• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Prospect

About BBM

  • Rank
    Piping Free

Profile Information

  • Location
    Long Island, NY

Contact Methods

  1. I guess the biggest fear is the slippery slope argument. Sure, it's a 2x2 patch now, but this opens the door to European soccer-style jerseys of the ad basically being the team's logo. Also, every facet of our world these days are inundated with advertisements, it was nice having one minor reprieve from that, with sports uniforms.
  2. If the Pens were gonna go with the throwback they should update the center ice logo to be yellow gold and not Vegas gold.
  3. And from the Charlotte Bobcats reject collection... No one needs an overhaul in the NBA (maybe all of sports?) more than the Thunder.
  4. The only history Dallas has started on day 1 when they moved there. They have their 1999 Stanley Cup. They didn't even retain their full nickname which Norm Green shed in the closing years before the move to Texas. Just like the Baltimore Ravens don't and shouldn't own the 4 straight championships won in the old AAFC in '46-'49 by the Cleveland Browns, and their other NFL Championships, or Jim Brown, Otto Graham and all the other great players in Cleveland football history. Your Timberwolves comparison regarding the Lakers is downright silly and appears desperate to me. You're taking about an expansion team that was born nearly 30 years after the Lakers left Minneapolis for LA in 1960. Correction on this part. The "Stars" jersey appeared for the last two years in Minnesota, but the team was called the North Stars during those years. Green did not dump "North" until the move. Your Wizards/Bullets analogy is correct...the "new North Stars" would retain the "Wild" history. But I don't think the T-Wolves comparison is that silly. The Browns have a three year "layoff". The Hornets/Bobcats/Pelicans history is a mess. The Seattle Sonics history, which currently belongs to the Thunder, will almost certainly be shifted to the new Sonics after what promises to be more than a decade. We keep "Franchise" rather than "City" history (at least we used to) because our sports are so based on history. Thank god We did not abandon the St. Louis Browns history (to wait for the next St. Louis AL team, I guess) and consider the Orioles an "expansion team." Also, that franchise started in 1901 as the Milwaukee Brewers. Milwaukee Brewers: 1901, 1970 - to present. MLB franchise/location history is easy to follow and I'll take their way (and the NHL) over what looks to be the NFL and NBA precedent any day. The Ravens don't but should own those old titles. Unless I am to believe they were an expansion team that happened to have a bunch of players that played for the Browns (who were in year 1 of a 3-year layoff) the previous year. I need an aspirin. The Ravens don't own those titles because as part of the agreement in the move was that Cleveland would keep all the history of the Browns until another franchise came. It was predetermined before the move, which is why it makes sense that the Ravens act like an expansion team, but why it doesn't make sense for the Dallas Stars to do the same.
  5. When you consider there have been over 65 championships given out the fact that only 16 franchises have won them is pretty remarkable. I love these. The colors work, it all makes sense, and it is a nice change of pace from most teams in the league.
  6. Any word on if the NFL will get rid of the bland gray logo they've been using the last 5 years and go back to individual and original logos for each Super Bowl? Because that would be nice.
  7. The Buffalo Sabres have been through a tumultuous 15 years, and they are finally on the right track, but they're not quite there yet. The royal blue and gold is a far sharper look than the navy / white piping / gold.
  8. The reason the Mighty Ducks logo doesn't work for me, is because the reason it is so recognizable is the logo is obviously designed after Donald Duck. Sorry, but I get enough corporate infiltration in my sports. I don't need to be reminded that a megalith corporate entity owns my hockey team every time I look at the crest (were I a Ducks fan). I think that alone can discredit the Mighty Ducks logo.
  9. There's apparently a lot of red tape and money involved with changing the "main" logo of a franchise, which is why most teams opt for color swaps for that logo and we end up with silly things like the red, white and blue Wizard logo (and then they don't use that for much anyway). I think the Bucks logo is fine, it's not terribly interesting but at least they have gone back to red and green.
  10. At least with the Sharks, if they were to call back to the Oakland Seals it wouldn't be too bad since the Seals no longer exist. The Wild calling back to the North Stars is kind of awkward since the Stars still exist. I get that they would be celebrating the "heritage" of Minnesota hockey, but that heritage up and left town 20 years ago. Oh yeah, and they still have the same name. So that's kind of silly.
  11. I do not believe Frankford and Philadelphia are the same franchise.
  12. Totally agree. Such awesome uniforms that never got the credit they deserved, and ultimately got destroyed by their Edgification.
  13. I think the navy blue jerseys are much more of a "modern classic" look than the orange. The orange feels too much like a fashion jersey, something that doesn't really coordinate well with the navy blue in the helmet and socks. They either need a rustier orange or a lighter blue.
  14. Sorry but the A logo is so much better than the D logo. But I do like the old color scheme.
  15. I love when they wear the old blue and gold... it really pops especially since most teams are going darker these days. Also I've always loved pants with uniforms that aren't white or the home jersey color (i.e. Giants, Steelers, etc).