dbadefense1990

I call it, "Banner." For fall 2001, FOX discontinued its original "FoxBox" rectangle in favor of a horizontal strip for both MLB and NFL: In 2003, "Banner" was tweaked for MLB, with different sounds and motions (such as for the 2003 NLCS above). Meanwhile, "Banner" was dropped for the NFL, opting for "pre-Warp:" Things between the two leagues stood the same until late-2004, when "Warp" was applied (the last time before 2012 FOX synchronized the graphics update for both leagues).

I'm quite curious is to why FOX's MLB broadcasts continued to use the 2001 package in '04 and then finally upgrade the graphics at the start of its postseason coverage. I'm also wondering why MLB on FOX continued to use the late 2004 graphics package in 2007 while NFL and NASCAR telecasts had their graphics packages upgraded starting with the 2006 NFL season. Could it be because of budget issues at those times? Maybe we'll never know for sure, but FOX has been notorious with their shady treatment of MLB. It always seems that for every ounce of effort they put forward toward baseball, they give three ounces to the NFL, and the results could not be more apparent. From the announcers to the graphics, from the advertisement to scheduling, I always had a feeling FOX just washes the baseball car in terms of their coverage, whereas they wash, jet dry, wax, buzz and sparkle the football car and leave a scented tree to top it. But going back to topic, it also bothers me how FOX never aligns their graphics packages for all of their sports. Everything was alright in late 2004, with FOX having this futuristic package-type for both the NFL and MLB that fall (let's call the package, "Warp," for the sound effects you would have heard): Then for the 2005 World Series, this particular set got a chrome finish and was applied to all leagues thereafter (let's call it "Chrome Warp," which to this day still irks me that they had such change): But starting for the 2006 fall sporting season, things drastically changed. The NFL switched their package to this set (let's call it "Click," for the mousepad-click sound effect made when a team scored): Soon, FOX gave the "Click" package to other leagues, like NASCAR. Yet, they stubbornly left the "Chrome Warp" package for MLB to use for the 2006 and 2007 postseasons, and wouldn't adopt "Click" to baseball until 2008. But this isn't even the worst part. For the 2009 MLB season, FOX stripped MLB of "Click" and gave them this abomination of a package ("Letterbox"): This hideous presentation was used for both the 2009 and 2010 seasons. Meanwhile, FOX kept "Click" until the end of the 2009 NFC Championship Game. They, then, underwent an extreme makeover in time for their 2010 NFL coverage, changing their graphics to the current scheme. The one in 2010 is called, "Hubble-1": FOX applied this package for MLB for 2011: Then, for both the start of the 2012 NFL season and the 2012 MLB postseason, FOX finally synchronized the graphics update to "Hubble-2," the current graphics set (which I am impressed):

I got farmersonly.com for some reason on my feeds.

Pass around the thing you're smoking on, and I'd agree.

The Coyotes' home attendance through 7 games this season is lower than their home attendance through 7 games last season. I'd say that's a perfectly fair comparison. But think of the beautiful mall next door. The God-damn, freaking mall!

Not even bacon can make the Coyotes better. God, help us all!

There's people that don't like this? *raises hand*

Figures it be the guy who went to prison and nearly took the Kings with him to hell to say that expansion was a failure.

Have the people who actually do pay that much ever heard of "StubHub?"

No.Horseraddish is not an instrument either. Who you callin' pinhead?

I'd think they'd be thirsty since they have no fans to drink with. Right? Oh, I'll just wait in the car.

Yes. Yes yes yes yes yes. YES.How does this constitute an unpopular opinion? Who doesn't like the Pacers pinstripe uniforms?

OK, how about this: the Sharks' original logo was reflective of the 1990's style of "cartoony" logos and really started to look out-of-place as it reached 15 years old. The thin stroke lines, the overly-detailed teeth and stick, and the "mild" look of it just didn't work by the time 2007 came around. The new one is more "fierce" and doesn't look as "dead" (i.e. there's a lot more implied motion). Really? You think their 1990s logo is more "cartoony" than their post-2007 one? To me, the original Shark seemed more in-harmony and more worthy of an NHL logo (despite all the errors pointed out by some people on here). Hell, the wordmarks used on the post-2007 logo suggest the team was drawn up on an amateur site.

At Dodger Stadium, we call these people, "securitas."

hope no one mindsBut how do you charge for every parking space if you play at a strip mall? They could do what some malls here in the Southland do: park inside a garage, do your business, come back out to a paying kiosk and validate your ticket, then try to escape the garage within 10 minutes of validation. Or do it the Phoenix way...

Just two words invalidate this post: Frank McCourt.

How about Buffalo? I've read an article a while ago that Buffalo was seeking an MLB team around 25 years ago, and they used the successes of the Bisons as proof. But MLB decided that they city was "too small of a market," and elected to give new franchises to Miami and Denver, instead (the eventual Marlins and Rockies). Why can't Buffalo be an option for the Rays today? I don't exactly have detail on the Bisons today, but it would certainly help travel arrangements for the AL East teams.

I don't like that comparison. How about an NHL version of the White Sox?

It's just one of those "outside-of-the-moon" questions; looking at a map perceives a close distance between Orlando and Tampa for me, for some reason.

Quick question: what's the distance between Tampa and Orlando? Is it shorter or longer than that of between Los Angeles and Anaheim?

Then, have Miami change their mascot to an alligator. And in a couple of years, they'll be waiting for the Cubs in the World Series.

Very appropriate for the cocaine-ladened 1980s.

I'm just trying to clarify the new playoff format to the people on this board who made invalid predictions (sans kevsim1's post).

It's really not that hard to get confused about: As in the past, eight teams from each conference qualify for the playoffs, but not necessarily four per division. The top three teams per division are seeded #1, #2 and #3 in their divisional brackets. So far, that is six teams of eight per conference. Here's where all hell breaks loose: The last two teams are determined by sorting the remaining conference teams leftover, record-wise, and taking the two best teams from that pool. While the #2 and #3 divisional seeds meet each other, straight-wise, both these last two entrants become wildcard seeds and take on a #1 seed from each division, but one more thing clarifies which #1 does each of the last two entrants face. Of the two teams from that pool, the one with the better record goes to the divisional bracket of the #1 seed with the inferior record compared to its counterpart #1 seed from the other division. Meanwhile, the one with the inferior record goes to the divisional bracket of the #1 seed with the better record compared to its counterpart #1 seed from the other division. This raises the possibility of a conference bracket with divisions sending teams in an unbalanced way. For the Eastern Conference, there could be four entries from the Atlantic and four from the Metro, or three-and-five, or five-and-three. For the Western Conference, there could be four entries from the Central and four from the Pacific, or three-and-five, or five-and-three. This can't be any more simple.* *sarcasm; OITGDNHL