rams80

I'm not sure C-USA needs Alabama for recruits when it has a presence in south Florida and Texas.

Sort of off-topic, but UAB's situation sounds just like Wisconsin's, where the UW Board Of Regents doesn't even try to pretend that the Badgers are the only athletics that matter to them. They refuse to approve a football team for UWM even though we're the largest school in D1 without one, and they won't let Whitewater upgrade to D2 despite having the quality of programs and facilities to do so. EDIT: Apparently UWM is #2 in enrollment for non-football schools behind IUPUI. But even then, are we really supposed to believe that Indiana can support 5 D1 football teams (4 FBS, 1 FCS) and an NFL franchise, but Wisconsin can only have the Packers and Badgers? Indiana, the state, doesn't really support any of its football teams (Notre Dame survives with the vaunted national footprint.)

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/104283/uab-football-program-cant-outrun-past-escape-shadow-of-alabama This article says they will. The C-USA would then have an even number of teams, but damn this sucks for UAB. Actually, I thought Charlotte is a member of C-USA and will play a full-conference schedule next year. That would make it 13 teams and you get the problem the MAC has. C-USA should add James Madison or Liberty to even the number of teams. You can rest assured that C-USA will get an application package from New Mexico State before the end of the week. Not saying they'll let them in, but I strongly suspect New Mexico State would lobby hard for that spot.

*well written critique of Brandiose deleted for space considerations* Case in point-that Tennessee Smokies package you posted. Yes, there are 9 different logos/marks, but it boils down to only 2.5/3 elements. A bear, the Chicago Cubs, and the state of Tennessee. Simple and to the point. A lesson for Brandiose to consider.

Everyone has a right to do something to put food on the table. /Ends defense

So buildings can be skewed at 15-degree angles that they're not actually at as long as they aren't tall? MOD EDIT It makes no sense whatsoever. What are they doing, trying to show that there's something progressive and "forward-facing" about a historic building? There's one historic building I can think of that should be drawn so that it's leaning, and it's not because it's progressive. Hey, my running shoes look like the ones the guy in the home uniform is wearing. It's an identity for a baseball team. Baseball is a sport. Sports like baseball are about action. Italicizing things connotes action. Of course, the Alamo itself, unlike the historic building you referenced (we assume you are talking about a certain structure in Pisa), does not lean, but sometimes creative individuals use this thing called "artistic license," a hypothetical certificate of sorts that entitles the holder to not necessarily have to be literal in their depictions. I cannot argue with most of the flaws that the Creamer community has already pointed out about this particular identity, but I do not agree that the building being rendered in an italicized fashion is worthy of scorn.I want to know what school gave you your graphic design/generic art degree so I can make it my mission in life to cost them their accreditation.Some people are too busy keyboard mashing their way up to 20,000+ posts that they lost the ability to express their opinions with any tact. Again, ideally if you're rendering a building, of course you wouldn't slant it. Vertical structures like the Washington Monument or Empire State Building would appear to be falling. So at least with this logo, it's horizontal enough that it doesn't look like it's falling. It's not ideal but it's no big deal, right? (That question is rhetorical so no need to answer it to those unable to control the urge to accumulate another 20,000 posts.)There has to be a better, less condescending way for you to express yourself.I couldn't agree more, but at the same time I'll meet condescension with condescension. I stop by occasionally to check out and casually discuss the latest design releases, not to get confronted by an overly zealous, confrontational, thread-derailing troll. Anyway, it seems he has gotten back on topic so let's do the same. OK, you want a little more in depth discussion fine. The problem with the San Antonio package is the same problem you see with everything else Brandiose churns out: a creatively sterile design package that fits their brand template and looks cutesy. There's no innovation here. No application of art. No playing with the medium. It's just ramming the same boring square peg into the damn hole, shape of the hole be damned! Honestly, it's not worth the discussion. Except that maybe they should be called out for playing games with lineage or pretending the 2014 Missions have any relationship with the 1888 San Antonio Gentlemen besides both organizations playing baseball in the city. Now as to the original post that set me off, it's basically the problem with modern logo design in a nutshell. Every single flippin' element of a logo or a logo package has to MEAN SOMETHING. "It just looks good" doesn't work. It has to symbolize "action" or the designer's passion or that once ago the community had to recover from a catastrophic distillery fire or how the artist wouldn't know a pink snow bunny if it came up and bit him on the ass. Of course nowadays, this need for symbolism has grown into a tumor, so we have people concocting bizarre symbolism or rewriting history to justify bad design choices. So when you say "they angled the building to show action, because action means this..." well, that's a blatant example of the problem in modern design. Speaking as someone who's spent roughly the last decade of their life hanging around the liberal arts part of higher education, it's also a fine example of the vapid navel-gazing bull you get out of lower tier programs that are overwrought with their own self-importance. And it should be called out as such.

So buildings can be skewed at 15-degree angles that they're not actually at as long as they aren't tall? MOD EDIT It makes no sense whatsoever. What are they doing, trying to show that there's something progressive and "forward-facing" about a historic building? There's one historic building I can think of that should be drawn so that it's leaning, and it's not because it's progressive. Hey, my running shoes look like the ones the guy in the home uniform is wearing. It's an identity for a baseball team. Baseball is a sport. Sports like baseball are about action. Italicizing things connotes action. Of course, the Alamo itself, unlike the historic building you referenced (we assume you are talking about a certain structure in Pisa), does not lean, but sometimes creative individuals use this thing called "artistic license," a hypothetical certificate of sorts that entitles the holder to not necessarily have to be literal in their depictions. I cannot argue with most of the flaws that the Creamer community has already pointed out about this particular identity, but I do not agree that the building being rendered in an italicized fashion is worthy of scorn. I want to know what school gave you your graphic design/generic art degree so I can make it my mission in life to cost them their accreditation.

You're still new to this NHL thing, so I'll give you some free advice. Never underestimate the depths to which the NHL will sink to in order to land owners. Sad as it may be? I wasn't surprised in the least to hear the NHL was considering the Maloofs. ...unless your name is Jim Balsillie. In that case Bettman's ignorance clouded his poor judgment to the league's benefit. Tell me, has RIM hit penny stock levels yet?

Wouldn't a blog be more visible and by definition make more of a difference?

Warnings are supposed to be private. How do you know I was warned?

So I'm racist for suggesting that the well-documented inability of Serbians, particularly Serbian soccer fans, to get along with non-Serbians is grounds for just simply banning Serbia from international play until such time as they can get along. I understand you love soccer. Soccer, particularly organized soccer and international competition, like all play and entertainment, is a privilege, not a right. Tell you what, if you can present many examples of Serbian soccer fans who are actually sorrowful that their people tried to kill or re-locate millions of Croats, Bosniaks, and Albanians within our lifetimes and better yet, condemn the behavior of their ultra organizations, which, as is par for the course in Eastern Europe, are overrun/subborned by their country's political far right. In the case of Serbia said far right is hideously racist and has an obsession with the Field of the Blackbirds that even the staunchist Confederate apologist would consider "unhealthy".

Oh, I think I'm going to enjoy the explanation of how I'm a racist pig.

Those are legitimate excuses. You're taking this way too seriously. Well you might think I am taking this way too seriously but once you find something that lights a fire in you then maybe you would do the same thing. Does the RCN ban blogs? If not, a blog might be the platform for you, as it gives you the control over the discussion and commentary that you so crave.

No the two likeliest candidates entail looting the Big East or convincing some ACC teams to bail as per history. Texas and Oklahoma were kind of sick and tired of the odd loss in the Big XII championship game biting them in the rear. I'm trying not to respond like a jerk here... but I can't tell if you are intentionally being difficult with this scenario or just ignoring the scenario completely. The schools in contention were Utah State, Colorado State, and Brigham Young to be added to the PAC-10 and Big XII to bring their total number of schools to 12. And I'm saying, as someone who followed those realignment rounds very closely, Utah State and Colorado State were not on anybody's radar. Much of this was because of football considerations, as well as markets and intra-state politics. Colorado State kind of collapsed in the late 2000s/early 2010s, and Utah State flat out sucked before Gary Andersen could get stuff working there beginning in 2011. Please note the Mountain West only grabbed Utah State, despite the loss of both Utah schools, when it did its killshot raid on the WAC, not the first crippling raid. BYU sort of was on the radar for the Big XII, but the "won't play on the Sabbath" thing and Texas and Oklahoma's dissatisfaction with the championship game format precluded that.

No the two likeliest candidates entail looting the Big East or convincing some ACC teams to bail as per history. Texas and Oklahoma were kind of sick and tired of the odd loss in the Big XII championship game biting them in the rear.

LOL NO First rule of major college sports: Don't promote Little Brother unless the state legislature points a gun at your head. The second rule of modern major college sports: Don't double down on markets you already have (again with the state legislature qualifier). If Colorado were to propose WAC-confined and struggling Utah State to the Big XII in 2010, the response would be hysterical laughter. If Colorado got wind the Pac 10 was trying to grab Little Brother, they'd shove him out of the way. The Pac 10 kicked the tires on BYU in the 1990s. It was voted down because certain Pac 10 members (Stanford) didn't feel a school full of religious zealots fit their overall mission and BYU's (in)famous refusal to play on the Sabbath made scheduling problematic. You can add to that nowadays the "don't double down on markets you have" bit. The Big XII has had all of the opportunities in the world to grab BYU over the last 4 years. It hasn't. That speaks for itself. There is only one scenario in which the Pac 10 would add Utah and not Colorado. The one where Texas joins. Of course Utah then loses out because tagalongs would be insisted upon by the Texas legislature, but that's the only remotely conceivable pickup. Salt Lake City is not a big enough market to grab on its own; it only has value because its the best regional market after Denver. If the Big XII feels really compelled to replace Nebraska they toss feelers out to Arkansas. Once they are laughed off the phone line, they reluctantly pick up TCU.

Which isn't what I was asking. So thank you for ignoring the post completely. I was specifically asking if Colorado stayed loyal to the Big XII, how would the PAC-10 (11) and Big XII (11) react. Out of Utah State, Colorado State and Brigham Young, what 2 colleges would be the most likely to move up to a major conference, what conference would it be, or would there be other schools who would be a more likely and better fit for each conference. And you missed what I said. The Pac-10 stands pat at 10 if they don't get Colorado, but its a moot point, because once the Big XII starts showing signs of collapse, only the intervention of Alien Space Bats keeps Colorado in the Big XII. Colorado doesn't have anything tying it to the Big XII, especially once Nebraska leaves. On and off the field the school draws more from California than Texas.

None of that happens, because the Pac 10 won't expand unless they can get Colorado, and Colorado's a better cultural fit in the Pac 10/12 anyway. The added money for their broke-arse athletic department just makes the decision even easier.

FTFY. What makes you think Seattle is worse than Kansas City? Seattle's arena is still hypothetical.

CHL is its own division. West teams are grouped in one division, Eastern teams realigned north/south. Top 4 teams in each division make playoffs, first two rounds in division.

I'm not sure why this was news. Back when we were all watching the live stream the consensus was if Glendale didn't vote for that act of stupidity the team was gone.

Yeah, we noticed that in the thread last year.

The merger does not make the AHL move more or less likely. Indeed, adding some of the CHL teams helps bridge the gap between the two (particularly as those are the stronger/viable organizations.) Brampton probably dies in a year or two though.

A true merger is, but not one in which the CHL is simply a division that gets a couple seats at the ECHL playoff table.Yeah, if it were to happen this year, the CHL teams would just become their own division and then realign in the offseason to coincide with the AHL Western division switcheroo.If you're predicating said switcheroo on the OP, don't.

Spoiler: It'll be the South Bend Cubbies, because that's all you can do on that comparatively short notice.