OnWis97

I agree with this. Maybe it starts the clock over. But, for example, Tank came in the day after and did one. To my knowledge he has not been back. I don't know why dupe accounts are double-secret worse than being combative or vulgar. EDIT: Actually now that I read that: Appeals of a CCSLC account banning are not eligible for accounts banned due to circumventing other CCSLC bans/suspensions or for accounts flagged as spam accounts. I'd say that, for example, Tank could appeal as NJTank, but he could not appeal his dupe account (and why would he?). NJTank was not banned due to circumventing. It was banned for his argumentative behavior.

Yes and yes. I can’t think of anything that they improved. The color-balance was better in the past. Number font, obviously. It was a terrific combination of classic style and modern colors. Now it’s modern colors and Nike-style meant to grow stale.

I know the post being referenced, mentions O6, but at the risk of speaking for the poster, it's possible we're talking about throwing back to old identities, minimization, etc. While I agree that the poster that said the only team truly playing O6 dress-up is Tampa Bay, A lot of teams have eitehr become more traditional or thrown back to old looks, often at the expense of well liked looks. These include (over an admittedly long period of time): Arizona, as most people like the picasyote Buffalo, though I think most people are happy with them Carolina going more basic Dallas being on the outer-fringe of O6 dress-up Edmonton going back to the old look (before replacing blue with orange). Florida going with the Habs stripe The Kings toning down their look The Wild going with a traditional look 1970s Flyers look. The Isles going with their original look. I think they are a mixed bag. Buffalo went back to what they should be (tone of blue notwithstanding). Minnesota looks their best, in my opinion. I personally think the Flyers looked MUCH better in the 1980s than the 1970s and the nameplate blocks and sleeve number bleeding over the edge of the yoke(or whatever) belongs in the past. I liked the late 1990s Oilers and thought it was a rare great use of darker blue and a metallic color.

I'd say one alternate vs. one primary would do the trick just as well. I could totally see Earl Weaver doing this. "Guys, we're wearing our orange alts because we're throwing at their best player. Let's clear the benches today and don't hit the guys in the bright orange uniforms."

I agree. Of course I am both a gray facemask hater and a white-on-white hater. I can deal with white-on-white for the Colts, since they've been that way for so long. But when they changed to the gray facemask, it really jumped out. That may be the single biggest facemask-based downgrade ever.

He already probably has. Lots of sports fans are angry about how into (insert buzz term for how awful the left is; maybe "virtue signaling") ESPN is. This should actually hurt them.

With you on the Lions. And I dislike almost every instance of adding black (Mets, Royals, even the Flames). But for reasons I cannot articulate, I loved the Jets addition of black.

I agree. I actually really liked the 1980s wordmark because it was a subtle inclusion of the image. It's not wrong to feature a team's name but some names (Brewers, Devils, Cowboys, Angels) are not as conducive to an obvious full-blown image as others (Cardinals, Maple Leafs, Rams). Speaking of the Devils, I think the 1980s Jets logo is similar to the Devils logo in their subtle nods to the image. The Devils logo beats the heck out of a menacing devil with a pitchfork surrounded by fire. Same with the Angels.

I still like the logo. I totally admit that I probably would not receive it well if it was brand new today. But to me that logo is the Islanders.

The A’s future is not that bright.

MAYBE the one on the left...but not the sunglasses.

I do too. Admittedly, a lot of it is about my bias against campy logos and my love of silhouette-like logos (Iowa, Texas, Detroit Lions), but I am a huge fan. And I don't understand the calls to go back to the old logos where 1) the dolphin looks like it's been run through a photo-copiers hundreds of times and 2) it's got those six tiny line between each sun "ray." When they go back to the dolphin wearing a helmet, I really hope they don't go all the way back. Make a dolphin that does not look like a blob and use a sun much more like the current one. I think the two different-sized rays help a great deal.

I agree that full incorporation of yellow (i.e., into the homes and roads) would have helped quiet the noise around brown. At least they'd have done something to set themselves apart. That temporary uniform was nice. And assuming the Brewers don't go back to their old scheme, this would give them an identity beyond "blending in." I'm not really a fan of the S and D on the hat being two different colors (did not like that in the orange and blue era) but that jersey was sharp and there would have been a great opportunity for a nice-looking blue alternate. I want brown and orange. I'd settle for brown and yellow. But I could deal with this. It's a nice look and there is room for this color scheeme, which is sadly missing from MLB.

Are the Linc's seats made of Legos?

I am with you on some of your stance so piece by piece... I'm with you on the monkeying with history, but we don't want to bring that argument up yet again. That said, I do feel it should be the Baltimore Browns (more on that below) and, therefore, the current Cleveland franchise should be called something else (though the old edition was pretty bad for the whole Super Bowl era, so I am not that concerned with any sullying). I'm not sure about "Bulldogs." I don't love the idea of naming teams after fanbases, but then again, it's a reasonable name and would have happened fairly organicaly. That's an interesting point. It doesn't really both me; in fact, it's probably the kind of thing that can generate parent/child NFL history lessons. Like you, I am a fan of keeping franchise movement historically intact. However, I am also a fan of keeping names to make that lineage even that much more obvious. I prefer Colts treatment to Oilers treatment. The Colts are a long-running franchise with championships and I think it's better-remembered than it would be had they changed their name. The original Browns, while pretty far removed from their success, were an important franchise, historically. I'd like to have seen that continue on in Baltimore. There's no doubt that Ravens was a home run name. But with all the franchise movement in the NFL in my memory (Cardinals, Colts, Rams/Rams, Raiders/Raiders/Raiders, Oilers, Chargers) I am glad that most kept their names on the move; otherwise, tracing it all would be more of a chore. I do think a Winnipeg Jets scenario (i.e., Ravens are recognized as holding their long history and Browns recognized as being a second-edition, 1999 expansion team) is reasonable but not optimal.

Love that Astros ring. Using colors close to the logo’s real colors > just gold/diamonds

Isn't that the history, though, with "team making a change" threads? There's always a down time when not much is happening and we start discussion another team, another sport, gray facemasks, etc. Then news (or rumors) on the team in question comes about and it gets right back on track. No question the photo was in poor taste...I was suprised that the thread was shut down as opposed to that being removed. Whatever; I guess we'll talk about what the Titans do in the new thread.

I do agree with this. The uniform would be equally plain but it would at least be unique. There's tons of blue in MLB and essentially no brown. I think it needs another color (most of us think yellow, I think orange, a few think things like light blue). But if they want to be boring, going with brown would at least set them apart some.

Definitely better with gold. That's a great color combo I wish the Kings had kept. Having that look attached to Gretzky would be awesome.

I like them, too. Of course, not together. They'd have to pick yellow or gold (yellow!). You can certainly pick them apart (too much black trim), but the overall concept of keeping the N-star and adding a secondary "Stars" logo for the sleeve is a good idea (you know, for a team destined to stay in Minnesota). A couple of asides: I have always thought that the few times I've seen that "Stars" logo with a yellow star, it's looked really nice. When they changed logos (and when I was still ignorant of the impending move south), I wanted them to put the "N-star" on the should. I think I was inspired by the Twins keeping the "TC" on the home jersey sleeve when they went with the "M" hat in 1987. I felt like each logo should be held on, even if only as a secondary. So this sample does that, reversing the logos (even better). Since the team was called "North Stars" and "Stars" was shorthand that many fans used, I think "Stars" as the alternate makes some sense. Edit: While I do like them, they're definitely a downgrade.

And it's not like we did not know exactly what he was doing when he made the mid-career number switch. He wanted to have two numbers retired. Lame. Admittedly, I've detested Kobe since day 1, so I wish they'd let him pick one number and then put the other one back into circulation. But I knew that wasn't going to happen. That said, they should have either picked one or had an 8/24 banner. As much as two numbers taken out of circulation for one player (who planned it) bugs me, two banners for one player bugs me even more.

I think it's OK, too. Baseball is a sport built on tradition been around a long time for a lot of teams. I don't expect teams that have had the colors since before 1960s expansion to change. Specifically blue and red, which teams like Cleveland, Minnesota, Boston, etc. have had for a long time. Actually, dark blue with other colors still adds variety in my opinions. The Rays and Astros (and even the Brewers and Padres*) don't create a lack of variety in my opinion. Blue and red is the only scheme really flirting with that problem, but like I said, those teams have had those colors forever. Now, if a new team went blue and red, that would bother me...or that rumored (a few years ago) Padres change to blue and red to match the Ted Williams minor league Padres. That would be a travesty. *The Brewers and Padres bug me in vacuums...not so much because they detract from variety (they don't) but because the Brewers went so drab (and who would really want them to highlight that gold more?) and the Padres because they were unique and had a very "Padres" brand and chose, as the fifth most recognized team in their own state, to totally blend in. I don't think that blue needed to be off limits for the Rays just because they are new (blue and red? that would have been another story) and their light blue trim is different and nice.

Yeah, you're getting into the cheesy, but it's true. In 1987 and 1991, there was just a "buzz" around the Twin Cities. That has happened around some other playoff runs out of our teams as well. When the Twins went back to the playoffs in 2002, I was living in Illinois and as glad as I was they were back in, I lost out on the camaraderie.

Interesting. I'm trying to recall whether that was going on with either the Timberwolves or the Wild. I was not back in the Twin Cities until 2008, so my I don't have a ton of insight on the Wild. The Wild were probably a bit different, anyway, since we were seven years removed from having the NHL...probably less likely for hard-core fanships to be built. I don't really recall a lot of people sticking with any old teams when the Wolves started. That first year, I went to a handful of games (including Bulls, Lakers, Celtics) and it seemed like a partisan Wolves crowd. I mean, yeah, go to any arena and you'll see opposing Jordan, Kobe, LeBron, Bird, etc. (depending on year, of course) jerseys but my sense, and I can't prove it...it's all anecdotal, is that the Wolves were pretty much "the" team from Day 1. Another small twist is that we had a Big Ten team in town...I come from a family of college hoops fans and this may have limited the interest in following an out-of-town NBA team. And, of course, the access to out-of-town teams was minimal in the 1980s and perhaps this is a key variable in comparing the Wolves and the "Predwings."

I agree. If for no other reason, you're able to go to the games. I know that if you want to, you can watch 100% of the Flyers games from Vegas, but having a team to talk about with friends and co-workers and 41 home dates in town is valuable. There's no right or wrong. If you are a hard-core Flyers (random team I picked for sake of discussion) in Vegas and want to stick with them, that's cool. But it makes total sense to cheer for the new home team. I was 15 when the Timberwolves started. I'd considered the Celtics my favorite team (though "fan" would be a strong word) because they were good and I liked green. I was a T-Wolves fan from day 1. And I don't see that as a problem.