OnWis97

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....

Maybe maybe not. But that's not really important. There are a lot of items I'd like to have and I wish the producers would lower the price. I absolutely fail to see how a price that is perceived as too high (and, FWIW I agree) justifies IP theft. Yeah, they are overpriced. Fortunately, they are also a luxury item that I really do not need to have in order to 1) survive and 2) be happy. I am sending a message to the leagues by not buying their over-priced items. If they were more appropriately priced, I may buy one occasionally. But I don't guy buy some goofy-looking (or, in some cases, pretty decent looking) knock off to "send a message" (that's not the reason anyone buys them...it's to save a buck). There is a process. A creative design effort, etc. It absolutely drives me nuts that people just wait around for someone to do the work and then essentially "photocopy" that work and make money off of it. How someone finds that anything other than "wrong" truly escapes me. Yes, I agree that the prices are too high. But it does not justify the support of IP theft. Greed? Is there no greed involved when leaches copy someone else's work and sell it as their own. The buyer is rewarding laziness and greed. As for "blaming themselves", so the manufacturers are essentially like the woman that gets raped...she was on her own and was wearing a short skirt, so we blame the victim (and please think this through...I am not equating IP theft with rape...but I am pointing out that the IP owner is the victim of counterfeiting and blaming the victim is pretty lazy) What the !!!! Did you just try to compare RAPE VICTIMS and IP theft? Even with the caveat "I'm not equating" thrown in there as an after thought you ARE equating them as YOU brought them up in the same bloody sentence. The two are not even close and NOWHERE did I even insinuate anything close to that you cretin. If you cant see that counterfieting exists because people are priced out the market that's your issue, but clearly it's one amoung MANY FAR MORE SERIOUS ISSUES if you think for one second what I said and your ill thought through metaphor have ANY bearing on one another! Authentic Jersey's are a luxury item, and as such will have a higher price tag... but push that tag to high and you leave yourself open to being ripped off. Is it right? No... BUT it's something the IP owners CAN AND DO CONTROL. You're analouge is frankly disgusting and if anyone needs to THINK THIS THROUGH it's yourself. You really should try some critical thinking. I knew the rape analogy would stick out to those who react in a knee jerk way so I even pointed out that I was not equating the crimes. The analogy is "blaming the victim", that is all. It's most prevalent in rape. At no point do I imply the crimes are similar. I am not equating the crimes, but the "blame the victim" mentality. That's all. Really though, it's my fault. I know there are all kinds of people on the internet. Much of what you say about counterfeiting is true. Counterfeiting is prevalent because of prices. "I can see" that, so it's not "my issue." Yes there are far more serious issues, but since this is a thread about counterfeiting... But you seem to be suggesting (and correct me if I am wrong because you sure as hell missed the mark on the analogy) that this means that on some level they deserve it and that's just not so. The ease of the stealing and the difficulty of enforcement are also key in why this is so prevalent. In any case, if you do not blame the IP owners, your presentation sure seems to imply it. As for my analogy, calm down. Rape is the most noteworthy "victim blaming" crime. That's the analogy and one should really be able to not just assume I am equating the two crimes. Fine, here's a better one... As for "blaming themselves", so the manufacturers are essentially like the the guy who gets his car radio stolen...his car was parked for too long in a sketchy neighborhood and the doors were unlocked, so we blame the victim. Better? The analogy works. Yeah, the dude could have locked his car and made it more difficult, but let's not forget that the crook is a crook and focus the blame on him. You know, in hindsight, this was a better analogy, but your reaction is still way off-base and based on the assumption that I am equating two things (even though I expressly said otherwise).

Maybe maybe not. But that's not really important. There are a lot of items I'd like to have and I wish the producers would lower the price. I absolutely fail to see how a price that is perceived as too high (and, FWIW I agree) justifies IP theft. Yeah, they are overpriced. Fortunately, they are also a luxury item that I really do not need to have in order to 1) survive and 2) be happy. I am sending a message to the leagues by not buying their over-priced items. If they were more appropriately priced, I may buy one occasionally. But I don't guy buy some goofy-looking (or, in some cases, pretty decent looking) knock off to "send a message" (that's not the reason anyone buys them...it's to save a buck). There is a process. A creative design effort, etc. It absolutely drives me nuts that people just wait around for someone to do the work and then essentially "photocopy" that work and make money off of it. How someone finds that anything other than "wrong" truly escapes me. Yes, I agree that the prices are too high. But it does not justify the support of IP theft. Greed? Is there no greed involved when leaches copy someone else's work and sell it as their own. The buyer is rewarding laziness and greed. As for "blaming themselves", so the manufacturers are essentially like the woman that gets raped...she was on her own and was wearing a short skirt, so we blame the victim (and please think this through...I am not equating IP theft with rape...but I am pointing out that the IP owner is the victim of counterfeiting and blaming the victim is pretty lazy)

I think getting rings for making the bowl game is pretty standard practice. And I agree that it's pretty lame. I am generally OK with it. But i don't think teams should get multiple rings unless they win the conference and a bowl (or Nat'l title). I think the solution for NIU would be "MAC Champs" and it could say "Orange Bowl" on the side. It's prestigious for those players to go to that game, even if they were trounced.

Totally agree. I think it's derivative of a bigger-picture "unpopular opinion" of mine, which is that animal full body logos are usually (not always) better than head logos. This logo > any of the bear face logos Coyotes alt logo > primary logo "Leaping Bengal" > "Bengal head" Jags original sleeve patch > either jags head logo Lions helmet logo > any "lion head" rendering that people were doing.

I had forgotten about this & I really hate to see when this happens to great players. After pictures of Rex Ryan in hockey jerseys and Brett Favre taking batting practice with the Brewers, this is really the essence of this thread. Seeing a legend like this playing for a team you'd kinda forgotten he played for...this just looks so weird and so wrong. This is especially true when he played over 15 years for one team, then one forgotten year for a bad team. Seeing Jordan in a Wizards uniform is less weird since we all remember that that happened.

I don't dislike the Blue Jays BP cap. It's a BP cap, which is providing white panels, Mr. Met, and Mr. Red, so it's obviously not being taking too seriously. In fact, I like the Blue Jays BP cap better than those of the A's, Brewers (both of 'em), Cubs, Dodgers, Marlins, Mets, Nats, Marlins (home), Rays, Royals, Tigers (both of 'em), and Twins(both).

I think I like it a bit more than you do (based on my lack of going so far as to say the "bold"), but I don't think it's awesome either. I kind of feel it's the importance of the franchise that bumps these up the rankings a bit. I like, but don't love, the uniform and definitely would not put it in my top 5.

Well, of course you think that. Lights Out is spot on with this one. I don't know that it's one of the ugliest, or even ugly at all. But it is un-befitting the team given its minimal use of red and lack of the great logo.

I am just now realizing how unpopular this opinion is. The Milwaukee Brewers "Beerbarrel Man" is terrible. It's from the 70s and it looks it. And the hat is the worst part of the fan-designed spring training uniform winner.

I think the Timberwovles broke that record the next year (playing in the Metrodome) and had (still have?) a banner. I don't know whether the Wolves' record still stands. I kinda wanna say the Raports broke it. Minnesota broke the league attendance record in 88-89, with 1,072,572. After a moderate seach of google, I believe the record still stands for a season. Pretty amazing to think they played a game that first year in front of 49,000+ fans at the Metrodome, and it was only the third largest attendance for a game in NBA history. The largest was 62,000 in the Georgia Dome to see the Hawks vs. Bulls in 1998. ...that concludes your NBA attendance lesson for the day. I went to the first ever (regular season) game, vs. the Bulls. I got to see Michael Jordan. At least that's what the PA announcer said. I could not really make anything out from how far away I sat. There were some baaaaaaad seats there. Of course those seats were really cheap. The plethora of cheap seats and the "newness" of the NBA team made for huge attendance.

I think the Timberwovles broke that record the next year (playing in the Metrodome) and had (still have?) a banner. I don't know whether the Wolves' record still stands. I kinda wanna say the Raports broke it.

I don't like the 1990s Phoenix Suns look. I prefer the simple 1980s look and i even prefer the current look (actually, another unpopular opinion is that I like the current look).

I agree, but if a team's gonna do it, do it across every uniform, not just certain ones like in the Giants' case. I actually like it when teams have NNOB at home and NOB on the road. It's kind of an old-school idea that is not needed for practical reasons with today's scoreboards and TV coverage, but I like that it's predicated on the idea that the home fans know their players by number but the visiting team is less familiar. I don't know whether anyone really does this anymore. The Twins did it until the mid 90s, when they added names to the home.

I recall those jerseys with the AFC/NFC shields and they were quite funny. But there was more variety back then. I still have a very nice Barry Sanders replica I bought in 1992: NFL shield, shiny shoulders, etc. But no last names. I had to get that done separately. I think the two sports that have see declines since the 90s are baseball and hockey. The hockey replicas I had in the 1990s looked great. Yeah, I had to go out and get the lettered/numbered (though they look fine on their own), but they held up through the regular wash for years (I still have 'em though never wear 'em). Today's replica's look like crap and seem (though I don't have any) less durable. Baseball is even worse. My 1990s baseball replicas had real stitching between the letters and their outlines. Now they are just one layer patches with two colors and you can tell from pretty far away. The 1990s majestic replicas looked great, except you had to get them blank because of the one-color block numbers (and last names whether the team used NOB or not) and the missing sleeve patches, which I do acknowledge was a drawback for applicable teams. Now the replicas look so bad that I get a sense they are trying push you into an authentic. But those are too expensive and the counterfeits are winning. (And I am NOT an counterfeit / IP theft apologist...I just wish they did a better job with replicas)

I certainly don't recall seeing it the 1990s, but then again, back then replicas were of higher quality and priced reasonably. Authentic were pricy (or so we thought), but there would have been no reason to get a counterfeit when you could get a decent replica. And of course the prevalence of the internet was not what it is. I feel like I started really noticing it in the mid 2000s and anything I saw before then I probably chalked up to "replica quality downgrade"; I was naive that this could occur. I want to say it's been the last three years or so that the number of fakes have outpaced the number of officially-licensed products at games.

It's well over 50% at Twins games. No question. Huge wordmarks and incorrect number fonts are the most obvious indicators. They look awful...it's the burden of uniform nerdiness; most people probably don't notice.

What's the deal with the little red or green number under our avatars (when point your mouse at a poster's name)?

Taking inspiration from another thread: I HATED UCLA's stylized football numbers. The below is maybe my favorite CFB jersey ever:

bzzzt I know what he's trying to say about Nationals Park and Marlins Park, though. They do just sound like mere placeholders. You'd expect such massive and modern structures to have names of their own, not just "(Team Name) Park," especially considering these massive engines of commerce aren't terribly parklike. Yankee Stadium works because we're used to it and because it uses the singular instead of the plural (not that Marlin Park would be much better). "Capital Diamond" is my preference for the Nationals' park, rather than, well, Nationals Park. I don't have one for Miami. Then there's the strange case of the Rangers, who came out of the Ameriquest fiasco going from the oddly specific yet unspecific "The Ballpark In Arlington" to the more contrived "Rangers Ballpark In Arlington," as if there were other ballparks in Arlington to challenge the Rangers' fallacious employment of the definite article. Couldn't have just gone all the way back, huh. I'd like them to name it after someone like they used to do sometimes...an owner, or whoever. But I guess that's a bad idea because it looks bad to take the honor away once naming rights are sold. I do like your "Capital Diamond" idea. Even if it's a placeholder, it does not have to sound like one for the interim. As for Nationals/Marlins Park, I am OK with the "s" on the end. We used to have "Royals Stadium" and I never had a problem with that. I think it's the "Park" part that bugs me. "Marlins Stadium" and "Nationals Stadium" sound better to me. I'd be all for those names if I really thought the intent was to keep 'em.