Balu the Bare

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Balu the Bare

  1. As funny as this is...Is this a 5 year old tweet? How old was he when he wrote this? 13??
  2. I was having this conversation with a few friends today and none of us could think of a time when the league more than 5 legitimate contenders at the same time. We're all in our 30s so maybe we haven't been watching for long enough?
  3. Really liking the light blue/purple scheme, but the blue/white gives it a more classic look. Depends on if you want a unique or a classic look for Ticondez. Liking MLCF's so far as well.
  4. Gonna agree with BuffaloJJ on what looks the best there. Anchor in the wheel is my favorite look, but I wonder how it would look with that fourth color scheme. I like this series so far. Looking forward to the rest!
  5. I assumed the origins of the name, my point was that somewhere down the line the school will get noticed and how long will the name be able to stay once that happens? There's already support (albeit one article that you've showed me) for a name change and links drawn and precedent for changing names found to be controversial. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, just putting that thought out there.
  6. I love the SFU update, but I wonder how long the name "clan" will work for an ncaa program...
  7. I say eliminate all black from that yellow Cleveland set (including the shorts logo) and you have a winner.
  8. My question is, Axis or Allies? This is a cool idea, but it is...very ambitious, I'll say. You have a lot of teams to do here and the quality of the work shows signs of being a little rushed. For example, that's clearly the Under Armour logo on AC East Wood's kit, but your description says they're made by Umbro. You were inspired by @TheGiantsFan, right? Do you notice that their work is usually pretty clean? I would, maybe, concentrate on one team at a time and work more on polishing your work a bit. If I were to make a suggestion, I would say start with Royal Saint City. It's my favorite of the set you have up so far. I think the crest is great and would love to see that look cleaned up a bit more. Good ideas here so far!
  9. Damn. Knew I forgot something about that entry. Edit: just like I forgot my votes. G:15 S:07 B:02 Wonderful submissions everyone!
  10. Gold: 6 Silver: 36 Bronze: 1 Amazing work.
  11. I may be the only one on this, but I say lose the basketball on the sail in the primary. It seems a little forced to me and messes up an otherwise stellar logo set!
  12. You forget the number one rule of internet forums: always be a d_ck to everyone. These are amazing. I'm not a huge fan of the black stripe at the bottom of Estudiantes, but I don't know if that's historical so it's more of a personal preference than a critique of the design. Nice work!
  13. I like getting rid of the black in Miami's set, but I'm not digging the silver at all. Maybe just leave it red and white?
  14. Even more of a reason that the offensive player should not be allowed to move regardless of what the defender is doing. I'd say allow it for tackles when an outside rusher crosses, but interior linemen should have to stay put. Out of position meaning the defender in that position is now scrambling back to the defensive side of the ball and resetting himself before the ball is snapped. Not only is the defender vulnerable, but now he's tipped his hand and the offense should know how to neutralize him.
  15. If he's in the neutral zone when the ball is snapped, isn't that a dead ball penalty?
  16. Guess it's just my bias then. I don't agree that they -need- the leeway to move if the guy just goes into the neutral zone. The D is already out of position, why award a cheap penalty on top of it?
  17. ...unless their name is Bob Whitfield.My understanding is that it's a NZI if the defensive player makes a forward move into the neutral zone and causes the offensive player across from them to false start. (If any other offensive player has a false start, the penalty goes on the offense. For example, if the D-lineman across from the Right Tackle jumps into the neutral zone and the offense's Left Guard makes a move out of his set stance, the LG gets popped for the false start.) Ok good, I'm talking about the right thing then. If our understandings of the rule are correct, the offensive lineman over the jumping defensive lineman should -in theory- know when the ball is going to be snapped and, therefore, when it is ok for him to move. The defender jumping into the neutral zone should have no effect on that.
  18. But they know when the ball is going to be snapped. Edit: My original post comes from my understanding that the defense may get out of the neutral zone without penalty as long as they don't make contact with an offensive player and/or the ball hasn't been snapped by the offense. Is that wrong?
  19. Is it still a rule that the defense crossing into the neutral zone can cause the offense to move before the snap stopping the play and causing a neutral zone infraction on the defense? If so, get rid of that. Offenses have enough advantages.
  20. To play Devil's advocate and get some clarity for myself, what exactly did Joe know about Sandusky? From everything I've read to this point, he knew what McQuery saw and from that could have probably guessed that something about Sandusky was wrong, but not much else. If Joe or the higher ups didn't witness anything themselves, and nothing I've read or seen says that they had, then they can't have -knowingly- enabled a pedophile, right? Without any evidence other than McQuery's it would have just been suspicion and hearsay and you don't cut ties with a guy based on suspicion of no victims come forward. Maybe you watch him a little closer and don't allow him to be alone with kids, but nobody had enough evidence to do anything more than that. Add the fact that all investigations -which were probably little more than asking Sandusky if he did anything wrong- turned up nothing and no arrest was made and...what would you have him, or the school, do? Fire him? Based on what? Ban him from use of school facilities? Based on what? Again, from everything I've seen, these were rumors at the time, not the facts we know today. You know what I don't hear or read about is the parent's reaction or responsibility, the investigators who missed all the signs -or flat out ignored them- when they were apparently plain as day, any other people who were part of Sandusky's program who would have been around him and witnessed his interactions with kids and would have noticed inappropriate behavior...the list goes on of people in a better position to have caught Sandusky or stopped him and didn't, but we don't even know their names. One last thing: someone mentioned that a paid team of investigators found that Joe knew about Sandusky and turned a blind eye...I don't doubt that they did. Just like I don't doubt that the paid investigators who questioned people at the NFL headquarters about the Ray Rice elevator tape found that the NFL never knew what was on it or had ever received it /sarcasm. I don't trust it.
  21. I just saw the video...I don't believe he was in control of his actions for the bolded reason. Those weren't full control steps, that was him stumbling and then lunging to the end zone IMHO. The amount of steps he takes doesn't matter because he's in the process of going to the ground during the catch. Is it a stupid rule? Yes, from the moment they put it in to justify taking a win from Detroit years back. As dumb as it is, it is the rule and the correct call. In any case...Dallas had their chances.
  22. ...and the pretty blatant holding no-call on what would eventually be the game winning touchdown pass? Nobody is saying that Dallas didn't fight their way back from being down 14-0 then 20-7 to get to 20-17 and put themselves in a position to win the game. Nobody is discounting that. What -is- being said is that the picked up PI called changed the game. Instead of a fresh set of downs, it's 4th and 1. No the incredibly shanked punt didn't help matters, but to say that was more detrimental to the Lions is to deny that the PI call had any significance on the way the game was played and ignores the fact that had the call been made DETROIT WOULD NOT HAVE PUNTED IN THAT SITUATION! Add in that an additional 15 yard flag on Dez Bryant would have put the lions around the 15, if I remember right, and you have a completely different situation than 4th and 1 and out of field goal range. Do we know what the outcome of the game would have been if that call had been made? No. Dallas still could have driven down the field and scored or recovered a fumble or got a pick 6 or something, but likely not before Detroit took at least a little more time off the clock. That call changed the game. There is no doubt about that.
  23. I dunno Tank, I've been a Lions fan a looooong time and I don't remember any winless seasons in Miami.