Jump to content

MCM0313

Members
  • Posts

    4,333
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MCM0313

  1. Right...I mean, both games you posted were purple against red, but the system turned one of the purples white...that doesn't make sense.
  2. It's definitely close to the top of the list for me too. "Rare team matchups" is another fave of mine.
  3. Self-correction: Actually, if we're going to be historically accurate, the Royals need to own periwinkle.
  4. The Royals and Rays both need to own powder blue. The D-Backs need to own turquoise. All three are too conservative with these colors for my tastes.
  5. I think those are actually grey facemasks like they really wore, but look darker because of the angle or the lighting or something. At least that is what I see. Do you have any other screenshots? Also, that's weird about the purple pants. Was Baltimore ever supposed to wear those IRL, or did an animator mess something up (or just choose to get creative)?
  6. I think it's kind of an Appalachian thing. My dad's Appalachian though and he's always said it correctly. My mom's from Iowa and that pronunciation annoys her just like it annoys me. Most of the kids who say it like that have deep roots in the area, I think.
  7. Interesting! Can't tell whether this has pinstripes, but the numbers and text look different in both color and (I think) font from what they ended up wearing.
  8. Huh...when did that stop? I remember when I'd play the old Football Pro computer games (think mid-90s), I'd occasionally get matched up twice in one season against a non-divisional opponent, and that always frustrated me because I felt like it was unrealistic. I think sometimes it'd be a non-conference opponent too though.
  9. I'm from southern Ohio, and I'd say the "crayon-crown" divide is about down the middle here. I've always said "crayons" but I grew up with friends who said "crowns" and it annoyed me. Still hear kids say "crowns", and occasionally adults too. Being a teacher, sometimes I'll correct both.
  10. He's so much better looking than me that I can't help feeling buh-lue. Okay, I'll show myself out.
  11. Also the fact that the update left the team's logo without a face for the first time in their history.
  12. Wow, you're right! I had just thought they were identical aside from color.
  13. I think the red alternate of this set was pretty sharp.
  14. If you're from Columbus, Ohio (or went to school there), "Houndogs" may still not be a word, but "Hounddog's" most certainly is...delicious pizza.
  15. For some reason I find myself liking the one with purple trim, but the logo of the double-blue one.
  16. I like the idiosyncratic originals (although the lack of pinstripes on the shorts bothers me), but this set really worked well for a New Orleans-based team. Just adding yellow to the teal-and-purple (and changing the shades a bit) kept the franchise's continuity going while simultaneously representing its new city.
  17. It is pretty symmetrical. I don't follow hockey all that closely - when did they wear these?
  18. Wow. I'd never thought of it before but it does look similar.
  19. Bombers had nice proposed unis but a weak logo, Houndogs had weak logo and mediocre unis, Stallions had good unis and mediocre logo (which definitely looks like what the Broncos adopted in '97, so maybe it would've looked better and more original in '95 than today). The Panthers have the strongest look of these five proposals, and I'd say the Jags and Stallions would be tied for second. The two that were ultimately chosen definitely make sense from a visual perspective.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.