OnWis97

I'm with you on  the Dolphins.

LOL.

The NFL schedules a game in  a stadium that bans the color green. And they schedule...the Eagles and the Packers.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/could-eagles-packers-face-jersey-ban-in-brazil-soccer-rivalry-may-prevent-both-from-donning-green/

I don't mind small wordmarks, but I don't like how the blue jersey has none while the other two have them. But that's a small thing.

The prevalence of white makes the color balance so much better. The previous set, while getting away from black, also didn't buffer the blue from the silver well enough.

Pros: Block numbers, great blue/white/silver balance, unique but pleasing stripes, absence of black on the primaries, removal of sleeve text.

Cons: The black jersey and some very minor things (pinholes and inconsistent use of wordmarks).

Barring a huge pants and/or helmet screw up, this is a very big upgrade.

Like others have said, I don't love the perforated numbers. I don't think the black alt is needed. But otherwise, the blue and white jerseys are improvements. The color balance is much better and the letters in the sleeves are thankfully gone.
 

Do we know for sure they're keeping the silhouette on the helmet or is there a chance they'll be going to some Jags/Panthers-like "ferocious" cat head?

I've always loved that Jets logo and I'm glad it's back. I don't need the black alternates but they already had those with the last uniform, anyway.  I like what they've done.

We’re going to get a Cleveland Deal combined with a Hornets/Pelicans/Bobcats/Hornets deal, aren’t we?

Cleveland Deal for Phoenix; Charlotte Deal for Winnipeg; Defunct Thrashers. On-hold Coyotes.  It all makes me wish they’d just moved back to Winning in 2010 or whatever.

I don’t really understand holding the name (and, I assume, history) for Phoenix given the franchise’s history.

If this happens does Phoenix join Atlanta on the "More Likely than Quebec City" list?

So I just saw speculation that the Broncos might have three helmets.

When I was a kid in the 1980s and 1990s, helmets were kind of a de facto secondary logo (and at times a primary logo for teams beyond Cleveland, like the Rams and Bengals). When college teams started bringing in multiple helmets, it made some sense because the schools are not just football teams and the branding wasn't as helmet-heavy (perhaps with Michigan and a few others as exceptions). I feel like NFL t-shirts, sweatshirts, jackets, and even hats showed football helmets a lot more back then than they do now...but maybe I'm misperceiving? 

But it now seems like the helmet is not as big a part of the NFL branding as it was a generation ago. Paired with the death of the one-helmet rule it seems like a bit of a chicken-and-egg thing. Are alternate helmets shifting branding away from a focus on helmets or does the shift away from helmets in branding enable alternate helmets?

Also, while alternate jerseys make sense in the NFL (along with other sports and alternate MLB caps), are alternate helmets a big money maker? Is anyone going to go buy all three Broncos helmets (even in mini variety)? Or is it more of an indirect "marketing of the sport?" To me it feels a bit like watering down the image that the helmets create (or, at least that would be true of the helmets were stll a big part of marketing).

Based on your description, I'd say I have a smaller collection of jerseys. I am a few years older than you (no kids) and stopped wearing them anywhere aside from the occasional game a long time ago.  Yet I still hold on to most, as I either think they're great-looking garments or they have some other sentimental value.

So I have gotten rid of some, including, coincidently, a handful to a younger cousin. (I do kinda wish I'd not given him the KG Wolves swingman, but so be it..). I really don't need these jerseys and don't see most of them in a typical month...but I like having them and I'm not just into the aesthetics of games I watch, I'm into the up-close of the stitching/materials (which is still a thing with my handful of authentics that were created pre-Fanatics).  

I think all four options you provide are viable.

She blew her legacy in high school when she wasn’t as good as Paige Bueckers.

I hate everything about the way this A's situation is going, starting with the fact that they're going anywhere. Moving north (i.e., away from Vegas) into a 14,000-seat stadium to play in a city of people that will probably be Giants fans after this shakes out is bad enough. But for three years?  Will anyone even remember this franchise when they get to Vegas?

If I lived in Sacramento, I'd definitely go to some games. The A's may be the A's but they'll have opponents worth watching. But it would not endear me to the team. It would just be a temporary thing to do for three summers. All of this is a bad look, including the fact that they can't play in a temporary setting in their new city because their new city is too hot to play outdoor baseball in.

I think this kinda works on the white jersey.

The dark jersey would need to pick a color (orange, I would say) for the torso...then it may work with the sleeves.

2000 White Vikings Jeff George. Was looking for bigger names of the era on ebay, etc. but they were just so expensive. So I got the George one and I think it's a beautiful garment.

Seahawks slate blue Shawn Springs. LOVE that jersey. Went to Ebay and found a cheap one.

White Blues jersey I saw in a Starter outlet shop in the late 1990s. The version just before Reebok edge.

White Sabres starter replica from before they went to black/red.

What all these have in common is I bought them at least 20 years ago...I'm too old for this stuff now (But I haven't thrown them out, either).

A couple of days ago I went to my first Mild game since before Covid. In OT they pulled the goalie, which left me confused because I didn't see a penalty call.  They ended up scoring almost immediately and it was later confirmed to me that there was no call.

But the most interesting thing about that is I learned that in the NHL if you lose a game in which you pull your goalie OT, you don't get the OTL point.  Since I'm admittedly a casual fan these days, I am not sure whether that's common knowledge (or maybe it's not because I am sure it doesn't happen a lot). Either way, what's the purpose of the rule? 

On 3/7/2024 at 2:50 AM, FrutigerAero said:

Nah you're good, I think we're agreeing more than disagreeing here. I don't think money-wise, they would be a money printer, don't misunderstand me.  Moneywise MLB should probably just put a third team in New York (New Jersey Jerseys?).  I guess I was thinking, "No corporate sponsors?  Surely they could muster as many as Milwaulkee".

 

But re: Delta, Delta's name is literally on the Utah NBA arena.  A big sponsor.  SLC is not their headquarters, but it is their western hub.

 

 

So weirdly hostile.  From living in 6 different states in all parts of the US and observing the culture and attitudes and preferences in each, what I've seen is that Utah people love sports, more than any other place I've been to, and I do not say that lightly.  If you disagree, fine, but your experiences are not mine. 

 

I believe putting a team in Utah would mean adding MLB fans who would give a crap and if the team was competing, they would easily draw 80-90% all season long.  They wouldn't make as much money as a big city team with a big TV deal and apathetic transplants.  Definitely, but I'm not an owner counting dimes so I don't care.

 

But some of the complaints are just weird.  Hard to get to games?  Utah has a great public transportation system that can take you right downtown all the way from the south of the valley.  And the traffic is never bad.  Check out where they're ranked here.  Maybe it will make you laugh with joy at what a good transportation system it is:

 

Rankings: Transportation - Best States (usnews.com)

 

Now here is what is hard... getting to Oracle to see my Giants 

Based on my minimal experience in SLC, the city punches way above its weight in terms of transit.  If they located a ballpark properly, SLC residents would have an easier time getting to games than residents of almost any city in the US.

But it's a small city. Are they going to rely on people coming in from places like Provo, Ogden, etc. that are far enough away that it's going to be a problem for a weeknight game, rendering their ability to sell tickets to the majority of games insufficient?

I don't know the answer to that but that's something that occured to me.  Maybe the Jazz offer a partial answer.

Ah...Then he may end up somewhere but I kinda think you'll see some "surprises" gobbled up before him. He might enter the year as a backup.

I'd actually be surprised if he ever takes another snap...because doesn't anyone that signs him have to pay him like $20M because of the Broncos contract? Maybe I'm wrong; NFL contract rules are not really my thing.

52 minutes ago, TBGKon said:

There's no way the league will allow a 2 week pause for the entire league, if anything for the media partners.  2 bye weeks is definitely possible, but not that the same time or consecutively.

Absolutely. I could even see the bye weeks being spread apart in ways that are as beneficial as possible (whatever that might be) with some "bye-heavy" weeks around the 1/3 and 2/3 point. But every week will have enough games to cover the regular TV schedule.

I don't recall ever hearing of a rule that has has to be a basketball.  But I think there is/was a rule that the full team name has to be included. (Though OKC doesn't quite get that done).

First, I don't follow the day-to-day like I used to so maybe I'm wrong but did this just come out of the blue? 24 hours ago, did almost nobody know about this?

Like most, I celebrate the death of the ClipArts.  I think there's a lot to like here. I like that they brought the nautical theme in and that they did so without going over the top. The wordmarks are sufficient and the flag side paneling works .

I think the blue is a bit too dark. Given their recent use of black I actually thought the wordmark on the white jersey was black... but I think it's blue. Given the lack of outlines that's currently trendy, I suppose they had to go fairly dark for the contrast against the red not to play with the eyes.

As a Twins fan, I have two thoughts on the Twins comparison:
1. I think the Clippers did better on the white jersey using a blue wordmark and red number than the Twins because the red on the Twins jersey just sticks out like a sore thumb. (Either that or the darkened shades for the Clips work better).

2. I'm not a fan of this minimalist (or whatever) trend of keeping colors separate. But I think I'm in the minority. I've always like outlined letters and numbers and I've always like two colors to be touching but it seems like it's trendy to keep them completely separated.

...and the upside helmet logos???

Overseas counterfeiters: "Oh crap; didn't see this coming. Our stuff looks too good now."

Visually, it's the name/numbers that really get me. Those scream "counterfeit" to me.  But it's all terrible and going ultra cheap on the field and for outrageously priced fan products is just a bad look in so many wayst.

Question. Would you rather have:

1. Previous quality fabrics, stitching, etc. with ads
2. This garbage material but with no ads?

I'd take #2.  The "Quickrete" patch is still the cheapest-looking part of Atlanta's uniform. And while that might be the worst add, I think they're all tasteless. 

This is probably not the right board to bring this up on...

But sometimes I wonder whether the NHL belongs. We've been talking about the "Big 4" for decades and it's kinda stuck. Meanwhile, soccer has probably surpassed hockey in popularity.* Might we only have a Big 3 and given baseball's dwindling popularity, eventually a Big 2? (The NBA used to ebb and flow depending on what superstars are around but it feels a bit more stable than it has at certain times in the past).

I think the case for the NHL in general is that it has a well-established history with O6 teams and teams like the Flyers, Penguins, Kings, etc. engrained in their respective communities. 

*I think the case for the NHL over the MLS/soccer is because soccer fandom is very spread out. MLS is not even close to the best league/teams/players in the world and a lot of Americans follow Premier League, etc. In Minnesota, the MLS's United sell well and there is a dedicated base of fans that would be excited about a championship, but that would not compete with the regionwide excitement of a Stanley Cup. I assume this is the case in other markets with both leagues, but Minnesota might not be as good of an example as, say, DC or Miami area.

Once you start bringing in golf and motorsports, not to mention Premier League, I wonder whether the NHL is #4, depending on how we're measuring. But this topic (and the "Big #" phrase) is usually about team sports since the PGA doesn't have New York City laundry. And with soccer's attention spread more thinly,  the NHL is the #4 (professional) league. 

I tend to doubt the Bay Area is going to get a second team, regardless of the City of Oakland's government. I know it's  a big area, but most two-team metros were established before many southeastern and southwestern cities grew so quickly. 

Without (hopefully) starting an argument of franchise- vs. city-models of history recognition, I think any agreement to leave the history, etc. behind would result in the official loss of an original AL franchise (not to mention the Swingin' A's).

4 hours ago, McCall said:

That last part won't happen. They'll just play somewhere else until the new stadium is ready. And there's no way they're leaving behind the A's identity, an identity that started in Philadelphia and whose colors started in Kansas City.

Maybe, maybe not. Times have changed in this regard.  

As I understand it, if the Twins ever move (a likely occurrence next time the team comes to the taxpayers with their hands out), the original AL team's history dies with the relocation (well, officially it gets put on hold). 

10 hours ago, The_Admiral said:

 

1. Too hard to drive to from the suburbs

2. Too hard to walk to from train stations

3. The Blacks

4. Not enough parking

 

1 will be a problem anywhere on the map; anything that requires tens of thousands of people to drive in and out of a spot at the same time is going to be a giant pain, especially in an area as sprawling as Chicagoland. 2, not much anyone can do about that one; the rail system has been all but set in stone since the 19th century. 3, it's really more the idea of them than anything given the atomized nature of driving to the game. 4, I dunno, take a shuttle bus and forgo eating potato salad in a parking lot, you rubes. 

 

Arlington Heights would solve 3 and 4, but make 1 considerably worse, and 2 is irrelevant to most people, and the whole development appears to be a moot point since the Bears tried to big-dick Cook County and lost badly. Roosevelt/Clark where the Sox want to go (who also don't seem to have the money) would fix 2, but the rest would be about the same. There's just no perfect place to put a stadium here that I can think of, but at least we know the lakefront works well enough.

But the perception among the suburban fanbase would be that it's better. I could see that helping the suburban cause.