OnWis97

"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.

On 4/25/2022 at 6:04 PM, VikWings said:

 

I loved this Cleveland set. Even the Navy jersey. What they wear now is somewhere between meh and garbage and the forcing of black into because of a championship won in tshirts that should have never existed makes it worse.

 

The stripes on the shoulder and shorts trim alone give it more life than those Jazz practice jerseys. Also I think wine and gold lends itself to stand out on it's own more than generic black or retina burning yellow does.

 

When it comes to the Jazz I'll always been one for the Purple/Sky mountain set but I thought the current scheme worked too, even if I preferred purple to navy. But they ruined those when they decided to cut the side panels in half diagonally for some reason.

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.

On 4/13/2022 at 11:32 AM, spartacat_12 said:

 

I could understand the fans being this excited, but it just seems way too over the top for the players. This is a completely manufactured moment by the NBA, but I guess that's the whole point of these play-in games. Did we ever see teams going this crazy about clinching the 7 seed in the playoffs in the past?  It wasn't even a one & done game. The Clippers lost, and still get to host a sub-.500 team to lock up the last seed.

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.  

3 hours ago, Vaughn42 said:

The #42 on all the uniforms being blue today just does not look good on most of them.

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).

On 3/24/2022 at 11:45 AM, Kevin W. said:

Spoken like someone who's never talked to a Padres fan before. You don't understand how popular the brown and gold is.

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.

On 3/21/2022 at 2:13 PM, sitboaf said:

I wanted to talk about MLB, too. It seems the most "stable" of the big 4, in terms of logos. It's also here that we've seen a lot of "reversion"–where a team returns to a previous logo, as if to say, "we tried other looks, but we keep coming back to this. THIS is our forever identity."

 

Seem forever done:

Orioles - returned to an old (albeit secondary) logo after some ornithologically correct years. I love this bird face.

White Sox - changed a LOT in their history, but now have 30 years with the word lockup. Still looks fresh. Done.

Angels- 5 overhauls in their existence. The current one is simple and beautiful, but despite seeming eternal, is but 17 years old. Gonna say they found their forever logo.

Blue Jays -flew very far from home, but have migrated back to that beautiful look that kicked it all off. Done.

 

Not done:

Mariners - Have had 4 distinct looks in 45 years. I think this logo changes soon.

Braves - Above my paygrade. But, I'd bet on a significant alteration this decade.

Rockies - Abominable letter lockup is just 5 years old. Feels 100. Change has to come, and will probably involve mountains again. Please retain the purple.

Pirates - Well, it's a letter. They tried 5 different pirate faces over 8 different decades, then gave up. I have to imagine we will see a new Pirate (or ship) eventually.

Padres - An ocean of changes in 53 years. I can't imagine the current letter lockup (suitable for a hat) is where they will settle.

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.
 

On 3/14/2022 at 10:58 PM, chcarlson23 said:

I think the idea with the Koivu banner is that the striping matches both the other banner, and the actual jerseys Koivu wore. I definitely associate the block font with Koivu more, so I’m glad they used it. 

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.

22 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

He was rolling before injuring his knee a few weeks back. He's back on the court, but apparently still trying to re-find his footing, so to speak. 

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.

22 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

Agreed. Childhood me has a lot of fond memories of Harlan as the play-by-play voice of the expansion Minnesota Timberwolves back in '89. 

Same. He was outstanding for the Wolves.

I enjoy Gus Johnson as a neutral fan. I can't stand him when my team is playing...

4 hours ago, BBTV said:

How the F do they not have dandelion outlines on the white jersey?  They completely took a crap on the traditions that they no only claimed that they were going to maintain, but still claim that they did maintain.

 

For better or for worse, the NFC East is one of the more traditional divisions, and now they stand out like a bruised and bloody thumb.  

 

The "using a driver for a 3" put" analogy is pretty spot on.  They could have just done a Jaguars to "tear it down to bare bones" and then built it back up over time.

This.  I could maybe get on board with the burgundy primary if the white uniform looked like it was part of the same set. The  jerseys look like they belong to three different teams (The Commanders, Arizona State, and the Arizona Cardinals).  This change took, what, four times as long as the Guardians change and I'd say the Guardians did a lot better.  They actually maintained the franchise's traditional look, unlike 2/3 of this junk.

To top it all off, they missed a layup.  All they really needed to do was take the WFT uniforms and put the "W" on the helmet.  

• Name: B. It's not great, but it's a lot to ask of a team to really hit the name out of the park.
• Burgundy Uniform: B-. It's servicable.  If the rest of the set matched it, I would not think of them as one worst looking teams in the NFL.  However...
• Alternate Uniforms: D. I could deal with one being worn once a year with the burgundy helmet. It's not necessary but it would not be the end of the world. But throw on the black helmet and tradition is dead.
• White Uniform: F.  No yellow. Silly diamond/gradient pattern. Looks more like the AZ Cardinals than the Commanders.  
• Burgundy Helmet: B. Unspectacular but nice enough.
• Black Helmet: F. Unnecessary even if it was designed well. And a bad sign of what's to come in the NFL.

This really seems like a college identity with a dash of NBA. No team in NFL history has looked further apart between their dark and white looks.

5 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

Unfortunately, the problem is with it in place a lot of the popular throwbacks that would need new shells just can't happen (like Bucco Bruce or Pat Patriot), so it's kinda a lose-lose situation.

I like some of those throwbacks too but I still want to each team to have a single helmet as a primary identifier. And it looks like that might be going away for some teams. I will like to see Bucco Bruce once a year but I don’t think it is worth seeing identities like this be watered down.

Well, we wanted the one-helmet rule gone.  And it looks like the commanders are going to take the new rule out for a spin. If they  are really going to wear the black helmet with the white uniform, then this is not really a team with an identifiable helmet. They will have two helmets that are roughly equal.

This is why I was always happy that the one-helmet rule existed.  The helmet is about to take a step down in its role in NFL team identifies.

The trolling worked perfectly. Now things like this Nebraska logo will change and people can express outrage at how meaningless things change. It really is brilliant. People also flash it as a white power sign and there's just enough plausible deniability, enabling them to say "gawd, now the Nebraska logo? Are they just going to cancel everything now?" I don't actually know what 4-chan is...I've always suspected it was actually used as a white power signal with the added benefits of ambiguity, plausible deniability, and (most importantly) trolling.

"These adults are playing the circle game."

As an aside, I think the #1 looks better than the "OK," anyway.

Brett Mahomes 

Back when it was sudden death - FG wins it, I feel like most people here and in general (anecdotal observations, obviously) thought that was the right way to do it. At this point, I don't see anyone clamoring to go back; they seem to have adjusted to at least making it a TD. Certainly almost nobody liked college OT, which I think has gained a little traction since then.

I think other sports have easier ways to do OT.   It's difficult in football to try to manage potential objectives:

• Integrity of the game (College OT loses this by not having kickoffs or sustained drives)
• Fairness (College OT probably is the best for this)
• Manageable game length for viewers and player safety
• Avoiding ties (score one more for college; at least vs. regular season NFL)

Honestly, in regular season I think the expendable things are fairness and avoiding ties. Obviously in the playoffs, you have to avoid ties and I think fairness becomes more important to some...

I'd keep it like it is for the regular season.  Integrity and length are intact. I can live with ties.  More fair than sudden death-FG wins. Then for playoffs, I'd play one 15-minute quarter and if it's tied after that quarter, just keep playing untimed until someone scores. Still advantageous for the team that wins the flip? Yeah but not nearly as much.

I'd be curious to see OT trends...of course that's difficult since the current rules haven't been around that long.

Even with the old sudden death OT rule, I think the coin-flip winner was like 52%. But as defense gets more and more hamstrung, I wonder if that coin flip becomes more and more important.  Yesterday, I think both defenses were gassed and there was going to be a TD on the first drive either way.  Yeah, Buffalo had their chances, but the coin flip seems really important.

This weekend came within 13 seconds of seeing four road teams win. If ever there was a year for an out-of-nowhere team to win, this feels like it.  At this point, the smart money is probably on KC but at this point, I think all four teams have a shot...particularly with Greasy Aaron and Brady out.

And while Rodgers and Brady are the two elder-statesmen of QB greatness, there are some good ones still around...Joe Burrow has something intangible ("swagger," I guess)...I think he's going to win a Super Bowl some day (even though he plays where he plays). Mahomes is obviously great. And it's good to see Stafford play well in meaningful games. Garapolo...well 3/4.  

The three guys who I look forward to watching are Burrow, Allen, and Herbert. 

Anyway, I think the Bengals have a shot and it's because of Burrow. But ultimately, I'll go KC over LA.

Packers vs. the Field. I'll take the Packers.

Imagine being a Steelers fan and having to sit through that. That was one of the most amazing and intriguing regular season games I’ve ever seen.

I don’t think I have ever cheered so hard for a tie before.