Jump to content

dbadefense1990

Members
  • Posts

    4,244
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by dbadefense1990

  1. I highly, freaking doubt that an NFL mega-stadium is smaller than the Coyotes pathetic excuse of an arena. I highly doubt that it's even smaller than Lot E. What was in that freaking tap water those surveyors in Arizona drank?
  2. Yes, but Arizonans are kind of America's clubhouse leader in blind following. Blind following is why they're in this whole mess in the first place!
  3. There is only one person who these Bulls black-pinstripe unis would be perfect for: Once he left, they would look very awkward at whoever wore them.
  4. 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).
  5. 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):
  6. Pass around the thing you're smoking on, and I'd agree.
  7. 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!
  8. Not even bacon can make the Coyotes better. God, help us all!
  9. There's people that don't like this? *raises hand*
  10. 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.
  11. Nah, there will be no problem, as most of the new people moving there because of gentrification are incredibly apathetic. You'd put up a dog fight with the neighborhood had this been 30-40 years ago. Now, these yuppies moving in will gladly vote for development of any stadium if the pet project includes coffee shops, sushi houses, vegan and organic markets and kosher delis for them.
  12. Because the league is hellbent on absolute greed for its owners and will stop at nothing to acquire more of it. And for the last two decades, using Los Angeles as the dangling carrot has done more to aid owners than anything else I can think of (well, maybe except those TV contracts). I would have thought that we'd be approaching a limit of growth of using Los Angeles as bait for other cities (when all 32 NFL teams would have shiny new stadiums built since the Rams and Raiders left), but if Arthur Blank can cry woe for a stadium built in 1991, what makes you think any other owner wouldn't cry woe for their stadium post-1995? How long until I hear that "Heinz, the Linc, Jerry's World, Lucas and Gillette are considered "obsolete" and their owners demand a newer, shinier, billion-dollar megastadia funded by taxpayers, or the team gets relocated to Los Angeles?" Wouldn't be surprised if it was very soon. The only problem with that is that 32 is a perfectly symmetric number of teams to have. It fits the division formats evenly and provides a more smooth scheduling scheme. Having 33 or even 34 teams can throw things off-course, from uneven divisions to diluted play and to expanding the number of bye-weeks in the regular season. And there's also another split in the owner's revenue sharing.
  13. The day I hear an NFL owner addressing a city council and demanding millions in taxpayer subsidies for a new stadium, or else it's relocation to London, will be the day I'll believe in this.
  14. Have the people who actually do pay that much ever heard of "StubHub?"
  15. No.Horseraddish is not an instrument either. Who you callin' pinhead?
  16. I'd think they'd be thirsty since they have no fans to drink with. Right? Oh, I'll just wait in the car.
  17. Yes. Yes yes yes yes yes. YES.How does this constitute an unpopular opinion? Who doesn't like the Pacers pinstripe uniforms?
  18. 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.
  19. 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...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.