IceCap

It's like a perpetual motion machine of failure.

The Islanders have as many Cups as the Rangers, and they've been around for a much shorter amount of time. They're a "true" New York sports team/

This. The Stars have an ownership situation. If Quebecor comes in looking to buy the Coyotes to move them to Quebec City then it wouldn't surprise me to see Bettman toss them the Stars (or any other team with ownership and/or money problems) to save his desert-based government funded ego trip.

If I were a Stars fan I would be awfully worried right about now....

This must be strictly a US thing... I don't think I've ever seen people wearing St. Paddy's jerseys in Canada. Are there actually officially licensed versions? I've seen a few counterfit St. Paddy's Blackhawks sweaters in my neck of the woods. The 'Hawks seem to be the popular choice for St. Paddy's fakes.

I agree. I'm just saying that if they insist on going with a fauxback look I rather they go with the red sweater's template over the green sweater's template. I would prefer it if they went back to their inaugural look though. That was a great case of nailing it on the first try.

The Wild's third sweater script reminds me of the Cincinnati Reds' script. It's trying to invoke an olde tyme sporting club feel, yet it's so ornate that it comes off looking gimmicky rather then reflective of anything worn from the era they're trying to homage. If they must abandon their awesome inaugural look in favour of a fauxback design they should just go with the red sweater template and run with it.

I think you misunderstood my point. I'm not debating pro hockey's viability in Houston in the past. I'm debating its viability in the present. The Aeros are long gone. Any NHL team in Houston, even if they use the Aeros name, will have to start from scratch. They'd have to compete with the Rockets for fans, ticket sales, merchandise sales, tv ratings, and local corporate dollars. The Rockets, being the more entrenched of the two teams, would have a marked advantage in all of these areas. Um, what? I mean, I know what you're getting at (the loss of the WHA Aeros) but it's not like there isn't a current team that's top-10 in the AHL in attendance named Aeros playing an an NHL-ready rink right now (Toyota Center opened in 2003 with 17,000 seats for hockey). Um, yeah. Houston hasn't seen top tier pro hockey since the WHA went under. Saying that the AHL Aeros' success is proof of 1) the market and 2) that a Houston NHL team wouldn't have to start from scratch doesn't hold water. The differences between an AHL presence and an NHL presence are too great. This is the type of thinking that put teams in Miami, Atlanta, and Phoenix. The "potential" for media and corporate dollars has led to the NHL sunbelt madness to begin with. It's time to turn away from "potential" markets and refocus on markets that actually care about hockey. Seattle, Milwaukee, and Quebec City should all be considered before Houston.

I think you misunderstood my point. I'm not debating pro hockey's viability in Houston in the past. I'm debating its viability in the present. The Aeros are long gone. Any NHL team in Houston, even if they use the Aeros name, will have to start from scratch. They'd have to compete with the Rockets for fans, ticket sales, merchandise sales, tv ratings, and local corporate dollars. The Rockets, being the more entrenched of the two teams, would have a marked advantage in all of these areas.

At this point I think the ship has sailed for Houston. Going along with my "the NHL should avoid markets with established NBA teams" theory a NHL organization in Houston would have to compete with the Rockets for fans, ratings, merchandise sales, and corporate dollars.

*slow clap* Well played Commissioner, well played.

Trust us, it's painfully apparent that your extant of knowledge in most things is severely limited.

You're the guy! This got a legit chuckle out of me.

I won't deny that. It's just not a rip-off.

I'm not going to tell you you're wrong for your opinions, but this.... ...is just factually incorrect. The Steelmark wasn't the logo for US Steel, it was the logo for the entire American steel industry. It was a Cleveland-based steel company, Republic Steel, that suggested the Steelers adopt it as their logo. Later they received permission from the American Iron and Steel Institute, an association of the major American steel companies, to alter it by replacing the word "Steel" with "Steelers." So it's not a rip-off. In fact the steel industry suggested they use it. That same industry gave the team their blessing to alter it.

Yes, but the NFL owns the IP rights now. As long as someone wants a product with a NFL logo on it, the NFL deserves the cash.

Do the designers get residual payments for every jersey with their logo or design sold? Or are they payed a one-time fee for their work? The logos are owned by their teams/the league, not the people who designed them. The people who designed them turned the rights to their work over to said team/league. There's nothing legally wrong here, because there was a legal transfer of IP rights from the artist to the team/league.

If you cannot understand what's wrong with intellectual property theft then there's no hope for you, frankly. Especially seeing as you've come to defend it on a board populated by a fair number of professional designers. Look, as we've said before, if you know it's wrong and accept that you're contributing to an illegal activity but just say "screw it, I just want a cheap jersey" then we don't really have a problem. You're a grown-up. If you know the facts and still want to do it, and are willing to accept the consequences, then go for it. It's when you either don't understand why it's wrong or you turn it around and try to pretend you're doing the right thing by buying fakes that we have a problem. It not only proves you're woefully ignorant of the law, it proves you can't grasp basic concepts of right and wrong and that you have an inflated sense of self-entitlement.

Nice to see the supposed professional designer elesphen supporting IP theft. I don't know where you people are finding these high quality fakes. I've seen plenty, and while some are pretty close, not one actually exceeds the official products, in either design or quality.

Well like -Dan said, any product is only for those who can afford it, if we get right down to it. I would like to see the prices come down myself (I can remember a time when buying an official NHL replica didn't mean spending more then $100), but if the market can support it, then who are we to tell the leagues they can't charge it? Like I said that's all anyone's looking for. If you're fully aware of the reality of the situation, and choose to do so anyway, then there's no problem. No one's saying throw you in jail. We're just saying don't be surprised when the cheap knock-off falls apart in the wash. That's the most sound piece of reasoning given on the pro-counterfeit side yet. Cheers.

That's all anyone's really asking here. If you understand the law, if you understand the concept of IP rights and you still decide to buy a counterfeit then that's your call. No one's entitled to a G-ddamn sports jersey. No one needs a sports jersey. I've never come across an official NFL jersey, Reebok or otherwise, that was ill-fitting. As for looking the part? The Giants have a pretty simple jersey pattern. I've never seen an official one that looked like crap. As for counterfeits, the one's I've seen have always looked slightly off. Maybe the Giants ones are easier to get right, but the same reasoning that leads to that assumption leads to Reebok getting it right too. Again with this "crap quality" argument. If anything I've noticed the quality of official replicas going up over the years. As for "helping the awful system stay afloat," well the NFL owns the rights to their own IP. You want a Giants jersey? Then the Giants, and by extension the NFL and Reebok, deserve your money. Theft is wrong, any way you cut it. If you're unsatisfied with the quality of current replicas and authentics then why not just not buy them? Oh right. You want a jersey. A luxury item. Again, no one's entitled to a jersey of their favourite team. You're the one letting your self-rightiousness get the best of you Kinger. You're trying to set yourself up as some sort of internet martyr. Despite the fact that you're not entitled to a jersey anyway, as you fling generic insults that don't fit the situation in the slightest. No one's suggesting you, or anyone else who buys a fake, should be thrown in jail. It's not a crime to knowingly buy a fake, as far a I know. If you know you're buying a fake, know it's ethnically wrong, and decide to do it anyway then there isn't really a problem. You know you're supporting the ones committing the crime, and if you're ok with that then no problem. You're able to recognize the reality of the situation, which is more then some others can say. As long as you're willing to deal with the consequences you're fine. And in cases like this those consequences amount to little more then "the jersey falls apart when put through the wash."

No, not really. It's simple, really. The NFL has the right to grant a single manufacturer their exclusive licence. It's their IP. They're free to do with it what they want. I'm really not getting why this is such a hard concept to grasp. Not to mention, when people talk about the 2K Sports vs. EA Sports they ALWAYS seem to gloss over that fact. Forget the fact that EA Sports produced critically acclaimed versions of football simulations year-after-year, and 2K took about four years to finally get it right, but they try to complain that was EA Sports did was illegal. No, it's perfectly legal. If EA Sports/DirecTV/Reebok are the only companies that can represent a high-level of quality with the NFL's products, then it's the NFL's right to be able to strike an exclusive deal with that said company. Regardless of how you few the companies I mentioned, the fact still remains that if the NFL is ever called out for doing so, the league will probably be able to show that rival companies complaining about the licensing agreement didn't represent the NFL well with their quality of products. Granted, it can lead to customers being forced to pay higher costs, and can lead to a lack of quality competition, but it does keep some two-bit hack producing a piece of crap in their garage and selling whatever it might be to the general public as "authentic." Obviously, is a person buys that, they're going to complain about the quality of said product, and indirectly cause damage to the NFL's brand. Weak. Real weak. The ONLY reason for granting exclusive deals is to jack up prices. Period. If the market is willing to sustain those prices then that simply makes the granting of the exclusives licences to be a smart business move.