Sykotyk

Part of that AFC streak was also the fault of the Browns. In at least 2 of the 3 Browns v. Broncos AFC Championship Games, the Browns were the better team but blew it. Browns would've played better against the 49ers but probably lost. Against the Giants and Washington? Browns beat the Giants. Probably beat Washington. Broncos got complacent in that game going up 10-0. Browns team at the time wouldn't have (especially if it was the year after the Drive still happening). In the end, the AFC was the more competitive conference top to bottom but the top end wasn't nearly as good as the NFC champions. Then you have the upsets. The Chargers, Patriots 2x, Broncos, etc where clearly the better team lost in the AFCCG and the underdog couldn't put that chemistry back on the field with usually two weeks to plan. No one was beating the 49ers in sb29 but the Steelers would've made it closer. The Bills? Eeked out A Wide Right but their 2nd and 3rd trips were hot garbage. The 4th had a slim chance at halftime but the second half was ALL Cowboys. Thing about it was everyone exalted Elway for winning the game against the Packers but they let TD score to get the ball back instead of letting the clock run out and a chip shot FG. Broncos lose that game I think the future would've been much different Elway wouldn't have shaken the loser stigma and I don't think the next year goes nearly as good for them. They'd be like the 28-3 falcons. Shell shocked the next year. Meanwhile packers would be the preeminent dynasty of the time winning two straight instead and I honestly think the packers would've never drafted Rodgers with a former two time back to back champion that would be untouchable at that time later on. Jets and vikings don't happen. After that the butterfly effect would be too massive to contemplate. But with the loss in that game Favre's wild gunslinger persona wasn't as ironclad and GB was willing to explore his replacement a lot earlier

Well, either jlog3000 edited the Wiki page on baseball fields, or at least one other place referenced them as Sliding Pits. I too, had only heard them called Cut Outs as well.

If you look up the history of baseball... the infield 'dirt' was really a byproduct of simply wearing down poorly maintained grass fields. The base paths, the catcher's area, the pathways to the batters boxes, the infield itself, was mostly formed by overuse (think the absolute earliest days of baseball, such as until the late 1800s). Then that 'wear pattern' became standardized so no one could have an advantage. But at the beginning the difference between grass and dirt areas of the field were not defined or required. They just simply happened due to overuse of the field. Eventually it just because the standard for preparing the field for use to just already remove the grass where it was not going to be survive. Interesting that the 'warning track' took a very long time to be added. It was literally a track, and since players didn't need to look for the wall until they left the grass to the track it really helped outfielders. So, everyone adopted it pretty quickly. But it's weird that it's the first real use of 'dirt' as a game-play measure and not just 'because that's the way it's always been'.

nm

Not really. Paul Brown went to Massillon Washington High School. Who are the Tigers. Whose colors were black and orange. His first real job as a HC was at Massillon coaching those Tigers (and were extremely successful). He then coached at Ohio State (successful), and then was hired for the Cleveland team in the AAFC (also incredibly successful). The fans wanted the team to be the Browns. He didn't want it. They chose the name Panthers, but a previous Cleveland team had the name and didn't want to give up the name to the new team. So, went back and took the name Browns as long as the team didn't admit it was for him (named for Joe Louis, officially, the Brown Bomber, professional boxer). The colors, though, were entirely up to him. He liked Bowling Green's use of orange and brown as opposed to orange and black. The reason? Because the brown jersey hides the ball better. Also, the reason he went with, eventually, switching to orange shells for helmets was so the QB could see his receivers downfield better. Though the Browns color scheme hearkens back to the Massillon look, it was entirely utilitarian. It served a purpose on the football field. Though he always liked orange and black or orange and brown. So, after Modell fired him and he started the Cincinnati team, it was only natural he choose Orange and the color that the Browns werent: Black. Also went with the tiger motif from Massillon. He also, once again, wanted plain orange helmets but the league refused, so they put the "BENGALS" on the helmet in plain print to be different than the Browns. Made Browns/Bengals games a pain to watch. But the other 12 games a year his goal of 'QB sees the helmets better' still work. In the end, Bengals are black and orange with a tiger motif because of Massillon. Browns are brown and orange because of Bowling Green at their roots. Also, Brown started the whole "Messenger Guard" system of using the lineman to relay the play to the QB for faster playcalling, and also experimented with the first radioset in the helmet for the QB.

Snyder: We can make more money with a flop than we can with a hit!

Or they can go the gambling route, someone tossing dice at a Craps table. lol

Or... hear me out... Washington Ballots. Or Washington Naturals.

He's the reason I gave up my season tickets. I sold off all my 2022 games because it was too late in the offseason to get rid of the tickets. But I told the team he was the reason I gave up my seats. I take my daughter to games. I wasn't going to sit there and cheer for him as the team decided to make him the highest paid player and face of the franchise (and before anyone mentions Hunt, he took a cheap deal for the team in his hometown and the whole time has shown contrition for his actions that led him to being out in KC from the very moment we signed him). Oh well. When he's off the team I might get season seats again.

And RBs aren't QBs. They rust while they're out. They're not like QBs that are like you're saving the engine for future use. It's amazing the difference in performance after any time away from the game (usually injury) between a running back and a QB. You take a runner (even a running QB) and sideline them for a while and they always come back slower. There is no advantage to sitting. Rodgers could've sat out a year and gotten the same deal the next year. And probably would perform almost exactly the same. Some might think even better with a year of rest (a la Vick). It's just the sad reality today. And the reality is that most of the RB production is from the line and the RB works as long as they know where the hole is (Trent Richardson notwithstanding).

They may be operating in small towns and smaller facilities, but they're appearing to be legitimate in presentation. This AFL announcement just smacks of a scam.

I wasn't expecting much from this announcement.... but this is NIFL-level grift. Create teams, and then try to strong arm someone in town into owning/running them.

That's cool. As for the helmet... most fans are clueless to history. Even just 4 or 5 years ago is too far for some. What's interesting watching this play out is the 'fans' that think the Bills/Bengals have been 'good teams' for years just because of recent success, yet ignore/downplay history of the Eagles, despite the fact they WON a Super Bowl just a few years ago. Even then, some is willful ignorance. The number of fans that actively argued that Leaf was going to be the better QB than Manning was nearly even with Manning-backed fans. Yet you won't find anyone admitting it. There was a time Ryan "The Sanchise" Sanchez led the Jets to two AFC Championship Games, yet most only choose to remember the Butt Fumble, if anything at all. So, even vaguely aware that the Browns ever had anything other than the plain orange helmet? Impossible. Which is a shame. As for what they choose, I'm hoping it's an brown/orange/brown center stripe mimicking the orange helmet. Though the facemask didn't exist then, I'd assume they'll use the color of the regular facemask instead of getting all new ones for one game.

This is where I know i hit a nerve. Never said you did. But you defended it anyways. I said: And yet college fans fawn over any true freshman doing anything on the college field. But I'm guessing you don't have a problem with that. Was referencing other people and your insistence to be angry. You also admit you're mad about something you don't know enough about to even form an opinion. But anger is your natural response. Most any HS team would be seniors, and they start turning 18 at... guess what, when school starts. Before school even starts in the fall (my school had a mid-june cutoff). Most 'starters' for a HS team are going to be seniors. The rest would be juniors with the rare sophomore here or there. But your focus is on the absolute youngest you'd expect to see. Now, that's weird. What's your obsession with it? You mad about gymnastics in the Olympics? They actually had to change the rules to stop 14 year olds from competing. Yet most of America went gaga in 96 over the Olympic team because a girl hurt her foot to win gold.

White helmets

What's your obsession with 16 year olds? You know most people are in high school until they're 18, right? And yet college fans fawn over any true freshman doing anything on the college field. But I'm guessing you don't have a problem with that.

This has been a pretty common prediction. It makes sense in terms of facility. Yulman Stadium is a great stadium that's perfectly sized (30k) for USFL in what many consider a major city (NO isn't but due to it's spot as a vacation/tourist mecca, most people consider it a major city). Yulman would be far cheaper than the Superdome, better handle the crowd, and having been to the SuperDome, it's really not a great stadium to see a game in. The endzone corners block part of the endzone view from the stands unless you're front row. And though incredibly few, the number of Houstonians that might actually drive east to see a game, or those in the region that have Houston ties, would fare better than a hub in Birmingham or Memphis. Still, they use the Houston name for TV viewership alone.

Years ago when NFL Properties became a separate entity, they set out and started taking ownership of old team names. They rarely actually sell anything with those names/logos, but it's been a thing. And the problem is, even if they don't explicitly own a name, they're going to sue anyone using it anyways. Most any other league is going to avoid the hassle even if they have a valid claim. Recently the ELF made arrangements with NFL to use old NFL Europe team names. But that's because European trademark law is a bit different than US, and I doubt they were really able to stop them. Plus, better to be chummy with the 9000 pound gorilla in the football universe than to piss them off. Though they're not using any of the old logos. Though, NFL has been slowly making in roads into Germany with actual NFL games, at some point in the long distant future the NFL may want those names back. And whatever agreement signed might let them if/when they actually field real teams again in something NFL-backed.

You're a moderator on a sports logo website. More people would think you're ****ing nuts than anyone attending a high school game.

So you just choose to ignore it then. So be it. But don't act like it isn't a thing. Would fans in Hilliard fans cheer for a team named the Wolverines? Canton is a very small city. The fact it's even discussed as having a team is because USFL was desperate and didn't even give them their own team. This talk of them naming the team "Canton" or "Ohio" is probably not happening. They play there because it's cheap and it's available. Small cities identify much more to their schools identity than a big city where most major pro teams reside. Small towns and small cities are different. I live 60 miles from Canton and also have been to Tom Benson Stadium. I've been on the field for USFL games there this past season. You think throwing that out there legitimized your point or something?

For USL leagues. But I'm talking about pro/rel between MLS and the top level of USL.

Welcome to Ohio. Canton-Massillon is probably the most notable rivalry in high school football in the country. https://massillontigers.com/history/massillon-vs-canton-mckinley/history-of-the-rivalry/ Also, the fact that the Maulers are playing where McKinley plays their games, and have for many decades, which is right next to the high school.

As mentioned, Canton McKinley High School, the only public high school now in Canton (Timken combined with McKinley a few years ago), are nicknamed the Bulldogs. And honestlly, though Cantonites might enjoy the team having that nickname, good luck getting Massillon, North Canton, Plains Twp, Jackson Twp, or Perry Twp fans to show up and cheer for 'Bulldogs'. Edit: Also, the high school team started in 1894.

This is going to veer toward Fantasy forum territory, but the big issue with pro/rel in the US and why it will NEVER happen is the fact that teams paid to be in the MLS to begin with. They're not leaving without getting reimbursed, etc. However, one possibility would be the concept of a 'guest spot' in MLS for a USL team. For instance, if there's 32 teams, add 2 'guest spots' for USL teams. Such as the best team in 2023 and the playoff winner (if different) gets to join MLS for the 24 season. After the season, the 24 best team gets to play in MLS, while the previous best team plays a two-game series against the second best 24 USL team to stay up. Regardless where they finish in MLS. The one will always drop back down for at least a year. The other gets a shot at staying up for one more year. After that second year, they'd drop no matter what. So, at best 2 of 3 years in MLS. Unless they go through with actually getting an expansion team for MLS in the future. You get 'pro/rel' in some form from below, but the MLS teams stay MLS, regardless of outcome.

For me, the late 90s until the NBC contract started was peak AFL. There was the 'big 4' and 'little 4'. Tampa Bay Storm Orlando Predators Arizona Rattlers San Jose SaberCats And the little four were: Iowa Barnstormers Albany Firebirds Grand Rapids Rampage Nashville Kats The Rampage were the 5th oldest team still playing in the league when they bounced during the first stoppage, behind the Big 4. The NBC deal ruined so much of the AFL. But it was the aim for David Baker getting the NFL involved. It was always about that, and it kinda ruined the league, and the sport. Getting rid of Ironman, creating the penalty for forward motion stops, etc. The league almost immediately started losing field goals. Even on 4th and 20 from your own 5, you went for it. Because the goal wasn't to score more than your opponent, it was to have the ball on the last drive because almost every drive now was a score. "Stops" became the key indicator of success. In 1996, the average game had 88 points. Though 50 or 60 points were common for one team, it wasn't regular. 2003 was the second year the average game had over 100 points. By 2008, the average ballooned to 111. AFL 2.0 reversed the trend, going from 111 in 2010 to 86 by 2019. But aside from the game itself, the NBC deal killed the AFL because it stopped caring about tried and true and successful, though small, markets and insisted on placing teams in major markets under the helm of NFL backed owners. Three of the 'Little 4' left for bigger cities. Albany moved to Indianapolis. Iowa moved to Long Island. Nashville moved to Atlanta. New York had possibly the best player at the time (set the record for most points in a game at 99), but never created a big enough fan base to survive. Indiana did modestly. Had fun rivalries with Grand Rapids and Chicago. But by then the league as a whole was suffering and the teams didn't see any increase in revenue from the NBC deal that led to its end and the league's overall demise the first time around.