OnWis97

Here's one that I'm sure won't go over too well:

I prefer alternates that are recolors over totally new designs (this does not apply towards baseball or soccer but certainly does for football, hockey, basketball, and other sports)

I kind of feel the same way. I think too much change in design dilutes the team identity.

His point was that the players/coaches/front-office staff/etc. are all good at producing strong teams. So why would you contract the team and replace them with a new expansion team?

Because they're a bombed business venture in an untenable situation that does nothing but sponge revenue sharing from the rest of the league. They're the Diet Marlins in that regard.

One idea for softening the blow for all those hardcore central (and southern) Florida baseball fans is allowing the new Florida teams to claim x amount of players from the franchises they'd technically be replacing. The logistics of that would be a bitch to figure out though, since a) there's probably a collusion complaint in there somewhere, and I'm not sure Orlando has a MLB-ready stadium, so that would mean letting the Rays exist as a blatant lame duck for 2-3 years prior.

I mean I guess we could also contract/relocate the Rays and just leave central Florida barren, if they're that loathe to a new expansion team.

And if they have a lease with St. Pete to play at the Trop for the next 20 years, that could make contracting them just as hard as relocating them. A court ruled that the Twins had to honor their lease at the Metrodome and couldn't be contracted back in 2002.

Fair point, although any course of action here is bound to be covered in red tape and legal sludge. My idea's just a little more out there than the others. If I somehow had a stake in this, the prospect of central Florida done right would be a hell of a lot more appealing to me than letting the Rays continue as they are or moving them to one of other places.

The 2002 decision was 1) a Minnesota Court and 2) a complete joke. The judge in his opinion actually discussed the excitement of fans waiving the homer hankeys and cheering for Kirby Puckett. The Twins and Expos should have been contracted (if, in fact, MLB was serious about it).

Anyway, I have no idea whether the Rays could get out of the lease (Though it was a reason the Twins, rather than the Rays, were targeted for contraction), but the Twins decision does not have much bearing.

There is a one in a billion chance the Rays will move to Jersey, let alone Newark. However, if they do move to Newark I would have to change teams, because I would want them to succeed and thrive in NJ.

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.

I'm really astonished by the level of self-righteousness that exists on this thread regarding counterfeit jerseys. I have bought counterfeit jerseys in the past, and am not particularly ashamed to admit it. I don't feel like I'm less of a 'true fan' because I've done this; supporting my team and being an athletics aesthetics enthusiast don't make me any more willing to drop literally hundreds of dollars on a jersey, no matter how close it is to what's worn on the field. In fact, I sort of feel that buying into the absurdly-overpriced authentic jersey trade fosters the idea that fandom is something that can be bought and sold. What I AM opposed to is when fans make an uneducated decision and buy a counterfeit accidentally - this reflects a lack of attention to aesthetic details that concerns me a lot more than people's unwillingness to spend big bucks on a glorified shirt.

As for the intellectual property dilemma, in principle I agree that buying and selling counterfeits constitutes theft. But somehow I'm unable to find any remorse for my actions when they're harming Nike and Adidas, two immoral and exploitative companies that could easily diminish the counterfeit problem by lowering the prices of their products.

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!

No kudos to the Orioles for that thing. Ever.

I'm sick of stars. It might be the most overused design in sports, next to the alternate logo roundel in hockey. Who would have thought that something 9 year old girls sketch in their notebooks for fun would make for such a popular design aspect for big, tough sports teams? The Astros, Blue Jackets, Capitals, a team in Dallas so bereft of originality they had to call themselves the Stars...I'm done with them.

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").

don´t understand the love for NFL jerseys.........or even why someone would buy one, they are just t-shirts with huge numbers everywhere

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.

On 9/3/2013 at 9:16 PM, uuh70 said:

I liked the Cavs Mid 90's-2002 Look

 

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.

On 8/27/2013 at 1:01 AM, nyratk1 said:

Eddie Mathews

 

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

On 8/24/2013 at 9:33 AM, BringBackTheVet said:

On 8/23/2013 at 3:25 PM, Magnus said:

I've never understood having to pay for the "privilege" of parking your car at a place you intend to spend money at.

TANGENT WARNING:

Spoiler

It's the same way with the mall in downtown Sudbury - and I believe that the mall suffers because of this. Many more shoppers in Sudbury visit the larger mall in the north end of the city because they have free parking.

I understand the bit about paying a fee if you intend to park at the mall but shop somewhere else downtown, in a way, but the problem with downtown Sudbury is that finding parking downtown is a nightmare just about anywhere except for that mall. I usually go downtown by bus when I need to/want to, but the bus system in Sudbury is, well, that's for another discussion entirely...

And don't get me started on hospital parking fees. When you're going to see a potentially dying loved one, how is it fair to be charged a fee every time you have to park your vehicle? All they should do is give you a free parking sticker to hang on your car when you go to the front desk, which would authorize you to be there. If you don't have one because you didn't go in and get it while at the hospital, that should indicate that you are not intending on going into the hospital.

 

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...

 

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.

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).

I would love Miller Park much more if it were downtown where it belongs instead of the Valley, away from the rest of Milwaukee because outstate fans are scurred of the big scurry city.

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.

I would love Miller Park much more if it were downtown where it belongs instead of the Valley, away from the rest of Milwaukee because outstate fans are scurred of the big scurry city.

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.

On 8/13/2013 at 5:13 PM, Harmening said:

On 8/13/2013 at 11:26 AM, Mockba said:

Herp-a-derp... brown is the color of poop! I bet no one's ever said that before! It's especially funny since I don't like their team! Derp!

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.

Not the half-dozen Pro Bowls and fathering a future first-rounder?

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.)

On 7/2/2013 at 0:17 PM, hbgoo1975 said:

On 6/1/2013 at 8:00 AM, Chawls said:

Jim McMahon as a Viking.

 

 

I had the newspaper with that picture back in 1994!

 

Behind McMahon, I believe, is TE Steve Jordan...wearing Reebok Pumps!

These are both really unpopular opinions, but whatever:

-I don't mind the Buffaslug logo at all, and I really liked the jerseys. Their current look is far superior, though.

-I like the Hurricanes new set and the only change I'd make would be to put the flag logo back on the shoulders. I'll miss the warning flag striping, but at least it's inside the collar.

*ducks*

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.

I'm not getting all the hate for the Ravens' ring.

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.

On 6/5/2013 at 1:00 AM, DC in Da House w/o a Doubt said:

On 6/4/2013 at 4:17 PM, mad43dog said:

 

 

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.

It was brought up in the Charlotte Hornets thread.

What are some rare matchups that only existed briefly (one or two seasons) before one of the teams moved/renamed?

Examples are Brooklyn Nets vs. New Orleans Hornets, Charlotte Bobcats vs. New Orleans Pelicans (If it happens)


Minnesota North Stars (moved 1993) vs. San Jose Sharks (expansion 1991)


EDIT: Not sure if they ever played each other, but the Charlotte Hornets and the Memphis Grizzlies spent the 2001-02 season in the league together. Also, Houston Oilers vs. Carolina Panthers (Did it happen?)

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....

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.

"I mean,seriously, how often do you look at a man's shoes (or socks)?"

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.