daniel75 Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 1 hour ago, VancouverFan69 said: At least Wizards is plural instead of being a singular collective noun like Wild which is also an adjective. Yeah I see no problem with singular names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VancouverFan69 Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 2 hours ago, daniel75 said: Yeah I see no problem with singular names. Avalanche - Avs Lightning - Bolts Wild - ????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilSox Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 On 2/20/2019 at 6:40 PM, daveindc said: Sure, I think keeping the burgundy and gold is the most realistic option at this point (WITHOUT a desperate name like "Pigskins" or "Redtails"). I would also argue that as time passes and the overall reputation of the franchise continues to sink, there's new generations of DC sports fans who care less about the Redskins and it's identity. They are far more into the other DC sports than they are the football team these days, and if the Redskins adopt an identity that draws itself closer to the rest of DC sports they would certainly be into it. New name and new identity for the new stadium would be popular with a LOT of people. This pretty much sums up the Redskins fandom in relation to DC sports today: Nobody takes the Redskins seriously anymore. It's a joke. I caught the tail end of the Redskins' golden era as a kid, and I've seen it go down hill ever since. Get rid of the name and the colors... A new owner would need only say that the Daniel Snyder era has permanently ruined the Redskins brand as justification for a full-on rebrand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFGiants58 Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 20 minutes ago, VancouverFan69 said: Avalanche - Avs Lightning - Bolts Wild - ????? Wildmen Just like Jazzmen, Magicians, Thunderers/Bolts, Heaters, Dynamos, Crewmen, and, if a certain group of Virginians had their way with MLB, Furymen. It can be done and sound decent. I’d prefer Kodiaks or Voyageurs, but it’s not the worst moniker. MLB: Project 32 (Complete), MLB: The Defunct Saga (Complete) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveindc Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 13 hours ago, DeFrank said: If you told someone that there was a pro football team founded on the East Coast in 1932 that was called the "Pigskins," which is literally a nickname of the sport, nobody would find that strange. "The NFL is filled with storied franchises, like the Browns, Pigskins, Packers, and Steelers." I don't think so. A "pigskin" is what the ball is called. It would make no sense to call the players that. Not then, and not now. Only thing that comes close to that is the Nets NBA team, and that name is trash. They thought it was clever because it rhymed with Jets and Mets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pianoknight Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 On 2/16/2019 at 12:03 PM, FightingGoldenDevil said: I want the Northstars back I'm not even a hockey fan and I'm mad about the Northstars leaving. And once it was final, I'm STILL mad they didn't rename themselves the Dallas LONEstars. Hello? Such a perfect name for a Texas team. 5th in NAT. TITLES | 2nd in CONF. TITLES | 5th in HEISMAN | 7th in DRAFTS | 8th in ALL-AMER | 7th in WINS | 4th in BOWLS | 1st in SELLOUTS | 1st GAMEDAY SIGN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnWis97 Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 Wild: well just about anyone has a better name. What I really want is for Voyageurs to have been chosen...with this color scheme. Twins: I don’t want anyone else’s look, but I do want the Twins to narrow their look. Vikings: Nah. Wolves: Nah. Regarding the North Stars debate dominating this thread, I am no fan of Cleveland Deals so as great as pre-1991 North Stars looks were, no. Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse." BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD POTD (Shared) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joepro Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 I remember way back in the day before the Edmonton Oilers first re-brand to navy. Around that time the Edmonton Sun or Edmonton Journal had a bunch of mockups about what their new look could be. They had a green and gold one like the Eskimos and I remember a really crazy one with a modified logo and stripes that made an O on the jersey. Anyways, one of the other mockups was black and orange and seeing how Ducks look now I think that would have looked cool on the Oilers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewMLind Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 I wouldn’t swap Ohio State, the Raiders or the Orioles for any other team’s identity. However, I do wish the Blue Jackets — though I like their name, reason for it and alternate logo/uniforms, and believe they should create an entire identity around that — had a unique color scheme/identity like the Sharks or Mighty Ducks (and a different name to match, of course). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrumptious Ham Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 On 2/22/2019 at 12:22 AM, pianoknight said: I'm not even a hockey fan and I'm mad about the Northstars leaving. And once it was final, I'm STILL mad they didn't rename themselves the Dallas LONEstars. Hello? Such a perfect name for a Texas team. You can't be lone and plural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timaa Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 I've always loved the Flyers logo and colors, but never been all that thrilled with the name. I mean, I guess the players "fly" around the ice, sure, but there's no real connection to the city like the other Philly teams. So, I propose we just swap names with the Eagles. The "Flying P" logo still works, and the Eagles can change their fight song to "Fly, Flyers fly." In fact, while we're at it, all your identities are belong to us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilSox Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 6 hours ago, Scrumptious Ham said: You can't be lone and plural. You can't be a leaf and plural either, and yet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrumptious Ham Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 1 hour ago, NicDB said: You can't be a leaf and plural either, and yet... That is way more milder than LONE starS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleVermilion81 Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 I love Minnesota United's crest. I loved their NASL uniforms with the cool dark grey kit with black wing. In the MLS...sigh...I wish NYCFC uniforms were Minnesota's. Would've loved a light blue/white/light blue look instead of the all white secondary, and boring gray primary. I don't get why they changed the grey so much when they moved up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mingjai Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 12 hours ago, Scrumptious Ham said: You can't be lone and plural. Sure you can. Along the same lines as Lone Stars, there are like mavericks and loners that carry similar meanings and have plural forms. Heck, even the words "one" and "single" can be plural. Visit my store on REDBUBBLE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrumptious Ham Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 I'm not saying it's impossible. You can make any name possible. I'm saying it's stupid. Lone is a strong word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jn8 Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 I love to nitpick, it’s kind of what we all do here, but saying Lonestars is bad because it’s plural is a little TOO nit picky for me. It would’ve been a great way to Texas-ify the name without doing a total rebrand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroCree Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 18 hours ago, Scrumptious Ham said: You can't be lone and plural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewMLind Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 12 hours ago, NicDB said: You can't be a leaf and plural either, and yet... They're named after the Maple Leaf Regiment of World War I. The regiment is a proper noun, so its plural is Maple Leafs. Similarly, Ohio State’s helmet stickers are called Buckeye Leafs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pianoknight Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 If I had to pick a team that I wished Nebraska would look more like, I guess I'd say Wisconsin or Stanford. 5th in NAT. TITLES | 2nd in CONF. TITLES | 5th in HEISMAN | 7th in DRAFTS | 8th in ALL-AMER | 7th in WINS | 4th in BOWLS | 1st in SELLOUTS | 1st GAMEDAY SIGN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.