leopard88

The walls were green in 1972. Seconded . . . and seconded.

All good examples of why I hate that most players now wear templated hoodies in the dugout.

. . . by a single point on the map.

So, it's not just me! Between the green jerseys and the oddly colored turf, I spent the whole game feeling like the settings on my TV were out of whack.

I don't know if this is what you have in mind, but the only example I can think of off hand is that during the 70s, the Orioles wore jackets with a tail under the wordmark. The wordmark used on the jerseys in that era did not have a tail.

Hopefully Maryland has a full compliment of players. Word is that at least 2 of their wide receivers are skipping the bowl to prepare for the draft.

Yes, but it's about how many players can be in the offensive and defensive ends of the field, not when they get there. In men's outdoor/field lacrosse six players are allowed in the offensive or defensive end of the field at any time, excluding the goalies. Typically, attackers and defenders stay in their areas and the midfielders move back and forth. However, there are occasional overlaps requiring a midfielder to stay back (usually because a defender is carrying the ball on a fast break opportunity). Cherry picking is allowed since attackers can be anywhere in the offensive end at any time. However, attackers and defenders usually stay at the midfield line when the ball is at the other end of the field to control any loose balls that come over the line (usually in the form of errant passes). For the record, I have no idea what the rules are in box lacrosse.

I watched them against Maryland last week. They beat Maryland last year (which may have been the final push in the Turgeon resignation), then got absolutely curbstomped this year . . . at home.

I'm the same way. I was born in 1967, so my mind is probably playing tricks on me because I would only have been four years old. My first truly distinct football memories are from 1974, which is the year my father took me to my first Colts game.

Yes. Both of them. And, no, I wasn't around to see it.

They were, and you're probably right. My original point was that facility availability appears to be a deciding factor. I believe the Tampa Bay Bandits brand carries more value than the Memphis Showboats brand , but the Showboats will be the team playing next season. Like so? Same city, different league. And, yes, that is THE Jason Garrett.

I thought they might try to go bigger just because it's New York. Maybe even pushing 40,000 to push for WC qualifiers and international friendlies. 20-25,000 seems like the sweet spot for soccer specific stadiums. However, it just feels like New York should have a much bigger stadium than Columbus or Austin.

The primary logo was goofy as hell, but the uniforms were great.

He plays for the Steelers. Can you blame him?

Not using the blue/green/silver color scheme = fails. Also, interesting that the ball has an Orlando Predators logo on it. Just another sign of low budget football, I suppose.

I'm just going off of the Detroit rumors. My assumption is that facilities are more important than historic identities at this stage. If they could only find another hub in San Antonio instead of Memphis, we might be looking at the rebirth of the Gunslingers . . . even though they probably even ran ahead of the Federals in the laughingstock race.

I suspect that it's still availability as much as anything.

That assumes Orlando was available as another hub. My suspicion is that this was less about a burning desire to bring back the Showboats than it was that Memphis was available to serve as a hub. If USFL nostalgia was the sole driving force, the Bandits would come ahead of the Showboats . . . and even farther ahead of the Federals.

I've already expressed my opinion on the speed thing, so I'll skip that. I really do like the colors. However, I think it would have worked better if they went with something along these lines (i.e., a riverboat not tearing down the Mississippi, making it impossible for patrons to play cards or enjoy a show).

The lawyers the NFL would hire would charge a lot more than $200/hour.

The problem is it has to be extremely dark to avoid looking like a dirty white jersey (See Patriots silver alt). I don't there's really such a thing as "dark silver", so you're looking at grey or something like the Bucs' pewter jersey.

I was counting the Bills as one of the 4. I was thinking it was five out of five, but then I remembered the Jets changed in the late 70s. Before that, it was five out of five starting in 1971, EDIT -- Make that "starting in 1970". I was thinking of SB V being the first one after the merger, but it took place in 1971 after the 1970 season.

I'm not disagreeing. However, in soccer this is done specifically to avoid confusion for the players. Clashes aren't allowed between shirts, shorts or socks on the theory that players may confuse players from both teams based on similarly colored items of clothing in the mass of legs. Presumably, no one in football considers matching pants or socks to be an issue on that basis . . . or even helmets, for that matter. As an aside, my recollection is that the Bills originally switched to red helmets to help Joe Ferguson spot receivers. At the time four of the five teams in the AFC East wore white helmets, so at least six games a year matched white helmets.

That I could live with. I think there is a lot of potential with the original set. Was the cartoon considered the primary? I remember that logo but don't remember seeing it get a lot of use. The half paddle wheel and the wordmark were used much more to my recollection. My assumption was that the cartoon was sort of the USFL equivalent of one of those NFL Huddles mascots geared toward kids. I hope my memory isn't faulty because it's a terrible logo for any other purpose.

I think the distinction here is the nature of the marketing speak. It usually comes in the form of references to "the iconic jaws of Husky Stadium" or the "distinctive stars of the city flag" or "the world famous curve of the Gateway Arch". This was a direct call back to rebellion when referring to a form that could reasonably (thought admittedly not overtly) be linked back to the Confederate Battle Flag. They could just have easily referred to the "independent spirit of our forefathers" or the "outlaw spirit of the frontier" in an effort to evoke the image they are trying to push, so they at least made an unfortunate choice in their marketing speak.