OnWis97

They can have a bigger logo next year.

Regarding re-seeding, it's a pretty quick turnaround from wild-card to LDS. My guess is re-seeding is off the table because suppose Texas swept Tampa Bay but the Twins and Toronto had gone to a 3rd game. Then Texas has to wait for the result of that game before they know where to go. Add the possibility of rain and it's probably not worth it logistically. I suppose you could argue that the Orioles have earned the right to play the lower seed and tough crap to the wild card team that has to wait on its travel plans but I don't think that's a great approach (add to that that the Twins actually have the worst record of the bunch and then we'll start splitting hairs on how they seed and argue whether the O's have the right to face them or if their division championship gives them the right to skip the O's and we'll soon see that we may as well pick seeding out of a hat).

Houston’s ad patch is huge and obnoxious.

MLB missed its chance to contract. Now too many teams have publicly funded 9-figure ballparks. They could have contracted four out of the Marlins, Expos, Twins, A's, and Rays in 2001...but I think it was the lease on the Rays ballpark that messed with that, in part. I'm not sure what the right move was...These teams had various histories and fanbases. Even for a small fanbase, killing off a team was probably a questionable PR move. Given the union's likely response, it was probably a bargaining chip and empty threat the entire time, anyway.

Yesterday, Royce Lewis homered in his first two postseason at bats, joining only Evan Longoria (who also played last night) and Gary Gaetti (also of the Twins).

That's the only way to make Army/Navy work if there's insistence on it being after the season is over. I think it's a relatively recent thing to have that game so late. I guess if the conference wants a championship game, the Army / Navy game would have to move up two weeks. That's what I'd prefer to see, but I assume Army / Navy gets its own week because, despite the fact that we're supposed to care about and watch it, it's not going to do well up against other games. Scheduling this game after the season has always bugged me. Imagine if, say, Navy was undefeated and there was clamoring for including them in the playoff (not even that far-fetched when the playoff expands). Then they get put in and lose to a 3-8 Army team.

Anecdotally, a friend of mine is a Cubs fan because in the 1980s their games were so frequently day games that he'd watch with some frequency while babysitting his siblings in the summer. Twins games were not on during the day as much and between late starts on the west coast and even home games ending past bed time, he just attached himself to the Cubs. I'm sure he's not unique nationwide. On cable (which my parents would not get) in Minnesota (and I think much of the Country) TBS was also showing Braves games. And while they became beloved in the early 1990s, TBS didn't do much for them in the 1980s. Sure, part of it was because they kind of stunk, but they also didn't have as many day games as the Cubs (who stunk at times but won a couple of division titles in the 1980s). Given what happened starting in 1991, it's weird to think that in the 1980s the Braves were one of the least notable franchises in MLB (Maybe I would not see it that way if I was old enough to remember 715). To what degree that helped bring the Sox to "un-favored sibling" I am not sure. I think Wrigley Field was always going to make that happen. If MLB didn't exist and a new 30-team baseball league was going to be developed, I don't think anyone outside of New York and maybe LA/burbs would get multiple teams. The Cubs and Sox situation is kind of lingering from the the AL and NL were competing leagues. I hope it works out on the Southside, though. It would be nice for a city/region that size to have an MLB option with attainable tickets. (based on my 2007 experience, the Bay Area seems to be losing that...)

Rome If You Want Tos

The conference just keeps on giving you more work to do on this thread I like what you've done to Wisconsin with the removal of the drop-shadow. I'm not a fan of the red duct tape W look...but I guess that's just my personal taste. Something from the 1980s (basic W) or 1970s (W in an oval) would make this nearly perfect.

I have to think something like that is going to happen. Football is unique in playing once a week and almost entirely on Saturdays. This makes no financial (which is what matters) sense for sports that play more often and any time of the week; particularly the majority of sports, which are non-revenue. I have to think it's at least a bit more expensive for Washington to travel to Maryland than to Oregon. I don't really know the scheduling formulas for non-revenue sports, but I would not be surprised if the focus for some schools becomes non-conference matchups. For example, is there any way that Washington could only play 10 conference tennis matches even though Ohio State plays 20? I know that messes with the integrity of the conference race, but there probably aren't many people that'll care. I'm really curious to see how this works out for basketball. I'm guessing mid-week games will focus on shorter travel (e.g., Oregon to Washington, USC, UCLA) but even then, they'll have to make some trips into the central time zone. But I'd bet those four teams have home-and-home every year, whereas they might play Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, etc. about once a year and have rare games vs. Rutgers, Penn State, and Maryland. Outside of football, it might almost become an unofficial three unbalanced divisions. This makes me think the Big Ten should have grabbed Cal and Stanford; they'd secure the Bay Area and get something resembling balance with rough divisions of 7, 7, and 6. What a mess. Example # 4,692 of how none of this is about the student athletes.

And (insert Big Ten team on a long Rose Bowl drought) will be able to finally play there.

And given the size of the conference, it still could be a long time before that particular quintessential Big Ten matchup occurs.

I feel like I've heard sliding pits in the fairly recent past, but never cutouts. When they were still prevalent in the 1980s, I don't think I ever heard any term for them. I think people would just say something clunky like "only has dirt around the bases" or "doesn't have dirt all the way around the infield."

That was the name of the area around the pitching rubber on days that Roger Clemens pitched.

I was trying to think of any baseball-only stadiums with artificial turf and there were surprisingly few. What you say about the football/baseball conversions makes sense but I had always thought that the distinction between pits and full infield was based more on grass vs. turf until the Rays went full infield at that RIP. Royals Stadium had artificial turf for much of the 1970s/1980s (see photos here) and it had sliding pits. I can't think of any grass fields with sliding pits...dirt infields on grass fields were used at times by the Raiders, Broncos, Dolphins, and maybe others (probably the Chargers, but I don't specifically recall).

Even as I was typing it, I was thinking about the decline in visual appeal of UCLA stripes in modern jersey cuts. The Colts jerseys are inferior to 20 years ago for that reason. So I might be clinging to something that cannot happen. Perhaps a white counterpart to this purple jersey is the way to go. In any case, I'd take it over the current look, if offered.

I disagree and I'm the gray-facemask-hattingest gray-facemask-hater who ever gray-facemask hated.

Jersey: Absolute perfection. Pants: The right move. Socks: Whatever. Thumbs up. Older-style logo: The right move for a throwback* Gray facemask: Also the right move for a throwback** Overall grade: A. *Unpopular opinion (I suspect) but I like the updated horn better because it visualizes the horns going up better. And if it were up to me, they'd keep this jersey permanently but with updated helmet logo. **Polarizing opinion but I don't like gray facemasks and I while it's the right move for a one-game throwback, I want them to have purple facemasks for standard uniforms. That all said, I had no idea this was coming. What I great surprise.

I'm embarrassed to say how long it took me to figure out what this typo was. Now that I have, I don't really get that into socks (comparted to others here), but I think I prefer this without the striped socks.

Love that Vikings jersey. Perfect color balance. I want that to become the full-time uniform with a UCLA-striped white jersey for the road (with purple pants. I said what I said).

Fantasy uniform predictions? What does this even mean?

.

I guess I didn't know that specifically about Goodell. I guess everyone has some redeeming quality... To that point, I've always wondered about weighing sharing of the brand vs. the income that said sharing generates. I recall when the NBA first really started to consider it, reading that it would generate $100 million. Now, that's a lot of money. But it's also like $3 million per team. Maybe that number has grown since the "program" started. But in a league that has seen Allen Crabbe earn eight figures, is this really a difference-making amount? Is it really worth watering down the brand for? I guess the answer is yes...and I suppose it make sense. I doubt they lose much, if any revenue. How many fans spend less money on games and gear because of it? Probably almost none...the only direct impact is authentic jerseys. All that said, it's kinda sad that teams will take semi-significant amounts of money to water down the brand like this. And while all of the jerseys are cheapened by the ads, it's really jarring on the most famous jersey in sports history. The patch isn't as big as San Diego's patch or as jarringly tacky as Atlanta's. But it's the poster child for taking a big old crap on a sport so rooted in history and, to some degree, aesthetics. It really cheapens their look and if they win the World Series on a walkoff or something, seeing Starr Insurance will forever have a part in that moment, which is far more depressing than the Cavs winning it all in the worst jersey they had (by a mile).

I thought they'd be the last to cave. Though in fairness, I'm surprised how many teams have yet to do so. I figured the other 29 teams would all have done this by now.

Not that I would not play…I’d just do everything I could to not be in the promotional photos.