Sec19Row53

Given previous statements I'm guessing there's an IP masking program or such involved

On back-to-back days, the Pittsburgh Pirates moved from 5th Place in the NL Central, to 2nd Place, and then back to 5th Place.

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

He’s a guy who can take gutter trash to an over-.500 record. He’s earned his extensions, but he should look into a succession plan.

Why should he?

2 hours ago, Anubis2051 said:

Tampa’s is better than their current look. The Angels is as well. CWS is great and well loved. Brewers looks great and is a great alt. San Diego’s is a great alt as well - you probably see almost an equal amount of the CC and regular look at the ballpark. 
 

 

WTF? Not if you want to be able to see numbers. Or names. Or the logo.

The hat is cute. I'll give you that.

11 minutes ago, Haz_Matt said:

Yes, because watching a game and an abbreviated highlight package that shows 3-5 plays, at best, is the same thing.

 

Good thing we all don't have to share the same opinions and reasons to watch games or agree on everything, huh

 

Ok. I won't offer an opinion different than yours if you only see 3-5 plays. This isn't mid-70's MNF we're talking about.

39 minutes ago, Haz_Matt said:

What about throwback alternates? Last year, Tampa wore their creamsicle uniforms one game and I didn't get to see them

It's not like the highlights aren't all over the place. If you don't see a team's highlights from a given weekend, you're not trying.

5 minutes ago, MJD7 said:

I agree, but for the opposite reason, of getting to see alternates of other  teams that I’m not a fan of. Since I don’t really watch many games that aren’t the Vikings (my team) other than primetime, that’s a great place to show off those alternate looks I otherwise would probably miss beyond the occasional highlight.

 

I like alternates during primetime because it adds a bit to the “special event” feel of it. This might get me booed out of this thread, but if a team has a “black-out” uniform or something similar, I’d much rather them wear it during a primetime game than on a random Sunday at 1:00. It just looks better in that context to me.

So YOU were the one who enjoyed Color Rush Thursday Night. 

17 minutes ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

Also if every team has a jersey sponsor then it doesn't change anything. It just means salaries will get inflated more and the bottom spending teams will still have the same issues.

It actually makes it worse, because a team like the Yankees will get more money from their jersey sponsor than will the Brewers.

On 6/2/2024 at 4:40 PM, Wildcomet said:

Happy weekend everyone! Time for the next concept in the series: What if... the NFL forced the Packers to leave Green Bay?

 

 

Lore:

  Reveal hidden contents

Back in the 1950's, the Green Bay Packers already were (by far) the league's smallest market. They had survived up to that point on the back of on-field success in the prior decades and their unique status of public ownership. By this point however, the Packers' playing facilities were bordering on unacceptable by the rest of the NFL, and after the 1953 completion of Milwaukee County Stadium 120 miles to the south, rumblings of a forced move by the NFL began. In our timeline, the Packers and the Green Bay community countered with plans for what would become Lambeau Field, which local voters overwhelmingly approved.

 

In this timeline, a smear campaign (unknown to the locals at the time) led by some NFL owners and supported by some Milwaukee business owners turned public opinion against the idea of funding a stadium at such cost and scale solely for the use of a single football team. After the 1956 bond vote failed, the Green Bay Packers Board of Directors approved a move to Milwaukee under threat of expulsion from the NFL to play in Milwaukee County Stadium. The Packers organization announced what they called the Gold Package to season ticket holders in the Green Bay area for them to get tickets to one pre-season and two regular season games each year.

 

On-field events in this timeline remained largely unchanged, as ownership remained the same and geographically the move changed little for the organization. Off the field, the team did it's best to maintain its connection to Green Bay while also embracing its new community. They kept their training camp facilities and the Packer Hall of Fame in Green Bay, and eventually helped secure an Amtrak extension from Milwaukee to Green Bay to make travel easier for fans.

 

In Milwaukee, the Packers were a major part of the sports culture, but still shared the city with the Braves, then the Bucks and Brewers (not to mention several college and minor league teams in various sports) so they did not develop quite the same aura around them as in our timeline. With a shared stadium, "Lambeau Field" doesn't happen; this timeline's version of Miller Park comes along a few years earlier due to the increased use over time and is designed in a way that better suits a dual-use stadium. But make no mistake, the team still values its history.

Design: 

  Reveal hidden contents

The Packers' branding largely remained the same, mostly just adjusting to the move. IRL historical logos which featured the  state of WI and a mark for Green Bay's location were adjusted to highlight the new Milwaukee home (I included a modernized take on the 1961 logo I had done in the past as a secondary here, tweaked for this timeline of course). The signature G was also changed to a design featuring an M. It's based on the stencil font from their wordmark. White lines on the tips of the oval create lines similar to the stripes on some footballs in the negative space. Something I didn't put on the concept sheet for lack of space is that on the Gold Package games, the Packers would revert to the G logo on the helmet.

 

The primary uniforms remain basically the same as our timeline aside from the M logo replacing the G following the move.  The 50's throwback uniforms of our timeline would still be in use here I reckon, representing the time when the team made the move to Milwaukee. That said, the team is a bit more willing to embrace other looks in this timeline alongside the Brewers and Bucks, and in the 2020s develops the alternate 'People's Team' uniform based off Milwaukee's unofficial flag design which gained popularity and the team's public-owned status. It has a modified version of the flag symbol stretched into an oval similar to their primary logo, which is featured on the helmet, sleeves and pants. I really think in this timeline that would be a good marriage of team and local branding.

 

I know messing with the Packers logo or uniforms in this forum can be a dangerous move, lol, but I'm hoping I largely did the team justice given the circumstances forced by the 'what if' question at hand. Thanks for checking this out, hope you all enjoy!

Something about the M is not sitting right with me. I like where you're trying to go, but...

The odd stencil line in the middle of the M is throwing me off. And while I applaud the stripes in your football, it was the college ball that used stripes, and not the NFL.

20 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

I was thinking Milwaukee Art Museum.

Same. Which kinda goes hand in hand with my earlier Minneapolis/Milwaukee post.

2 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

 

Gambling is my main problem with all of this.  It looks like the MLB and NBA have a handle on their gambling policy, as does the NFL to a lesser degree, and likely the NHL too, but I don't know about the other leagues.  It doesn't seem like its going to be a problem so far, but who knows.  

Just once I was hoping you wouldn't move the goalposts. You didn't say anything about gambling -- you just said 'For me it's more about "Las Vegas is getting 4 Major League teams way too fast" so much so that I don't think they can sustain all 4 Major League teams'

1 minute ago, adsarebad said:

Oh, okay..... so what does the yellow represent?

 

Ehh, nevermind, i figured it out  

Warmer water

13 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

 

For me it's more about "Las Vegas is getting 4 Major League teams way too fast" so much so that I don't think they can sustain all 4 Major League teams plus WNBA, National Lacrosse League, Pro Volleyball Federation, Indoor Football League, MLS team (which they will get) and eventually a Women's soccer team.   

Do they have an owner with deep pockets? Venues? Then why is it a concern to you?

7 hours ago, 655321 said:

 

Other than, "because you don't like them," why? 

Same question in reverse. Other than "because you like them", why?

2 minutes ago, dont care said:

I’m getting heavy brewer vibes from the navy and gold color scheme and times new Roman esq number font.

People confuse Milwaukee for Minneapolis all the time.

I can't imagine I'm the only one getting goosebumps watching the 'touch the Cup' opener, am I??

Just now, GDAWG said:

 

Isn't them saying "let's stick it to the A's" the same thing as saying "let's stick it to John Fisher?"  Afterall, he does own the team.

Sure, but 4000 doesn't make it a point worth caring about.

And we're right back where we started.

2 hours ago, GDAWG said:

 

I got the point, but that's how a few Pro-Oakland on Social media who were A's fans are spinning it with the Ballers.  

Your post seemed to be your opinion, not theirs.

17 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

It's more like sticking it to John Fisher and Rob Manfred, telling them "see we are a baseball town!"

I think you missed the point. 4000 people doesn't make it a baseball town, nor does it stick it to anyone.

4 hours ago, rfraser85 said:

Does anyone know what the purpose is/was for the white portion of NFL socks? I can't remember if those were sanitary socks or some kind of ankle wrap. When I say purpose, I mean function, not fashion.

If I recall correctly, the color portion of the sock had dyes that could either (1) run, or (2) be actually hazardous due to the chemicals used in the coloring process. The 'sanitary' sock was just that - something to keep the player 'sanitary'.

11 minutes ago, MDGP said:

 

This exact conversation is happening over in the NBA thread as well, and when I asked people adamant about certain rules to actually provide them the response from every one of them turned into "well it's really more of a viiiiiiibe rather than a rule per se" and general speculation about how a rule COULD exist if you ignore all the evidence to the contrary.

1 hour ago, Sec19Row53 said:

This isn't the main color of the uniform, so there's not a rule preventing them from adding a new trim color. That's how the Colts could add a black swoosh to their uniform. However, once they added the black swoosh, that set the stage for them to be allowed to have a black uniform, because it was a color in their team "database" so to speak.

 

You can always add a color to your uniform. You can't make a new uniform out of color that isn't currently used or in your team's history.

Not a vibe, but confusing what the rule actually is.

2 minutes ago, DCarp1231 said:

Remember when the Colts trolled us with their  April Fools all-white uniform nine years ago? It’s becoming more of a reality that we’ll get this eventually

Please delete this post before someone who could make this happen sees it.

17 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

OR… 

 

It’s “allowed” because the Vikings wanted to do it and that’s pretty much all there is to it.  
 

We spend a lot of time discussing these theoretical NFL uniform rules.  Has anybody ever seen an actual document outlining any of these rules?  I’m seriously asking.  Is it possible most of these supposed rules are hearsay that gets accepted as fact?  

This isn't the main color of the uniform, so there's not a rule preventing them from adding a new trim color. That's how the Colts could add a black swoosh to their uniform. However, once they added the black swoosh, that set the stage for them to be allowed to have a black uniform, because it was a color in their team "database" so to speak.

You can always add a color to your uniform. You can't make a new uniform out of color that isn't currently used or in your team's history.

2 hours ago, -Akronite- said:

 

Most people understand pitch black to simply mean extremely dark. Pitch blue is a clever name to me, though one might find it a waste of time to make a blue so dark it's nearly indistinguishable from black anyway.

If that's the case, most people are wrong. Not knowing what a word means doesn't excuse its misuse. That point is mute [sic].

I completely agree with your second sentence. 

12 minutes ago, burgundy said:

 

Why is pitch blue so stupid? It's like pitch black... but blue-tinted. Makes sense to me.

 

Because 'pitch' is an actual thing that is black.