OnWis97

Actually, that's not the case. When I order from NHLShop.com, I don't have to pay tax since there's no NHL Store in Indiana. You only have to pay tax if the retailer has a location in your state, and obviously CHINA JERSEYS 100% LEGIT doesn't have a location anywhere in Indiana. Plenty of crappy stripmall stores sell counterfiets and they probably do comply with the sales tax laws. (also in MN, no tax on clothing anyway)

It's the same thing. Yes gucci has a monopoly on gucci purses...if you don't like spending hundreds on a purse, then buy another purse with no "designer cred" or whatever. They don't have the right, nor do they "need" such a purse any more than I have a right to or need an overpriced Adrian Peterson jersey. There are other purses out there, just like there are other clothes (and team memorabilia) out there. My wife, fortunately, is not into fashion purses. If she was, she'd decide whether it is worth the money or not. These purses make the jerseys seem flat out reasonable by comparison. Nevertheless, it's not anyone's right to have one and if that's the price the market has set...so be it. It's too bad anyone will pay $500 for a purse, but it is what it is. It does not render contributing to the culture of IP theft noble or even OK.

Not being allowed to bring something in has always been a fear, as I show up to most games via public transportation. Like if I am coming from work with an umbrella or something... Anyway, this may be feasible but I think the teams would have to promote the heck out of it so as to not catch people by surprise. They may even have to have a "coat check" system where the fans can get it on the way out, as opposed to confiscating. The bottom line is that people feel they are paying a lot to go to the game and that they paid their hard-earned money for the jersey, which they did not even realize was "fake". I wonder whether one of the reasons they don't try this is that it's hard to not find enough "enforcers" that can actually tell the difference. Another problem the "enforcers" may have is the person that ruins a perfectly legit item with a sloppy customization...they may bust someone with a licensed product. I certainly agree with you here. At the very least, get out via web posters in the pro-shop, etc. that points out 1) the differences and 2) the theft aspect, if only to get a few people to understand. I assume (but I suppose I may be wrong) that most of the people I see wearing the fakes don't really understand that they are fake/illegally-produced either because they don't understand "officially licensed", don't realize just how "off" it looks, or accept that replicas are not going to have perfect detail (which is the case often...e.g., when MLB used to have nice looking replica jerseys with one-color block #s and names for all teams).

I'd guess this will not happen because the teams know the PR would be bad. Look at the response to the recording industry...people think they have the right to pirate music. Look at this board, populated in large part by people that "get it", and most are OK with IP theft. I think the general public would rationalize this the same way it does the music thing. Most people just think it's OK to steal as long as they are not walking out of a store with merchandise under their jackets. I think the leagues/teams understand this and will never take that hard of a line. Plus I don't think it would be good for long-term attendance if they piss fans off by turning them away at the gate. Particularly when most fans don't even realize the "deal" they got was on an illegal jersey. Even those that don't think of the counterfeiting as OK would certainly think that their ignorance of what they bought should not cause them to get turned away at the gate. The amount of money a fan spends at the game is not worth forgoing. I think the best a team can really do is to try to publicize this and hope a decent proportion of the fanbase will "get it". And, if they are so inclined, the Canadiens' "turn in" program.

My unpopular opinion is that "fierce" ruins a football helmet.

DP

I was not trying to say that there are as many for MLB, just pointing out that it is a problem (for those who think it's a problem) there as well.

Every time I go to a Twins game, I see TONS of knock-offs. The wordmarks are huge and the number font is way off...but most fans don't really notice. I am not willing to pay the costs of an over-priced jersey. So I just walk into stores and steal 'em.

I think at that point I'dve hauled ass. I own four Super Bowl rings in total - all bought off of players or front office staff. They're cool, but wearing one in public is equivalent to having a spotlight on you, attracting attention you don't necessarily want. I'd love to own some championship rings. Would be a great thing to collect if I had a lot more money. But I don't think I'd wear one I did not earn.

I don't like the Rays plaid bills.

And THAT, combined with ebay/internet commerce is why the fakes are flourishing. Very few fans notice subtle changes and most would never notice some really inaccurate stuff unless it was pointed out to them, and then would not really get that hung up about it. The Twins jerseys I see have awful numbers and oversized wordmarks, but the owners probably don't know and about 5% of the other fans that see it even realize. And I honestly doubt that the majority of the purchasers even understand that these are not legal/licensed. So I don't see it going away.

C'mon, man. Of course they own their own IP. The issue is giving one company (EA Sports for Madden, Reebok for jerseys, etc.) exclusive licenses. Don't you think Madden would be better and/or cheaper if there was another company allowed to make NFL video games? I know less about video games than anyone. But competitors can still make football video games. Do they have a right to produce the "NFL" video game or just the right to produce a competing "football" video game? And other companies can still make clothing...sports clothing. Albeit that some lame fashion "football" jersey does not compare to a (insert team) jersey, but the NFL does not need to let anyone use their imaging any more than, say, Aeropostale does. So when we use "monopoly" are we implying that it should be illegal? Are we implying that anyone should be able to make NFL-based clothing? Because if not, then it's still just "I deserve a cheap jersey" to me. And if so, then I'd have to disagree.

Hey I have one of those! Cool! Not only is it NOT an act of justifiable defiance, it doesn't even BELONG in the same discussion as the founding of the United States. On one hand you have a group of people who believed their states were being taxed unfairly and so they decided to form a new nation based on the principals of the Enlightenment. On the other hand we have a group of people who making (often) shoddy replicas of sports jerseys to sell at prices below what the official ones sell for. They're profiting off of the copyrights of these leagues and teams and off of the ignorance of the consumer. To even suggest that someone making/selling illegal counterfeits is acting in the same spirit as the American founding fathers is downright insulting to the founding fathers' legacy. Counterfeiting in no way supports a "greater good." They're crooks making illegal copies off of other people's legal copyrights and selling them to consumers who, to be honest, are unaware that they may be buying a fake. These are not selfless icons of morality standing up to the big bad sports leagues and the manufacturers. They're scumbags who profit off of other people's intellectual property and the ignorance of the consumer. We're not talking about the Nuremberg Laws or Jim Crow Laws here pal. The law in this case is a league/team's right to own the exclusive rights over its own intellectual property. Is that law wrong? If not, then there's no debate here. The counterfeiters are both morally and legally in the wrong. This is the cheapest, by far, argument ever thrown around in this debate. Perhaps you missed this life lesson growing up, but two wrongs do not make a right. Someone else's violation of the law does not give you a free pass to break another law. That seems pretty straight forward, but I guess it would slip by someone who has the nerve to compare counterfeiters of NFL jerseys to America's founding fathers. Furthermore distinctions need to be made, and your "everyone violates the law" argument is so paper thin and broad that it really doesn't hold up in this argument when those distinctions are made. For the record, yes I have gotten a few tickets, for a few different traffic offences. You know what I did? I paid them. I broke the law, I was punished accordingly, and I paid my punishment. As in I got caught breaking the law and I paid the proper consequences. What consequences have you (a general you to anyone who's bought, sold, or manufactured a counterfeit jersey) paid for your breaking of the law? Quoted for truth. The monopoly on rights is exactly why the prices are so high. When true competition is allowed prices go down and quality goes up. A monopoly means that the major sports leagues can put as high of a price as they want on the jerseys so long as people still buy them. They take such issue with 'counterfeits' because they really put a stitch in the side of their monopoly. Sure they can say, make similar products with the same colors, people will buy them, but the fact of the matter is authentic jerseys are what the consumer wants. Nobody wants a k-mart shiny t-shirt in place of an authentic jersey. They do not hold a monopoly on team apparel, they hold a monopoly on authentic jerseys, and they're making a killing. I'm going to have to disagree. You're argument is essentially "the *insert league here* has a monopoly over the production and sale of goods that use the *insert league here*'s various intellectual properties." Of course they do. That's just not them. That applies to everyone. Everyone has a "monopoly" over their own intellectual property. That's how copyrights work. Bruce Springsteen's record company has a monopoly on selling Bruce Springsteen CDs. Score one for rationalizing piracy.

This isn't a good discussion point because it's stretched so incredibly thin. I hear it a lot as the last refuge of people who know they are wrong--most commonly, software pirates. "Ok fine, it's wrong for me to download games illegally, but you probably break the speed limit so shut up. I still win nyah nyah" I actually agree with hockey week on this... I mean he's really just saying that almost everyone is a lawbreaker. Do you honestly disagree with that? It's true, but I doubt most people would make these statements for murder, rape, DWI, etc. And no, I am not comparing those terrible crimes to IP infringement in terms of significance, but the line must be somewhere between here and there. If I told everyone that I scored my authentic Denard Span jersey by going into the store and taking it and running out, I bet I'd get clobbered, and deservedly so. IP infringement (by the counterfeiter at least, and the music pirate) takes the opportunity to profit from hard work just as much as shoplifting, so why does one get chastised and the other get rationalize? Must be either 1) "Newness" of availability of filesharing and ebay purchases from abroad...we're used to "don't take something from a store", but this is new and 2) Likelihood of getting caught. This is what I think it is. Turns out most people feel entitled, but know that if they continue to shoplift, they'll get caught. IP is much tougher. I don't download music illegally and when it comes up, people will actually say "why, you won't get caught." It's not about getting caught or not getting caught. It's about right and wrong and not taking what's not mine. I have don't have the right to songs on my i-pod or Vikings jerseys I perceive as overpriced. As for my "holier than though" hypocrisy, all I can come up with is speeding and j-walking. Have I chosen to draw a line there? Yes. I actually believe that it's worse to perpetuate IP theft than it is to cross the middle of the street. I suppose if I caused an accident, I may feel differently and I fully admit that I speed for the same reasons many people participate in counterfeit jerseys...because I won't likely get caught. I also know I could create a pretty good music library by burning my friends' CDs. I don't do it because I view that as steeling. Based on the above, I guess I cannot win. I've chosen to draw a line that is a bit more stringent than the lines some of you draw. I guess they are both fairly arbitrary. But that does not mean I have to say "oh, yeah, it's OK." And it does not mean that I am going to stop believing that the rationalizations are based on a sense of entitlement.

If I may clarify something for both sides, the purchase of the jersey in and of itself is not illegal. But by doing so, you are contributing to an illegal industry. Counterfeiters require customers to continue what they are doing. What you say seems logical, but how does the word "knowingly" apply? For example, if I buy a stolen TV unknowingly, that may or may not be technically illegal, but I doubt I'd be prosecuted. However, if I say "where'd you get this" and the seller said "I burglarized some guy's house", then if I purchase it, it's definately illegal. So if I knowingly purchase a counterfeit, is it illegal? I don't doubt that most people who purchase these things have no idea that they are counterfeit. All of these horrible looking Twins jerseys I see, well, most people don't really notice what's wrong with them. We on this board sort of have the "burden" of "getting it" when it comes to the details of jerseys. I suppose the "good" is not "stolen", so if I knowingly purchase a knock-off I may not be guilty of a crime. But either way, I'd be at least an indirect contributor to an illegal industry. If it's not a crime, I guess it's up to the individual purchaser's moral code.

Here's my $0.02: Since inflation eats away at the buying power of your money every year, why work for it when you can counterfit money? Like you said, there are some glitches and errors on the bills, but so what? Oh yeah, it is illegal....just like ripping off the team and company's intellectual properties. Funny money no laughing matter in recession Here's my two cents. Why purchase a shirt, when I can walk into a store, put it on in the dressing room, put a jacket over it and walk out with it for free? We've been around and around on this topic here, but I remain surprised how many people think that while physically taking property is wrong, intellectual property theft is OK. Above someone said the IP theft is "less criminal" than the over-pricing of the jersey. That is in not true any any real or technical sense. It may upset you more or even be more "immoral" in one's opinion, but the latter is legal and the former is illegal. I have not purchased a jersey in years and likely never will again, as the "official" replicas stink (the quality has plummeted over the years) and the authentics are too expensive. I agree that they are overpriced, but I don't have a right to them. It seems to me that they'd make a ton more money charging a semi-reasonable price, but I am obviously wrong. Regardless, IP protection exists for a reason and while the leagues may "deserve" low sales, they don't "deserve" IP theft. Rationalization is all it is. I see a lot of horrible jerseys at Twins games. The numbers are huge and of the wrong font. I thought they were legal, poor quality replicas, but perhaps they are Chinese counterfeits. If so, then my observation is that Chinese counterfeits have skyrocketed in popularity over the last year or two, based on what I am seeing at Twins games. My other observation is that I, in my uniform geekdom, notice and can barely stand to look at them, but I don't think most people even notice.

Switch Northwestern and Wisconsin and I think it's good. Wisconsin gets Iowa and Minnesota, which it wants. Northwestern gets in-state Illinois. From a "balance of power" standpoint that probably puts extra weight on the "Northish", but Northwestern is just a hair below Wisconsin anyway. I suspect the goal was to go 2 and 2 of the "Big Four" (Mich, OSU, PSU, Neb), then split the next tier (Wisc, Iowa), then split the "bottom two" (Indiana, Minnesota). But things change. Right now, Michigan is not in the big four...Wisconsin and Iowa round out the big five, making the bottom division tougher. But in a few years, who knows. Michigan State may build a Rose Bowl Team. Or Purdue. Minnesota may even build a good program if the Vikings move (they had a great one until the Vikings arrived). Things change and basing it on today's balance (and the assumption the Michigan will be back) is a bit short sighted. By the time Wisconsin opens it's season on Saturday at UNLV (a game I'll be attending), I'll be over it, but I did see one article suggesting that Wisconsin was the only school with a legitimate complaint. I think swapping NU and UW would mean that none do.

As a Wisconsin Fan I am disappointed. Some thoughts * We are separated from our three nearest geographic opponents. * While competitive balance is not too bad, I'd say we're i the slightly tougher division at the top with PSU/OSU, but putting Northwestern/Iowa/Michigan with Nebraska evens it somewhat. * It's totally random. Obviously the straight E/W split would have been unfair to the East, so I cannot really complain that it did not shake that way, but it's such a mess. * Minnesota/Wisconsin is the oldest Bowl Subdivision rivalry. I really hope they protect that game. They should, but unlike Mich/OSU, there is not much money to be made from it and we know that tradition that does not raise the money is meaningless. But I'd guess this is one of the protected rivalries. * Wisconsin is among the best in the nation in terms of fans traveling to road games. I wonder whether the Iowas/Northwesterns did not want us for that reason. I would guess Wisconsin fans will be among the most upset.

Absolutely. And the blue facemasks.

I am with you on this. Great colors without being gaudy (which I feel the yellow caused) and brown and orange look great on the gray road uniform (though perhaps pinstripes would be long gone on that by now). abso-freaking-lutely. I love the yellow home uniform they had up until the year before Gretzky.

^^^^ Winner of the "unpopular opinions" contest.

Forgot one. While I hated most of the NBA jerseys with the graphics, I loved the Sonics Jersey. It was not so much what was on it, but the color scheme. Also, I hated the Barkley-era Suns uniform, which is very popular around here.

My favorite NHL uniform of all time is the Christmas Devils. They took a unique uniform away and went with same ol' same ol', but it's wildly popular. I love the creamsicle Buccaneers. I hate two beloved Wild uniforms: The red with the circle crest (marginalizing the great logo) and the green alt that barely uses red. Most people prefer animal head logos (Jags, Panthers, etc.), but I like full body logos (Jags former sleeve logo, Bubbles the Lion) I loved the old AZ Cardinals Uniform (with animal head...d'oh) While I agree with most of you that monochrome in the NFL sucks, I disagree with all the white on white lovers. I think that's just as bad. Block numbers. I'd prefer block numbers on almost any uniform. The Steelers should have kept 'em, and the original Jags with Block numbers was better. I don't like almost any others...Hate the Brewers, Wild (on the whites), T-Wolves, Wisconsin hoops, etc. Block numbers to me seem "bold" and I'd honestly be OK if every team used 'em.

So if the Big Ten remains at 12 (doubtful, but for the sake of argument...) Does Nebraska provide the juice in the west to go with East and West? EAST: PSU OSU MICH MSU IN PUR WEST: WISC MINN IOWA ILL NW NEB The balance is still definitely in the East. But it beats a lame North/South split or a random split.

If I am not mistaken, that's the same script as the Brewers used on the road in the Ball-in-Glove days. I'm surprised that the Bucks were considering using that. Though it would have been a nice jersey.