FiddySicks

supposidly for LTech and NMST to stay they needed to invite Southern schools and by doing so they would vote for Montana and Montana St. as members. Therefore, everyone is happy. IDK how true it is, but after the 2011 football season expect Montana and Montana St. invites.

They were both invited to the WAC already. They both declined.

Honestly, I'm not a fan. I know they represent the 4 Super Bowls the Packers have won, but something about those four diamonds on the corners of the ring just throws it off.

The outlook for the WAC still looks bleak. Unable to get a FCS school to move up this year, they settle for non-football playing Seattle.

They really don't have many option in terms of football playing schools to attract. UL-Lafayette and North Texas for current FBS schools along with FCS teams in Sac State, Lamar, Sam Houston State, Montana, Montana State, and Cal-Poly.

I want to say that at least a handful of those schools have already turned the WAC down.

I feel like Sheri Lewis every time I read this thread

Aaaaaand this argument goes round and round.....

Everybody with me now!

I expected Texas State and UT-San Antonio to contact the WAC but Denver and Seattle as well? They're still looking at Montana but Montana hasn't made a presentation to them and is still weighing their options.

Montana would be a GREAT addition to the WAC, as would a school like North Dakota State to give them a natural travel partner.

Ok, so here's my biggest thing when it comes to fake jerseys. Take a look at each of these examples.

Buster Posey Jersey

Joe Thornton Jersey

Josh Freeman Jersey

Emmit Smith Florida Jersey (Probably not historically accurate)

Sure, they're not perfect, but they're TWENTY FIVE BUCKS. Unless the pictures are completely deceptive, those are the nicest $25 dollar jerseys I've ever seen. If counterfeiters overseas can sell a jersey that is fully stitched with multiple layers of tackle twill on the logos and numbers for that cheap of a price and still make a profit, then why can't the real companies at least make their prices reasonable? There is no earthly reason why anyone should spend $300 dollars on a shirt that cost almost nothing to make.

And sure, that website is based overseas and charges a $20 flat rate for shipping. But even so, two jerseys plus shipping is STILL cheaper than it would be to buy one :censored:ty replica at the mall. I get the argument of intellectual property theft, but when there is such a stranglehold on that property that prices are gouged as bad as they are, and there is an alternative out there that is nearly as good for a fraction of the price, can you really blame people for taking the cheaper alternative? IMO, this is a problem that the major sports leagues caused themselves by monopolizing the industry. I just hope that the solution to these types of problems come when the leagues decide to offer the highest quality products at reasonable prices, rather than continuously spend money to shut these operations down. If they were to do that, then there would be no reason why anyone would have (want) to look for an alternative.

spending $30 on a jersey that is so close to an authentic that most won't even notice (and those who do have to look pretty close)

But this isn't true at all. It's super easy to spot these fakes. The numbers and letters really are that bad. You can spot them a mile away, especially for teams that have anything more than standard block fonts.

Sure maybe if my grandma were to buy me a jersey that'd be a problem, but the only time I buy fakes is when it's hard for me, someone who is obsessed with this stuff and roams these boards daily, to even tell the difference. I have an Alstott fake where the numbers are so damn close to the authentic I have that side by side it's hard to tell which one is real. The logos are a bit off and that's the dead giveaway, but it cost me like 10% of what the real one did. I also have two fakes that are the Manning brother's Super Bowl jerseys. Those were even harder to spot (only the cut, which is BARELY off is wrong), and are of awesome quality. The guy who sold it them me made them out to be the real deal. I don't think he was purposely trying to rip me off, the price was too low for that to be the case. I just think that unlike us, he was closer to the general public when it came to spotting jersey fakes. But still, if you had the choice to drop three bills on an authentic jersey and miss your team's game because it's blacked out, or 30 bucks on something close, and actually have money to go to one of the team's games, wouldn't you normally choose the second option? Hell, in that case, the NFL has ZERO room to bitch!

I have a pretty big jersey collection, and two or three of them are counterfeit. No matter if it's supporting the wrong cause, or it's criminal, or whatever you want to call it, spending $30 on a jersey that is so close to an authentic that most won't even notice (and those who do have to look pretty close) is a much smarter investment than spending nearly $80 on a cheap screen printed shirt that'll fall apart in the wash in less than a year. You can knock counterfeit jerseys all you want, I still find it to be less criminal than the prices they charge for the real ones.

New Pac-12 division alignment?

PAC-12 NORTH

California

Oregon

Oregon State

Stanford

Washington

Washington State

PAC-12 SOUTH

Arizona

Arizona State

Colorado

UCLA

USC

Utah

However, I could see Colorado/Utah being swapped for Cal/Stanford to keep the California rivalries intact.

Maybe an Eastern/Western:

Eastern:

Colorado

Utah

AZ State

Arizona

Wash St

Wash

Western:

Oregon

Oregon St

Stanford

Cal

USC

UCLA

I'm pretty sure USC and UCLA are the furthest east of the old Pac 8 Schools. Or at least the easternmost "travel pair"

It also seems kind of funny to put Washington in the east and UCLA and USC in the west, when Seattle is actually further west than Los Angeles.

My initial response to adding Utah was, "Eh." I'm a Pac 10 fan and wanted to see the likes of Texas and Oklahoma on a yearly basis. I know distance and all, was an issue, but purely on the competition side, to see those two in football alone would give credence (media-wise) to the Pac 10. The fact of the matter is the the Pac 10, no matter how good it is, will always be looked down upon because it's west of the Mississippi and the media is centered around NYC. It's not whining, it's just stating a fact. Heck, if the SEC schools all went 1-11 and the Pac 10 schools went 11-1, the media would crown the SEC the toughest conference. I realize that's actually impossible, but you get my point.

I'm not bashing Utah, which is a quality school all around, but Utah's not as sexy as Texas or Oklahoma. If it was up to me, I'd still rather see BYU replace Colorado and keep that rivalry going in a conference. I'm a BYU fan, until someone tells me I have to be because I'm a member of the Church, and then when the do that, I root for BYU to lose. Then again, I root for BYU to lose, just to piss people off! I just am not sold on Colorado, or should I say Berkley in the Mountains? We've already got one liberally nut-case for a school in Berkley, why add another? If you got Colorado from the late 80's, that to me would've been a better fit, but today they are a middle of the road school in everything.

So because Berkeley and Colorado embrace counterculture lifestyles they're just a bunch of liberal nut cases? You do realize that, despite their acceptance of other lifestyles, they're still two of the top schools in the country, right?

Since Boise is leaving the wac, who is the best team left in the wac?

I would think that upon hearing the news that Boise is leaving for the MWC, that the University of Nevada, Reno was pretty darn happy to get them out. They're a very strong basketball school and have won the WAC several times, they've won the WAC in football fairly recently and if not for Boise St would have a few more WAC titles, and aren't really all that bad in baseball. At this point I'd put them at the top of that conference with Fresno State just a smidge behind (Although their recent baseball success could very easily put them in the top spot).

I don't care if the names have historic value, having a conference with 12 teams called the big ten and one with 10 teams called the big 12 is easily the most stupid thing that could possibly happen in college football, and college football is the KING of stupidity. Just change the names of the conferences or this is gonna make about as much sense as the BCS.

Let the madness begin...

So I wonder if Boise State moving from the WAC to the Mountain West( ) could put the hold on bigger conferences snagging up MWC schools such as BYU and TCU. This can only help the MWC in their bid to become a BCS conference, and I can't see Boise State moving if there was a good possibility that the stronger schools in their conference could bounce just a few weeks/months after they joined. Link

This is on Scout's main page this morning, which looks to be more like something I could see happening.

http://cfn.scout.com/2/968955.html

Q: It’s 2020. What are all the conferences going to look like? - MR

A: Sooner than later, I foresee a day when the little guys are squeezed out completely and moved to another division. Eastern Michigan just can’t compete with Michigan when it comes to attendance, funding, and in every other way a you want to compare football programs. The big boys are going to realize the money to be made by creating an uber-division of elite teams and conferences, and the Big Ten is getting the ball rolling now. After all the dust settles from expansion and realignment, here’s my best guess (with the new schools in each league in bold) for how the college football world will look ten years from now …

ACC – Boston College, Cincinnati, Duke, East Carolina, Florida State, Maryland, Memphis, Miami, North Carolina, NC State, Pitt, UCF, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest, West Virginia

Big Ten – Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Syracuse, Purdue, Wisconsin

Big 12 – Baylor, BYU, Colorado State, Houston, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, SMU, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, TCU, Utah

Pac 10 – Arizona, Arizona State, Boise State, California, Colorado, Fresno State, Nevada, Oregon, Oregon State, San Diego State, Stanford, UCLA, UNLV, USC, Washington, Washington State

SEC – Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, Louisville, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, South Carolina, South Florida, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

The Big East will dissipate with all its top teams being swallowed up, meaning there will be five mega-conferences with 16 teams each. That would make an upper-level division of 80 teams with Notre Dame staying independent and remaining in the BCS mix.

Army and Navy, all MAC and Sun Belt teams, six current WAC teams (Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana Tech, New Mexico State, San Jose State, and Utah State), two Mountain West teams (Air Force and Wyoming), and seven Conference USA teams (Marshall, Rice, Southern Miss, Tulane, Tulsa, UAB, and UTEP), will create a mid-level division between the current FBS and FCS. They'll have the ability to play the upper-division teams and with bowl tie-ins, but they won't have the legal ability to be eligible for the BCS.

This plan still has many of the same problems as the one posted before it. Fresno State, Nevada, San Diego State, and I'm sure a handfull of others don't meet the academic requirements necessary to be in whichever conference.

Yeah, most of that just wont work, Mac. Boise State in the ACC is absolutely insane in terms of travel. That and Nevada, Fresno State, Utah State, and San jose State don't have the population density or the academics required to join the Pac 10. In fact, about half of the teams in EVERY conference you listed don't even meet a small portion of the conference criteria necessary to join.

So if Missouri, Nebraska, AND Texas all move out of the Big XII I'm assuming the days of that conference being a major are over. So where does Oklahoma end up? Do they try to pick up the pieces and add smaller schools to the Big XII, making Oklahoma the kings of the conference form here on out? Do they bail out along with everyone else? Where would they go at this point? Maybe the Pac 10? This could get really hectic really quickly. I can't wait to see how this plays out.

Whose idea was it to put other teams' logos on it? Has that ever been done before in any sport?

Marlins did that in 03. I remember thinking that was the only way the Cubs and Giants were ever going to get their logos on another World Series ring.

So my buddy is trying to do a project using the Anaheim Ducks main font (Not the Anaheim part, the Ducks part). Anyone have any idea what the font is called?

Matt Holliday

Not quite a legend, although he'll always be remembered here for his face plant slide into the world series. And it crushed many people when he left.

Thank you, btw.

Ravens (still looks weird):

I actually wore my Sanders Ravens jersey the other day. It cost me $15

Wow, 15 bucks??

....Still too much.

I also have an Eddie George Cowboys jersey and a Tim Brown Bucs jersey

Oh, I know you've got a slew to random jerseys -- I meant 15 is a bit much to be layin down on a washed-up Deion on the Ravens jersey.

Considering I've worn it twice, your probably right.

Ravens (still looks weird):

I actually wore my Sanders Ravens jersey the other day. It cost me $15

Wow, 15 bucks??

....Still too much.

I also have an Eddie George Cowboys jersey and a Tim Brown Bucs jersey

Ravens (still looks weird):

I actually wore my Sanders Ravens jersey the other day. It cost me $15

Has anybody else seen that photoshop image of Favre in a #4 Vikings jersey?

*snicker*

There was one posted on foxsports.com the other day. It was a really crappy photoshop job.

Are you talking about this 1-minute job?...

...or this one?

No, it was actually worse. Take the top one, minus a helmet and any yellow trim around the 4s.