GFB

The only font close to the Miami one is the Central Park Conservancy

Who the hell at Nike is getting paid to designing these number fonts? Woooooof.

How long do you think Sharks' brass lasted in that first meeting with Adidas before collectively creaming their pants?

BBBBBBUT WHEN DID THE USA WIN 10 WORLD CUPS!?!?!?

You're right of course. My frustration is that I've been waiting to return to true white sleeves since Puma took over, and because every one of Puma's templates have always connected to the collar, they just paint fill their latest template into "Eh, that's close enough for Arsenal" range. It was fine and understandable for the first year or two of the Puma contract (and I'm not opposed to mixing things up like Barca does), but now that Puma is scrambling to differentiate their kits from their past 3-4 offerings, they never make the obvious change. Last year was "What if we did a sash/stripe on the front?" and this year is "What if we did a slightly darker red and have a collar?" while the obvious answer is to actually make a true Arsenal shirt for once. And yes, they might need to modify a template to actually make it work, but when you're Puma's flagship team, they can work with or around your needs.

Bleh. I know I should have something more constructive to add, but if Puma didn't put any effort into these kits then why should I?

Everyone wants to point to some imaginary line in the sand and say "Here it is! It's gone too far... It's no longer fair." But there's nothing to complain about. There is no line. No rules were broken. The NBA is a business; ethics are irrelevant. This is the natural result of the path that the NBA has been marching toward for the last 3 decades. Even if a player just wanted to sign with a team for the sole motivation of simply winning, when did that become this horrendous thing that creates such a viscous reaction from people? Wasn't that the common fan's main complaint of most professional athletes over the last 25 years, that they were only interested in the money and they didn't care about winning? If this offseason Boogie Cousins signed with Cleveland for a one year deal worth 10 million, why is that a bad thing? He's slaved away in obscurity in Sacramento for the majority his career, and for his brand (which all NBA players are to themselves) he realizes he'd make 30 million in endorsements if he plays in the finals next year. And some fans want me to have this venom for him because he wants to win? I mean, my team is the Pistons, and we have no shot at ever signing a free agent like Durant. No star will pass up playing in markets like New York, Chicago, Boston, Miami, Los Angeles, or San Francisco to come to Detroit; not even if the Pistons were good again. It doesn't make sense for their brands and careers. I've accepted this, yet I'm surprised to see that this is where so many people think that the imaginary "fairness" line has been crossed.

Man, I hope those of you whining about Durant have never taken a new job at a better company for more money with a great boss, more talented and friendly coworkers, a closer commute, and in a city that you happen to really like. No, you stay at the same job with the company you helped get off the ground but may have hit their ceiling, with that one coworker who is always going rogue and is a pain in the ass to work with (despite his talent), in a city that doesn't really have anything to offer you like the man of principle you are.

The new helmet is aesthetically pleasing. It had a normal-looking facemask and a smooth surface for decals. Can't ask for much more than that these days The rest of the conversation about "the nature of football and concussions" can kindly be taken to the Sports in General forum.

Patchwork.

Sugar cereals are my guilty pleasure food. In fact, I'd probably take a bowl of Fruity Pebbles over a bowl of ice cream. However, now that I'm getting older and have done a pretty good job of curbing my cereal addiction (down to mostly of granolas, oats, Kashi, and some raisin bran), I feel pretty crappy after indulging in a late-night bowl of sugary goodness. However, last month I discovered this gem: Naturally, I was suspicious of a "healthy alternative" cereal that tries its hand at something as ambitious as Cap'n Crunch; but holy crap, this stuff is good. I mean it legitimately tastes good. It might not be 100% of that signature Cap'n Crunch taste, but it gets at least 80-85% there. Mostly I can tell a difference in the berry flavoring, as it's more concentrated grape juice tasting, but after a few boxes, I actually I think I prefer it to the original: Now if only those people can get their hands on a Fruity Pebbles substitute, we'll be cooking with gas.

I think you're mostly right that Nike normally doesn't care what sort of stripes an NFL team has. You look at a team with triple stripes like the Bears and it's unlikely someone would confuse it as the Adidas tri-stripe. However, in the 49ers case, the uniforms displays three identical and monospaced white stripes, which is iconic to the Adidas brand. Let's just say that if my company paid over a billion dollars for an apparel deal, I would want to not give any free advertising to my main competitor, no matter how inadvertent or accidental that is. And for those of you saying "Well, Nike made 49ers uniforms with the three stripes on it before," they had to because that was the uniform. They couldn't make a Bears jersey with only two stripes. But if Nike went to the Bears and said "We're having trouble with getting all your stripes onto our new template, can we tweak your uniform?" and mysteriously a stripe disappeared, they could then make two-striped Bears uniforms. Look, I'm not saying that this was 100% Nike's decision. But I think if given the choice, Nike would probably prefer to sell 49ers merchandise without the three stripes and Jed York likely doesn't care or notice the difference. Ultimately, I think it's as good an explanation as any as to why the third stripe disappeared, but even if it's not true, it's fun to think about.

The Pats have had those socks since Adidas was their uniform supplier decades ago. Nike can't just change any existing uniform because they feel like it (See Cowboys, Packers). However, this 49ers uniform is technically new. I guarantee you that if the Patriots asked Nike to help fix/update their uniforms, those socks are gone in two seconds.

Conspiracy theory: Nike didn't want to put three stripes on the uniform to give Adidas any inadvertent advertising.

Let's see what's going on over at FS1: You know, if Fox's strategy was to pick up blowhards like Whitlock, Cowherd, and Bayless only to publicly roast them on a daily basis... I have to admit, I'd watch that. (not that putting microphones in front of Lavar Ball on a regular basis is a great idea either)