raysox

Unpopular Opinions

Recommended Posts

As for Kansas City, if only the striping matched through out the uniform. I don't mind the mono red, but in moderation. Maybe add the stripes to the helmet and a taste of black to the uniforms to make the look more cohesive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't stand when a team wears a modern uniform from the neck down, yet stays with a traditional helmet stripe on the helmet. Am I the only one who doesn't like this?

What do you mean by traditional helmet stripe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't stand when a team wears a modern uniform from the neck down, yet stays with a traditional helmet stripe on the helmet. Am I the only one who doesn't like this?

No you are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like when the Utah Utes wear their White helmet, with a traditional 5 stripe pattern on it, with their modern uniforms. Things just don't mesh well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have a specific example?

One I can think of was Oklahoma State this weekend. Wore a throwback helmet, with their current uniforms. (Can't find a good picture).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have a specific example?

Miami's various modern looks come to mind.

140it6o.jpg

South Carolina is another.

f056224c90f13a3c0a093e73cfa01200.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have a specific example?

One I can think of was Oklahoma State this weekend. Wore a throwback helmet, with their current uniforms. (Can't find a good picture).

ku_fbc_osu_29_t640.JPG?a6ea3ebd4438a44b8

I actually like this look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the examples, guys! Yes, Miami has been one of those teams that racked my nerves on that issue for years. LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what you mean now. That doesn't really bother me, though.

Well, nothing really bothers you ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it an unpopular opinion to think the Phillies looked best during the 70s-80s in their maroon and white jerseys? I especially liked the "P" logo, and maroon isn't a color seen anywhere else in the MLB right now.

Nah, maroon and white looked grat for the Phils. They should have used the new park as a reason to go from bright red back to maroon.

Colored pants look good in baseball. For alternates.

I'd like to see Pittsburgh wear yellow pants with black jerseys but other than that I don't think I want to see pants in anything but white or grey.

I loved the Philliies in maroon. It was unique.

IMO, the Pittsburgh Pirates are a team that can get away with wearing just about anything, probably because they essential have throughout their history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same can be said so for the Saints in the NFL. Reverse for Baltimore and Tennessee. SMH!

How does that fit the saints? They have rather traditional uniforms IMO..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that the "Jazz" nickname is, in many ways, more synonymous with Utah than New Orleans. Stockton and Malone, the '97 and '98 Finals against Jordan's Bulls, and Jerry Sloan's long tenure in Utah have all made it such an appropriate fit.

I don't see how that makes it an appropriate fit. Just because they have more history in Utah doesn't mean that the name makes more sense than it does for New Orleans. Jazz music is one of the things New Orleans is best known for. Utah is about as well known for jazz as Winnipeg is for beaches and bikinis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that the "Jazz" nickname is, in many ways, more synonymous with Utah than New Orleans. Stockton and Malone, the '97 and '98 Finals against Jordan's Bulls, and Jerry Sloan's long tenure in Utah have all made it such an appropriate fit.

I don't see how that makes it an appropriate fit. Just because they have more history in Utah doesn't mean that the name makes more sense than it does for New Orleans. Jazz music is one of the things New Orleans is best known for. Utah is about as well known for jazz as Winnipeg is for beaches and bikinis.

I'm guessing he means that he's now come to associate the Jazz nickname as being something he associates with more with Utah than New Orleans. While Jazz itself is not something Utah is famous for, Satomiblood now sees the nickname as being a better fit for Utah than any other team. (Of course this is just my guess.)

Edited by 1insaneguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that the "Jazz" nickname is, in many ways, more synonymous with Utah than New Orleans. Stockton and Malone, the '97 and '98 Finals against Jordan's Bulls, and Jerry Sloan's long tenure in Utah have all made it such an appropriate fit.

And that is the very reason why Jazz fans (not to mention most people roaming these boards and making the decision-makers in the NBA) are against changing the name. It would be a revisionist nightmare of epic proportions.

EDIT: Not to forget that the franchise is entering its 36th season of play in Salt Lake as opposed to its first 5 in New Orleans

How is that revisionist? No one is suggesting they should pretend the Utah Jazz never existed, just that the name should be changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that the "Jazz" nickname is, in many ways, more synonymous with Utah than New Orleans. Stockton and Malone, the '97 and '98 Finals against Jordan's Bulls, and Jerry Sloan's long tenure in Utah have all made it such an appropriate fit.

I don't see how that makes it an appropriate fit. Just because they have more history in Utah doesn't mean that the name makes more sense than it does for New Orleans. Jazz music is one of the things New Orleans is best known for. Utah is about as well known for jazz as Winnipeg is for beaches and bikinis.

People grew up saying "Utah Jazz", so when people say it, they don't give it a second thought, it's just "right" to them. Sure, "New Orleans Jazz" makes more sense when you think about it. Heck, if the Jazz moved from New Orleans to Utah today, I bet they would have renamed to something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that the "Jazz" nickname is, in many ways, more synonymous with Utah than New Orleans. Stockton and Malone, the '97 and '98 Finals against Jordan's Bulls, and Jerry Sloan's long tenure in Utah have all made it such an appropriate fit.

I don't see how that makes it an appropriate fit. Just because they have more history in Utah doesn't mean that the name makes more sense than it does for New Orleans. Jazz music is one of the things New Orleans is best known for. Utah is about as well known for jazz as Winnipeg is for beaches and bikinis.

People grew up saying "Utah Jazz", so when people say it, they don't give it a second thought, it's just "right" to them. Sure, "New Orleans Jazz" makes more sense when you think about it. Heck, if the Jazz moved from New Orleans to Utah today, I bet they would have renamed to something else.

Right. I am 41 and have probably been familiar with all NBA team names for 35 years. And I am not old enough to Remember the New Orleans Jazz. It's been Utah Jazz that entire time.

I hear the argument that they should have changed names when they moved, but now they have 35 years of history in Utah. They have a fan base that is accustomed to that being the team name. The ship has sailed and there's not much benefit to going back now. I don't think anyone in Utah is clamoring for a new name. And I don't think we have a Bobcats/Hornets situation in New Orleans where the entire community's support is dependent on the old name.

And yeah, Jazz is not great for Utah. But Dodgers was a very Brooklyn name and makes no sense for LA. Same with Lakers, which makes much more sense in Minnesota. Grizzlies in Memphis?

The Jazz move is a product of a different era. Some teams back then kept names (Flames, for Example). And while Jazz may not be the best one, it's reflective of the unique history of sports. Would they have kept the name if the move occurred today? No way. But sports history is fun and I think it's great to see that stuff like that happened. Why try to bury it?

If it were up to me, a team would either change names right upon relocation or never. So we'd have the Tennessee Oilers, New Orleans Hornets, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.