Jump to content

kroywen

Members
  • Posts

    1,490
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by kroywen

  1. I suppose this thread just turned into further evidence that everyone has their own opinion about how/if stirrups should be worn. That picture of the Cardinals from @FinsUp1214 shows how perfect those low-cut stirrups are. The striping possibilities are incredible and endless. I wish we could go back to the days of striped socks/stirrups that would become highly identifiable with a team:
  2. I'd have to agree entirely on that preference list. As a child of the 90s, who grew up right after the "ribbon stirrup" fad ended, it looks so terrible to me. I'd honestly rather players wear pajama pants than those awful ribbon stirrups, though perhaps that's just because I'm more used to pajama pants (to my dismay). High cut stirrups aren't terrible, and at least on the A's, can lead to a really unique and exciting look: I wouldn't necessarily want the entire A's team is high stirrups like that, but a few guys? Especially some quirky relievers (who always seem to be the ones rocking the high stirrups as it is)? I love it. 2 in 1s deserve to be burned in a fiery pit and never seen again.
  3. I hated this update. I know that seems extreme for a simple change in outlines, but it actually gets to my post above - the silver outline in the middle effectively creates what looks like a gapped outline, since the silver is virtually indistinguishable from either the white or gray fabric from a distance. It looks especially bad on the home uniform, IMO. The original version, with silver on the outside, looked far superior, since the silver basically blended in with the background. I'd personally prefer a simple blue-outlined-in-teal wordmark, but the silver was barely noticeable, so it basically created the same effect.
  4. I'm actually the opposite - I hate double outlines, especially gapped outlines, as a general rule. I actually think the Canadiens' look a little better than most, though I still much prefer the gapless outline. The only example in your post that I think looks okay is the Penguins' jersey, since the Vegas gold and white never touch across the entire jersey (and thus the gapped outline maintains consistency across the jersey). But I generally think those gapped outlines add visual clutter, and make numbers far less defined.
  5. At the very least, high socks or stirrups should be required. I hate the lack of uniformity with socks across baseball right now. The thing with stirrups is that every fan prefers different lengths, and there's really no one "perfect" length. I'd bet it's usually based on what they grew upb with - fans who came of age in the 60s and 70s probably would prefer higher stirrups. Personally, I'm a fan of very low stirrups, such as these: On the other hand, I hate the very high stirrup look that was popular in the 80's. I suppose the best solution is to say that every player has to wear their pants up to a certain length, and allow players to choose between high socks or stirrups.
  6. I can't imagine it would be very profitable from a concerts/events perspective, but that'd be secondary to the Clippers owning their own building. Ballmer wants to pocket the entirety of the revenue generated by the arena, including luxury suites, concessions, ticket sales, likely parking, etc. The Forum is a far superior concert venue to any new basketball arena (given the lack of luxury suites and how the Forum was purposefully renovated specifically for concerts), while Staples Center is more centrally located and larger than the Clippers' arena would be. I can't imagine it would make a dime on concerts or events. It'd probably be the fourth choice venue for events in LA, even behind the Honda Center - that at least has the advantage of being able to host touring events that want to run separate LA and OC events, or want to run a large arena without the higher costs of the Staples Center.
  7. If Shaq in Orlando is wrong, then I don't want to be right. (I admittedly have watched very, very little of the NBA in the past ~15 years, but I still think of Shaq and Penny Hardaway when I hear of the Magic. It's a shame that they ran into literally the greatest team of all time in 1996, because that team was incredibly stacked and really fun to watch.)
  8. In terms of location, Flushing >>>>> Belmont >>> Hempstead. Flushing has the trifecta of great subway, LIRR, and highway access from both the city and Long Island. Belmont has decent LIRR and highway access (better from Long Island than the city), and no subway access, while Hempstead is limited to extremely congested highways, and is incredibly difficult to access from the city (doubly so if you don't have a car). The ideal scenario would be for the Islanders and NYCFC to both build venues at Flushing (or within a redeveloped Willets Point). We know from experience with the Mets (and the US Open) that Flushing is extremely accessible for both city and suburban residents, whether by transit or by car. There's space to build on there, whether it's the Citi Field parking lot (build a garage or two to replace capacity), Willets Point, or within the park. There's already two successful venues there - Citi Field and the USTA center - make it a true sports complex. And it's a hell of a lot better for everyone involved to be in a place with subway access, rather than way out at Belmont relying on special LIRR trains to get city fans to the venue. At the end of the day, either Flushing or Belmont would be preferable to continuing the untenable situation at Barclays, or to the Islanders moving out of town entirely (which I find quite unlikely). But the Isles should absolutely pursue Flushing as their first priority (and NYCFC would be wise to try and partner with them).
  9. I am a big soccer fan, but I have to admit - soccer jerseys are, on the whole, less visually attractive than those of most North American sports. The advertisements are the biggest culprit there, obviously, but the constant need to debut new jersey designs annually causes lots of problems as well. Both clubs and designers frequently go off-the-wall with designs to differentiate them from previous years' designs, and wind up creating visually jarring, ugly looks. From a uniform nerd perspective, it's incredibly fun to track, since there's a glut of new jerseys for every team every single year, as if MLB, NFL, NBA, and NHL had all their teams debuting updated jerseys every single year. But on the whole, most are not visually attractive, and many are eyesores due to ugly piping, jarring advertisements, unnecessary patterns, etc. The varying clash jersey colors did bother me as well when I first started following soccer, but you quickly get used to it. Many teams have traditional clash colors (Arsenal's navy and yellow, United's white and black, etc.) which become familiar to both fans and rivals. I do generally prefer when teams use their primary colors on their clash kit, but I can certainly appreciate that certain clubs have developed unique traditions around their clash jerseys. What I can't stand is when teams choose completely random colors with not historical connection or relevance to their team for their third kits.
  10. To be honest, I despise these uniforms. I find purple and black to be a terribly muddled and dark color scheme, and honestly, I can only take purple and orange in limited doses. I love purple-and-gold, but think orange should be limited to use as a trim color against purple (which is more or less is here, fortunately). The incredibly gaudy sun, clip art wordmark, gradients, text on shorts, and unnecessary BFBS, all make this a textbook example of terrible uniform design. It might evoke nostalgia, but the design is much better left in the past.
  11. No Kings jersey will ever beat these beauties, in my book:
  12. The Suns have a basketball-only arena, much like Barclays. The Coyotes did play there from 1996 to 2003, while securing an arena deal (and eventually constructing) for their current arena in Glendale. Much like the Isles at Barclays, it was a disaster: For a team already struggling to draw people, with a dwindling fanbase, the last thing they need is to move into an arena that literally cannot fit a hockey rink.
  13. I wish NYCFC would go whole hog and use the actual city flag, with the city seal, as their corner flags. Understand why they don't, to emphasize their own brand, but it would be such an awesome touch. As it is, their corner flags do make great use of the city's flag design.
  14. To the point of being almost invisible. They just blend in with the grass. Between the washed out Super Bowl logos, the faded paint in the Pats' endzone, and the general blandness of the field markings (which has been a problem for quite a few years now), this was one of the worst Super Bowl fields ever. Combine the aesthetic appearance with the inexcusably poor condition of the field, and this really felt like amateur hour. If you ever told me that the above picture was taken at the Super Bowl - before the game began, no less - I'd have never believed you. Incredibly boring field and rather ratty looking.
  15. Not sure what looks worse: the Patriots offense or their end zone markings. The blue has almost completely faded in one part of the end zone.
  16. Is it sad that when the alternative is the Raiders moving to Las Vegas of all places, that I actually am hoping for Raiders-to-SD and resulting Raiders/Chargers franchise swap? The idea of a franchise swap involving two divisional rivals and three different California cities is so absurd that I really want to see it happen, just for the sheer hilarity of it all. I'll laugh my ass off at the image of Philip Rivers wearing the silver and black in LA. OITGDNFL.
  17. I'd still put the Islanders staying in New York at better than 50% odds. Maybe 60-65% chance of staying. The only relocation destinations I can see them entertaining are Seattle and Quebec City. Maybe Kansas City, though the NHL has never expressed much interest or confidence in that market's viability. In an ideal world, from my perspective, they'd build in Willets Point (or in Flushing Meadows Park itself), and NYCFC would build an adjacent stadium. You'd have the Mets, the Isles, NYCFC, and the USTA all within one location, served by a single subway stop and LIRR station. But that's still a remote possibility, especially given that the City would be highly reluctant to pour public funds into a new stadium and new arena, less than a decade after subsidizing two ballparks and the Barclays Center. Maybe if Bloomberg or Giuliani were still mayor, but not under de Blasio (or any likely 2017 primary opponent of his). Any new construction will need to be primarily funded privately, which is (unfortunately) unlikely.
  18. I'm sure the goal of Islanders ownership is to build an arena in Queens, preferably at Flushing Meadows (or Willets Point). Barring that, they'd probably choose to build at Belmont Park rather than go back to Nassau Coliseum permanently. Obviously Nassau Coliseum would serve as a temporary arena while the Isles are constructing something new, but I'm sure that a permanent stay at Nassau (with a long-term lease) is the absolute last resort for Isles ownership. They might sooner move out of the area altogether than play in a 12,000 seat arena in the middle of Hempstead. (Not that such an arrangement would bring in any less revenue than their current situation at Barclays.)
  19. No way that Spanos ever moves the team back to San Diego, or that San Diego would even want Spanos back, for that matter. But if the LA Chargers are the dumpster fire we all expect them to be in a few years, I'd bet the NFL will do everything in its power to force Spanos out. They'd have to move mountains to outright force him to sell, but I'm sure Goodell (with the support of other owners) will exert as much pressure as possible to get Spanos to sell. How successful that would be remains to be seen, but if Spanos is losing money hand over fist in LA, that might force his hand.
  20. And while the other man elected played his entire career with the Astros, Jeff Bagwell was originally a Red Sox prospect: (And Sox fans are still angry about that trade.)
  21. In honor of their elections to the Baseball Hall of Fame: Ivan Rodriguez, Yankees (second half of 2008): Tim Raines, Orioles (this might be the ultimate "wrong" uniform: he played 4 games with the Orioles in October 2001, just so that he could play alongside his son Tim Raines, Jr.):
  22. Jacksonville and Oakland seem like they're living on borrowed time. Buffalo is mighty tenuous, and their only saving grace is that the Pegulas have seemed very committed to Buffalo. That said, if Buffalo can't work out a stadium deal, they might even feel the heat. For the longest time, the NFL was able to keep teams in place by the fact that you were able to locate an NFL team in just about any city, and it would be financially viable. Even if you struggled to sell out your stadium 8 times a year, the TV revenue ensured that every team stayed afloat regardless of location. But with teams clearly seeking to move around to maximize revenue (and perhaps make up for impending lost revenue due to sagging TV ratings), those days are over. It'll be very interesting to see what happens in a decade or so, once the wave of stadiums built in the late 90's and early 2000's start reaching 30 years old, and team owners start claiming that their stadiums are "out of date." I'd expect another series of relocation rumors around that time. Seems we're getting a flurry of relocations every 20 years or so in the NFL now.
  23. This is a truly terrible decision. I feel awful for the fans in San Diego, who are not only losing their team, but losing it to a a nonexistent fanbase who couldn't care less about the Chargers moving to LA. At least with most relocations, you can feel happy for the fans who are getting a long-awaited team. But LA got their long-awaited team last year, and has expressed zero interest whatsoever in getting the Chargers. The NFL is quite stupid for allowing this to occur. Let the Rams (re-)grow their fanbase in LA, and get (re-)established there. Obviously the Rams had somewhat of a built-in fanbase of old LA Rams fans from years ago, but the Rams still need to develop their appeal to: under-30s who don't really remember the old LA Rams, older fans who have since moved on to other teams (or ditched the NFL altogether), and transplants to LA who might be converted. The answer is not undercutting that with another team playing in the same damn stadium! It'd be one thing if you wanted the two teams to carve out different geographic niches (though I don't think that'd be possible in this situation, given that much of Orange County is still loyal to the Rams). But that's not even the case here. The NFL is undercutting the Rams' ability to lay down roots, while allowing the Chargers to move to a place where they will struggle to grow a fanbase. Spanos deserves what he'll inevitably get with this move: a crap team that no one care about, playing second-fiddle, without a home of their own.
  24. And unlike in MLB and the NHL, neither team will have a geographic niche. It'll be like the Lakers and Clippers: one team has a more established fanbase, while the other plays second fiddle even in the best of times. New York has mostly dodged those problems in all four sports (as has Chicago in baseball), though it's starting to be an issue in the NFL here as well. But unlike the Jets, who have a well-established, albeit smaller, fanbase (especially out in Queens and Long Island), the Chargers won't even have that advantage. They will be the Clippers to the Rams' Lakers.
  25. From SportsCenter's Twitter feed: There you have it. The Chargers will be playing second fiddle in LA.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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