SCalderwood

Members
  • Content Count

    408
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

277 Platoon Sharer

Recent Profile Visitors

2,216 profile views
  1. The Washington Wizards win this thread. Easily. They have 6 different jerseys (all of their jerseys) that do this. Not to mention this And before that this
  2. I'm not sure that the Wizards were really going BFBS with that uniform. Black was actually a color in their color scheme at that time, and it was featured significantly on their primary jerseys (at least their road jerseys), so seeing them in black was not that jarring. The same way I would not call the Washington Capitals black jersey from that era BFBS. The Wiz and Caps had the same color scheme during much of that era. Unless you are saying that the introduction of black in their color schemes at all is BFBS, which I suppose is a different argument. I tend to think of BFBS as when a team that doesn't really use black on their primary jerseys or in their color scheme just introduces a black jersey out of nowhere (well, not out of nowhere, but to sell more jerseys), like the Warriors, Cavaliers, Celtics, Lakers, Bucks, etc. Honestly, I'm suprised the Wizards never had a black jersey during that era. A black jersey with white, gold, and blue trim could have looked really good for an alternate jersey. And very wizard-y. Certainly more wizard-y than anything they would be able to do with red, white, and blue.
  3. The green rainbows looked fine in the 80s but did not age well into the 90s. And actually, on that note, I will give the Bucks credit for something - they don't tend to hold onto looks for longer than they should. They almost seem to anticipate when fans are starting to get a little tired of their look, and then they give themselves a makeover. And it's never really a huge upgrade or downgrade, it's usually a change that makes them look a little different, and then we get used to it (you usually don't hear people strongly applaud it or condemn it), and then 10 years later they come up with something new so that we don't forget that they exist. I thought their purple look was fine. It was appropriate for the time it came out, purple was a popular sports color around that time. Would it have looked right in the 80s? No. Would it look right today? No. Did it look right when it came out? Yes. Not sure I understand the Power Rangers reference, I might be missing something there. I also think the change to the head-on Bucks logo was fine, I don't really see how it's so much worse than the 80s Bucks logo. NBA logos in the 90s got fiercer and more "in-your-face," I don't think that necessarily makes them better or worse but that's just the direction logos were headed in. A smiling Buck spinning a basketball was not going to make it to today anyway, it might as well have died peacefully in the 90s like it did.
  4. As a random example off of the top my head, I feel that the Milwaukee Bucks would fall into this category. They've sported a variety of very different color combos and looks throughout their history, but no look has seemed incredibly great or incredibly horrible. A lot of their changes have seemed like change for the sake of change, and none of their changes have really left me thinking "huge upgrade" or "huge downgrade." My reaction to pretty much every change they ever have made has been kind of like, "Oh, they changed their logo, color scheme, and font again. Okay, I guess this new one looks fine too. Whatever."
  5. Continuing with the Baltimore theme from the previous post, today WMAR-TV in Baltimore introduced the first major overhaul of their look since 2002. Somewhat noteworthy, since they are Maryland's oldest broadcast TV station. Old logo: New logo: HUGE upgrade in my opinion.
  6. The only reason I have ever even heard of Colgate is because former NBA player Adonal Foyle went to college there. That's the only time I have heard this school mentioned in any context. (If they are any good at sports, I wouldn't know, because I am not a college sports fan). For the longest time, I thought it was a school located somewhere in the Caribbean since my only association with the school was Adonal Foyle.
  7. Agreed on all of those. I had never really thought of the evolution of CHW's "recent" identities, but they really seem to have upgraded each time. Their current identity has really stood the test of time well. I think their current identity looks so timeless that if you had told me that their current identity had been one they used for the past 100 years, I would believe you, and yet at the same time it still looks great today. You definitely could not say that for any of the other looks.
  8. Along with this - But you know what? After seeing Checkers and Rally's next to each other, this is the first time I have realized that they don't use the same font. Maybe this should be in the category of "related logos that are more different than you figured they would be." Which, now that I think about it, is basically the exact opposite of this thread.
  9. I definitely agree with you about the yellow Rays one, that's probably my favorite of all of them, and that immediately fell into the "why aren't they wearing that now?" category when I saw it.. That would be so perfect for them. The sad thing is that we wouldn't even be able to see it in the sunshine though (at least for their home games). I think yellow jerseys look so awesome in the sunshine (e.g., the Athletics).
  10. I just noticed that the Orioles moved all to their Sunday afternoon start times to 1:05pm this season. It has been 1:35pm for at least the past 25-30 years, so this is a relatively big change, at least in the esoteric category of "MLB game start times." Does anyone know why they changed it?
  11. Nice job to Chris Creamer, this actually came across as very believable. I read the article on the main page. As I was reading it, I was kind of like "Why is this the first time I am hearing about this?" but I was definitely believing it and I will admit I was even looking at the schedule to get an idea of the specific uniform matchups. This really does sound like something that would happen in pro sports these days. When I saw the thing about the bunny ears and easter egg, and the final specific mention of April 1 towards the end of the article, I kind of figured it out. But it was written in a really convincing and not over-the-top way. I doubt I will see a better April Fool's joke today. I enjoyed falling for it, for at least the bulk of the article. Now on a serious note, I actually would not mind this as a one-day thing. I would much rather see this than a variety of other dumb things that MLB does, like the Players' Weekend with the ugly little league uniforms with nicknames on the back (for a whole damn weekend, IIRC?), and celebrating Mothers Day and Fathers Day for an entire weekend series (which I heard, thankfully, won't be done this year) where basically every team looks the same, and the gaudy patriotic and camo caps and jerseys.
  12. I think the Utah Jazz would easily win this thread. Over the past 20 years alone, they have worn regular uniforms (meaning, actual primaries or alternates in their uniform lineup, and not throwbacks, fauxbacks, special occasions, retro mashups (like CavFanatics), or other one-offs) that have been: -black -white -yellow -green -light blue -dark blue -purple Now if you consider their current city uniforms to be primarily both red and orange (which I think is arguable), that means that they have basically had a regular jersey in their uniform lineup that was every color of the rainbow in the past 20 years alone. And again that's not just trim colors or anything like that, its the actual base color of the entire uniform. I can't think of any other team who comes close, especially in such a short amount of time.
  13. P.I.L.L. and Professor Matt Battison working on this project: Professor: Ok P.I.L.L., your logo is looking pretty good. But you know what, add a picture of the bat's head to your logo. P.I.L.L.: Ok. *adds bat head* Bat is on. Professor: Yeah? P.I.L.L: What? Professor: Did you call me? P.I.L.L.: What? No. Bat is on the logo. Professor: Are you calling me a logo? Is that some kind of insult?
  14. He's saying that it "encroaches" on the White Sox design, or it sort of gets too close to looking like the White Sox. I don't think he is saying he likes it or he doesn't like it.