MilSox

1 hour ago, flasah said:

 

Yeah I don't think any city under 2 million could support an MLB team. Currently only Milwaukee is under that.

Even that's misleading because for whatever reason, only Milwaukee County and three counties that surround it are counted in the metro population.  But if you include all 9 counties in Southeast Wisconsin, the population is over 2 million.  Granted, half of those people live in Milwaukee County itself, which is why a market like Milwaukee can work.  Baseball needs a strong centralized population because few fans are willing to go on a significant commute to attend a weeknight game, which I would think goes to your point.  Lots of western metros have massive populations.  But if that population is spread out, which tends to be the case with sunbelt cities, it won't translate into attendance.

For sure... it's one thing for a team like the Toronto Blue Jays to have a leaf as part of their identity.  But a junior team in a league that's more or less localized to a single Canadian province?  Seems a bit redundant.

On 5/6/2021 at 1:56 PM, gothedistance said:

 

Two A. Rodgers. Now that caught me off guard.

Too bad FNOB isn't a thing anymore. I was too young to remember when the Rams did it with Jack and Jim Youngblood. But I always looked forward to seeing the Broncos when they had Doug and Dave Widell.

I also used to wonder what the Bears would have done if they ever got Mark Carrier the WR when they had Mark Carrier the DB.

54 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

Developmentally, it makes more sense to consolidate as opposed to spread out; the AHL-ECHL system has worked perfectly for the NHL, and there's nowhere near the kind of money necessary right now for a bunch of minor-league teams to go founding their own league.

 

Besides, it makes it easier to sell your AHL tickets if you have the promise of seeing future NHL players, a lot like how lots of people buy Triple-A baseball tickets to watch future MLB players. Without that, what's to say some of the teams moving to this new league don't flounder horribly?

Is that really even the case anymore?  Much like with baseball, any young kid who shows promise nowadays is called up to the big leagues within a year or two if even that.  The Triple A level is just a place to stockpile guys who aren't quite good enough for the big club in case of injuries.

This is almost as cringe when the Milwaukee AA team chose that goofy Milkmen identity.  Essentially, "Hey, we're a baseball team in Wisconsin" which makes even less sense when the Mallards play in a league with 9 other in-state rivals.  The only thing inherently Madison about this is the capitol skyline in the back.  Even the puddles don't look like the lakes surrounding the isthmus. 

Also, the old colors tied the Mallards back to the Madison Muskies, the Oakland A's affiliate that broke in the nucleus of their pennant winning clubs from 1988-90.  THAT'S what says Madison baseball to me.  The fact that it had to be pointed out that the new colors (allegedly) came from the city flag tells me they really missed the mark on a local-based identity.

On 5/1/2021 at 2:24 PM, Geoff said:

How long until the Pacific AHL teams actually break away and form their own league. They've been given a decent bit of autonomy/preferential treatment already.

I'd be all for that.  I'd even hope for a domino effect where the Midwestern teams reform the IHL. 

Perhaps it's a mock up that the Packers made for promotional purposes?

I doubt they would have posted it on their official social media if that weren't the case.

Looks like we have at least one receiver slated to wear a single digit.  The Packers new A. Rodgers will wear the old A. Rodgers' college number.

22 hours ago, DNAsports said:

Except it kinda does. It’s still derived from the older Native American head logos that Washington used.

Hence, I said it doesn't reference anything explicitly native.  Feathers can go into a lot of different contexts, especially if the team is named after a species of bird.  That's why a lot of colleges that dropped their native mascots adopted a bird as their new one.

That said, the more I think about it, the more I'm intrigued by Redhogs.  Hogs became associated with the franchise so organically, and how often do you see a swine related identity in sports?  The Arkansas Razorbacks and Nippon Ham Fighters are the only two I can come up with off the top of my head.

8 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

they really can’t keep any Native iconography at all, even if they’re now going to claim that it has a different meaning.

And nobody’s claiming that we erase the past.  We just can’t keep condoning that past as if it was somehow okay.

I'm not saying they should. But a Redtail is hawk that's named after its feathers. Therefore the Lombardi R is still appropriate as it doesn't reference anything explicitly native.

4 minutes ago, LA Fakers+ LA Snippers said:

I completely agree with you, but let’s play devil’s advocate for a moment. The counter argument that I’ve seen on these boards(and that will inevitably come up again) is “We need to erase all connections to the past name.” While I understand that, people are going to still call them “Reds***s” no

matter the name. Also, it’s etched into history. They won Super Bowls as it. Why not combine the nickname they earned during one of the best periods in franchise history, and the color that they wear that harkens back to the old name, while still moving forward?

I wanted the Redsk*ns name gone as much as anyone, but I'm not so militant about completely erasing the fact that they were ever called as such.  Redtails would allow them to keep their circle and feather, only replace the Indian head with probably a W or R.  Hell, they could even bring back the circle R logo designed by Vince Lombardi, who actually demanded that he be allowed to have a Native caddy when he golfed at what was a whites only country club in Wisconsin.

Redhogs would require more of a rebrand, but... as you said... Hogs is tied into the most successful period of the franchise's history and is still a huge part of their fan culture.  It would also, perhaps even more so than Redtails, shut down any arguments that the team is trying to erase history.

I'm actually glad to see Redhogs on the list.  That's the only name I like as much as Redtails.  Either one would allow them to salvage things that have already been part of their identity for decades.

16 hours ago, Discrim said:

Admittedly, I'm surprised UWM hasn't done anything resembling the Pirates, given the color scheme.  Maybe they have and I'm merely unaware of it, though.

I feel like it'd be weird if they did that now, given that the Pirates are in the Brewers division.

Granted, it'd probably still look better than anything they've trotted out in the past decade or so.  If ever there was proof that no one in the UWM athletic department gives a :censored:, just look at some of their baseball uniforms.  Baseball uniforms are the hardest uniforms to mess up.

In the late 90s, the UWM Panthers were wearing the 1994 Brewers "MILWAUKEE" script.

It's always perplexed me that, given how popular the 80s Brewers are locally, that the Panthers haven't thought to swipe the road script from that era and build their brand around that.  I bet they'd sell an ass load of merch.

EDIT: Turns out we were also one of the schools who ripped off the Padres in the mid-2000s.  This is the best pic I could find.

I've been wanting numbers in the NFL to be more like college for quite some time.  I feel like the idea of a numbering system is a bit of an antiquated concept nowadays, for many of the reasons that have already been cited.  Especially the tendency of modern players to either line up at multiple positions or specialize in something that isn't accounted for (i.e. edge rusher).

If nothing else, simplify it so that QBs, Ks, and Ps get 1-19. OLs, DLs, and LBs  get 50-79 and 90-99.  RBs, WRs, TEs, and DBs get 1-49, and 80-89. 

6 hours ago, tBBP said:

Not that my opinion of it matters one ioda, but I've long thought the Footballs' yellow gold masks as garish. It may just be because yellow is so bright on its own, but I never understood why they went that route rather than color-keying the masks to the helmets. 

I never cared much for Washington using them.  But they just seem to "work" for the Chargers.  Perhaps because the Chargers have built their brand around flashy and outlandish uniforms.

13 hours ago, colinturner95 said:

Has anyone come in with the "it depends on the team?" comment yet? 

 

The Packers are a good example to me that could work with a grey facemask but look better in a team color facemask. The Cowboys on the other hand, I think would look better in a navy facemask opposed to their current silver one. 

 

 

I always thought the Packers should look as much as possible like the unis worn in SB 1&2. But I really wouldn't mind keeping the green mask.

Your Bucks and rainbow Nuggets are pure beauty.

8 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

OK, so here are the Brewers and Padres, which finishes off the entire MLB. I actually feel like both of these teams made major upgrades when they changed last year, but both dropped the ball a bit and the same ways. The navy the Brewers went with is inferior to royal blue, for them anyway. And the Padres brown is nice, but still a little darker/duller than I would've used... it's like they're still just a bit embarrassed by the fact that they're wearing brown.

 

No complaints on the home and road. But for sone reason, the glove on the home alt and the state outline on the road alt feels more "intuitive" to me. Perhaps because I don't think Barrel Man's head makes a very good logo on its own. But maybe that's me.

Personally, I'd like to forget that the Bucks ever wore purple. But I must say those colors work surprisingly well together. That would be a great scheme for the Rockies.

Apart from seconding only using the shield on the helmet, I can't think of a single thing I'd change for Milwaukee. The full gear would be great at midfield though. I can't believe how well those colors work together. I'm all for the brick pattern if only because of how often I've learned that non-locals think Cream City is a reference to dairy. In reality, Milwaukee's only real connection to the dairy industry is being where a lot of dairy products go to be consumed.

On 1/25/2021 at 12:26 PM, Lights Out said:

Interesting prototypes for the Hawks and Bucks:

 

 

Still a downgrade from the Irish Rainbows, but at least this is reasonably consistent with their traditional identity. Those are the colors of their classic logo.

57 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

Valparaiso has a Football Team?

FCS affiliated, but non-scholarship, which is why you never hear of them. They're a glorified club team.

As far as a new nickname, I'd like them to choose somethinh that would enable them to keep their current identity package, as I think it's very well done. I would go with Squires. It means the same basic thing as Knights, but much more unique.

Standard marketing speak and patronizing go hand in hand.

Also, given the tendency of white nationalist cultists to exploit the word and concept of patriotism, the decision to even go there in the first place feels all sorts of icky.

On 1/26/2021 at 12:59 PM, gosioux76 said:

So this is the trend now in independent minor league ball: Create four teams of your own, house them in your stadium, and then launch a single-location circuit. Sort of like a barnstorming tour, but without the barnstorming. 

 

The Portland Pickles this week announced something similar with its Gherkins' wood bat club anchoring a four-team circuit that will include the reborn Portland Rosebuds. An independent team out here in the St. Louis area, the O'Fallon Hoots, did something similar last season with a college summer league that included six teams, one being the Hoots, the other with names apparently selected at random, such as the Cavemen and Cornbelters. 

 

It's an enterprising way to make use of an otherwise dormant stadium and pull in some new merchandise sales. 

This isn't far off from how women's roller derby leagues have organized for the past decade and some change.