Sport

I really think the NHL needs to go down to just two conferences and that's it. Put each team in either the East or West and be done with it. As for teams going bye-bye everyone could argue that until blue in the face. Ever since Bettman has been in charge a lot of teams have came into the league that shouldn't have been (or moved to places they shouldn't have). The NHL is overpopulated as it is with 30 teams. There really should only be 24 teams at most. Teams like the NY Islanders, Columbus Blue Jackets (I live an hour south of Columbus, but honestly they are a joke), Florida Panthers, Anaheim Ducks, and Phoenix Coyotes have no place in pro hockey. Not saying that because some are in places where it's hot 85 percent of the year/ doesn't really matter Stanley Cup is always played in June when it's hot everywhere. You go to anywhere in Columbus and all you see is scarlet and grey. Heck most sports stores don't even carry Blue Jackets merchandise.... but point being, the NHL should be fixed, sooner than later. Just like baseball, it was better when there were less divisions and better rivalries. Do cities in the "Sun Belt" deserve hockey? Some have proven that they do i.e. Tampa, Raleigh. There shouldn't be two teams in LA, nor should there be three teams in the NYC metro area/send the Islanders packing. As the saying goes we can wish in one hand and crap in the other. But as long as Buttman is in charge just think the most rediculous thing and it will probably happen.

Completely untrue.

I guess I'm not sure which one's the unpopular opinion, because I thought I was the only one that absolutely hates that "Twins" script.

I know I'm one of the few that misses the road pins.

I hate that throwback script and the current home script is so much better. It was just stupid that they wore those throwbacks for an entire season. And I long for the road pinstripes. I like road pinstripes. I know that's an unpopular opinion around here.

Here's another: I like when teams outline their numbers and wordmarks with white on their gray road jerseys. Detroit's road uniforms look great with that white outline and I'm not sure they'd look better without it. It adds an extra element.

Didn't know players got these:

They even thought to the include the accurate amount of foul territory at the Coliseum.

As a little leaguer I wore long pants because that's how Barry Larkin wore his pants. In high school I always found long pants more comfortable because you didn't have that elastic gripping your lower knee, and you got more padding on your lower legs when sliding. Also, my legs are some of the hairiest I've ever seen on a human being and pulling socks up over this hair is very uncomfortable. Long pants allowed me to hide the fact that I had my socks pushed down.

Stirrups aren't that awesome.

Agreed 8000%. When they went from stirrups to solid socks/long pants, I didn't shed a tear.

I emphatically agree. They serve absolutely no purpose and they look silly. They're a relic from the past and once we figured out how not to use poisonous dyes, stirrups should've been discontinued forever. They looked especially dumb in the 70's and 80's when they kept getting taller and taller and all you'd see was a skinny stripe of color on otherwise white socks.

Here's another unpopular opinion: I hate the knickered baseball pants look. Wear your pants to your shoes like an adult male. I don't like the dumb baggy pants look either, but this

looks better than this

I think some/most NBA banners say World Champions.

Really? Haha, that's funny to me.

To me, a world champion would be a team or group that beat the best in the world. Like the World Cup in soccer. Not winning a Super Bowl or NBA Title. Just because the NFL and NBA are the most popular sports.

with easily the best players in their sports. That's why they say World Champions. I've seen it used for MLB and NHL teams too.

Actually, I think I remember seeing in this very thread a Chicago Rush Arena Bowl champions ring that said World Champions. I guess they technically are the best in the world at indoor American football.

Bryce never played a game in the show with these jerseys...

It's a shame. Their current home uniforms are so uninspired.

So... let's go Kings!

Last night I came home from trivia at the bar a little headsure and decided to get in an argument with a friend of mine on twitter which, with only 140 characters, is the most annoying place to have an argument). He's the staff writer for Blue Jackets.com

Here's the exchange:

This, folks, is a hockey story. Except it's one that you cannot write. Congratulations to the Phoenix Coyotes.

-Every Coyotes win is bad for the NHL. They need to lose (and move) ASAP. It's not a good story.

Another U.S. market losing its team is not good for the NHL. New ownership needs to stabilize what is a terrific organization.

-but Winnipeg was great for the NHL. QC will be great too. The Coyotes are bleeding Glendale dry.

-Plus, I'm worried that like Atlanta last year, our CBJ will be sacrificed to keep Bettman's Coyotes in the desert. It's not good.

That's a rather large conspiracy theory, and not one I agree with. Sorry man.

-Fair, but a league-owned team winning a championship still looks bad on many levels for the NHL.

Not league-owned for much longer.

-Hardly. The new ownership is basically being given the team and Glendale is giving money they don't have. It's not true ownership.

It's a league with competitive balance no other sport has. Great to see a team that was counted out doing well.

-Parity is not my contention. I love that about the NHL. It's this franchise that I have the problem with.

It's easy to say "move them to Quebec City." But that city failed to support its team and lost it, too.

-Because Phoenix's support of a playoff team is so wonderful....Winnipeg heard the same talking points last year.

"Giving a damn" is certainly not an issue in the Coyotes organization. They've proven that.

-Trying to separate the on-ice play from the finances here. New ownership doesnt solve the city's financial burden to this team.

-it's the same deal with Hulsizer last year. The city will essentially pay him $92 million to buy the team.

I'm just thrilled to see an organization with great people, and a loyal group of fans, be shown some hope after two tenuous years.

-well I'll be pulling for the Kings in the WCF. Their fans, like the CBJ faithful, showed up to regular season games.

So even league employees from other teams are for some reason supporting this. I agree with most of what this guy usually writes and he's good on BlueJackets.com, but I had to say something. Am I wrong?

This is idiotic.

And another team, maybe mine, will get sacrificed to a Canadian city to perpetuate this dumbassery.

OTGDNHL

Clearly Shaq's "correct" uniform is one of his icy hot generic basketball unis.

Josh Hamilton in Cincy

We traded him for Edinson Volquez. Drives me nuts. Even at the time I knew that was a bad trade.

Iginla looks weird in these Flames uniforms.

I agree Brooklyn is always an option, but only for the short-term. They'd need to have the arena deal in place before moving in to a facility with such a limited capacity, lest they be stuck there.

Tickets for the Islanders-Devils exhibition game went on sale today - here's the seating map on the ticket page:

I still can't believe they built an arena in New York City metro too small to accommodate every type of event that utilizes arenas. I don't just mean hockey either. Now you have fewer seats for concerts, you don't have room for motocross or monster trucks or the circus. Not that monster trucks are a big draw in New York, but why not leave open the possibility? It seems so stupidly shortsighted.

Three words: Madison. Square. Garden.

Between the Knicks, Rangers, and the other events held at MSG, there would be no open dates for another team to play. Also, I doubt the Isles would want to play on Rangers logo'd ice, and the Rangers certainly wouldn't change it. But it doesn't matter anyway, because of the first thing. Also, would the Islanders crowd (what's left of it) go into Manhattan for games?

*facepalm*

I was attempting to explain why the Barclays Center was built the way it was, not advocating for the Islanders to move to MSG. I think we all know that would never happen as long as the Dolans still run things over there.

MSG's existence doesn't mean you have to build a tennis stadium with a roof. Hell, Columbus Ohio has two full-size arenas. There's no reason not to open yourself to the possibility that maybe one day down the road you'd like to host something other than basketball.

I agree Brooklyn is always an option, but only for the short-term. They'd need to have the arena deal in place before moving in to a facility with such a limited capacity, lest they be stuck there.

Tickets for the Islanders-Devils exhibition game went on sale today - here's the seating map on the ticket page:

I still can't believe they built an arena in New York City metro too small to accommodate every type of event that utilizes arenas. I don't just mean hockey either. Now you have fewer seats for concerts, you don't have room for motocross or monster trucks or the circus. Not that monster trucks are a big draw in New York, but why not leave open the possibility? It seems so stupidly shortsighted.

Oaklahomas Big 12 ring

Awesome ring! But why are the logo and letters inverted?

The ring is upside down. Hard to tell but with intricate detail, but the OSU is facing outward.

Thanks for noticing that. I see the O and U correctly now. Never in the last 11 years of that logo did I notice it looks the same upside down at a distance.

almost like the old Phoenix Suns wordmark.

Or a tweaking of this. Colours obviously first, the logo has some good.

I remember when I first saw these however many years ago I freaking loved them. Now I look at them and feel like we really dodged a bullet. These things are soaked in 90's and don't fit in with the regal feel of Quebec City.

A stylized FDL as the main crest logo, ala the New Orleans Hornets, and their lighter blue with red would look great. Hockey needs brighter colors.

How about Manny Legace with the Springfield Falcons?

notice the blue pants

or stint #1 with the falcons

Most probably won't know who this is, but this looks really goofy to me

Rusty Klesla, the original Blue Jacket who was traded at the deadline last year in a Coyotes uniform.

I liked these Flyers uniforms.

Looks worse than Boston's record in the finals... Curious, do the refs of the SCF get one too?

Last year their record in the finals was 4-3, which is good enough for a ring. Did the officials hold the Canucks to 8 goals in 7 games?

The bobblehead is John McCain wearing a suit with a coyotes jersey over it. It's like they were at one point Matt Hulsizer bobbleheads and he dropped out so they said, "What are we gonna do with all these Matt Hulsizer bobbleheads? Uhhh.........John McCain night! Just paint the hair gray."

Just to be clear, the proposal in Columbus is not a "tax-payer bailout". They're using a small portion of the will-be tax revenue from the new casino to purchase the arena. Nobody will have to pay more taxes to buy the arena from Nationwide Insurance (so that the Blue Jackets aren't handcuffed by a lease twice as much as other teams pay). Nationwide is also investing 52 million of its own dollars into the team to become a 30% owner. Noone is going to pay an extra cent in taxes to "save the Blue Jackets".

They're decreasing the burden of the financial problems onset by the arena expenses towards the team and they're doing it without increasing taxes and without taking away the money previously earmarked for schools, fire, police etc. They'll all get theirs too. It's actually a pretty creative solution if you ask me and nobody is really hurt by it.

I dunno, "creative financing" has become kind of a euphemism for "bullsh-t," and not wrongly so. I mean, this isn't exactly the found money it's being made out to be, either. You can say that this isn't directly taking away from money earmarked for public services, but operating under the premise that government pretty much always runs a deficit, what happens if actual public services require additional funding while tax dollars have already been committed to buying a playplace for a sports team? What happens if the casino doesn't bring in the projected tax revenue? There are hidden costs and unintended consequences with everything once you start getting the government involved in sports facilities; none of this can ever be as cut and dried as "we took out a loan and paid it off" like Palace of Auburn Hills/United Center/TD Garden/etc.

Maybe this is just the simple cheapass midwesterner in me that can't comprehend what them there fancy number men in tall towers do.

Maybe, but you just kept calling it a tax-payer bailout and it's not. So, that's that.

Just to be clear, the proposal in Columbus is not a "tax-payer bailout". They're using a small portion of the will-be tax revenue from the new casino to purchase the arena. Nobody will have to pay more taxes to buy the arena from Nationwide Insurance (so that the Blue Jackets aren't handcuffed by a lease twice as much as other teams pay). Nationwide is also investing 52 million of its own dollars into the team to become a 30% owner. Noone is going to pay an extra cent in taxes to "save the Blue Jackets".

They're decreasing the burden of the financial problems onset by the arena expenses towards the team and they're doing it without increasing taxes and without taking away the money previously earmarked for schools, fire, police etc. They'll all get theirs too. It's actually a pretty creative solution if you ask me and nobody is really hurt by it.

Cannot criticize the fans in Columbus at all, they've been really bad for the whole of the existence (no offence), and there stuck in a College sport hotbed.

What really could have appealed to the NHL about Columbus back in 2000, that made them say 'hey it really could work here'.

See I take offenSe to that because you're wrong. Pre-lockout the fans were there for some really bad teams and after the lockout we still had decent crowds for some really bad teams. We've sold out entire seasons before, we've been in the top 10 before. We also sold out major hockey events like the frozen four and the 2007 draft. We haven't been "really bad for the whole of the existence". We've been understandably unsupportive of a really bad team, which is not fair to put on the fans who literally don't know what a playoff win is like.

If, like Phoenix, the team gets good and people still don't show up, then you're right, but that won't happen.

To answer your second question, it was a large untapped market underserved by NHL hockey or major professional sports within a short drive from two large markets also underserved by NHL hockey. And again, for the first 5, 6, 7 years it did really work here before people became tired of just being in the NHL and began to demand a winning team.

Have Cincinnati and Cleveland delivered? Not really, but Columbus wasn't serving Cleveland in the 90's when the Cavs sucked. When the Cavs became good, people from Columbus started making the trip north to see Cavs games. Was Columbus serving Cincinnati when the Bengals sucked? No, but in 2005 when the Bengals became good people from Columbus started making the trip south to go to Bengals games. It's the same thing, but in reverse order. If the Blue Jackets become relevant people in those markets will start to support them.

We haven't failed as fans, the team's many missteps in hockey operations have failed the fans. As I've said countless times before, give the CBJ track record to any city and there's probably 3 markets in the NHL who wouldn't experience some kind of attendance problems. It's not fair yet to call us a bad market based on what we've been given to support. If San Jose had been forced to deal with this same history, they might not have Sharks right now.

thank you.

Yeah I didn't mean the fans are bad, I am sympathising with you, in the sense that why would you want to see a losing team. Not being from Ohio I don't understand, so I apologise. Is hockey really that popular in Ohio, that if you had a consecutively good team like the Sharks, you would be filling out your arena?

Another question is how many of the 9,000 or so you get a night are corporate tickets?

My mistake, I misread your first sentence and shot off. You mean the team has been bad. So we're saying the same thing.

To answer your first question, hockey is more popular in Ohio than it is in Tennessee or North Carolina and the Predators and Hurricanes seem to do pretty well with a consistently decent team. So yes, I firmly believe if they iced a competitive team year in and year out, we would be filling the arena.

To answer your second question, I'm not sure. I do know that the Blue Jackets report the exact attendance that's in the building. They're one of the few struggling teams who don't exaggerate their attendance numbers ala Phoenix. Though, maybe they should start doing that.