CLEstones

@bluevodreal

This always bugged me. Missouri was a great rival for Nebraska and the B1G has always been about tradition. I think they had Missouri in the long term plans, but when they decided they weren't going to be left at the table and jumped the the SEC, I think it put a kink in the B1G's immediate plans. They fit much better geographically and culturally with the B1G as opposed to the SEC. However, I think Rutgers and Maryland were always, ALWAYS in the B1G's long term plans... regardless if they picked up Missouri or not.

More from @bluevodreal :

That's fine. I am assuming if this is true, like when they added Nebraska and again when they added Maryland and Rutgers, that the B1G did some sort profit and revenue sharing split analysis. It would seem that adding the markets from Rutgers and Maryland seemed to work well.

Not sure why you put my name in quotes? 1 - Grant of Rights, though steep, would be peanuts compared to what the B1G and BTN would be paying out, year after year. Yes, it would be a large financial hit initially, but after 3-5 years, those schools would be turning profits. 2 - Even if its not AS BIG as expect, even if its the same, its still pretty BIG. 3 - Again, studio costs are peanuts. I don't think that is even in the discussion when adding teams. 4 - This is a good point and larger schools like Oklahoma and Florida State would and should be reluctant, but again, if they are going to be getting $30-40 million per year from the BTN... It just outweighs the negative.

Hey, I said take this all with a grain of salt. This @bluevodreal was on the subreddit for College Football. It looks like some of his claims/predictions have actually turned out to be correct. Some of my fellow redditors confirmed a portion of his stuff was true. That being said, when it comes to expansion... this is the first time there has been any talk of 20 teams and its the first talk of multiple, MAJOR programs moving, including Georgia Tech, Florida State, and Oklahoma.

More from @bluevodreal:

That $50 million exit fee, while steep, isn't a deterrent for a school that's looking to leave. Athletic departments can do some fundraisers.... Here is what you are missing. The Big Ten Network is estimating upwards of $40-$45 million pay out, PER SCHOOL, with the new television contract. Now granted, each school doesn't get fully vested until they have been in the Big Ten for 6 years, but still, after 6 years, FSU would get a complete return on investment, and years 1-5 would have been complete profit. Think about it... even if Year 1 was $10 million, Year 2 was $15 million, Year 3 was $20 million, Year 4 was $30 million, and Year 5 was $40 million. That's incredible. And that's not including ANY additional revenue from thew markets; Florida, Atlanta, North Carolina... Just for comparisons, an article dated from June 2015, on NBC Sports: Sauce: http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/18/big-ten-revenue-shares-jump-to-32-million-per-school/

I'm not knocking you, I'm knocking the source. BUT FSU IN THE BIG TEN?!?!? WHAT?!? That's honestly even more ridiculous than them going to the Big 12. And all that's wrong because ND can't join any other conference other than the ACC in football until 2025. Unless all those schools got $50 million to blow, this ain't happening. No worries. I knew the long term goal was to add Georgia Tech to the B1G. The only think I can think of when it comes to Florida State, is that GT has agreed in principal to join, if they could have 3 schools within close proximity. It may be one of those things that's like, you use each schools tentative/conditional agreement to coax the other schools. So no school has officially said they will join, but GT will join if FSU joins, and FSU will join if UNC joins, and UNC will join if GT and 1 other school joins. UPDATE Sounds like he is backing off his guaranteed shake up.

Money, money, money, and more money... it will always be money. If the B1G and SEC think they can add 2 more schools that would increase payouts or improve recruiting, they are going to do it. I still think they want to move farther down the east coast but it all depends what Texas/Oklahoma are doing. Will be curious to see if these rumors come to fruition. I checked his twitter and this is what he has to say: And are you ready for the whopper, extra cheese, extra sauce: That would make B1G truly a super conference. I personally don't like it. I understand FSU and GAT. But don't know. This could either be a disaster or awesome. I would rather see Syracuse and Kansas/Missouri.

Michigan insider @Bluevod is claiming major conference realignment will be announced in days: Limited research has shown that he has actually had a few credible tips.

Anyone have the new Stanford athletic word mark that Nike developed or a font that is similar? http://cardinalrec.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/StanfordRecreationv2.jpg

I'm looking for the Iowa Hawkeyes football numbers located on the back of their helmets. Here are a few images: 2 fairly clear, but at an angle: 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 large and clear: I can't find a decent picture of the 4. I am assuming the 9 would just be a rotated 6. Anyone have any ideas?

No :censored:. Just because the NBA does it that way NOW, doesn't mean it has to be done that way in his scenario.

I was on board... until you said 11 wild card teams. Honestly, I'm not sure the playoffs mean anything when over 50% of the teams make it in. I think you gotta knock it down to 5 divisional winners and 3 wild cards. Come to think of it... considering it its 1 conference, 16 teams wouldn't be TOO bad... but its still over half the teams make the playoffs... and that seems too much.

First and foremost, I think unbalanced divisions are one of the worst ideas in sports. I understand sometimes the numbers don't allow for it, but it should be avoided at all costs. I think it would be better to do 3x5 divisions. Second, I think I would be more open to the swap scenario if it was NOT baseball. Baseball just seems to have too much tradition to mess with that sort of swapping on such a regular basis. I think it would be a fun idea for the first season or two, but then it would get incredibly annoying.

No the two likeliest candidates entail looting the Big East or convincing some ACC teams to bail as per history. Texas and Oklahoma were kind of sick and tired of the odd loss in the Big XII championship game biting them in the rear. I'm trying not to respond like a jerk here... but I can't tell if you are intentionally being difficult with this scenario or just ignoring the scenario completely. The schools in contention were Utah State, Colorado State, and Brigham Young to be added to the PAC-10 and Big XII to bring their total number of schools to 12. And I'm saying, as someone who followed those realignment rounds very closely, Utah State and Colorado State were not on anybody's radar. Much of this was because of football considerations, as well as markets and intra-state politics. Colorado State kind of collapsed in the late 2000s/early 2010s, and Utah State flat out sucked before Gary Andersen could get stuff working there beginning in 2011. Please note the Mountain West only grabbed Utah State, despite the loss of both Utah schools, when it did its killshot raid on the WAC, not the first crippling raid. BYU sort of was on the radar for the Big XII, but the "won't play on the Sabbath" thing and Texas and Oklahoma's dissatisfaction with the championship game format precluded that. The only reason I leaned toward Utah and Utah State to the PAC and Colorado and Colorado State to the XII is how their Conferences are already aligned. The PAC as both Washington, Oregon, and Arizona schools, as well as 4 California schools. It almost would seem off to add Colorado State in favor of Utah State or Brigham Young. Same goes for the XII. They have both Kansas schools, both Oklahoma, and at the time, had 4 Texas schools. Again, seemed off to add a Utah school in favor of Colorado State. Not adding schools where you already have a state-presence makes more sense to me when we talk about the B1G and the SEC. But it seems like the PAC-10 and Big XII were more interested in regional expansion as opposed to expanding the foot print. Did you even read rams80's post?I read every word of his posts, because he is obviously knowledgeable on the topic. My responses are to how these Conferences would react under different circumstances. I understand the logistics and economics that he is spelling out. However, I am speaking to different ideas/circumstances. The idea of Colorado pushing Colorado State to the PAC is interesting. It would make sense for the PAC to want to expand the footprint, and it would make sense for Colorado to be interested in Utah State or Brigham Young for the same reasons. However, the other point I was making was hope the PAC and XII were currently aligned at the time. They were the definition of regional. They contained the major schools in each state (Washington, Oregon Arizona, California, Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma), so I was curious as to RAM's thoughts on that front.

No the two likeliest candidates entail looting the Big East or convincing some ACC teams to bail as per history. Texas and Oklahoma were kind of sick and tired of the odd loss in the Big XII championship game biting them in the rear. I'm trying not to respond like a jerk here... but I can't tell if you are intentionally being difficult with this scenario or just ignoring the scenario completely. The schools in contention were Utah State, Colorado State, and Brigham Young to be added to the PAC-10 and Big XII to bring their total number of schools to 12. And I'm saying, as someone who followed those realignment rounds very closely, Utah State and Colorado State were not on anybody's radar. Much of this was because of football considerations, as well as markets and intra-state politics. Colorado State kind of collapsed in the late 2000s/early 2010s, and Utah State flat out sucked before Gary Andersen could get stuff working there beginning in 2011. Please note the Mountain West only grabbed Utah State, despite the loss of both Utah schools, when it did its killshot raid on the WAC, not the first crippling raid. BYU sort of was on the radar for the Big XII, but the "won't play on the Sabbath" thing and Texas and Oklahoma's dissatisfaction with the championship game format precluded that. The only reason I leaned toward Utah and Utah State to the PAC and Colorado and Colorado State to the XII is how their Conferences are already aligned. The PAC as both Washington, Oregon, and Arizona schools, as well as 4 California schools. It almost would seem off to add Colorado State in favor of Utah State or Brigham Young. Same goes for the XII. They have both Kansas schools, both Oklahoma, and at the time, had 4 Texas schools. Again, seemed off to add a Utah school in favor of Colorado State. Not adding schools where you already have a state-presence makes more sense to me when we talk about the B1G and the SEC. But it seems like the PAC-10 and Big XII were more interested in regional expansion as opposed to expanding the foot print.

No the two likeliest candidates entail looting the Big East or convincing some ACC teams to bail as per history. Texas and Oklahoma were kind of sick and tired of the odd loss in the Big XII championship game biting them in the rear. I'm trying not to respond like a jerk here... but I can't tell if you are intentionally being difficult with this scenario or just ignoring the scenario completely. The schools in contention were Utah State, Colorado State, and Brigham Young to be added to the PAC-10 and Big XII to bring their total number of schools to 12.

Which isn't what I was asking. So thank you for ignoring the post completely. I was specifically asking if Colorado stayed loyal to the Big XII, how would the PAC-10 (11) and Big XII (11) react. Out of Utah State, Colorado State and Brigham Young, what 2 colleges would be the most likely to move up to a major conference, what conference would it be, or would there be other schools who would be a more likely and better fit for each conference. And you missed what I said. The Pac-10 stands pat at 10 if they don't get Colorado, but its a moot point, because once the Big XII starts showing signs of collapse, only the intervention of Alien Space Bats keeps Colorado in the Big XII. Colorado doesn't have anything tying it to the Big XII, especially once Nebraska leaves. On and off the field the school draws more from California than Texas. But again, that ignores my post. The scenario is Utah joins the PAC-10, Colorado stay loyal to the Big XII, leaving both conferences at 11. Does Utah and Colorado then pull for their "State" school to join their respective conferences?Do they push for other teams to expand the footprint i.e. Colorado pushes for Utah State and Utah pushes for Colorado State?Would Brigham Young be invited by either conference?Are there other schools that would be higher on the invitation list for each conference to reach 12?

Which isn't what I was asking. So thank you for ignoring the post completely. I was specifically asking if Colorado stayed loyal to the Big XII, how would the PAC-10 (11) and Big XII (11) react. Out of Utah State, Colorado State and Brigham Young, what 2 colleges would be the most likely to move up to a major conference, what conference would it be, or would there be other schools who would be a more likely and better fit for each conference.

Do you have a short tutorial or just a couple screen shots you can post? Once I have some time, I'll post a quick tutorial on how I make my line/stripes and curves.

But how do you make curves? For instance, look at the sleeve stripes on the new Minnesota Vikings uniforms. On stripe has a radius to it, increasing the width. Anyone have any other suggestions? I'd like to get 2-5 suggestions, give them all a try, and figure out which works best for me.

But how do you make curves? For instance, look at the sleeve stripes on the new Minnesota Vikings uniforms. On stripe has a radius to it, increasing the width.

QUESTION I am using an older version of Photoshop, CS3 I believe. What is the best way to draw a clean line (like a stripe on an uniform) that has clean edges? Usually, I use the Pen Tool to make the lines and curves, and then right click, convert to Brush Tool or whatever. Anyone have any tips or tricks?