kroywen

Members
  • Content Count

    1,497
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

kroywen last won the day on March 12 2017

kroywen had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,268 All Star

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    New York
  • Favourite Teams
    Yankees, Manchester United, Jets, Rangers, USMNT, NYCFC

Recent Profile Visitors

3,037 profile views
  1. Overall I really like these graphics - clear, concise, easy to read, and don't take up too much space. Not a fan of the down and distance marker on the field, or on the cartoon graphic that comes up whenever there's a touchdown.
  2. Personally, I'd prefer white pants, and white pants only, for the Ravens. Go Black/Purple/White/Black at home, and Black/White/White/Black on the road. But if they must have a second pair of pants, it should be gold. The black pants pair terribly with a purple jersey, and you wouldn't even know their primary color is purple when they wear the Black/White/Black/Black combo on the road.
  3. Having two unrelated Latin phrases on the same banner? Talk about overkill. This is Cuomo at his most Cuomo, though.
  4. Tomorrow on WEEI: JACK FROM WINCHESTAH: "The big problem heah is that Brady didn't do his jawb. Belichick shoulda let him go and kept Garropolah when he hahd the chance! Anybody coulda won those two Supah Bohwls with those teams!" ...you love to see it.
  5. The red helmet always stuck out like a sore thumb to me. It didn't go with the rest of the Bills' uniforms, IMO. And the gigantic center stripes were hideous.
  6. Take away the redundant patches, change the silver halo to gold, put "Los Angeles" on the road, and incinerate the red-on-red alternate, and you have the platonic ideal of the Angels' identity.
  7. Dare I say, they had a decent built-in fanbase in Jersey, and threw it away to compete in an area where the Knicks were already dominant? Long Islanders proved that they don't have much of an interest in making the trip to Brooklyn with the failed Islanders move. I live in Queens and it takes me half the time to get to MSG as it does to Barclays Center. Their old fanbase in Jersey has to take a long trek involving multiple train transfers (often directly under MSG, ironically) to get there. And of all the sports venues in NYC, Barclays has likely the worst access via car (MSG is right off the Lincoln Tunnel and the West Side Highway and has a slew of absurdly expensive private garages around it). Unless you live in core Manhattan or Brooklyn, Barclays is pretty much a bear to get to. I can't help but wonder if that's playing a part in the Nets' struggles as well.
  8. For the sake of giving you all flashbacks to taking the SATs, Newark : New York :: Anaheim : Los Angeles. (Hell, this analogy works with Hempstead as well.) It's not utterly outrageous that an ML team would carry the Anaheim name, but it makes far more sense for them to carry the name of the broader metropolitan area of which they are a part. It's probably fair to say they represent Orange County and much of the Inland Empire, but the "Orange County and Inland Empire Angels" might be the only name worse than "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim." Makes sense just to go with the metropolitan area of which they are a part, since they really represent a portion of a metro area that doesn't have a dominant city in its own right. Much as the Islanders carry the "New York" name rather than "Long Island" (which would alienate eastern and central Queens) or "Hempstead."
  9. I actually think the new ball-in-glove logo is a huge upgrade. I never noticed how off-kilter the ball in the old logo looked, but centering it within the "b" is a significant upgrade. Also prefer the cleaner, crisper look of the webbing. If it weren't for the completely unnecessary, and rather ugly, serifs on the wordmark, that also wind up throwing off how the workmark is centered on the jersey, this would be an almost perfect rebrand. The wordmark really drags down the entire set though. And I loathe the trend toward serifs on the names-on-back of jerseys. Hated it on the Padres, Astros, and now Brewers. Kill the serifs and this is a really good rebrand.
  10. Yeah, with the Phillies, it was more a return to a historic color scheme, a la the Padres this year (or Astros before them), rather than a change to a color scheme. Changing a color scheme with decades worth of history is generally a bad idea. Tweaking it is one thing - darkening or lightening a shade, getting rid of a secondary or tertiary color (looking at you, Rockies' black), etc. - but a wholesale change destroys years' worth of branding.
  11. That red jersey evokes the Pat Patriot-era New England jerseys more than a Giants jersey likely should. Am I the only one who wants to keep the Giants super-traditional? These are perfect, no changes needed.
  12. Love the color scheme, though I wouldn't want a fauxback 70's motif for a team permanently (especially one that didn't exist in the 70's). A more contemporary, simpler look with that balance of colors (primarily powder blue, more yellow, and navy blue as a trim color) would be incredible.
  13. I've never understood why the Diamondbacks didn't make the switch, rather than the Astros. The AL is relatively light on teams west of the Rockies, especially given that the two West Coast powerhouses (Dodgers and Giants) are in the NL. And the D-Backs didn't have a 50 year history in the NL. Granted, if the D-Backs did move to the AL, the Astros would've had to move to the NL West to even out the divisions. But I think Houston in the NL West (where they were pre-1994) is much more natural than in the AL West.
  14. Exactly. Back in 1969, Montreal had a thriving business community, welcomed both English and French speakers, and was in the middle of a cultural renaissance that led to hosting a World's Fair and the Olympics, amongst other events. It was a natural choice over Toronto for Canada's first major league team. Bill 101 killed that all. The business community is a shadow of what it was (in relative terms, compared to Toronto and Vancouver) back in 1969. Anglophones have been driven out in droves over the past 4 decades. The economic and social situation in Montreal today is radically different than it was in 1969, and not in a way that would work in an MLB team's favor. Had Bill 101 never happened and Montreal maintained its position as Canada's preeminent business center (or at least was on par with Toronto for that title), I don't think the Expos would've ever had to move in the first place. But the ingredients are just no longer there for supporting a major league team. And Montreal is never going to be a growing, upwardly mobile city like Vancouver, Charlotte, Nashville, Portland, Austin, etc., are today. (Perhaps unless they repeal Bill 101 and welcome back Anglophones and their commerce, but fat chance of that ever happening.)
  15. I'm trying to think of a good exception to this, and I can't. And white caps should be banished to the pits of hell, so we can scrap that exception on those grounds.