• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Prospect

About rockchalk

  • Rank
    Happiness and Fun for Everyone!!
  1. Actually, they were independent. The game that is now referred to as Super Bowl I was THE first time that there was any kind of cooperation between the two leagues in public. After that game, the first common draft was held in 1967, interleague preseason games were held starting in '67, etc. But the Super Bowl was the FIRST time that they were together. Of course, I'm being a little anal, but that's what we're all about here.
  2. Yes, that is a good point. I have a ton of old logos from old decals, press guides, programs and other fan material and little of it is seen on that site. I did notice that the Washington logos contain a very old mascot boy, but I think there's a website featuring some old U Dub stuff like it. Very limited selection of old Jayhawks and limited amout of stuff from the Texas schools as well. No Indians and no rebel flags smacks of selective choosing, but that's their right. Maybe they have stuff they aren't showing us? They probably decided they don't want to make money off of logos that were retired because the schools themselves decided they were in bad taste. But if all versions of "Willie Wampum? gear can still be found here in the (supposed) People?s Republic of Milwaukee, then it shouldn?t be too hard to find a guy in Mississippi whose still making rebel flag Ole Miss gear? It wasn't so much that I missed them or something, it is the company's right to not sell what they don't want to sell, it's just that this is advertised as THE original vintage logos of these schools and there are just some things missing, those were just the first two that popped into my head. That's all
  3. Just a thought here, and I don't want to get too off-topic, but are all of these 100% known as actual old logos? Because there are some things that are just a bit curious. There's an older Stanford Cardinal wordmark, but by the looks of it, they would have still been the Indians at that point. Ole Miss is represented, but with no Colonel Reb or CSA battle flag, which seems a little odd to me (I know they had wordmarks and such, which is mostly all that's there, but when I think of Ole Miss even going back 10 or so years, I remember waving the flags in the stands and the band still playing Dixie)
  4. Bug doesn't mean glitch in this case. It's what the logo in the corner is called. My bad, I meant that it's not just a logo for a bug on screen, that this was THE logo now.
  5. It's not a bug, this is it now. And it's not "The History Channel" anymore either apparently, I'm pretty sure they're referring to it as "History". Dumb
  6. Kind of irrelevant, but just in a mascot vein, is there an odder mix than Kansas? There are only eight NCAA schools in the state (3 DI), half of whom have mascots that nobody else has, Washburn Ichabods, Kansas Jayhawks, Wichita State Wheat Shockers (No, pretty sure it's not official anymore, but still the full title) and the Pittsburg State Gorillas. One school (which I honestly had never heard of until about 2 minutes ago) is known as the Jets of Newman University which is odd because it appears they basically use the old Winnepeg logo. The other 3 schools? Wildcats-K State, Tigers-Fort Hays State, Hornets-Emporia State. Are there other states out there with a 50% ratio of highly uncommon names like this?
  7. Drove up to the Royals game today, saw several of these in Johnson County and said thank god I get to wait another 8 months before I have to have that one. I may switch residency to MO earlier just to avoid the plate.
  8. In this one short statement, you've summed up your sports iQ. Good Job. Have fun trying to earn any credability for your opinions. Wow, I don't know how I'll possibly survive with the knowledge that you don't respect my opinion. It almost brings me to tears. I guess I should check my facts a little better before I dare to question the "tradition" of such a storied franchise as the Cleveland Browns. Just because they last appeared in a championship game 43 years ago, and have only won 4 playoffs games since 1970, that is no reason to question the overall "tradition" of that mightly franchise. I should really re-evaluate my evaluation process. From now on as long as you have 1 successfull decade every century or so, and have a few hall of famers along the way, I'll be sure to rank them up with the great franchises of all time. So you mean that the LA Dodgers, Montreal Canadiens, Boston Bruins, Chicago Blackhawks, Cincinnati Reds, Chicago Cubs, Miami Dolphins, Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions, Detroit Tigers, Cleveland Indians, Pittsburgh Pirates, Kansas City Royals, Boston Celtics, New York Knicks, Philadelphia 76ers, Kansas City Chiefs, Oakland Raiders, San Diego Chargers, none of those teams have tradition just because they haven't won recently enough? (Yes, I'm aware that some of these teams have had mild success recently, but not sustained) Also, if you're going to basically call someone an idiot, please make sure you spell correctly.
  9. This is just after last week, when Joe made one of his better points yet. He was one of the first to come out and say that what Imus said didn't make him mad as a black man, it was as a father that it p'd him off, because these are someone's kids. A very valid point. Should Imus have been fired? Well, I personally believe he's said a lot worse, he just did it during a slow season this time, and it was fairly unprovoked. If all of your sponsors leave you though, you have very little chance of sticking around no matter how small your show's budget is. Joe Morgan, should he be fired, yes absolutely, but not for this, just for the fact that he's the baseball equivalent of John Madden with no sense of humor to go with his complete lack of helpful analysis.
  10. I was listening to the Cardinals-Brewers game and they were talking about all of the hardships that Jackie faced, but I was curious as to why they never said where a lot of this stuff took place. You would think it would be in the Southernmost city in the Majors at that point....HEY, wait a second, that was St. Louis!!!! For the record, I know it happened other places than in STL, it's just kind of funny that the Cardinals are trying to be all high and mighty (which they always do) and classy when dealing with a tribute like this (which they usually are) but I just thought it was a tad insincere. I missed most of the broadcast today, but I'm a little curious what exactly you mean? This stuff took place all over for the most part as you note, but what exactly is St. Louis' significance that you bring it up? Or are you saying you view a lot of the tributes as slightly insincere because of what happened. Or were they acting as though it didn't happen in St. Louis? Or did Robinson play one of his first games in St. Louis (I'll look that up after I post) and so St. Louis was one of the first places he faced these hardships? I'm just curious. I'm honestly not trying to defend my city as a homer here, but because it's my city I am looking for clarification. A story I've heard (which illustrates that St. Louis certainly wasn't free from this racial hatred and also illustrates the greatness of character of a great player) is that in the first game Robinson played against the Cardinals (not sure whether it was in STL or Brooklyn), the entire team was ready to not play the game in protest, but the great Stan Musial knew better and talked his team out of that and into going and playing a game of baseball. Before I post, I did just re-read your post and maybe understand it more. You just felt like the Cardinals broadcast maybe was ignoring the fact that such intolerance occured in St. Louis? Could be true, or could be they felt since it happened every where there was no reason to specify. As for an insincere tribute, in the same way I don't think I should be held accountable for slavery just because people of the same race as me had slaves 200 years ago, I don't think you can say the current organization and city's tribute is insincere just because 60 years ago the people of the city and team weren't tolerant. Plus, it wasn't all that long after that the Cardinals were on the forefront of integration, a great example of which is that they bought their Spring Training hotel so that their black players would not be required to stay in a separate hotel from their white players. But I'm still not completely sure I understand what your saying, so I'll let you clarify. I think insincere was the wrong word. I don't think that the tribute is insincere in any way, shape, or form, it just was the fact that they were talking about these things that happened without mentioning that many of them happened in St. Louis. I'm not saying that John (and the other guy, don't know who it was, but it wasn't Mike) had to profusely apologize, just that I think it would've been more fair that they say that these things happened here, it was wrong, then go into something like the Spring Training thing for clarification if you want. (Which I have read before and that was a very cool thing to do, but it was also after AB had bought the team, IIRC) I have nothing against STL or the Cards, just thought that the broadcast (nothing to do with the tribute at all as a matter of fact) was a little disingenious, not insincere. From what I've read in the past, basically up until the Civil Rights movement (in fairness, maybe a little before) St. Louis had some of the worst race relations in the country, but since they were a fairly Northern city, not many people know that now, and while I don't want to be a bleeding heart, I do think it's something that should be at least acknowledged as an old problem and how much times have changed with everything, Cardinals included.
  11. I was listening to the Cardinals-Brewers game and they were talking about all of the hardships that Jackie faced, but I was curious as to why they never said where a lot of this stuff took place. You would think it would be in the Southernmost city in the Majors at that point....HEY, wait a second, that was St. Louis!!!! For the record, I know it happened other places than in STL, it's just kind of funny that the Cardinals are trying to be all high and mighty (which they always do) and classy when dealing with a tribute like this (which they usually are) but I just thought it was a tad insincere.
  12. This is sorta off topic, but I just posted on the uni watch blog, just thought I'd throw it in here on a Springfield Cards topic. I went to the home opener Thursday (Front row behind the on-deck circle, and bought them online three weeks before the game. WOO HOO!). Anyway, I noticed being that close, that the Cards striped socks are just that, striped socks, no stirrups, even though they have the stirrup line on them like those that I used to get at Walmart for T-ball 15 years ago. Is this an organization wide thing, or is it a way to save money down on the farm while the big boys get the actual stirrups?
  13. I'm 90% positive that it isn't the real deal, but it's close. Two things, the paper they use has a deep watermark or background or what have you, and while it wouldn't be completely noticable in a scanned copy, you would still see something, because it's HUGE. Second, I'm pretty sure that there is something off on the logo and wordmark on the top, just can't put my finger on it...FWIW, I'm a manager at a movie theater and at least once a month, the studios send their own checkers in to make sure we have up all the posters, banners, right trailers etc. and they all have their official letters to us to let them in free. One lady had a fake one one night, good times!
  14. Gifford isn't allowed out of his house anymore, and Meredith is bat crazy. Why wouldn't it work? Wait, I've got an idea...Dennis Miller!!!!
  15. I can honestly say that is the first time I've EVER heard that phrase, and I would like to respectfully disagree.