BBTV

I was gonna ask why Alabama would be getting the Miami game but I guess that makes sense. I love these maps - wasn't there someone that ran a thread for them every year?

YESSS! I cannot remember who it was, but you're absolutely right. I may have even commented about his "I'm calling them britches" gimmick.

I'm assuming it's the original shape of the key before they had to widen it due to Wilt Chamberlain's dominance.

Sorry if this has already been shown. Looks legit. And like .

Pretty sure the Sixers aren't using StubHub as their ticket outlet this year, and their ad patch is a crypto one now.

that's a fair point - I hadn't really considered that. Would still like to see it mocked up just to see how intrusive it would be. At least the vertical stripe would have more stripe that's not interrupted, vs the tiny-truncated stripe that is currently on teams' sleeve caps. Not idea either way, but until I see a Bears or Steelers jersey with the vertical stripe (and swoosh), I'd have to think that's still the better way to maintain the look.

Since TV numbers aren't required, you could run it vertically from collar to cuff. I'd say that most teams should just drop stripes altogether, but for ones that have too much of a history, the vertical option would be the best way to go.

By "accommodating", you mean "integrating it into the uniform". It's basically a team logo patch. If you swapped that Nike out for an Adidas, RBK, or Puma logo, it changes the uniform. Nike has so many people fooled into thinking it's "just" a manufacturer logo (which is BS to begin with - my suit doesn't have the designer's logo on it) when it's not only an advertisement, but in some cases it's so tightly-integrated with the team's brand that it's hard to tell where one stops and one starts. Would the defenders of the Nike logo being anything other than a bought-and-paid-for advertisment feel differently if their logo was uglier? What if Puma got the contract again and their logo was front-and-center on the Seahawks sleeve, the Titans sleeve (in red), or the Chargers sleeve (under the bolt)? Or if GAP decided to make athletic uniforms like Aeropostale did a few years ago, and this was on the sleeve? It just so happens that the swoosh is arguably the best company logo ever, and "works" in a lot of places. But we have to look at jersey advertisers as interchangeable - there's absolutely no other way to look at it. And is it really interchangeable? You could say that it was back when teams flip flopped between Wilson, Russel, Reebok, Puma, etc., but those logos were slapped on wherever on the sleeve, and not integrated into the design the way Nike has done. They all sucked, but the Nike strategy - while absolutely brilliant from their perspective (seriously - I think their people deserve raises for how they've pulled this brand-integration off) is awful from a jersey-lover's perspective.

Just turned on the TNF game on Amazon. Not only did it take nearly a minute to load, despite my gig-speed wired network, but it's just been buffering and going in and out of HD. Anyone else experiencing issues like that?

There's not really any visual difference between how those "terminate" and how ones that go to the seam "terminate". That's pretty much what I was getting at when I said to make a logo patch that's just the stripes. Now seeing it in action... it sucks.

but the seams aren't part of the design. Visually, you aren't meant to notice the seam, and from a distance, you can't. It just looks like the stripe stops for no reason. We clearly disagree on the effectiveness of stripes when used on such a tiny parcel of space that's shrinking more and more every year.

When did “britches” start becoming the trendy word for football pants? It sounds dumb. Just say pants.

I disagree that the college look is any better. They’re still stripes with no logical visual termination. They just “stop”.

I guess by the dictionary definition of 'stripe' that you're correct, but I'd hardly consider this in the spirit of what a stripe is for. I'm not sure how anyone who cares for stripes would be against the vertical idea since that's the only way you'll ever see a full stripe outside of a retail jersey. Even the guy on the right side of the Bears picture looks bad to me because there's no logical termination of his stripes. They just disappear into the body of the jersey. That's now how they were ever intended to look.

They might as well just wear a logo patch that's simply stripes. If it works, it's because our brains can be tricked into thinking they're stripes since we know what they're supposed to look like, and what they used to look like. I would think that to anyone seeing them for the first ever time, they'd wonder why those striped panels exist. Just my opinion. This looks nice, even without the undersleeve. Hell - the Bears #1 font is essentially a vertical stripe.

The correct solution is to get rid of TV numbers and run the stripes vertically. Or simply give up stripes. I love classic uniforms as much as anyone, but horizontal stripes simply aren't practical anymore. Any chance anyone could mock up a Bears or Packers uniform with vertical stripes?

I'll concede that IF something HAS to be there, the swoosh is more logical to be there than a random bank logo given that it's at least associated with sports merchandise and uniforms in general. Honestly we're so used to seeing it that it almost disappears (except for when it's smacked on the front of the Yankees and similar uniforms, which is a disgrace.) As long as we agree that it's still advertising, we have some common ground. It's my opinion that no advertising "fits", it's just that some may be less bad than others, and given the choice (which we as fans shouldn't have to make), if one HAD to be there, I'd choose the swoosh / vector / starter logo / etc. over GoDaddy or Scotia Bank. I'll concede that there's at least some synergy with the athletic brands, but my overall point is that the uniform should represent ONE and ONLY ONE brand - the team. It shouldn't be a platform to market a second brand that infringes on the primary one, and in some cases (Seahawks for example) has fully integrated itself with that brand. I think we've resolved our differences on this matter. We agree on the main point, which is objective (or... black and white!), but disagree on the importance of it, which is subjective.

I appreciate, but can't accept your apology. Some people have been conditioned to accept "manufacturer" (lol) logos on sports uniforms. That's fine - if it doesn't bother you, then that's your opinion and you're welcome to it. But it's literally the textbook definition of advertising. That's not debatable. 2+2=4, no matter how many times anyone says it's 5.

Today's rules are with three wild cards, so I'm not sure how you can say "without". Given the wild card, it's probable that there will be a team that breaks that record eventually, but it won't mean nearly as much as what the Braves accomplished. Also, who whoever breaks it won't play and lose to the '93 Phillies, which is kinda big when evaluating the historical significance of team accomplishments.

You'd see the LA Rays (of Anaheim) within a decade. The Rays may even take the existing park in as-is condition.

are you on ad-free? If not, I wonder if there's a malicious ad that's crashing the browser.' Is anyone experiencing the issue on ad-free?

The sweater / jersey is designed to represent the team's brand. It has the mark of a completely separate brand that has nothing to do with the team. That other brand paid for the right to put their logo there. For decades, Ripon Athletic manufactured most or all NFL jerseys and put the swoosh (or whatever) logo on them. The swoosh is not part of the Yankee's brand, the space was bought and paid for, and even if Nike did make the jerseys (which I don't think they do), that doesn't make it any better. You don't see executives walking into meetings with suits that have a big Hugo Boss logo on the lapel. No matter how you spin it, it's advertising - this is black and white. The shoes are specifically designed to promote Nike, and nothing else. Of course they'd have the Nike brand on it. That's really a terrible comparison. The sneakers are an ad for Nike, but that's what they're supposed to be, so there's no issue there. I personally prefer logo-less designs, but at least in this case, the swoosh is applied exactly where it's supposed to be, and not infringing on anyone else's brand. Again - black and white. You'll never convince me that there's any brand synergy between the NY logo and the swoosh to the point where they should both share the front of the most classic uniform in baseball, and possibly in all of sports.

I wonder what's up with the dude on the right. Maybe the stirrups were the "home" socks and the high-striped single-sock was the road sock? That's really interesting. I never thought anyone other than the refs wore stirrups. So they'd either have the stirrup pulling against their bare foot, or be wearing full crew socks over stirrups over sannis. That can't have been comfortable. It does make sense that in the absence of a single over-the-calf sock, if they wanted a more complete look than just a high-white crew and then bare calf that the stirrup would be the way to go, it just seems like a lot of effort for little reward - especially when the technology existed to simply make the single sock.

I'd prefer no non-throwback helmets, but since that door has been opened, I'd be down with a matching 'action green' helmet, or at least a decal that replaces the grey with neon green so that there's some continuity between the helmet and the rest.

Sweet air guitar before getting steamrolled. Jackass.