kroywen

The crazy thing is, I'm fairly sure that the Jets' current shade of green is supposed to be the same shade as the Packers' forest green. (It's a slightly different shade than the Athletics, I believe, but only slightly.) For whatever reason, the green comes through perfectly normal on the Packers' uniforms, while the Jets are stuck with these multiple shades of drab olive that look hideous. Pairing forest green with athletic gold will obviously change how the viewer perceives those colors, as compared to forest green against white, but the difference shouldn't be that great. There's likely some sort of manufacturing defect with the Jets' uniforms that cause them to appear so different from the Packers. Trying to pull up ColorWerx to verify the correct shades, but for some reason that website's NFL page is taking forever to load. On the manufacturing defect note - I loved how the Jets looked back when Reebok were making their jerseys. You can tell that's a similar or identical color to the Packers' shade of green. It's Nike that has made the Jets into an olive drab mess: versus

Totally agree here. I much prefer the A's in forest green. It's the Jets who I could go either way on.

The A's look so much better with forest green. I could go either way on the Jets. Probably slightly prefer kelly green on the current template, but both look good.

Well, it's both a consonant away from one racial slur for Japanese in WWII, and a vowel away from another racial slur for Japanese in WWII. Also damn close to "Nappy," a derogatory description of black people's hair, so there's that too.

Yes, was a general comment (for instance, I always cringe if I come across a Friends re-run and see Chandler Bing wearing clothes that were 20 sizes too big), but also applicable to sports, at least aesthetically. Basketball was the one sport where the bagginess didn't look absolutely terrible, in my book, though I prefer basketball uniforms a bit more form fitting than what was standard in the 90s. Perhaps part of it was that traditional basketball shorts were a bit too tight and too short, and an overcorrection didn't look as bad in comparison.

Honestly, the bagginess is one of the reasons I hate 90s fashion. The 80s took things a little too far in the other direction, but I thought that extreme tightness of clothing looked better than the bagginess of the 90s. It looked terribly sloppy, IMO. The Sharks do have one of my favorite (early) 90s uniforms, though. Everything they've worn since has been chipping away at what was a great look - and I say that as someone who generally dislikes teal. (Of course, my favorite 90s trend in sports? Retro uniforms in baseball and the return of traditional baseball aesthetics. MLB has been consistently the best looking league of the big 4 since the 90s thanks to that trend.)

Okay, unpopular opinion: I grew up during the 90s, and I hate the retro 90s trend going on right now. Fashion was never tackier than in the 90s, and sports uniforms epitomized that. Leave the 90s nostalgia for TV shows and WWF ice cream sandwiches. Keep it out of sports uniforms, please.

They could've been on to something if they took that top wordmark and used it on their home jerseys. Preferably without all that overdone beveling, but this is the mid-2000s, so... Still wouldn't have held a candle to their current set, but words can't express how much I loathed just having "Jays" on the uniform. especially given how oversized that wordmark was.

Not that the Yankees could've known this at the time of the deal, but Contreras' best two seasons were 2005 and 2006, right after the trade. I thought it was a dumb deal at the time they made it (Loaiza had a great 2003, but was not good with the Sox in '04. despite undeservingly making the ASG), but Contreras' success the next two years really showed how stupid the Yanks were to sell low on him.

In light of today's news about Esteban Loaiza, a flashback to his 42 thoroughly unremarkable innings with the Yankees after the 2004 trade deadline, to the tune of an 8.50 ERA: That face sums up how we all felt about your time here in New York, Esteban. Better luck in the California Penal League.

Shows how much the steel industry has weakened in the past 60 years - that logo was recognizable by most Americans back when the Steelers logo was created in the 60's. I'm glad the Steelers are keeping it in the public conscious though.

If a team needs an archrival counterpart just to be financially viable, that team should not exist in the first place.

Quebec City will become to the NHL what Los Angeles was for the NFL for two decades. NHL owners in struggling cities have the threat of relocation to a ready-made arena in a great hockey market in their back pocket, whenever they need to bend over municipal governments to give them more subsidies. "Well, you know I want to stay in Raleigh/Arizona/Miami/Vegas, but I need more favorable lease terms to do so. Did I mention there's a vacant brand new arena in Quebec just waiting for an NHL team?" Of course, anybody with half a brain realizes that Quebec City would provide far more value to the NHL as an active market than it does as a relocation threat for failing, unprofitable teams, but this is the NHL we're talking about...

Not sure if there's a new version of this redirect, but whatever it is, it's now mysteriously finding its way past my antivirus. Very difficult to get out of once the page redirects.

Yes! Been getting this all the time while on this website.

Vegas, but no OKC? I'd rather have the successful existing market than the wild card that is Las Vegas. I do like the reinsertion of Vancouver into the fold, though. Frankly, that market got screwed by a weak Canadian dollar and five years' worth of a 1962 Mets-quality expansion team. The NBA ditched Vancouver right as it was taking off as a fashionable and hip destination for young people - another five years (maybe not even), and I think the idea of leaving Vancouver would've become unfathomable.

There are now auto-play ads with audio. Very annoying, and may drive away some users.

Since there's a ton of talk about MLB expansion, here's my hack at it: Two divisions per league, eight teams per division. The two division champions and two wild cards make the postseason in each league. The LDS would be expanded to seven games. The two LDS matchups in each league would be Division Champion 1 (best record in league) vs. Wild Card 2, and Division Champion 2 vs. Wild Card 1. In the LCS and World Series, division champions would always receive home field advantage over a wild card team (in a matchup between two division champions, or two wild cards, the team with the better record would receive HFA). The divisions would be as follows: AL East: Baltimore Orioles Boston Red Sox Chicago White Sox Cleveland Indians Detroit Tigers New York Yankees Tampa Bay Rays Toronto Blue Jays AL West: Houston Astros Kansas City Royals Los Angeles Angels Minnesota Twins Oakland Athletics Portland Beavers (expansion) Seattle Mariners Texas Rangers NL East: Atlanta Braves Cincinnati Reds Miami Marlins Montreal Expos (expansion) New York Mets Philadelphia Phillies Pittsburgh Pirates Washington Nationals NL West: Arizona Diamondbacks Chicago Cubs Colorado Rockies Los Angeles Dodgers Milwaukee Brewers San Diego Padres San Francisco Giants St. Louis Cardinals

Honestly, the best way to determine the "best team" is just to play out a balanced schedule in the regular season, in which each team plays every other team in the league x times, and the team with the best record wins the championship. Just as they do it in soccer, or used to do for league pennants in baseball pre-1969. But that obviously sacrifices the money and excitement that comes with playoffs. If you wanted a playoff format along those lines, I would say a round robin with the top two teams advancing to a final championship game/series. You'd probably lose a lot of the excitement of two teams facing off with one necessarily being eliminated in each round, though.

Hating a team's uniforms just because you hate the team is just being blinded by your lack of objectivity. I can't stand the Red Sox, but their uniforms are top 10 in baseball, IMO. I loathe the Devils, but their old uniforms (pre-2017) were probably the best non-Original Six uniforms in the entire NHL. And the Islanders and Flyers, neither of whom I can stand, aren't far behind. On a site like this, it's next to impossible to have a reasonable discussion about uniform design if you can't separate out the quality of the identity from your personal feelings about the team wearing it. As for first one, I do mostly agree about playoffs. They cheapen the regular season, which is far more indicative of who the best team is. I generally oppose large playoff fields, like the NBA and NHL, in part for that reason. It's also why I'd much prefer baseball to jettison the Wild Card Game and go back to an 8-team playoff. That said, playoffs make for incredible entertainment and drama, and that's ultimately why we watch sports - for entertainment. The MLB and NHL playoffs are usually wild rides with incredible exciting games - we'd be losing out if we lost those playoffs. The NFL playoffs take the normal "main event" feeling of a regular season NFL game and turn it up to 11. The Super Bowl is the single best sporting event in America, and one of the best in the world. March Madness is probably the most fun tournament in Earth, and pretty much the only time that most Americans (myself included) watch college basketball. Do they decide who is the most deserving champion? No. But once you accept that fact as a necessary trade-off for increased entertainment, playoffs really do make sense. I don't support large playoff fields, but a smaller playoff field of the best regular season teams seems like a reasonable compromise between having "deserving teams" and providing great entertainment. (Also eliminates often lopsided early rounds that are a slog to get through.)

I love the Redskins' gold pants. Both at home and on the road, though especially at home. I'm generally not a fan of dark pants in football, though the Redskins' burgundy pants are an exception. I wouldn't get rid of them, but instead just wear them a few times a year on the road. This is probably an unpopular opinion, though - I think the Redskins' best road look is this:

If Indianapolis had a long history of hosting major league baseball, a la Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh, I'm sure it'd be a market on par with its midwestern counterparts. But to try to grow a brand new fanbase in a market that's smaller than those three aforementioned cities would be asking for trouble. Especially given that said market might already be tapped out with the Pacers, Colts, and (to a lesser extent) Indiana basketball. Baseball's best bet would be to go into a market with high population growth and a strong business base that's one of the largest 30 metropolitan areas in the country. That's basically Charlotte, San Antonio, Orlando, or Portland. San Antonio would be a hard sell to the two existing Texas teams, while Orlando would necessitate that the Rays rebuild their fanbase while remaining in a state that notoriously does not support MLB well. (There's actually one other high-growth large metro area that baseball technically is not in right now - the Inland Empire. But there's no way Southern California should absorb a fourth team, and it's such a geographically dispersed area that any team would have trouble drawing fans to weekday night games. It might work as an Angels relocation threat, but nothing else.)

There's no sense in MiLB going back to Tucson at this point. Arizona already has an MLB team, spring training, and the Arizona Fall League. It's a saturated baseball market, and trying to shoehorn in a AAA team playing outdoors in July and August, with the heat and the monsoons, would be totally unnecessary. Las Vegas is a tricky situation, but unless they build a new stadium soon, that team would be better off moving to greener pastures (literally). Not sure what unlucky team will draw the short stick during the next AAA reshuffle, but I feel bad for that team's prospects having to go through Vegas.

Montreal does not have the demographics or the corporate base to support a baseball team, at this point. Bill 101 drove most of the Anglophone population away (mostly to Ontario), and with it, most of the corporate base. It's easy to forget, but up until the 70's, Montreal was the leading financial center of Canada, not Toronto. Businesses fled after onerous language restrictions were placed on them by Bill 101, and that was the end of Montreal being Canada's leading city. Baseball is the toughest sport, of the major four, for a market to support a team successfully. 81 home dates - double that of basketball and hockey - and about 40,000 seats to fill - again, double that of basketball or hockey. A team needs to have a large population base with an interest in baseball, and a large corporate base to buy advertisements and luxury seats. On top of that, they need a centrally-located stadium with fairly easy transportation options. Montreal has none of those, at this point. The dwindling Anglophone population was the Expos' base, and the corporate base likely won't support the Expos in the manner required. Building a centrally-located ballpark might be a bit difficult given the historic nature of Montreal's core. There's no prime relocation options sitting out there right now, but I do think baseball's best bet would be a burgeoning market with only one big 4 team located there. Vancouver and Portland are the two that spring to mind - they're both fairly booming cities that are have room to support another pro sports team. I'd be concerned that Charlotte's pro sports dollar might be tapped out between the Panthers and Hornets (and Hurricanes, really), but that would be an option as well. Question is, would a team in Portland or Vancouver be more or less of a risk than trying to resuscitate the Tampa Bay market with a new downtown Tampa ballpark (with a retractable roof, naturally)? Tampa Bay literally has zero track record of success in supporting the Rays, so it becomes a question of whether that's due to the team's circumstances (fixed-roof dome in St. Pete) or inherent structural problems with the market itself. I tend to think it's a combination of both, but I also do think that the underlying fundamentals of the Portland and Vancouver markets are more favorable than that of Tampa Bay.

I couldn't agree more. In general, I hate black and blue as a color scheme. The two colors are too dark to work together, and wind up competing with one another. When right next to each other, they blend in together, sometimes to the point of creating a hazy purple effect where they meet. It's utterly pointless to have two dark colors that don't play well off one another in your color scheme. The black-and-blue trend (mainly by blue teams that added BFBS) seems to have mercifully died out, and I don't want to see it revived by the Lightning. The Lightning's current set is by far the best in their history. It's a low bar (I strongly dislike all of their previous jerseys), but better to rip off the Maple Leafs and Red Wings rather than continue the "are we a black team, a blue team, or both?" identity crisis they had before. At least now they're taking their cues from the right places, rather than from the BFBS trend. My preferred Lightning identity would probably add in a dash of silver on their jerseys, keeping the logo as-is. Some silver striping and detailing would help set them apart from the Wings and Leafs design-wise. But no need to return to what were honestly ugly jerseys and a hideous logo.