OnWis97

That's really nice. I think I just like all of this better (the N and the five-pointed star). The M-Star is nice, too and I'm probably just being rigid in thinking that the four-point and five-point stars need to be separate.

I totally agree with Ridley's suspension and I agree with BBTV that one has nothing to do with the other. I almost feel bad for Ridley...yeah, he should have known better but for the most part, he's being suspended for being stupid. I don't think he's a bad guy and I do think Watson is a bad guy.* That said, the NFL has no choice but to send a decisive message about gambling. It's a far bigger threat to the integrity of the game than any off-field transgression and it's apples and oranges. Therefore, on its merit (i.e., with no regard for unrelated punishments), I think the suspension of Ridley is correct, even if he's not "one year's worth" of a bad guy. Watson's situation is far murkier. He's been accused by a lot of people and he's made payouts. He's never been convicted of anything and it doesn't look like he will (for past transgressions, anyway). As a person convicted of nothing, he has the right to be employed. The NFL, on the other hand, has a right to protect the shield by not condoning his actions. The NFL is probably to blame for the suspension being too short because of its history of making up their punishments as they go and reacting to fan outrage (see Gate, Deflate along with Rice, Ray). It put the arbitrators in a difficult position. That all said, though, I honest to goodness don't know what the league's punishment should be. The NFL's inconsistent history, the number of accusers, the lack of legal punishments, the civil payouts, etc. all add up to a giant mess. *Funny, though, he's never been convicted. I once suggested that not being convicted of sexual assaults doesn't mean you didn't do it and was ripped pretty hard on these here boards. At least a couple of you should think he should not be suspended.

The N-Star logo is really nice. Not sure I like it better than the late 1980s logo but a decent update. And the uniform you design with it is pretty close to perfect. I think the M logo is nice but I don't think it's compatible with the N-Star logo because of the four-pointed star. I think the state/star should logo (which is very nice) is a great patch for the N-Star jersey and then the M logo and roundel shoulder patch go together as a completely different concept. Good stuff.

Edit: Fell for a twitter hoax (hangs head in shame)

I liked Ferdinand's post and not yours. It's because the logic of his post is spot on with my ideals. That said, I'm being dragged kicking and screaming as we speak towards this philosophy. I can say the same about the Twins as you do about the Phillies. They're mediocre. Right now, mediocre keeps you in the hunt most of the season. Pre wild-card, I'd be going to a game only in perfect weather, and not even finding out whether they won or lost most days. Now, let's say the Phillies or Twins win the World Series. Are they the best team? No. Neither one has a reasonable chance to play back into that conversation. Is it ideal (from a neutral perspective)? Not really. At this point it's bad business just to have the pre-1969 or the pre-wild card format. And the more I accept that it's just business, the more I feel I have no choice but accept that the "integrity" of the championship is going to take a hit. It can be a tough line to draw, though. I was steadfastly against the second wild card because too inferior of a team can beat a better team with a one-game playoff (and one game is not what baseball is about). The new format? I admit I don't like it because a part of me will always miss when making the MLB playoffs was special, but at the very least, I understand it. (Then again, corporate sponsors on the uniforms is good for business and I hate that with a raging passion.) It's a balance...gotta make money but can't totally turn everyone off. Sure, if the Yankees played every game at home, their opponents would probably make more revenue...but that's one piece of integrity I don't see pro sports totally crapping on.

I think my opinion is unpopular. From the neck-down, I think these are way better than the currents. I prefer the color balance. The current look needs more red. (The "GIANTS" on the helmet is terrible, though.)

That's an interesting point that I haven't thought about... It's weird to think that I miss how upset I was about the Pistons going to teal. Because it felt permanent, or at least indefinite. Does anyone really think the Jazz are going to stick with that crap they just introduced for the long haul? No. I hate it but as pro sports start acting like college sports, the uniforms become more plentiful and more forgettable. I've also had the same thought about the watering down of the brand. I guess if enough fans are buying their team's city edition every year, then it works. It feels like it should be a zero-sum game (i.e., if I buy the city edition, I forgo the primary) but obviously, there are just enough people that will buy any jersey they like (from their team or just a really cool one from another team) so more jerseys leaves more possibility that Average Jersey-Loving Fan really likes one and buys one. As you say, the math must work out but the branding just seems so watered down. They're sharing their space with advertisers, at any time the Celtics could be wearing uniforms that at first make you think they're Bulls, there's no immediate understanding of who's at home. Most fans don't buy jerseys but they do want to know who's playing...i know, score bugs, but they take them down for replays, etc. Smarter people than me have figured out that this is paying off, I guess. I don't like this approach to uniforms at all...teams should have an identity. If you have multiple identities, you have none.

You're the designer and I'm not, so... I don't necessarily think they're non-design. In any case they're not nearly as bad as Utah's in my opinion. The black jersey is a steaming pile, but that's expected. I think the primaries are some neck/shoulder trim from being pretty good. I'm going to actually say that I like them. They kinda took the 2014-2017 and stripped them tweaked them 13 times, all for the worse. The 2014-2017 home and road make up my favorite primary set in NBA history. I loved it (and the yellow alt...but of course they gravitated toward the blue and black). While I still like these, they seem like unfinished throwaways from 2014.

I'm starting to drift that way, too. I had a little sticker shock...but I'm feeling a bit better.

Gobert to T-Wolves for PatBev, Walker Kessler, Jared Vanderbilt, and Malik Beasly. And "multiple" first round picks. Seems a bit steep from the T-Wolves end, to me. Pat Bev was kind of the toughness of the team and I feel like Vanderbilt could be pretty good. I was OK when I first read it and glossed over "multiple first round picks."

Any chance the whole superteam concept could almost be done now? I suppose not...I'm sure a team like the Lakers would love to add Kyrie. People considered the Heat superteam a relative failure...they only won two titles; lost in the finals twice...only lasted four years. But honestly, that might be the most successful superteam. The Nets have been a disaster. Most other attempts don't really come to great fruition. Meanwhile the Raptors and Bucks are winning titles. I don't think of Golden State as a superteam because the core of the team came together organically...the superteam era for them was when KD was there but that success (with some disappointment) gets a bit washed out by pre-KD and post-KD success. Maybe putting a bunch of stars and egos together won't be the way to go moving ahead?

True...some of what they're getting is nationwide viewing because of the traditional powers. And they're all over huge states like Florida and Texas. They're doing pretty well. To Old School Vike's point, it never ceases to amaze me that people don't understand what's really going on. Yeah, Rutgers is not the quintessential Big Ten school but they get into the NYC market, Maryland gets into the DC market, and now there's LA to go along with Chicago. If anything, Nebraska makes less sense...but traditional brands help too. I wish it wasn't, but it's about money; not geography and not on-field/court competition. The old geographic nature of the conferences is based on train travel and no national TV audience to try to capture.

"Can the Big Ten improve its West Division?" Big Ten: "Oh, just you watch." You can't beat a Rutgers night game in volleyball, basketball, tennis, softball, baseball, etc. at UCLA on a Wednesday...10:00 PM local. What's next for the Big Ten? Gonna grab Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, Montana State, Colorado College of Mines, Middle Tennessee State, Miami (FL), Miami (OH), Rhode Island School of Design, the Detroit Lions, Northwest Louisiana State (but only if it exists), Georgia Tech, and Coastal Carolina.

That Blazers example is the best example thus far...the slanted stripes have been around since just a few years after that. One I thought of was the back-to-back Houston Rockets. It's really not the wrong uniform, but the fact that they ditched it right after title #2 kind of makes it a bit like that. Other examples: Since some of the above are finalists, maybe the Shaun Alexander era Seahawks? I think those are kinda like the Germanic Brewers uniforms; not well-remembered between the currents and a more beloved earlier uniform. It's a largely forgotten uniform, but they did have some success. Speaking of finalists...the 1996 Sonics in the green/orange Space Needle uniforms...they're always green and yellow to most. To me, at least, the 2001 Sixers finalists in black...though I bet some of you don't agree. I know alternates might not quite be the same (though the Cavs and Raptors are shown above with alts)...Now that we're seeing teams wearing so many uniforms, this will likely become common. Maybe MLB will cool it on the City Series, etc. in the postseason but in the NBA it doesn't seem to matter. Speaking of MLB, though, it did seem a bit wrong to see the Cubs win their first title in 108 years in blue jerseys. Yeah, they were on the road and their road jerseys are not nearly as iconic/recognizable/important as their homes, but it still felt a little wrong that they were not in the more traditional grays.

The Rangers won Games 1 and 2 and gave me hope. But the 'Ning Dynasty is not to be stopped.

I agree with most of your Cavs take. That set (minus the blues, which confused the rest of it) is in my all-time NBA top-5. The Jazz update is in my all-time bottom 5 (maybe all-time bottom 1). And I don't think that is inconsistent at all. The Cavs simplified their color scheme but held onto their identity. The arched wordmarks are nice and the trim is pleasingly basic. I think of those uniforms as a newer uniform with a classic look (like, say, the Astros current uniforms). I understand why a lot of people didn't love those Cavs uniforms like I did, but their existence was not totally without sense. The Jazz are almost simple just because it's a trend, but with little thought to the team's history. To me, these are not like the Cavs/Astros, but more like the Jaguars jerseys...just overly simplified for no apparent reason. Add to that the huge four-letter wordmark without so much as the arch that the Cavs used, the giant number, and the lack of trim and you get something that most of us could have made with a Wal-Mart tank top and some electrical tape. There's nothing interesting or appealing here. Even the Nets, who use a more basic color scheme look better. Maybe it's the simple white trim or the more properly sized wordmark or numbers. I'm not a fan of the look, but I think moving to Brooklyn and doing this is somewhat understandable. Plus it's not ugly (just not pretty). Nothing makes sense about what Utah is doing. Utah's primaries will be the only ones in the league in my memory that really look more like practice jerseys than game jerseys. I don't think that of the old Cleveland look or the current Nets look.

There was no reason to believe Vegas was going to make a Stanley Cup run if they'd made the playoffs. That said, Vegas would have made a Stanley Cup run had they made the playoffs. I'm relieved that they missed.

This Jazz rebrand/unbrand is so bad that nobody is coming to the thread to accuse us of hating everything.

The only player that really went above and beyond was Beverly. I thought it was over the top...I guess he holds grudges over teams that let him go... That said, I don't think fans of other teams (except maybe Clippers fans of a certain age) can relate to just how little this franchise has to celebrate...bad play, bad luck, bad management, bad everything. It was really nice to watch this game unfold and to watch this woeful franchise claw it's way back from down 10 in the fourth. Hard-core Wolves fans (of which I am not; I'm casual) deserved this many times over. As an aside, this game makes this season infinitely more fun than if they'd just been given the seven seed their record would have warranted in the past. It just seems so arbitrary to pick the 7 and 8 seeds to do this for (why not just the 8? Why not 6/7/8?). And in and 82-game season that sends half the teams to the playoffs, it's totally unnecessary from an integrity of the game perspective. Unfortunately it's about entertainment, tickets, and TV and fun games like this are going to validate it. Some year the 7th-best team is going to lose to a 10th-best team 10 games behind it. I hope that 7th-best team is a Team That Matters from a Market that Matters.

Is that new for this year? I thought they were done in the font used by the uniform... I don't know how unpopular this is, but I'm not a fan of every player wearing the same number and no name. I know names and numbers aren't as needed as they used to be, but they are valuable at times, both on TV and at the park. I'd prefer front numbers being replaced (or placed on, for uniforms without them) with 42 (Team style or Dodger style).

I hope you're right. I've been hoping for brown since about one second after I found out they were changing to blue and orange. (I wanted/want brown/orange but I lose). Given the team's resistance and what is, I suspect, not a particularly popular color for neutral-fan purchase, even with fan love, I would still not be surprised if the brown doesn't make it for the long haul. I could see team success/failure playing into it.

I agree with most of yours but... ...The Oriles and Brewers went back to silly (not necessarily bad, but cartoony) logos that are products of their time. I don't know for sure that they won't change but I think it's possible. The Blue jays have missed layups before...I really, really hope you are right about them. But the one I am most primed to disagree with you on from the "done" list is the Angles, depending on your definition of "change." I tend to agree that a halo-A will be used for good but I think the red-heavy balance and the grey/silver halo are polarizing. I'd predict a gold halo in the future and a huge change to the color balance (I guess the latter is more of a uniform issue...so if the gold halo possibility would mean "not done" then I'd disagree with you)...possibly a change to the shape of the "A" (back to the basics of the 1980s) . I left the White Sox (I agree with you) up there because I'm old enough to remember the beach blanket and even back then, I recognized them as a team that changes a lot. When they changed to the current look, I assumed it was chasing a trend and they'd be back to something blue/red soon. I was wrong and now it looks like they're not messing with it ever. Remarkable. For your "not done" list, I feel like the Mariners may have kinda "White Soxed" their way into the current look. Atlanta, I think will keep the look, but likely will ditch the tomahawk. I don't see the Pirates messing with the basics of their colors and the "P" on the cap...though the primary logo could definitely change. I agree on the Padres. They'll be running from brown not long after the newness wears off. The Rockies is an interesting case. Their general look is mediocre but has never change. Primary logo? Whatever, but I don't know if I see them changing the key pieces (colors and cap logo) of their identity.

Since the other banner is for "the fans" (and lame as hell), they should make Koivu's consistent and tailor the other one to it, in my opinion. Actually, I'd rather they get rid of the fans one altogether.

I didn't know the Atlantic League had that double-hook rule. And I love it. I definitely lean "traditionalist" and would honestly prefer no DH ever. But I really like the idea of using the DH to incentivize keeping starters in the game. Even the modified "at least five inning" rule would at least kill "the opener." I also like that dropped ball rule, as a small way to combat the way pitchers are overpowering hitters. I haven't decided where I am on the shift. I guess I'll say I like it, as maybe it'll lead to better results on grounders and line drives. As I said, I lean "traditional" but the game is just boring right now. I don't personally think the DH helps that but I do think the sport needs to find ways to adapt, even if those things would have mortified me 20 years ago. The problem is that almost everything making the game boring right now is the result of people getting smarter about how to win games. Alternating righties and lefties in the batting order leads to more pitching changes; pitching complete games is stupid for several reasons; not letting balls be put in play is smart; feast-or-famine hitting is smart. I really want to see baseball games with more balls put into play, more running, etc. but these are the things the analytics are preventing. I legitimately wonder if the ball can somehow be deadened to making swinging for the fences a bad idea so players are trying to get on base. A triple, even a double, is more exciting than a home run. I remember the day it hit me. We traveled to LA in 2017 and caught a game at Dodger Stadium (which I loved). The Dodgers lost to the Rockies 6-5 (in 9). That 's a nice score: close game, some scoring but not over the top. There was one really nice defensive play and probably four home runs. And the game was absolutely dreadful. Foul ball after foul ball. And if a runner got on second the catcher and/or manager would come out on about every other pitch (the year before mound visits were limited). Seemingly about a million mid-inning pitching changes. I think it was about a four-hour game. From that point on, I knew something had to change (Oddly enough, a few days later we saw Justin Verlander give up 1 hit in 8 innings to beat the Angels 1-0 in Anaheim and that was a WAY better game). Maybe they need input from casual fans who like to sit at games, eat a hot dog and enjoy the ambiance, like my wife. My wife: Games should be 7 innings. Me: Stop it. Now: Maybe she was right...since relievers do everything, anyway, why not just cut to the chase? My wife: They need to be able to foul out. Me: You don't understand how hard it is to hit a baseball. Now: I don't think I can cross that line. My wife: Do they have to go to the mound so often? Me: That really should stop. Now: Still feel that way; glad there is a limit. Ideally, what I want is a game that has some pace (I want to find a way to limit mid-inning pitching changes), where runs are somewhat at a premium, where the ball is put into play, and where games over three hours are unusual. Not sure if it's possible, but I know I might have to eschew some "tradition" to get there.

I think he's going to be nursing it for the duration of the season...which is too bad. But they've been playing very well. I just wish a couple of teams in front of them would lose the occasional game.