OnWis97

I'm curious...has anyone here been to MLB games both at the Metrodome and the Trop?  If so, is one appreciably worse than the other?

I, of course, have been to many games at the Metrodome.  But I've never had the "pleasure" of going to the Trop.  The Metrodome was just so sterile...I've been to 30 MLB parks (counting defunct; the Metrodome is the only full-time dome I've been to) and it's the worst one by far.  Not sure whether the Trop is as bad, but it cannot be that much better.

That all said, the Twins did draw well at the Dome when the team was doing well.  The Rays don't even seem to draw during good times.  As far as I can tell, there are two key possibilities: 1) The interest in baseball / the local club is just not there or 2) the location is really that difference-making.  The Metrodome had one thing going for it; its downtown location.  But I question whether it's a good idea to bank on location / dumpy park are the problem, to the tune of, say $1 billion (and at least half public).

My biggest gripe is the sleeve numbers.

On 6/6/2019 at 7:04 AM, jmac11281 said:

 

I like the Phillies look but I'd be lying if I said I like the font that they use. It is too bubbly and looks incredibly dated to me. I am also not a fan of the road look. That looks dated as well.

No idea whether this is unpopular but I hate the numbers on the sleeve.  I remember when the uniform came out and hating that element of it.  It's also among the most surprising uniform elements to have stuck around for so long.  I'd have expected the sleeve numbers to go away after a few years.

Ooh...forgot one I absolutely hate.  The Buccaneers using a different patch on each sleeve.

Things I don't like that most fans would probably not think twice about:

• The yellow stripe on the white Vikings jersey is barely visible.  While I disagree with the notion that yellow cannot touch white, I don't think yellow can touch only white.
• The Wild outlining the number on back of the home jersey but not the sleeves.
•  Almost every "little" thing about the Brewers, which turns them into one giant crapfest.
• The number of times the "Halo-A" ends up on the Angels' uniforms.  Hat, wordmark, left sleeve, right sleeve. I think I'd be OK if it wasn't on the right sleeve.  I won't be surprised if the names on back start getting halos on the "A's"
• The inconsistency between the hem stripe (gap between blue and yellow) and yoke stripe (no gap) for the Blues.  It's one of the best examples of "no big thing but SO unnecessary" there is.
  • I also think the white numbers are a huge downgrade from the pre-edge era yellow numbers.  But that might be too big of a detail for this thread.
• The seven stars on the Sixers jerseys, leaving it asymmetrical.

2 hours ago, BrianLion said:

the black outlines on the Chiefs logo, even though black is present nowhere else in the uniform or color scheme. 

 

 

I agree there.  From the neck-down the Chiefs are perfect.  I understand why they have black on the helmet (i.e., I have my doubts about how the logo would show up with only red/white/yellow), but I at least wish there was some yellow, too.

Danny Green is going to the Finals.

That makes 35 straight Finals that have included a teammate of Shaq.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/clutchpoints.com/there-are-only-5-teams-that-can-win-a-championship-because-of-shaq/amp/

Yeah...the yellow stripe really gets lost on the sleeve.  Mimicking the color pattern on the pants would be better.

23 hours ago, MCM0313 said:

 

 

 

I think I may have briefly seen that logo in the late 1990s and not thought a whole lot of it. Maybe not.

 

But speaking of Iowa logos, this doesn't quite count as unused, but does anyone else remember the alternate logo they had in the '90s? It was the word Iowa in very uneven letters and then an exclamation point. I think maybe the letters were yellow and the exclamation point was black. Very '90s-looking. It may have been only basketball that used it, but I happened to catch bits and pieces of quite a few of their hoops games in that time period, so to me that was Iowa's logo just as much as the Hawkeye was (and, similarly, the desert scene logo was Arizona's as much as the big A was). I actually haven't seen this Iowa alt on the mothership at all.

Basketball specific.  The "O" was a ball.

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/BJ0AAOSwzJ5XVFO6/s-l1600.jpg

5 hours ago, Quillz said:

It's one of those "looks fine in a vacuum" logos. But I get the original is a classic. But I mean if the school did go ahead and replace it, I think eventually it would have been accepted.

To this day, I find It jarring.  I’m not an Iowa fan, but growing up in Big Ten I certainly was used to the original.  So if they had come out at the same time as finalists , who knows...

I was in grad school at Iowa when that logo was unveiled.  People there were pretty unhappy about it and I think that’s why it never replaced the classic logo (I.e., I think it was intended to).  So at the bookstore, both logos were prevalent on apparel . Eventually, the new one was gone.  I have seen that in the Twin Cities in recent years once or twice.

35 minutes ago, Quillz said:

Regarding the Patriots:

 

• I wish they didn't move away from the more vibrant red, white, and blue they had during the 1993-99 set. Seems they darkened their colors mainly because that was an early 2000s trend (other teams like the Rams did the same). Their present colors aren't bad, but with a lot of teams reverting back to brighter colors, the Patriots seem like they'd be a good candidate.
• Flying Elvis is far and away their best logo. I hated Pat Patriot, especially on the helmets. Was far too detailed for a football logo. That said, I did prefer the white helmets over the silver helmets they have now. I would love to see their present template but in more vibrant red, white, and blue, and with a white helmet.

I don't think too many people around these parts would disagree with the first bullet.  They seemed to get dark just because that was the thing and folks here prefer vibrant colors.  I personally don't think the Pats have ever gotten it right in the elvis era.  The 1994 home uniform (same numbers on shoulder as front/back) was sold but they still blew their white uniform with different-colored shoulder numbers.  I personally hated the giant elvises on the shoulders.  Along with the dropshadows, I thought they made these uniforms way over-done.  But I, along with most on the board, definitely preferred the more vivid colors.

No sure how popular your second bullet is.  I associate Pat the Patriot with one of my all time favorite looks from the neck down.  That red jersey was sooooooo nice.  So I was dragged kicking and screaming, but elvis is a better logo.  Pat is far too detailed.  Elvis took some getting used to for sure, but I think if the Pats had been an expansion team in the 1990s and those two logos were offered, most people would have gone for elvis.

I am guessing this is unpopular...

I don't like the throwback Saints jersey worn yesterday.  The "gold" is too close to copper.  I prefer the current primary.

(or is this the primary, now?)

While the Bears have been up-and-down in the Super Bowl era, they've been a staple franchise since way, way back.  The number font, three stripes, and wishbone "C" have been around forever, as well.

I really don't like their look. I think the super-dark blue is the main reason why.  But it's probably second-tier (i.e., just under the Packers, Raiders, Steelers, Cowboys) in terms of being untouchable at this point.  I don't know whether most fans like it or not, but either way, I'd call it iconic.  They're not about to change their colors (which is my main beef) and I definitely think more bad than good can come from trying to put a bear on the helmets or uniforms.  The Lions have messed with their uniforms more than the Bears have...I think the look they are wearing is embracing the past more than anything they could change to.

9 hours ago, San Diego said:

 

Oh wow! A cap. Great. 

Not sure whether this is unpopular or popular but I, for one, am glad that the Bears don't use that logo on their uniforms.  That logo is terrible.  It's overly detailed and would look terrible on a helmet.  Ferociousness seldom comes out well in logos, in my opinion.  I'm glad the Lions have a silhouette and not something overtly ferocious.

The Bears don't exactly have the most exiting uniforms in the league, but they're certainly iconic at this point.  And the "C," while not exciting, is, in my opinion, much better on a helmet than the ferocious bear would be.  

I don't mind them using a bear in some marketing and clothing, but that logo stinks.  Of course, they can't very well go the silhouette route while sharing a division with the Lions.  But I'd at least like to see a re-design of that thing with less detail.

15 hours ago, Quillz said:

The Pistons play in Auburn Hills, not Detroit. The Giants play in East Rutherford, New Jersey, not New York. The Angels are "Los Angeles" because that was their original name and they're part of the Greater LA Metro Area.

Don't get some people started on that....

I agree with IceCap's statement that if Anaheim teams had always been called "Los Angeles" nobody would give it a lot of thought.  Little quirks sort of get our minds focused in one direction. For example, I am absolutely convinced that if New York City and New York State did not have the same name (e.g., if the city was called "Gotham") then people would be far less bent out of shape about the Gotham Giants and Gotham Jets not being called "New Jersey."  They're conflating the city and state.  That explains why nobody demand the Washington Redskins be called the Maryland Redskins.

Last September, I took a trip to LA, stayed in Rodando Beach and rented a car.  I went to, among other things, a Dodger game and an Angel game.  Driving to the Angels game, I never felt like I was leaving the LA market.  The ballpark's setting seemed to be very "general suburbia."  I know Anaheim is bigger/different than Orchard Park or Auburn Hills; if a team wants to market specifically to that part of the region, it makes some sense.  But it's not wrong to call them "LA."

3 hours ago, Quillz said:

Oddly enough, the Clippers are leaving Staples Center soon enough for their own arena. (Similar to the days before the Staples Center). When this is happening, I don't know.

Unless that arena is in Seattle, I'm not sure it's worth it.

On 10/14/2018 at 4:36 PM, Prince Harry said:

Not sure how unpopular this is. 

 

Ball in glove is a better logo but the barley M fits the Brewers identity better, even if it’s corporate inspired. I don’t know what they should do.

 

The current navy and gold is their best colour scheme. I assume that’s not as popular an opinion. 

 

Turn the MB insignia into beer mug or something, I dunno. 

 

 

This is always an unpopular opinion.

12 hours ago, FinsUp1214 said:

I think the Saints fleur-de-lis looked SO much better on the helmet when it was larger and single-outlined:

 

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the popular opinion.  Particularly given the popularity of not liking double-outlines.

So perhaps I have the unpopular opinion.  I like it now.  I think  the two longer "petals" (for lack of a better term) stick out too much in the original.  I also happen to like multiple-outlines more than most, so I like that part to.  However, I think it's the size and shape that most leads me to prefer the smaller logo.

I like red pants with the whites as well.

When they first played in a red helmet, it was essentially the opposite of their traditional helmet: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjInvKLwNTdAhVDheAKHWDSDaYQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rantsports.com%2Fncaa-football%2F2013%2F09%2F23%2Fwisconsin-badgers-rb-melvin-gordon-should-be-in-heisman-talks%2F&psig=AOvVaw1nmcZKN1cMkA0MiEU_vgno&ust=1537908034673767

I didn't mind that one as a once-a-year thing.  But then they decided to go with the black stripes and trim.  I'm glad it hasn't come back.

Wisconsin doesn't often get too crazy and I'd rather they always have a red mask and go W/R/W and W/W/R and nothing else.

On 9/8/2018 at 10:08 PM, Davidellias said:

With that being said, Nebraska's "N" Helmet logo needs to go.

Do the NU helmet they used in the laste 60s and that would look better, the "N" hasn't aged well and look extremely dated.

I have a memory of Nebraska trying to replace the N with a bolder N with serifs and maybe a white/red double-outline.  But people went nuts and it did not end up happening.

When I was looking for that story, I found an equally amusing one on the below link. It says that the "NU" became an "N" when there were not enough "U" stickers around:

https://www.mlive.com/spartans/index.ssf/2014/10/get_to_know_nebraska.html

18 hours ago, daveindc said:

 

 

 

Reds should go back to this look, head to toe. At least as a weekly throwback. 

I can't deal with the white hats.  I don't generally like sleeveless, but I agree that (neck-down) this is a pretty sharp look.  That look with sleeved jerseys would be fantastic.

I used to really like the idea of no name at home and a name on the road.  That's what the Twins did when I was growing up.  I am sure it's rooted in the idea that the home fans know who the players are by number whereas they don't know the other players.  In this day of TV the functionality of this practice probably no longer holds up. But I still kinda like it.

Generally, I like names on back but I would certainly grandfather any jersey (i.e. Red Sox at home; both Yankee jerseys) that does not use it. 

Ron Dayne is the all-time leader in regular season NCAA rushing.  He is also the all-time leader in bowl game rushing.  But he is not the NCAA's all-time rushing leader.

14 hours ago, BigBubba said:

 

So Tank would thus not be eligible for CCSLC parole?

 

 

EDIT: I just checked to see when Tank would be eligible -- only to realize he's been banned for two-and-a-half years. Time really does fly on these boards.

That's not "these boards."  That's called getting old!

And I'm stunned that it's been 2.5 years...(getting old)