sc49erfan15

Members
  • Content Count

    10,117
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

sc49erfan15 last won the day on June 22 2020

sc49erfan15 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,372 All Star

1 Follower

About sc49erfan15

  • Rank
    Mascot Turned Announcer

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Louisiana

Recent Profile Visitors

24,914 profile views
  1. Better than both of those, I think, would be NFL punter. Receive snap, kick ball far. Of course it's much more complicated than that, but missing a coffin corner punt doesn't get the same shame as missing a field goal. And you're not necessarily expected to make a tackle on a return - if you make the tackle, it's a bonus. If you miss the tackle... well, you're a punter and you're not going to get cut for it. Lower pressure than backup QB, but obviously less $$$ as well. Still, for anywhere between $500k-$3M per year, it's good money for not having to give yourself CTE. And as long as you're good, you can punt till you're 40.
  2. I really enjoy the roval-type road courses - it feels like there are more variables involved. Aerodynamics still matter, but they're downplayed. Brakes and tires are critically important. Never know when someone's going to completely screw up a turn or LEEEEROY JENKINSSS a deep dive into a corner. Seeing them go 4-5 wide into the first corner is just plain fun. The unnecessary rain caution sucked for sure, but it didn't ruin it for me. I hope they keep these - variety is nice.
  3. I love the Spartanburgers! The Beacon is a well-known "drive-in"/burger/fried everything restaurant that I'd wager at least half of all native South Carolinians (at least those upstate of the fall line) have patronized at least once. My only gripe is that the burger doesn't have chili and cheese on it. The chili cheese a-plenty is what I picture when I think of the Beacon - even though it's apparently not their "signature burger" according to their site. The fries/bats logo is fantastic. Overall, I think the identity is perfect for a collegiate league.
  4. Michael McDowell is the all-time NASCAR Cup "leader" in last place finishes. Absolutely incredible to see him get his first win in the 500. Started his career on an underfunded team, had possibly the worst-looking qualifying accident of all-time, then spent 5 years on a start & park team. He's always been a good racer on plate tracks, but to see him win the 500 is fantastic. Love to see it.
  5. I sure hope this is true - taking the names away doesn't make a damned bit of sense. If for some reason they decide to continue with the generic names, I'd like to think they'd come to their senses and revert back in a year or two. ...but then again, this is MLB we're talking about here, so I'm probably wrong.
  6. When did you change names? I was reading your post and thought "this dude sounds a lot like Buc" - and then I read this comment, looked at your avatar, and it clicked. Paging @BBTV regarding the latest Eagles news, I don't know what your response will be but I'm sure it will be entertaining.
  7. I don't understand what's "sad," that's a nice shirt.
  8. It's not like the old logo was good, but it was simple enough, pretty boring, and you really didn't think about it because it didn't actually appear on cars. (At least I don't remember it being on cars.) This is awful. Without the gradient, it's passable.
  9. Steve Young is the only player to ever wear #8 for the San Francisco 49ers (and, apart from preseason players, will presumably be the only #8 since his number's been retired). This always struck me as weird - the 49ers played 4 seasons in the AAFC (which had its own odd numbering system, yeah Otto Graham wearing #60 as a quarterback!) but had been in the NFL since 1950. Young joined the 49ers in 1987, that's 37 seasons without having a #8! It would seem less odd if it were 74 or 96 or something. I know, there were usually only a half dozen or so players per year wearing numbers in the 1-19 range (2-3 QBs, a kicker and punter)... but it sure seems like someone would've picked 8 before 1987.
  10. Unfortunately, the modern hyper-protective approach to trademarks and branding prevent there from being a Cleveland baseball Browns. I agree, it would be one of the top options if possible. It still slightly baffles me that there was a St. Louis football Cardinals as late as 1987. I think I might've posted something similar earlier in this thread, but don't feel like looking back and the search function's bricked.
  11. Yeah, the Mexican League is essentially an entity unto itself, but is loosely affiliated with MLB. The quality of play is a mix, but it's closer to indy leagues like the Atlantic League or American Association... or sort of like AA without the prospects, as the players tend to be older. Guys (particularly Spanish speakers) can make careers out of playing in the Mexican League. Just like indy ball, you get a lot of guys in the Mexican League that got released from their affiliated teams but wanted to catch on somewhere. "AAA" looks great on paper, but the quality of play is overall lower than the PCL or IL. When I worked in indy ball, we had a few guys go back and forth between the Mexican League and the Atlantic League. The Mexican League paid more, but the Atlantic League was closer to home and (for the English speaking players) didn't have a language barrier.
  12. My point wasn't that the 1950s NHLers (or NBAers, etc.) weren't talented players, but that the population of the US and Canada has more than doubled since the 1950s and there aren't things like segregation (less an issue in the NHL, obvs) artificially diluting the talent pool. Of course Gordie Howe would make the NHL today, but would Jim Hay? I have no idea who that is, I just picked a random jobber off the '53-54 Red Wings. Wouldn't it stand to reason that increased population - segregation + increased international scouting = richer talent pool, rather than diluted? Clearly the counterpoint here is that the number of teams has also increased, but I don't think it's a simple "more teams equals less talent" scenario.
  13. I think it's probably what you grew up with. For millennials, ~30 teams in any major league is the "correct" number because it's the talent level and number of teams we're used to. Even 24 teams feels like entirely too few, and if any of the Big Four ever expand beyond 35, it'll feel like too many. There's also something to be said for talent pools themselves getting larger. Are talent pools really "diluted" if the pool is now truly worldwide (well, except the NFL) instead of just domestic? If you could somehow control for modern strength and conditioning, how many guys on a 1950s NHL team would make an NHL roster today? Hell, how many would even crack the AHL?
  14. Your point is fair enough, but I don't think the competition in barnstorming tours was approaching Major League level. As bad as the Depression-era St. Louis Browns were, it's not like their roster was made up of semi-pros. Then again, I'm not a Negro League baseball researcher - if it's found that the competition was of high enough level, then absolutely count the stats. There were 16 MLB teams until 1960 vs. 30 now. Do we similarly discredit any records set from 1998 onward due to the unworthiness of lower-echelon players that wouldn't have made MLB rosters in the 1950s? No, that'd be silly.