pcgd

FYP Ok maybe those things aren't universally douchey.

Everytime I see someone in a fake, I think "douchebag.". It's like buying CZ for your girlfriend and telling everyone it's real. it's leasing a car you can't afford. It's buying everything on credit. I was at a beer tasting yesterday and saw a large number of hockey jerseys. About 3/4 of them were fake. Douchebags.

Except that everything about it screams "fake." The jersey mesh, bubbly numbers, shoddy sleeve logo and super-tight neck. It's lasted 6 years. You put a replica through a fourth as many wash cycles and it's destroyed. And people wonder why anyone would buy fakes... I've got 5 or 6 replicas that I've washed 30 or so times that look like they are brand new still.

Even if that's true (it's not) RBK pays American workers better than minimum wage to put names and numbers on those replica jerseys. So add that to "$8". Plus add royalties (on the retail), overhead and profit. Does anyone here understand basic business??

Really? That's a heck of a profit margin. Perfectly decent replica jerseys cost 30-40 dollars ten years ago. Perfectly decent replica jerseys no longer exist. Intentionally awful replica jerseys now cost 60 dollars. It's a shirt with some designs screenprinted or sewn on it. Ummm yeah. That's retail 101. Wholesale is typically half of retail price. As for the $40 replicas, you mean these?

The reason that I don't think this is a very good comparison is that if you buy a fake ticket, you are screwing over another fan who paid money for his. However if you buy a fake jersey and wear it, what is the harm that you're doing to those who paid money for an authentic jersey. Except you do screw over the player who's not getting royalties, the average NFL, team, or company American/Canadian employee who's bonus or pay could be less (or loses their job because of less sales), and most importantly the person child that made your jersey in a work environment that isn't regulated at all.* That's a pretty darn indirect and diluted effect when compared to paying for a ticket and finding your seat occupied. And frankly, the consumer feels he is getting screwed over too in an industry where, for example, replica NBA jerseys are intentionally crippled with ridiculous wide shoulders to "force" you to buy more expensive versions...bootlegging is illegal, but bootlegging and price gouging are both unethical. And, given the importance of the brand and license to the consumer, it's a bit of a virtual monopoly situation - obviously one that can't be resolved, but there's hardly a legal "generic equivalent" to an "NBA jersey of player X". One can appreciate how the NBA and manufacturers jacking up the price is unethical in the sense/spirit of the reasons for antitrust laws. Kinda hypocritical claiming ethics when purchasing something that is: stolen intellectual property, produced using off the radar labor practices, and questionable use of profits. So what's an ethical price? Is it $50 they charge? Let's look at that price. Let's say the $50 they are charging is made using workers getting a living wage (it's not). Let's even assume that $50 covers the overhead that's required in a legit company. (it doesn't) and assume its being constructed with the same materials and quality the big mean manufactures use (they aren't). So take that $50, double it for your average retailer markup, add 15% for royalties they aren't paying, and you are at $115. What do NHL premier jerseys go for again? $125. Nba swingman? $100. NFL replithentic? $115. MLB replica? $100. They play by the rules and they charge pretty much exactly what the Chinese counterfeiters would charge if they played by the rules. How unethical.

The reason that I don't think this is a very good comparison is that if you buy a fake ticket, you are screwing over another fan who paid money for his. However if you buy a fake jersey and wear it, what is the harm that you're doing to those who paid money for an authentic jersey. I've said it before in this thread, but nobody that buys counterfeit jerseys feels that it isn't wrong, doesn't know that it's illegal, or feel "entitled" to a jersey at a lower price. Fan who buy them just don't see them as bad as other crimes, with fake tickets easily being one of them. For right or wrong, it's fair to say that most people would see screwing another fan out of a chance to see a game as worse than buying a fake jersey, which would *barely* hurt big-time companies like Nike, Reebok, Majestic, Adidas, etc. Except you do screw over the player who's not getting royalties, the average NFL, team, or company American/Canadian employee who's bonus or pay could be less (or loses their job because of less sales), and most importantly the person child that made your jersey in a work environment that isn't regulated at all.* No big deal though... *I know most companies don't have the best track record, but in the apparel business there is at least an attempt to regulate working conditions and pay a working wage. With counterfeiters, there is no regulation, no attempt, and many times they are fronts for worse illegal activity.

Designer working for Reebok/adidas/nike/ccm/russel/etc. designs jersey/logo Reebok/adidas/nike/ccm/russel/etc. doesn't make jersey sale. Sale not reflected in overall profits Designer gets less profit sharing or less bonus I know not every person that buys a counterfeit did it over the real deal, but there is a number of people that were going to buy the real deal but decided to get the cheaper one. Or they got a sewn counterfeit instead of a screened replica because of the perceived value. OECD did a study in 1998 about the economic impact of counterfeiting. I know its not the most up to date but I couldn't find anything else with numbers on sportswear. Plus if anything we can all agree counterfeiting has only gotten worse. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/11/2090589.pdf Counterfeit sporting goods counted for 10% of all goods seized in 1994 (page 14) "Industry world-wide loses billions of dollars every year to counterfeiters." (page 23, this is not just sportswear this is including perfume, airplane parts, software, movies, everything) "beside direct losses of sales and goodwill, one should not forget the expenditure involved in protecting and enforcing intellectual property rights. The right owner becomes involved in costly investigations and litigation when combating counterfeiters and may also have to spend further sums on product protection." (page 23) "Ultimately, it is the consumer who pays the cost of unfair competition. Although many consumers believe they are getting a bargain when they buy counterfeits, the actual value of the product is normally much lower. Hence, they end up paying an excessive price for an inferior product." (page 24) "Counterfeiting is a severe problem and the common perception is that it is increasing. However,it is virtually impossible to find accurate statistics to substantiate these perceptions, not least because of the clandestine nature of the activity. The overall costs of counterfeiting in the world today are normally estimated to be 5-7 per cent of world trade. There is no substantial aggregated data to support the high percentages, but the figures are now accepted and used to illustrate the extent of the counterfeiting problem." (page 24) "Estimates in the United States and Europe imply that more than 200,000 jobs are lost due to counterfeiting in these two regions alone." (page 25) Even the OECD admits is nearly impossible to gauge how much money counterfeiting costs industry exactly. Mainly because you can't treat every sale as a "loss" for the manufacture/league. You also can't track the number made or sold because...well its illegal so nobody keeps books on it. All of these are estimates so you'll never hear how much its cost the leagues. But it has cost them in some way unless you truly believe that 100% of people that buy a counterfeit would have never bought the real deal instead. I think we all can agree by going to your average US sporting event that 5-7% of all jerseys being counterfeit is a VERY conservative estimate. I'd say its somewhere around 20%-30%. And when it comes to "sewn" I'd bet its closer to 50%.

Double Post

Big America Conference it is then. Great American Conference? Pros : Gac... that's a good name, Gac! (obligatory Seinfeld reference) Cons : Lawsuit from the WWE/WWF/WCW for Great American Bash I think Great American Insurance might have an issue before the WWE... http://www.greatamericaninsurancegroup.com/Pages/default.aspx

Golden Goose? Its Mizzou. A fine school that would be an ok addition but they aren't making huge waves. Just cause they are the best school that's in flux doesn't mean much when those other schools are Louisville, Boise State, or Army. They make sense but they already got the Golden Goose in all of this with Nebraska.

Anytime I see someone in one of these I think THEY are cheap. It's like wearing a plain "NY" hat you buy at a gas station. Sweet hat...

Academics and endowments certainly play a role for some of these conferences. They are more than athletic affiliations to some, the big ten schools (plus Chicago) share research dollars, allow students to take classes at other institutions in conference and access to each others libraries, which collectively have more volumes than the Ivy League. Also they share purchasing and other opportunities. Believe it or not some of the conferences (big ten isn't the only one) still care about higher learning.

We're too lazy to look up what happened before 2005, and we don't particularly care.* Don't deny it, it's true. *Except in the case of Notre Dame. Because Irish fans demand that we know how many titles they won 15 years before any of us were born. At least you're honest

Once again ensuring future generations of the ability to watch a completely undeserving B1G team play in a BCS bowl against a much superior Pac-12 opponent, a la Illinois/USC 2007. To be fair, Illinois was a 9 win team that barely made the BCS at all. Rose bowl only picked them to keep the tradition. They shouldn't have been there. Not that Ohio state would have won either...but they were more deserving to be there. In the last 10 years more more teams from outside either conference have won the Rose Bowl anyway. Why do people only look at recent history? In the 90s the big ten could have said the exact same thing...

So... Does the Big XII return to being the big eight when/if mizzou leaves and now Texas and OU have no where to go? Just switch the roman numerals: Big IIX Well not nowhere, maybe the ACC takes them? Or someone else? What a cluster...if all this is out in the open what's going on behind closed doors?? Why would you want to stay in a conference (Big XII) where 2 members publically say they want out, 2 others basically want out, another is on its way out, and the rest are suing each other? Nebraska, Colorado, and A&M (maybe mizzou) were smart to get out.

Wow, could we see TCU not even play a game in the Big East before they go somewhere else? I wonder if there is any chance of the leftover Big XII and Big East merging into the big eastern XII. Assuming Texas, Oklahoma and OSU are gone that may be the only way the remainers have a (slim) chance of staying realavent. You'd have a 15 team football league (probably 14 or less cause I'm sure someone else would leave either conference) that may not be in the BCS but they'd still be fairily decent.

Considering both the longhorn network and the PAC-12 network are run/owned by espn, is it really an issue?

Didn't even think of duke/unc for big ten. I could see that. Fit academically and it's a a new footprint with nationwide appeal. Not good football wise, it would certainly weaken the conference in that regard. It's the "fun" of 2 years ago all over again!!

No waybig ten goes non-bcs. They'll hit Kansas, k-state, Maryland, rutgers, baylor, Texas tech, iowa state or not expand before they go non-bcs.

Honestly how is that report different? You will see the other 2 major football conferences (big ten PAC 12) go to 14 to keep up at least. Maybe there is nothing reported but I think in 5 years there will be 3 16 team leagues running everything.

I agree. A 16 team SEC is the domino that will change everything. Big Ten and PAC 12 will expand to match. Not sure who's going where (obviously), I wouldn't be surprised to see Texas, Oklahoma, or ok state in either conference. I see big ten going Kansas (or Missouri if they aren't SEC or both) a big east school like Maryland or rutgers, Norte dame, and a Texas school (tech, Baylor for recruiting and markets). I think once all this happens they aren't going to care about the academics affiliations anymore. You see what the academic high ground did for the ivy league... PAC 12 I think will nab Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma state and another big 12 school (tech, Baylor, k-state) If that happens, football wise big ten is clearly the #3 conference. Them and the big east would be basketball powers though, which doesn't matter anyways... All bets are off if Texas goes independent. PAC 12 may go 2 Texas schools 2 Oklahoma schools. ND stays independent and big ten might go bigger to the east.

Like i said, super conferences is the only thing... If SEC and PAC-12 expand to 14 with Texas to PAC-12, I think you'll see ND change their mind. They've already said as much.

If the SEC and PAC-12 expand, look at notre dame being a BIg Ten target and possibly happening. Super conferences is the only thing that will force notre dame's hand. Who knows who the 14th would be... As someone suggested Iowa state, muzzu, ku and k-state, I could see the big ten going after 3 of those and also notre dame.

Guess what... Reebok won't be the only one upping their pricing. Raw cotton prices have more than doubled since last year!! That affects everything, not just cotton fabrics but blends and synthetics as well. Reebok's not blowing smoke. Look for everything from blank walmart tees to high end fashion prices to be increased to make up for it. Not to mention gas prices for deliveries are ever increasing and inflection...