OnWis97

Ha! When Gartner came to the North Stars I was pretty young and did not really know who he was...to this day, that's the team I think of him with.

On 4/4/2015 at 9:15 AM, WSU151 said:

On 4/4/2015 at 3:09 AM, Berlin Wall said:

I also don't like the huge badge on the front of the Warriors' uniforms. The uniform itself is kinda nice but the copperplate makes me miss the old blue and orange Warriors (which is the best look they ever had for me also, no matter what).

I made a quick photoshop of what they should've done:

or this:

 

This number font is a billion times better than Copperplate.

I don't like "The City" on the jerseys. (That seems to be an unpopular opinion)

On 2/25/2015 at 2:40 PM, Mockba said:

The Tillman-era jerseys were basically practice sets, no?

I love that uniform. Not really sure why. The dark jersey, along with the Raiders, is about as basic as it gets but I really, really loved that uniform.

Actually, I thought they kept taking steps backwards on the white jersey and my love of it was over when they added the state flag.

I really liked the below set (though by now the sleeves on the white would obviously need to have changed)

I did not hate the uniform either. It was kinda odd (the way the side panel almost met the semi-horn stripe on the back shoulder and the awkward nearly-right angle that the piping takes). But so is the new uniform (serifs).

I totally agree that when they went all white or all purple it was a disaster, made worse by the stupid continuing of the side panel color onto the pants. First, what's superior about having the line between purple and white there anyway (as opposed to the waist) and more importantly, when they wore white-on-white (roughly 7 times per year), the stupid purple box on the hip looked out of place. They should not have designed 'em that way, particularly if they were just going to go white-on-white like the Vikings prefer to do.

The collars were not too bad; not gigantic like some of the early Saints/Texans toilet seats.

What I liked best was the color balance. These uniforms show purple as the primary and yellow as the secondary. The current uniforms really marginalize the yellow (particularly the jerseys).

The Reebok set should have not messed with the "blending in the side panels" and should have found a better way to do the piping. But I really don't think it was a terrible set. Plus, by now, they could have kept the essence and maybe ditched some of the mid-2000s trends. So, super-unpopular opinion alert: I like this set better than the current.

What I really wish they would have done is tweaked the 1990s set to keep of with the times. Same good color balance without the mid-2000s goofy trends.

OK...here we go...

I feel I've hidden this too long and I must get it off my chest.

I am OK with the Cowboys mismatched colors and I really like their white uniform overall.

(Ducks the tomatoes)

I admit that before I came around here, I never realized that the colors were mismatched. In hindsight, I cannot believe I did not notice. So once you all helped me realize the obvious, I thought "yeah, they need to do something about that." And of course some of you made very nice-looking concepts that solved this problem. The thing is, though, I found each of those concepts boring. Every time, I found it to be a visual downgrade.

In theory, they should not have mismatched blues (and silver/green pants with silver helmet). I know they should not. But I kinda hope they keep it. I also like the thin black outlines on the sleeve stripes...why? I have no idea. Generally speaking I am OK with a jersey that just has blue and white (see Maple Leafs) but I think the thin black adds something (I hate this word but...POP!).

If they change, I won't complain because I know it will be right. But I kinda hope they don't. Does ANYONE else feel this way?

The Los Angeles Lakers. A team so lazy, they kept a nickname that only made sense when they were in Minneapolis. Most people couldn't tell you why they're called the Lakers, BECAUSE LOS ANGELES DOESN'T HAVE ANY FREAKING LAKES

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a8/fe/0c/a8fe0c385cac613368cdb151d5db571e.jpg

I prefer teams keep the old name (though we've discussed that to death on other threads).

First, when talking "overrated" you can't just say "the Jags helmets" and have everyone pat you on the back...by definition, if you say something is overrated, you really ought to get some pushback.

Anyway, for me...

• MLB: Orioles "Cartoon Bird". So minor league and so inferior to the early 1990s standing bird. The rest of their uniform is great. And that's really all I have. I probably dislike the current Brewers, the Marlins, and the D-Backs more than most but I don't think they are well-enough liked to be "overrated". Bonus: Beer-Barrel Man is awful and seems pretty well-liked around here.

• NFL:
  • Bills: An improvement from the previous mess? Yes. But I don't like the stripes, the white helmet, or the gray mask
  • Giants: Too much separation of red and blue
• NBA:
  • Wizards: I feel like a lot of people like that 70s-inspired stripe look. I don't.
  • Mavs: I feel like when I first came around here it was practically fact that those are great uniforms (though I also feel that the love has diminished with time). I have hated 'em from day 1.
  • Warriors: Don't like the circle on the front.
• NHL:
  • Blackhawks: It's not that it's bad...it's just that sometimes, I think it's taken as "fact" here that it's the best in the league (or sports)
  • Oilers: I liked the Navy/Red/Copper a lot and the old look is just not doing it for me.

On 1/24/2015 at 0:23 PM, ridenlow71 said:

New edition to my collection. Didn't even know this ring existed until it was offered to me. 2002 Wisconsin basketball big ten champions

 

I see it says "Ryan" on the left side...I assume this is some sort of replica?

On 1/20/2015 at 0:31 PM, Buster said:

Gary Clark -

Dolphins

 

Cardinals

Question about this photo. The dolphin on the sleeve is "retreating" (if you will) and facing the opposite way of the dolphin on the helmet. Was this normal? It looks really off to me. Was this a one-year thing? An error on this jersey? I googled Dan Marino and the few logos I found on his right sleeve appeared to be forward-facing.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That is a beautiful jersey

Yes. That's as good as it gets for the Sabres.

On 1/15/2015 at 8:52 AM, MBurmy said:

 

I don't see why this logo gets as much hate as it does...for some reason, everybody loves everybody else's "classic" mascot logos, but hates this one. (I love 'em ALL, and this is no exception...has a unique touch to the old-school format)

I am probably the wrong person to reply because I don't tend to love cartoony mascot logos.

What bugs me about this (not that I'd love it anyway) is that this guy just looks annoyed.

The North Stars suffered from a ton of inconsistencies. They didn't incorporate matching black trim/stripes and breezers on the road for seven whole years! I know branding wasn't what it is now from 1981 to 1988, but they really should have gotten around to that sooner. The North Stars were a pretty shoddy operation, sadly.

Yeah, I still don't understand why they had black only at home for that long. At the time, it did not phase me because those are my first memories. The best I can come up with is that for the 1981 Stanley Cup run there was no black; so they decided the proposed road jersey was too much of a departure (I think that part is documented) but since the black on the home whites was more subtle, they just let it happen. If so, they should have just pulled back on the home jersey (particularly since the pre-black jersey was so damn nice). This seems a bit far-fetched but is it possible that the league said "It's too late to take these off the table, but since you went to the finals, you can pull back on the black but you are stuck with the home jersey." Doubtful and even so, they should have adjusted one of the jerseys well before 1988.

Or maybe they just "forgot" to pull back on the home jersey since the addition of black was less pronounced. I have yet to come up with a scenario that does not make them seem Mickey Mouse.

Oh well, now the Twins are going to pick up the tradition.

^

Ugh...I am really glad those jerseys never happened. I admit I go back and forth on Green/Yellow vs. Green/Yellow/BlackAccent North Stars, but I really don't like the idea of that jersey. I just don't feel the mini-Irish rainbow goes well with the back.

And, assuming that is the correct rendering, I cannot stand how the logo has no green (particularly when the numbers have green). But adding the green to the logo would be lipstick on a pig.

On 12/30/2014 at 5:48 AM, Cosmic said:

On 12/30/2014 at 3:38 AM, rxmc89 said:

On 12/25/2014 at 10:53 PM, Cosmic said:

On 12/24/2014 at 2:31 PM, VikWings said:

On 12/24/2014 at 2:30 PM, Morgo said:

On 12/24/2014 at 11:29 AM, buckeye said:

 

I prefer this logo for the Penguins.

Seconded. I have no idea why they didn't at least keep it as a shoulder patch. Worked well on the Pre-Edge set

 

Thirded.

Agree with the shoulder patch thing too.

 

I like it better than the skating penguin, but I don't think it should be a shoulder patch on a skating penguin jersey. Mixing logos from different eras almost always looks weird.

Umm...

 

They had it as a shoulder patch on the skating penguin jerseys for 7 years and it looked fine.

It doesn't look bad, but I don't like the way the styles of the penguins mismatch. Like putting a square peg in a rectangular hole... it might fit, but it's not quite right.

I don't love the idea because, yeah, one logo is quite modern and the other quite old-school.

However, I will admit that after 90-91 when the North Stars went to the "Stars" logo, I wanted them to keep the "N-Star" around on the shoulders...much like the 1987 Twins kept the "TC" on the home sleeve.

The Phillies numbers at Cbp look crummy, as they're just painted on to the brick. The old pinstripe-circles from the Vet (they should really bring that back) were much better.

I've always wanted to know...do you really mean this? Do you prefer the Vet (I was never there) to CBP (Been there; it's pretty nice) and the Linc (Never been inside)?

On 12/14/2014 at 8:43 PM, 2001mark said:

It bothers me that the Blue Jays have retired 'Pat Gillick' & the '# 12'.

Future gens of fans won't all know right away that retired 12 is for Roberto Alomar. It's just a nameless number banner with the HOF logo.

I googled this to be sure you were saying what I think you were saying. That his number (and not name) was on his retired number banner...and it is. I actually like that. However, that banner is kinda ugly...fitting in the HOF and team logos makes it far too big to just have the number. It almost needs a "watermark" photo or something. I wish they'd just use the "12" from his ceremony.

I actually like just seeing the retired number and no name. For one, I just think the below looks really good...They have similar numbers at Fenway and I suspect some other places. Second, it's kinda a conversation starter. "Hey dad, what are those numbers for?" "Why does the 42 look different?" "Who wore number 29?" And in this day and age, it's pretty easy to look up.

I will say though that these circles work very well in a smaller ballpark. A huge retractable dome like the Rogers Centre probably requires banners a bit more.

Here is what the Metrodome did by the end (yuck).

Not me. I like the Roman numerals.

Same here. It gives the game a goofy sort of gravitas.

For me, as one of the minority of US sports fans that does not consider the NFL his #1 (or even top 3) sports, it drives me nuts. I remember who won every World Series in my memory, by year (and many prior to that too). For the NFL, the Roman numeral causes me to mix up the order. I don't remember which Roman numeral was, for example, Steelers over Seahawks...and I don't know what year either, since we rarely discuss Super Bowls in terms of years. Granted, the NFL is at some disadvantage in that its championship is played in a different calendar year than its regular season. I consider this year's Packers* to be the champions of 2014 and not 2015 but that would lead to some confusion.

I like the idea of 2017 Super Bowl to also be known as the 51st. That's what the Rose Bowl does (at least on anniversary years).

When I was a kid the NFL was my #1 (into the 1990s I suppose) and I was more on top of which Roman numeral was which year, but now I feel like I'd have a better grip of the last couple of decades if they did not use 'em. Further, I was definitely into adulthood before I acknowledged pro football in the pre-Super Bowl era...and while I've never thought about it, I wonder whether the Super Bowl numerals are a big part of why. I actually remember thinking that Green Bay was "titletown" because they won the first two Super Bowls...I had no idea they'd won a bunch (and I still don't know how many) pre-Super Bowl NFL titles.

And, while it was a long time ago, teams like the Browns, Eagles, and Lions have championships...most fans don't recognize that. The question is, do the Vikings? I guess not. The titles are recognized for the Browns, Eagles, and Lions...not for the Vikings. I don't know that I care either way, but technically, the Vikes won the NFL and lost an exhibition against a team from another league.

*probably them, but whoever.

I just stumbled on a July 2013 uniwatch note that claims the original Buccaneers were to look like this:

(Near bottom: http://www.uni-watch.com/2013/07/15/a-day-at-the-mlb-all-star-fanfast/)

Not an unpopular opinion so much as an unusual one, but wide recievers wearing numbers 10, 12, and 16 look weird to me. None of the other numbers in the 10s do at this point, just those.

I know 12 and 16 are probably because I still think of them as quarterback numbers. 12 is the go-to number for "glamour" QBs (Namath, Brady, etc.); and 16 is what the Packers QB (Randy Wright) and the best QB in the NFL (Joe Montana wore) when I started watching football. But that still doesn't explain why 10 still looks odd to me on receivers.

Even weirder, receivers who wear single digits in preseason still look more "right" to me than those who wear 10, 12, or 16.

That is weird...I'd think it would be "all or none". For me, I am getting used to it but I still prefer WR in the 80s.

On 11/19/2014 at 1:33 PM, DC in Da House w/o a Doubt said:

 

 

 

So these are last year's Final Four teams that did not win it all.

This is based on no homerism; Wisconsin's makes the most sense. The Final Four is still a big thing in college hoops; I know some people think that these are just the first three losers, but it still matters. I can deal with Kentucky's "Runner Up" banner (particularly given the no-frills style of their banners), but I still think "Final Four" is the way to go...is it important to call out one more win on the banner (and this has nothing to do with who that win was against). Florida's is awful. Just put "Final Four". Casual fans may not really put 2+2 together on "National Semifinalist" and "Final Four" still carries some cache.

I don't really have a problem with the Olympic banners. It's a sport of individuals, and at the time of the Olympics, those were Miami's individuals.

I guess I see your point.

I gotta say as well. Have never seen a trainer get memorialized in any way by a team. Owners, GM's, broadcasters, or players yes, but what's the story on him?

I see the point, but it's really tacky looking. I think it would make sense to go with "Heat Olympians" with a list on one banner.

The jerseys may be garish, but the Buccaneers' combination game is something I really like. White on white is especially sharp.

The only change they need to make is the number font. And they would have a nice, modern uniforms

And reduce helmet logo to a normal size.

And with all of that it would've still been an unnecessary change from the previous sets.

This. I wish I could just accept these changes. Yeah, most of the above-suggested changes would be an improvement but I don't accept the notion that it's OK that they did this and just need to tweak it. They dumped a modern classic to help Nike be Nike. Better number font, regular-sized helmet logo, better use of sleeve patches (like not one different one on each sleeve), and old logo would maybe even improve this from "crap" to "meh." But either way, the dumping of a great previous set would be hanging over their heads.

I never thought these would be unpopular opinions but:

• There is no way that this Tampa uniform can be considered anything less than a debacle.
• The current Seahawks set is by far their worst ever and pant/jersey/sock combinations cannot save it.
• The Jaguars are awful from the neck down. (and the worst in the NFL from the neck up, but I think most people agree)

The second and third bullets are unpopular, I'd wager.

^^^

I just found a photo...For all I know the card is fake.

Edit: appears to be fake: http://www.beckett.com/news/2011/05/macho-man-randy-savage-err-randy-poffo-may-not-have-had-a-baseball-card-but-i-found-something-else/

Another actor with Minor League experience; The Macho Man.

Jared Lorenzen, much like the Universe itself, is infinitely expanding.

Here's a fun fact, the "Hefty Lefty" has as many Super Bowl rings as Peyton Manning.

Off topic, but I have always been disappointed that "Hefty Lefty" out-dueled "Pillsbury Throwboy" as his primary nickname.

Very simple for me:

Born / raised / now live in the Twin Cities (Twins, Vikes, Wild, Wolves)

Went to U of Wisconsin for undergrad (Badgers)

Make sense? It is amazing how many people here (MN) think I should prefer the Gophers. And how many people in WI think I should have become a Packer fan on my arrival (though no so with Bucks/Brewers).

Those are the only teams that I would get truly excited about winning a championship. When they are (almost always) out of it, I "pull for" teams based on having former Badgers, having a player I like, having a long title drought, or even uniforms...but I don't pretend to be a fan of that team. I was pulling for the Royals, but not pretending I was a "fan".

I did go to grad school at Iowa, so do kinda do a "fan light" thing when they are not playing Wisconsin...I don't know much about the teams and just cheer a bit more for them than a "pull for" team. Actually, it's a far more healthy fandom than my Wisconsin fandom.