OnWis97

Jersey: Absolute perfection. Pants: The right move. Socks: Whatever. Thumbs up. Older-style logo: The right move for a throwback* Gray facemask: Also the right move for a throwback** Overall grade: A. *Unpopular opinion (I suspect) but I like the updated horn better because it visualizes the horns going up better. And if it were up to me, they'd keep this jersey permanently but with updated helmet logo. **Polarizing opinion but I don't like gray facemasks and I while it's the right move for a one-game throwback, I want them to have purple facemasks for standard uniforms. That all said, I had no idea this was coming. What I great surprise.

I'm embarrassed to say how long it took me to figure out what this typo was. Now that I have, I don't really get that into socks (comparted to others here), but I think I prefer this without the striped socks.

Love that Vikings jersey. Perfect color balance. I want that to become the full-time uniform with a UCLA-striped white jersey for the road (with purple pants. I said what I said).

Fantasy uniform predictions? What does this even mean?

.

I guess I didn't know that specifically about Goodell. I guess everyone has some redeeming quality... To that point, I've always wondered about weighing sharing of the brand vs. the income that said sharing generates. I recall when the NBA first really started to consider it, reading that it would generate $100 million. Now, that's a lot of money. But it's also like $3 million per team. Maybe that number has grown since the "program" started. But in a league that has seen Allen Crabbe earn eight figures, is this really a difference-making amount? Is it really worth watering down the brand for? I guess the answer is yes...and I suppose it make sense. I doubt they lose much, if any revenue. How many fans spend less money on games and gear because of it? Probably almost none...the only direct impact is authentic jerseys. All that said, it's kinda sad that teams will take semi-significant amounts of money to water down the brand like this. And while all of the jerseys are cheapened by the ads, it's really jarring on the most famous jersey in sports history. The patch isn't as big as San Diego's patch or as jarringly tacky as Atlanta's. But it's the poster child for taking a big old crap on a sport so rooted in history and, to some degree, aesthetics. It really cheapens their look and if they win the World Series on a walkoff or something, seeing Starr Insurance will forever have a part in that moment, which is far more depressing than the Cavs winning it all in the worst jersey they had (by a mile).

I thought they'd be the last to cave. Though in fairness, I'm surprised how many teams have yet to do so. I figured the other 29 teams would all have done this by now.

Not that I would not play…I’d just do everything I could to not be in the promotional photos.

It was over the moment the NBA allowed it. At that point, I already felt like we'd been on borrowed time for a while. Given how long pro sports leagues elsewhere have done much worse than this, I can't believe this didn't happen in the 1980s. Silver? Well, he made the big decision, but given where we were headed, if it wasn't him, it would have been someone else. Prediction: We're entering our last year of no ads in the NFL. Prediction: MLB and NHL will have bigger sponsor presence than team presence on jerseys by 2030.

If I was an MLB player, I'd do what I can to get my next contract to stipulate that I will not be the model for an new uniform ad sponship posts/ads.

I know if it was up to me I'd rather Yankee Stadium become Starr Insurance Stadium and the uniforms be left alone, but I'm not sure the general fanbase would feel the same way. There's probably a certain sacredness to both but also a quick "I'll get over it" for most fans that would not visit this board. That all said, if there's one uniform for which ads are going to generate outrage from the fans, it's this one. I'm not sure how it's playing with the fans but it's not like people are going to stop following the team. Along with selling naming rights to the stadium, I don't really see any reason not to have a dark alternate to at least wear on the road and maybe an alternate cap (white or silver bill, perhaps). I guess I'm stuck in a past decade because I thought there was a chance the Yankees would not do this. I would not be surprised if the rest of the teams speed up their process of getting sponsors. "If the Yankees are doing it to the pinstripes, what's the point of us no having ads yet?"

My only thought is that this is in the wrong sub-forum.

I'm surprised by the amount of hate the Ducks Jersey is getting. I really like it. I prefer the mask on the original logo, but otherwise, I like the subdued look of these horizonal stripes and I think the loss of the crossed sticks behind the mask is an improvement. Forgetting the advertisement (which I can't, but, you know...) I think this is my favorite Ducks jersey. I do agree with the poster(s) that mentioned that the tiny little webbed-D is pointless but it's also small enough not to detract. I really like this jersey.

I know the MPLS Millers existed (as did the cross-metro rival St. Paul Saints) but I wonder had the Giants moved to Minneapolis* if they'd have taken the Minnesota name. My guess is yes. *The ballpark in the suburbs had been built to attract MLB.

No argument on those names being bad. I think they're a product of the need to have a unique name at all costs. But I would call them minor league as much as I'd simply call them "lame." Actually I don't think of "Mighty Ducks of Anaheim" as minor league. I think of it as very unserious...something that I know a lot of people appreciate in sports. So it's all about tastes, anyway, I guess. To me, that one was worse than simply a "bad name." The funny thing is that while I knew they were named after the "Mighty Ducks" movie, I still thought they were the Anaheim Ducks for a while because I don't think using "Mighty" in an NHL name even occurred to me. Then at some point, I thought they were the Anaheim Mighty Ducks before finally realizing they were the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim. I believe the NY Jets were originally the Titans of New York...and while Titans is an OK, albeit unspectacular, name, the whole "of New York" thing is just silly, in my opinion. Now, had the "Rocky Mountain Extreme" come to fruition, that would have taken the cake. That would have covered just about every terrible naming approach. I suppose "Extreme of the Rocky Mountains" would have been needed to obtain true perfection.

Absolutely. I personally never liked them but appreciated their uniqueness and definitely prefer them to anything they've worn since. (Like the logo; don't like the asymmetrical stripes; appreciate the eggplant even though I didn't love it.) The question is whether this opinion is unpopular (I legitimately don't know). Anaheim Ducks is a fine name. Mighty Ducks of Anaheim was a silly name not fit for an NHL team.

Yeah, I don't think most fans will notice (which makes me wonder what the change does for jersey sales). It's not quite "Vikings logo update" subtle but most fans don't get hung up on some of the details that have changed. The more I look at this the more I think the sleeve numbers look really cheap and beer league-ish and I'm starting to prefer the old ones.

For me, it's under the "big goofy crap that is an eyesore and ruins uniforms and I can't believe it's lasted so long" category. Actually Philly has several elements that have stuck around forever: The contrasting nameplates, the Phillies sleeve numbers, and everything about the Eagles.

It's done tastefully.

They've been wearing something very much like their 1970s design. The change to the 1980s design back then was pretty close to perfect and my gut reaction today is that they took a step in that direction...but the more I look the more it's just a couple of tweaks. The good and bad of the primaries. Good: The sleeve numbers not flirting with going outside of the white sleeve treatment. Crossing that border always looked cheap to me. Good: The darker orange Good: the black collar. Bad: the one stripe flush to the bottom of the jersey. Needs a second/third stripe and/or some space. Bad: Keeping the contrasting nameplate. Bad: One-color number on the sleeve (I cannot tell if that's the case on the home jersey, but it definitely appears to be on the road jersey. Overall it's a slight improvement but I wish they'd have gone all the way to the 1980s design.

This is where I'm at. I was unlikely to be upset because I have no idea what the punishment should be. For the most part he's an idiot. 25 games is a big chunk of the season. It should impact where the Grizzlies end up in the standings and it will cost him a lot of money. Hopefully he's able to grow up.

Nice. I have to admit, though, the red one looks better.

Given the amount of red vs. the amount of green in the league, the Wild should probably be green. That said, this looks really good. Kinda looks like the second iteration of the circle logo jersey but with stripes on the bottom (which was sorely missing). I think this would be the best white jersey in team history. The only tweak I'd make to that is to go red-on-gold for the sleeve numbers...my rationale being that this matches with the approach taken on the red jersey (i.e., same "main" color on back and sleeve). Hypothetically, this red jersey might honestly be the most aesthetically pleasing jersey in team history (and as you allude to...a huge improvement not shrinking the logo into a circle). I would really like it. But between the large amount of red in the league and Minnesota fans pretending we cared about the North Stars, green primary probably makes more sense.

Is 32 an important number? Why not just have 31? The T-Wolves are absolutely going to need to move within the next decade. Are there three cities that can absorb a team?

Vegas is probably the league’s signature franchise at this point. I would have loved Edmonton to come out of the West but it’s hard to suggest this is bad for the league.