ManillaToad

What is the thinking behind using "Mammoth" as a collective noun instead of just using "Mammoths"?

2 hours ago, AgentColon2 said:

In case you missed the logo on our helmet, check the sleeve.

 

I thought this kind of assery was in the past.

I will never understand why more NFL teams don't make use of secondary logos like MLB teams do

11 minutes ago, GrayJ12 said:

Any reason why there are two national championship rings?

The CFP has an official ring they give to the champions, and then the team makes a set of their own later on

These are gonna age like milk, especially when the team wears monochrome in almost every single game

Pioneers isn't a good hockey name. That's pure baseball, and maybe a little bit of football.

You know we live in dire times when the most popular suggestions for a team name are either WNBA-tier or just not having one at all.

This trend of non-name names is getting out of hand. It was stupid for Washington and Edmonton but at least it was understandable because they had to drop their old names like they were on fire. Now teams are willing to have a lame-duck year just because the owner doesn't feel like picking something. It really blows my mind how such a stupid trend can even become one in the first place

Oh God they're going to subject us to a year of "Lol the Stars are playing Hockey Team " before we even get to whatever terrible collective noun they choose as a name

44 minutes ago, DCarp1231 said:

ANY of these would work

As an icon for a  phone app, sure

It took 60 years but the Jets finally figured out how to put a plane and a football in their logo at the same time

It looks like the E has an underbite

I understand why the circumstances change things but Arizona getting to keep the history for the move to Utah while Winnipeg didn't for the move to Arizona is such a Bettman-era thing to happen

2 hours ago, DCarp1231 said:

It’s kinda also like how the Chiefs should get rid of their Lamar Hunt/AFL patch

Not only should they keep the patch, they should put the AFL logo in their endzones

8 hours ago, clonewars2008 said:

We need to be careful about reunifying Winnipeg’s history, that’s a Pandora’s box in if itself, especially with another Canadian team that would suddenly be tied 3rd all time in Stanley Cups. 

That would be a good thing

Man I hope SLC doesn't go with some goofy crap akin to Kraken. There's potential for a solid identity here

1 hour ago, The Impaler said:

I don't think monochrome is bad, in fact the only monochrome I really don't care for is white, just think it's boring.  However, I think monochrome is just poorly executed too often.  Saints and Ravens are the first to come to mind.  Put striping on the pants and opposite socks and all the sudden those two looks are much more palatable.  I'm not saying every team should have a monochrome look by any means, and I think for teams such as the Patriots silver pants should be standard home (actually white, scrap the silver, but that's another story).

It's not monochrome if the socks contrast the pants & jersey

4 hours ago, tigerslionspistonshabs said:

I think Owls would be cool. 

Owls are dangerously underrepresented in sports branding

24 minutes ago, Silver_Star said:

 

No, with the Rams, keep the horns. If the Rams gotten a logo, it would not fare well with fans as they are used to the horns on the helmets. I find the horns on the helmet to be awesome. I like it. Downsizing the Rams helmet where they are just like every NFL team is just not unique. The Rams and Bengals have a unique helmet and not to be touched because it is creative for 1948 and 1981 respectfully.

No I'm saying their logo should be your profile pic

The Browns and Rams should both have helmets for a logo

Guy who worked for nike says nothing is nike's fault

41 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

It’s so much more entertaining than the Norman Rockwell-like garbage.

He did have some really nice paintings though

At least one of the cars used their hazard lights. Safety first

They were probably inebriated and decided to lay low until  it's out of their systems

13 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Happy to oblige.

 

The Astros did nothing that is not done by every single other team — including the crybaby Yankees.  Stealing signs is absolutely part of the game. The 1951 Giants used high-powered binoculars.

 

 

 

Here is where this mindset gets dangerously divorced from reality. Armstrong mainly used his own blood. Even people who get squeamish about steroids should be able to acknowledge that using one's own blood is unobjectionable.

 

 

 

No blowing-off is taking place. When the question is whether those players are good people, those facts form the basis to conclude that they are not. Those bad acts have nothing to do with the question of whether the players in question were amongst the greatest players ever — the answer to which is an unequivocal "yes". The essential point here is that ranking those players where they belong amongst the greatest ever neither ignores nor excuses those players' bad behaviour.

 

 

 

It's an unreasonable rule, as it plays "let's pretend" with the facts of history. 

 

As I mentioned earlier, banning Pete Rose from working in baseball on account of his gambling was appropriate. But acting as though he does not have a playing record but deserves recognition is a crime against history — especially considering that the gambling that got Rose banned from baseball happened after his playing career was over.

 

 

 

Straw man alert! 

 

To say that a substance should not be illegal is not the same thing as promoting its use. (But you knew that.) Note that there are legal things that are best avoided, most notably tobacco.

 

I do not speak hypothetically; the person whom I loved most died at age 39 from the ravages on her body caused by the abuse of heroin and cocaine (as well as tobacco), substances which I would recommend to nobody.

 

Indeed, I wouldn't even recommend the use of steroids, on account of the risk of cancer, as happened to Lyle Alzado.

 

Still, a person has a fundamental right to put into his or her own body that which he or she chooses to put there. This acknowledgment of one's sovereignty over one's own body provides the incontrovertible moral basis for opposing prohibition of even the most dangerous substances.

 

 

 

Well, the players from the 1960s would definitely disagree with you about amphetamines. Those players were convinced that "greenies" helped them recover from injuries and deal with fatigue. Jim Bouton wrote about this.

 

While I have not used cocaine, plenty of people whom I know have used it. And they say that that drug gave them the ability to overlook certain types of pain. So it is safe to say that the use of that drug allowed ballplayers to play when they otherwise would not have been able to play.

 

Bonds taking a steaming dump on two of the most important records in sports is a bigger crime against baseball history than Cooperstown not bestowing their highest honor on a guy who bet on his teams to lose.

6 minutes ago, FiddySicks said:

They could absolutely include these guys in some way, shape, or form, while also doing the work to explain some of the context of that particular era or issue. But the thing is, that would take a little bit of work on their parts, and it would severely diminish the time they have to be old cranky codgers whining about the “sanctity” of a child’s game where you hit a cow skin ball with a wooden stick. 
 

The Hall of Fame is more than plaques of inductees. The museum has plenty of stuff from Bonds and Rose. They just don't get to have a bust in there.

Also the idea that the BBWAA is a bunch of elderly guys sitting around a fireplace conspiring on who to keep out is laughable. The last balloting had 385 voters. Old, middle aged, and young, and they didn't put Barry in because he's a cheater.