OnWis97

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.

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...

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.

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.

This game is amazing and a tie would be an awesome way for Roethlisberger’s career to end.

How often do expansion teams run into copyright problems? The Guardians hit a couple of bumps on the road and now it feels like just about every WFT option has concerns. Is this common? I suppose when you name your team "Minnesota Wild," you're not in too much danger. Maybe play it safe and go with "Capitol City Extreme." I think it's going to be Washington Football Team.

Dennis Green was a generally successful head coach that came to the Vikings from Stanford. It seems like there have been several high-profile disasters (Holtz, Spurrier, Saban, etc.) but I don't know that every one that doesn't win a Super Bowl is automatically bad. I think the problem is that most successful coaches are at a place that just recruits better players than the majority of their opponents. There is no FCS or Vanderbilt in the NFL. So when they go to the NFL, the opportunity to get players is essentially equal. I don't think it means they could not be successful but it means they lose all their advantage. Some guys should not even try...like PJ Fleck at Minnesota. He's all about the Rah-Rah and that's much more of a college thing.

You know in a really great game when people say it’s a shame that somebody had to lose the game? It is a shame that somebody had to win this game. I hate the Vikings.

I wonder what proportion of the posts in the 411-page thread the Coyotes are responsible for.

There is currently one professional athlete that was drafted by the Montreal Expos. Tom Brady.

The worst franchise in the NFC beats the second-worst franchise in the NFC

I really like the color balance on those USF helmets. There was nothing worse then when they threw a black "U/Bull" on the gold helmet. This probably would have looked better on a 1990s Riddell or Bike helmet but I can live with it.