OnWis97

4 minutes ago, NJTank said:

I think the chat would be cool during big games like the Super Bowl

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...

15 minutes ago, TheOldRoman said:

 

And not just the White Sox, but the Athletics, too. The A's changed almost as much, although they stuck with the same color scheme outside of their Kansas City years, I believe. It's good that both teams found classic looks, but both have been chipping away at them with the A's adding a few alternates, using three different road caps that were worse than the home, and now mismatching their helmets on the road. And of course, the Sox messed up sleeve patch and then the pants stripes on the road. Both teams are almost like alcoholics who have been doing well lately. 25 years sober, but you feel like soon one will fall off the wagon and come out with something Diamondbackian.

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.  

48 minutes ago, TheOldRoman said:

I'm not sure that's an unpopular opinion. They gained fame in the last decade when the fad became wearing throwbacks that were ugly or gaudy. My generation loves them because they were born in that era, but outside of a few dopes, Sox fans don't want those back.

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.

1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

Just curious what you like about seeing that big statistics panel.  Maybe there's a benefit that I'm just not taking advantage of.

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".

5 hours ago, CC97 said:

Nope, commence the onslaught

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.  

30 minutes ago, monkeypower said:

"quote this"

Done.  Kinda outta context, though...

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

4 minutes ago, Mockba said:

Well, honestly, it's all the makers of the board software's doing.

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?

1 minute ago, monkeypower said:

Does it?

 

And apparently you can't quote a quote anymore. This post here is quoting a See Red post which quoted a sportstar post, but you can't see the sportstar post in this post. I want that fixed so it's easier to read comment threads. 

Trying to quote a quote...

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

5 minutes ago, LMU said:

The update's a work in progress that's not done yet. Please pardon our dust.

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.

9 minutes ago, Delayed Penalty said:

Good. I had them turned off forever anyways. Makes the forum experience far cleaner.

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.

One big change will be to your username if you're one of those who have a different display name... moving forward they will be merged, your display name will remain the same and will be used as your new username.

As for avatars, I see no reason why that wouldn't carry over. The friends lists are all being scrapped, they'll be replaced with a follower system, you can follow a user and see whenever they post something new. Similar to Twitter, I suppose.

The upgrade is supposed to get underway any time now, I've been told it'll be happening tonight.

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

I don't know if people still hate these, but these are by far the best uniforms the Cavaliers have ever had.

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.

Numbers on uniforms without outlines do not make them look cheap or difficult to read. If the number's color has enough contrast with the body color of the uniform it is perfectly legible. I'm not against outlines but both executions can work, and I feel some teams just fall into the habit of adding an outline for the sake of having one.

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 feel that the "Jazz" nickname is, in many ways, more synonymous with Utah than New Orleans. Stockton and Malone, the '97 and '98 Finals against Jordan's Bulls, and Jerry Sloan's long tenure in Utah have all made it such an appropriate fit.

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.

Since the LDS became the norm in 1995, this is the first year where none of the original American League teams are represented in that round.

This will also be just the third time in American League history where none of the original 8 teams will be represented in the ALCS. The two previous years were 1982 (Angels vs Brewers) and 1985 (Blue Jays vs Royals).

There has also never been a World Series where a team that was active in 1901 wasn't involved.

I'm not going to fact check this, but assuming it's true, that's amazing. Granted the Yankees and Cardinals account for many of these, but still it's hard to believe.

If the Mets can get by the Cubs it would make the 2015 Fall Classic the first ever all-expansion World Series ever played.

Also another bit of fun trivia, for all the great players on the first Blue Jays World Series team in '92, only one of them ever won an MVP in his career. That player was Jeff Kent. Traded mid-season to the Mets for David Cone, but did play on the team long enough to qualify for a ring.

Astonishing.

I had never realized that. You'd think it woulda happened a few times.

Here's a better pic:

This confirms that they kept the banners era-specific. My guess for the odd ordering is that they wanted to make the new one the centrepiece.

Maybe...but perhaps they are going with the division titles followed by the World Series titles. If it is the "centerpiece" thing, then next year the AL East (or possibly AL or WS) banner would probably be moved to the right of 1993.

I agree that it's time to get rid of the All Star Game banner. That's not an accomplishment, per se, like the other stuff is.

I defin

OldSchoolVikings might call for my crucifixion because of this opinion, but I think that my favorite look for the Vikings is the white facemask period:



I still like the purple, grey, and black masks, but the white ones take the cake for me. Maybe it's the balance of colors that makes it work more than it does for other teams (especially when the Vikings only wore white pants). I don't share these feelings for any other white facemask.

Foe the current uniforms I'd go with:

White (White is as important as gold for this set and the contrast would look good)
Purple (For obvious reasons)
Grey (This set feels classic and grey fits this definition)



Black (It sticks out like a sore thumb)

I definitely don't prefer black as it's totally unnecessary. But I don't think it sticks out that much; not nearly as much as gray. However, the sorest thumb here is white. Purple to me is the way to go for the Vikings' face masks.

Give me the 90s (Cris Carter era?) any day.