throwuascenario

2 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

If San Antonio can get five, next one is 2025, I think Nashville could see four. 

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.

On 4/22/2022 at 6:46 PM, tBBP said:

 

Let 'em ride then!

 

I guess if there's one certifiable improvement in the Nike joints over the previous jerseys, it's that the sleeve caps can indeed accommodate the stripes. I guess I just ain't paid much attention since none of the teams I see/follow most have any (Jacksonville, Tennessee, Tampa, and Minnesota.)

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

On 4/18/2022 at 10:11 PM, Crabcake said:

He’s a stud. Easy top 10 corner and arguably in the top 5. He probably deserves that contract but still, that’s a lot of money to tie up in 2 players for an organization that, at the end of the day, has still only won one playoff game in, like, forever. 
 

I understand that in the NFL you need to go all in, especially when you actually hit on high end talent in the draft and free agency, but man if this blows up in the Browns’ faces, it is going to be epic to watch. 

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

On 4/18/2022 at 3:36 PM, Red Comet said:

Makes sense considering Nashville is also planning on hosting the Final Four/Super Bowl and honestly has a lot more to do there than Buffalo. Even has a better hockey team than Buffalo too. 

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

18 hours ago, LA Fakers+ LA Snippers said:

I’d argue that gold looks the best and is probably the only color that “pops” off of navy. 

But look how much better it pops off black,

16 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

Really?

 

The Yankees...Red Sox...Tigers...none of those look good with navy? 

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. 

On 3/3/2022 at 4:31 PM, officeglenn said:

 

They actually did for the 2021 Labour Day rematch and another game against Saskatchewan:

 

 

 

 

 

Why not reverse the logo on the opposite side?

1 minute ago, IceCap said:

You're still hung up on numbers. It's not about numbers or hitting a quota, because I'm not so callous as to dehumanize human beings by reducing them to spreadsheet data points.

 

It's not about numbers, it's about the fact that there are qualified black coaching candidates out there who aren't getting jobs because of ingrained racial biases among NFL ownership. I'm not looking to hit a magic number. I'm looking to get to a point where clearly qualified black coaches aren't passed over for jobs for Old Boy's Club reasons.

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.

37 minutes ago, IceCap said:

Because the idea that a minority group's presence in a given field out to be proportional to their percentage of the overall population is a flawed and dehumanizing argument that was used by one of the most violent and destructive regimes in human history!

 

It shouldn't matter if the number of black coaches reflects overall demographics or the demographics of the NFL! You, yes you, need to get over that. Ok? Ok.

 

The only thing that should matter is the quality of the candidate for the job. Nothing else.

Yet we have seen time and time again qualified black coaching candidates getting passed over for jobs. When Eric Bieniemy and Brian Flores can't get a head coaching job but Nick Sirianni can and Josh f'ing McCown can get serious consideration there's certainly a racial bias.

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?

33 minutes ago, LA Fakers+ LA Snippers said:

Just because there is a similar number of overall Black people in America and Black NFL does not mean they are equal. The numbers don’t lie, but they never tell the full story. The National Football League is run by a commissioner who needs the support of his owners, so essentially the owners hold majority of the power here. These owners are mostly older, white males who grew up in a society where if you were those two adjectives, you were considered superior to all others.  
 

Now that we have the historical context in place, you can see that the playing field has never been equal, and still isn’t. These owners don’t want to hire Black coaches, and the definitely don’t want them in their front office. They want to treat Black people like their fathers and their father’s fathers did: only as people who work for you, never to be seen as equal. Meanwhile, their white counterparts have no trouble getting whatever position they want (deserving or not).

 

Not even players are safe from this discrimination. The Denver Broncos have had 11 starting QBs since 2015, as shown here:

Are you telling me that all of those players are more deserving than Colin Kaepernick of a starting spot? 

 

As my father once said “Just because racism isn’t as obvious doesn’t mean it no longer exists.”

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.

31 minutes ago, CS85 said:

 

You walk into a bowling alley and you see thiry two people bowling.  Some bowlers are using bumpers, some aren't.  All bowlers are white.  Meanwhile there are several Black people waiting at the counter to get a lane, but the owner of the bowling alley keeps telling the tellers to skip to the next white person instead.

When the local newspapers get ahold of this information, they ask the bowling alley ownership why so many Black customers are getting denied entry, and the owners counter by saying they have repeatedly offered Black people jobs as custodians and shoe-cleaners at all of their alleys.

 

 

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.

Just now, IceCap said:

And there's the root of the issue. You seem to think we've moved beyond ingrained, systematic racism. And buddy, man...I wish that the 1964 Civil Rights Act had been the killshot to hundreds of years of bigotry and prejudice, but it wasn't. There isn't "some" racism today. It's still very prevalent in society.

 

You need to move beyond "proportional employment based on race" as an argument because it's gross and disturbing, in addition to being morally vacant.

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)? 

1 minute ago, IceCap said:

No one's trying to limit the number of white coaches, or the opportunities of white coaching candidates. 

But black coaching candidates have historically never been given a fair shake in the NFL. If they had been then stuff like the Rooney Rule wouldn't be necessary. 

 

The reverse racism card isn't handy either, because we're not dealing with a level playing field. Again, if everyone was acting in good faith and not shafting candidates based on skin colour we wouldn't be here.

But black people have a been discriminated against both legally and socially in the United States since before there even was a United States. In ways no white ethnic group ever had to struggle in this country. 

That's hundreds of years of ingrained racism and prejudice that rules like this are attempting to overcome.

 

You're coming at it from a perspective of "why should any one group get an advantage over another?" and in a society that's 100% moved beyond racial bias you'd have a point. 

But that isn't the society we live in. We live in a society where black people do experience systematic racism in ways white people just don't, and includes in the realm of the job market.

 

These rules aren't perfect, but then again nothing is. What they are attempting to do, however, is give a historically disadvantaged group a leg up when the deck is already stacked against them. 

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.

18 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

I've give you this much, we agree that this situation should not need special rules. If the hiring system was equitable to begin with, or if there was enough confidence that team owners were committed to making it so, then such rules wouldn't have been needed. 

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.

16 minutes ago, LA Fakers+ LA Snippers said:

The majority of the player base is black (57.5% to be exact), so why is it that only 13.4% of coaches (who coach the players) are black? That’s our issue. Old, white owners don’t want to put Black people in a position of power, just like other places in society.

 

”White players aren’t given a fair shake” is complete bull :censored:. Just under half of the league is white. Don’t try to twist this narrative. White players get the same opportunities as Black players; the problem is that White coaches get better/more opportunities than Black coaches.

 

 

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.

9 minutes ago, IceCap said:

Just so you know...you're using actual Nazi logic. And not in the sense of "oh you disagree with me you must be a Nazi." 
I mean "we should limit the number of minority people in a profession to their percentage of the overall population" was an actual policy of Nazi German to justify forcing Jews and others deemed "inferior" out of the professional class. 

 

So if you're going to put that argument forward... know where it comes from. 

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.

29 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

You can't really be suggesting that the only thing Brian Flores lost in this situation was time . And good lord, "stop feeding the mob?" The Rooney Rule is just "virtue signaling?" 

 

The Rooney Rule is an imperfect attempt to create more coaching opportunities for people of color. It's a recognition that a league, of which the majority of players are Black, has done a terrible job when it comes to hiring anyone but white coaches.   The issue is that the rule is weak and teams are able, and willing, to circumvent it and not take it seriously. That's what's at stake for Flores and countless other minority coaches who have reason to believe the system is working against them. 

 

 

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. 

53 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

Just like Flores is suing for violations of the Rooney Rule, another coach has the right to sue if they feel they can prove this rule affected them as well. 

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.

3 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

 

While this may be true on paper, this is also why we have a civil courts system, so that an impartial third-party can rule on whether the league is following the intent of its own rules. The lawsuit between St. Louis and the Rams/NFL was used similarly. St. Louis believed the league did not abide by its own rules on relocation, and sued to argue the case in court. Though it was settled out of court, a trial would have certainly been a referendum on whether the league was following its own policies. Flores' case, on the surface, appears to be following a similar path. 

 

In other words, it doesn't have to be a "law" for it to merit scrutiny in court. And a court could absolutely determine that the league is legally bound to follow its own rule. 

 

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.

2 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

Telling a coach they have the job before they've even interviewed him, and while they're still interviewing other coaches is what I consider going against the intent and integrity of the rule. 

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?

On 2/20/2022 at 5:43 PM, the admiral said:

 

Yeah, they were on the ropes at the end of Karmanos's ownership, but now their fans are considered hockey's cultural elite and we'll never be rid of them. 

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.

On 4/8/2022 at 11:14 AM, MJWalker45 said:

With this and the Flores suit, the NFL leadership is looking pretty bad at the moment. When the Titans, reportedly, already had the coach hired before they interviewed the other candidates, that's not following the rules the NFL says they are all following. 

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.

20 hours ago, Glover said:

Canes are wearing these tonight 

 

And off to a rough start. Down 2-0 to the Sabres after 7 minutes, and this is after they lost to the Sabres in Tuesday with the black pants. One of the worst organizations in sports history outplaying us. This jersey-pant combo doesn’t look bad, but the superstitious fan in me says just stop with the black pants unless it is with and get rid of the black jersey. 

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.

8 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

The red pants are the one thing that's kept Carolina from looking too much like the Devils & Blackhawks, so this is a downgrade. It's basically a 2002 Canada Olympic uniform.

 

I'd expect them to wear the black alternates at home in the playoffs again this year, so maybe they're testing the waters so that they don't need to alternate between shells/gloves in the postseason.

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.

6 hours ago, QCS said:

The sublimated warning flags really get me. Both Canes jerseys would look much better if the warning flags were properly red and black. Incredible how the Hurricanes have managed to downgrade nearly every time they change jerseys.

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.

3 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

Seriously, their originals are friggin' great, it's so weird that they've never gone back to that look. Especially since, y'know, they won a Stanley Cup wearing it.

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.

On 3/22/2022 at 6:35 PM, M4One said:

 

Alternates can be worn a total of 15 games.  I think that includes a permanent alternate and a vintage jersey or outdoor game jerseys.  Four games is probably the minimum number a jersey must be worn.

 

As for the Leafs new alt...glad I'm not a Leafs fan.  As other have said, as a fashion jersey only, okay.  As a one off, maybe.  But as a full time alternate, nope.

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.

3 minutes ago, officeglenn said:

 

From the mothership's writeup:

 

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?

On 3/11/2022 at 12:30 PM, DEAD! said:

Sure, it was one of the my favorites too .... like, maybe, 19th favorite out of 20.

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

4 hours ago, Sport said:

Not doing anything the Cardinals themselves haven’t done before. They wore that exact stripe for over 30 years. If that doesn’t feel like the Cardinals to you that’s on you, not the concept. 

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.

On 2/22/2022 at 10:58 AM, Sport said:

 

Yes. Correct. The Jake Plummer unis overthought the simplicity of the brand. When you use those colors in that way with that Generic Helmet from Every Sporting Goods Store in the Country helmet it's not sharp like the Raiders or Giants, it's just boring. It's a nothing statement. You gotta do something from the neck down because the helmet isn't adding any punch on its own, but the incredibly 2004 uniforms they've been wearing since 2005 are the opposite of that. 

A variation of this concept has been done a million times, but it's just too obvious. Do this, never change again. 

 

 

 

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.

15 hours ago, DCarp1231 said:

A slew of unpopular opinions-

 

• The Bears have the best uniform set in the league

This might be the least unpopular opinion in this entire thread