OnWis97

I am totally with the absence of black. KC looks perfect from the neck-down and the fact that they don't have any yellow on the helmet is too bad (even if I understand why they use black and no yellow). The logo is really sharp and well-rendered. But I feel like a yellow "KC" would be better on the helmet with the wolf playing the same role the Vikings primary plays. (Admittedly, that's just my preference away from detailed/fierce logos on helmets)

I agree that they did not need to. But for reasons I cannot articulate, I think the North Stars addition wasn't nearly as bad as the Flames, Mets, and Lions (KC Royals, Eagles, and probably several others, too).* I think their late-1980s black trim worked nicely. I've been back and forth on whether I prefer their early 1980s (no black) green vs. the added black. That said, I think the non-black white jerseys (which were just before my time) are far superior to the black they added in the early 1980s. My earliest memories include black at home (white) and no black on the road, which I didn't understand at all. If I could eliminate one common philosophy of sports uniforms, it would be that yellow cannot touch white. I think the Flames and Chiefs look absolutely fantastic and the Flames were ruined by black. I think they used it more prominently than the North Stars, but even thin outlines would have ruined it for me. Their 1980s look is top-5 all-time for me and the moment they added black, they went to the middle of the pack. *I'm also not able to articulate why I absolutely think the Jets addition of black trim was absolutely the right move.

That's funny. I just replied that I think that opinion's in a fairly small minority, even though I agree with it. From the name vs location perspective, I agree that both "work." I just happen to love the christmas colors and happen to think red and black is overused.

The 1980s "Christmas" Devils is my favorite NHL look of all time. That said, I think your (our) opinion is extremely unpopular. When I first got on these boards, I figured a lot of people would agree with me...red/black is pretty overdone and the red/green look was unique. Turns out that 1) like pineapple on pizza, the red/green is polarizing and mostly not liked and 2) red/black is preferred to red/green because it's more "devilish."

3. I absolutely think ties in MLB are a non-starter. I know I am in the minority (to say the least). 5. That's an interesting point. I love a 2.5-hour nine-inning pitchers' dual that ends 1-0 or 2-1. And there definitely has to be a balance between attracting casual fans and keeping the game to mostly what it ought to be. I definitely don't want to see games be 15-9 just because some people might like high-scoring games. I kinda think pace-of-play and balls-in-play will take care of it.

As a traditionalist, I don't like the runner on second. That said, there absolutely need to be measures taken to reduce the length of games. If the ghost runner reduces the length of extra-inning games, than I can accept it. What I would rather to to prevent regular-season games from going super long is have them end in a tie after, say, 12 innings. American fans tend to be very averse to ties, though, so that's probably a non-starter. A cap on possible innings would be great for managing pitching staffs and the bench and would prevent the most ridiculous of the ridiculously late games. Maybe the popularity of soccer will reduce our aversion to ties. That all said, I think that the primary problem with game length occurs in innings 1-9. The real challenge is how to speed that up...pace-of-play to 1) keep fans interested and 2) make a 3.5-hour nine-inning game a rarity. As a traditionalist, I accept that something has to give, even if I don't know what it is. Hopefully that can include finding a way to have more balls in play. Right now they all go over a wall, fair our foul. Pitching to contact, stealing bases, hit-and-run, small ball...these were always bad strategies. But the game sure was fun...

Was that caused by the receiver running about 15 yards through the team's bench area?

Not the first time I have heard that. I saw it in college and pro this year (including my school being forced to call a timeout once). I am not exactly sure of how the rule is written/enforced, but I'll say this. Getting a 12-man-on-the-field call is an Aaron Rodgers strategy and it's lame, so I like the idea of trying to prevent that.

That's the kinda call that in the second quarter of a week 3 game, people will think could go either way. The difference here, aside from the obvious spotlight, is that for 58 minutes that call had not been made. That's the reason the call bothers me. If the game had been called tightly all game, then I could live with that. But they'd been keeping their flags in their pockets, leading this to be a very ticky-tack call by comparison. It's an inconsistency and that's why I don't like it. I hold the unpopular opinion that refs can decide games late by letting penalties go just as much as they can by calling them. That said, this was closer to the latter, regardless of the letter of the law, simply because I don't think it's called in the first 55 minutes of the game. I've been as willing as anyone to suggest that the NFL has a huge problem with favoritism of certain players and teams. In this case, I'm not quite ready to make that leap because I didn't feel like I was seeing a one-sided game the entire time. The games that really upset me are games like the Steelers vs. Seattle and Arizona where every call seemingly went to one team. In this case the question is did they really make this call to help KC or did the official who made the call kinda choke? They're human, too and maybe he saw the contact and didn't want to be the guy who let a penalty go at the end of the game. Again, I wish the call had not been made but conspiracies only enter my mind because of past history...this game, in a vacuum, didn't feel like one team was getting preferential treatment.

The league should be embarrassed by this turf.

The 49ers have always frustrated me with their jerseys. The either have to be red and white only or if they include gold it has to be with black, drop-shadows, and logos on the sleeves. I think the red jersey with gold-outlined numbers and gold incorporated in the sleeves would look fantastic.

This is roughly how I feel and why I would rate Jordan #1. I'm the opposite; I've seen Jordan in person (once from some really good seats) and not James. And some of those things like threading needles while blindfolded on passes were definitely not Jordan's thing. But he was so determined and it was like every game was made up of about 50 one-on-one games and he had to win every single one. That and the ability to turn on a dime in mid-air and make the ball find the hole. Anyway, I agree that LeBron was more gifted and could do more things but that MJ was the bigger "winner." That doesn't make LeBron a "loser." It just means that there's this semi-tangible thing that puts MJ over the top because to actually choose one, we have to split hairs. Honestly, it all probably points to LeBron being a happier person because he's probably more like the rest of us while MJ can't handle loosing a basketball game or a game of pick-up sticks. Does Jordan win in 2007? Maybe not. But he does win in 2011.

And really bizarre. Veteran team with championships should be able to approach .500 on the road.

Observations as a T-Wolves fan. Meh on Conley but D-Lo wasn't doing a lot anyway. The West gets stronger. That tends to happen when the Wolves have the opportunity to ascend to their ceiling (i.e., being a middling playoff team). Thank you, Nets, for becoming the butt of the NBA jokes for a while.

I do find this funny. Yeah, they got away with more hockey-like things, but I really don't think it would have been too hard on LeBron. He looks more like Karl Malone than he does Jordan.

Jordan definitely gets more passes than LeBron for misteps on and off the court. Having grown up with Jordan as the most popular athlete in the country (world?), there was a mystique that could simply not be matched under any imaginable circumstance. Is LeBron arrogant? Maybe, but not nearly as arrogant as Jordan was. Jordan kinda gets a pass but there are also some differences in their arrogance. I remember a Jordan interview when he said "If I have you one-on-one, you're at my mercy." He used his arrogance to actually make himself better, like with the stories of how he'd always make it a point to take some over-hyped player down a peg. He was also an ass to some of his teammates....That's not LeBron's personality. LeBron just bought into his own hype at times, which was in a different world when he was 18 vs. when Jordan (or even Kobe) was. I found most of it to be forgivable and an excuse for people to hate a guy they already wanted to hate (in no small part because of hype generated by media). I think the hate is a little odd. I think Jordan can be your favorite player and you can still appreciate LeBron. And given how famous he was at such a young age, I think he handled it pretty well, even if you want to ding him on some purity tests.

And when you're talking about all-time greats, these really are the hairs that you have to split. If I need someone to help get homecourt, Jordan, Kobe, Duncan, Lebron, etc. are all valuable. But when it's really on the line. It's Jordan, then Kobe, then Lebron (with Kobe closer to Jordan). Lebron had the physical size and skill combo that might be unmatched. I don't care about ring counts because circumstances matter. I don't care that he had to move around because there was no Shaq going to Cleveland for the endorsements. But in the clutch...there's just a little bit of doubt with LeBron that I never had with Jordan or Kobe.

I think a lot of the LeBron hate is fueled by two things: Jordan fandom and Kobe fandom. Then the decision multiplied it. I think Lebron is #3 among Jordan/Kobe/LeBron but hard-core fans of the other two still seem threatened by him.

I'm sure I'm in the minority but I love that Toronto jersey...I prefer that leaf and I like the double outline. I don' think the name-on-back font fits, but I otherwise really like it.,

The NFL absolutely deserves the questions it is getting about its legitimacy. Are they WWE? No. If for some reason they wanted the Texans to win the Super Bowl this year they could not have made it happen. But that doesn’t mean they don’t hedge their bets towards preferred outcomes. It seems counterintuitive, given how people will watch football, regardless of who plays. But it certainly feels like they have teams they are trying to push through. It felt like the Packers late in the season and yesterday both winning teams sure seem to be on the good side of all the controversial calls. Philadelphia didn’t even need it. Bad calls happen. But when the whole game is one-sided, I am tired of hearing about how you should not let the officials beat you . You could make the argument on the questionable personal foul if the rest of the game was fair but it’s a hard argument to make with the whole game went against one team. I would rather have a game like the Fail Mary game (terribly officiated, but at least terrible both ways) than a competently officiated game that is one sided. I don’t know if it was about Mahomes’s legacy, Andy Reid, or the Kelsey brothers, but really seems like the thumb was on the scale for Kansas City. And Philly.

I kinda wish they would’ve let that one go.

Yeah; it's not as bad as it used to be. I'm a bit outdated now but in the metrodome era, the Vikings would always be the "home" team overseas and I recall thinking that it was BS to have to eat two preseason games and then go to 7 regular season games. So now, every-other year, it's a much better deal...I kinda forgot that there are not four preseason games anymore. That said, I still don't like the idea of not having a reward for the #1 seed (well, their choice of uniforms) and not having season-ticket-holders get to go without traveling. I know you are a season ticket holder so your reaction matters more than mine (seriously, in case that seems sarcastic). So while my argument turns out to be outdated, I still think moving that game to a neutral site would stink.

As someone pointed out earlier, at least some athletes in barbaric sports get paid fairly well. This gets about as much viewership as reruns of Mama's Family on Antenna TV. They're probably doing this in the hope it turns into something like a reality TV gig or a shot to fight in UFC. Imagine being the guy who laid that first dude out and running around in celebration. I just probably ruined a guy's quality of life permanently and won...well nothing!

If that happens, it's at least going to have to wait until Aaron Rodgers retires. And even then, the idea of an NFC Championship game not being able to be held at LAMBEAU FIELD! might be beyond the pale. All that aside, it's stupid. I would never be an NFL season ticket holder. They stick you with preseason games and take the occasional regular season home game overseas.* If they took away the opportunity to have this enormous game at home, I'd give up my (non-existent) tickets. *Maybe not as big of a problem if the extra home game is moved, but the idea of going to 7 games on top of two junk games always pissed me off. On the other hand, the NFL has such a captive audience, such money-making schemes are viable.

That play looked hilarious and it went so badly that we never even found out what it was supposed to do. That said, the chance of scoring there is so miniscule that this is not the focus of anything. It's the terrible play, particularly by Prescott, throughout the game that matters. Similarly, lots of Vikings whining about Kirk's checkdown at the end of their loss. It wasn't ideal but it took a 0.001% chance of victory away. The defense that let the Giants look like the Greatest Show on Turf was the problem.