Ferdinand Cesarano

2 minutes ago, LMU said:

Everyone has an opinion, but those differing from yours are wrong by default. 

Two people with opposing viewpoints each think the other is wrong.  That's natural — and healthy. 

4 minutes ago, LMU said:

Malpezigu, Francisko.

I greatly appreciate the attempt at Esperanto, the world's most beautiful language!  I'd rather be denounced in Esperanto than praised in any other language.

Please let me point out the distinction between the suffixes -ig and -iĝ.  The suffix -ig carries the meaning "to make", and so creates a transitive verb; whereas the suffix -iĝ carries the meaning "to become", and so creates an intransitive verb.  Both can be placed on an adjective, as you did with the adjective "malpeza", meaning "light".  Clearly you were going for "lighten up"; the correct form for that would be "malpeziĝu" (where -u is the imperative mood ending, for a command).  By contrast, "malpezigu" would be a command to make some other thing lighter.

Finally, the Esperanto version of Ferdinand is just Ferdinando.  Also, just as English has a convention for shortened nicknames in -y  or -ie (Jimmy, Billy, Tommy, Ronnie; I myself often go by Freddie), in Esperanto we add -ĉjo to the first few letters of a masculine name. Hence "Feĉjo" for me, spelt as "Fechjo" when the Esperanto letters such as Ĉ are not available.  (This also obliquely invokes the similar-sounding word "feĉo", which means "muck" or "dregs", like a Muddy Waters sort of thing.  Esperanto humour.)

Aaanyway . . . where were we?  Ah, yes; the Yankees' new road uniform.  Tre malbonaspekta, laŭ mi.

14 minutes ago, McCall said:

You mean all the big, fancy language you use, yet you don't know what the words "fact" and "opinion" mean and the difference between them?

I think it's pretty clear that one of us doesn't grasp that.

Please remember that everyone here is expressing opinions (albeit in prose of widely varying degrees of beauty).

9 minutes ago, chcarlson23 said:

Isn’t it just a different aesthetic preference?
 

I can understand liking one over the other, but this statement is just hilarious

Well, of course it's an aesthetic preference. But when we're talking about the aesthetics of uniform of the Yankees, it becomes a big f-ing deal.  The Yankees' uniforms reached absolute perfection in 1973 with the change in the number font and the livening up of the road set; thus any change is by necessity a downgrade.  (This includes the running together of the two words of the road wordmark, such that that mark now reads "Newyork".)

Note that the Yankees are not alone in the tier of untouchable uniforms.  The same outrage is appropriate for desacrations of the uniforms of the Cardinals (hence the pullover and the powder blue uniforms being such abominations for that team), of the Tigers (the alteration of the uniform D was a very bad move), and even of the Mets (the tail on the 1994 uniforms was most unwelcome, and the presence of a black jersey is downright offensive).

5 minutes ago, McCall said:

You see enough of his posts and ridiculous statements like this are just the norm. Each one has a more heightened sense of pretentious snobbery than the last.

Egad! I take umbrage!

Just now, gosioux76 said:

2 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

It's sad to see this unsightly downgrade of uniforms with a proud 50-year history.

 

... only to replace them with a road uniform design they wore for all but 7 of their 27 World Series titles. 

The previous road uniform was always terrible.  The white outline and the sleeve trim in the 1973 upgrade made the lettering stronger and more vibrant, and turned the road uniform from featureless and drab to dignified and simple.

It is impossible to understand what's going on in the minds of people who deny that this represented a huge improvement.

23 minutes ago, LMU said:

Dropping unnecessary outlines and trim on road gray jerseys is always a positive.  See: Dodgers.

 

   

Wrong.  This is the best the Dodgers have ever looked on the road.

2 minutes ago, McCall said:

Literally in opposite world. The white trim and sleeve cuffs were straight out of the 70s and should've been retired a long time ago. This is traditional, pre-horribly renovated Yankee Stadium era Yankees road uniforms.

Note that the improvement to the Yankees' road uniforms with the beautiful white outlines (along with the conversion to the strong varsity numbers) took place in 1973, before the renovation of the Stadium.

It's sad to see this unsightly downgrade of uniforms with a proud 50-year history.

1 hour ago, (probably)notabandwagonfan said:

Via Uni Watch, the Yankees road uniforms are changing.

 

https://uni-watch.com/2024/01/23/exclusive-yankees-planning-changes-to-road-uniform/

 

Absolutely terrible.  These look like wet paper bags.  The Yankees' road look would go from near the top to near the bottom.

51 minutes ago, Pyromania1983 said:

Looks like Angels are adding the pullover throwback uniforms: https://uni-watch.com/2024/01/22/exclusive-angels-adding-pullover-throwback-confirming-earlier-hints/

 

Well this sure is a "good news / bad news" situation. That's the right wordmark for the team, but definitely the wrong style.

That Angels uniform reached its peak in its buttondown version.

I'm from the 1970s. I dig the 1970s. But pullovers are just bad. There were exactly three teams that looked good in pullovers: the A's and the Pirates in regular-cut pullovers, and the White Sox in their collared shirts (though the collar should have gone all the way around).

For every other team, the pullover style was at best ugly, and at worst, on the traditional teams (Red Sox, Cardinals, Giants, Reds), an affront to history.

That style should be left in the dustbin of history (alongside powder blue road uniforms).

27 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

I still have my copy of this SI baseball preview. SI missed the mark by just a little with this one. The Clevelands would go on to lose 100+ games that season.

 

 

I remember this!

The AL East had been won by six different teams in the six previous seasons. To think that Cleveland was going to make it a full 7-for-7 was seductive.

My favourite Sports Illustrated cover:

(The sad part is that, on account of treachery on the part of the Knicks and complicity on the part of the league, Dr. J never actually played for the Nets in the NBA.)

They also did a good job by getting rid of the gradient in the old wordmark.  And nice continuity in keeping the same shapes of the letters A and U.   I'll have to sport my New York Empire hat in celebration of the league's logo change.

This must mean that the league has licenced the "frisbee" trademark from Wham-O, right?

Semi-related point:  I honestly believe that ultimate is the world's greatest spectator sport.  The speed at which the frisbee moves makes the game eminently watchable; in this respect it's the anti-hockey.  Also, the balletic catches and defensive plays are consistently thrilling. 

Just now, McCall said:

And yes, your creepy mancrush on Luis Perez is an obvious bias, to whatever team he's on, which is currently Arlington.

That's hilarious. If having a favourite player is creepy, then I am perfectly content to be creepy!

Also, my infatuation with Perez is nothing compared to what I have written about Rick Cerone, the Magnificent Mustachioed Mediterranean Marvel.  (Ah, how nostalgic I now am for the good old days of playing What If Sports, when Cerone led a band of swarthy Italians known as I Paesani to consistent approaches to near-medocrity, while looking super-cool doing it.)

1 minute ago, McCall said:

You, and other Arlington fans, are probably the only ones who would support it staying the same.

Ahh, so that's what you think my "bias" is! I definitely wanted Arlington to win because of Luis Perez, who is my favourite player. And when Perez was with Vegas, I wanted Vegas to win, just as I wanted Birmingham to win in the AAF.  (I got lucky for a couple of years when Perez was first with the New York Guardians and then with the Generals.) If Arlington sends Perez to another team, then that's the team I will be rooting for this season.

But please believe me that my expressions of support of playoffs by conferences is not some retroactive justification for Arlington's win (which, incidentally, was the most inspirational underdog run in recent memory, and which puts Perez in the class of Namath).  It's something I would always have favoured.  The CFL's "crossover" striles me as completely ridiculous; fortunately, no crossover team has made it to the Grey Cup.  Alas, MLS is not so lucky.  When the Red Bulls played Columbus for the MLS Cup, there was in reality no Western Conference champion that year.  (Officially it was the Red Bulls, who aren't part of the Western Conference. No one can justify that.)

As I mentioned in a previous post, if I were king, the playoffs in all leagues would consist only of divisional champions; so the XFL would have gone straight to a championship game between D.C. and Houston, without Arlington even qualifying. 

On 1/15/2024 at 3:19 PM, The_Admiral said:

Incidentally, I'm just starting Season Finale: The Unexpected Rise and Fall of the WB and UPN, albeit in odious e-book form.

"Odious"?! Please. There are quite a few books that I own that I just can't get around to starting, simply because of the hassle of carrying them.  Also, I have bought e-books of books whose paper copies I already have just for the ease and pleasure of reading them on my phone, tablet, and laptop. Give me an e-book 100 times out of 100.  (And I say this as an old guy who grew up with normal printed books.)

2 hours ago, McCall said:

You can use fancy, over-the-top language all you want to try and hide your obvious bias...

Again with this "bias" thing. I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. As I mentioned once before, the bias that I have (and that I openly proclaim) is for a playoff system that is sensible and interesting, and that produces a final between two champions. For that reason, I favour a system that sticks strictly to divisions/conferences in any league (but particularly in this league, whose conferences have identities before the league even starts).

4 hours ago, Red Comet said:

I don't think anyone who  follows leagues like this long-term actually expect this to last decades or really beyond a few years.

The idea of these leagues lasting indefinitely is not unrealistic, if things are done right.  This means, mainly, if the owners are willing to lose money in the short term.  If not for the original USFL's disastrous decision to move to the fall (which resulted in a lawsuit that the USFL techincally won, but that didn't help them on account of judicial incompetence), it probably would be preparing for its 32nd spring season right now.

Also, the first version of the XFL would have gone on after NBC pulled out if McMahon had been willing to lose money on it while it gained a foothold.  Even the AAF, which made a very positive impression in 2019, would have continued if Ebersol had actually had the capitalisation that he had claimed to have.

While it's easy to scoff at this by saying that if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bicycle, the point is that there are key errors that might well have been avoided with better planning and/or better strategising.  Someone's eventually going to get it right.

58 minutes ago, Ted Cunningham said:

Not to mention the very strange way the conferences were drawn in the 2023 XFL (north vs. south ostensibly in order to not split up the Texas teams because having them play each other multiple times saved money due to proximity).

Having northern and southern divisions is no stranger than having eastern and western divisions.

58 minutes ago, Ted Cunningham said:

So it was quite obvious that Arlington benefited from being in a bad conference rather than earning their way in through on-field performance.

This evens out over time.  In any league, one conference or division is stronger some years and weaker in other years.

58 minutes ago, Ted Cunningham said:

But if the argument is that anyone can win if they're given the chance, then why play the regular season?

The good thing about the XFL's (and the USFL's) playoff system was not that anyone can win, but, rather, that each place is rewarded differently.  The ideal playoff system would allow only division winners (which is to say, the winners of the first round of the overall championship competition, the regular season).  This best possible playoff system was in place in Major League Baseball from 1969 through 1993.  If non-winners are allowed, then their path should be harder than that of divisional champs.  That was the system in place in the NFL when there were two wild cards per conference, as the divisional champs all had a bye week while the wild cards played each other. The NFL has lost that advantage with three wild cards, as one divisional champion is effectively demoted to the level of wild card. In the XFL, the disadvantage was that the second-place team had to play on the road. (If you want to argue that that's too small a disadvantage, I'll agree; the fix for that is to have a postseason consisting of only one game: the matchup between the two division winners.)

58 minutes ago, Ted Cunningham said:

The playoffs should always be amongst the best teams.

58 minutes ago, Ted Cunningham said:

Have a league table that runs 1 to 8, and have the best four teams make the playoffs.

If you're going to have a single table, then there's no doubt as to which team is best; that team should be the champion.  Here the European football leagues get it right.  Whereas, if you have the top four teams out of eight make the playoffs, then there is no meaningful difference between finishing first and finishing second, a terrible format which robs the regular season of meaning.  (Evidence for this is the NBA.)

Playoffs came into being  because of the impracticality of a single table, hence divisions/conferences.  When you have divisions or conferences, each one of those units is going to produce a champion. The final should always  be between those two champions; indeed, for this reason alone (the producing of two champions to meet in the final) divisions/conferences are desireable. But in the UFL's case, where the two conferences start with established identities, having the conferences determine the playoffs is just so obvious.

4 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

So apparently ESPN won several Emmys using false names, then handed them to their on-air personalities.

 

Since at least 2010, ESPN inserted fake names in Emmy entries, then took the awards won by some of those imaginary individuals, had them re-engraved and gave them to on-air personalities.

Wow.  But this raises the question: how could non-existent people have been awarded Emmys? Does this mean that the Emmy people do not actually review the work that is under consideration?

2 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

As far as rules, the UFL will be going with the USFL for kickoffs

Wow, I am surprised by this.  I was thinking that the XFL kickoff rule, which prioritises safety while still encouraging returns, would be the one that survives.  That rule was so good that there were several people saying that the NFL should consider it.

I sure don't like that the Renegades picked a quarterback. You don't pick a guy first in order to have him be the backup. 

So the inspirational leader Luis Perez will have a battle on his hands.

1 hour ago, McCall said:

You seem to think very highly of your own individual opinion and continue to disregard logic and common sense altogether when they get in the way of your portraying said opinion as if it was actually factual truth.

 

I admire the commitment and dedication. It's rooted in delusions of grandeur, but admirable nonetheless. Kudos to you good sir. And kudos again.

Logic dictates that, if you're going to have conferences, then the playoff system should follow those conferences. Also very logical is the 3-at-2 / winner-at-1 format, which diffferently rewards each place in a very satisfying manner.

Common sense tells us that what is good for this new league is a guaranteed final featuring a former USFL team versus a former XFL team (understanding that what will be called the Roughnecks is really the renamed Gamblers).

What's more, the experience of the two leagues demonstrates the value of the playoff system. In one league the favourite went right through; and in the other league an underdog upended two favourites on the road, in the process writing one of the all-time great sports stories.

Anyway, it is advisable to recognise that everyone is here expressing opinions, and to refrain from personal attacks (which, incidentally, reek badly of projection).

53 minutes ago, McCall said:

Your bias is showing.

My bias is for a sensible playoff system that builds conference identity. And I should hope that it is showing. 

If two teams from the same division/conference meet in the final, that's cheesy. The CFL degrades its image every time it employs the silly "crossover"; and the New York Red Bulls' "Western Conference Champions" banner is embarrassing.

Given that this new league starts with divisions each representing a different origin (like a mini-NFL), the use of a strictly conference-based playoff system would be a natural.

1 minute ago, McCall said:

So you're saying they should keep it as a possibility that a second place team with a below .500 record gets in over a 3rd place team from the other division with a winning record?

The possibility of a sub-.500 team winning the title exists in every league.  It was possible even in the best of all playoff systems, that of Major League Baseball from 1969 through 1993, which allowed only division champions to advance.

More important than the result in any one season is the integrity of the format.  It's always preferable to do playoffs by divisions/conferences, as this format strengthens rivalries and builds conference identity — this is doubly so in a league whose conferences start with a form of identity.  The two leagues had the playoff format right last season, and that's the one that should continue in the combined league.

2 hours ago, McCall said:

Yes. That's what I've been saying. Something so simple, yet necessary for a league of this size. Try and get the best overall teams in the playoffs. Not taking away from Arlington. They won last year, fair and square based on the predetermined set-up. But when there are only 8 teams, 4 of whom are above .500 and one doesn't make the playoffs, but an under .500 team does, it can give a new, young league a not so good first impression and cause for not being taken seriously.

Moving away from division vs. division (or now conference vs. conference) is a mistake.  The UFL purposely divided the conferences by former league (even with the unfortunate renaming of the Gamblers).  So the championship game should further that concept by being USFL Conference champ versus XFL Conference champ.  

21 hours ago, DCarp1231 said:

They had every chance to name the conferences USFC and XFC, but just had to keep “League” in there. For what purpose?

21 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Because X doesn't stand for anything.

20 hours ago, DCarp1231 said:

Still doesn’t answer the question. 

NFC means National Football Conference; AFC means American Foodball Conference

USFC would mean United States Football Conference, and XFC would mean . . . X Football Conference?

So, yes, the fact that X doesn't stand for anything does indeed answer the question why they didn't call the conferences USFC and XFC. 

Moreover, the use of the former leagues' intact names for the conferences reflects a recognition of the ongoing value of those names, particularly that of the USFL.  I have said before that I think it's a mistake to throw away the significant brand recognition and the broadly favourable associations of the USFL name.  The ideal way forward would have been to call the combined league the USFL, while using XFL rules, recognising XFL history, and having Johnson and Garcia as the spokespeople and the faces of the league (not to mention having a majority of XFL teams, owing to the other branding error, the decision to use the clearly inferior Houston Roughnecks identity as opposed to the classic Gamblers identity). This would cater to fans who come from both former leagues, and, more importantly, would put the new league in the best position to attract new fans.

Anyway, given that league is going to go with the new UFL name, it needs to mitigate the problems inherent in introducing yet another new league name to a public that has seen several new names come and go in recent years.  The way to do that is to place strong emphasis on the accumulated history of both component leagues, and to position the coming season as the ninth, after five USFL seasons (1983, 1984, 1985, 2022, 2023) and three XFL seasons (2001, 2020, 2023).  The very first thing the league should do is to compile the overall stats and to create a comprehensive website on the model of the Sports Reference sites.  

7 minutes ago, DCarp1231 said:

They had every chance to name the conferences USFC and XFC, but just had to keep “League” in there. For what purpose?

Because X doesn't stand for anything.

12 minutes ago, WideRight said:

Just going to say that from a design perspective I see the Roughnecks as a major downgrade from the Gamblers.  The logo is fine, but those uniforms were pure clown show

I also see that as a downgrade. And I'd say that the logo is terrible, a problem compounded by the departed Gamblers logo being in the top tier all-time.

Also, the nickname stinks, as opposed to the Gamblers nickname.

I hope the NFL makes a few more legal threats, and that the UFL wises up and changes the team's identity to the Gamblers.