OnWis97

Interesting. I would wonder how many Jersey fans would react to that. You've been a Mets fan since the 1980s and I figured it may be hard for you to turn that around (and maybe it would be harder than you think). But my guess is there may be a lot of people like Tank. After all the Ducks, Clippers, Mets, Angels, A's and maybe even the Devils, Nats, and Ravens all came into areas that probably had a semi-local team that dominated the fandom and they all have fans. It may be a simple as people in Jersey having a much easier time getting to Rays games than Mets games. I certainly think it could be a draw to kids, but I still wonder how easy it would be for adults to just switch from Yanks or Mets to Rays. All that said, I don't see it happening.

Admittedly, I have not read all of the replies, but I don't think most of the "self-righteous" posters equate any of this with being a "true fan". I am a "true Twins fan" regardless of what kind of jersey I buy. Likewise, if I buy an Blue Jays jersey, I am not a true fan...just a guy who likes the Blue Jays jersey...regardless of whether they are real or counterfeit. The issue the "self-righteous" have is that supporting an industry that simply steals the intellectual property of others 1) impacts the incentive for creativity and the hard work that goes into building brands and 2) rewards lazy thieves. Self-righteous? The self-righteousness I am seeing is "no I am just sticking it to the man." This is otherwise known as rationalizing so one does not have to pay a lot of money for a product. I don't have love for Nike and Adidas either. But where's that line drawn? Someone already brought it up with illegal downloads in music..."the musicians are millionaires anyway." Sure U2 and Bruce Springsteen, but very few really are. Are jerseys overpriced? Yeah. But they are luxury items. Items that you don't need. If people don't buy the jerseys, then the prices could come down. But it's laughable that people think by purchasing counterfeits they are doing something noble (then maybe those evil bastards will bring the prices down!). They are not. They are rationalizing their own actions out of convenience. And if you think that is self-righteous, just wait until you hear this one...I don't support walking into stores and stealing jerseys and CDs either!

Re: The Orioles...totally agree. Though kudos to them for the early 1990s rendition. Are stars over-used? Maybe, but I disagree with the bold. They were the Minnesota North Stars, named, I suspect for Minnesota's nickname of "The North Star State". The franchise has never seemed to want to totally ignore its Minnesota roots. So I'd suspect they are the "Stars" because it's as close as they could get to keeping the name without being too "wrong" (i.e., that Dallas is not "north").

do you mean soccer shirts? NFL jerseys are nothing like a t-shirt how is it not just a $ 250 poly t-shirt with huge numbers ? most NFL jerseys don´t even have embroidered logo patches.......... the fit is much different, and I've never seen a t-shirt made of mesh I think you guys are splitting hairs. It's not literally a T-shirt, but the point still stands...The numbers (for good on-the-field) reason are the primary feature. Aside from colors, the "team" features are minimal. I like football jerseys, but I've always understood those who do not. The use of "t-shirt" is not technically correct, but not taken so literally, I get the point.

I don't like the Redskins yellow pants.

This probably is unpopular, but I did not think it was a terrible look either (after they removed the paint brush streak prior to these). If course, the moves since have been an improvement, but in a vacuum, these are decent.

That's a good one. I had no idea. He actually played for the Boston Braves and the Houston Astros; wow.

Maybe I look at it differently since I live in a city, but parking spots are valuable real estate that has more demand than supply. Also charging for parking encourages use of pt which benefits everybody. I do get that the situation is different in the coyotes case, and in the west / southwest in general. Also - are sports events really that cheap out there, $40 for a cardinals ticket? $5 for dbacks / suns? I am not particularly well-versed in this area, but parking among land developers is generally considered a pretty big waste of land, particularly where land is valuable. In terms of land value in urban areas parking is one of the most under-priced services in America. I have yet to read the below book and have been meaning to...

But that is what the roof is for. It's tough, because Milwaukee is the smallest metro in the majors, and so they do need to pick up the pieces from the rest of Wisconsin. They should never have to market themselves as Not Milwaukee, though. You can't change the reality that the Brewers are from Milwaukee, even if they're in a part of it that bumps up against West Allis. And you know, I did the tailgate thing once, and it was fun, but I don't think it's something to do habitually. It's like ultimately, okay, you're just eating food in a hot parking lot. Even for sports, it gets to be rather déclassé. I'd rather poke around Milwaukee and find cool places to eat. I don't know what the Park East Freeway is, but building the park downtown probably would have been better. And yeah, Milwaukee is always under construction, but I never found the delays to be too unreasonable. It's just annoying because you demand a certain level of ease from only being in Milwaukee. This. I've been to Kaufman Stadium and essentially have not been to Kansas City. I enjoy a setting where I can park someplace and walk a few blocks and see some of the City (Denver and San Diego have great settings for this purpose).

Because it's so very, very far from the city... oh, wait, no, it's in the city, isn't it? It might technically be within Milwaukee's civic boundaries, but it's geophysically isolated from the rest of the city and accessible only by freeway (despite being built in an era when ballparks were being built to facilitate foot traffic) to where it may as well have been built in some remote Waukesha County suburb. Between this, the Brewers taking "Milwaukee" off their road jerseys the year they moved into Miller Park, and their sudden push to market themselves in Northern Wisconsin... even going so far as to claim the new park's roof was built to guarantee they could freely commute to games and not have to worry about rainouts... it's not hard to connect the dots to see who they were trying to facilitate. As for the whole needing to build Miller Park in the valley for tailgating thing.... I've never bought it. The old Park East Freeway was demolished around that time, and that would've been the perfect spot for a new Brewers stadium. God forbid I travel seven hours only to have a game rained out and not be able to attend the game(s). Target Field is in downtown Minneapolis and the atmosphere before the game sucks. Miller and its location are far more fan friendly. Depends on your definition of fan friendly. Waiting 45 minutes to drive out of a giant parking lot with two exits is not too friendly to this fan. By that time, I am already home, via bus, from a Twins game.

Because it's so very, very far from the city... oh, wait, no, it's in the city, isn't it? It might technically be within Milwaukee's civic boundaries, but it's geophysically isolated from the rest of the city and accessible only by freeway (despite being built in an era when ballparks were being built to facilitate foot traffic) to where it may as well have been built in some remote Waukesha County suburb. Between this, the Brewers taking "Milwaukee" off their road jerseys the year they moved into Miller Park, and their sudden push to market themselves in Northern Wisconsin... even going so far as to claim the new park's roof was built to guarantee they could freely commute to games and not have to worry about rainouts... it's not hard to connect the dots to see who they were trying to facilitate. As for the whole needing to build Miller Park in the valley for tailgating thing.... I've never bought it. The old Park East Freeway was demolished around that time, and that would've been the perfect spot for a new Brewers stadium. Without a doubt, the fact that it is technically within the City limits is meaningless...as you say, it may as well be in the sticks. I think there's always been some thought that they try to distance themselves from Milwaukee when marketing to the rest of the state, though I think marketing the absence of rainouts just makes good sense. Mediocre mid-market teams need to draw some fans from elsewhere. As for tailgating, it was so big at County Stadium, I actually did buy it as a reason. There are some pretty whiny Viking fans about the same thing...they wanted the suburban location. In any case, I'd prefer anyone get a stadium downtown and not on some off ramp...it's too bad.

Was just about to post something to this effect. Doodoo, turd, poop? Really?

While I don't agree in general with the sentiment on preferring Stade Olympique, the Trop, etc. to some of the "retro", I see where you are coming from. I love the new amenities: the open concourses, more bathrooms etc. and I tend to like the "retro" looks such as green seats. For example, there is no Question in my mind that "new Comiskey" (US Cellular?) is much nicer now than it was pre-update. The giant upper level with sterile blue seats made it look like the Metrodome with the roof cut off...it's a much nicer atmosphere now. And there is no question that going to 5-10 games a year at Target Field is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than at the Metrodome. It's just more comfortable. And the seats down the third baseline are not pointed to the 50-yard line. And it's not so sterile. On the other hand, I like getting to go to a concrete place from time to time. I really enjoyed my 2007 trip to an A's game. Yeah, I think it would be a pain to hold season tickets there, but it was fun...the 1960s are also a part of baseball history. And when I look at the ballparks I wish I'd have been able to go to (Tiger Stadium is #1, Old Comiskey is #2), Arlington Stadium is high on my list...I don't know why, but it just looks like the quintessential place to go back in time to before luxury boxes and non-baseball related sideshows. I miss County Stadium (where I went a bunch) as well. So in short, while I do like these "retro ballparks", there is a homogeneity going on and it would be nice if there was still a County Stadium and a few more of those.

That is really sharp. Conference and AL/NL (i.e., "2nd place") rings often are.

He also went to (and apparently graduated from) Brown and according to Wikipedia, currently works as a Civil Engineer. But let's not overlook the most impressive part; BBVT saw the name of a good, but not particularly famous, tight end who's career ended 19 years ago and remember that clip with Mr. Perfect. Wow. (OT: Mr. Perfect is from my hometown of Robbinsdale, MN (pop around 14000), which probably has produced more pro wrestlers per capita than any city on earth. It's wikipedia page lists 11 and I swear one of the two Road Warriors is from there too.)

I had the newspaper with that picture back in 1994! Behind McMahon, I believe, is TE Steve Jordan...wearing Reebok Pumps!

I did not hate the Buffaslug logo in a vacuum. It's just that they swung and missed so bad when people were clamoring for them to get back to the actual Sabres identity. They went back to the colors (though with the gray), but they missed that people wanted the logo to be at least somewhat reminiscent of their past. My beef with the Canes new set is the non-matching home vs. roads (and long with the high placement of the crest). If they'd place the crest properly, make the home look more like the road, and (as you say) do the alt on the shoulders, it could be an improvement. I did not like the warning flag striping.

I hated the "streaking Suns" jersey of the 1990s and I hate that they are going back to it now. I actually like the look the Suns have had for the last few years and wish they'd either stick with it or go back to something like the Tom Chambers era.

Nor am I. I did not like the first photo (where the purple looked matte-like), but the newer photos look fine.

I like the matte trend on helmets, but not rings.

Off topic, but my god, look at those jerseys! I can't believe we're only like what, 6 years removed from those? 7 maybe? I mean look at them! Plain is fine, subtle is fine, old school is fine.... But these? Yikes. These are too much. It kinda fascinates me honestly, that something this plain and this terrible could exist in the 2000's. I liked this uniform. I liked the color of the jersey and I always thought the pants and jersey looked good together. I'd take this era over the current in a heartbeat. Also, we forget this because off the relocations and the futility, but the Cardinals are one of the league's oldest franchises, so it makes some sense.

Interesting that I am pretty sure that is Brian Lawton in that picture. #1 overall pick (over people like Steve Yzerman) who wore #98 because he was going to be just a notch below Greztky. He switched his number after about a year. I did not realize he played for San Jose, so I was thinking he may have been one of the players that the Sharks got in the deal not to move the North Stars (the Gunds) a few years prior to the actual move, but it looks like Lawton bounced around between. I wonder what would have become of the North Stars had they drafted Stevie Y. As for this thread there is a similar thread based on uniforms...the photo of the old jets vs. current bucs uniforms was the most surprising....

Shoes I agree I don't care about, but football Socks are part of the uniform. They take up almost half the leg. So you do have to make sure they work with the pants, whether its contrasting color or same color (leotard as you said), stripes or no stripes. Its part of the uniform. i'd say its the same as the long-sleeve undershirt in baseball. Might seem secondary but you have to make sure everyone wears the same color and they work with the uniform top. (or the socks in baseball for that matter) I don't disagree that it's part of the uniform, or, really, anything you say. It just plays virtually no role in my critique of a uniform. I don't ever notice it.

This is a different sort of unpopular opinion... In football, I do not care one bit about socks and shoes. Whenever someone says "it would be a great uniform if they used white socks" or "black shoes", my reaction is always the same "I guess I never noticed what they used." And when I see photos from two different eras, I almost never have a preference. I kind of see the issue of the socks being the same color as the pants (leotard look), but I seldom notice before it's pointed out. I don't care whether a team wears black shoes or white shoes and I don't care whether the socks are striped or not.

Nothing you say (with the exceptions of some wording I may tweak) is untrue. But I find your focus to be a little too much on the IP owners and not enough on the actual perpetrators. Inflated prices may "lead" to this, but they are not an excuse. The bottom line is that I don't have a right to a jersey and some "business" does not have the right to sell something created by someone else. They have that right no more than I have the right to make cola and sell it as "Pepsi." The main beef I have with this post is "There's blame to be had on both sides". I don't agree. The owners could protect themselves more, but the burden should not be on them In any case, since we've moved on from "analogygate" there's not much more to say that has not been said in the previous 117 pages....