OnWis97

Is that really unpopular? It seems to be. I don't know that we've had a thread on it but most people seem to point out 1) how bad the uniform looks on fat coaches, and 2) how silly it would look in any other sport.

I actually like that MLB coaches and managers wear the full uniforms. I know it's not necessary but I like the tradition in baseball. I wish more would wear them (since I don't think too many managers actually show their jersey any more. I think it would look kinda odd for a base coach to wear street clothes so I hope they at least continue to wear the pants and some kind of team jacket type clothing.

Love the paint job on that Giants card.

Traditionally, the Final Four is a big deal. Our current culture is more about "2nd place is the first loser" so some people don't consider it that great of an accomplishment...I suppose the argument can be made. It's a four-game hot streak. But I kinda like that, for a week anyway, there are four team with reason for excitement. This ring has no conference accomplishments because Wisconsin won neither their regular season title or their tournament. While a regular season title is probably more indicative of a great season (I could care less about a conference tournament), it's the Final Four that players dream of and it's still a big thing, even if three teams go home disappointed. I have no problem with a ring for this.

I've never se Probably not. I shudder to think how many Minnesota "Packers" plates would be out there (far more than Vikings, I'd guess). However, for Universities...

Me too...after they were pointed out I still had trouble picking it out. I get not liking that feature (and I am not a huge fan either) but to call that feature worse than Jacksonville...not me.

is this the first ncaa final four ring made? anyone want to predict when we will see the first elite 8 or sweet 16 men's bb rings? I would bet that "Elite 8", "Sweet 16" have been placed on the sides of conference championship rings before. (though I don't know about an "Elite 8"-specific ring). And by "is this the first ncaa final four ring made?" I am guessing you mean for 2014 (Florida, Kentucky, UConn). I think Final Four rings have been around for a while. There certainly are rings for lesser things...Here's Wisconsin's ring for winning the Big Ten Hockey tournament (a conference they finished a distant second in. At least it's fairly cheap looking.

Wisconsin Final Four rings...

Agreed. That's why it was probably a bad change for the Canucks in the 90s. And would be even worse for the Padres (which I believe had been rumored), given the overuse in MLB. But, to say the same thing as your Cleveland example, the somewhat-loved idea of the Twins switching to Wild or Vikings colors will not (and should not) happen.

I'm not sure how unpopular or popular of an opinion this is but I am in full agreement. I don't know about "cliche". Though, "overused" may be a good argument.

I hate "Beerbarrel Man"

Thank you. I love the Irish Rainbow uniforms but this logo is very minor league.

I'll agree with you if you're talking about the original. The updated one no way. I was talking about the original. I'd call the update an improvement because the "C" is more obvious and it does not seem so 1970s, but I still can't call it good. With the original, I saw it as a stick in a rectangle with rounded corners. I did not see the "C" or think of it as a rink until I saw it discussed on these boards. So I thought it was just a piece of equipment...kinda like an even more basic answer to the BiG before I noticed the "m" and "b".

I agree with this part. None of their primaries have been very good.

Apparently unpopular opinion of mine... "Stick in rink" is a terrible logo that absolutely screams 1970s.

I like the other example (sans black) better... I certainly have my problems with it (piping, number font, pats stripe), but I like the shoulder stripes and feel it would have been a few (aggravating) steps away from something great. The other one reminds me of the rumors that were going around (putting the horn on the sleeves/shoulders).

I think there was a rule like that at one time. In 2005, the Dodgers were coming to the south side of Chicago for the first time since the 1959 World Series. I wanted to buy tickets to one of those games before the season. At the Soxfest convention in January, I asked one of the reps if they would be wearing throwbacks for that series. I was told that they would, but by MLB rules, they were only allowed to wear such throwbacks for one game per season. Anyway, the Sox wore fantastic wool throwbacks for the Saturday game of that series. If that rule did exist, it was specifically for once-off throwbacks, and not for throwbacks which the team designated as an official alternate for that season (such as the Sox did in 2001, 2006, 2012 and 2013). I agree that it should be limited to once a year, though. Particularly if the team isn't celebrating an anniversary. It was (kinda) cool that the Sox wore their 1983 throwbacks last year. This year they are official alternates, in a non-anniversary year, so the team basically decides to look like an entirely different team for all home day games at this point. That's what bugs me about the Brewers BiG look and the Twins cream jerseys (and when the Black Jays were wearing weekly throwbacks). Neither look is bad in and of themselves but the dilute the team identities. I hope this is a popular opinion; teams should not dilute their present look by consistently using a past look. Is the Brewer fauxback/throwback look better than the current look? Maybe. If so, then make it your look again. Otherwise, show commitment to your current identity.

I tend to agree, barring a very special anniversary (maybe a 100th Anniversary of the city's first Negro League or professional game, but that's about it)...rare enough that it would not happen for any team in the league during a typical season. I would actually like to see a rule that a team can only wear a "throwback" or "special" uniform for one game per season...they can celebrate the anniversary of a championship, franchise anniversary, etc. one time only. Otherwise it's home, road and alt (which I'd like limited to one alt worn for 10% of the games or fewer, but that's a tangent).

My unpopular opinion is stated in the above "FTFY". Actually I agree that the current bland garbage is better than the 1984 look. However... was great and I wish they'd stuck with the scheme.

I really dislike everyone wearing 42. That's akin to the days before players wore numbers. I can't tell who's who on most teams. And since they don't have names on the back, it's even worse. I would rather they stick to a patch on each team's sleeve and for me, I'd rather it be every five years, but I certainly am OK with every year.

I feel like my dislike of the 1990s 'Stros uniforms is the unpopular opinion. I think a lot of people here like them. They have one thing going for them and that's an appropriate color scheme. But the rest of it just seemed uninspired and thrown together. Besides, as appropriate as the color scheme is, there is nothing wrong about blue/orange for the Astros. I have two unpopular Astros opinions. First, I don't like the 90s uniforms. Second I do like the uniform they just dumped a couple of years ago. I love the color scheme. I like what they did with the star logo. An obvious problem is that the earthy color scheme probably fit the Astros less than any other team (save the reds) but I liked it enough to look past it. Being blue and orange again is probably the right way to go because now the Astros, unlike the Padres, have a defining color scheme. But I did like their uniforms.

Speaking of Washington, I preferred their purple helmet

I agree. It bothered me that the West always had to be in dark, even if they were "home", because of the Lakers. Now that the Lakers have a white uniform, it would be a non-issue.

Top-three in the league in my books. I absolutely love them. Particularly the home, which is nearly free of white. I hope they keep them for a long time, though I tend to doubt it. Their history tells me they won't i think you mean the aways, the homes are white I think he means these Sorry, no I meant the aways. I like this one too, but would prefer it say "Cavaliers."

Top-three in the league in my books. I absolutely love them. Particularly the home, which is nearly free of white. I hope they keep them for a long time, though I tend to doubt it. Their history tells me they won't