Billy B

I think the best the Cavs have ever looked was the Lebron era uniforms, but I'm a big fan of the current uniforms too. All they need is a gold alt that they wear at home.

Maybe this is the unpopular opinion, but I think that this is the best the Kings have ever looked. They're kind of the opposite of the Canucks to me. A few entirely different color schemes and designs, but all of the Kings have looked good. I actually like their current crest, too. I'm happy they wont the Cup in these and that all their success has come in silver and black, because I don't want to see them move away from that again.

It's interesting that you think that. I actually remember VC vividly as a Raptor. I'm not saying that's the first team that I think of when I think of him (that would probably be the Nets), but I don't consider it anywhere near a "wrong" uniform for him. Remember, he played nearly half his career up there.

I would consider his current Mavs uni to be a "wrong" uni. I regularly forget that he is a Mav.

It might just be that him in the red Raptors jersey is the wrong uniform. I've always thought of Vince Carter as a Raptor first, even now when he's with the Mavs and when he was with the Nets. But I also associate him 100% with the purple and black uniform set, I don't remember him wearing the red at all.

A guy at bowling comes over to tell me he's getting a couple dozen authentic Pats jerseys, everything stitched "like the real ones."

And because he's getting so many, he's getting them for the "awesome low price of $24.99 each!!!"

He went to the pro shop to compare and they are "around $220. I started laughing because of the deal I was getting!"

He then tells me he'll sell me one for $40 cus he knows me.

I told him he was getting fakes.

He does not believe me.

I'll see Wednesday night. This ought to be good.

I'd bet the majority of people wearing counterfeits are people like this. They see that a jersey is stitched or a hockey jersey has a fight strap and automatically think it's authentic. I remember once in high school a kid was so proud of the authentic Blackhawks jersey he got for Christmas. It was one of the ones with the dark brown face, super skinny C, and I think the tomahawks were even miscolored. I didn't have the heart to tell him it was fake, but I was pleasantly surprised that one of my friends knew it was fake (and even told the kid.)

ok here is a question, when on ebay I am looking at ones like this http://www.ebay.com/itm/Minnastoa-Timberwolves-Ricky-Rubio-Revolution-30-Away-Blue-Jersey-/280800787725?pt=US_Basketball_Fan_Shop&hash=item416107fd0d#ht_4368wt_952

and I know it is from hong kong but it looks legit, my question is, will i just not get it when I order it? or will I receive what I buy because that jersey looks legit and would love to get it

That picture looks legit, but just look at how they spell Minnesota in the listing. I'd be surprised if you got the jersey in that picture.

This is the best the Warriors have ever looked. I didn't really like it until the last few years they wore it, but it's much better than any of their blue and gold sets.

Also, I think that's a Rev30 jock tag, which would not have been on the Sonics' jerseys. The kerning on the seattle looks off.

This is the most obvious mistake to me. Not just the kerning, but it looks like the arching on the letters and the shape of the white arch are off as well.

I wonder what the NFL is losing by continuing to push the terrible screened jerseys at $80. For the average user, if you go to NFL.com, your options are $80 for crap, or $300 for "authentic." You go to eBay, and you see tons of sewn, nicer jerseys (certainly compared to the screened) for $50-$75. If you're not aware of the illegalities, you'd be dumb to go for the screened version.

Yes, there is such a thing as too good to be true, but I think (as I've said before in this thread) the NFL is in part creating this second-hand marker by the way its official items are priced.

Note: I'm not making a moral or legal argument; only an economic one.

Don't they still have their equivalent to the NBA's old swingman? I got a Bears one last year and I believe it was $100. Numbers and names are sewn on one layer with the other layers screenprinted on top of that.

Basketball programs are important to this discussion. They are moving with football. Mizzou's basketball is moving with their football. Boise State would be in the Big 12 by now if Football wasn't the only thing they were good in. If Boise State had some Final Fours under their belt they would be hot.

And yet one of the most storied programs in college basketball history (Kansas) could very well have been scrambling for a home after last year's realignment chatter.

It's simple:

Why isn't anyone interested in Kansas? Because basketball is an afterthought in realignment talks.

Why isn't anyone in Rice or Tulane? Because academics are irrelevant in realignment talks.

mod edit DING! Thank you for bringing the light. Now, everyone, back to the FOOTBALL realignment discussion.

Basketball and academics are important, but they aren't the thing that's fueling the realignment. Why isn't Boise State already in a major conference? It's because of their other sports and academics. And Rice and Tulane aren't getting any big invites because their football programs aren't good. Conferences already have their Vanderbilts and Northwesterns so they're not going out and looking to bring in a school that's main draw is the academics.

Football is by far the most important factor of the realignment discussions, but it's wrong to say that academics and basketball are meaningless.

Talks about saving the Big 12 are under way. From what I hear A&M (obviously) and Missouri are out. SMU, Houston, TCU, and BYU are reportedly getting invited in.

Why would they invite TCU who is already joining the seemingly stable for now Big East?

Those two will stay at 12 as long as they can, and try to keep the Rose Bowl Pac-12/B1G as a separate event.

Once again ensuring future generations of the ability to watch a completely undeserving B1G team play in a BCS bowl against a much superior Pac-12 opponent, a la Illinois/USC 2007.

That was just one year and Illinois didn't even win the Big Ten that year. Ohio State won the conference and played in the title game so they picked Illinois to play just because they were a Big Ten team. Illinois doesn't play in the BCS that year if Ohio State doesn't make the title game. And last time there was a Big Ten/Pac-10 matchup Ohio State beat Oregon.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the Big 10 is going to get bit in the ass once the dust settles (how's that for cramming cliches?). Initially, reports were that the Big 10 were being proactive and really spear heading and leading the charge for expansion to super conferences, but it seems either the cockiness or the lack of planning is coming back to haunt the Big 10. Most of their targets seem to be going else where.

But does the Big Ten really need more than 12 teams? Of course I'd be in favor of adding Notre Dame and another team (preferably Missouri), but I'd rather we stick at 12 teams than go pick up a team that isn't a great fit.

I love how thick that collar is. It looks like somebody is wearing a white dress shirt underneath the jersey.

The scary part is that he's the starting quarterback for the team. Wow.

He played QB in the NFL, why would he change that up for some no name league?

I don't know, maybe it's the fact that he's well over 300 pounds?

He's leading the league is passing yards, though. He may be overweight, but you can't knock the fact that he's a good quarterback.

He's rolling his eyes because you still have yet to grasp that buying bootleg jerseys, regardless of their quality or the buyer's financial situation, is illegal.

Are you charger77's spokesman now? He couldn't find anyone better to try to explain his worthless arguments?

I recognize that buying bootleg jerseys is illegal, but it's one of those crimes that's a lot less harmful than some other crimes in this world that go unpunished. That doesn't make it completely right, but it makes me care less about it than other issues. And it also makes me not feel bad about doing it. I guarantee you've broken several laws in your life. No one really has the right to be holier-than-thou about lawbreaking.

The worst part is that people are celebrating it on here of all places. There are some professional designers on here that are hurt buy people knowingly buying counterfeit jerseys.

I like the standardized courts for the NCAA Tournament. I can't exactly place what it is that makes me like them more, but I prefer it to just playing on another team's home court.

Milwaukee Brewers - The BiG logo. The logo is okay, but has no connection to the team name. It could work for any team with MB as their initials. The 90s uniforms were an improvement, and I like the current uniforms the most. I will say that the royal and yellow looked better than navy and gold.

I never understood this rationale for why the BiG is bad. Most MLB's monograms could conceivably be used by any other city that shares the inital... What exactly makes the Phillies "P" say Philadelphia any more than it says Pittsburgh or Phoenix? By my count, only the Angels, Marlins, Astros, White Sox, Blue Jays, Rockies, Diamondbacks, Mariners and Brewers currently use monograms that refer to their nicknames... that's 9 out of 28 teams. The fact that it even contains a B is actually more than most teams do to refer to their nickname.

I guess it's more of the fact that they have a logo of baseball equipment, which is why I prefer the hats the Brewers wore after the BiG. That's the same reason I don't like the Canucks stick in rink logo, it's just hockey equipment.

Most people don't like, but I do:

Minnesota Vikings - I'm not in love with the uniforms, but I think they're miles ahead of the throwback/alternates.

Seattle Seahawks - I really like the monochrome look at home and can't stand the look when they wear white pants at home. I'm really happy they went with the monochrome home look all the time.

Dallas Stars - I kind of like the college-style jersey. It's unique in the NHL, they would just be better with more green.

Nashville Predators - Navy, silver, and yellow lookgreat together in my opinion. I'm disappointed they're moving to just blue and black.

Most people like these, I have no idea why:

Milwaukee Brewers - The BiG logo. The logo is okay, but has no connection to the team name. It could work for any team with MB as their initials. The 90s uniforms were an improvement, and I like the current uniforms the most. I will say that the royal and yellow looked better than navy and gold.

New York Islanders/Edmonton Oilers - Royal blue and orange just look too bright together. If one of these teams had to switch back, I wish it were Edmonton, not New York, because I actually liked the Islanders edge jerseys (I could have put that up above too)

The Big Ten should just be the Big Ten.

Technically, Penn State is an East Coast School and has caused a geographic disparity within the Big Ten.

Penn State would be better off in the Big East. That means Marqeutte and DePaul would transfer to the Big 10

Marquette and DePaul don't make sense. Neither school has a football team nor is strong enough academically to join the Big Ten. Marquette isn't in the Association of American Universities and DePaul is really a step below Big Ten schools academically.

If you think 45 looks wrong

I like the banners as well. One of my favorites is how the Bulls put each player's name around the perimeter on their championship banners.