OnWis97

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?

41 of the 122 teams in the four major sports league have played in at least one other city. Or about 34 percent of all teams.

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!

Apparently, first time ever tonight in baseball that the home teams were perfect.

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...

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.

On 7/31/2015 at 4:58 PM, TrueYankee26 said:

On 7/7/2015 at 10:55 AM, sleuthpanther said:

On 7/7/2015 at 1:20 AM, Dolphins Dynasty said:

This...

 

...is better than this...

 

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.

The city is currently trying to get out from under the Sheraton by selling it. Nowakowski said that is the first step in building up that sports fund, though he admits there would still have to be more creative thinking and cooperation from big business owners in the downtown Phoenix area. Nowakowski suggested those business owners could contribute money to finance a new building.

He calls that mentality the "Team Phoenix" approach.

That approach fosters all kinds of creative ideas for Nowakowski, some of which aren't just outside the box; they're outside the building.

He suggested a field similar to that of the Cardinals, which has a system to move outside of University of Phoenix Stadium and soak up the sun when it's not in use.

"If we have the Rattlers, why can't we have a retractable field that comes out if its turf and then comes into, like, a bandstand on the outside and you can have a free concert prior to the games?" Nowakowski asked.

In the event that this new arena idea comes to fruition, a 23-year-old building that took upwards of $100 million to build would sit unused in the middle of downtown. Nowakowski also has plans for repurposing that.

"If you take out all the chairs and the suites, it's really just a big shell," he said. "So you can have a three-story urban mall concept where on the first floor can actually be an urban park where people can come enjoy an urban park with free concerts and a food court and all the different amenities that an urban park provides and at the same time, an urban mall."

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.

"Our purpose, in initiating the expansion process in the manner we did, was not only to explore the possibility of admitting new members to the NHL but also, at the outset, to set realistic guideposts to distinguish between bona fide expressions of interest (i.e., those which have at least substantial ownership capabilities and an arena or the realistic possibility of an arena) from those indications of potential interest which were, at best, merely hopes or aspirations. Apparently, only Mr. Foley and Quebecor have the confidence in their ability to secure an arena and suitable ownership capability to move forward with this process.

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.

On 7/13/2015 at 9:16 AM, rickyISking said:

On 7/13/2015 at 9:01 AM, 1insaneguy said:

On 7/13/2015 at 0:23 AM, sleuthpanther said:

On 7/12/2015 at 4:07 PM, 1insaneguy said:

I also like these throwback alts. Even with their current helmets. (I'll catch a lot of heat for this I'm sure.)

 

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.

On 7/8/2015 at 11:04 AM, VikWings said:

On 7/7/2015 at 1:20 AM, Dolphins Dynasty said:

This...

 

...is better than this...

 

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".

-The Dallas Mavericks should never have green in their uniform set again

-The Dallas Cowboys having two different blues is fine.

-The Buccaneers should NEVER go back to the Creamsicles (seriously, why would you want to wear a get up named after ice cream)

-The Miami Marlins current logo is great. Not every team is the Yankees and a 90s team from Florida shouldn't be pretending like it is.

-All Original Six teams, their mythos and their uniforms are highly overrated.

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.

On 6/22/2015 at 3:27 PM, 1insaneguy said:

These are the Pistons best uniforms:

 

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.

On 6/16/2015 at 7:32 AM, EddieJ1984 said:

On 6/16/2015 at 7:39 PM, Crabcake47 said:

On 6/15/2015 at 9:23 AM, EddieJ1984 said:

On 6/14/2015 at 3:18 PM, KJHillis said:

I prefer jerseys without players' names on the back.

My case: #2 wouldn't be as iconic if "Jeter" was on the back. That's my opinion

 

Also:

 

Lou Holtz also did this:

 

I'm not sure what it is that I like. It seems more like a united front.

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.

On 4/27/2015 at 8:26 AM, hugevolsfan said:

On 4/27/2015 at 7:23 AM, sonny said:

I think these are atrocious.

 

I am with you if this is unpopular than I want to be unpopular

I totally agree. And to add to that, I think these are great:

I also love the home uniforms. They should just eliminate the blue.

On 4/24/2015 at 8:15 AM, buckeye said:

On 4/24/2015 at 0:19 AM, El Scorcho said:

The ducks should return to the mighty ducks look as the basis for everything they do

 

This is so much better than anything they've done post 2006. Ditch the new stuff, go back to classic ducks.

"Mighty Ducks" just sounds too 90's and childish to me. The Ducks moniker works fine, and honestly, these jerseys are overrated.

First, I don't think we'd find El Scorcho's opinion to be anywhere near unpopular around here. Most people prefer this look.

While he does not acknowledge which name to use, I think it would be totally reasonable to use the old uniform design and still be called "Anaheim Ducks." While I prefer the old look (by a little, I don't really like it), I would not want it at the expense of going back to "Mighty Ducks of Anaheim". I agree that the original name was not very "big leagues".

While I'd like them to go with something like some of the green/orange concepts we've seen around here, I could live with an update of the above photo...no more 90s asymmetry. I don't love the colors but at least they are unique and could really be identified with the "Anaheim Ducks."

I think the Browns change is a slight upgrade.

I think the Bucks change is a pretty solid downgrade.

oops...said this before the official release and the first appearance of the pants.

I think the Browns change is a slight upgrade.

I think the Bucks change is a pretty solid downgrade.