Jump to content

Gothamite

Members
  • Posts

    36,227
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    277

Posts posted by Gothamite

  1. On 10/19/2021 at 3:30 PM, OnWis97 said:

    Was Milwaukee County Stadium built for the Braves or was it more of a Metropolitan Stadium situation?

     

    On 10/19/2021 at 5:24 PM, the admiral said:

    It was built to attract a baseball team and to accommodate the Packers, who I think were playing their Milwaukee games at State Fair Park prior to that. 


    It was built jointly for the old American Association Brewers and to attract a major league franchise.  Some thought it might be the Braves, since they owned the Brewers and with it the territory, but the Browns also tried to move in before Bill Veeck sold them and they were Baltimore bound.

     

    Packers were an afterthought at best.  But then again, so was the NFL in the early 1950s. 

    • Like 1
  2. On 10/18/2021 at 3:10 PM, B-Rich said:

     

    "If you build it, they will come"

     

    Places this worked:

    1. Minnesota (Metropolitan Stadium)

    2. Indianapolis (Hoosier/RCA Dome)

    3. Orlando (Orlando/Amway Arena)

    4. St. Petersburg (Suncoast Dome/Tropicana Field)

    5. St. Louis (TransWorld/ Edward Jones Dome)

    6. Memphis (kinda/sorta, with The Pyramid as a temporary home, but  they had to agree to build the FedEx Forum to actually get a team).

    7. New Orleans (New Orleans Arena/Smoothie King Center)

    8. Oklahoma City (Ford Center/Chesapeake Energy Arena)

    9. Las Vegas (T-Mobile Arena)

     

    Places this didn't work:

    1. San Antonio (Alamodome - never got an NFL franchise)

    2.  Kansas City (Sprint/T-Mobile Center - hasn't got an NBA or NHL franchise yet)

    3. Quebec City (Videotron Centre)


    you forgot Milwaukee - the OG. 😉

  3. On 10/9/2021 at 3:34 PM, BBTV said:

    One thing I don't understand, is how the split-city plan calls for two small stadiums.  That doesn't make sense, unless they're conceding that very few people will come even if it's centrally located.  Playing half the games in one city doesn't mean that the stadium only has to support half the people.  I don't really understand the logic - if it's all financially based, wouldn't having more people in there increase revenue?  And if they don't think more people would come, why are they even considering this, rather than looking elsewhere (maybe there is no elsewhere?)


    That is an excellent question. 

  4. On 8/2/2021 at 2:35 PM, gosioux76 said:

     

    Just guessing here, but I'd presume that current size matters less than momentum and long-term prospectus. There are few cities in America right now growing as fast as Austin.

     

    Yes, but as Arizona and Florida have shown us, rapidly-growing areas aren’t always good places to put a team.  
     

    The transplants bring their own existing loyalties, and it can take a generation for those to shift to the home team.  If they ever do. 

  5. On 10/6/2021 at 9:14 AM, Bonnaroo42 said:

    Have heard the possibility of it bypassing the 6-7 teams format and going league-wide next season if not the following due to the amount of sales.

     

    Would be a shame, I'd rather see a few well thought out designs plus the return of this year's jerseys rather than a bunch of mediocre ideas slapped on so they can just capitalize on $$$.


    That was always the plan.  Roll it out to a couple teams first, and then expand and expand again league-wide in Year 3. 
     

    https://uni-watch.com/2021/04/07/nikefication-of-mlb-begins-with-bosox-city-connect-uni/

  6. On 9/28/2021 at 5:56 PM, -kj said:

    The Australian leagues known as the A-League (men), W-League (women), and Y-League (youth) are renaming to be under the umbrella of the "A-Leagues": A-League Men, A-League Women, A-League Youth.

     

    logo sucks, but I’m glad that the men’s league isn’t named as the default anymore. 

     

    • Like 1
  7. I think this topic speaks to the specific history of soccer here in America, because when I read the original question, as a global soccer fan my reaction was “yes, almost all of them.”

     

    Soccer stadiums everywhere but here are just like baseball stadiums are here - anything old is in the heart of a population center.

     

    spacer.png

    spacer.pngspacer.png


    In the States, we didn’t start building soccer stadiums until the 1990s.  When, through a combination of fashion and lack of available land downtown, we were in the “build it way out there” phase. 

    • Like 3
  8. 10 hours ago, SSmith48 said:

    Actually, that design wasn't exclusive to the military gear that year. A lot of the sideline gear used that bar design as well, outside of military appreciation.

     

    And the patterns themselves were not created for that promotion but already existed.
     

    but when placed on the left side of the chest,  in a military context, it’s hard to argue that they aren’t trying to mimic a ribbon bar. 

    • Like 8
  9. On 9/13/2021 at 12:13 PM, sisdog said:

    I believe it is based on General Rankings in the military where 5 is the highest possible and is very rare.


    That would somehow manage to be even stupider, since all a player has to do to earn it is have a slightly longer-than-average career.   Far from being rare, there are plenty of fifth-year captains.
     

    And not to mention that the fifth “star” is just filling the C in gold as well.

     

    I swear, this system is so dumb. It’s already walking the line of military fetish, they might as well just push it over.   Just like the rest of their stolen valor nonsense mimicking ribbon bars. 
     

    spacer.png

     

    • Like 9
  10. 11 hours ago, tBBP said:

    I hope think by that they meant he is the team's first four- or five-year captain (which in itself is rather telling). I forget whether the four gold stars is for four years or five.

     

    The more egregious error is the "el capatain" tag...I mean, dude, the word you're looking for is "el capitan"--but, whatever...this club just keeps giving people reasons to laugh at it. 🤦‍♂️


    i know what they meant.  It’s still an incredibly stupid phrase to use. 
     

    almost as stupid as a system that counts years as captain but then somehow stops at five.  

    • Like 3
  11. 1 hour ago, leopard88 said:

     

    Heck, if my eyes don't deceive me, No. 44 (near the top left) is wearing two different 4s on the front of his jersey.


    its hard to tell for sure but I think they’re the same.  The way they’re pulling in different directions, and wrapping around his body, distorts them. 
     

    I can only identify two 4a for sure, serif and sans-serif. 

  12. 14 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

    Nobody but us cares.

    And not all of us care (or agree) with this line of thinking.


    agreed. 

     

    The whole “need clash pants!” thing seems to be a solution in desperate need of a problem.  

    • Like 5
  13. On 8/20/2021 at 3:13 PM, packerfan21396 said:

    That is also the 1953 team photo, where these style of jerseys have been renumbered and maintained for 4 seasons.  They wore alts in the the 1950 team photo, but in 1951, only a couple jerseys had been renumbered making it clear what the intended number font is:

    1951-team.jpg?sfvrsn=d97610fe_6


    I think “intended number font” is a bit strong. 

     

    This number font is the stock font from the manufacturer.   It’s highly unlikely that the Packers chose it any more than the chose the similar-but-distinct versions on the subsequent uniform orders.

     

    yes, I would like the Packers to use a different number font on their alternates (hell, I want the Packers to use a different number font for their regular uniforms), but I don’t think what they did really violates the spirit of the throwbacks. 

  14. 7 hours ago, packerfan21396 said:

    That is also the 1953 team photo, where these style of jerseys have been renumbered and maintained for 4 seasons.  They wore alts in the the 1950 team photo, but in 1951, only a couple jerseys had been renumbered making it clear what the intended number font is:

    1951-team.jpg?sfvrsn=d97610fe_6


    I seriously doubt they re-numbered any jerseys.  The pattern was to keep uniforms as long as possible, buying a few new ones every year to replace those that could no longer be re-stitched together.  Since they had different vendors from year to year, that meant different stock numbers.  It is very unlikely any of those number fonts were a deliberate choice. 

  15. So this is how the Packers are promoting the new alt in the Pro Shop, alongside a reproduction of the 1955 uniform. 
     

    spacer.png

     

    I’m guessing the Hall of Fame didn’t have a mannequin in the 1950 uniform this actually recreates.  

    • Like 12
  16. 9 hours ago, NicDB said:

    After seeing the surprisingly (to me) overwhelmingly positive response to these from casual fans... or at least fans who aren't obsessive uni nerds... I may have to soften my stance on these.  They aren't offensive to the eye (as much as some of us distaste monochrome) and are on brand for the Packers.  So maybe I shouldn't be so critical.

     

    honestly, monochrome is the only real issue with these.  The jersey is absolutely fine on its own. 

    • Like 4
  17.  

    7 hours ago, packerfan21396 said:

    I do love that the logos are based on the coaches' gear, but I doubt the font that is being used is historically accurate, even though there wasn't a lot of source pixels to work with; the hat and shirt logos were most likely blockier.


    that is my presumption as well (at least for the GB logo), but I’m not confident in saying so because of the lack of good source material. 
     

    The Packers have a long history of being very poor chroniclers of their own uniform history. 

  18. 1 hour ago, hormone said:

    I imagine the ‘53 packers were sans face mask or close to it, so why not just keep the green ones on? Heck, I think they left green ones for one of the navy years. If they were gray masked, then my bad.


    this isn’t a 1953 uniform.  It’s a 1950 uniform.  Which was originally worn with leather helmets, no facemasks.  
     

    But when the Packers did adopt facemasks, they wore gray for the first quarter-century.  So any throwbacks from before 1980 really should use gray. 

    • Like 1
  19. I think these new Packers uniforms are a distinct downgrade from the two navy predecessors, both on aesthetic grounds and in terms of the era they represent. 

     

    I know “ugly as possible” was the goal here, but they would have been so much better off looking to 1955, not 1950.   Same jersey, but far better pants and helmets. 
     

    spacer.png


    And who knows?  With the relative lack of restrictions on introducing new pants, they could do this before their five years are up. 

    • Like 10
  20. 45 minutes ago, BBTV said:

    Why did the league ban plastic shells?


    Safety. 

     

    The concern was that if players had plastic head coverings, they would be tempted to use them as a battering ram.  Doctors publicly urged the NFL to prohibit them, but after a couple seasons the NFL decided to allow polycarbonate helmets with new rules restricting spearing and other ways players could use their bodies. 
     

    spacer.png

     

    The irony is that the medical establishment was right all along, just for the wrong reasons. Plastic helmets aren’t a danger to opposing players nearly as much as they are to the wearer. 

    • Like 10
  21. 5 minutes ago, GoHawks said:

    If no one told me these Packers uniforms were throwbacks I would assume that it was a new color rush look for them. I wonder how many casual fans will think the same thing 


    I mean, these are essentially both. 
     

    I hope they keep the white CR pants around, but only because I want the road jersey stripes tweaked to match. 

  22. 9 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

    Did they wear blank yellow helmets in 1953, too? 


    1950 only, if memory serves. The last year of plain gold leather. Then the NFL rescinded it’s ban on plastic shells and the Packers adopted gold plastic helmets with a single green stripe. 

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.