Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by NicDB

  1. 8 hours ago, kimball said:


    Honestly, that's basically what they've done for the past ... what? ... 10 seasons? Division titles don't mean anything anymore.

    That's precisely my point... why even bother having divisions then?

    In the NFL and MLB, division rivalries actually mean something and are a factor in determining playoff position.  Division titles in the NBA are such a glorified participation trophy that even the NBA website gives you the option to filter them out of the standings.

  2. 9 hours ago, tBBP said:

    I still kinda wish the Marlins had kept the "Florida" identifier (at the time of their inception they were the only MLB team in the state, after all), but I understand why they went more local. (I don't think it's been working too well for them, though! 😆)


    I love everything about the original Marlins identity EXCEPT the Florida part. I like when MLB teams adopt the names of old minor league clubs from the same city and leave them fully intact.  Some politicians tried to force the Brewers to change to the Wisconsin Brewers as a stipulation for public funding of Miller Park.  I would have HATED that.

  3. 1 hour ago, cajunaggie08 said:

     The Cowboys had 48 years of brand history prior to moving to Arlington. There was no way they were going to change names just because they moved across the metroplex. The San Francisco 49ers didnt change names because they moved down to Santa Clara. The Rangers local history started in Arlington. The local officials who helped get Major League baseball to the area were not going to let Dallas get slapped on the team name. Its not because they didn't think people from Fort Worth, Arlington, or any of the other mid-cities between Dallas and Fort Worth wouldn't support a team because it was named after Dallas as the Cowboys are the very proof of that.  Outside of Texas, you probably have to tell people you're from the Dallas area even if you live right outside of Fort Worth, but locally it is perceived as an insult if you say someone from Fort Worth is from Dallas and vice-versa. So by putting a team in the middle of the Metroplex, they had a chance to create a new name that appealed to the whole market without just calling it a Dallas team when more people in the area don't live in Dallas than do. As a Houston guy, I don't like that the Rangers name tries to claim the entire state. But it makes more sense than calling a major league team the Arlington Rangers or Metroplex Rangers and you have an Anaheim situation on your hands.


    I'm not denying that getting rid of Dallas when they moved to Arlington would have been all kinds of stupid. The point I was trying to make was that they only played in Dallas for 11 years before moving to Irving. 


    There was a minor league team in the area known as the Dallas-Fort Worth Rangers in the 1960s, and the team that played in Turnpike/Arlington Stadium in the years leading up to the Senators coming to town was, in fact, the Dallas-Fort Worth Spurs. 


    Maybe it's me, but I kind of would have preferred that because the Rangers never register to me as a "Dallas" team the way the Cowboys, Mavs, or even the Stars do. I guess you could argue that Texas is justified for them because they were the lone Texas entry in the AL back when the two leagues actually acted like separate leagues. But now that the Rangers and Astros are division rivals, the fact that one of them claims all of Texas feels that much more eccentric.

  4. 13 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:

    Gillette Stadium in Foxborough isn't "just as close to Hartford" as it is to Boston. As the crow flies, the geographic center of Hartford's a good 50 to 60 miles more distant from Gillette Stadium than the geographic center of Boston happens to be. You're likely thinking of Providence, Rhode Island.


    You're right... I was thinking of Providence, which google maps tells me is actually a bit closer to Foxborough than Boston.


    Either way, I totally understand the mindset of rebranding as New England. The Patriots were just over a decade old and didn't have the generations-worth of entrenchment that the Red Sox, Bruins, and Celtics enjoyed. Pro football had already failed to take off a few times in Boston. I suspect that may have had to do with the large amount of college teams in the area that were considered "major" for much of that time.


    Here was an opportunity to play closer to one of the other major New England cities and market themselves as something other than just another Boston team that the rest of New England roots for by default. It's not like they were stepping on toes in doing so (unlike the Whalers a few years later), and New England just "works" with a name like Patriots in a way it wouldn't with any of the other teams named for Boston.

  5. If this were to happen, I'd hope the NBA would drop the facade with divisions and just go two conferences, single table. There's no way to go to 8 divisions without several of them having a Colts in the AFC South sort of situation where one team has no natural division rivals.

  6. 11 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

    I definitely do not subscribe to the notion that the state name necessarily means that the team is the only team in the state.  For that reason, I prefer "California Angels" to all other versions.  The name "Los Angeles Angels", while having a PCL history, is just goofy, with the repeat of "angels" in two different languages.  And "Anaheim" as a name is strictly minor-league. It ranks, as in the Mel Blanc / Jack Benny gag, with Azusa and Cucamonga; it has no business being in the same league with the New Yorks and the Chicagos of the world, or even with smaller (but still major) cities such as Seattle and Kansas City.  "Anaheim" is simply far too cheesy a name for a team in Major League Baseball.  (Response to anticipated retort: it's too cheesy for the NHL, too.)


    I prefer LA Angels, but I never understood this argument against Anaheim. Is it a place you think of amongst the New Yorks and Chicagos of the world? Probably not. But it still has cache in American pop culture. The Hollywood Stars name worked for the same reason IMO.

  7. I generally prefer city names with a few exceptions. 


    In the case of Minnesota and Indiana, the city's name is such a mouthful that it's just easier to identify by the state. But in Minnesota's case, I really wish Twin Cities would have taken off. Although then there's the fact that none of their teams played in either of the cities when they started. 


    I can also understand using the state's name when the team actually plays in a remote suburb rather than the city or an inner suburb... provided no other teams play in that state. The Michigan Panthers were a good example of this. Unlike the Lions, they never played in Detroit and didn't have any plans in the foreseeable future to do so. 


    I kinda feel like Tampa Bay is the gold standard for regional names. In fact, I weirdly wish more teams were named for bodies of water that still directed you to a specific area. For that reason, I wonder why the Warriors stuck with Golden State when San Francisco Bay Warriors would serve the same purpose and is much less ambiguous. Although I wouldn't necessarily want the 49ers to follow suit. That would come across as a slap to the city they spent their first 70+ years in. 


    Carolina I can tolerate for the Panthers. They actually started in one Carolina before settling in the other. I suppose I understand the Carolina Hurricanes for similar reasons and because it actually does sound a lot more major league than Raleigh or Raleigh-Durham. 


    New England Patriots is an interesting case. They spent a good decade being the bastard child of Boston sports before moving to a town that's just as close to Hartford, so it kinda makes sense. But New England Whalers was just desperate. Glad they eventually smartened up and became the Hartford Whalers. Hartford as a brand name just seemed to work for a hockey team.


    I don't like any pro team named for Florida or Texas. It's not like it would be such a mystery what Miami Panthers or Dallas Rangers was referring to. I know the Rangers have never actually played in Dallas, but the team they're named for did. The Cowboys play in the same town and I doubt people in Fort Worth or wherever have ever been discouraged from rooting for the Cowboys because they're named for Dallas.


    Granted, I'd probably have a problem if a team playing in Waukesha County named itself for Milwaukee, which is kind of why I understand why people don't like the Angels being named for LA as it's a very similar dynamic at play. But I can promise I'd hate the very idea of California Angels if that wasn't what I grew up with.


    I guess this is my long winded way of saying the city name is preferable, although there are exceptions to every rule, the real life exceptions are often just plain dumb.

  8. On 5/23/2021 at 10:31 PM, mattr1198 said:

    Milwaukee Bucks: The changes for the Bucks mostly come through color simplification. Gone are the unnecessary black and the light blue that was superfluous. This simplifies the team's new color scheme down to just green, cream, and white. The side paneling on both the icon and association uniform reflects this change, ditching both colors and replicating the style of the 1980s Bucks uniforms. The old black deer head statement gets tossed though and replaced with a cream jersey, which takes styling from the earned jersey they have this year, namely the deer antlers incorporated into the jersey which looks pretty cool. I faded the antlers into the background and also updated the front font to be different, now reading the city abbreviation of MKE, as well as the alternate logo being added to the pant.



    Southeast division up next!


    The white and green really do look better without the black and blue forced in. Not sure about the alt. I feel like the antlers should at least be green if you go that route.

  9. 6 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

    Bringing this over from the regular season thread.  The Braves tweeted this before last night's game.




    Tremendous class by the Braves organization to acknowledge the Brewers and Milwaukee in their tribute to Hank Aaron. I'm actually disappointed that the Brewers didn't trot out a set of 1975 powder blues for this.


    Who would have guessed that given their history that Milwaukee and Atlanta would turn out to be the friendliest of rivals?

  10. 2 hours ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

    I think it's good to remember that this is effectively a starting point not an end point.


    This might not be the Guardians word mark in the next 20 years. The script or color scheme could definitely change as the new name becomes just another part of team history.


    To use the Marquette analogy, just look at how the identity went from fairly conventional navy and gold styles to incorporating horizontal stripes with powder blue, to really unique sublimated designs, to the latest jagged script. 






    You can call Marquette uniform history since changing to the Golden Eagles a lot of names but boring isn't one of them. So who knows what the future is going to bring for the Guardians. I think they're off to a good start and we'll see where they go next.


    In MU's case, eventually someone remembered all the crazy unique designs they had when their basketball program came of age and incorporated them with modern sensibilities.


    Cleveland has 100+ years to draw from. No reason they can't do the same.


    Although MU whiffed on the chance to go back to Hilltoppers or Golden Avalanche and really stick it to the "B-B-But TRADITION!" crowd. Cleveland could have done the same, but at least Guardians is unlike anything we've seen in major pro sports before (sorry, XFL fans).

  11. The Brewers would look much better if you dropped royal blue from the equation altogether. I'm not sure why it's even part of their color pallet to be honest. They don't even use it in the uniforms save for a couple of sleeve patches. Either do a single outline in white or forget about the outline altogether.


    The Twins look great from the back. But the wordmark looks muddled on the front. Either execute it the same as the numbers, or use a white outline between the blue and gold.


    Yankees are perfect and totally on brand.

  12. On 7/26/2021 at 10:30 PM, johne9109 said:

    Milwaukee Brewers


    I really like that the Brewers use an off white for their home jerseys and I almost went with that for the color rush. but it'd just be a redo of what they pretty much already have so I decided to go with a yellow uniform. I also decided to take the state logo that's usually on their sleeve and make it the main jersey logo. I have the Brewers newer wordmark and thought this was more unique. 


    You've got the start of something here. But there's two main tweaks I'd make.


    -The dark panel on the gold crown is awkward. I get what you were going for, but a much more pleasing color balance could be achieved with a solid gold crown and a navy bill.


    -The white numbers on gold would be insanely hard to read on players in action. Navy would be much easier. And you should use the far superior modern numbers because the old ones clash way too much with the modern logo.


    EDIT: I actually wouldn't mind seeing you try a cream version of this. The current cream set is their weak link.

  13. On 6/14/2021 at 11:56 PM, qboy18 said:

    Hello, I have been thinking of a concept idea for a while and am new to the whole forum thing. I would appreciate some tips and stuff for navigating the site but my idea is a Wisconsin Handball Association (WHA). I already have 30 teams picked out with 6 conferences of 5 teams each. I just need to figure out team names, logos, jerseys and the like. Any tips?


    I'm down if you want my help. Inbox me.

  14. Soon as I saw the title I thought "Dammit... someone else beat me to my own idea!" Second time that's happened here.

    Though I have to say, so far it looks like a better idea in theory than practice.  Honestly, I like their current colors, minus the blue (except on the Wisconsin logo). They're actually quite consistent with the classic logo.


  15. Not sure I could consider the Bucks an upgrade over what they have now.  I like the current white, green, and earned jerseys on their own, but I don't like seeing the elements mixed together.

    Also, I can say this now that the Bucks finally won another championship... the 1971 unis are actually pretty boring.   I've always preferred the 1974 version with the Brewers style scripts.   

  16. Watching the Brewers play the White Sox is like watching my two favorite kittens get into a fight.  I would love to see these teams in a "Hiawatha Series" at the end of the season, not getting in each others' way when both are in first place.

    I hate interleague play.

  17. The more I look at this identity package, the more I like it. I even like the G-wings... probably because I'm a sucker for anything art deco.  At first I thought the scripts looked more like a mid-century department store than something truly deco inspired.  But art deco led to streamline modern, which led to mid century modern, so it still kind of works.  It also helps that it looks like a less cheesy version of their 1970s scripts.

    It's already growing on me, which is a good sign.

  18. On 7/22/2021 at 10:06 AM, DG_ThenNowForever said:

    Bud won in spite of himself. Giannis is that good.

    The parallels between him and Mike McCarthy having Aaron Rodgers to blow a smokescreen over his shortcomings hasn't gone unnoticed.  I hope the Bucks prove to be a more competent organization than the Packers and don't waste Giannis' prime by letting a terrible coach linger around longer than he should.

  19. Went home so I could go to the Deer District last night.  We made it all the way to the barricade by the sound board.  Not sure how to describe the atmosphere, but "electric" feels like an egregious understatement.  I think the fans wanted it even more than the players... which is saying a lot because those boys played the last 4 games, and really, the last 3 series like their lives were at stake.  I couldn't be prouder of them either... I can't think of the last time I saw a team in any sport where the camaraderie amongst teammates seemed this genuine.  Giannis himself comes across as the most likable guy in the world.

    I may have made it all the way to middle age to do it, but I've finally seen my city bring home a championship!

  20. On 7/12/2021 at 10:04 PM, IceCap said:

    Older team names tend be less intimidating than newer team names.

    Take the Toronto Maple Leafs (name adopted in 1927) vs Seattle Kraken (name adopted in 2020). This is because no one gave a crap about marketing back in the day. The name was whatever was important to the city, or what the owner wanted, or what the newspapers called them. That was that, it was established, and a hundred years later it is what it is. Newer teams only pick a brand after an exhaustive process of fan surveys, focus groups, and other market research shenanigans. And market research tells you that kids and the 18-35 demo are the ones you want. Kids like cool stuff, young adult men are all about testosterone, so intimidating names are chosen because they tick those boxes. "Cool," "badass," "hardcore," "busin'," " 🔥" etc...


    So look at MLB. The oldest circuit in American pro sports. With a higher percentage of teams that date to the late 19th/early 20th century than the NHL, NBA, or NFL. That means that a higher percentage of MLB teams date from a time before marketing was a factor. So more of them have these less intimidating old timey names. Which sets a precedent. Baseball is rich in tradition, and that means newer teams may feel compelled to go with a name that can "fit in" with the classic team names.


    More older teams, from an era when "intimidation" wasn't a factor. These teams set a certain naming standard. More newer teams want to emulate them. Boom. Baseball has less intimidating team names compared to other sports.


    To add to this, baseball has quite a few teams who retained the names of other entities with early-mid 20th century origins (Brewers, Padres, Angels, Marlins, Orioles, etc.). 

  21. It would be weird to me to see Grand Rapids not having a team at all.  Most cities of any decent size have at least a D1 basketball program in town.  Not only must Grand Rapids be one of the biggest cities that doesn't, but they have a long history of supporting minor league basketball going back to the days of the CBA.

  • Create New...

Important Information

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