slightly shotgunned

I didn't have a Saturn though, so I couldn't get into the 2k series as much then.

You mean Dreamcast, and by 2K2 PS2 and Xbox were making the 2K games for their systems too.

Yes I do haha. Thanks for that.

Wasn't 99 on the ps2? I don't remember back that far, just remember that I bought two Maddens for the ps2 and played the second one for about a day before I took it back and had to settle for store credit.

Edit: Just looked it up and no, it wasn't. Either way I didn't end up buying another football game until 2k5. Pretty sure I'd played 2k2 and 2k3 before then, but I'm not 100%.

Now I'll tell you why it makes sense for the NFL to give one manufacture the licence for team merchandise. Remember when we had multiple companies making NFL jerseys? Now each company had its own list of NFL teams that it made on-field jerseys for, but each company could make replicas of teams that they didn't have the licence to. Nike, for example, could make and sell replicas of a team they didn't work with. What we got was a market flooded by official replicas from three or four different companies, and they all varied in design, even among the same teams. A Reebok Broncos replica would look different from one made by Puma, and the one made by Nike would look different from both of them. This runs the risk of diluting the visual identities of the league's teams. By choosing one manufacturer to hold the licence for all teams the NFL sidesteps this problem.

An interesting alternative to this, however, is if we consider the NFL a collection of 32 independent pro football organizations that just band together under one banner for the purposes of forming a competitive circuit. If we take this approach, which I feel does holds a level of legitimacy, then it can be argued that the league has no right to force teams under one licence. If that's the case, and we return to multiple manufacturers, then I would want to see tighter control over what we saw in the past. That is to say that manufacturers cannot make merchandise for teams that they're not associated with. That way everyone wins, I think. A level of competition is reintroduced to the official NFL licence on team merchandise while the problems brought on by multiple versions of the same jersey in the marketplace are avoided.

This is business, and the NFL can do what it wants. They choose Reebok so we wouldn't have to deal with the gimmicky travesty that is the Pro Combat series or the guady, over-piped Under Armour brand and I support that decision ..That being said. I don't think having multiple manufacturers was ever an issue. Yes, the jerseys looked a bit different from brand to brand, but consumers knew what brand each team wore. What it did was allow consumer x, who didn't have the money consumer y had to spend on a jersey, a cheaper replica jersey because it wasn't an "authentic" replica. The Nike, Reebok jerseys were usually on the higher end, the Puma, Champion jerseys on the lower. The NFL had to be getting a check from all of them so I don't see the issue that would warrant the need to switch to one company. I agree that Reebok and EA don't have monopolies, but you have to admit that the quality of the products they produced then and continue to produce now weren't that much above and beyond anything that Nike and 2K were coming out with then and now (though not so much with 2K. APF, as much as I love it, was too all over the place to be considered a serious contender).

It's business. Reebok and EA paid the most for the NFL. End of story.

As for the video games? What can I say? I've always been an EA Sports/Madden fan, even before they got the licence. To me they always produced the best football game around so it made sense to me that the NFL would choose them when they wanted to only have one official NFL game series. Unlike the jersey position I see no reason why the NFL felt it only needed on video game franchise, but at the end of the day it's there licence, and they can do what they want with it. EA doesn't have a monopoly, they have the exclusive rights to one video game series. Not the same thing.

Really, I don't see much lost there. Did anyone play Backbreaker (the new football game)? What a letdown.

The argument that Madden always produced the best football game around is a matter of personal preference. To me, I was done with Madden right around the second title for the ps2 when I realized that I had payed about $50 for a roster update. I didn't have a Saturn though, so I couldn't get into the 2k series as much then. I'll give you that the 989 and...I think there was one more, but they were just plain sad. Still, the 2K/Madden competition was GREAT for both titles since they each had to outdo each other year after year. Now, Madden trots out failed gimmick after failed gimmick knowing that consumers will eat it up because gamers are elitists jerks and anything that doesn't have an NFL license is destined to be crap. Backbreaker is a let down only if you took it to be a Madden rival. If you took it for what it was, a veiled attempt to showcase their physics engine, it was actually pretty boring. Seriously, the game was awful. Logo creater was pretty cool though.

How much better would it have been, though, if it was acutally trying to compete with Madden on the national market? If they weren't able to make a game loosely related to football and toss it on the shelves knowing that people who are sick of playing Madden year after year (there are a lot more than you think...) are going to at least give it a shot. If 2K didn't have to rely on the name recognition of Hall-of-Fame players that the younger crowds playing Madden had never heard of before? It's a lovely what if world...

An outstanding point. Nothing like shelling out big bucks for a jersey only to wear it one season before that player slides out the revolving door that is the NFL in free agency.

I'll have to disagree here. In hockey and baseball you can just buy the jerseys blank. No problem. In basketball and football, well that's the risk you run. You know full well that the player who's jersey your buying may not play for the team next season. Yet you choose to take the risk when you buy the jersey. Furthermore this problem can be sidestepped. Buy a jersey of a player who stands a high chance of staying around for a while. Buy a jersey of a high profile player from a recent championship run so that even if they leave your jersey still has meaning as a fan. Or buy a throwback/vintage jersey that often feature great players from the team's past. No problem there. As a Saints fan you're probably safe with a Drew Brees jersey, for example.

The whole "well the player may not be around much longer" problem is easily sidestepped.

That has to do more with the style of the jerseys than a consumer choice. Sure you could buy a Colts style jersey, but it'd be pretty plain and not worth the $80 it'd probably cost you.

I'm noticing that some jersey buying is to support certain players, not the team as a whole. That's why you see Kobe and LeBron jerseys nationwide not just in LA and Cle...Miami. The same can be said for the NFL I think. If I was a fan of a specific Saint and not the team as a whole, I'd want to buy that guy's jersey wouldn't I? For example, if I'm not a Drew Brees or a Saints fan, but I like watching Marques Colston work I'd buy his jersey not Drew's right? So I do and Colston gets traded the next week. Now my jersey is obsolete.

Well, as an American consumer, it's my choice to buy a lower quality $21 counterfeit jersey instead of the high quality $125 authentic jersey so that if something like that happens or I spill something that stains it, or it gets destroyed some other way, I save myself $104. It's not a personal snub to the IP of the NFL and the Saints, it's just business. That's all it is.

I haven't searched the pages here so direct me to the page if this has been identified already.

I'm looking for this or something similar to it.

Any help at all is appreciated.

Does anyone have this template?

what format

can i get a vector copy of this from anyone?