throwuascenario

Still, that's so not worth building an indoor stadium for. Let alone the fact that they don't need a new stadium at all.

There's gotta be a story to why you follow those specific teams

If Baker wins a SB with the Steelers and Watson doesn't win one with the Browns, Cleveland might implode.

They'll get exactly one Super Bowl. Maybe 2-3 Final Fours at most through the life of the stadium.

But look how much better it pops off black,

Correct. They shouldn't change, because they have established brands that have decades of equity. But they don't look good by any stretch. Navy and white is about the worst, most bland color scheme in sports. Black and white looks crisp and the white pops off the black. Somehow navy looks much less crisp yet much more bland. Same thing with red. It just pops off black so much better. Nothing pops off navy yet it can't carry weight as its own color either. There isn't a team in any sport that uses navy that wouldn't look better if you substituted it for either black or royal blue. All three of these teams would look better in black. Not that they should change now, but it would look a lot better.

Why not reverse the logo on the opposite side?

Dan Quinn is more qualified than either of the coaches you mentioned and also didn't get hired this year. Flores also did get hired to the Dolphins, and has only had an issue getting a new job in the time that he's actively been engaged in a lawsuit against the NFL. You don't think those things would have any correlation? Kellen Moore is also very analogous to Bieniemy and hasn't been hired either. Lots of coaches of all races get passed over because there are only so many jobs to go around. There is quite literally zero evidence of race having any effect on hiring either. The point that you're looking to get to will never exist because it's so unclearly defined. You will always think the owners are an old boy's club (your opinion) and you'll always think that some black coaches are the most qualified (your opinion) but will never get hired because of their race (no evidence to support this, so your opinion). Your opinion will never change. Because the problem is so abstract and subject, there's no possible solution that will placate you. Which is why I said they should stop feeding the mob, because it will never be satisfied.

I'll rephrase it yet another way: I'm assuming you feel that the number of black coaches in the NFL is too low. What metric brought you to that conclusion? I get it. All rich white males think that blacks are beneath them and behave uniformly as such. Therefore, there should be too few black coaches because all the owners are obviously racists. No matter how many there are in actuality. And you're giving a false equivalency with the Broncos. Just because all those players started a game, doesn't mean they were brought in as starters. Many of them were brought in as backups, something Kaepernick refused to do with the very same team. All of the players they brought in with the intent to start (the only way Kaepernick would've signed with them) are better than him, yes. First of all, all the bowlers wouldn't be white. 9% of them would be black. And all of the people waiting at the counter wouldn't be black, as the overall population is over 70% white. So it's a good analogy but definitely flawed.

I didn't say we've moved beyond anything. In fact, I said I'm sure it still exists. My argument never was that there needs to be proportionally accurate employment. What I'm essentially asking is this: If there is a proportionally accurate number of African-American head coaches in the NFL (almost), then on what are you basing the fact that there exists an unlevel playing field (solely within the confines of today's NFL)?

Of course there's been racism in history. I'm sure there is some today. But in 2022 in the NFL, black head coaching candidates are not getting an unfair shake. Or if they are, it's a very small amount. I know this because that's what the numbers say. The proportional numbers I've cited. If the deck was stacked agains them, there would be nowhere near proportionally accurate representation. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be more than that amount, but it certainly doesn't display an unlevel playing field. If the goal was to unstack the deck, then congratulations. They have done that in the NFL. Now move on somewhere else that still needs it.

Here's an analogy for you. You walk into a bowling alley and see two people bowling. One is using bumpers and one isn't. Before you even see them bowl, which do you assume is the more skilled bowler? The same applies here. Them using the proverbial bumpers makes them look weak. Weakness is not a quality that NFL teams want in their coach. The numbers don't support what you're saying. I don't think that white players have a lack of opportunity in the NFL. But if I had to choose, white players are obviously at a bigger disadvantage than black coaches. About 25% of players in the NFL are white, compared to 76% of the US population. That's more than a 50% difference. How is that fair? Also - head coach is not a position of power any more than a star player is. If the player is good enough, the team will usually side with them if it came down to that. Aren't they trying to limit the number of white coaches though but just using the population of NFL players to justify it instead of the population of the US? How is that any different or better? And I'm not saying that there should be any rules for anyone (players or coaches) regarding proportions and races. That's the Rooney Rule and its supporters doing that. I was just saying "by that logic...". Your assertion that the logic is Naziesque only proves my point.

What did Flores lose besides time? He is not entitled to an NFL head coaching job, nor is anyone in the world. 13.4% of the US is African-American. There are 3 African-American coaches in the NFL, equaling 9.4% of coaches. 4 coaches would equal 12.5%, while 5 would go over at 15.6%. So the NFL is only 1 African-American coach away from being proportionally appropriate. I don't understand why there need to be rules in place to make a change when the problem is that small. If your point is that the majority of players are black, then why isn't that the problem? If anything, that would lead you to believe that white players aren't given a fair shake. All of that being said, the Rooney Rule isn't just imperfect. It does the exact opposite of what it's intended to do. It demeans black coaches and makes them look weak. They should not need special rules, and having them makes them seem like children. I can't imagine this image hasn't subconsciously affected any teams' hiring decisions. My point is that one is suing for violating the spirit of an NFL internal rule (not even the rule itself), while one is violating a federal law protected by the constitution. You can't even compare those.

But St. Louis had a much more vested interest. They paid hundreds of millions for a stadium to be built because they believed they were relatively safe from relocation due to the NFL's rules. Flores or whoever else spent what? A couple of hours? That's in no way comparable. The intent of the rule was to virtue signal, which they did by interviewing him at all. It's hilarious that the virtue signaling has blown up in their face, but that already hasn't stopped them from doubling down. Maybe someday the league will learn to stop feeding the mob. Also: Can someone explain to me how it is that they aren't susceptible to lawsuit with their new rule that every team hire a minority offensive coach? How is that not in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act that disallows hiring on the basis of race?

Fixed. For real though, the Hurricanes were never even close. Their lease wasn't supposed to end until 2024 (since extended to 2029). Even at their worst, they sold out weekends. There are exactly 2 US teams in the NHL that will fill the stands no matter how bad the team is. The Bruins and the Rangers. Give any other team a 9 year playoff drought and they'll give you the same crowds the Hurricanes had.

The rule is to interview - nothing is stated about intent to hire. Also, they are in no way legally bound to follow that rule. It is not a law and is not treated as such.

I liked the Brewer's previous identity much more than the current one. The colors were perfect, as was the hat logo. The wordmark could've used some work and I could've lived without the drop shadows but the grain theme was well executed. It completely fit the team name in a unique way without being over the top. Their new brand completely whiffed on the colors first of all. If they were going to change one of the colors back to their retro look, it should've been blue. This is the only instance I can think of where I prefer gold to yellow. A large part of the reason is the connection to the grain theme. Navy also just looks bad with yellow. I don't like navy at all in sports branding, but it looks especially bad with yellow. The MB logo is just a visual pun with no meaning or life. The jerseys are completely lifeless. Just a complete downgrade all around.

Fixed That being said, I guess the big comeback maybe put the kibosh on the superstitious angle. I also don't mind this look nearly as much as the black shorts with white. I wouldn't mind this an alternate and trash the blacks. I wonder if they'll try red helmet and shorts with the black jersey next. I would much prefer that to the all black actually. My order of preference for the playoff home set: (helmet/jersey/shorts) Red/red/red ---- black/red/black ------------------------- red/black/red ----------------------------black/black/black They'll probably stick with option #4.

Every year when the Canes lose in the playoffs, I find one silver lining to be the fact that they didn't win the cup wearing black and that MAYBE the black jerseys will be seen as "cursed" or something and we can miraculously see the reds in the playoffs the following year. So far it hasn't happened, and it doesn't seem like it will this year either. The NHL needs an NFLesque "no alternates in the playoffs" rule so badly. I don't think this is true at all. At least about the second part. Their originals were great and then they downgraded to bland garbage for a few years. But their current home uniforms are a great modernization of their originals - not that they particularly needed a modernization, but they look like the same team. I think the originals and the current homes are equals, albeit with different strengths and weaknesses. Their current jerseys with the original name/number font and non-ghosted warning stripes would be the perfect sweet spot. It is weird and kind of dumb that they've had mismatching home and roads for so long. Even weirder is the fact that they changed the home of their previous set and then 3 years later changed the road. Four completely different designs. Their last road jersey change was a slight upgrade, and would've been a huge upgrade if they would've just put the logo on the chest instead of "CANES". Would've been an even bigger upgrade if they had switched to a recolored version of the reds. The fact that they've worn multiple different Whalers throwbacks and have never thrown back to that look is crazy. Not that I like throwbacks at all anyways, but if you're gonna do one... how do you not pick the one you won a cup in the actual city you play in? The frustrating thing about the Hurricanes is how close they are to a great brand. The excessive alternates/throwbacks and mismatched jerseys drag them down a ton.

Thank god they have a 2 game restriction on throwback jerseys so we don't have to suffer through those blue and green abomination on the Hurricanes more than we already do.

I could've sworn before reading that article that the rule was 12 games per season. I wonder if they changed it - and if so - why?

It went 7 games, including a near 3-1 comeback. What's not to like?

It's the fault of the Cardinals for abandoning it in the first place. It's been 20 years since they've used it, which makes it unrecognizable to an entire generation of football fans. I've never once in my life turned on a Cardinals game and seen them wearing that striping pattern. I don't think that's on me.

In theory these seem perfect, but they just seem off to me. It might be because the Cardinals have worn their current uniforms during the entire time I've been a football fan and the color balance is so different. Their current uniforms make them seem like a red/white team with black accents. This concept makes them a red/black team with white accents. It's not necessarily worse, but the latter just doesn't feel like the Cardinals to me.

This might be the least unpopular opinion in this entire thread