SheedSoNasty
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 5,051
- Likes
- 5,978
- Points
- 113
Hate it. I've been down with most decisions associated with the Blazers' style. Definitely not this.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I must be color blind. It appears fushia to me.
GAY.
If it was a rainbow rose, i'd say you're right. As it stands right now, it's just slightly feminine. Big difference.
But the "d" sort of looks like a male symbol . . . but the arrow is pink . . . dare I say the sign is . . . . . . . . . .. .
Hate it. I've been down with most decisions associated with the Blazers' style. Definitely not this.
don't forget quickin loans arena or whatever it's called.
I don't care what it's called or what the logo looks like. I care about how many wins the Blazers get and hopefully them winning an NBA title before I die.
For 10 years and $40 million I would have that logo tattooed on my face.
Would you do it for $40 million if you were already worth $20 billion?
Would you do it for $40 million if you were already worth $20 billion?
Or, if you made $20,000 a year, would you do it if you were paid $40?
I have no problem with selling the naming rights, really. It's a business decision. (I think ODS changing their name to MODA was a poor choice on their part, but that's just me, and a completely separate issue). What I don't get is the idea that selling the naming rights/logo and having the result be something that doesn't make the Rose Garden look like a giant package of feminine hygiene products is necessarily mutually exclusive. They should have been able to sell out and remain proud of the result. There is making a deal to make money, and there is pimping yourself out for a buck regardless of the level of humiliation. Did they not have choices? If this were a WNBA team, I think the new logo would be fine.
