OnWis97

1 hour ago, Sec19Row53 said:

But he created a dup account to circumvent the rules. He can't be allowed back based on how this is stated.

 

ETA - It's not the account, it's the person, that matters.

"for accounts banned due to circumventing"

I read this as being connected to the account and I also read it as applying to the dupe account.  My guess is that it was meant the way you are interpreting it (and I am sure a mod will get to this soon enough).  But I read it as NJTank being eligible but not Tank's "Sunglasses Bobby V" because the latter was banned due to circumventing another ban.  I don't read it as "people that ever created a dupe account."  And I don't quit understand why we'd consider bringing someone back for being a jerk, but not if they happened to do that.

On 6/5/2018 at 7:13 PM, BringBackTheVet said:

Since there was never an appeals process, I'd personally let the dups thing slide for past bans, as long as it was only one dup, but I get it.  I'd love to see the back-and-forth of an appeal - bet a lot of them would be pretty fun.

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. 

On 6/19/2018 at 2:40 PM, Cardsblues02 said:

Does anyone else have an issue with the Tampa Bay having 1. Two different logos on two different sleeves and 2. The one logo says “Bucs”?

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, 

On 6/2/2018 at 7:30 AM, Jimmy Lethal said:

The retro trend in hockey sucks. Most of the NHL looked pretty killer in the pre-Edge '00s, there was no reason for everyone to start playing O6 dress-up.

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.  

7 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Potentially not unpopular but I prefer baseball fights/benches clearing to be done exclusively wearing alternate uniforms. The clear color definition of "red team vs blue team" or "blue vs black" "red vs navy" etc etc just looks visually appealing to me when there's 50 guys out there on the field lol. 

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."

6 minutes ago, clonewars2008 said:

Not sure if this was said already but I think that the Colts should go back to the blue facemask and blue pants for the away uniform. 
 

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.

1 hour ago, ninersdd said:

How long till he wears out his welcome likes he's done everywhere else?

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.

12 minutes ago, whitedawg22 said:

 

I don't understand why the Jets need black. Green and white provide plenty of contrast on their own, and look so much cleaner. The Detroit Lions got rid of black, and it improved their uniform by leaps and bounds.

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.

1 hour ago, whitedawg22 said:

 

With few exceptions, teams' uniforms generally don't have anything to do with their nickname. The 80s/90s JETS wordmark is arguably superior to the current oval logo, but other than that, I don't really want to see a uniform that incorporates jets into the design somehow.

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.

7 hours ago, Chromatic said:

Idk man he seems pretty chill.

 

The A’s future is not that bright.

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

1 hour ago, MJD7 said:

Just to add on to this, I absolutely love the newer Dolphin logo. It looks so streamlined and clean, I don’t see the appeal of returning to the helmet dolphin, beyond nostalgia. 

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?

20 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

I’d love it if the Browns changed their name to something like “Bulldogs.” They aren’t the same team as the old Browns (no matter how much the NFL tries to pretend otherwise), and they’ve sullied the legacy of their namesake team by being mediocre to horrendous for their entire existence (e.g., only one playoff appearance in their history). It’s time to acknowledge the truth about the team, give the records back to the Ravens, and build a new team identity (albeit one with the old Browns’ colors, can’t go too far).

 

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.

20 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

 

Also, the Brown family founded the Bengals and play at Paul Brown Stadium. I don’t like that they’re named after a guy who wound up founding a division rival. 

 

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.

20 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

I know now that I’ll get heat for that opinion, but I’ve long felt this way. The “Browns” name should rest in the same grave as the Oilers’ identity.

 

Also, Baltimore Ravens > Baltimore Browns. When a local name is that good, you can’t pass it up.

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.

On 1/17/2018 at 1:21 AM, Ben in LA said:

I like plain uniforms. The Padres uni would be even better if they replaced the navy with BROWN.

I like cream jerseys.

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. 

45 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

I love those last two, even though I know I shouldn’t. 

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.

59 minutes ago, BJ Sands said:

They’re retiring numbers to honor the player. Kobe wasn’t two players. He was one, and yet he gets two banners. 

 

It looks even worse considering the team. This is the Lakers, with some of the game’s most significant players. Magic, Kareem, Wilt, Shaq all have one banner. 

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.

41 minutes ago, Ray Lankford said:

I think the amout of dark blue in baseball is fine, as long as the teams play up their secondary color. The Indians, Red Sox and Astros are good because they emphasize red and orange (or at least they do at home) but teams like the Rays and Brewers, who don't, and the Padres, who don't even have a secondary color, are giving everyone else a bad name. Even all the dark blue hats are fine and mostly because an orange hat doesn't really go with anything in real life. 

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.

2 minutes ago, BJ Sands said:

I totally get this, but in the same vein I think it's weird when somebody from Philly ends up a Tigers fan and misses out on one of the fundamental parts of fandom. For better or worse, sports teams unite cities, states and even regions. When the Cubs won, it felt like the whole city won something and it came together to celebrate and bask.

 

I'd look less askew at somebody if they said they were from Philly but dropped the Phils because they stink, rather than somebody from Philly becoming a Tigers fan because they were good.

 

Jeez, I thought I was more cynical.

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.  

2 hours ago, BeerGuyJordan said:

You see this a lot with newer franchises, and Vegas is sure to experience it. People who support the home team except when their original team comes to town. With the large number of Detroit transplants Nashville had, there were enough of them that the "Predwing" coun was termed. You'd see them rocking Nashville swag, and would never have doubted they were Preds fans. Until Detroit came to town, that is.

Most of their kids are full Preds fans, it takes a generation to build a true fanbase.

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."