Sec19Row53

40 minutes ago, Burmy said:

I think it's time to replace Arrowhead...but not until a plan is in place.

Yes, the Chiefs need a  new stadium, and that stadium needs to have a convertible roof (like they were trying to add to Arrowhead a while back and had been granted a conditional Super Bowl upon that condition).  KCMO sounds like just the kind of place that would make a good host for the Super Bowl, Final Four, Wrestlemania and other such events of that nature.

 

Which kind of roof and where it would go (on the old Kaufmann site or elsewhere) would be decided later...but a franchise of the Chiefs' caliber can't go on playing in that same stadium they've had (with very minimal changes) for 52 years.

Why? What's wrong with the stadium? Parking is fantastic, as is the tailgating situation. The view of the game is great. Why must it be replaced?

1 hour ago, GDAWG said:

 

Of course it's possible, but it seems unlikely.  They will remain the Kansas City Chiefs.  Now whether or not they continue to play in Arrowhead or move across the border to Kansas or be in the suburbs is another story.  

So he didn't say 'they could legit move' right?

ETA -  Here's the wording in the post:
 

The polling is close. The Chiefs have made their position clear. And they’ve made it obvious that, if they don’t get what they want, they could leave Kansas City.

Some Chiefs fans shrug at that prospect, assuming the team will simply find another venue in the area. Will they? Or will they uproot the team and move it to another state, the same way the Dallas Texans were uprooted in the 1960s to become the Kansas City Chiefs?

There’s always another municipality that is willing to do what a team’s current hometown might not. The Colts found that out 40 years ago, when Indianapolis gave them what Baltimore wouldn’t. The Browns found that out 29 years ago, when Baltimore gave them what Cleveland wouldn’t. Most recently, the Raiders found that out, when Las Vegas gave them what Oakland wouldn’t.

It’s unfortunate, but it’s a reality of stadium politics. If a team’s current city won’t pay up, some other city will. Or if an owner is required to pay for his or her own stadium, maybe that stadium will be purchased in some other place.

If Kansas City won’t give the Chiefs what they want, will they move to a place that will? The first step is to see whether the voters will give them what they want.

7 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

 

Mike Florio, the NFL Media's top conspiracy theorist thinks that if the vote fails, the Chiefs could legit move out of KC and doubts that they would be able to get a stadium in Kansas.  

I don't read his columns that way. He points out that it's possible, not that they could legit do it.

11 minutes ago, Big Yellow Flag said:

You got me excited enough to go look, and I would have been very impressed by their commitment to the bit. Maybe if they make it real for a weekend or something. 

https://fb.watch/rbXyNDnCb7/

It's real!

2 minutes ago, GFB said:

 

Yeah, looks to be only a placeholder/fashion jersey, as the Packers also have the black swooshes

That's fugly.

45 minutes ago, burgundy said:

 

 

 

Royal blue and navy are historical colors for the chargers. Ever since Color Rush, historical colors aren't contained to just throwbacks.

 

The exact shade of the light blue isn't the issue for the Texans, it's that the color would not be present on the home and away, and is not part of franchise history. But also, the Oilers Titans can't claim exclusive rights to a single shade of blue, no matter how much they want to. They can own the name that they call it, but the Texans could use the same shade and just call it something else.

Like Wolf gray and Patriot gray.

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=742779974666738&set=a.601602705451133

Introducing the Lake Country Flying Monkeys. Yes, it's an April Fool's joke.

Backstory - The Wizard of Oz had its movie theater debut in Oconomowoc. This would be a great one-off for a weekend.

5 minutes ago, ManillaToad said:

 

Bonds taking a steaming dump on two of the most important records in sports is a bigger crime against baseball history than Cooperstown not bestowing their highest honor on a guy who bet on his teams to lose.

 

The Hall of Fame is more than plaques of inductees. The museum has plenty of stuff from Bonds and Rose. They just don't get to have a bust in there.

 

Also the idea that the BBWAA is a bunch of elderly guys sitting around a fireplace conspiring on who to keep out is laughable. The last balloting had 385 voters. Old, middle aged, and young, and they didn't put Barry in because he's a cheater.

Be careful. You're injecting logic into message board arguments.

On 3/29/2024 at 5:50 PM, PTrudellJr said:

Not unless there's some sort of backroom deal with the NFL to showcase the rule this season, they're going with the USFL's kickoff routine from last season.

 

I admit it would draw more eyes to the UFL as fans would look to see what the new rule looks like in live action before the NFL season...

I disagree that it would increase viewers. NFL fans like to watch the NFL.

2 hours ago, DCarp1231 said:

Can we euthanize AI artists? Especially when they make :censored:ty “design” decisions like this

 

Yes, along with euthanizing concepts outside the concept forum. 

4 minutes ago, Sport said:

Opening Day is a top 5 day in the baseball season. The day after opening day is easily the worst. 

Unless you were rained out yesterday, making then now. [insert Space Balls gif]

22 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

And BBTV said his case for not letting Trout in better than I ever could. Why don’t you argue with him?

Because sometimes it's easier to pick out a short, concise statement in a post that makes me think WTF. "He will make the hall of fame on stats alone". Yep. This history of the game need not be changed by someone in order to be considered a hall of Famer.

6 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Banks played the vast majority of his career in the pre-playoff expansion era. Mike Trout has only played in the wild card, two wild card, and three wild card eras. It’s an entirely different consideration.

Entirely different era, but still entirely based on stats.

31 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

Kinda like another irrelevant superstar who played his entire career with the Cubs and never experienced a "moment that truly mattered." His name was Ernie Banks. Maybe you've heard of him.

 

Players get inducted into the HOF for individual achievement. Last I checked, there isn't relevancy requirement.

I had Billy Williams in mind, but 'Let's Play Two' was a better answer.

7 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

I fully agree with this - he is the ultimate “irrelevant superstar.” His loyalty to Moreno has condemned him to never experiencing a moment that truly mattered. Hell, he only played in one playoff series and underperformed in it.

 

He will make the hall of fame on stats alone, but his career will be akin to Chris Paul if he stayed on the Hornets – irrelevant.

As opposed to his philanthropic endeavors??

12 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

That's what I thought. It's also why I said "take this with a grain of salt." Maybe I should have used a bigger font and put it in bold.

Yeah- I was more questioning him than you, but I thought maybe someone had heard something that could address it.

2 hours ago, DCarp1231 said:

Here’s to hoping for blue

But it's last year's alternate that is theoretically being modified with a new mask. That helmet was blue with the old logo on it, not this helmet.

1 hour ago, infrared41 said:

 

 

Take this with a grain of salt...

 

Why would they need special dispensation to wear an orange facemask??

1 hour ago, Silver_Star said:

 

OH :censored:! Just leave the Ravens and Packers alone. I know damn well the ones I bold will have lack luster alternate helmets.

 

Imagine, Jaguars go with teal helmets which to me will look horrendous in many aspects if they use the chrome type of shell that the Giants and Rams defaults are as well as the red alt helmet of the Texans. But if they use flat, then that if fine with me. But that is not the case.

Vikings only need their 1969-1995 throwbacks or their 1961-1967 throwbacks, not some hideous alt that is probably going to be white in this case the stupidest looking idea they could come up with.

Packers should go back to the navy blue and athletic gold throwback but with grey facemask. Their 1940 throwback is in my opinion the better ones ever. My opinion may be unpopular with the Packers throwbacks, but I prefer the 1940 ones better.

 

I am afraid of what they have in plan for the Giants. This scares me a lot!

I don't think  the Packers can change their alternate uniform yet, so I'm betting it will be a literal gold helmet with a single green stripe.

15 hours ago, bowld said:

2024 Helmet updates-

 

New Primary Helmet

* Browns (likely white facemask)

* Jets

* Broncos

* Lions

* Texans (image leaked of new uniforms showed a metallic/sparkle blue helmet rather than the flat blue they used to use)

 

 

New Alternate Helmet

* Jaguars

* Ravens

* Vikings

* Giants

* Packers

* Jets

* Lions

* Texans

* Broncos

 

Let the guessing games begin!! 

The Lions article just posted seems to say that last year's alt helmet will still be used with their new alt uniform.

17 hours ago, Pigskin12 said:

The multiple pants options part at least means it won't be an Arizona Cardinals full-time mono situation. Let's just hope pants options refers to pants with stripes...

 

And yeah, players' opinions mean nothing. No player is gonna say their team's new uniforms suck. And most of the time they like them anyway because they're ICCCYYYY

No it doesn't. The Arizona Cardinals also have multiple pants options. White pants to wear with the white jersey; red pants to wear with the red jersey; and black pants to wear with the black jersey.

31 minutes ago, LMU said:

Ohtani statement was exactly what I’ve been saying. Ippei hacked his bank account and lied to Shohei’s reps while in Korea, Shohei didn’t personally pay off anyone and doesn’t gamble.  Let’s move on.

Has there ever been a criminal who held a press conference to declare his guilt?

I'm not saying he's guilty, but this doesn't prove anything.

.

21 minutes ago, BBTV said:

They're called "TV numbers", not "Section 53 numbers".  They help when watching the broadcast (before all the different camera angles and HD) and they helped identify players in still photographs like in newspapers, SI, etc.  But now that most media is moving videos or gifs, they're just to that important.  

 

If anything, putting numbers on the helmet bumpers would solve a lot of "problems" that may or may not actually exist.

 

Or F it - we have the technology to have a hologram of the number floating above the player's head so you can easily tell who's running down he field, or which fat F on the line just got pancaked.

Sorry (not sorry) I've upset the Vet.

Let me try to spell this out -- I use TV numbers when I watch football. Any time (almost) that someone claims that nobody uses them, or that nobody sees them in the stands, I'll point out that they are, in fact, used and seen.

Are they "just to that important" [sic]? Maybe. Your facetious remark about the hologram reminds me of John Madden earnestly reminding everyone that the players can't see that first down line when it debuted. You know that, and you know that we wouldn't see it in the stands.

38 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

Maybe all that exposure to the Packers has just made you blind.

Well played

15 minutes ago, MNtwins3 said:

The broadcast booth is watching the game on a screen simultaneously. They do not need TV numbers

 

And as a college football fan, I have never had trouble identifying players from the stands without TV numbers

They're watching the game, often with binoculars. Their spotter is certainly watching it that way, and it's his job to provide the number of the tackler, among other things. Whether or not the feed is in real time is also subject to the various setups.

From up in Row 53, I frequently use the tv numbers. To each his own.

2 minutes ago, HOOVER said:

1.  Much less space on modern football jerseys.

 

2.  We’re all watching on 65” HDTVs.

Not from the stands we aren't, nor from the broadcast booth.