BBTV

Eagles defense working hard for the Cowboys too

Not looking for sympathy at all. Just pointing out the clownishness of "eagles are referee darlings" posts that have been popular lately. if not for those posts, wouldn't even call that out.

"No foul for holding", (then broadcast immediately show replay where lineman's jersey is nearly pulled off due to holding that resulted in a flag being thrown that was ultimately dismissed by the ref who didn't even see it happen.) But clowns think the Eagles get all the breaks

I don't think there's any doubt that San Francisco is McCaffery's "right" uniform now. At this point, if anyone even remembers where he came from, it's clearly his "wrong" uniform. Like Barry Bonds in a Pirates uniform, or Drew Breese in a Chargers one.

Off the top of my head, I think you're right, but mostly because there was more of an emphasis on tackling, so you'd see more fumbles caused by defenders leading with their helmets into the ball when they wrap (which is how I was taught back in the day -"hat on the ball".) The past 10-20 years, it feels like people do whatever they can to avoid tackling, especially DBs, but now even LBs, who are often just glorified safeties these days.

my only hope is that the clear-roof stuff really catches on, and that teams decide to pay for it. Seeing the Bears in a soulless dome would make me cry. It already hurts that the Raiders play in a dark-ass dome. I thought theirs had the clear panels, but it doesn't seem like it. As for Jerry Glanville...

Probably already in the thread, but here's one (and it's also a player looking like he's playing the wrong position!) And also, here's the Refrigerator:

Why on earth would anyone want to sit in such a dark-dreary cave on a beautiful, sunny, 80-degree October day? I don't get it. I think if I wasn't already a football fan, it'd be hard for me to get into it if that was my only option for seeing a game in person.

Matching the golds isn't going to fix the darkness of the Superdome. It seems like it's dimmer than most domes, and really makes them look dull. For a team in New Orleans, a city generally associated with the bright colors of mardis gras, the polished brass of horns and other instruments, and most certainly not associated with dullness, it's kind of a shame they play there and will likely do so forever. Put the Saints in shiny gold or brass helmets and pants under natural light and you've got a winner.

Any navy/yellow Rams helmet with a white facemask is a non-starter. Throw it in the bin.

...

Salary floors are good in principle, but they'll likely just result in lousy guys getting money tacked on to 1-year deals just to meet that minimum without any commitment. I don't see it helping.

I believe the claim is that the pants would be significantly heavier due to however the metallic fabric is made, which would probably make the players seem like they were in quicksand and go 0-17. Any team could wear metallic pants and get them from Ripon or whoever is the legacy supplier that simply sews the swoosh on jerseys (the Packers still use them... right?) They choose not to.

You're not. He's not getting paid it just to throw a ball and hit it. While that's part of it, he's being paid to simply be there so they can sell shirts, jerseys, better TV deal (maybe... I don't know their deal), and generate interest that translates into revenue. He's also being paid to not be on competitors. It's likely that as long as they win even just one WS (which I still think is unlikely), they'll profit in the end. Even if his career declines and he's "only" as good as a 30M guy, it'll probably be worth it. He's being paid as much for his current fame as he is for his anticipated future production. They know that, as does any team signing a guy for 10 or more years. It's just how free market works - if you want a guy for 5 years, someone else will offer 6, then you'll need to offer 7, and so on. Don't think that the Dodgers are signing this with the expectation that he'll be worth 70M/year in today's dollars after 5 or 6 years. Who knows what 70M is worth in 2030 dollars (it's probably easy math, but I'm not doing it) but there's no way they're expecting that. --------- IMO, even if you're generous and give him 5 pitching years after sitting out next year, and value him at 40M/year pitching and 40M/year hitting, that's still "only" 10/600. If you're really trying to win and it doesn't preclude you from signing other key pieces, then that's a nearly-trivial difference (yes, I understand that calling 100M "trivial" is a bold statement, but in the current sports-contract landscape, it kinda is.)

Waiting until the last possible minute? It’s DECEMBER. The winter meetings JUST ended.

Toronto is a top 5-6 media market. Certainly not small market - but why are the Blue Jays talked about like they're poors? I get that sometimes Canadian teams can be hurt by paying players in USD while the CAD is always fluctuating, but is that really the reason they don't go all-in? Or is it merely a philosophical thing, and they simply don't believe in buying players? After doing a search to see their media rights deals, I learned that since they're owned by Rogers, and Rogers owns the RSN, there's no true "rights" deal. It's just that Rogers "company" pays Rogers "Blue Jays Division" some amount per year for budgeting purposes, but nothing close to what it probably should be if the package was bid on in the open market. So say the Bluejays revenue sheet says $30M for TV. It should be >$100M for TV, but its unquantifiable due to Rogers ownership. So maybe that's a reason why they act low budget? Because even though Rogers has the money, the Blue Jays books don't show it?

It's funny how they're like "Teal pants are back!!" as if they're a commodity that the team can't control. Like they were sold out for 6 months, but are now back in stock, or something like that. If it's a big deal that teal pants are back, and you control the supply, doesn't that indicate that they should be worn with the white tops by default?

can confirm.

I have no disdain for Cherry Coke Zero, I simply prefer the Pepsi versions (whether diet or zero.) I enjoyed a Cherry Coke Zero today (since the caf was sold out of the Pepsi version) and it was fine.

Met Life Stadium is 95mi (by car) from Lincoln Financial Field. PHL-NYC = 90 min train ride (similar bus ride.) Fedex Field is 125mi (by car) from Lincoln Financial Field. PHL-DC = <2hr train ride. M&T Bank Stadium (Baltimore) is 98 miles (by car) from Lincoln Financial Field. PHL-BAL = 1:10 train ride.

Probably vs Steelers in '07ish. Garrard era.

You keep using the word "should" (or "shouldn't"). What it should be is irrelevant. It is what it is. It seems like almost everyone agrees that FSU isn't one of the four best teams. So given what it "should" be isn't what it is, they did the right thing. It is hard to grasp. They play different teams in a different league. It'd be like saying the Nippon Ham Fighters are better than the Yankees if they win more games.

I have no idea what league this team (Philadelphia Waterdogs) is in, but they're forming a "supporters club" and rolled out these jerseys: (missed opportunity to be the Wooderdogs.)

Is there nothing in between? I'm firmly Gen X, but always considered "boomer" to be people born in the years after the war, with Gen X being mid/late 70s - early/mid 80s. There's gotta be something else for 60s/early 70s, right?

Funny timing. Just today, I decided the same. My work cafeteria recently started carrying Cherry Diet Pepsi so I gave it a try, and now this loyal Cherry Coke Zero drinker has officially switched teams.