk, one without a guaranteed arena. Meanwhile Quebec City has an arena. In a market that's going to be far more forgiving with hockey.   

Just now, 8BW14 said:

I’d be less annoyed with the Cardinals new uniforms if they were totally and irredeemably bad, like full of gradients or some other bs gimmick. I could just write those off as being sucky and move on, but they came so close in so many ways but still missed the goal pretty badly IMO. There are just so many odd decisions made. The shiny silver is the biggest head scratcher for me. Why not just make it black? Silver doesn’t really fit. Hell, even a sandy gray/brown desert cardinal color makes more sense. The red pants are desperate for a double stripe and ARIZONA is waaayyyy too big. The BFBS uniform is tired and boring. Going with the desert cardinal theme for the alternate would have at least been more interesting. Simple can be great when it’s thoughtful and deliberate. The Cardinals are simply boring. 

That's the thing. I really like the INTENT behind these, but the execution is off just enough to keep me from liking them.

Just now, Jezus_Ghoti said:

I kinda wonder if this is all just a single pathological liar.

A few of the Reddit guys who have come by here were dinged for being the same guy. BradyIsMyHomeboy/TheSoundofThrowingPennies and a few other nicks.

The others weren't linked to that guy but that doesn't mean they aren't him

It's possible. I feel for @TruColor though. Guy got taken on a ride, and he doesn't deserve that given all he's done for the online sports logo community.

26 minutes ago, DCarp1231 said:

It’s weird, we’re entering an era of redesigns where it seems like home and away uniforms don’t exactly line up design wise with each other. First the Rams (pre-white), then Washington, and now Arizona. Although at least the Cardinals have relatively recent precedence.

 

Speaking of the latter two, can’t wait to watch the Washington Cardinals vs Arizona Commanders game this season.

I'm not sure how much of a trend it is. The Rams have already walked it back by making the whites their road look and relegating the bone to alt status. The Cards have precedent for it, as you pointed out.

And the Commies? It wouldn't surprise me if Dan Snyder saw three different mockups for three different uni sets and just said "yeah all of those are good"

Reddit was where the "Rams are going highlighter yellow and grey," "Broncos are going grey and orange," and "Cowboys are going with chrome helmets" came from.

Remember the guy who said the Jags would have gold helmets with "Jags" in a UCLA style script? Reddit. 

The guy who lied about the Bengals' helmet? Reddit. 

Stop believing leaks/news from Redditors. 

hm

9 hours ago, Unocal said:

The Devils finished only 1 point shy of a division title. I don't think they'd be down 0-2 against the Islanders.

Well they're down 0-2 to the Rangers.

6 hours ago, Lights Out said:

So Reddit lied again?

Yep. 

Let this be a lesson to all of you. 

DO 

NOT 

TRUST 

REDDIT 

6 hours ago, simtek34 said:

 

It's weird. This is far better than I was fearing but I'm not sure I like it either. 

Thoughts...

1- Y'all REALLY need to stop reading into it when the Cards use gold in their merch. They've been doing it on and off for most of their existence but they never wear it on their unis. 

2- I'm happy the colours remained the same.  everyone who says their history doesn't matter. This team is over a hundred years old. You don't change that tradition to look like some so-so NCAA program on a whim. On that note, the fact that these are more traditional is a plus for me. 

3- What I don't like... the collegiate style giant wordmark never looks good in the NFL and it single handedly ruins the home reds. 

4- The sleeve wordmark on the roads is also bad. It's bad on Detroit's set, and it was bad on the Bucs' alarm clock number set. Stop trying to make this a thing, Nike. 

5- The road colours are washed out. I would have preferred if they went with red and black striping instead of red and grey. I get what they're going for but the grey just doesn't work. Even red and blue to homage the Arizona flag set would have been better. 

6- Black colour rush is dumb but that's a losing battle. I'm just happy it's not VT's colour scheme. 

I guess I'm mildly happy. Happy they went with a traditional look and kept their colour scheme, but the unis themselves have too many things that bug me that keep me from really liking them. 

Anyone who thinks Atlanta (or whatever suburban hell they'd put the team in) deserves a third chance has Great Old Ones whispering in their ear. 

I really dug the Tampa Bay Bandits jerseys and I would have bought a halfway decent replica. But alas they just shovelled out crap. 

On 4/14/2023 at 10:08 PM, WBeltz said:

The Rock really wants people to know he's behind this whole thing. Like REALLY wants people to know.

He's one of the most famous and marketable people in the world. Leaning into his image isn't the worst idea. 

18 hours ago, Sodboy13 said:

For all of the original XFL's mistakes, at least they realized their replica jerseys should sell for $45-50 because that was the NFL's going rate at the time.

I had a San Fransisco Demons jersey from that first XFL run. Sucks that I lost it. 

18 hours ago, the admiral said:

When you get into a situation where your home uniform doesn't use your primary logo, your road uniform has a different logo that also isn't your primary logo, your home and road uniforms don't really match, and then you're overriding your home uniforms for the playoffs anyway (with a throwback that also won't match anything), it's time for another idiotproofing season where no one has any alternates at all. I don't care how cool it was when the Blackhawks had black sweaters in 1996, all thirds do is set brands down wayward paths where everything is mismatched and fiddled with to oblivion. Many such cases.

Minnesota is the poster child for this. They had their inaugural set which was modern but pretty restrained. And then they introduced the fauxback red. Which was a cool nod to Minnesota's hockey history prior to the Wild. 

But then they decided to make the red the primary, refused to change the whites to match, and now they openly flaunt "nothing matches." Which is just dumb. 

So ofc leave it to the Hurricanes to take someone else's terrible idea and run with it. 

On 4/15/2023 at 10:30 AM, Ark said:

 

How are they dumb for wearing their best uniform?

Having a consistent identity is nice. More teams should try it. 

3 hours ago, DCarp1231 said:

Is the helmet going to be a “cardinal egg” type white finish? A little textured?

oh G-d 

14 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

Nothing like the thinly veiled threat of another relocation out of Winnipeg to get fans fired up to buy season tickets.

Well we can't all play in a glorified rec centre

2 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

Just look at the LA Rams as a recent example. They could have returned to the classic royal & yellow look and the fans would have been just fine, but they decided it was better to modernize it with gradients, bone coloured jerseys, & a bizarre custom font. 

Exactly. Obviously going forward is advantageous in some areas- tech and medicine like @monkeypower said. 

But jersey design? Logo design? It's all just aesthetics. A "modern" hockey jersey's design (keep in mind I'm saying design, not materials or cut) is not inherently better than a design from the 1980s the way an iPhone is a clear improvement over an 80s brickphone. 

Teams should have all the options open to them, and if the market and good taste point to something retro then go with something retro. 

"Innovation" in subjective aesthetics isn't noble in and of itself. If it were Oregon would routinely have the most beloved football uniforms in college football but they don't. 

17 hours ago, BuckDancer said:

I'm not questioning whether some of them were popular choices, I'm saying a lot of these were generally lazy decisions, especially arizona and ottawa.

"Going with an older design is lazy" is a limiting outlook and it's how you end up with pointlessly darkened colours, silver accents that don't add anything, or piping to nowhere. 

If a team decides they need to change their uniforms up all options should be open to them. Maybe that means a whole new design. Maybe that means an update of a classic or existing look. Maybe it means a straight re-adoption of an older design. 

Refining a classic look doesn't have to be bad, of course. It's baseball but my Blue Jays took their WS era identity and tweaked it enough that it works as an update. And it's probably one of baseball's best looks. 

But on the other hand... not every attempt to update a classic identity has worked. More teams have botched it then pulled it off tastefully. And so I'd rather a team be firm in saying "this is our classic look and it's what we want" then let themselves get talked into some of the nonsense we've seen. 

On 3/31/2023 at 7:02 PM, BuckDancer said:

Half the league has just lazily gone back to either wearing some old look (sabres, flames, oilers, pens, coyotes, isles)

Point of order... the Sabres actually did what you're advocating for. Their uniforms are not their classic design. They gave the logo a subtle but necessary rework and the striping is all new. 

17 hours ago, BuckDancer said:

I'm not questioning whether some of them were popular choices, I'm saying a lot of these were generally lazy decisions

I just wanted to touch on this. 

You're basically saying "screw what those fans wanted, my design philosophy trumps them."

Dude. If Calgary Flames fans want them to look like they did in the 80s then they probably should. It's when the team was their most successful anyway. 

Obviously design is subjective and no one uniform is going to be universally beloved, but it's hard to fault a company for giving their paying customers what they'd prefer. 

12 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

It would have looked so out of place with the helmet and the pants. 

White helmet, blue jersey w/red striping, white pants w/red and blue striping wouldn't have looked so bad. 

2 hours ago, SailorOfSilence102 said:

Obviously they aren't truly irrelevant, but I mean, look through out NFL history, with what's remembered and shown in those docs, iconic pictures, and NFL films stuff, or hell even iconic players, the Cardinals as a team, and as a result, their brand, are utterly abandoned and forgotten about, outside of Super Bowl 43, and maybe when they talk about Ottis Anderson prior to Super Bowl 25. I think they should stick with red white and black, because it looks good, but I think overhauling the brand isn't really ridiculous or unquestionable, it's fairly logical, and if it looks good, it looks good, and frankly I don't think we're losing that much. I think people know that if they change colors, the team isn't magically become good, but the teams brand has been a mess for nearly 20 years and needs fixing, and if it looks good with a overhaul, that's fine, there's no real cardinals tradition. 

I just find the idea that a legacy that predates the NFL is disposable. 

History matters, Even if it's not pretty. 

Just now, Jamesizzo said:

A 100+ year old franchise with a legacy of failure and irrelevance between three cities

Seems like chasing a flavour of the month thing isn't a great step forward. What happens when the new car smell wears off and they're still not winning Super Bowls? 

Everyone going "tEhEr IrRelEvanT" is, well, sorry. You're wrong. No team in the NFL is irrelevant. The Cardinals have more brand cache then some MLB , NHL, and NBA teams. 

They're the oldest team in the league and over a century old. Just go back to the uniforms with the flags on the sleeves. There was dignity in simplicity. 

It's always great when a 100+ year old franchise changes its colour scheme. 

1 hour ago, burgundy said:

 

That's an interesting historical quirk, and explains a lot.

 

Yeah, Coke Zero's original pitch was zero calorie but closer to Coca-Cola Classic's taste. Diet Coke's difference in flavour isn't down to just using artificial sweetener, it's actually a totally different  thing.

With Pepsi it's harder to figure out since as @BadSeed84 points out Diet Pepsi has always just been the no calorie version of Pepsi. My best guess is that Pepsi saw Coke succeed with both Diet Coke and Coke Zero and figured if Coke could double up on diet cola so could they. So they just tweaked Diet Pepsi a bit and called it "Pepsi Zero"
 

8 hours ago, burgundy said:

My question is why have two no-sugar versions that use the same artificial sweeteners?

Despite using the same artificial sweetener they taste differently. Usually the ZERO stuff tastes closer to the regular version while Diet is a bit more of its own thing.

It started with Diet Coke. Diet Coke is actually the no calorie version of New Coke. New Coke died but Diet Coke stayed. Coke Zero is the no calorie version of Coca-Cola.

The Cardinals have occasionally used gold as a colour for merch purposes. Sometimes it's red, black, and white, other times they work gold in. It seems to come down to the preference of whoever makes the thing. 

A draft cap using gold isn't a sign that the Cards are adding it.

It's just gonna come down to opportunity, which is different for everyone.