OnWis97

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.

These threads seem to pop up once or twice every year. Now to the bolded quotes. This is what we like to call irony. You hate (strong word, by the way) people who enjoy rooting for teams who they don't have connections to (by connections, I assume you mean local teams and/or teams who have/currently employing family members), yet you admit to have taking a liking to Oregon. Now, would you hate someone who grew up without football in their city and chose to follow the team his father rooted for and happened to play 1,000 miles away? Food for thought. He did not say he hates anyone. He says he "hates when..." One of my best friends likes a random assortment of teams (including the Patriots, legitimately from the Bledsoe era) because it was not "cool" to like the home teams...I don't hate him, but I hate that.

You want to talk about OCD on jersey symmetry...it even bothers me that the little arrows that run through the stripes on the primaries cause asymmetry. Technically,

Sorry, I didn't read all that... I was was too busy staring at the best uniform in football. But I don't see the Green Bay Packers' uniforms here. Nope, you sure don't. I can't deal with the gold stripes on the helmets. They just don't belong. Otherwise, these are great.

Yeah, we had high hopes for him in Minnesota. My memory of him struggling, then hitting like 4 homers in 5 games and promptly getting injured. Then coming back from IR and repeating. When the Twins finally gave up on him, I did not dispute it...then, well...

I don't know how much of an unpopular opinion that really is. For everything visually-bizarre of the Picasso-'Yotes look, it did scream 1990s to everyone. It was one of the best looking styles from that decade in the NHL, and very fitting for the Phoenix region. Then they Glendaleified their logos to be one of the worst in the entire league. Yeah...I hate the look and prefer the current. And I think that is tke unpopular opinion.

That is pitiful. I don't know if I've ever seen such an obvious pile of crap fake marketed as game used. Some chump is going to buy it and about the third person he shows it to is going to say "they told you that was game worn?!"

I think it is unpopular, but I am with you. When I heard they were going to use them, I thought it sounded like a good idea. But for whatever reason, I just don't like' em.

I wish hockey goalie mask art would only incorporate team logo design.

I'm not sure that's the best thread title.

Good one! That's the second biggest "wow" moment for me on this thread after pewter Bucs vs. old Jets. PS: How good do the Lions look here? So very, very good.

You mean the Fisherman, or their BFBS black alternates they no longer wear?Their home and away. The confusion was created when you called them "horrible". Tigers's examples better fit that word.

I see the "U". I just can't bring myself to see a cougar. Maybe they should be called the "Wild" (i.e., a "general animal"). I think I like the idea ("cleverness") of it better than the execution (which may be impossible to make great). With the whiskers (and eyelashes or just whiskers on the other side), I feel like the "S" looks like a long insect or something. It's not the worst helmet logo because so many schools do things that don't belong on helmets (mascots, wordmarks/detailed logos, etc.) If better execution was possible, then it would make sense. Given that the logo exists, it makes more sense for a helmet than a cartoon mascot (like at Kansas) or an overly detailed animal (like Fresno State). And I guess I prefer it to giant logos on one side with number on the other, and a bunch of the other stuff that the manufacturers are putting out now. Man, so it's like, middle of the pack. But 15 years ago (before the madness) it would be nearer the bottom because I just cannot see "Cougar" there. What I do like about Washington State is the colors. In fact, I almost put them in the "good uniforms ruined by bad helmets" thread. But the "helmet" is not that bad; it's just a less-than-good helmet logo.

That was at least the case for the late 80s to late 90s. But if that happened now, I fear the manufacturers would be trying to push on the NFL what they are doing in college. I think the league/teams would stop them from going totally nuts, but each manufacturer would probably have its "Seahawks". I think I am glad it's only one manufacturer league-wide. Yeah, Nike's pushing the envelope, but it could be worse if it was Nike vs. Adidas head-to-head in games.

I have no idea how popular or unpopular that opinion is but I really, really don't like that logo. Is it the worst? I don't know, but it's close.

I like Designs 5 and 8. Design 5 does the whole "blending the pants stripe into the side of the jersey" thing but not as tacky as the chosen set did. The piping on the jersey is not good. and I don't love the font. I love the shoulder stripes and I think they may have had the ability to stick around longer than what was selected. Design 8: Love the top one that unifies the UCLA stripes. My only beef is the yellow stripe on the bottom of the purple sleeve and the side panel on the white jersey. OK and I don't loved the state logo on the pants, but I can live with these things because I always loved the UCLA stripes on the Vikes white jersey and wanted to see it on the purple. They could have phased out some of the minor problems. The bottom option of design 8 would have been a minor update of what they had. Unnecessary (and, therefore, much better than what they did)

Admittedly, it's just a gut feeling I have when I go to a Twins game and see these jerseys with bubbly numbers in the wrong font and giant wordmarks on the front, but I don't have a sense that very many of the fans actually have really thought about their jersey as not being licensed. First, few of them pick that stuff out. Second, a lot of fashion jerseys and replicas use standard incorrect fonts anyway. Third, while there is a bit of media attention, I don't think it's common knowledge (or even close to it) that counterfeiting jerseys exists...so I suspect most people see a "deal" for a jersey and the idea of it not being licensed like the stuff they see at the clubhouse store does not even occur to them. Granted, I think that if 90%+ of these people are told their jersey is fake (assuming they even understand/believe it) that they won't care. If there was as much awareness of this as there is of phony purses, I suspect counterfeit sales would drop a bit but not a lot. Read the comments of any story about counterfeits...most blame the leagues/teams for prices (even parking and concession prices). When theft is something less "tangible" than stuffing something from a store into a backpack, people become much more likely to rationalize it.

I may be incorrect, but would the buyer be in some sort of legal trouble if they knowingly purchased counterfeit materials? Wouldn't it be hard to prove that the person knowingly purchased counterfeit jerseys unless they directly admit it? The average schlub can't point out a counterfeit like we can. I don't know whether buying one is illegal or not, but this is probably why it would be almost unenforceable anyway. "What, it's fake? I just thought the internet had way better deals." I honestly believe that most fans don't know. But even if they do, prove it.

I think it does scream "Navy" but I don't like it. I am just on old curmudgeon who does not like the 3-tone look.

I like the silhouette marlin. But I wonder, why do I not see this labeled as "soulless" as is so often done with the Dolphins? (I like the dolphins logo so I don't feel any fit this bill)

Predictably, there is not one comment below that shows any basic understanding of why this is illegal. Along with the jokes about the Phillies being a counterfeit team and the comments on the potential length of prison time (which, BTW, will never happen), are comments basically saying that because of the cost of parking, concessions, tickets, and real jerseys, counterfeiting is OK.

It's not as much of an improvement as I'd imagined...the middle photo shows it best because of the lighting but in some lighting it looks just as bad as the monochrome.

Conversely, I'd like to have seen the navy pants with the primaries; particularly the dark primary. The dark primary is one of my favorite NFL jerseys ever...and the white was solid too...but the one-color look ruined 'em both. Dark blue pants would have played off the dark blue sleeves. Maybe slate pants on the road.

^^ I'll add that there is something fishy going on with the "2"s. While Designs A and B clearly make a notable shift in the font on the "1"s, the 2s appear to be the same from design to design...and they don't match between black and white jerseys. Actually, the more I look at it the more I think that the "2" on the far right differs from the other three 2s, in terms of font. Additionally, the 1s on both set appear to be thicker on the black jersey than the white. Maybe all that does not mean anything, but it strikes me that they'd have done better with that.

Below is my favorite college football jersey ever. I think the block font is way better than the loopy font everyone loves so much. That font just does not say "football" to me.