BBTV

Members
  • Content Count

    46,629
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    183

Everything posted by BBTV

  1. Awesome! It's been nearly 30 seconds since someone came up with a good reel-line-mint plan. I was starting to think you guys ran out of ideas! Can't wait to read all the proposals!!!!!!!!!
  2. Expansion is an interesting idea, but as many have stated, it creates a problem with the current way the divisions are aligned. Can anyone think of a better way to align the divisions? I'd sure love to see some proposals that take into consideration all of the possible expansion teams. It's time to get creative, people!
  3. Excellent point, one I've been trying to make to my friends for years. The at-large bids are really for great teams that suffered a bad beat in their conference tournaments, or other teams that the committee feels should be in for whatever reason. It is more "good fortune" for the bubble-teams that make it, as opposed to being "snubbed" for the teams that didn't. Someone can have good luck without someone else having bad luck.
  4. Priceless. That one is getting saved.
  5. They did... 1. Shane Churla (RW) 2. Brian Hayward (G) 3. Neil Wilkinson (D) 4. Rob Zettler (D) 5. Ed Courtenay (RW) 6. Kevin Evans (LW) 7. Link Gaetz (D) 8. Dan Keczmer (D) 9. Dean Kolstad (D) 10. Peter Lappin (RW) 11. Pat MacLeod (D) 12. Mike McHugh (LW) 13. Jarmo Myllys (G) 14. Jean-Francois Quintin (LW) 15. Scott Cashman (G) 16. Murray Garbutt © 17. Rob Gaudreau (RW) 18. Arturs Irbe (G) 19. Shaun Kane (D) 20. Larry Olimb (D) 21. Tom Pederson (D) 22. Bryan Schoen (G) 23. John Weisbrod © 24. Doug Zmolek (D) OK, I guess they took a few players
  6. Re: Cherry Coke vs. Cherry Coca-Cola When the failed new Coke was replaced with Coca-Cola Classic, the actual forumla for New Coke was still maintained, with the "Coke" vs. "Coca-cola" being the differentiator from a marketing perspective. You see "Diet Coke" instead of "Diet Coca-cola" because Diet Coke is a diet version of the Coke forumla, NOT Coca-cola. That is why they came out with Coca-cola Zero - it is a diet version of Coca-cola. I'm not 100% certain on this, but I'm pretty sure I read that the Cherry Coke formula was modified to be a cherry version of Coca-cola, NOT Coke. Hence why Cherry Coca-cola is being marketed along side of Cherry Coke - (and Cherry Coca-cola Zero along side of Diet Cherry Coke) two different products.
  7. I grew up during the maroon era, and mostly everyone I knew found those uniforms boring and uninspired, and was very glad that they changed in '92. I'd wager that the majority of the maroon-wearing fans are in the 18 - 22 age-range. While I don't care for the current set (my reasoning for that would require a whole dedicated thread) and have a fond appreciation for the throwbacks (only because they were all I knew for the first 15 years of my life) if they went back, people would just clamor for another change. This statement applies to nearly all throwbacks - people only like 'em because they don't see them all the time.
  8. Is the difference even recognizable by the human eye?
  9. The Gunds owned the Barons, then merged with the North Stars. They then split from the North Stars' ownership group and started an "expansion" team in San Jose (they originally wanted to move the North Stars to the Bay Area anyway, but since they couldn't, they split apart.) As part of the deal, the North Stars were allowed to participate in the "expansion" draft along with the Sharks, since the Sharks were spawned from the Stars. I'm not sure if the Sharks took any of the North Stars players with them. From an ownership / management standpoint, the Sharks certainly are the Cleveland franchise. From an actual franchise standpoint, I believe the NHL "officially" considers them an expansion team. Since there had to be all kinds of deals made with the remaining piece of North Stars management, and they participated in the expansion draft, there's no way that the Sharks can not be considered a typical expansion team. Do some quick searching... you'll have no problems finding proof.
  10. Technically, baby blue wasn't ever part of their scheme, as it was only found in the road uniform. That's like saying gray is a part of every current team's (minus the Padres) scheme.
  11. Could it be that for some teams, the wordmark is the only thing that makes the uniform design trademarkable? I don't know how the law works, but can you trademark stripes and colors? Some teams (like the Eagles) have a trademarked logo on their jersey, and the wordmark is there just for aesthetics (this is debatable), but what about a team like the Browns?
  12. Also, the Redskins added the wordmark to their uniforms a few years ago.
  13. Full wordmark on one breast = terrible idea.
  14. Well the Chiefs re-introduced red pants (I guess that counts) and the Redskins slightly altered their sleeve stripes (relegating them to only the cuffs, with only the occasional QB exception.) I guess that's what they mean, unless they're counting the 70th ani. uniforms. I'm more curious as to what Carolina has changed in that time.
  15. I don't get that upset about it (at least not as much as some) but IMO using "we" makes you sound like a little kid dreaming of being on the team, not an adult who recognizes that the team is just a private organization (with one maybe two exceptions) of which you are a customer. Of course I feel the same way about adults who get team jerseys with their name on the back. Usually these are the same people who allow sports to play too big of a role in their lives, but that doesn't apply to everyone. I had a roommate who was a Redskins fan who when discussing football with me would talk like "you guys have a good line, but we have so-and-so, so we should beat you guys." That drove me nuts. I am an employee of a team, and still don't use "we" when discussing them. We should be reserved for the uniformed players, coaches, and football-operations-related front-office personnel. No matter how bad you want to be in that uniform and be one of the guys, you aren't now, and never will. Get over it. "You wouldn't make it in pro football." /mini rant.
  16. The pants in that picture don't appear to have the stripe coming around from the rear. I wonder if that is one of the changes that is in progress but hasn't been produced yet. I'm totally digging the name / number font, and I think the single-color name is totally the way to go with these.
  17. I must say I love everything about the Heat's package, from the logos, wordmarks, uniforms (esp. the red), court, everything (except the actual team, but that's only because they're in the Sixers' division.) IMO best stuff in the league (though other teams are getting better.)
  18. Based on their attendance I'd say the fans want 'em to stick around... it seems to be the Pittsburgh / Pennsylvania Governments who are the ones that don't necessarily care whether they stay or go. I'm not sure it's fair to say that the governments don't care - but there is only so much that can be done. The package that has been put together is already unprecedented in PA for this type of project.
  19. Yes and no. The "on field" font for the Chargers numbers is different than the one RBK uses for their replicas and "authentics." I know exactly what you mean about the fonts being different, but that alone doesn't make this a fake (not that it isn't fake, just not for that reason.)
  20. I was going to call BS / Photoshop on this one until Logohound "confirmed" it (though the "powder blue dreams come true" part is throwing me off.) Can anyone else "in the know" confirm this? This could be very very nice, though I agree with ICS that the helmet should not be white (also agree with the previous poster about the bolts being reversed - of course, if this was just a Photoshop, it would be easier to keep the bolts the same, so maybe that makes it more legit?)
  21. The Phillies will be wearing a patch to commemorate the life of John Vukovich who passed earlier today.
  22. If there was money to be made in Pittsburgh, some investor would have stepped to the plate by now. When the Flyers needed an arena, all they got was less than 6% contribution, and that was just loans (maybe a plot of land, not sure about that.) The team got nothing, so they built it themselves (and that was before the Comcast money.) The price back then (~94) was nearly as much in '94 dollars as the Pens want for their arena in '07 dollars (may say something about local economies, may not.) Despite the fact that they totally pwn the Flyers, I hope something can be worked out to keep the Pens, because they do have good fans, but welfare isn't the answer. This isn't the politicians fault at all. Sports is a business first these days, and it just may not be good business to operate in some markets (not singling out Pittsburgh, there's others too.)
  23. lol... I'm thinking about how history would be different if the Phillies had officially adopted the Blue Jays moniker. The change in attitude would undoubtedly have resulted in several world championships. What would Toronto's nickname have been if Blue Jays was taken? Thanks for making the change, CC. Well, I hate to pile on an argument that I've already won, but the fact that they never bothered to take "Phillies" off the front of the uniforms always seemed pretty compelling evidence to me that they weren't discarding the nickname. Yeah but teams were really weird back then with that sorta thing! Yeah.. the Giants never officially changed their name to World's Champions!
  24. I obviously wasn't around back then, and really can't provide more proof. All I can go by is the baseball history books I read in the library when I was in grade school in the 80s, the team's website, and the references that have already been provided. I understand wanting to use the MLBE as the official source, and honestly can't give you a good argument why you shouldn't, though my feeling is that it isn't accurate in this case.