OnWis97

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.

It's really amazing to think that the Rays entered a long-term lease on that warehouse in 1998. Three years later, MLB was talking contraction for teams that could not get modern ballparks. The Suncoast Dome was probably a year or two away from going down as a (even more) colossal waste of money.

I went to an A's game on July 3, 2007. I thought the BART trip in from SF was OK and the walk, while partly a bridge that appeared to be made entirely of rust, didn't seem that bad. I went by myself because my wife was hanging out with friends. I told her I'd be back at about 10:30 (which turned out to be true). The game went something like 2:09. But there were fireworks, so we were not allowed to walk the rusty bridge and had to take shuttle buses back to the station and it took that would-be-saved hour back. That left a terrible taste in my mouth (and I assume people that drove had no extra delay; don't get me started on preferences toward the car). That said, I assume it's normally OK. As for the ballpark, I loved every second of being there; sure I wish I'd seen it without Mount Davis but it was really kinda fun to be in a big ol' hunk of concrete with no amenities except for flag-waving fans. So, to be clear, I know it's an outdated dump that can't sustain an MLB team beyond next week, but it was a fun nostalgia trip and a college football like atmosphere (just days earlier I'd been to Pac Bell or whatever it's called and that was such a different experience. Beautiful ballpark but also just a cool place for people to be. Fan rabidity was only fraction in SF of that in Oakland. After all, who is going to go to an A's game just for something cool to do?). Does this mean I like the Coliseum better than Pac Bell? No. Would I want it as my home ballpark? Hell no. But I kinda hope I get to go once more.

You mean Big Dildo?

I am totally with the absence of black. KC looks perfect from the neck-down and the fact that they don't have any yellow on the helmet is too bad (even if I understand why they use black and no yellow). The logo is really sharp and well-rendered. But I feel like a yellow "KC" would be better on the helmet with the wolf playing the same role the Vikings primary plays. (Admittedly, that's just my preference away from detailed/fierce logos on helmets)

I agree that they did not need to. But for reasons I cannot articulate, I think the North Stars addition wasn't nearly as bad as the Flames, Mets, and Lions (KC Royals, Eagles, and probably several others, too).* I think their late-1980s black trim worked nicely. I've been back and forth on whether I prefer their early 1980s (no black) green vs. the added black. That said, I think the non-black white jerseys (which were just before my time) are far superior to the black they added in the early 1980s. My earliest memories include black at home (white) and no black on the road, which I didn't understand at all. If I could eliminate one common philosophy of sports uniforms, it would be that yellow cannot touch white. I think the Flames and Chiefs look absolutely fantastic and the Flames were ruined by black. I think they used it more prominently than the North Stars, but even thin outlines would have ruined it for me. Their 1980s look is top-5 all-time for me and the moment they added black, they went to the middle of the pack. *I'm also not able to articulate why I absolutely think the Jets addition of black trim was absolutely the right move.

That's funny. I just replied that I think that opinion's in a fairly small minority, even though I agree with it. From the name vs location perspective, I agree that both "work." I just happen to love the christmas colors and happen to think red and black is overused.

The 1980s "Christmas" Devils is my favorite NHL look of all time. That said, I think your (our) opinion is extremely unpopular. When I first got on these boards, I figured a lot of people would agree with me...red/black is pretty overdone and the red/green look was unique. Turns out that 1) like pineapple on pizza, the red/green is polarizing and mostly not liked and 2) red/black is preferred to red/green because it's more "devilish."

3. I absolutely think ties in MLB are a non-starter. I know I am in the minority (to say the least). 5. That's an interesting point. I love a 2.5-hour nine-inning pitchers' dual that ends 1-0 or 2-1. And there definitely has to be a balance between attracting casual fans and keeping the game to mostly what it ought to be. I definitely don't want to see games be 15-9 just because some people might like high-scoring games. I kinda think pace-of-play and balls-in-play will take care of it.

As a traditionalist, I don't like the runner on second. That said, there absolutely need to be measures taken to reduce the length of games. If the ghost runner reduces the length of extra-inning games, than I can accept it. What I would rather to to prevent regular-season games from going super long is have them end in a tie after, say, 12 innings. American fans tend to be very averse to ties, though, so that's probably a non-starter. A cap on possible innings would be great for managing pitching staffs and the bench and would prevent the most ridiculous of the ridiculously late games. Maybe the popularity of soccer will reduce our aversion to ties. That all said, I think that the primary problem with game length occurs in innings 1-9. The real challenge is how to speed that up...pace-of-play to 1) keep fans interested and 2) make a 3.5-hour nine-inning game a rarity. As a traditionalist, I accept that something has to give, even if I don't know what it is. Hopefully that can include finding a way to have more balls in play. Right now they all go over a wall, fair our foul. Pitching to contact, stealing bases, hit-and-run, small ball...these were always bad strategies. But the game sure was fun...

Was that caused by the receiver running about 15 yards through the team's bench area?

Not the first time I have heard that. I saw it in college and pro this year (including my school being forced to call a timeout once). I am not exactly sure of how the rule is written/enforced, but I'll say this. Getting a 12-man-on-the-field call is an Aaron Rodgers strategy and it's lame, so I like the idea of trying to prevent that.

That's the kinda call that in the second quarter of a week 3 game, people will think could go either way. The difference here, aside from the obvious spotlight, is that for 58 minutes that call had not been made. That's the reason the call bothers me. If the game had been called tightly all game, then I could live with that. But they'd been keeping their flags in their pockets, leading this to be a very ticky-tack call by comparison. It's an inconsistency and that's why I don't like it. I hold the unpopular opinion that refs can decide games late by letting penalties go just as much as they can by calling them. That said, this was closer to the latter, regardless of the letter of the law, simply because I don't think it's called in the first 55 minutes of the game. I've been as willing as anyone to suggest that the NFL has a huge problem with favoritism of certain players and teams. In this case, I'm not quite ready to make that leap because I didn't feel like I was seeing a one-sided game the entire time. The games that really upset me are games like the Steelers vs. Seattle and Arizona where every call seemingly went to one team. In this case the question is did they really make this call to help KC or did the official who made the call kinda choke? They're human, too and maybe he saw the contact and didn't want to be the guy who let a penalty go at the end of the game. Again, I wish the call had not been made but conspiracies only enter my mind because of past history...this game, in a vacuum, didn't feel like one team was getting preferential treatment.

The league should be embarrassed by this turf.

The 49ers have always frustrated me with their jerseys. The either have to be red and white only or if they include gold it has to be with black, drop-shadows, and logos on the sleeves. I think the red jersey with gold-outlined numbers and gold incorporated in the sleeves would look fantastic.

This is roughly how I feel and why I would rate Jordan #1. I'm the opposite; I've seen Jordan in person (once from some really good seats) and not James. And some of those things like threading needles while blindfolded on passes were definitely not Jordan's thing. But he was so determined and it was like every game was made up of about 50 one-on-one games and he had to win every single one. That and the ability to turn on a dime in mid-air and make the ball find the hole. Anyway, I agree that LeBron was more gifted and could do more things but that MJ was the bigger "winner." That doesn't make LeBron a "loser." It just means that there's this semi-tangible thing that puts MJ over the top because to actually choose one, we have to split hairs. Honestly, it all probably points to LeBron being a happier person because he's probably more like the rest of us while MJ can't handle loosing a basketball game or a game of pick-up sticks. Does Jordan win in 2007? Maybe not. But he does win in 2011.

And really bizarre. Veteran team with championships should be able to approach .500 on the road.

Observations as a T-Wolves fan. Meh on Conley but D-Lo wasn't doing a lot anyway. The West gets stronger. That tends to happen when the Wolves have the opportunity to ascend to their ceiling (i.e., being a middling playoff team). Thank you, Nets, for becoming the butt of the NBA jokes for a while.