Unpopular Opinions

[_DietDrPepper_]

On 4/13/2020 at 11:23 AM, MBurmy said:

If Major League Baseball ever expands to the Raleigh-Durham area, they should be called the Durham Bulls, promoting the historic brand to the majors.

It should be Carolina Bulls but I agree, any city that gets an MLB team with minor league history should name their team after the minor league team. Like the Portland Beavers, and Charlotte Knights if they were to choose Charlotte over Raleigh. 

[Burmy]

8 hours ago, _DietDrPepper_ said:

It should be Carolina Bulls but I agree, any city that gets an MLB team with minor league history should name their team after the minor league team. Like the Portland Beavers, and Charlotte Knights if they were to choose Charlotte over Raleigh. 

I'm serious...they should be the "Durham" Bulls...it has far more history and significance in baseball culture.

 

Even if the park's not in Durham and no other major-league team would even consider identifying as a Durham team...the Durham Bulls brand is THAT strong.

[Davidellias]

On the flipside MLB would likely go to Charlotte first

[Burmy]

1 minute ago, Davidellias said:

On the flipside MLB would likely go to Charlotte first

Charlotte already has the Panthers, the Hornets and an MLS team...MLB may prefer someplace where the only major competition is the Hurricanes and NC State sports.

[Davidellias]

True, but I also realize how Cynical I sounded, though I would agree Durham Bulls are perfectly fine.

[sky1324]

11 hours ago, _DietDrPepper_ said:

It should be Carolina Bulls but I agree, any city that gets an MLB team with minor league history should name their team after the minor league team. Like the Portland Beavers, and Charlotte Knights if they were to choose Charlotte over Raleigh. 

I disagree. In the unlikely chance that MLB expands/relocates to Raleigh-Durham, the only reason they'd go with Durham Bulls would be if the team is in Durham proper, which doesn't make sense, since Raleigh is much bigger. As such, they'd want to create a Raleigh-specific identity, and probably wouldn't go with Carolina Bulls. 

 

25 minutes ago, MBurmy said:

Charlotte already has the Panthers, the Hornets and an MLS team...MLB may prefer someplace where the only major competition is the Hurricanes and NC State sports.

I disagree, they didn't have any problem granting franchises to Denver, Miami, Tampa, and Arizona, all of which had two or three teams by the time the MLB team hit. I'd argue the Knights' great attendance and the Charlotte metro's larger population would make it the better choice.

[TrueYankee26]

17 hours ago, DTConcepts said:

The Islanders should've stuck with this look.

 

The fisherman logo was bad, but putting the regular logos on those jerseys was absolutely gorgeous.

If they did this in 1994-95 instead of creating the fisherman logo, I think navy-orange-teal era would have lasted longer

[Bruhammydude]

I think pinstriped uniforms are ugly. They make the jersey details harder to read, they make everything cluttered, and it get's rid of an opportunity for sleeve stripes or the headspoon stripes. Be honest with me, which one looks cleaner?

The pinstriped one looks busy and complicated, not to mention the pinstripes don't even connect right, while the standard white one pops well, and looks fresh. I think that pinstriped uniforms are ugly and bad, and that all teams using them would look better in plain white (except for the Yankees, they have too much history to get rid of them.)

[BroncoBuff]

5 hours ago, Bruhammydude said:

I think pinstriped uniforms are ugly. They make the jersey details harder to read, they make everything cluttered, and it get's rid of an opportunity for sleeve stripes or the headspoon stripes. Be honest with me, which one looks cleaner?

The pinstriped one looks busy and complicated, not to mention the pinstripes don't even connect right, while the standard white one pops well, and looks fresh. I think that pinstriped uniforms are ugly and bad, and that all teams using them would look better in plain white (except for the Yankees, they have too much history to get rid of them.)

 

 

Another reason the Yankees pinstripes work is their SOLID DARK NAVY LOGO.  Never a problem reading that one .... meanwhile the Rockies' ridiculous outlined letters are one of the worst uniform design flaws I can think of. They couldn't even fill in the letters with a deep gray or silver, sad.

 

But PURPLE. Are there any pro or college teams that actually wear true purple? Equal red and blue mix? I don't think so ... every "purple" is 2-to-1 or 3-to-1 mix blue over red. The Ravens, Vikings, Lakers, Suns, Raptors, LA Kings, Kansas State, Washington, Northwestern, Texas Christian, even East Carolina - NONE are even very close to true 50-50 blue-red PURPLE. Even BROWN has the Padres, Browns and Wyoming Cowboys.

[Chromatic]

8 hours ago, Bruhammydude said:

I think pinstriped uniforms are ugly. They make the jersey details harder to read, they make everything cluttered, and it get's rid of an opportunity for sleeve stripes or the headspoon stripes. Be honest with me, which one looks cleaner?

The pinstriped one looks busy and complicated, not to mention the pinstripes don't even connect right, while the standard white one pops well, and looks fresh. I think that pinstriped uniforms are ugly and bad, and that all teams using them would look better in plain white (except for the Yankees, they have too much history to get rid of them.)

Agreed. I've never seen a pinstriped uniform I've liked.

[RedSox44]

The Angles have some of the worst unis in the MLB.

[Bruhammydude]

6 hours ago, BroncoBuff said:

But PURPLE. Are there any pro or college teams that actually wear true purple? Equal red and blue mix? I don't think so ... every "purple" is 2-to-1 or 3-to-1 mix blue over red. The Ravens, Vikings, Lakers, Suns, Raptors, LA Kings, Kansas State, Washington, Northwestern, Texas Christian, even East Carolina - NONE are even very close to true 50-50 blue-red PURPLE. 

Yeah, I think true purple looks good compared to like blueish purple. Like #360036, which is 54 red, 54 blue, 0 green, I think that would be a nice shade for one of the purple teams.

[The_Admiral]

1 hour ago, RedSox44 said:

The Angles have some of the worst unis in the MLB.

 

Can you elaborate? There are details that they really get wrong (at least one Big A too many, the use of "Angels Baseball" on a picture of baseball, the halo should always be yellow/gold), and you can quibble over how much navy blue should be in the set, but overall, I think it's a pretty solid set. The flaws don't drag it down to the bottom tier.

[DCarp1231]

1 hour ago, RedSox44 said:

The Angles have some of the worst unis in the MLB.

Idk man, angles seem to help a lot when designing uniforms

[RedSox44]

1 hour ago, the admiral said:

 

Can you elaborate? There are details that they really get wrong (at least one Big A too many, the use of "Angels Baseball" on a picture of baseball, the halo should always be yellow/gold), and you can quibble over how much navy blue should be in the set, but overall, I think it's a pretty solid set. The flaws don't drag it down to the bottom tier.

They’re another red team. There is nothing unique or recognizable about their identity, nothing memorable about it, which I think explains some of the A” patches — a way to try to give something that’s dead, life.
 

And they need to put “Los Angeles” or “Anaheim” on their road jerseys.

[TrueYankee26]

8 hours ago, BroncoBuff said:

 

 

Another reason the Yankees pinstripes work is their SOLID DARK NAVY LOGO.  Never a problem reading that one .... meanwhile the Rockies' ridiculous outlined letters are one of the worst uniform design flaws I can think of. They couldn't even fill in the letters with a deep gray or silver, sad.

 

But PURPLE. Are there any pro or college teams that actually wear true purple? Equal red and blue mix? I don't think so ... every "purple" is 2-to-1 or 3-to-1 mix blue over red. The Ravens, Vikings, Lakers, Suns, Raptors, LA Kings, Kansas State, Washington, Northwestern, Texas Christian, even East Carolina - NONE are even very close to true 50-50 blue-red PURPLE. Even BROWN has the Padres, Browns and Wyoming Cowboys.

The Rockies actually made their purple look more purple recently

[The_Admiral]

2 hours ago, RedSox44 said:

They’re another red team. There is nothing unique or recognizable about their identity, nothing memorable about it, which I think explains some of the A” patches — a way to try to give something that’s dead, life.
 

And they need to put “Los Angeles” or “Anaheim” on their road jerseys.

 

I'd be more than fine with this:

 

But I don't know what you can really do with the Angels to give them "life." They shouldn't be too garish, they're still a fairly old team in the grand scheme of things and a major-market one at that. If anything, I'd be inclined to lose the silver shadows and beveling and make them plainer.

[dmmdoublem]

4 hours ago, DNAsports said:

Idk man, angles seem to help a lot when designing uniforms

 

First thing I thought of when I saw that typo:

 

 

[DCarp1231]

I like when NFL draftees take their college numbers and split them up or combine them into their new NFL numbers

 

A couple examples:

 

Daniel Jones-

1+7=8

 

Todd Gurley-

3=2+1

[Hat Boy]

If someone described this uniform to me (added black trim, italicized number/name, horizontal and diagonal hem stripe) I would hate it, but liked this Flames set.