|
Post by Jet Nut Sauce on Feb 20, 2015 12:07:41 GMT -5
Intents and purposes is meaningless, there is a Cleveland Browns team. The Ravens are the Ravens, won as the Ravens. They also won like 5 seasons after they moved and changed, hardly a change your uni you win piece of nonsense. seattle won years after changing their uniforms. Convenient to ignore all the uniform changes that lead to absolutely nothing. point is, it's to easy to think that changing of the uniform had anything to do with winning. I wish it did, I'd be all for pink uniforms it would bring us a SB, lol There is a Browns franchise now, there wasn't when they became the Ravens. Really, the Browns had a name, city and uniform change. That's what happened. It wasn't a newly created squad/organization, it just got a fancy paint job, so it isn't meaningless. And as I lastly stated in my previous comment, there is more to it than a uniform change. Convenient to ignore that so as to further argue a point no one else is arguing. Again, changing a uniform can have a positive effect on how a team performs. It can also have a negative effect. More so, the coaching, GM and players matter. Do I have to say that a third time, or can we agree on this now? Right, they were an existing team. And they didn't win immediately after changing their name, city,state, HC and uniforms look I get why some want change. But to argue, on any level, that changing your uniform is a recipe for success in any sport is silly. Especially when you proof is cherry picking a handful of teams who won eventually, years after, a uniform change.
|
|
|
Post by Jet Nut Sauce on Feb 20, 2015 12:11:35 GMT -5
That's awful. So's the Giants. Why is it so hard for teams in the largest market to effectively design an aesthetically pleasing logo? Neither team had anything to do with these design ideas, nada. It wasn't meant to be a replacement for anyone's helmet. Most think that the existing logos are already aesthetically pleasing.
|
|
|
Post by Jetworks on Feb 20, 2015 12:23:20 GMT -5
There is a Browns franchise now, there wasn't when they became the Ravens. Really, the Browns had a name, city and uniform change. That's what happened. It wasn't a newly created squad/organization, it just got a fancy paint job, so it isn't meaningless. And as I lastly stated in my previous comment, there is more to it than a uniform change. Convenient to ignore that so as to further argue a point no one else is arguing. Again, changing a uniform can have a positive effect on how a team performs. It can also have a negative effect. More so, the coaching, GM and players matter. Do I have to say that a third time, or can we agree on this now? Right, they were an existing team. And they didn't win immediately after changing their name, city,state, HC and uniforms look I get why some want change. But to argue, on any level, that changing your uniform is a recipe for success in any sport is silly. Especially when you proof is cherry picking a handful of teams who won eventually, years after, a uniform change. Really don't have the time to show that it's more than cherry-picking, so I guess we will have to remain at loggerheads on this. FTR, it doesn't have to be immediate, just close. I for one will go with DD and Deion's belief that the better you look, the better you feel, the better you perform. Plenty of psychiatric data to back that up as well.
|
|
|
Post by Jetworks on Feb 20, 2015 12:25:47 GMT -5
That's awful. So's the Giants. Why is it so hard for teams in the largest market to effectively design an aesthetically pleasing logo? Neither team had anything to do with these design ideas, nada. It wasn't meant to be a replacement for anyone's helmet. Most think that the existing logos are already aesthetically pleasing. I know that, guess I should've made my last sentence part of another paragraph so as to not imply that I thought otherwise. rexneffect, great point about the logos/names.
|
|
|
Post by Jet Nut Sauce on Feb 20, 2015 13:11:00 GMT -5
Right, they were an existing team. And they didn't win immediately after changing their name, city,state, HC and uniforms look I get why some want change. But to argue, on any level, that changing your uniform is a recipe for success in any sport is silly. Especially when you proof is cherry picking a handful of teams who won eventually, years after, a uniform change. Really don't have the time to show that it's more than cherry-picking, so I guess we will have to remain at loggerheads on this. FTR, it doesn't have to be immediate, just close. I for one will go with DD and Deion's belief that the better you look, the better you feel, the better you perform. Plenty of psychiatric data to back that up as well. This is what we do as fans, we forget that the players don't give a shit about things like what their uniforms look like. I find it hard to believe anyone plays any better because they liked the new/old Jets uniform better than the late 70s/80's uniform. And yes, it has to be immediate. A team like Minny changes their uniform and wins 10 years later and we're going to argue that the new uniform had something to do with it? Seattle's had one uniform change after another, that they finally won had nothing to do with their new uniforms. Unless we get to count the 15 other uniform changes that led to nothing. Hey, this is all fun. I love our uniforms, think they look good and have a historical significance. But there is a side of me that would enjoy a cool, modern uniform, at least as a topic to debate. I just cant come close to believing that uniforms add one win to a teams record
|
|