OnWis97

And the roundel is a fine shoulder patch. Maybe a bit unnecessary, but you could argue all shoulder patches are. The animal head logo is so nice. It needs to be front and center on any jersey they wear. If they want the roundel on the shoulders so they can use it on hats and T-shirts, fine by me. But they need more continuity; start with the logo, not marginalized by a circle, on the front.

^^^ I don't know that that Wild opinion (2 posts up) is that unpopular. I suppose it is, as many here like all three jerseys even while acknowledging they don't belong together. I personally agree that their ALT is terrible. Not enough red. No use of the logo. And the script should have a short shelf life. And the team needs to treat the home like the road, i.e., use the big logo rather than marginalizing it in a circle. (Potentially popular opinion) I think they need a primary green that matches the primary white. The red, as is, makes a suitable ALT.

I'd like to see the Rockies dump black and go with purple and gray (like Kansas State). I guess gray as one of two colors could be tricky in baseball, given the gray road uniforms. Maybe a 90% reduction in black is in order. But I really don't like purple and black as a color combo; not enough contrast. The "CR" is getting kinda tired, too.

Interesting point. During some big games, a page or two can be taken up by "and the Broncos take the lead" and "that was a bad no-call."

I noticed that you cannot view all members (or can you and I missed it). But can view members currently on line. I sorted by "banned" and McCall was viewing. So banned members can still get online but cannot post...I had no idea. I guess it would be difficult to stop anyone from reading the site...

Yeah, the A's are a great example. They went from being loud, wearing a thousand jerseys, changing jerseys almost every year to adopting a great classic look. They did not change color schemes like the Sox (at least not as recently), so their identity was a bit more intact, but they stabilized the heck out of their uniforms. I'd argue the A's have chipped away much worse than the Sox, though. A black alt that just did not belong being a key reason, along with more hats. I agree with you on both things the Sox did being wrong, but I would call that chipping pretty minimal, albeit senseless.

This is probably about right on. I grew up in that era and I admit, I enjoyed seeing them wear these as throwbacks once (or a few times, I think), but I recognize that this should absolutly not be their full-time identity. And while I don't have my finger to the pulse of the fan base, I tend to doubt many people would disagree. It's fun because it's nostalgic and maybe even because it's gaudy. But the clamor for and 80s identity is not like it is in Milwaukee. If you don't like the 80s Brewers look, that's more of an unpopular opinion. Man, it's amazing how frequently the White Sox used to change. The older looks (red/powder and whatever else before my time) the atrocious big-collar uniforms, the slightly better (by default) beech blanket look, the late 1980s look (which was, in a vacuum, serviceable, but did not fit the team, particularly the "C" cap). And then they change to black, at least partly to hop on a trend...and they've kept it for like 25 years and have one of the most stable identities in MLB. When they made the change, I'd never have thought that would be the case.

First off, I do 80% of my browsing this forum "on the big screen." So it's not in the way. Also, I am on the front page so little, I find it not to be disturbing. I guess most of the info is fun to see once in a while; I don't need to see the running count of topics, posts, and members. So I guess my stating that I liked it was a gut reaction to the first time I saw it..."oh that's cool".

Having us hold on the onslaught until the 0 to 100% was done working itself out was brilliant...it gave us time to get used to. Like all major changes, I found it visually jarring at first, but warmed up to it quickly. Visually, it's an upgrade. Things I love: quote boxes that state who is being quoted. 25 posts per page. The stats at the front page. The ability to check out notifications without going to a new page (e.g., quoted posts and likes) Things I don't love (but are very minor): Does not say who liked my post, just that it was liked. Loss of post number (which came in handy probably once or twice during my previous 10 years) Suggestion: I see we can minimize the quotes (i.e., make the text below the time/member disappear). I'd default to that if possible.

I just found the feature where I can search all of my posts...it's amazing. It enabled me to find my first ever post (about the North Stars, go figure). Based on page numbers, howrver, it looks like it has captured 7400 of my 7,800 posts. Weird. Does that mean I have 400 posts that are part of graveyarded threads? Actually, the bottom shows 313 pages, which would be exactly right, but my first post comes on page 296. 297-313 are empty.

Done. Kinda outta context, though...

I kinda liked the circle avatars. Oh well...

So what's the deal with that...I see I can drag a photo right from, say, the mothership, to here. Then is it embedded right in the thread? Is it no longer feeding from other sites?

Trying to quote a quote... ...you are correct. This is GOOD. No more "super posts" showing the same old photos over and over!

I was gonna "like" the post, but it's a heart. I cannot. I like the blue line that shows the line between the last reply you saw and the next reply. I hope post numbers come back (i.e., I am quoting post #11 here). And I like that it's 25 per page. Less clicking.

I kinda like sigs, but I am sure I'll get used to life without 'em. It looks like the posts quoted before the change are going to be very tricky to see, but those done now are going to be easy to see (and who made 'em!). I'd have loved it if it worked retroactively.

I am sorry...but I don't know the difference between "user name" and "display name."

I wasn't a fan of these when they came out initially, and I'm still not a fan of all of the crazy alts that they have (including the navy alt), but I've warmed up to them now and they've become one of my favorite looks in the entire NBA. Granted, the rest of the NBA is in a horrid state when it comes to uniforms, but this one is a shining light of doing something right when it comes to the uniforms. I think this is a deal where winning changes everything. They switched to their current set right after LeBron left, and it kind of felt like the post-James Cavs both acted and looked like a JV team. Simple can mean basic, but it can also mean classic, which I think this set has evolved to in large part because of the successes of last and this season. I rare the primaries #1 from day 1. But you may be correct that winning could make these much more well-liked. I hope so.

Get rid of the blue and these may be the best uniforms the NBA has ever had... The simplicity and the way those colors compliment each other is beautiful.

Logos don't need to be intimidating. That said, I really don't like that logo either. I would love to see the Irish rainbows back, but this logo was not even a little of why I liked the Bucks' 1980s look.

The Purple People Eaters were...something.

06 is an improvement on reality.

I don't think they look difficult to read...except, of course when manufacturers try to hard and we get something like the black 49ers jersey. Cheap? I don't know about that...maybe sometimes. Obviously with one-color teams like the Red Wings or Maple Leafs, it's the way to go. Those are beautiful uniforms that don't need to be dinged with gray or black outlines on the numbers. But sometimes, numbers without outlines tend to leave the secondary color not prevalent enough on the jersey. I think the Vikings are a good example with the one yellow stripe. I'd much rather see outlines on the numbers. Same with the 49ers, who would look great with gold outlines on the numbers. The white-only numbers bug me for a few other teams, like the Canucks; their jersey needs more green on the torso. I am not sure that "cheap" is the word, but sometimes it looks like something's missing.

Nebraska/Wisconsin seem to look more alike here than they do for real...though maybe that's just this medium vs. photos/game action. Wisconsin has thinner sleeve stripes than Nebraska and yours seem to not catch that so much. Wisconsin's should be even thinner. Maybe dropping the black shadow on the W contributes too (but I totally support that). Other than that, I think the board has two philosophies: 1. Wisconsin must overhaul because Nebraska was first and 2. There are some tweaks that could be done but ultimately we'll live with the similarities. Going with #2: I favor one stripe on Nebraska's pants to match the helmet. One team should probably change to an even less-blocky font, but I love block and I don't want UW going to some loopy font. I'd consider superfluous double-outlining (white-on-red-on-white like the hockey team did until a few years ago). But if they ever consider that, they'd probably go to black outlining, which I do not want.

I don't see how that makes it an appropriate fit. Just because they have more history in Utah doesn't mean that the name makes more sense than it does for New Orleans. Jazz music is one of the things New Orleans is best known for. Utah is about as well known for jazz as Winnipeg is for beaches and bikinis. People grew up saying "Utah Jazz", so when people say it, they don't give it a second thought, it's just "right" to them. Sure, "New Orleans Jazz" makes more sense when you think about it. Heck, if the Jazz moved from New Orleans to Utah today, I bet they would have renamed to something else. Right. I am 41 and have probably been familiar with all NBA team names for 35 years. And I am not old enough to Remember the New Orleans Jazz. It's been Utah Jazz that entire time. I hear the argument that they should have changed names when they moved, but now they have 35 years of history in Utah. They have a fan base that is accustomed to that being the team name. The ship has sailed and there's not much benefit to going back now. I don't think anyone in Utah is clamoring for a new name. And I don't think we have a Bobcats/Hornets situation in New Orleans where the entire community's support is dependent on the old name. And yeah, Jazz is not great for Utah. But Dodgers was a very Brooklyn name and makes no sense for LA. Same with Lakers, which makes much more sense in Minnesota. Grizzlies in Memphis? The Jazz move is a product of a different era. Some teams back then kept names (Flames, for Example). And while Jazz may not be the best one, it's reflective of the unique history of sports. Would they have kept the name if the move occurred today? No way. But sports history is fun and I think it's great to see that stuff like that happened. Why try to bury it? If it were up to me, a team would either change names right upon relocation or never. So we'd have the Tennessee Oilers, New Orleans Hornets, etc.