Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by NicDB

  1. From what I understand about the LA market, it's probably accurate to say the Dodgers are LA County's team and the Angels are Orange County's team.  The Angels have the Los Angeles moniker mostly because it makes them more money in sponsorship/ad revenue.  There's also the point that Los Angeles Angels is a "legacy" name like San Diego Padres, Baltimore Orioles, or Milwaukee Brewers; and it really wouldn't make sense to call them the Angels without it.

    Still, LA and OC are the same media market.  So unless I'm missing something, I'm not sure how that should effect MLB's ability to market one of its biggest stars.  In the early 70s, the NFL didn't use the excuse that Joe Namath played for the Jets and not the Giants, even though the Jets fanbase was very localized to Long Island at the time.  They hitched their wagon to his star power and propelled the league into the pop culture mainstream because of it.

  2. 58 minutes ago, BBTV said:



    At what point is it the players' fault and not anyone else's?  Not that I blame him for taking the money, but Trout chose to play in anonymity and obscurity, and to my knowledge has no national TV deals (of course... does he even need/want the money for those?)  Since he's on a team I never see, I've actually seen him more at Eagles games than playing the sport at which he's considered the best.  As for those other guys, doesn't one of them have a silly BMW or Porsche ad?  But that's it.  Do they even speak English fluently (I really don't know - maybe they do) but if not then that doesn't help either.


    The answer to the problem might be for MLB to engineer its league, and "move" players to places where they can be better marketed or at least well known.  Not unlike when Gretzky was traded to LA.


    Except Trout already plays in the LA market. Even when Yelich was the reigning MVP,  you still never saw the Brewers on national television except for the occasional match with the Cubs or Cards.


    I'm blaming the league because the NBA would never allow this to happen. They don't give the Nets the shaft the way MLB does the Angels because they're not the "glamour" team in that market. And playing in Milwaukee hasn't stopped them from promoting Giannis as one of their top stars and putting the Bucks in the national spotlight.


    Even when MLB steals ideas from the NBA, they can't even figure out the right ones to steal.

  3. I have to agree it was a coincidence more than anything. What always perplexed me is that the Mariners chose such similar colors to the Brewers in the first place. 


    Sure, the Brewers colors were technically a hand me down from Seattle. But if you're the Mariners, why align yourself in any way with the disaster that was the Pilots franchise?

  4. 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.

  5. 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.


  6. 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. 

  7. 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.


  8. 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.

  9. 2 hours ago, Dnice said:

    Some folks  are suggesting Milwaukee. 


    If they truly want to pay tribute to Hank Aaron, Milwaukee is the only other place that makes sense.


    Also they owe us for that sham of an ASG they stuck us with in 2001.


  10. Honestly, I'm not too crazy about blue becoming more prominent or the MECCA floor uniform looking like anything but the actual floor. 

    The one based on the flag is good, but the font makes it look too much like a GSW uniform.

  11. On 3/5/2021 at 11:11 PM, BBTV said:

    These last two pages just make me appreciate the NFL's logo system even more.


    MLB should have the NFL's system and vice versa. The Super Bowl being at a predetermined site means the logos miss out on all the localized imagery that made them so distinct.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. On 2/11/2021 at 2:04 PM, packerfan21396 said:

    Black is as prominent of a supporting color as blue is in terms of their appearance on the jerseys:



    But, blue actually makes an appearance in a tertiary logo, fittingly representing Wisconsin's water borders:



    On 2/11/2021 at 4:27 PM, QCS said:

    That is very nice, I love the look! Each team looks good, but I'm not super sold on blue for Milwaukee. I don't think it contrasts well enough with the green to use it as a base. I'll second trying it in black after the series is over.


    On 2/11/2021 at 6:44 PM, TrueNorth13 said:

    Part of the reason I used the blue, was just to go with that kind of crazy reverse retro kind of style that comes with that design. I think black would've made it seem too normal haha. But I'll look into seeing what black can look like once this series ends. 


    The other reason I'd like to see it in black is that the Bucks have already introduced a couple black alts with the current set that feature a giant deer head. Seems only natural (to me anyway) that they'd go black on their original deer head template.

  16. On 1/12/2021 at 3:50 AM, dont care said:

    I wouldn’t say those are their worst uniforms. The red and green 2000’s uniforms were worse.


    At least you could say green & red was consistent with the Bucks historic identity, as they were obviously inspired by what they wore in their early years.


    Purple made zero sense for them. It was chosen solely because it was a trendy color in the 90s. That's also why I don't care for blue being part of their identity now. Black and gold I can live with, because even though they never wore those colors before, they were part of their classic Bango logo and don't look so jarring.

  17. I remember the originals being a big hit with people under 30. Personally, they were my favorite out of that entire set. I thought the buck was cool and I liked that they were green. Never cared for them in purple.


    Any chance we could see these in black rather than blue?

  • Create New...

Important Information

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