Unpopular Opinions

[waltere]

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

Also, "organic-sounding" is just elitist gobbledy(I am racially insensitive) used by American-style name fans used to demean teams that follow the rest of the world's lead. It's also a fun statement used by "Class of '96" fans to insult supporters of newer teams (that have their crap together from founding).  

 

Is this the boards mistaking the ending of the word gobbledy(I am racially insensitive) for a slur or something you've done?

 

EDIT

- It is the boards, same as how they can't tell the middle of english soccer team Sc*nthorpe United isn't someone swearing.

Edited May 29, 2019 by waltere
Experiment proved

[SFGiants58]

The Gobbeldy (I am racially insensitive)ger was a terrible idea.

[fbjim]

12 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

 

Yeah, no. They're not cringe-worthy or inappropriate. They're dignified, effective, and fit with what the rest of the world does with Association Football. Sporting Kansas City, the FC/SC teams, and Inter Miami are all acceptable and work well for their teams. Even the "United" names are fine (uniting of ownership groups/fans/other associated individuals).

 

Also, "organic-sounding" is just elitist gobbledy(I am racially insensitive) used by American-style name fans used to demean teams that follow the rest of the world's lead. It's also a fun statement used by "Class of '96" fans to insult supporters of newer teams (that have their crap together from founding).  

 

EDIT: I am sorry about that one, I had no idea that it was a racist term. What I meant to say was "nonsense."

 

I mean, the rest of the world's lead (excepting Australia and I suppose China) is to have club teams, not teams which are operated via a closed-garden franchise model, which is why the "club names" make more sense. I see this as less "following the world's lead" and more "appropriating the aesthetics of european leagues while still maintaining the closed garden franchise model so we can charge ever higher expansion fees"

[SFGiants58]

1 hour ago, fbjim said:

I mean, the rest of the world's lead (excepting Australia and I suppose China) is to have club teams, not teams which are operated via a closed-garden franchise model, which is why the "club names" make more sense. I see this as less "following the world's lead" and more "appropriating the aesthetics of european leagues while still maintaining the closed garden franchise model so we can charge ever higher expansion fees"

 

Whatever. Soccer is soccer, no matter the league model. Following the rest of the world’s lead is a good thing for names (not as much for everything else - pro/rel is disgusting and should be avoided). It leads us away from the MLS 1.0 dark times.

 

However, single-entity should go away once the strike inevitably hits and exposes this structure for how it suppresses player salaries.

[fbjim]

I mean, P/R will never happen except as a closed-circle model among USL/MLS (which is still unlikely) but I don't get what's disgusting about it. We have a bunch of second tier teams which seem to be actually drawing fans and have ownerships who want to get to the top tier. Why not give them a path to do so which doesn't involve them paying increasingly big franchise fees?

 

(by single-entity I don't mean MLS's specific model, but more the US-franchise model at large where teams act as closed cartels rather than independent entities from the league. which, incidentally, some of the elite European teams seem to be really envying given the constant closed-garden Euro Super League leaks)

[mcj882000]

While I hesitate to call it a good logo aesthetically, I do think that the Columbus Blue Jackets' original, pre-debut primary:



...Is at least more interesting than the logo they replaced it with: 



I still initialise them as "CJB" wherever I can because of this silly thing.

[Kevin W.]

Getting rid of the hat logo was a mistake by the Blue Jackets. There's no reason why they couldn't do two different shoulder patches on the same jersey. Has any team ever done that? AFAIK, no one has.

[Chromatic]

On 5/28/2019 at 6:02 PM, SFGiants58 said:

 

 

Yeah, no. They're not cringe-worthy or inappropriate. They're dignified, effective, and fit with what the rest of the world does with Association Football. Sporting Kansas City, the FC/SC teams, and Inter Miami are all acceptable and work well for their teams. Even the "United" names are fine (uniting of ownership groups/fans/other associated individuals).

 

Also, "organic-sounding" is just elitist gobbledy(I am racially insensitive) used by American-style name fans used to demean teams that follow the rest of the world's lead. It's also a fun statement used by "Class of '96" fans to insult supporters of newer teams (that have their crap together from founding).  

 

EDIT: I am sorry about that one, I had no idea that it was a racist term. What I meant to say was "nonsense."

 

You're talking about European teams with 100 years of history in an entirely different sporting culture. I don't really have an issue with 'City Name FC' (though I do find it a little milquetoast). However I don't know how names like 'Sporting Kansas City' or 'Real Salt Lake' can be seen as anything other than forced appropriation of European football naming conventions in an attempt to somehow appear more legitimate, but ending up even less so. It feels like when McDonalds puts out some deluxe specialty burger with a fancy French Haute Cuisine sounding name and pretends its gourmet.

[mcj882000]

21 minutes ago, Kevin W. said:

Getting rid of the hat logo was a mistake by the Blue Jackets. There's no reason why they couldn't do two different shoulder patches on the same jersey. Has any team ever done that? AFAIK, no one has.

If flags count, then the Flames do currently. Aside from that, the only example that comes to mind is the Coyotes' old Goals For Kids patch on one shoulder, 

then the same logo but reading "Phoenix Coyotes" on the other shoulder. 

FAKE EDIT: The Blue Jackets themselves did this! In the back-half of the CJB era, 2003-2007, they replaced Stinger's head on the shoulder with the cap logo on one shoulder and the current primary on the other.

[beachperroAZ]

10 hours ago, Chromatic said:

You're talking about European teams with 100 years of history in an entirely different sporting culture. I don't really have an issue with 'City Name FC' (though I do find it a little milquetoast). However I don't know how names like 'Sporting Kansas City' or 'Real Salt Lake' can be seen as anything other than forced appropriation of European football naming conventions in an attempt to somehow appear more legitimate, but ending up even less so. It feels like when McDonalds puts out some deluxe specialty burger with a fancy French Haute Cuisine sounding name and pretends its gourmet.

That is exactly what I am talking about.  It feels "forced".  The ultras with smoke bombs and flares with banners while singing also feels kind of forced.  

[Chromatic]

45 minutes ago, Dodgeryaqui8016 said:

That is exactly what I am talking about.  It feels "forced".  The ultras with smoke bombs and flares with banners while singing also feels kind of forced.  

The ultras are the most plastic thing I’ve ever seen. I went to an MLS game  this year and that was extremely offputting. Prime cringe material are those terrible forced song sheets they hand out.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

13 hours ago, mcj882000 said:

While I hesitate to call it a good logo aesthetically, I do think that the Columbus Blue Jackets' original, pre-debut primary:



...Is at least more interesting than the logo they replaced it with: 



I still initialise them as "CJB" wherever I can because of this silly thing.

 

I generally prefer a letter-based logo; there are too few of them for my taste, especially outside of baseball.  So I like the second logo.  That said, the letters do seem to be in the wrong order.  Also, the hockey stick doesn't really read as a letter; the logo gives the impression of saying "CB"

 

 

 

13 hours ago, Chromatic said:

I don't really have an issue with 'City Name FC' (though I do find it a little milquetoast). However I don't know how names like 'Sporting Kansas City' or 'Real Salt Lake' can be seen as anything other than forced appropriation of European football naming conventions in an attempt to somehow appear more legitimate, but ending up even less so.

 

I actually love the "FC"/"SC" thing, and I am very pleased to see it become more prevalent.  Last year the MASL's Syracuse Silver Knights moved to Utica.  (Now there's an American naming tradition that I dislike: the "adjective + noun" style: Raging Rhinos, Fighting Pike, Mighty Ducks.)  This team dumped that goofy name in favour of the dignified Utica City FC; and it adopted a beautiful uniform consisting of one kit with stripes of two shades of blue, another with blue and black stripes, and a third kit in white with blue sleeves.  When FC Dallas and Toronto FC adopted those names, it was a forward-minded move; when NYCFC and LAFC did it, this type of naming was perhaps still trendy; when FC Cincinnati did it, this pattern was creeping into the mainstream.  But when a team in a small city in an unglamourous league does it, we may take this as evidence that this sort of naming has become completely normalised.  It is now not a "European" standard, but a fully (North) American one.

 

As far as "Sporting", I don't have any problem with that, as they are playing a sport. Indeed, that's an English word that had been borrowed by teams in other countries.

 

But "Real" in the name of Real Salt Lake is awful, and embarassing.  Unless a club has some sanction by the king of Spain, it has no business with "Real".  That club's name is one of three MLS team names that I strongly dislike, the other two being New England Revolution and New York Red Bulls, which are bad for other reasons.

  

 

[fbjim]

I like a good team nickname but I've always hated the "compound noun" one like IronPigs or RailHawks or whatever, those are hopelessly minor-league hockey sounding. Which is fine in minor league hockey but not really for anything else.

 

 

Like, Durham Bulls, that's a great name for any sport. Pittsburgh Riverhounds is just a bit bush league. 

[WBeltz]

San Jose's new home kits have grown on me. There's just something about them that I like but I don't know what. Once/if the add a sponsor/advertiser it'll take some getting used to like them again though.

[Quillz]

Maybe this actually common amongst the people here, but I really, really hate the Phillies numbers. I give them props for being unique, but that's not always a good thing. They just look really goofy, and the white outline doesn't help since on some of the numbers, like the 9, the outline touches itself and just makes a really weird look. And given the age of the Phillies, it seems like a number font style that should be worn by a newer expansion team.

[TrueYankee26]

On 5/30/2019 at 12:03 AM, mcj882000 said:

While I hesitate to call it a good logo aesthetically, I do think that the Columbus Blue Jackets' original, pre-debut primary:



...Is at least more interesting than the logo they replaced it with: 



I still initialise them as "CJB" wherever I can because of this silly thing.

In a similar vein, Texas A&M's logo makes me think "aTm"

[ScubaSteve]

5 hours ago, Quillz said:

Maybe this actually common amongst the people here, but I really, really hate the Phillies numbers. I give them props for being unique, but that's not always a good thing. They just look really goofy, and the white outline doesn't help since on some of the numbers, like the 9, the outline touches itself and just makes a really weird look. And given the age of the Phillies, it seems like a number font style that should be worn by a newer expansion team.

 

Even as a fan for nearly 30 years, I can't get use to them. Still can't help but cringe especially at the 2's and 5's.

[JayMac]

 

On 6/4/2019 at 6:44 PM, Quillz said:

Maybe this actually common amongst the people here, but I really, really hate the Phillies numbers. I give them props for being unique, but that's not always a good thing. They just look really goofy, and the white outline doesn't help since on some of the numbers, like the 9, the outline touches itself and just makes a really weird look. And given the age of the Phillies, it seems like a number font style that should be worn by a newer expansion team.

I like the Phillies look but I'd be lying if I said I like the font that they use. It is too bubbly and looks incredibly dated to me. I am also not a fan of the road look. That looks dated as well.

[~Bear]

On 5/30/2019 at 1:43 PM, fbjim said:

I like a good team nickname but I've always hated the "compound noun" one like IronPigs or RailHawks or whatever, those are hopelessly minor-league hockey sounding. Which is fine in minor league hockey but not really for anything else.

 

 

Like, Durham Bulls, that's a great name for any sport. Pittsburgh Riverhounds is just a bit bush league. 

Vegas GoldenKnights

[CaliforniaGlowin]

On 5/30/2019 at 10:43 AM, fbjim said:

I like a good team nickname but I've always hated the "compound noun" one like IronPigs or RailHawks or whatever, those are hopelessly minor-league hockey sounding. Which is fine in minor league hockey but not really for anything else.

 

 

Like, Durham Bulls, that's a great name for any sport. Pittsburgh Riverhounds is just a bit bush league. 

Yea I've noticed that in minor league and college teams.  Silly.