Jump to content

Ted Cunningham

Members
  • Posts

    1,261
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Social Media

Profile Information

  • Title
    Let's go Bucs.
  • Location
    West Virginia

Recent Profile Visitors

9,359 profile views

Ted Cunningham's Achievements

1.1k

Reputation

  1. Yeah, the spacing in that scorebug is weird. Other than that, I like the simplicity.
  2. Agreed. I realize there are more precise definitions for these words, but as a shorthand, I usually use the two words interchangeably (with a preference for "burgundy"). However, (again) that's shorthand when distinguishing between red and a darker shade of red. If I were asked to define the two, I would likely define burgundy as having a little purple to it, where maroon is just a straight up dark red. As for however Washington would describe their colors, I would certainly think "maroon" would more closely fit it. And neither really fits Michigan, though I think the Panthers would be closer to burgundy. ("Plum", a reddish shade of dark purple makes more sense than either burgundy or maroon, as others have stated or indicated previously.)
  3. I've often thought that simply adding silver (or a lighter grey, as Nike has been essentially unable to produce silver on fabrics to this point) would certainly improve their current look. I don't mind Philadelphia's current uniforms. Even though the "midnight green" is a byproduct of the late 90s to mid 00s NFL dark era, it's a unique color in the NFL and I don't hate it. As a general rule, I like away uniforms that go primary/white/secondary/socks when the primary color is dark and the secondary color is some shade of gold or silver. I think that works for balance. (Digression: I also think that's why gold pants work so well for Washington.) With that context, the one broad thing about the regular home and away looks I have never really liked was the balance of the away uniform: green/white/white/socks. Silver pants would add a lot of balance to that look, and would still look good, too, with the home uniforms (maintaining that dark-over-light look and avoiding two-tone dark-over-dark looks like Tampa's current iteration of the pewter uniforms).
  4. Yeah, these are nice. I'm curious about the overlap of the E where the jersey buttons. While Ebbets doesn't have a home jersey (that I could find) from 1954, they do have the road version that shows some creative spacing to avoid cutting a letter over the placket. Photos from that season show the word is evenly split, 3 letters by 3 letters.
  5. Yeah. The kerning feels weird somehow, too.
  6. That looks so bad. The comparison of the Mariners jerseys further up the thread looked bad, but it just looked like an authentic compared to a cheap replica (even though that's not the actual case in the tweet). But when the on-field product looks like the lowest-tier for-fans replica jerseys, that looks like something done by an amateur operation. It's just ugly. I am no longer surprised by anything MLB does, as an organization. But you'd think something with that much history would collectively care a little more about how they present their brand(s). Everything is too low on the jersey: the MLB logo seems too big somehow (thus pushing the name and number further down the back), and the lettering looks comically small. On a few personal projects, I've sewn letters and numbers onto the backs of sweatshirts and jerseys. My own personal preference is to keep everything higher up on the back, so perhaps I am a little biased, but I always thought that the name and numbers were noticeably higher on baseball jerseys than what's in that preview picture. And aren't the letters generally something like 3" tall? There's no way those are that big.
  7. Haha. Just as drab as it was indoors. These two teams right here are pretty good examples of taking designs with bright colors and desaturating/darkening them in an attempt to, I don't know, chase trends? Make themselves look "tougher"? The late 90s into the 00s were a dark time for NFL uniforms in more ways than one.
  8. That's absolutely who I thought of first. Haha.
  9. I understand what you're getting at with the particular iteration of gold pants that they wore a few years ago. Those were originally throwback pants (as you're likely aware), so that's why they and the socks didn't really match their Gibbs-era jerseys. Washington is a burgundy and gold team. Not burgundy and white. What made the burgundy/white dynamic work was the presence of a fair bit of gold detailing. Generally speaking, I think Washington should have gold pants; just make the style match the rest of the look. That's made more difficult by how poorly designed their current look is (at least from a color balance perspective with no gold on the white jerseys). But stripeless white pants look terrible with any/all of their current jerseys, and that's what they've currently got. Gold would be an improvement.
  10. I don't know how you feel about Romo, but I was recently talking to friends about how I think Olsen and Romo are similar in that they both seem so enthusiastic about watching the games in front them. From a layman's perspective, they both seem to know their stuff and provide some real insight, but they both also seem to be genuinely excited about what's happening on the field. Like you, I don't mind Buck and Aikman. But they also have a little more detached/aloof style; I don't know if that's because they've been doing it for so long and everything is just routine to them, or Aikman really isn't able to contribute as much as Olsen, et al. All that to say I, too, have enjoyed the games that Olsen has been a part of calling.
  11. Has anyone alerted @tBBP yet? One of the first concept series I saw on this board was his airlines football league. (To be clear, I am not saying you ripped this idea off or anything, @edjb93. It just reminded me of the previous series, and I figured tBBP might be interested in seeing it.)
  12. Fair points in some of these responses. A few replies (also, I'm not sure how to multiquote, so I numbered them instead; I hope that's alright): My understanding was always that east/west was preferred because of time zones and how that impacted TV/radio and scheduling. Granted, scheduling impacts of a north/south split are mitigated by the fact that the XFL had only eight teams, so the broadcast implications weren't as pronounced because the games didn't overlap much. But that was always my general understanding of why divisions generally run east/west vs. north/south. This is a fair assessment. Though I think divisions will always introduce an element of unfairness if the point of having a playoff is to crown the best team as champion (which I feel like is the point; who is the best team in a given season). While it's not the 69-93 MLB system, I think MLB offers a decent example of how using division champions can impact nonchamps who are also better: the 2015 Pirates would have won every other division in baseball, but they ended up in the wildcard that year because they were second in their own division. I fully grant that could be a chicken/egg argument because the playoff format was terrible during that era, so it's also to blame. But if the seeds in the playoff were just determined by winning percentage, then the bottom two teams to make the cut would have played in the wildcard (NYM and LAD), not the teams with the second- and third-best records in all of baseball (not just the NL): PIT and CHC. It shouldn't really matter that the Mets and Dodgers won their divisions because (as you somewhat allude to in point 1), divisions can be arbitrary. Another good point: a single table shouldn't need a playoff in a perfect system. But a) most leagues don't play balanced schedules wherein all teams play all other teams either home and home, or at neutral sites, and b) circumstances change over the course of a season. Winning games is what should get you to the playoffs because that's still the best way to determine if a team is deserving of calling itself the best, not just winning division games. To use your example from above, the teams that win the most games are the ones who "win the first round of the championship competition, the regular season", but because it's likely they didn't all play each other, there's still room for interpretation for who is the best, hence the playoffs. Now granted: I am looking at this from a decidedly football perspective where flukes are more common and games are far fewer. I absolutely agree that the NBA model is flawed because they just simply let too many teams into the playoffs (and because they play a lot of games). And in baseball, if one were to trim the playoffs down to just league pennant winners, that would make sense too, since 1) the sheer number of games they play removes much of the statistical anomalies and flukes and 2) they do play everyone in the league at least one home and one away series (unless that permanently changed after the 2020 short season and I wasn't aware). My quasi-innate understanding of why we have divisions is because in most leagues, there can't be a perfect schedule wherein everyone plays everyone home and away; there are just too many teams/games to schedule in a limited amount of time. That's how we end up with your explanation of winning divisions as winning that quasi-"first round". The logic is sound, but when divisions are too small (which I would argue is generally the case in the NFL as well as some other leagues), it leaves a lot of room for comparatively bad teams to make it into the playoffs and either being higher-seeded or outright disqualifying likely better teams. In larger applications, I don't think big divisions (i.e. conferences) are necessarily bad. For example, if the format of the NFL changed to where we just had the AFC and NFC and the top four teams (or six, if we want a "wildcard" weekend) from each conference went to the playoffs, that feels like like a fairer format than seeding an 9-8 team higher than an 11-6 because the 9-8 team beat other somewhat mediocre teams in their sort of arbitrarily determined division. (We all saw how that played out though; ha.) After typing all of this and reading what you and others have said, Ferdinand, I think I've come to the realization that the solution (especially for football) lies in the middle: one table isn't practical for a full league (e.g. the NFL), but too many divisions or divisions that are too small can prevent the best teams from participating in the playoffs. (I wonder if there has been any research done to determine ideal division sizes.)
  13. As for the discussion about the playoffs and their structure: in the ratings I mentioned above, the Renegades came out 5th out of eight teams, which is fairly obvious if one were to rank the teams simply based on winning percentage, let alone the other metrics. Not to mention the very strange way the conferences were drawn in the 2023 XFL (north vs. south ostensibly in order to not split up the Texas teams because having them play each other multiple times saved money due to proximity). So it was quite obvious that Arlington benefited from being in a bad conference rather than earning their way in through on-field performance. (Certainly they won the championship, so there's merit to the claim that they actually were one of the best teams in the moment, at the end of the season, etc. But if the argument is that anyone can win if they're given the chance, then why play the regular season? Just have it be a tournament with everyone involved.) Frankly, I don't think any of the reasons mentioned in this thread are strong enough reasons to use division/conference champion as a reason for postseason bids. The playoffs should always be amongst the best teams. The only reason for conferences/divisions that I could see is for scheduling purposes where every team can't play every other team. (And even for leagues like the NFL where the talent pool is generally pretty even across all 32 teams, rigid division/conference schedules may not be necessary even if every team can't play ever team.) In the XFL, scheduling isn't even really an issue: it's small enough that every team will play every other team. So what's the point of having conferences when records can be objectively used to say "these are the best teams based on their on-field performance throughout the seaon"? "Establishing traditions" or similar suggestions just sound like precursors to "We've always done it this way". Traditions should build themselves organically. Have a league table that runs 1 to 8, and have the best four teams make the playoffs. If you want in, win your games from the start of the season to the end. Don't sneak in on a geographic technicality.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.