Unpopular Opinions

[Kevin W.]

1 hour ago, IceCap said:

It's a classic sports look akin to the Yankees' NY/pinstripes or the Canadiens' CH/chest stripe.

It really isn't. You can't compare the Yankees and Canadiens to a team that last played nearly 100 years ago.

[IceCap]

8 minutes ago, Kevin W. said:

It really isn't. You can't compare the Yankees and Canadiens to a team that last played nearly 100 years ago.

Functionally it has a lot of the same aspects. Ottawa has a hockey history that actually predates the storied histories of the Habs and Leafs, and having an identity that reflects that- rather than a Roman character logo- could work.

 

"You can't compare..." yes I can.

 

1 hour ago, IceCap said:

Hockey fans- especially Canadian hockey fans- are some of the most conscious sports fans when it comes to the game's history. Give them more credit than that.

[Kevin W.]

8 minutes ago, IceCap said:

Ottawa has a hockey history that actually predates the storied histories of the Habs and Leafs

That was a completely different franchise that no longer exists. The Habs, Leafs and Yankees have all been around without interruption for more than 100 years.

[DCarp1231]

Y’all are diving hard into the Ship of Theseus... err Senators of Ottawa

 

[IceCap]

Look, if the St. Louis Eagles were still kicking around I'd maybe have issue with a 1990s expansion team appropriating their history, but they aren't. The original Senators are dead. And while I don't think it's appropriate to slap the original team's history to the present team I also don't think it's sacrilegious for the new team to call back to the old team's visual identity. They're already using the name for G-d's sake. If there's no value in the old Senators "because a hundred years" why not call them the Ottawa Centurions or something? 

 

Point is Ottawa has a prestigious hockey history that is vital to the game's formative years and ignoring that for a barely relevant Roman theme that was thought up on the fly back in 1992 isn't the answer.   

 

14 hours ago, Kevin W. said:

That was a completely different franchise that no longer exists. The Habs, Leafs and Yankees have all been around without interruption for more than 100 years.

Irrelevant to what I had previously said. 

[DCarp1231]

@IceCap out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the Browns in this regard?

[IceCap]

9 minutes ago, DNAsports said:

@IceCap out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the Browns in this regard?

I used to argue until I was blue in the face (fingers?) that the current Browns were imposters and that their use of the name and history was tantamount to rewriting the historical record to make Clevelanders feel better. Which struck me as rather silly given all the other cities previous to them that lost teams and didn't get a fraction of the special arrangement Cleveland got over the Browns.

 

My stance shifted to me being ok with them using the name and logo/uniforms, but still protesting the use of the original team's history and records. Which is where I am now, tbf. I don't mind them being the new Cleveland Browns, but I still find it ridiculous to suggest they're the same team Jim Brown played for, 'cause they're just not. 

 

I've more or less given up arguing that for a few reasons though-

 

First, this has been an argument I've been involved in almost since I joined the CCLSC. Which, if you check out my profile, was a while ago. I'm tired of repeating the same arguments. 

 

Secondly, the NFL itself has sort of attempted to find a middle ground. You'll hear them discuss recent Browns history in terms such as "since they rejoined the league," and "since the Browns came back as an expansion team," which both attempt to continue the fiction that they're the original team while acknowledging that they're also a new entity. And honestly? It's something I can live with. 

 

In so far as the Senators go...the old team doesn't exist anymore. So there's pretty much a clean slate for the new team to pick from. They're not infringing on any existing team's heritage if they go all in on the =O= look. 

 

The team has actually asked that the NHL formally merge their records with the record books of the original team, and the NHL has refused that request. Which is the correct thing at the end of the day. 

[Kevin W.]

37 minutes ago, IceCap said:

They're already using the name for G-d's sake.

The name isn't solely because of the previous team. If the original Senators had never existed, I guarantee that the Ottawa franchise's name would make some reference to the government and/or capital.

 

When the Washington Football Team changes their name, I would bet good money that it'll be something along those lines as well.

[IceCap]

29 minutes ago, Kevin W. said:

The name isn't solely because of the previous team. If the original Senators had never existed, I guarantee that the Ottawa franchise's name would make some reference to the government and/or capital.

New team names themselves after the old team that won multiple championships and enshrined themselves into the sport's lore

 

"The new team didn't choose the name solely because of the old team!"

 

Yeah, ok. 

[Kevin W.]

12 minutes ago, IceCap said:

New team names themselves after the old team that won multiple championships and enshrined themselves into the sport's lore

 

"The new team didn't choose the name solely because of the old team!"

 

Yeah, ok. 

I never said that it had nothing to do with the old team.

[IceCap]

30 minutes ago, Kevin W. said:

I never said that it had nothing to do with the old team.

The Canadian Senate was far more relevant back when the original Senators were named. I guarantee you the team would not have adopted "Senators" in 1992 had the original team never existed. 

[dont care]

4 hours ago, Kevin W. said:

The name isn't solely because of the previous team. If the original Senators had never existed, I guarantee that the Ottawa franchise's name would make some reference to the government and/or capital.

 

When the Washington Football Team changes their name, I would bet good money that it'll be something along those lines as well.

Then why did the Washington nationals take that name rather than the senators?

[Kevin W.]

1 hour ago, dont care said:

Then why did the Washington nationals take that name rather than the senators?

The name "Nationals" still relates to the capital.

[habsfan1]

The old Dolphins logo is better, even though it might be considered cartoonish:

 

 

Now I do like the new logo style. The outline traces are lighter and a tad bit more simplified, the new one is brighter and more tropical. It just that when I see the new logo, I think of something like a Marineland resort, it doesn't give away football vibes like the old.

 

If Miami re-draws the classic Dolphin character using the new style and colors, they might not need to change logos again. It has the potential to be outstanding like the Sabres.

[spartacat_12]

On 3/20/2021 at 1:25 AM, Kevin W. said:

They aren't the original Senators. Their current look and a modernized version of the pre-Edge alternate would both be superior looks to the barber pole.

 

The Cleveland Browns aren't the original Browns (despite the NFL's revisionist history). The Washington Nationals aren't the old Senators. When Seattle inevitably gets an NBA team back they won't be the original Sonics, but I can guarantee they'll look like them. Unless a franchise takes an identity with them when they move (i.e. Lakers, Colts, Flames), that identity belongs to the city. 

 

As for the barber pole design, it's a unique feature that is associated with a number of Ottawa hockey teams at various levels. It's a great way to stand out in a league with multiple red & black teams.

 

On 3/20/2021 at 9:38 PM, Ridleylash said:

I mean, what does barber pole sweaters and a big O logo have to do with "Senators", either, to be fair? If that look didn't have the Cup legacy (or the modern team had managed to win in 2007), would people really be pushing for it so hard as the main look? It feels more like people just pushing it because it's associated with a really good team from the 1800's and early 1900's rather than because they think it's a great look in the modern day.

 

The current look at least gives the team a real sense of identity beyond "we look like that old team that used to play here a long-ass time ago and was pretty good". Much as it may be maligned in certain circles, I think having the Roman theme makes more sense, simply because it has more visual icons to play with for branding purposes; the laurels and the armored warrior motif both make for more visually interesting iconography than the original team's logo.

 

An O and some barberpole stripes can only get you so far, branding-wise, and we know how important branding is to sports teams nowadays. I think that's why they decided to stick to the theme they have now instead of committing to the O; branding beyond the jerseys.

 

Except the identity of the latest rebrand is essentially "we look like that team you watched play in the '90s". Every attempt by the team to play up the Roman theme beyond the logo (the inaugural home opener ceremony, the dad-bod centurion with the bad mic connection giving a pre-game pep talk) have been ridiculed by the fans. I'm fine with the current look, but its success is due to a combination of '90s nostalgia & the loathing of the previous set.

[habsfan1]

As far as the Senators are concerned, the team went with the most popular Senators fan choice. They chose the 90s 2D look over the Barberpole =O= and any of the 3D Centurion styles.

 

I would have expected an updated version of that look, to try to sell something new and fix the flaws of that look. Instead, they just re-did the jerseys and fit them however they could in the new template without making any needed tweeks.

 

The roundel with the 2D centurion doesn't count because the fans wanted the one with the more unique shape. That could be a reason why they didn't go with that. I think the rebrand is awful looking, lazy, and uninspired. But I was not their targeted demographic.

[clonewars2008]

The Connection to the name, so not much the cause of today's Senators (though one can argue that maybe it should still apply) but with the connection to the roman theme: In order to be a member of the Roman Senate one must have done service in the Roman army. Many of these Senators were Centurions, who were leaders on the battlefield, skilled warriors, so Bruce Firestone looked to the branding to not only call back to the Original Sens but to build it's own identity that would be fierce and fitting with a brutal and barbaric sport like hockey. I for one having grown up with this brand like it, and want the Sens to keep it as the old Sens are kinda bland and not fitting for today's market. It's good to throwback to terrible to use full time as there is no substance in it. TBH the Leafs, Habs and Yankees have boring looks that really are only associated with winning. Take away the championships and they are boring (Maybe not the Habs home) and lack luster two colour products of an earlier time. Also, can we add the Leafs to the same situation as the Sens? Unpopular opinion but the Leafs at this point are two different franchises with one that was only good cause they had less than 5 other teams to compete with most of the time and a 50 year old franchise marred with terrible ownership, over reliance on the past, inapt and overhyped teams and all intent and purpose the Toronto maple Leafs died and folded with Conn Smythe. The NHL record books should say Toronto Maple Leafs I (1927-1967) and Toronto Maple Leafs II (1967-present)

[OnWis97]

On 3/23/2021 at 3:44 PM, habsfan1 said:

The old Dolphins logo is better, even though it might be considered cartoonish:

 

 

This is the most popular unpopular opinion ever.

[spartacat_12]

On 3/24/2021 at 1:37 PM, clonewars2008 said:

The Connection to the name, so not much the cause of today's Senators (though one can argue that maybe it should still apply) but with the connection to the roman theme: In order to be a member of the Roman Senate one must have done service in the Roman army. Many of these Senators were Centurions, who were leaders on the battlefield, skilled warriors, so Bruce Firestone looked to the branding to not only call back to the Original Sens but to build it's own identity that would be fierce and fitting with a brutal and barbaric sport like hockey. I for one having grown up with this brand like it, and want the Sens to keep it as the old Sens are kinda bland and not fitting for today's market. It's good to throwback to terrible to use full time as there is no substance in it. TBH the Leafs, Habs and Yankees have boring looks that really are only associated with winning. Take away the championships and they are boring (Maybe not the Habs home) and lack luster two colour products of an earlier time. Also, can we add the Leafs to the same situation as the Sens? Unpopular opinion but the Leafs at this point are two different franchises with one that was only good cause they had less than 5 other teams to compete with most of the time and a 50 year old franchise marred with terrible ownership, over reliance on the past, inapt and overhyped teams and all intent and purpose the Toronto maple Leafs died and folded with Conn Smythe. The NHL record books should say Toronto Maple Leafs I (1927-1967) and Toronto Maple Leafs II (1967-present)

 

I'm pretty sure you're joking, but I'll address your Leafs take anyway. A franchise being terrible for decades isn't close to the same as one relocating, folding, then having an expansion team adopt their name & colours 60 years later. Despite their dysfunction, you can still draw a straight line from the current Leafs to the teams of the past. Morgan Rielly played with Phil Kessel, who played with Tomas Kaberle, who played with Wendel Clark, who played with Borje Salming, who played with Dave Keon, who was on the Leafs when they won their last Cup.

 

As for the Sens, the original plan was to use something like the Peace Tower wordmark they initially unveiled. After the massive success the Sharks had selling merchandise, there was pressure to come up with something "cooler" that kids would want to wear. This lead to the Canadian senators = Roman senators = Roman centurions stretch.

[Ridleylash]

57 minutes ago, spartacat_12 said:

As for the Sens, the original plan was to use something like the Peace Tower wordmark they initially unveiled. After the massive success the Sharks had selling merchandise, there was pressure to come up with something "cooler" that kids would want to wear. This lead to the Canadian senators = Roman senators = Roman centurions stretch.

If I'm recalling right, upon the initial reveal the logo was officially said by the team to be "the head of a Roman general, a member of the Senate of the Roman Republic, projecting from a gold circle"; it doesn't seem like the centurion aspect came up at all.