rams80

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

This is getting a huge bump because UAB's football program might be shut down.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11959176/uab-blazers-coach-bill-clark-fears-football-program-shut-down

If UAB shuts down, could Conference-USA drop UAB for that?

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.)

This is getting a huge bump because UAB's football program might be shut down.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11959176/uab-blazers-coach-bill-clark-fears-football-program-shut-down

If UAB shuts down, could Conference-USA drop UAB for that?

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.

Remember when we all seemed to be ape- about Brandiose/Plan B? It's funny that as soon as a small studio has success we turn on them.

*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.

Someone should be defending Casey and Jason the same way people defend Nike or adidas. The redundancy is not entirely their fault. Sure, it seems formulaic to see each minor league team release an identity with an ornate custom wordmark, a batting mascot logo, and a tertiary logo that is based off something off the beaten path. But if they walk into Team A's office and the ownership group says they want those things, their job is to make the customer happy while also producing work they can stand behind. If an owner knows that the Montgomery Biscuits made a ton of money off their logo being popular, they will want something similar (Modesto Nuts, Biloxi Shuckers, etc.) so that they can make that money too. If Brandiose doesn't want to deliver that, they know Simon or some up-and-coming design firm will.

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

/Ends defense

Since the Alamo isn't a tall building, the slant doesn't really bother me as much as it would if it were a skyscraper.

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.

Since the Alamo isn't a tall building, the slant doesn't really bother me as much as it would if it were a skyscraper.

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.

In a league that at the time included Sterling, Dolan, Kohl, Cohan, Bennett, and Sarver, the Maloofs were considered the worst owners in the NBA during most of their time in the league. In GaryWorld, this apparently makes them a qualified candidate.

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?

Easy to explain by your views you expressed in International Football on stating that Serbia needs to be banned from European competitions due to their racist supporters. Even though there is a small select group of racists among the Serbian national team supporters group, you personally kept pushing your narrow mindedness and racist views on IanC and others who viewed those posts, that all Serbian are the same:

1. We're less than a generation removed from fairly widespread attempts on the part of Serbs to wage genocide upon several of their neighbors.

2. If there is any apparent sorrow on the part of the Serbs about point 1, its that they failed to achieve their goals.

3. Pretty much everytime you look, you see the Serb fans practicing some form of racial/ethnic intimidation.

You were told by IanC "you were wrong to accuse every person in Serbia who attends a football match to be a racist as you are doing. You are pigeonholing everyone to be the same and thats not true. You accusing everyone from a region to be all classed the same is unjust and utterly wrong because of a minority might be." Your comments are that of xenophobia coming straight out in your comments and that is stemmed from racist and discriminatory personal view

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.

But now I am expecting an actual response to the matter, not just some bull excuse of "thread keeping" and "cleaning up the forums".

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.

So what you are saying is... assuming Colorado bolts for the PAC-10 (11), the 2 most likely contenders for the Big XII to reestablish at 12 teams would be Colorado State and Utah State.

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.

So what you are saying is... assuming Colorado bolts for the PAC-10 (11), the 2 most likely contenders for the Big XII to reestablish at 12 teams would be Colorado State and Utah State.

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.

Does Utah and Colorado then pull for their "State" school to join their respective conferences?

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).

Do they push for other teams to expand the footprint i.e. Colorado pushes for Utah State and Utah pushes for Colorado State?

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.

Would Brigham Young be invited by either conference?

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.

Are there other schools that would be higher on the invitation list for each conference to reach 12?

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.

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.

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.

Panthers to Québec City, Coyotes to Seattle

Enough said.

FTFY. What makes you think Seattle is worse than Kansas City?

Seattle's arena is still hypothetical.

Here is the information that the ECHL tweeted would be provided.

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.

How close were we to having the SEATTLE Coyotes: One vote close. http://seattletimes.com/html/hockey/2024716050_seattlenhl07xml.html?syndication=rss

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.

We're two weeks away from seasons starting. A merger/CeHL absorption is logisitcally impossible for the 2014-15 season.

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.

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