OnWis97

On 4/4/2017 at 11:01 PM, Dolphins Dynasty said:

This is probably old news, but apparently ESPN's Mike & Mike are about to split. I haven't watched them much in recent memory, but I'm a little down; they we're actually one of the few talk shows I liked.

 

Is the show going to cease? Greenberg is the one that's leaving so are they going to find a replacement?

I have been taking transit to work for nine years but when I used to drive, I'd listed to Mike & Mike...now I catch a segment some mornings on the TV simulcast.

I think the show suffered with the NFL's journey from #1 Sport to Total Obsession.  I also struggled with some of their takes (particularly the whole focus on the players after Penn State).  But it was generally good (particularly compared to all the bits and laughing-at-our-own-jokes on local sports radio).

Obviously a "drive time" show of a similar format will continue.  

I will still haunt you until you use the 1980s helmet.

Point taken on the Chiefs jersey though.  Is the custom font enough?  If not, then I'd consider putting the gray stripe through both white stripes. Of course that will interfere with the swoosh, which reality dictates needs space.  Maybe something that uses the current sleeveless template (the way the Vikings have done)?  

Maybe take my idea but don't move the stripes down the sleeve.  Then it's somewhere between the Colts and the Chiefs?

I dunno.  I know your inspiration is from the 1980-ish jersey.  That odd, unbalanced stripe pattern was the only negative in an otherwise great uniform.  Then again, if I'm the only one thrown by it then maybe it's OK...

Anyway, I'd take the above as Eagles primaries if offered with no hesitation.

On 4/24/2017 at 10:45 AM, SilverBullet1929 said:

True but as a Marlins fan since 93 (actually earlier), it's hard to call Hough in a Marlins uniform as his wrong uniform. Being the Opening Day starter for both of the first 2 seasons, he didn't have a "blink and you'll miss it" role here like the other guys. 

I remember Hough as a crafty veteran in the 1980s.  I'd long forgotten he was ever a Marlin.  I'd have expected he'd have retired before then.  Definitely the wrong uniform to me.

I would love for the throwback uniform to be the basis for the primary.  That helmet was perfect and the color combo was so, so nice.I'd bascially remove the sold white stripe from the sleeve and move the white/gray/white down a bit and leave everything else alone.

The Wild logo with the water is amazing and so fitting given the Land of 10,000 lakes.  I wonder, though, should the tongue / stream be blue, too, for consistency?

26 minutes ago, BJ Sands said:

From left to right: Danny Manning, Jerry Colangelo, Danny Ainge, Wesley Person, Paul Westphal, Kevin Johnson. At the time, all were members of the Phoenix Suns. This could also go into the Players in the Wrong Uniform thread as well. Hahaha.

LOL...When WSU acknowledged "the taller guy on the left" I thought "that kinda looks like Danny Manning."  Guess I should have looked closer at the other guys.

17 minutes ago, ColeJ said:

I'm not advocating for the Lone Stars name or against the North Stars name.... But why does the suggestion of being the Dallas Lone Stars get met with such derision when North Stars is beloved?

 

The argument is that you can't be plural and singular at the same time, so any Stars couldn't be Lone, only a Star can... but if we change star to wolf, and say that crazed gunman #1, crazed gunman #2, and crazed gunman #3 were all lone wolves, acting in different unrelated attacks, no one would complain. "Most lone wolves are white male hermits" would be acceptable, so why wouldn't Lone Stars be acceptable (other than the negative connotations about team work.)

 

Contrast this to North Stars. North doesn't describe a type of star, of which there can be more than one... It's a proper noun speaking of one specific star. THE North Star.

 

There are more than one lone stars in existence. There is only one North Star, so it itself can not be plural, can it?

 

 

 

Random thought... From a lover of the name North Stars, and a hater of the suggested name Lone Stars. Lol.

I am kinda with you...I don't have the immediate negative reaction to "Lone Stars" either.  I understand why people balk at it.  This is difficult to articulate, but if you are Texan, I might say "you are a Lone Star."  So if you and your family are all Texans I might way "they are Lone Stars."  

The North Stars thing might be a little further from egregious, though.  According to this, the sate nickname, "the North Star State," is from a motto appearing on the state's flag implying that the state is "the star of the north" and therefore not directly after a specific star.

In any case, I think the name would have been OK...yeah, you could argue both should be singular, but I think you could argue the other way, too.  I guess the optics are a bit harder to digest for Dallas?  I dunno.

Just now, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Thanks... I thought it would be a nice way to update that logo.  Turned out pretty good.

I think if you'd have verbally told me of that idea I'd have thought it sounded bad...but it works.

I really like the oblong Jets logo.  

9 hours ago, FinsUp1214 said:

 

While I truly liked both looks a lot at the time, if I had a choice between one or the other ever staying, I'd have had the Islanders keep this darker set and let the Oilers take the course they've taken. The Oilers just look better AND right in the brighter colors and I liked the Islanders darker because 1) the orange trim really popped against that navy, and 2) it distanced a bit from the Rangers. Not that they've ever looked too similar, but it's always bugged me that for a long time and now again, the two NYC area teams were/are both royal blue.

That's funny...If I could choose one, I'd choose the Oilers.  I think it was a terrific update.  It separated them from the Islanders and was a unique scheme.  I definitely prefer this to their old/current look.  I do see your point on the orange "popping" but to me the Islanders dark blue is a push, whereas the Oilers is an upgrade.  

My liking darkening of blues is an unpopular opinion, I guess.  While I lament the movement away from vivid colors in general, I tend to be either neutral (current Sabres vs. Classic Sabres; Islanders) with darker blue or prefer it (Oilers).  I am sure there is some example where I don't prefer a darkened blue; but I cannot think of it off hand.  I think when paired with a vivid color (Orange, yellow, a brighter green) darker blue works better.

That's right, you love the Astros rainbow guts...

Unique.  I may consider leaving the home jersey plain and just use it on the road.

I think my opinion is unpopular...

...I prefer with absolutely not a shred of hesitation, "Anaheim Ducks" to "Mighty Ducks of Anaheim."  First, regardless of "Ducks" vs. "Mighty Ducks" the "...of Anaheim" is terrible.  In other words "Anaheim Mighty Ducks" would be better than what they were actually called.  I think I actually thought they were called "Anaheim Mighty Ducks" for a while and once I learned the real name, I probably let out a groan.

Second, the "Mighty" is a little too campy, or whatever...call me humorless, but it's just not a serious enough name.  "Anaheim Ducks" is just fine and would have worked from Day 1 with the original look.

All that said, I also did not like their original look as much as most of you do but it was at least unique, with the eggplant color.  I think I prefer the current look, but it would be fine with me if they went back to the old look, so long as they keep the name "Anaheim Ducks."

I actually think mine is the unpopular opinion...that jersey looked like a fashion jersey.  And Beer Barrel Man is a terrible, terrible logo.

I am back and forth on the Raptors name.  It compares well to most of the other finalists.  It accomplishes being unique without being totally goofy (e.g., Wild, Magic).  But they had to recognize that Jurassic Park Mania was not going to last forever, right?  When naming a team, I think a key question is "will people always like this name?"  Long-term franchise recognition/continuity is damaged by changing names.  Teams should never change their names without relocating because they should have a name that's timeless.  

Raptors is not terrible, but I don't think it's as good as it was when Jurassic Park was all the rage.  I don't personally like it but it's not the embarrassment that "Wild" is.  So I guess, using the Siskel and Ebert rating method, I'll go "thumbs up" but not without hesitation.

On 2/26/2017 at 10:19 AM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Anyway, this thread jumped the shark long ago, as the recent mention of Shaq in Orlando conclusively proves.  I should flog myself for continuing to contribute to it!

 

The standard should be Namath with the Rams or Killebrew with the Royals -- teams that no one would associate with the player without the pictorial reminder.  There are only a handful of such cases.

 

And, by that standard, Meola would qualify, but Jordan would not, because everybody remembers Jordan in a Sox uniform that spring, especially his hit against the Cubs at Wrigley. 

I tend to agree.  I knew it was going downhill many pages ago when the "Rex Ryan in hockey jerseys" photos started popping up. 

I think the intent was things like Namath with the Rams.  But I guess I would not be quite as rigid as you. I think Jordan in baseball works, as does Jordan the Wizard.  Anyone over, I don't know, 25 or so, remember Jordan with the Wizards (similar to Namath, but you'd have to be much older), but it's still the wrong uniform.  But if a guy played with eight teams, I have a hard time thinking of any uniform as "wrong." 

But certainly, the intent was things like Brett Hull the Flame, Ryne Sandberg the Phillie, Cris Carter the Dolphin, Scottie Pippen the Blazer...things that make us say "oh yeah, he played there."  Someone just posted Pippen and I had not thought about that in a long, long time (EDIT; then someone posted Pippen the Rocket and I have even less memory of that).  I'm not even sure I'd put Ray Bourque since we recall him hoisting the cup after his year in Colorado.  That was memorable.  Cris Carter the Dolphin and Harmon Killebrew the Royal were just guys playing another year with little coming of it.

These threads tend to get watered down...Oh well, so be it.

5 hours ago, MCM0313 said:

You can say (the 1990s Suns uniforms) are overrated all you want, but there's no way the current ones beat them. Not in a million years.

I agree that the 1990s Suns uniforms are overrated.  I also agree that the current uniforms are even worse.  Either way, I'll take the 1980s "PHOENIX" uniforms over the overrated Barkley set.  And how's this for unpopular...I'll take the 2000-2012 uniforms with GFGS over all of 'em  I felt like the gray fit in nicely.  The only thing that did not work for me were the ovals behind the numbers.

Maybe mine is the unpopular opinion, but I can't deal with the differing shoulder numbers.  The following year, they corrected that  on the blue jersey (though not on the white) and that was a nice look.  A very basic uniform reflecting the logo change and which to blue as the primary.    

I don't care about how they should not wear red as they did from 1960 to 1992...the 1980s Pats looked good.  I know Pat the Patriot was not a great logo but from the neck down, they looked great.

In the Flying Elvis era, I'd actually rate the current uniform the best because the 1993-1999 period had too many things I hated.  (Hated the huge shoulder logos and the two-tone stripe look and the different-colored TV numbers were just jarring.  I don't like the current piping but but it does not stick out like the TV numbers did.

^^
And in the "Major League" uniform.  I did not realize he wore that.

7 minutes ago, Rj0498 said:

Speaking of the raiders, I have always wanted to see them wear black pants for nothing more than curiosities sake.I think it would look nice

It could be nice with the white jerseys.

Never.  I doubt it's legit.  It looks like someone tried to make a white that matched the green from the late 1980s era.  The two stripes going around the yoke tell me it's wrong.  Those would probably have stopped at the shoulder.  I think someone just made a fashion jersey.

All that said, it's really very nice looking.  The sleeve numbers have thicker outlines, which I like.

I will say this, they did a good job with the logo.  The points on the start get "flattened"  in the right spots.  It's a really nice-looking jersey but I doubt it's an unused prototype.  

2 hours ago, the admiral said:

Allrighty, 57.6% is enough to validate my proposal for overtime: ten minutes, five-on-five, long change, then go to a five-round shootout and either split points 1.5/0.5 or call it a straight win/loss but go to ROWs as the first tiebreak.

 

 

Thanks. I always did suspect that most of the time, the game is done after about ten minutes, we just over-represent the triple-overtime games in our memory.

I like this, though I am a rare fan that is OK with games ending in a tie. 

Since most fans are not (and I think people generally enjoy shootouts), then I guess we'll have a shootout.  The ten-minute OT, coupled with not treating an OTL and SOL as the same should provide incentive to play in OT.

12 hours ago, DG_Now said:

It just seems like if you're tweaking the fundamentals of the game in OT to make it "more exciting," then you're admitting that the rest of the game is a bore? Not a unique observation, I know, but I just feel like across any niche form of entertainment chasing the casuals never really works.

I would not go so far as "admitting the game is a bore."  More of opening it up to create more goals (so they think).  But it is somewhat it the neighborhood of either "skills competition" or "college football."   Maybe the later, as it resembles the actual game but is not the actual game.  I am sure the NHL is aware that it's a fringe sport and while it's not admitting it's a "bore" I suppose it could be grasping at straws to capture the casual fan.

1 hour ago, charger77 said:

 

 

I own one!

 

I think the bulk of the slug hatred had to do with what it replaced. For an expansion team its a decent logo/uniform set.

Or, rather, what people were hoping would come back. (i.e., not so much the black/red logo but the previous logo).

In any case, I agree. I don't think the Buffaslug was, on it's own, even in the top ten in this thread.  It was a mediocre logo but one of the biggest let-downs we've ever seen.

3 hours ago, 8BW14 said:

I'm surprised this is unpopular actually, but I hate the orioles cartoon bird hat. It's gimmicky and amateurish to me. They should be using the realistic bird and/or a B monogram on their caps.

I could not agree more.  I know their successes comes with that logo but on its own merit, it seems far more conducive to a minor league team.

I love the 1991 (or so) standing bird.  

6 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

People here adore the Germanic Brewers identity (both the "MB" and "M" versions). I've lived in Milwaukee for the past few months now, and I have yet to see anybody selling or wearing anything from the Germanic years (compared to the abundant amounts of BiG and current merch). Not even 1990's-loving hipsters will touch it, which I find strange.

 

There are also some of us on here who love the Islanders' Fisherman set, while most people mock it and associate it with the darkest time in the Islanders' history.

 

The Cowboys' home uniforms are routinely mocked around here, but are largely beloved or tolerated by the public.

Good ones.  I think we tend to emphasize the connection with success less than "normal" fans do.  Those  Brewers and Islanders looks were used in times that were not memorable on the field / ice.  The BiG was used when the Brewers were at their best and obviously with the Islanders...

Similarly the white Dallas uniform is associated with greatness and most people don't worry about nitpicking details.  Unpopular opinion (around here) is that I prefer the Cowboys uniform to any color-fixing concept I have seen...maybe it's just what I am used to.

I kinda see where you are going here...but it that's to pin down what's popular here and not elsewhere.  For me it is kinda about things I am surprised about (or was when I joined over 10 years ago).  These include:

• The huge preference toward the Devils black over green
• The love of the Islanders fisherman logo
• The disliking of the Motion W
• When I first joined I was surprised that a lot of people seemed to like the Brewers look...but either we've collectively grown tired of it or the the sample size (board had fewer than 1000) was too small.  Or I misperceived.
• The love of the blue and white Rams
• The comparative dislike of the leaf the Maple Leafs just dumped
• That we are not like 99.9% opposed to corporate sponsorship on uniforms.  It's probably more like 75%