Jump to content

BlueSky

Members
  • Posts

    6,770
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BlueSky

  1. Still waiting for someone to take on the profit margin argument...but then I suppose it's just easier to ignore the things that don't support your own point. Let's throw in as well that the NFL creates its own monopoly, and the high prices that brings, by granting exclusive licenses. What say ye about that?
  2. I ask again: does the NFL really want a breakdown of cost vs. price all over the news? If not, why? Any company can (or should be able to) defend a reasonable profit. Oil companies take a lot of heat over prices, but - if their books are true and accurate - their profit as a percentage of revenue is reasonable. Hate 'em if you'd like but that's the truth. Airlines have a very hard time making money but part of the problem IMO - and I feel qualified to comment since I worked in airline pricing - is their pricing system. Most companies take the cost of a product and add a reasonable profit. Airlines' philosophy is the same as a lot of car dealers; the price is whatever they can get you to pay regardless of the item's cost to produce. But sooner or later people get tired of being jacked around, tired of paying $400 when another traveler on the same flight paid $199 and others paid $650. I understand their system - it's based on a seat on a specific flight having a different value to each customer at different times, the same way a bottle of water has a different value to you as you read this vs. someone who has just crawled through a desert for three days. I just totally disagree with using such a model because p***ing off your customers every time they book a ticket is not a recipe for long-term success. My point being the NFL definitely does not want to shine a spotlight on counterfeit merchandise because they themselves will be exposed for ripping people off.
  3. Not being allowed to bring something in has always been a fear, as I show up to most games via public transportation. Like if I am coming from work with an umbrella or something... Anyway, this may be feasible but I think the teams would have to promote the heck out of it so as to not catch people by surprise. They may even have to have a "coat check" system where the fans can get it on the way out, as opposed to confiscating. The bottom line is that people feel they are paying a lot to go to the game and that they paid their hard-earned money for the jersey, which they did not even realize was "fake". I wonder whether one of the reasons they don't try this is that it's hard to not find enough "enforcers" that can actually tell the difference. Another problem the "enforcers" may have is the person that ruins a perfectly legit item with a sloppy customization...they may bust someone with a licensed product. I certainly agree with you here. At the very least, get out via web posters in the pro-shop, etc. that points out 1) the differences and 2) the theft aspect, if only to get a few people to understand. I assume (but I suppose I may be wrong) that most of the people I see wearing the fakes don't really understand that they are fake/illegally-produced either because they don't understand "officially licensed", don't realize just how "off" it looks, or accept that replicas are not going to have perfect detail (which is the case often...e.g., when MLB used to have nice looking replica jerseys with one-color block #s and names for all teams). That's a naive point of view. Most just don't care when it saves them $100-200 over an authentic. I also think the NFL at least (and its member teams) are unlikely to mount such a campaign because someone in the media would surely tear down the price of a jersey to show the profit margin. The inevitable backlash against the ridiculously high prices they charge for authentics when the NFL is raking in billions would not be good PR for the league or the teams. Can you imagine some reporter walking into a place that's probably right down the block from where the fakes are made and talking about how the people making your authentic Tom Brady jersey are making $1.50 a day, if they make their quota? That may be an exaggeration, but who knows? They're already flailing around about how to get more people to the stadium on game day and seem unable to grasp that charging $100+ for nosebleed tickets and $30-50 for parking isn't the way to start. The last thing they need or want is bad press on merchandise pricing. Are people who buy fakes depriving the league of revenue if, had they not bought a fake, they woudn't have bought a jersey at all? If so, how? Opportunity cost. The money spent on a fake could have gone to a shirt etc... at NFL.com or at the stadium. Or a car payment.
  4. Not being allowed to bring something in has always been a fear, as I show up to most games via public transportation. Like if I am coming from work with an umbrella or something... Anyway, this may be feasible but I think the teams would have to promote the heck out of it so as to not catch people by surprise. They may even have to have a "coat check" system where the fans can get it on the way out, as opposed to confiscating. The bottom line is that people feel they are paying a lot to go to the game and that they paid their hard-earned money for the jersey, which they did not even realize was "fake". I wonder whether one of the reasons they don't try this is that it's hard to not find enough "enforcers" that can actually tell the difference. Another problem the "enforcers" may have is the person that ruins a perfectly legit item with a sloppy customization...they may bust someone with a licensed product. I certainly agree with you here. At the very least, get out via web posters in the pro-shop, etc. that points out 1) the differences and 2) the theft aspect, if only to get a few people to understand. I assume (but I suppose I may be wrong) that most of the people I see wearing the fakes don't really understand that they are fake/illegally-produced either because they don't understand "officially licensed", don't realize just how "off" it looks, or accept that replicas are not going to have perfect detail (which is the case often...e.g., when MLB used to have nice looking replica jerseys with one-color block #s and names for all teams). That's a naive point of view. Most just don't care when it saves them $100-200 over an authentic. I also think the NFL at least (and its member teams) are unlikely to mount such a campaign because someone in the media would surely tear down the price of a jersey to show the profit margin. The inevitable backlash against the ridiculously high prices they charge for authentics when the NFL is raking in billions would not be good PR for the league or the teams. Can you imagine some reporter walking into a place that's probably right down the block from where the fakes are made and talking about how the people making your authentic Tom Brady jersey are making $1.50 a day, if they make their quota? That may be an exaggeration, but who knows? They're already flailing around about how to get more people to the stadium on game day and seem unable to grasp that charging $100+ for nosebleed tickets and $30-50 for parking isn't the way to start. The last thing they need or want is bad press on merchandise pricing. Are people who buy fakes depriving the league of revenue if, had they not bought a fake, they woudn't have bought a jersey at all? If so, how?
  5. I didn't say it should be regulated nor did I say the NFL shouldn't control its own licenses and so on. They certainly can. My point is that any monopoly is usually very bad news for customers. Check the airfares out of Newark.
  6. 1) That's not a monopoly though. A monopoly would be if Reebok were the only jersey manufacturer in town, having forced out its rivals with monopolistic tactics, thus forcing the NFL to give them the licence. Or if EA were the only video game developer around, having built up a monopoly for itself, forcing the league to go to them. This, simply put, is not the case. Reebok and EA do exist in competitive business environments. The NFL has decided that their performance in their respective markets is good enough to warrant the licences to their products. That's business, not a monopoly. There are other video game developers out there. There are other jersey manufacturers out there. If they offered a quality of product on par with Rebook or EA, or if they had made a better case for themselves to the NFL and in the marketplace, then they could have gotten the NFL licence rather then Reebok or EA. Monopoly is a term that tends to get thrown around a lot in these discussions. Simply put, EA and Reebok do not have monopolies. At the end of the day it's the NFL's intellectual property. They can do whatever they want with it. If they want to give one company an exclusive licence in one field or another that's completely within their rights as the holder of that IP. It's not a monopoly. Now if Reebok, DirectTV, or EA prove to be so incompetent that consumers stop buying their goods and services then the NFL will look elsewhere. There are other companies out there in the fields of cable/satellite television, video game development, and jersey manufacturing. If they keep up the quality of their goods and services, and if the holders of the NFL licences falter like so many are claiming they are for long enough, then we could see a shift. Now I'll tell you why it makes sense for the NFL to give one manufacture the licence for team merchandise. Remember when we had multiple companies making NFL jerseys? Now each company had its own list of NFL teams that it made on-field jerseys for, but each company could make replicas of teams that they didn't have the licence to. Nike, for example, could make and sell replicas of a team they didn't work with. What we got was a market flooded by official replicas from three or four different companies, and they all varied in design, even among the same teams. A Reebok Broncos replica would look different from one made by Puma, and the one made by Nike would look different from both of them. 2) This runs the risk of diluting the visual identities of the league's teams. By choosing one manufacturer to hold the licence for all teams the NFL sidesteps this problem. An interesting alternative to this, however, is if we consider the NFL a collection of 32 independent pro football organizations that just band together under one banner for the purposes of forming a competitive circuit. If we take this approach, which I feel does holds a level of legitimacy, then it can be argued that the league has no right to force teams under one licence. If that's the case, and we return to multiple manufacturers, then I would want to see tighter control over what we saw in the past. That is to say that manufacturers cannot make merchandise for teams that they're not associated with. That way everyone wins, I think. A level of competition is reintroduced to the official NFL licence on team merchandise while the problems brought on by multiple versions of the same jersey in the marketplace are avoided. As for the video games? What can I say? I've always been an EA Sports/Madden fan, even before they got the licence. To me they always produced the best football game around so it made sense to me that the NFL would choose them when they wanted to only have one official NFL game series. Unlike the jersey position I see no reason why the NFL felt it only needed on video game franchise, but at the end of the day it's there licence, and they can do what they want with it. EA doesn't have a monopoly, they have the exclusive rights to one video game series. Not the same thing. Really, I don't see much lost there. Did anyone play Backbreaker (the new football game)? What a letdown. 1) Huh? mo·nop·o·ly    noun, plural -lies. 1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly. 2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government. 3. the exclusive possession or control of something. 4. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service. 5. a company or group that has such control. 6. the market condition that exists when there is only one seller. 7. ( initial capital letter ) a board game in which a player attempts to gain a monopoly of real estate by advancing around the board and purchasing property, acquiring capital by collecting rent from other players whose pieces land on that property. Okay, you win on #'s 2 & 7. Otherwise, please explain how, from the customer's perpective, DirecTV, Reebok, and EASports don't enjoy a monopoly. 2) Yeah, we wouldn't want that, not in a league that values visual identity so highly. They take the 'uni' out of uniform... ...and seriously, did Finley's mom pick up his game jersey off the clearance rack at Big Lots? It looks like a bad homemade. An outstanding point. Nothing like shelling out big bucks for a jersey only to wear it one season before that player slides out the revolving door that is the NFL in free agency. I'll have to disagree here. In hockey and baseball you can just buy the jerseys blank. No problem. In basketball and football, well that's the risk you run. You know full well that the player who's jersey your buying may not play for the team next season. Yet you choose to take the risk when you buy the jersey. Furthermore this problem can be sidestepped. Buy a jersey of a player who stands a high chance of staying around for a while. Buy a jersey of a high profile player from a recent championship run so that even if they leave your jersey still has meaning as a fan. Or buy a throwback/vintage jersey that often feature great players from the team's past. No problem there. As a Saints fan you're probably safe with a Drew Brees jersey, for example. The whole "well the player may not be around much longer" problem is easily sidestepped. Fair point, but it still sucks to pay what they charge for a player who may not be around.
  7. C'mon, man. Of course they own their own IP. The issue is giving one company (EA Sports for Madden, Reebok for jerseys, etc.) exclusive licenses. Don't you think Madden would be better and/or cheaper if there was another company allowed to make NFL video games? I know less about video games than anyone. But competitors can still make football video games. Do they have a right to produce the "NFL" video game or just the right to produce a competing "football" video game? And other companies can still make clothing...sports clothing. Albeit that some lame fashion "football" jersey does not compare to a (insert team) jersey, but the NFL does not need to let anyone use their imaging any more than, say, Aeropostale does. So when we use "monopoly" are we implying that it should be illegal? Are we implying that anyone should be able to make NFL-based clothing? Because if not, then it's still just "I deserve a cheap jersey" to me. And if so, then I'd have to disagree. 1) Sure they can, but without the NFL brand, it could be the greatest thing around and still not be much of a marketing success. 2) That's been a question argued over and over. You may be too young to remember, but did you know AT&T used to be basically the only phone company? Eight years of anti-trust litigation later, a judge ordered it broken up because it was a monopoly. We don't have the time or space to debate that specific instance but the point is that nothing good usually comes from a lack of competition. Competition is what drives companies to provide better service, make better products, and keep costs in line. Because if the customer has no other choice, what incentive does a company have to do better? Does anyone disagree that if we had NFL2K10 or whatever it would be called now, both it and Madden would be better and cheaper because they'd be battling each other for market share? What kind of computer do you have? What if that brand was the only one available? Would it be as good or as cheap as computers are now? Look at the post office. If FedEx or UPS are ever allowed to carry mail, it'll be cheaper almost instantly. Why? Because for mail, we have no other choice. The post office has no incentive to be more efficient because when they need more money, all they have to do is raise their price. When the NFL gives one company - DirecTV, EASports, Reebok - an exclusive license, along with it comes the ability to screw the customer. An outstanding point. Nothing like shelling out big bucks for a jersey only to wear it one season before that player slides out the revolving door that is the NFL in free agency.
  8. Hey I have one of those! Cool! Not only is it NOT an act of justifiable defiance, it doesn't even BELONG in the same discussion as the founding of the United States. On one hand you have a group of people who believed their states were being taxed unfairly and so they decided to form a new nation based on the principals of the Enlightenment. On the other hand we have a group of people who making (often) shoddy replicas of sports jerseys to sell at prices below what the official ones sell for. They're profiting off of the copyrights of these leagues and teams and off of the ignorance of the consumer. To even suggest that someone making/selling illegal counterfeits is acting in the same spirit as the American founding fathers is downright insulting to the founding fathers' legacy. Counterfeiting in no way supports a "greater good." They're crooks making illegal copies off of other people's legal copyrights and selling them to consumers who, to be honest, are unaware that they may be buying a fake. These are not selfless icons of morality standing up to the big bad sports leagues and the manufacturers. They're scumbags who profit off of other people's intellectual property and the ignorance of the consumer. We're not talking about the Nuremberg Laws or Jim Crow Laws here pal. The law in this case is a league/team's right to own the exclusive rights over its own intellectual property. Is that law wrong? If not, then there's no debate here. The counterfeiters are both morally and legally in the wrong. This is the cheapest, by far, argument ever thrown around in this debate. Perhaps you missed this life lesson growing up, but two wrongs do not make a right. Someone else's violation of the law does not give you a free pass to break another law. That seems pretty straight forward, but I guess it would slip by someone who has the nerve to compare counterfeiters of NFL jerseys to America's founding fathers. Furthermore distinctions need to be made, and your "everyone violates the law" argument is so paper thin and broad that it really doesn't hold up in this argument when those distinctions are made. For the record, yes I have gotten a few tickets, for a few different traffic offences. You know what I did? I paid them. I broke the law, I was punished accordingly, and I paid my punishment. As in I got caught breaking the law and I paid the proper consequences. What consequences have you (a general you to anyone who's bought, sold, or manufactured a counterfeit jersey) paid for your breaking of the law? Quoted for truth. The monopoly on rights is exactly why the prices are so high. When true competition is allowed prices go down and quality goes up. A monopoly means that the major sports leagues can put as high of a price as they want on the jerseys so long as people still buy them. They take such issue with 'counterfeits' because they really put a stitch in the side of their monopoly. Sure they can say, make similar products with the same colors, people will buy them, but the fact of the matter is authentic jerseys are what the consumer wants. Nobody wants a k-mart shiny t-shirt in place of an authentic jersey. They do not hold a monopoly on team apparel, they hold a monopoly on authentic jerseys, and they're making a killing. I'm going to have to disagree. You're argument is essentially "the *insert league here* has a monopoly over the production and sale of goods that use the *insert league here*'s various intellectual properties." Of course they do. That's just not them. That applies to everyone. Everyone has a "monopoly" over their own intellectual property. That's how copyrights work. Bruce Springsteen's record company has a monopoly on selling Bruce Springsteen CDs. Score one for rationalizing piracy. C'mon, man. Of course they own their own IP. The issue is giving one company (EA Sports for Madden, Reebok for jerseys, etc.) exclusive licenses. Don't you think Madden would be better and/or cheaper if there was another company allowed to make NFL video games?
  9. Just remembered I meant to bring up exclusive agreements and how they fit into this debate. Can anybody besides Reebok even make jerseys under license?
  10. You pretty much hit the nail on the head with that one. Is there a reason for that? I don't understand. PArticularly on a website for people obsessed with logos, uniforms, and sports in general. Not to mention some "grown men" who wear jerseys earn more in one year than you will probably see in your life time. It's just my opinion. I just think jerseys are a little goofy for men to be wearing around, particularly football jerseys. And that goes for going to game or going to the store. IMO, there is no proper situation for the man jersey. And just because you make some money doesn't mean you can't look like a jackass. We all have opinions and these particular ones don't add much to the conversation. Not saying don't post 'em, but hey, I think guys wearing earrings and old-school hats (fedoras, etc.) and their ballcaps off-center is kind of goofy. Point being we could go round and round about it but a wise man once asked me why I was wasting even one second of my precious time on Earth worrying about other people's fashion choices. I didn't have an answer.
  11. This has been a pretty refreshing thread all in all. Real discussion that has remained civil and well-considered. My personal bottom line is the same as it was back when music sharing became popular. That was an odd case because the industry lagged technology. File sharing became possible and music was going online and totally digital but to get it "legally" one still had to buy a CD. Most people weren't trying to steal music; when given a "proper" (legal, moral, ethical, whatever you want to call it) and reasonably priced alternative, they used it. Look what iTunes et al have become. I at least don't know anybody who is still 'stealing' music through file sharing. It may be wrong to blame the NFL (or airlines in that example) but the same logic applies. I believe most people can see the retailer's side and are willing to pay a reasonable markup. When things get unreasonable, that's when counterfeiters find a market. Look, I did airline pricing for years and I think most carriers use an idiotic model, one similar to car dealers: the goal is to get each and every customer to pay the absolute maximum he or she is willing to pay. That's yield management, and it's the reason for the wild disparity in fares on the same flight and for all those ridiculous rules everyone hates. It's a valid strategy - IF you will only have one transaction with that customer. Treating Screwing people like that in an industry dependent on repeat business is stupid. People who knew I did pricing asked all the time, "How the hell can it cost me more to fly from Atlanta to Tampa than from Atlanta to L.A.?" Sure, there are reasons, which are complicated and take a long time to explain, but they don't involve cost. In pricing, we were not provided cost data and in fact were prohibited from seeing it. But cost + a reasonable markup is how most people believe prices should be set. So the real problem is that the pricing is counterintuitive, which of course is a long word that means it just doesn't make sense.
  12. I respect your opinion and even agree with it to a point. What I find distressing, and this may or may not be you, but there are those who are self-righteous about this but think nothing of 'beating the system' in some other way that's to their benefit. That's why I posted earlier that we're all hypocrites to some degree. It just depends what it is. For example, in another thread someone asked about what's called hidden-city airline ticketing, where a flight goes from City A through City B to City C, but the fare from A to C is lower than the fare from A to B. Why can't they just buy a ticket for the lower amount (from A to C) and get off at B? The airlines' view is that it's cheating, customer's think that's crazy and do it anyway. That's just not cool, IMO. The argument that everyone is trying to beat the system is as valid as the argument that the products cost too much not to buy from copyright infringers. 1) This particular analogy doesn't hold because the customer in this scenario is still giving money to the people legitimately providing the service. 2) My problem with people buying counterfeit merchandise is that it perpetuates the growing problem of affordability in sports. I think this problem is best highlighted by MLB radio. When I first moved from Seattle to Virginia, I was able to listen to games for free, because no one thought to charge someone for listening to out of area radio broadcasts. Then the MLB realized that there were plenty of douchebags willing to pay a monthly subscription fee for something that was readily available and free. Rather than complain, those of us that could simply found less convenient ways to get the same thing for free (or for much cheaper). Rather than lower subscription rates, the MLB raised them, and then squashed the internet feeds. I see the same thing happening with the jerseys. A lot of us can't afford them. So we feel justified in buying cheap knockoffs. Then Reebok or whoever introduces space-age materials like the RBK Edge system or Cool Base or what-have-you, and people start producing and purchasing knockoffs. The leagues aren't doing anything about it. Yet. So it must be okay. But pretty soon, once the market is big enough to show a dependence, the leagues will crack down, and the people who are willing to buy counterfeit merch will be forced to buy from the leagues again, only this time at even higher prices than when they first rebelled. The bottom line is - 3) it's illegal (but you probably won't be prosecuted for buying it) 4) it's unethical (but not any more-so than downloading mp3s or having your layover in your actual destination provided you find a way to get your luggage to arrive at the same destination), but moreover, it worsens the situation that created the market for the fakes in the first place. 5) People who try to live and behave as ethically and morally as possible (we are actually the silent majority, despite public opinion) get further screwed in the process. 1) I disagree. Who the money is paid to is irrelevant. If you went in Starbucks, would it be valid for you to order a $5 beverage, place $3 on the counter, and leave? Same thing with the airline situation. The fare from A to B is $100. If you only pay $75, it's wrong in the airline's point of view because you are not paying the price they have set for that 'product'. 2) Frankly, that whole thing doesn't make much sense to me but bottom line, no one will be "forced" to buy from the leagues. Even with no fakes available, people will always have the choice not to buy a jersey. That fact contributes to my wishy-washy position on this. For many if not most who buy counterfeits, the alternative isn't an authentic, it's no jersey at all. So one way or another, the amount in Reebok's pocket is zero. That's a major difference between this and illegal music downloading IMO. Since a lawsuit has no merit if the plaintiff cannot prove damages, it's tough to imagine how an individual customer could be held liable. 3) People keep saying that but no one can seem to come up with the specific law being broken. If it's "illegal" it means some authority could show up and arrest a customer who has bought a counterfeit jersey. What authority is that, and under what law? 4) Unethical? There, we agree on something. But I'm conflicted on the whole thing because I see both sides. Is Reebok's markup "ethical" if what another poster is true and their cost is $9 to make replicas that retail for $80? 5) Tell us honestly, there's not one way you try and beat the system? Not one single way? Nothing? Sorry, not buying it. The fact everyone is a hypocrite in one way or another doesn't justify anything anyone does. My point is that we have a lot of the pot calling the kettle black going on here. You just said MLB squashed the internet feeds, does that mean you were going around their subscriptions?
  13. Playing devil's advocate, what law is being broken by customers who buy fake jerseys? The act of producing and selling counterfeits is the illegal act here. So customers are not breaking the law? If you knowingly buy stolen goods, you are braking the law, as you are giving the thieves more incentive to keep stealing. I would believe that the same applies to stolen designs and trademarks. DG is right, that there's not much that the league can do about it, so they should adjust their price structure to make it a harder decision for someone to buy a knock off (well, it's only $50 more for the real thing instead of $200 more, so...) however, it's pretty sad that members of a board flooded with pro graphic designers, some of which have sold designs to teams / leagues, would fail to see the problem with buying this crap. If you want to buy it, fine - you suck, but fine. Just don't come to a board and talk about how many illegally reproduced TMs you've purchased, when there's a chance that the designer of the logo / uniform is reading it. It's just not cool, IMO. I respect your opinion and even agree with it to a point. What I find distressing, and this may or may not be you, but there are those who are self-righteous about this but think nothing of 'beating the system' in some other way that's to their benefit. That's why I posted earlier that we're all hypocrites to some degree. It just depends what it is. For example, in another thread someone asked about what's called hidden-city airline ticketing, where a flight goes from City A through City B to City C, but the fare from A to C is lower than the fare from A to B. Why can't they just buy a ticket for the lower amount (from A to C) and get off at B? The airlines' view is that it's cheating, customer's think that's crazy and do it anyway. That's just not cool, IMO.
  14. Playing devil's advocate, what law is being broken by customers who buy fake jerseys? The act of producing and selling counterfeits is the illegal act here. So customers are not breaking the law? Why doesn't the NFL at least acknowledge this problem and post the same kind of warning/advisory that appears on DVDs? As I've said before, we're all hypocrites in one way or another. Some of the self-righteous types bemoaning the knockoffs surely do things that are "technically" illegal but that they self-justify. That's not right or wrong, just the way the world works.
  15. Playing devil's advocate, what law is being broken by customers who buy fake jerseys?
  16. But this isn't true at all. It's super easy for uni freaks like CCSLC members 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. FYP. Most of the general public will never notice the difference. Whatever one's position on this, someone pointed out an ironic truth in another thread where this was debated: the "authentic" $250-300 version of these jerseys probably comes from the factory down the street from the one doing the fakes, the difference being that the authentics are put together better and subjected to more QC than the fakes. The employees are likely working in the same conditions and making the same 20 cents an hour or whatever. We'll never know the one variable that would enable me to finalize my position: the NFL's cost to produce an authentic. Their markup has to be ridiculous.
  17. Post pictures of it on here and watch it get picked apart. Sure, by rabid uni freaks (no offense, I'm one too). Most people don't care, they just want something sub-$250 to wear to the game. Besides, most casual observers won't even notice the flaws.
  18. While looking for a shot of Archie in a Vikes uni, I ran across this video of Archie with Minnesota in 1984. It's priceless x 2: - the hilarious Vikes helmet rendition on the network starting lineup graphic (helmet horn is all the way forward like the Eagles' helmet wings), and - the Vikings with awful white facemasks. I didn't know they ever wore white masks.
  19. I'm mildly offended. Or not. But perhaps you missed the thread's title? It is after all the Pointless Realignment Thread Outpost. Wouldn't that make you the one not like the others?
  20. Next year finally got here...and it is good.

  21. For anyone wondering, the jersey lettering says Isotopes. It's Albuquerque's minor league team.
  22. yeah, you're right, maybe modern wasn't the right word... maybe more of a sense of motion. Modern is the right word in that there's been no further evolution in aircraft propulsion. If they were the 'New York Props' it wouldn't be modern.
  23. How about one from the college ranks? About a minute or so into this video is Troy Aikman playing QB for Oklahoma. This is the game in which he was lost for the season with a broken ankle and ended up transferring to UCLA. And the opposing QB in this game is none other than...Vinny Testaverde!
  24. Wait a minute...Derrick Freakin' Brooks is your first cousin? I didn't know that. Just this morning NFL Network was playing their "America's Game" series on the '02 Bucs and Mr. Brooks was a large part of the story. My favorite moment though was Warren Sapp looking sick to his stomach on being drafted by the Bucs. He's wearing the hat and holding up the jersey all while looking like somebody just opened a bag of month-old fish right under his nose.
  25. My family moved to New Orleans in 1969 and I attended my first Saints game the same year. I have no college affiliation but my wife attended Oklahoma, so I consider myself a "Sooner-in-law."
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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