TheOldRoman

It seems to me the guy selling the jerseys in that email exchange made the more logical point -- the jerseys are coming from the same factories and using the same materials, the only difference is the extreme markup the league puts on the merchandise.

Dude, no. 1,000 times no. The materials are barely even close. And while the sweatshops that make real and fake jerseys are probably similar, you can be sure that no fake jerseys are made in the same exact places that produce jerseys for Majestic and Reebok. This is just as silly as the one guy who said "I think the factory just made too many so they sold a few on the side."

Never said i was entitled to a jersey, that i HAVE to be provided with one. But if my poor-ass wants a jersey, i'm going with one i can afford, and that is of equal-to-better quality than the "authentics".

I disagree with your entire arguement, but this point in particular is ridiculous. The counterfeit jerseys are of horrendous quality. The materials are cheap, the number fonts are often off, the sizing is bad, and they start falling apart after a handful of uses. They aren't even close to the replicas in terms of quality, unless by quality you exclusively mean "sewn on numbers."

I have a couple of Chinese fakes that I bought during he summer, a red Jonathan Toews and a black Alexei Ramirez. The Ramirez one looks great, the Toews one is a little off, and it doesn't bother me. Combined they cost me like $75, about a third of what they would cost had I bought a real one.

I haven't seen a single baseball fake which didn't look blantantly ridiculous to the point nearly anyone could tell it was fake. Maybe they have improved in the last year, but all the MLB fakes I have seen were awful. They are nearly belly shirts, they came down about 2 inches below the waist, the sleeves went down to the elbows and the logos were bubbly like the ones on Stater jackets.

My tip off on the Twins' jersey was that the jocktag is way too high, as is the case on most of the baseball fakes.

I don't know why some of you think the NFL doesn't care, they care big time. Every year there's always a stink about them sending people to the hometowns of Super Bowl teams cracking down on IP violations, either in advertising or merchandising. They get ICE to seize counterfeit jerseys at ports and air terminals, and have shut down storefronts too. They just simply don't have the manpower to shut it all down.

The NFL can go blow. I tried to contact them to alert them of counterfeiting before and they didn't want to hear it. There is a facebook group which sells these awful fakes. I looked online for a number to call, and all I could find was the main office number. When I told the lady I wanted to report the counterfeiters, she was extremely rude and said I need to tell her who I want to speak with. She couldn't connect me with anyone unless I gave her a name. That doesn't sound like a good business practice.

FYP. Most of the general public will never notice the difference.

Very true. My brother in law argued with me when I told him the $25 authentic Blackhawks jersey be was buying was fake. He instisted that he knew the guy who was selling it and this guy wouldn't deceive him. I was looking forward to laughing at him when he got the jersey. The jersey was the discontinued black alternate with an extremely sloppy Stanley Cup Final patch on it, the all the stitching looked horrible, the Reebok logo was about 6 inches wide, the stripes were sewn on, the numbers were bubbly, and the Indian head was bright yellow. He saw nothing wrong with any of that.

I am dragging my wife into my obsession. She looked at the jersey and pointed out to me 5 different ways it was inaccurate. God, I love this woman.

looks good.

Really? Nobody has posted this yet?

Perhaps it wasn't posted because after 6 or 7 championships, LeBron will be best remembered as a Miami Heat.

No, he will be best remembered as a douchebag.

The way I remembered it (and I could have it mixed up) is that the league vetoed it, not on the basis of white vs gold, but based on the "no alts on the road" rule... although that "rule" (if it even exists) has been broken at other times.

You are correct, that is what they said at the time.

Wouldn't it enter a lot of new markets due to the national following that ND has? Wouldn't there be demand all over foro BTN?

Stick them in the same division and play their game the week before the championship and be done with it.

1) Will each Big Tenleven still make more from the BTN and ABC if it expanded to 12 teams?

2) Can you give us some figures to back that up? We're a cynical lot 'round here and generally need numbers to verify these types of claims.

The Big Ten Conference’s 10-year deals with CBS and ESPN will produce an average of $9.3 million for each school.

Financial terms of the contract were not disclosed, although Ebersol said the contract is a flat fee and not based on ratings. The current contract that expires in 2010 is reported to be worth $9 million a year.

Link

I couldn't find more detailed info on the ND/NBC contract. It looks like they are getting just slightly under what the Big Ten schools are. So, if they shared the NBC contract with the other teams, everyone would break even. However, adding ND doesn't give BTN the ability to enter a new market. Indiana/Chicagoland is tapped out. Adding, say, Syracuse would bring in the New York market, which would presumably boost revenue, even if it is split 12 ways instead of 11.

EDIT: I missed this in the first link:

It is difficult to make an apples-to-apples comparison between the two conferences because of the incongruity of the length of the deals and their escalating values. But the Big Ten Network could annually pay its schools an average up to $10.2 million each over the 25-year term of its deal with the Big Ten. The deal started this past year with a payment of $6 million to each school and the number could escalate each year, depending on the network’s revenue.

It looks like the Big Ten Schools are each getting about $10 million a year combined from CBS and ESPN as well as $7-10million from the BTN, as opposed to ND's $10 million (plus whatever they get from Big East basketball). That is a big difference.

Can anyone honestly say that there is a better canidate than Notre Dame. I know they want to keep their independent status but if I was the Big Ten I would do everything I could to bring them on board.

Do they want to keep their Independent status? Or do they want to keep every cent of that lucrative NBC contract? I think it's the latter.

I came up with a suggested alignment for the Big Ten about a year ago assuming Notre Dame came in. The schedule would be based on the SEC system, with 2 divisions and 1 protected out of division opponent. My priorities were 1) Split up Michigan and Ohio State 2) Preserve rivalries, especially trophy games when possible 3) Try to balance the divisions as much as possible

alignment (protected rivals across from each other)

North - South

Michigan - Ohio State

Michigan State - Indiana

Notre Dame - Purdue

Minnesota - Penn State

Iowa - Illinois

Wisconsin - Northwestern

Since the Land Grant rivalry has become somewhat significant, I guess we could have the MSU athletic department sell the Brass Spitoon to Minnesota swap protected rivals with the Gophers. In other words, Michigan State would play Penn State annually, and Minnesota would play Indiana.

Outside of geography, there is no sense behind Notre Dame joining the Big Ten. The Big Ten needs Notre Dame; Notre Dame does not need the Big Ten. I'd put Syracuse down as a frontrunner here; three of their nonconference games this past season were against Big Ten teams. Clearly, there's an attempt to breed some familiarity.