OnWis97

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.

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 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.

I totally agree. When I heard they were going to yellow pants I thought it sounded great. And it just looks blah.

Just saw the new "rules and regs." Most of it was already pretty well-understood but I do have one question about "8. Do Not Steal Bandwidth" Would this mean when I click the little "photo" box and put a link in to a photo? Or is there something else I am missing?

Does that count the Ravens, who apparently didn't play in Cleveland? Or the Hornets, who were just inactive for a while and didn't actually move to New Orleans? I was wondering that myself. Officially, it should not. I guess. Right now it's 41 but maybe a few more years from now it can be 35. Or zero.

I swear there is a similar thread to this from not that long ago. But I cannot recall the title.

People like to say that the most unbreakable MLB record is Dimaggio's 56-game hit streak. Try breaking this one: Ed Ruelbach two complete game shutouts in one Day!

It's actually just the first time that the home teams have gone 15 for 15, which is slightly less amazing when you realize that baseball has only had 30 teams since 1998. Still would have figured it wouldn't taken this long for that quirk to happen. According to ESPN, the odds of this happening on a given day (in which all 30 teams played) would be 1 in 32,000, assuming each game is a 50/50 proposition. Of course, the home team does have a slightly better chance to win, in general (not always, though. For example the Twins, definitely the worst team in MLB right now, were at home and have less than a 50% chance to win any game they play). I am sure some SABRmetrician can probably figure out what the chance was that those 15 games would all be won by the home team. I would say that if MLB stays with this number of teams and this basic schedule forever, this is probably less than a once per decade occurrence. The question is, will we ever get all road teams to win? The article points out that road teams went undefeated at 7-0 a couple of years ago. Tacking 8 more games on that would certainly have ended the dream...

Another one about the NFL: I like the old Chargers jerseys better than the new ones. Something about how that lightning bolt looks on a darker background. I just think it's cool. That's not that unpopular. I don't think liking this jersey better than the new ones is particularly unpopular. But l think it's fairly unpopular for this to be anyone's favorite Chargers look ever, as so many seem to like the old powder blues (and a few like the Fouts-era royal). This is definitely my favorite Chargers look.

Feeding off of the above conversation, I don't know how unpopular this is, but I definitely prefer all teams use cities as opposed to states (or things like "Golden State", "New England" or even "Tampa Bay.") I say this as a fan of the first two teams to use state names (The Twins and, months later, the Vikings). They obviously did this because we have two big cities next door to each other and they did not want to alienate St. Paul. I really doubt St. Paul residents would not have supported the "Minneapolis Twins." I know you can pick out how state names can work well...Minnesota is the "North Star State" so "Minneapolis North Stars" may not work as well. So what? It still works. Hell, Minnesota has 10,000 Lakes and we had the Minneapolis Lakers. Actually "Minneapolis Twins" would have worked nicely; had the team not "created" the state-name concept, "Minneapolis Twins" would have been a nice nod to St. Paul. I think the worst offenders are teams that come into a state that already has a team in the same league (Florida Panthers; Texas Rangers). Those two teams had obvious reasons for choosing their state names. Miami Panthers does not work very well and Dallas Rangers is even worse. I'd prefer the Dallas team be called "Dallas" and have some other name. I am not a marketing expert and maybe using state names really does help with interest from people around the state. Maybe the Colorado Avalanche get more viewers from Pueblo than they would if they were the "Denver Avalanche." I don't know and if that's so, then I cannot blame them. The Broncos seem to be doing OK though. Admittedly, I am desensitized to this since it started before I was born. So I am used to it and don't spend much time dwelling on it. I particularly can deal with it in one-team states like Arizona and Colorado. Heck, I am surprised the Thunder, the only big-time team in the state, did not adopt "Oklahoma Thunder" (which would look better on the jersey). But if it were up to me, non-City names would be used in very few, or even no, situations.

I might actually agree with you on this one, I'm just interested in why you think the M is better? For me the M represents an entire state, the TC just represents 2 cities. The Twins were the first team to be named after something other than a city. So the "TC" is a nod to the two cities that they could have named the team for. That is the beauty of the "TC." Though I acknowledge that this historic beauty is diminished by the fact that they dumped it for the "M." Also,I do knot know this but I always figured that they avoided an "M" because it could be interpreted as standing for Minneapolis.

This is all one guy. Just one guy. Strap in for this one; we're going to find out this was part of a meth binge culminating in the revelation that a bank is just a big building with chairs in it. And man, it had to be the guy with the Polish name suggesting arena football on grass, didn't it. Of course it did. I had to go up and click McCarthy's link because I honestly thought that you wrote this excerpt yourself as satire. The whole thing looks like satire...particularly the number of uses of the word "urban" in the last paragraph.

Thread for when Gary Bettman gets a little salty. Other leagues hire public relations agencies to write press releases like these. The NHL just has Gary Bettman write whatever comes to mind immediately after ragequitting expansion. I hope it happens. I really do. Just to see the NHL sheepishly backtrack on the whole "expansion" thing with two seemingly viable applications on the table. It'll really expose the whole "anyone but Quebec" mindset. Even working from a mindset that anything the NHL does is wrong, dropping expansion now would make sense. If three cities applied, it would be good - two expansion teams and a new home for the Coyotes. But everybody knows that the Coyotes are on borrowed time in Glendale, and the NHL needs to keep a market for them (likely Vegas). I don't think they want to expand to 31 teams, so we'll just end up with the coming disaster in Las Vegas and wait for the Panthers to eventually fold up tents and move to QC. Maybe that would not be a problem. Both the NBA and NHL have had significant stretches with odd numbers. And 15 / 16 in the conferences beats 14 / 16.

Agreed, throwback leather helmets always look cool, no surprise I always really digged the Texas A&M throwback this year Yeah, the 1939 helmets were really cool. Another thing I like that most people don't are these full body animal logos: Here's the problem with full-bodied logos: the head almost always looks tacked on. I prefer full body logos as well. It's astonishing to me how many "animal head" logos are out there. The Bengal and Jaguar logos above are really nice. I loved the Jags logo on the sleeve in the old days. Admittedly, that contortionist horse Bronco logo is a little weird. And regarding "tacked-on heads" perhaps the reason for that is that most teams start with a head logo. The Panthers logo here is a good example. That head was designed as a stand-alone and then they tacked a body onto it. But overall, I like full-body animal logos better: I am willing to be that most of the below are unpopular opinions O's standing bird >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>cartoon bird Loved the Coyotes alt logo Eagles Cunningham-era bird > current eagle head Thank goodness the Lions did not dump their full-body silhouette in favor of yet another "ferocious" cat head logo. Leaping (NHL) Panthers logo > than head-only Skating penguin > robo-bird Cubs "crawling bear" sleeve patch > "bear head" sleeve patch of the 80s.

Agreed. I actually think this is a popular opinion. I hate the "M". I despise the little underline and I may prefer it if they'd have made it a bit more basic. I like the quirkiness of the "TC". It's unique to how other teams do their hat logos. I don't need it to match the wordmark. I do understand the beef people have with the red "C" blending into the dark background. For the Target Field changes (where they smartly got rid of the nameplates and improved the home wordmark), I wish they'd have updated the "TC" to have both letters be red, with a white outlining. They either did not think to do that or they did not want to look like the Red Sox or then Cards road hat. That would be a great-looking hat. I have seen fashion caps that have the two letters matching and I think it works. Even with that rather large flaw, I still think it beats the "M".

I agree with most of these, don't know what the last one means but why is it OK for the cowboys to have two different blues??? It'd be such a simple fix and it would look so much better I have not seen a single concept on these boards or elsewhere where the unified blue looks as good as the current look. People always go with the dark blue and I really don't care for how that looks on the whites with the silver-green pants, which I also defend. Cowboys have the best look in the NFL. No tweaks needed And to the O6 everything about it is overrated. It's super easy to stack 24 championships when you won 13 of them when there were only six teams in the league. It's like is anyone proud of going to the playoffs in the Arena Football League? 2/3 of your conference goes to the playoffs because it's a joke set up. NHL was little league until 1967 in terms of number of teams. I agree. In theory, I should hate Dallas's mismatched blues but in practice I prefer it. The concepts never look as good as I'd think they would.

What does the 35 on the shorts mean?

I HATE the use of "PHILA" for the Sixers. I'll grant you that since they are not allowed to use "76ers", they have to either use a very long wordmark ("Philadephia" or "Seventy Sixers") or an abbreviated term ("Sixers"). Sixers is not ideal, but I think it's a lot better then "Phila". I learned in the Sixers thread that "Phila" is a "thing" in "Philly." I still think it just looks "old" as opposed to retro. I would prefer "Sixers" by a long shot. And "Sixers" on all uniforms unless they want to try to find a way to use the full city. Even if these all used "Sixers" I still would not love 'em. The lack of outline hurts it and the 7/6 stars upsets my OCD. But the point of this post is that I hate "PHILA". I know some people get annoyed at "am I the only one?" but in this case it seems to be a legitimate question.

The thing that would make me mad if I was a fan of any of those teams is that the replica jerseys and shirts have the names on it. That always bugs me, seeing Yankees t-shirts at uniform places with names on the backs. It would drive me nuts. Then again, it'd also drive me nuts to be a Yankees fan Lol very true. I wonder if its something the players association makes them do so that way the mlbpa and the player gets a cut from the sales of the shirt or replica jersey since they probably cant is it doesn't have a player's name on it, For some of the replica jerseys (at least about 10 years ago when I used to shop for 'em) they just used the same number / name font for every team and put names on regardless. It seemed very lazy but was also a testament to how much attention fans pay to rather large details. Most teams use names on back (all teams in other sports) so when they buy something that says "Jeter" on the back, they may truly not realize that there is nothing (aside from all-star BP jerseys) on the field that uses his name on back. And I agree. If I was a Yankee fan on the market for a "shirsey" I'd be frustrated that there is no such thing as a number-only-on-back. I think fans also just like having the name on back.

^ That was my first first thought too, though the "Carolina" on the front probably helped. Still though, I have no memory of no TV numbers, nothing on the sleeves, and one-tone numbers.

Based on what I am seeing in the NHL thread, I have just discovered that I have an opinion that is very unpopular... I never thought much of the Avs footprint shoulder patch. I don't hate it or like it and the fact that it may be gone does not bother me one bit.

I think Nike has been a huge downgrade in the NFL. Not so much for the designs. Reebok blew it with a few teams (not as bad as Nike did with the Bucs, but both companies had some duds). I have a slightly bigger problem with Nike's "stamps"...toilet seat collars, Seattle and Tampa having very "nikefied" designs and the awful Jags helmet are a bit worse then Reebok's over-reliance on piping and side panels. As bad as that was, it did not smack so much of "uniforms are a billboard for manufacturers." But the big thing for me is how cheap it looks. I really struggle with the general notion that Nike's quality is better. I don't buy replicas and cannot really speak to that. But the sweat boxes, see through pants, mismatched greens and the inability to produce green Eagles jerseys really made me feel that quality took a huge tumble. But I am virtually alone.

Here they are (apparently there are 4): (89-97) (98) (99-08) (09-11) My favorite is the first one. The beak and head leave something to be desired but I like that it just uses the two colors (plus white). I don't even know if I realized that last one existed. I like it and can deal with the gray. Preferring it to the first one makes sense to me...admittedly, I like the first one because I loved it from day 1 and I own one. Objectively, the bottom one is probably better (except for the feet). The middle two I think try to hard too be photos. I don't like the gold at all. Of course they are all preferable to Happy Bird.

I like each element of the Syracuse uniforms (except gray mask). All that orange does not look great together, though.