• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by kroywen

  1. I love the idea of a "Redtails" identity. Have to go with a depiction of a Tuskegee airman's plane if you do that, which that concept does well. The one area where I think this concept fails is the use of a roundel with text on it. This would make an incredible logo in baseball, and a very good one in basketball as well. But there's a reason you virtually never see that format in football - it doesn't translate to a helmet at all. The text would be completely lost. But the plane itself is great and can probably stand alone as a football logo. But the roundel needs to go - it doesn't work in football.
  2. kroywen

    NY Jets

    I love it! I much prefer the white helmet to a green helmet, so I'm a definite fan if that. Like some others, I think I'd put an updated version of the "jet" logo on the helmets. The oval has never really lent itself well to a helmet logo (too detailed, too indistinguishable from a distance), and I'm not a big fan of wordmarks on a helmet. Having a jet on there fits the team's name perfectly, and would also provide an actual logo for the helmet (as opposed to a blob with overlappping writing, or just a wordmark). Could go with a better rendered version of the 1960s logo (much like the Orioles' revival of the cartoon bird), or go with a rendering of a fighter jet (though that may be too close to the Winnipeg Jets' logo). Given that the team's name was derived from the planes flying into and out of LaGuardia, I'd prefer a rendering of a jumbo jet, myself. (Yes, I know that there aren't any jumbo jets flying into LaGuardia. But they play near Newark now, so there you go.)
  3. In terms of stability and popularity? Yes. In terms of quality of competition? Not at all. You can count of one hand the number of realistic contenders for the title at the beginning of the season - it's like an American version of a European soccer league. (The EPL has been more wide open than the NBA in the 2010s.) And the East doesn't have one serious contender for the title now that LeBron is in LA. That said, I don't think that'll affect the long-term financial health of the Association. Dare I say, that lack of competitiveness might be the reason that the NBA is the financially strongest league. People are attracted to great players, and superteams get incredible ratings (and something for the entire nation to either root for or root against). Dynasties bring in cash, and the NBA has had plenty of both recently. Where is becomes risky is if a dynasty goes on too long, like an entire decade where other teams barely have a chance at winning. I think - and it pains me to say this as a Yankee fan - that happened in baseball everywhere outside of NYC after WWII. TV created a gigantic opening for pro football to popularize, but I'd guess that the Yankees' dominance helped further that in most other parts of the country. Might be part of the reason why baseball is still the dominant sport in NYC, but football is dominant in most other longtime NFL cities (which explains Boston, St. Louis, and Cincy). But anyway, the Warriors are pushing that limit, but having LeBron right in their division should help create drama.
  4. About time. I wish the Jets and Giants were able to put their logo at the 50, though obviously it's not practical (they tried; it failed). I assume the Rams and Chargers will face a similar issue once they're sharing a stadium. If you have your own stadium, though? Put your own logo at the 50.
  5. It always seemed so painfully obvious to me to have a portion of revenue generated from streaming in-market games be apportioned to those teams' RSNs. So, for instance, MASN would hold broadcast rights for the Orioles within the Baltimore area, and if a person in Baltimore streams an Orioles game through, MASN would receive a percentage of the revenue generated from that. Basically, make up for the revenue "lost" by not having that person watch on cable, rather than online. Seems like something anyone who's taken a few classes in economics could figure out, but what do I know? ?
  6. It could have been worse, he could have needed surgery, he could have been out for the season, but... Oh good lord, I feel sick to my stomach. ?
  7. I can only hope that this bizarre series of events is past us. Clearly the rules as written go way beyond any reasonable attempt at preventing duplicate accounts, so probably wise the revise the rules here. Not my call, but just a suggestion.
  8. Understandable, but I'd apply the statute of limitations there as well. If there's a board member peacefully participating here for years (I think 2 years is a reasonable timeframe), and it's found that his account is a duplicate of a previously banned account, I think it's reasonable to give amnesty there, perhaps with a warning to that user. Consider it a "path to citizenship." Just think that banning a member for an offense committed 11 years ago is absurd. There needs to be some leeway in the policy there, at least.
  9. I would support a statute of limitations on offenses like this. TCR joined in 2004 and hasn't posted since 2007. It's ancient history at this point. I don't think an active member of the community (or anyone else, for that matter) should be banned just because of a dupe account that hasn't been used in a decade, and that everyone knew about for years. Just my two cents. If the policy is changed to include a statute of limitations (maybe a year? two years?), I think it'd only be fair to automatically reinstate Admiral and anyone else who was banned as a result of a long-ago dupe account. At least those that weren't made to circumvent a ban.
  10. I don't know a single Yankee fan who's upset with Jeter for going to Miami. I think we all understand why he wanted to, and I think most of us are glad that he's still involved in baseball in a meaningful capacity. It's a shame that he won't be able to show up at Old Timers' Day or things like that, but that's small potatoes. There's no Yankee fans angry at Jeter over that.
  11. My favorite soda banding - though I've only had it once over 15 years ago - has to be Moxie: And in addition to being one of the few sodas I actually like, the simple, traditional branding of Coca-Cola in Mexico is perfect:
  12. I knew Adidas was going to screw up United massively at some point. This is not a Manchester United uniform. It's not red/white/black. Some sort of weird Red/Black/Red with awful gradients is definitely not United. The one consistency that soccer teams usually have are the colors of their shirt, shorts, and socks. Adidas just destroyed that for their crown jewel in England. Awful.
  13. True, but McDonald's is a perfect example of how to have an instantly recognizable brand. I'm sure Ray Kroc had access to plenty of branding experts during his years owning the Padres. The guy owned a company with whom the red-and-yellow color scheme is permanently associated - he could've built a consistent, successful brand for the Padres.
  14. Doesn't help that they're rather dated. The wordmarks are very 80's: You can probably make some massive updates to bring these wordmarks into the 21st Century, but I think they're just so painfully dated that there's not going to be much of a groundswell to bring them back.
  15. 1998, Braves vs. Mets at Shea Stadium. My neighbors were gigantic Mets fans and were hoping to convert me from my Yankees fandom by having my first major league be at Shea (obviously they failed miserably). John Smoltz wound up pitching a shutout, and the Braves hit four solo homers to win 4-0. Went to my first Yankees game the next week, and saw a rare loss by that 1998 team. Didn't really ave my first memorable moment at an ML game until the next year, when Ricky Ledee hit a walk-off homer against the Indians.
  16. I'm liking this tradition of teams donning a jersey with a new star during the trophy presentation. Calls attention to the addition of the new star, and sets it apart from any other trophy presentations.
  17. That's actually a really good logo. Though the teal on the lower right had corner seems oddly out of place in what's otherwise a perfect Brazilian color scheme.
  18. That's a great color scheme, and in a vacuum, it'd work really well for the Padres. The only issue is that it would be yet another color scheme in the Padres' history, and that's the absolute last thing they need. For a team with so much branding confusion, adding in a red-and-gold scheme (gorgeous though it may be) would only add one more set of hats and jerseys to the crowd. The Pads really need to just embrace brown and gold fully. It's probably their only way past the branding mess they've gotten themselves into.
  19. I've always wanted this combo for the Rays. More or less what Tulane wears: A seriously underused color combo in sports.
  20. And to think that the Kansas City Royals have existed just as long, and have an unmistakable brand that seems almost as traditional as that of older teams. The brown and gold is unique and obviously beloved among fans. Long past due for the organization to similarly embrace it as well.
  21. I just hope this doesn't wind up being worn only by impoverished kids in Africa soon.
  22. There's really no natural contenders outside of the A's, though, and I'd ultimately rather see forest green (which has become a rather underappreciated color, IMO) in the league than kelly green. Maybe if the Rays were to do a full rebrand, though I think they'd be more likely to incorporate the darker green that they had worn through most of the 2000's than to introduce a brand new shade of green. Kelly green can be a great color, and it's a shame that it virtually disappeared from sports somewhere in the mid-90s, but I don't think there's a great need for an MLB team to wear it. The Eagles? Bring it back. The Jets? Maybe. But I think the A's look immeasurably better today than they did in the 70's and 80's.
  23. I do. (#unpopularopinion?) Forest green and athletic gold is one of the best color combos in sports. They go together better than kelly green and athletic gold do, IMO.
  24. Honestly, while I would never support England moving away from the W/B/W as their home look due to all the history and tradition behind it, I think this is actually their best look. R/W/R is always a great combo, and this kit better reflects the colors of England's flag than does the W/B/W kit. (Of course, when the W/B/W originally came to be, they were undoubtedly echoing the Union Jack rather than St. George's Cross - it's only really been in the last 20 years or so that English fans have embraced St. George's Cross, after the 1996 Euro. But that's the unquestionable 'flag' of the English team at this point, not the Union Jack.)
  25. I don't think there's any way they would've chosen Montreal in retrospect. The Expos were awarded during Montreal's last gasp as Canada's preeminent city. If the NL foresaw Canada's business community fleeing to Toronto over the next decade (as well as many Anglophone residents), and a disastrous Olympic Games that help cost the Expos any chance at having a viable, profitable stadium, I don't think they'd ever have chosen Montreal. Do need to check out Jonah Keri's book.