Soarindude

Unpopular opinion: I don't have a problem with asymmetrical designs whatsoever, and I believe more teams should give it a shot. Unfortunately, I believe Charlotte executed it poorly.

Hmm... I had no idea that so many hated the Jaguars teal flakes, but if so, chalk me up as someone with an unpopular opinion.

Beyoootiful!

I think the consensus on these boards is that the Jacksonville helmet you posted above is the best helmet Jacksonville has ever had.

I disagree with your statement about the NFL being diluted. 12 good QBs? Not by a long shot. In fact, I could easily think of 4-5 backup QBs that could easily serve as starting QBs if given the chance. The NFL is the most balanced league based on talent out of the big 4 easily.

^^ I always liked that uniform as well just a great look for such bland colors.

In what world is that color scheme "bland".

I think the Green Bay Packers are excused of the idiocracy. Because for the life of me I cannot think of anything that represents the Green Bay Packers better than the infamous G.

The beauty of the promotion/relegation system is really lost if teams can't be promoted based on the standards set by the league. And this is why a pro/rel system won't be put in place until at least 15 teams under the MLS are in the financial position to succeed in the MLS.

The only thing wrong with both of those uniform concepts is that they incorporate a pointless black uniform. Would've much rather seen a yellow jersey.

This is my favorite Seahawks look from the 2002-2011 set:

Who would've thought this look would be lightyears better than what they have now. That switch to nike really cost the Seahawks. I'd love to see a remake of these uniforms, and they'd sell like hot-cakes.

How is this any different than what Nike always gets criticized for?

Neon "volt" color? Check.

No real design other than contrasting sleeves? Check.

Yet because it's not Nike, it gets a pass?

Because this:

Looks 10 million times better

Than this:

This is my favorite Seahawks look from the 2002-2011 set:

Who would've thought this look would be lightyears better than what they have now. That switch to nike really cost the Seahawks. I'd love to see a remake of these uniforms, and they'd sell like hot-cakes.

Did it? Are Seahawks jersey sales at an all-time low?

Since when did sales indicate the uniform is aesthetically pleasing? Especially on these forums where the modern, trendy uniforms are criticized he most.

So how did the move to Nike "cost" the Seahawks?

Appearance wise, it "costed" then. Financially, obviously not. But that also plays along with A. their success in the new uniforms and B. having colorful players like Marshawn Lynch and Russel Wilson.

Those Seahawks jerseys wouldn't be selling the same way if Tim Hasselbeck was still tossing the ball around and going 7-9 every season.

This is my favorite Seahawks look from the 2002-2011 set:

Who would've thought this look would be lightyears better than what they have now. That switch to nike really cost the Seahawks. I'd love to see a remake of these uniforms, and they'd sell like hot-cakes.

Did it? Are Seahawks jersey sales at an all-time low?

Since when did sales indicate the uniform is aesthetically pleasing? Especially on these forums where the modern, trendy uniforms are criticized he most.

This is my favorite Seahawks look from the 2002-2011 set:

Who would've thought this look would be lightyears better than what they have now. That switch to nike really cost the Seahawks. I'd love to see a remake of these uniforms, and they'd sell like hot-cakes.

NFL teams should always have wordmarks right under the collar. Jacksonville's soccer crest and Tampa Bay's complete absence of a wordmark are two major flaws that both of these uniforms suffer from.

tampa bay does have a wordmark it's just on the left sleeve instead for some stupid reason

Oh yeah... that wordmark. Like I said though, the wordmark should appear right under the collar, and putting it anywhere else (especially on the left sleeve, not even both) is worse than not having it at all.

I'm thinking that the Bucs uniforms wouldn't be nearly as bad if they just changed those nasty numbers and put the wordmark (Change Bucs to Buccaneers of course) at the top. It'd still look forced with the unneeded orange striping and the downgraded pewter color, but hey, still not as bad as what they got now.

NFL teams should always have wordmarks right under the collar. Jacksonville's soccer crest and Tampa Bay's complete absence of a wordmark are two major flaws that both of these uniforms suffer from.

The Virginia Beach Neptunes have officially unveiled their logos.



Does anyone else get the feeling that the script logo was designed by someone totally different that the person that designed the other marks?

It's just a different font style.

The Virginia Beach Neptunes have officially unveiled their logos.



That's a nice set of logos and scripts, defenitely would find myself buying merchandise if I had any ties to the team. Or Virginia Beach... or even Virginia.

Rays home white jersey is baseball perfection.......blue piping, nice script with the sun burst, and a sleeve logo........not too little, not too much going on.

Agreed to a point. It's a good look, but would look even better with a few individual touches.

A few touches that would've made the Rays go from being just another blue team, to a modern masterpiece:

-More usage of the double blue color scheme. The light blue color is really hidden in both the home and away uniform.

-Yellow should've been used as a nice tertiary color, similar to the fauxpaux look. Of course, nothing so extreme, but something a tad more out of the box.

-I would've really liked to see the plaid look pushed more by the Rays. Using it on the cap, sox, and maybe gloves would've really set us apart on an individuality stand-point. Some say it's minor league, I think it's a creative master-piece.

Using any of those three ideas would've really helped the Rays.

Since this is the Pointless Realignment sub-forum, I was wondering if I can add a little WNBA flavor by the following:

Eastern Conference:

Atlantic Division:

*Connecticut Sun

*New York Liberty

*Washington Mystics

*Charlotte Sting - returning team

*Miami Tropics - returning team, but renamed

*Orlando Miracle - returning team

Central Division:

*Atlanta Dream

*Chicago Sky

*Indiana Fever

*Cleveland Rockers - returning team

*Detroit Mechanics - returning team, but renamed

*Milwaukee Stallions - expansion team

Western Conference:

Midwest Division:

*Minnesota Lynx

*San Antonio Silver Stars

*Tulsa Shock

*Houston Comets - returning team

*Utah Bluezz - returning team, but renamed

*Dallas Longhorns - expansion team

Pacific Division:

* Los Angeles Sparks

* Phoenix Mercury

* Seattle Storm

* Portland Fire - returning team

* Sacramento Monarchs - returning team

* Bay Area Knights - expansion team

Schedule format:

Division play - 5 x 4 (2 home/2 road) = 20 games

Non-division play - 6 x 2 (1 home/1 road) = 12 games

Non-conference play - 12 x 1 = 12 games [home-and-home basis will rotate per every two years]

Total games: 44

Your thoughts about this guys?

My only thoughts are on the sudden peak of interest in the WNBA for all this to actually happen .

Jokes aside, decent job. Not a big fan of the name Detroit Mechanics for a WNBA team though, seeing as the male demographic dominates in that job industry. I'm just not sure it's a good name to reflect the team.

Alignment wise, excellent.

Guess what , a large chunk of FIFA's representatives don't give a crap about human rights violations.

I stated this in my original post. Not sure why you're saying "Guess what". I stated that in my first sentence.

However, they do see a semi-rare opportunity with Snowden to get a free poke of the eye in at the United States. Something that, again, they won't pass up as they are from smaller countries that the United States typically bosses around.

I see what you're saying by the poor reception that Americans believe foreigners have of us. But the other countries that are competing against the United States were not much different. Here's the list of countries that competed against the United States:

-Australia : The only country competing without much controversy. Stadiums are smaller, less money, not as big of a tourist attraction, and obviously a lack of money in circulation.

- Japan/South Korea: both countries do not have the best reception from foreigners. There is also economic problems with citizens living in both countries and not spending money. Stadiums are smaller, North Korea nearby is a problem, much smaller tourist attraction, not the safest region.

Also, World Cup 2002 made significantly less than World Cup 1994, which was in the United States.

Quote from Wikipedia on World Cup 2002 ticket sales:

"The original domestic ticket allocation had fully sold out and the organising committee completed sales of tickets returned from the international allocation by the end of April. However, it was obvious at the opening matches that there were a significant number of empty seats.[21] It was gradually revealed that the World Cup Ticketing Bureau (WCTB) still had unsold tickets in its possession. After FIFA agreed to sell this inventory, JAWOC undertook sales over telephone and WCTB handled the internet sales.[22] For the second round Japan vs. Turkey match in Miyagi in particular, although it was reported by both parties that all tickets had been sold, some 700 seats remained empty."

So obviously, perception of a bad world cup leaves Japan and South Korea far from a realistic option.

- Qatar: In the most unstable region in the world. Perception of most countries isn't probably all that great. Stadiums haven't even been built yet, but there is plenty of money. Qatar won due to the money, this has been proven. The location wasn't desirable in any way to the FIFA Executive Committee.

- United States: World cup 1994 made the most financially of any World Cup. Stadiums are in place, weather is nice, and the build-up around it would be extravagant. Biggest country in terms of marketing and ability to expose the game.

Here's a link of the people who voted for World Cup 2018 and 2022:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_Executive_Committee

The only countries included in that list that would hold some sort of anti-American agenda would be China and Russia. The African nations involved are given massive funding by the United States. The rest of the European nations involved in voting are allies. The United States helped Cyprus when their economy tanked. We have significant ties to helping Taiwan as well.

-----

To say that the Americans will not get the World Cup because of international relations is silly. International relations between Russia when they obtained both World Cup 2018 and the Olympics were far worse than the United States.

Snowden does not play any role in America, and no, not everybody voting hates America. Especially internationally acclaimed educated human beings.

Is it me or does the $5 million dollar amount actually seem...small? I mean, I understand that it was the African countries but, I mean, these are Arabic royalty with oil money regarding one of the largest sports event, if not THE largest, in the world; you'd think you could get them up to nine-digit figures or something.

Hell, if $5 million is all it takes, I'm surprised America doesn't just come rolling with the dough the next time around.

It is a little bit of "inflation" from the money the USA spent to get the 1996 and 2002 Olympics. We were paying college tuition, getting tickets to the Super Bowl and The Oscars in addition to cash.

As for the USA just outspending the other bidders, Eddie Snowden gave the rest of the world issues to worry about regarding how we monitor everyone in terms of surveillance. That's kind of an issue for those whose world revolves around seediness.

Please don't throw in your political remarks to something fairly irrelevant to the topic. Especially when they're about as off-base as they can get.

No, Snowden's relevant in the bidding for international events. We're not exactly popular in a decent chunk of the world.

If human rights were considered when choosing a home nation, Qatar would've never won the initial bid in the first place. All that matters is the money in this situation. There's no rational reason behind choosing Qatar in terms of safety. Why should we assume Snowdens leak would have any form of impact on a World Cup bid selection if a country like Qatar had been picked?

It's all about the ability to move money and use power, and the United States can do that. I can't imagine Snowdens leaks will have any sort of impact on the ineffective bid committee that comes with World Cup politics.

Id rather see a raised piece of barley instead of a letter.

Out of all of the Brewers current home uniforms (i.e. besides the retros), this is their best look:

This I can agree with. That unique barley color jersey is perfect for a team named the Brewers. I'll never understand why people would like to see a return of the yellow, when this is their current option.

That looks way too much like the Giants.

Unpopular opinion: I usually hate when the minor league affiliate of a team uses the same name as the major league team. To me, it's a major turnoff as a fan of that team because I see it as if I am rooting for a team that has no meaning but to provide players for the major league team.

However, I really do like the new Westchester Knicks name and logo. It's very cool that they modernized a classic logo and used it as a primary logo. Not only that, the name Knicks sounds great with Westchester. I think this is one of the few examples where using the same name as your professional team affiliate works.

All three of those basketball uniforms are just... wonderful.

I hope more teams switch back over to pullovers, but not all of them. I wouldn't mind say 1/3rd of the league wearing them.