Lights Out

I think they made the right choice. The top-left option is the only other good one.

On 9/18/2021 at 5:58 PM, Geoff said:

The Mountain West bent over backwards to keep Boise State out of the Big East. They offered them a sweetheart TV deal similar to what OU and Texas have in the Big XII. When the MWC was renegotiating new TV deals, they wanted to end the special deal that Boise State got. The per-team increase didn't offset loss of the sweetheart deal.  Additionally, the athletic department (this may have changed since the AD change) felt like the league didn't promote the Broncos the way other leagues promote their moneymakers.

 

I believe Harsin, and possibly some of their other sports, had scheduling complaints as well.

The real reason the Big East lost out on Boise State (and SDSU) wasn't anything the MWC did. It was because TCU backed out, then other schools started getting poached, then the Catholic 7 spun off into their own conference, and then they failed to deliver on their promise of a western division to ease travel concerns. It was just hit after hit after hit that made the conference fundamentally less attractive than it was when those schools first agreed to join.

56 minutes ago, CrimsonBull9584 said:

Why?

Nobody's ever happy in a G5 conference. That's just the way it is.

14 hours ago, CrimsonBull9584 said:

What exactly does the American have, that the Mountain West doesn't, that would make it attractive for Boise, Colorado State, Air Force, and San Diego State?

ESPN's support. That's pretty much it at this point, but it's a big advantage considering how much power ESPN has over this sport.

I don't see it happening, though. Boise State (alongside Memphis) has already been widely reported as the favorites for the next round of Big 12 expansion, whenever that happens. No athletic department in their right mind would be on board with paying the MWC's exit fee, dealing with the travel expenses of having to fly all the non-revenue sports to Philadelphia, Tampa and Greenville on a regular basis for a few years, and then having to pay the AAC's exit fee on top of that when the Big 12 comes calling. And if they don't make the move, it's hard to see CSU, Air Force or SDSU doing it either.

20 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:

 

As opposed to the pragmatic option, which would be for most schools in the "Group of 5" conferences to honestly assess their football programs and opt to compete in the NCAA Football Championship Subdivision.

It's not that simple. These schools would arguably lose even more money by dropping down to FCS. When Idaho did it, they lost around half of their contributions and ticket revenue overnight (and they were already struggling at the FBS level).

It turns out that the actual choice for most of these schools is to either keep treading water at the FBS level and trying to find the most stable home whenever realignment happens, or to drop football entirely. And because football is by far the most important college sport, you can understand why they're reluctant to drop it.

9 hours ago, Seadragon76 said:

Why in the world would Marshall, Old Dominion and Southern Miss move to the Sun Belt? Wouldn't that be a downgrade for each of them??

CUSA, the MAC and the AAC are all dumpster fires, the MWC doesn't make any geographical sense for these schools, and they're obviously never getting called up to the P5, so the Sun Belt is the only real option.

Am I the only one who thinks the PAC should be very worried right now? They already have a huge geography problem being on the west coast in a sport that's dominated by the south and the east, they don't have ESPN in their corner, and they've been way too inflexible when it comes to realignment. All they have to show for it now is a scheduling agreement with two stronger conferences that don't need the PAC as much as the PAC needs them.

I'm not even sure they're in a better position than the new Big 12, especially if the rumors of a second round of Big 12 expansion come true. At least the Big 12 is being aggressive in trying to stay afloat. The PAC is just sitting on their hands and watching college sports change around them.

All those wasted years with Larry Scott in charge are looking really bad right now.

This is apparently a Dolphins prototype from 2007. All I can say is yikes:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/114809408582

The Jets' current uniforms are okay. It's their logo that still sucks.

19 hours ago, WSU151 said:

There's no way Jerry Jones wasn't included in the first run of this, so your info seems bunk from the start. The fact that the Steelers or Packers aren't included (two of the biggest fan bases in the NFL) is also just laughable. 

I don't buy this "rumor" either, but to be fair, the MLB's City Connect program has left out a lot of the biggest fanbases too (the Yankees, the Mets, the Cardinals, the Phillies, and the Braves come to mind) while including smaller fanbases like the Marlins and Diamondbacks. That's clearly what the troll is modeling their fake "leak" after.

2 hours ago, LA Fakers+ LA Snippers said:

Unpopular opinion, but I don’t understand the love for this uniform. It looks like the Oilers and the Bills combined.

It reminds me more of Louisiana Tech, or even Fresno State. I don't particularly like any of the Pat Patriot uniforms, but this strikes me as a more professional look than the collegiate '80s uniforms:

Sure, there were some bizarre inconsistencies with the home jerseys' shoulder stripes (just look at Babe Parilli's jersey in that first photo compared to Jim Nance, Len St. Jean, and Charley Long), but that's an easy fix. Regardless, the 1993 uniforms were still a lot better.

Red pants would make the Patriots' uniforms even more of a mess than they already are, incredibly.

56 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

I don’t see the Browns going for orange socks with Cincinnati in the div.

They wore orange socks with the brown-over-white combo sometimes with their last set:

IMO, it works really well, but the socks should have stripes to match the helmet.

I don't like white pants on the Browns at all

(the orange pants are the only ones they really need) - but if they have to have them, brown-orange-brown stripes are definitely better than the alternative, which just looks off.

Theoretically, they could also do Florida Gators-style "floating stripes" (orange-brown-white-brown-orange) to match the helmet and that would look better too.

3 hours ago, WSU151 said:

They switched to white numbers because it was too hard to read the red numbers

In fairness, that was before the era of HDTV.

Since this is allowed with no issues in today's league, I don't see how the '93 Patriots look would be problematic anymore:

2 hours ago, DNAsports said:

This is classic

 

This is hot garbage

 

This is a weird middle ground that holds potential, but simultaneously sucks

And this is perfection:

Yuck. New Balance would have literally been a better choice for their football program than this. It's also only for three years, so it doesn't even line up with the New Balance deal.

This tweet seems to imply that they're downgrading to the 1962-2000 logo and presumably bringing back the throwbacks full-time. Pretty unfortunate since their last Under Armour set was one of the best looks in the ACC. On the other hand, the promotional graphic for this deal on their website uses the current logo, so... 

On 4/14/2021 at 3:08 PM, IceCap said:

The idea that the =O= logo is somehow untenable as a modern day brand ignores the strong brands of teams like the Habs and Leafs.

The Habs' and Leafs' logos aren't nearly as boring as a plain Times New Roman O. Unlike the Senators, those teams also never came up with more appealing alternatives to their classic brands.

That script is very hard to read on the home jersey. They probably should have gone with a double outline.

14 hours ago, sonny said:

grey is an neutral, invisible color. 

By that logic, wouldn't a white facemask be better? It doesn't get more "neutral" and "invisible" than being the same color as the rest of the helmet.

Some 1983-1993 Giants inspired looks:

And here's Miami using a slightly modified version of the Marlins' current script:

3 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

But perhaps "Washington Football Team" is a real name.

It really isn't. It's an obvious placeholder. It reminds me of when EA couldn't get the rights to the team names or logos for Madden 64, so they had to use just the city names.

This is beyond dumb. The league should have forced them to pick a real name before last season.

On 2/17/2021 at 6:25 PM, 1991 said:

Gives me a Atlanta Falcons vibe, if they were a basketball team.

Regardless, it looks a lot better than the crap they're currently wearing.

Just now, ChiCity95 said:

CBS's new graphics: Love 'em or hate em?

 

I personally like it. It's clean and simple.

They look like they were made in MS Paint. The score banner is just an uglier version of the old one. Pretty disappointing compared to the graphics that FOX introduced last year.