Jump to content

OnWis97

Members
  • Posts

    10,896
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Posts posted by OnWis97

  1. 1 hour ago, PaleVermilion81 said:

     

    It wasn't just the helmet.

    At the time, I agreed and I sometimes thought that the elite-level awfulness of that helmet drove people to think the rest was good because it was just standard-level awful. 

     

    And maybe the new jerseys are having the same impact on me...looking back, I don't think that uniform (neck-down, of course) was terrible. Not one of my favorites, but at least it looked like a game uniform, unlike today. But still...they had it right the first time.

     

     

    • Like 5
  2. 18 hours ago, IceCap said:

    Carolina's inaugural unis were perfect. The original logo > the updated version. 

     

    My only complaint is the existence of white pants. They need to wear silver with all three jerseys. 

     

    Honestly? I find the calls for the Panthers to radically alter their look kind of frustrating. They've kept essentially the same identity since the 1990s, and it's a solid one.

    Here we have a modern uniform that manages to look good and not seem overdone, and it's only been ever so slightly tweaked since 1995. That should be the standard- a new team gets their look right on the first go and doesn't muck it up. Their expansion cousins in Jacksonville are perfect examples of what happens when you muck it up. 

     

    The Panthers, though, are the gold standard of a new team establishing a bold new look, and making it their own through commitment to it. It's such a rarity in the Big Four that I want to see their identity stick around as long as possible. 

    Exactly.  When the teams started, I liked the Jags look a lot better. I've never liked Carolina's helmet logo nor the tapered stripes (and they're OK from neck-down).  I loved the prowling jaguar and (as this is per my unpopular taste) the three-color block numbers. To me, just about everything Jacksonville has done has either been a downgrade or a shift from crap to a different kind of crap. Meanwhile, Carolina has kept a sturdy, albeit unspectacular, look. I think the Rockies/Marlins expansion is kind of similar in MLB.  The Rockies have stuck with an unspectacular but generally inoffensive look and the Marlins have not been quite sure what to do.

     

    Carolina has its take on traditional striping and traditional two-color block numbers, whereas Jacksonville seems to chase trends a bit (when they're not trying to start a trend with a two-tone helmet).  Their initial three-color numbers were kind of a 1990s thing (like in "The Program"). Right now, one-color numbers and simplicity are king.

     

    I would not go quite so far as to compare them to the Padres or Canucks. While I am sure someone could ding me on the pantones, they haven't undergone the color changes those teams have and their helmet logo has been "tweaked" (which in no way compares to the Canucks skate, orca, stick-in-rink history). But from a simple "uniforms" perspective, they just can't seem to sit still.

     

    I personally could not care less which jersey is their primary because all of their jerseys look like practice jerseys to me. I'm usually not a one-color number fan but to me this is the worst one-color number decision in NFL history. I'm generally OK with simple uniforms but this needs something interesting.  From the neck down, this is definitely the worst the team has looked, in my opinion.

    • Like 6
  3. I don't think the Buffaslug was a terrible logo.  I just think it was a huge letdown given that the team was going back to it's blue/yellow roots (kinda) and people were hoping for something that reminded them of the familiar logo and/or something like the concepts that were floating around (basically a larger sword to buffalo ratio in terms of space taken up). I remember seeing the Buffaslug and just feeling the the rug had been pulled out from under me (and I'm not a Sabres fan).  I think it was more the "wrong" logo than a "bad" logo.

     

    As for OKC, I think it was designed so whatever name was chosen to be placed on top of the "OKC."  Seemed like a placeholder but here we are 12 years later and it's still in use.  I'd have lost a lot of money betting on that...

    • Like 3
  4. Unpopular opinion: I tend to prefer the phantom yokes. The reason I do is because I prefer the shape it gives to the extra color on the sleeve. For example, the red Wild alternate did not have the phantom yoke and as popular as that jersey was I hated it in part because the green on the sleeve just looked like a box.  When they upgraded it to primary, the phantom yoke gave the green that shape that was reminiscent of jerseys like the white Red Wings jersey, etc. I like that a lot better. Add the stripes to the bottom of the latter jersey and it's better by a mile. The green on the sleeves on the former was just to "boxy" for my taste, I guess.

     

    t0vafndulbnrlzelu2r064f2g.gif  lb10yb4oszqigldhsihenoaug.gif

    I also don't hate the phantom yoke when there's no barrier between to different colors:

    t1vmp5xbx9f7w1bg2gf1wvz9t.gif
    I understand why most people don't like it but it's kind of a guilty pleasure for me. In this example, I think it looks better than it would without.

     

  5. 8 minutes ago, _J_ said:

    I think the Senators get a pass, at least the hockey team, because they link themselves so closely with the 1901 team.

     

    But yeah, would be off the table now. Especially in the US, where senators are much more powerful than they are in Canada.

     

    Name for the nation is good, name for the govt would be not so good.

    LOL...I totally blanked on the NHL team when I was talking about the MLB team...but I also think it might be different than the US.

     

    (also, as you said there was an old team in hockey-crazed Canada. There was also an old team in the US (two in fact) and maybe it would have been considered more if they'd have had more success.  I don't think people in DC had much connection to either edition of the Senators.)

  6. 37 minutes ago, _J_ said:

    Honestly? A team named the presidents would be tied to whoever is in the office. Is it unfair? Possibly, but the first thing that would come to mind is whoever is in office at the time. All of the other ones manage to be abstract concepts.

    I'd even suspect that takes Senators off the table.  Even in 2004 or whenever the Expos moved, government is too polarizing at this point.  In 1901 or whenever the original Senators were named, it was probably received better than it would be today.

    • Like 1
  7. 19 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

     

    My pet theory is that the team went with the overly-simplistic look in preparation for a move to Tampa Bay in 1987. The uniform switch happened despite the move falling through.

    Although they switched from uniforms that simply said "Sox" everywhere to a road uniform that said "Chicago" and a cap with a "C." I'd think sticking with "Sox" would be the way to go if that was the rationale.

  8. I think the late 1980s White Sox uniforms are pretty nice in a vacuum.  They're classic-looking baseball uniforms, albeit less-than-exciting. The only issue I had with the uniforms themselves was that the loop on the "C" was large enough to create ambiguity.  (And I think they had sizable numbers on the pants, which I wasn't a fan of).

     

    But the overall problem is that those uniforms just did not say "White Sox." OK, they literally said that, but despite all the bucking of tradition that the team had done, the use of "Sox" on its own is pretty consistent. The next look, while seemingly jumping on the black/sliver bandwagon* set us straight that the "Sox" were back.

     

    If the team were an expansion team today, I'd probably favor the late 1980s uniforms if pitted against anything else they've ever had (though the over-used colors would be another concern).  But they just seemed "off" for that franchise.

     

    *And it even turns out that the look stuck for the long haul, which at the time I never dreamed would happen given the trendiness of the colors and the team's history of changing.

  9. On 8/24/2020 at 10:36 AM, coco1997 said:

    D-Backs: I like the red & purple color combo. Not a fan of the gold road uni. I think a traditional gray set would work fine in this case. Maybe flip the colors of the “A” for the red cap and jersey. 

     

    Spiders: Solid set. Great logo.

     

    Royals: I like the use of athletic gold over metallic. Not sold on the gold script with white trim on the powder blues.

     

    White Sox: I’d work on making the blue more of a sky blue like on the Chicago flag. 
     

    Rays: I really like the choice of colors and the color balance. 

    I had the exact opposite reaction.  I think the purple helmet really clashes with the red sleeves on the primaries. 

     

    I think the Rays, Reds, and Spiders look fantastic. Pirates, too.  There's nothing wrong with the Royals (in fact it makes sense given their name and the lack of that scheme in MLB) but I guess I just like their "boring" look.

     

    While I think the stars on the Astros primaries need blue rather than two bright colors, the only one I'm not fond of is the D-backs. Too many colors with too much clashing.

     

    It's funny. I find OSV to be a traditionalist in football but a fan of pushing the envelope in baseball.

    • Like 3
  10. Geez.

    I don't think anyone thinks that this school's "Clan" name is supposed to be the same as "(Ku Klux) Klan."  It's not that it's confusing; it's that in the United States (EDIT; just realized this is in Canada...), the word "Clan" (or Klan) on its own conjures certain images. I know when I hear "Clan" I think "Klan" at first.  If someone refers to their family as "the Smith clan" I don't.  Why? Because a lot of people call the KKK the Klan for short. If that wasn't a thing...if it was always either "Ku Klux Klan" or "KKK" then the word "Clan" would not have the connotation that it does (or can).  And this would be less likely to be an issue.

     

    So just because it's not racist and in no way connected to the KKKlan doesn't mean it's not the right* thing to do. And you what? If they'd decided to leave it, I'd have had no problem with that, either.  But the institution had to decide what was right for itself and it chose not to connect itself to a word that, through no fault of theirs, causes a visceral reaction. Not everything's a PC conspiracy to win some culture war.

     

    *Actually, to me it wasn't "THE right thing" to do. But it was a perfectly viable thing to do.  Some things exist outside of two absolutes.  There's nuance to things like this.

    • Like 6
  11. Yellow CAN touch white.  And it would make the numbers on uniforms like the Vikings, Packers, and Steelers better (Particularly the vikings, since they have more recent history of that than the others). The "rule" that yellow cannot touch white has contributed to the one-layer number fad and the addition of black where it's not needed.

     

    (Yellow cannot touch white on both sides, though, Vikings.)

    • Like 2
  12. To me Robo Pen is to Skating Pen as Helmet Dolphin is to Current Dolphin.

     

    Oddly most people here seem to prefer the sleeker, less soulful/cartoony Robo Pen to Skating Pen while they prefer the campy Helmet Dolphin to the "soulless" Current Dolphin. Cartoon logos are very popular here (Cartoon Oriole, for example).  It surprises me that Robo Pen is so well-liked.

     

    I am the opposite.  I hate Robo Pen but I love Current Dolphin.  In fact, Skating Pen is really me breaking my own rule. I tend not to like campy, cartoony logos.

    • Like 1
  13. On 7/17/2020 at 5:07 PM, Gothamite said:

    Fair enough.

     

    I’m sure there are people who like the old Sabres logo and don’t prefer the term “Buffaslug”.  But there we are.  I see people refer disparagingly to the Brewers’ glove logo  (which I have fond memories of, even if it’s not my favorite) as the “paw”.

     

    I really don’t mean anything personal by it.  It’s just a catchy nickname.

    Granted, I've almost never talked with anyone outside of these boards about the logo, but I tend to think it's very well-liked in Madison and among alumni.  Doesn't hurt that it's associated with the ascension of the football program. It has pretty much nothing in common with the Buffaslug, which was partly hated for the huge disappointment it was when fans were anticipating a return to the good ol' days.

     

    And to be honest, I am a lukewarm fan of the motion-W.  I liked it on the football helmets day 1 when I was still a high schooler in Minnesota.  And I'm so old that when I arrived on campus, it was pretty much just a football logo.  That's how I kinda wish it had stayed.  The previous "W" never looked that good on a football helmet to me.  But I think the motion s**k W has been a negative elsewhere.  The basic W look better on basketball shorts, for example, and particularly on the old-school sweater worn by Bucky Badger.  So I'm not a huge fan of the logo, but I think it's very well liked.

     

    As for the crest, I never liked the logo, probably because I associated with University Ridge golf course (I had friends that loved golf and I don't).

     

    As for the issue at hand, I don't have the energy to discuss it.  I don't think it's going to be a game-changer but I don't need to strut my cynicism and mock it, either.

    • Like 3
  14. 2 hours ago, CrimsonBull9584 said:

    As someone who loves championship rings, and have three of my own, I still don't get why you need three for one season. Isn't one enough?

    I definitely find it odd that they'd have a CFP ring and  a National Championship ring. It's like that Nats getting the NL champ ring and the World Series Champs ring.

  15. 17 hours ago, LMU said:

    We’ll allow for discussion once the change actually happens but for now we’re dealing with every single thread about the subject being taken over by disingenuous straw man arguments that cause the whole thing to descend into a firey hellscape.  We’ve even had to start cracking down on concept threads since we’ve had three for the Washington rebrand that have become troll targets.

     

    We are though going to be taking a harder line in general when it comes to issues that are made political for no reason whatsoever.

    I understand this.  History has been really bad to these discussions.  Given that there is a real social movement going on that's related to our topic at hand, I really feel we should be talking about this, including whether name changes are necessary for Washington and others.  It just seems crazy that we've eliminated so much of what's relevant to this discussion, to the point we have to pretend the world is a different place.  The Washington change is probably going to be driven by the current name...whether they go with a "lesser" native name or totally abandon...and "why they are selecting this name for the rebrand" is an important part of the discussion.  I wonder whether we can even get through that.

     

    I suppose the board doesn't have a feature that enables moderators to stop individuals from posting in specific threads...That would be best to weed out the clowns and incentivize civility.  I think it's an interesting and important topic with tons of nuance (not the Washington name but the spinoffs) and this is the place I'd like to be talking about it. I know I've lost this argument (well, I never had it) but I'd like to have it talked about even if it means mods are quick with suspensions.

     

    EDIT/Late Add: I don't love the politics ban, but it's not like I can't go find a place on the internet to have these talks. It's not important that this board be the place to talk about that kinda stuff. However, this board is the ideal place to discuss this potential issue.

    • Like 5
  16. On the jerseys, I always thought the rounded "P" started with the "stitching" line in the middle and then it disappeared.  Based on these pictures it looks like they kind of went back-and-forth.  I wonder why.

    I know that the image of a baseball is not always allowed (not sure on the exact rule...must be based somewhat on how realistic it is) so I'd always figured they were forced to ditch that on the jersey (though it stayed on the hat).  But based on that 1990ish gray jersey, it looks like it came back.

  17. On 6/2/2020 at 11:39 AM, ScubaSteve said:

    I think the Washington Wizards need a rebrand. Not a new name, but stray away from the Bullets-inspired identity and an evolution of what they had before. I'm sorry but the current logos and color scheme are just so boring.

    I do think r/w/b is a strange combo for the Wizards (partly offset by it being a good combo for DC).  The Name Wizards doesn't work great with the DC imagery, so I agree with your sentiment.  That said, I like the r/w/b and DC imagery better than I did any of the more appropriate colors/logos of the original Wizards incarnation. 

     

    All of this would be great with a name like Capitals (taken), Nationals (taken), Senators (used in the past; twice), or Americans (used a few times).  And I don't think there's enough history (and certainly not enough good history) to cling to "Wizards." But I fear them choosing "Washington Monuments" or something.

     

    I definitely would like a name change or a change back to something more like the original incarnation of the name.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.