OnWis97

I totally agree. If the Falcons could work an "A" into a falcon logo that would be great (assuming it doesn't damage the logo's quality). But an "F" in a falcon is silly, as is the Eagles making their logo left-facing just to have an "E" in their eagle head.

It really feels inevitable doesn't it? I'm old enough to remember when the Packers stunk in the 1980s but them entering every season as a contender just feels like something that's always going to be the case. I'd expect Love to lead the Packers at least to the playoffs this year and them being a contender every year soon thereafter. But I'm speaking from an burnt-out, jaded perspective.

I figured they'd avoid the current LV minor league park because of the heat. Perhaps they'll be playing almost no day games after during the hottest times of the year. (June-Aug???)

If they get out of Oakland before the Vegas stadium is read, where would they play? I would not think it would be in an outdoor minor-league ballpark in the desert.

I want to see all the MLB ballarks. But I'm not planning a July trip to Vegas to do so. (There's a reason that I haven't been to a D-backs game or games of Texas or Florida teams). I guess people travel there year-round though. Is there data about visiting team fandom for the Golden Knights?

Ah, the Grizzlies. I missed that one. If ever there was a case to make a change, that might be one. Minimal history/success (far less important to the league than the Sonics). But I'm still glad they kept it. I really hope the A's do. MLB doesn't need the Las Vegas Rolling Bones or the Sin City Night Owls

Recent teams that have kept names: Nets (but does that count?) Raiders Chargers But what's the last team to move to a far away city with no connection and keep the name aside from the Radier?. The Oilers changed after a few years. The Hornets, but they ultimately changed. The Stars (if you count that). Could it be argued that aside from the Raiders (who I maintain are a bit of a different case) the last team to 100% keep the name on a relocation of more than a two-hour drive is the Colts?

I agree. However, I think the main factor here could be that times are simply changing. The Raiders are a bit of an exception because, well, "the Raiders." What's the last relocation before that where a name was kept? It feels like it's been a really long time. This will be a very interesting test. The A's make total sense for keeping the name because they're an original AL franchise, have at least some history of success, a distinctive color scheme, and a name that pretty much fits everywhere (unlike, say, Senators). I feel like this might be the unpopular opinion (in contrast to BBVT thinking his was the unpopular opinion); I really hope they keep it. Of course, that's in large part because I tend to favor that approach in general but this means more to me than if it was the Rays or someone.

Always bet on sun belt to beat Canada.

I think this is an appropriate page for this, but it has the potential to open up a can of worms related to how we track franchises pre- and post-Browns/Ravens, etc. That said, I think your opinion is unpopular and I tend to agree with it. The Indianapolis Colts, SF Giants, LA Dodgers, etc. make the history of sports easier to track. My default is definitely keeping the same name. I understand why the Twins didn't but we celebrate the full histories of the Giants and Dodgers so much better than we do for the Twins/Sens simply because of this factor. (I know, the Senators were generally terrible but they won the same number of World Series as the Brooklyn Dodgers). To me, the Baltimore Colts are remembered and the Houston Oilers are largely forgotten even though both franchises did the same thing outside of the name change. Most fans, however, consider it insulting to the old fans to keep the name. (As someone who grew up with the North Stars, I am glad Dallas didn't totally rebrand and that they acknowledge their Minnesota history). And Dallas kept as as much as they could; "Dallas North Stars" is probably worse than Utah Jazz. I get it with the Senators, Rockies (though it would be Scouts), etc. But I tend to agree with you in principle.

There was a designer here (I don't recall the name, so maybe they're even one of the recent respondents to this thread) that used to frequently talk about brand vs. aesthetics and that the latter sometimes needed to be sacrificed because it was of secondary importance to the former. This might be the best example for me. I think the 2000s Astros could be the best example of that...at least for me. Aesthetically, I like everything about the earthy look better. I like the "slow" star better. I view it as bold and solid and the "trails" on the 1990s star are just too long. I also think the colors in the 1990s are just completely drab; like a more boring version of the 2000s Brewers. That all said, giving the Astros earthy tones is like coloring the Stanford Cardinal in blue and yellow. As great as that Astros uniform was, the designers should never have gotten anywhere near the point of completing the design. The drab 1990s look is more fitting. (That all said, I favor aesthetics enough that I hate the look so much that I don't think it was sustainable; going back to blue and orange was always the way to go).

Didn't Kobe refuse to play for them, though?

The worst trades in NFL and NBA history both occurred in Minnesota.

I think UConn is something like 10-1 in Final Four games. They come out of nowhere to make a run, just like Michigan State, but then they win in all. I think they were about a seven seed in 2014. I don't know the Xs and Os of these teams but San Diego State winning just doesn't seem like a thing that's going to happen.

Your reaction is really over-the-top. And I am with you. I know I'm in the minority but I like uniformed coaches...they have a different relationship with the field. Base-coaches are on the field at at all times. Other coaches go to the mound. It's not the same in other team sports. As ridiculous as an NBA, NFL, or NHL coach would look in full uniform, I think MLB coaches would look strange in street clothes. They can still dress the same, I guess (pretty much only base-coaches wear jerseys, now) so it' not like they'll be wearing suits or even khakis and polos. But I like the numbers being issued to them and as you point out, their coaches can wear numbers like 67 and 83.

I think the black really dulls the logo as it does for the Clippers. I don't really have strong feelings on the font. Blue letters would make this pretty solid.

Are these omitting some corporate logos? Even so, I'm glad the league seems to have moved on from the huge caproate front with the team logo patch.

I assume this is unpopular: I like the bottom photo better. I know the top one makes a ton more sense for a team called the "Astros" but the dark blue and gold is just soulless. The really love the earthy color scheme and I wish the D-backs would have come up with it first and kept it forever.

I hated them and at one point in realizing how long they'd been on, I was blown away at how long they'd made it. I'd have preferred they not be there but, yes, the reason is terrible and I'd rather one team have sleeve numbers I don't like than all (or most) teams have "corporate partners" on the sleeves.

As a North Stars fan back in the day and a (far less passionate) Wild fan today I like these a lot, especially #2 (original). #1 is great too, though as much as I love the old North Star uniforms, I tend to prefer the Wild with red and green. The wheat makes tons of sense given the team's name, the polarization of "Christmas colors," and the connection to the old Devils. The white uniform in your first post looks very Devilsh. And I love it. In fact, I'd be curious to see the green uniform without white. I like all of these, though and I think either white uniform (green/red) would be a big improvement and the green from #2 would be a bit of an improvement, as well.

I'm very capable of liking the uniforms from a team I don't like. And I do agree "I don't like the Cardinals uniforms because I'm a Cubs fan" is a poor rationale. That said, an element of why we "like" something is our personal experience. That can contribute subconsciously, kinda like how some people dislike a song they liked before it became overplayed. For me, I generally like the Packers uniforms (especially the yellow shell with the traditional green/white/green stripes). But I really don't like the logo. And I think a part of it is how often I saw it when I was in college in Madison. When I first arrived, the team was coming off of a pretty rough couple of decades. By the time I graduated, they'd won the Super Bowl. And during that time, the prevalence of that logo on jackets, hats and shirts skyrocketed (Yes; even fanbases with good reputations can have local bandwagons.) I got sick of the team and I think the logo started to bug me. Add that that the prevalence here in the Twin Cities (I don't think most Packer fans ever leave the house without some gear) and the light bulb this board put over my head about how using a "G" is like the Yankees/Giants using an "N," and a logo that I might think of as middle-road is near the bottom. It wasn't a conscious decision, but much of my distaste for it is from personal connotations (along with the "Greenbay" thing).

The closing credits music on TWIB was terrific. I also didn't have cable and the limited access and shows like this gave baseball more of a mysticism than it has when you can see highlights from every mlb game if you'd like now. I miss utilitarian stadiums. Do I actually think I'd be happier if my home ballpark was Metropolitan Stadium than Target Field? No. But I have fond memories of going to games at Met Center (North Stars), County Stadium, and even the (really terrible) Metrodome...places that were built with plenty of flaws but also not with the revenue - maximizing features of now. Just seats pointed at a rink/field/court. I really love going to the few remaining old places (Fenway, Wrigley, Dodger Stadium, Mount Davis, several college venues)...just feels "simpler."

I tend to agree with this. The Packers are essentially just another organization that happens to have had hall-of-famers under center for 30 years. Nothing else (coaching, player personnel, etc.) was anything special. Favre and Rodgers were the reason that they went into every season with a chance to come out as champs. If they start to have the QB situations of most teams, they'll probably just be another team making the playoffs three or four times a decade. The idea that either QB stopped them from winning more is laughable. As a fan of a division rival, I assume that Jordan Love is going to extend the hall-of-famers-under-center streak another 10 to 15 years. Even though I remember the 1980s, it's really hard to imagine the Packers entering a season as a non-contender. PS: Please give me a 25-year stretch with two championships. I'll take that disappointment any time.

In the below link is a picture of Kirby Puckett the day he announced that he had to retire. He's in a home jersey with a name on back. He never had a name on his back on the home jersey when on the field, as the Twins were just about to start their first season with that feature on that jersey. https://mobile.twitter.com/MNTwinsZealot/status/1546914341651374084

I just did the Petco Park tour and went into the pro shop. Authentic jerseys have the swinging friar on one sleeve and Motorola on the other. The replicas only have Motorola. I am irrationally upset about it.