BBTV

Nice work... except didn't the Browns have Bernie?

I saw on some show yesterday where the idiots were getting all worked up at how Dave Roberts was avoiding questions, and how that meant he "must know something and doesn't want to blow the whistle", and it's like no - of course he's been instructed to not comment. I get that media has to ask and hope for a slip-up, but "no comment" doesn't mean anything more than "no comment". And in the extremely-unlikely situation where Ohtani did anything wrong, there's zero chance MLB will sweep it under the rug and figure out some way for law enforcement to "go away". This is a complete "story that's not a STORY." Will be forgotten about by April.

Basically never? If watching on TV, there's always replays of how the injury occurred, and live (at least at LFF), they say on the PA who the injured player is (I forget if there's live replays.) And if the guy is on his back... you couldn't see the TV numbers anyway.

LOL! So apparently they weren't even fully effective back then!

As the lone fan of the Blues Gretzky-era look, I'd love to see that Blues prototype in action.

TV numbers absolutely served a purpose at a time. arguing against that is silly. When editors were captioning photos in newspapers or looking for photos to put in a magazine story, sometimes those numbers were the only way to identify the player. TV numbers were invaluable to whoever had to identify the KC player in this photo (who's oddly wearing #15 - what is this, 2024?) Whether they're still relevant in 2024 is certainly debatable, and we've heard arguments on both sides. As the judge, I've rendered my decision - they should be optional only, and aesthetics should be the driving factor.

Nothing will come of this, if it's even anything at all. It will be forgotten about within two weeks. This will not overshadow anything, no matter how hard any media outlet tries to force the story (and I'im not sure that any will after maybe today and tomrrow.). Ohtani isn't getting into any trouble, and we'll never hear about it again.

LOL what? Try harder. I didn't say any of those things.

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.

The OG ReeBox which soon took over the NHL edit; and it’s not a manufacturer’s logo, it’s an advertisement. Reebok didn’t make those, and even if they had, they paid for the space.

But I think that as usual, either way, I'm right, and these debates are futile. Just bend the knee so we can move on.

That's probably better wording than what I said. Nobody noticed if in the early '90s, Reggie White's Eagle sjersey was Russell, Randall's was Wilson, and then they mixed russell, Starter, and Puma in the midnight green era. They were just logos slapped whereer tehyd' fit. The jersey was desinged first and foremost to fit the team, and then the ads were tacked on. Now the ads are integraded into the design, so switching them to another one would almost make it a different jersey. It would be much more noticeable that it's a new logo than if it was just a patch placed wherever. Titans is kind of another example, where the swoosh is the only red, which inherently makes it a design element, and not just a logo. I'd love the logo to be over the nameplate, but that doesn't work for obvoius reasons. Or beloow the numbers on the back, but also, obvious reasons that won't work. If they must sell ad space to Nike, maybe put it inside the number (towards the bottom) like they do in soccer? It'd suck, but maybe suck less.

That's literally my point. The horn curves up, creating a perfect semi-framed space for the swoosh to live, making it essentially a logo. If you change the swoosh to some other company's logo, it changes the look of the jersey in a way that's much bigger than way back in the day when sleeve advertisers switched between Russell, Puma, Wilson, et al, and their patches were just placed any old place. Basically a reverse of this The swoosh is framed, and looks like it's a team logo. Worst offender:

The horn is basically a platform for the swoosh to live in, just like the Seahawks and Vikings have designs that highlight Nike’s advertisement. It’s brilliant on Nike’s end, but lousy that it puts their brand on par or even above the team’s.

Battle Red is a pretty obvious photoshop. It's the same navy pants reflecting in the mirror (and... they have a stripe.)

it’s a pattern. If it was just perforations, they’d fill the whole number. Instead they’re just in the middle. It’s a very basic pattern, but an intentional design choice nonetheless.

So they've switched from navy slob shirts to white ones. Probably time for Texans to have they own thread.

Hope they have a good bullpen, since they'll be throwing 4 innings whenever he starts. It's telling that he got a relatively low salary for such a short deal, when Zach Wheeler just got 3 at 42M and that was considered market value at worst. Very happy the Phillies didn't go after him. Also, not-so-bold prediction: if he's healthy (which he won't be), Mike Trout will be playing outfield for the Phillies by August. Not the tope of move that puts them over the top, but it'll be interesting.

Yeah, like some highlighter color or something that's like "don't hit me". It also creates a revenue source for the league to sell ad space on it, which obviously I'd hate (just like I hate that we're even having a conversation about unregulated number selections) but if he helps ward off more jersey advertisements than what we already have in NFL, then it'd be worth it. Kickers / punters aren't part of the team other than dressing in the same locker room and being on the same roster sheet. Hell - even long snappers are totally specialized now amongst many - if not all - teams, so they don't even practice at all with the TEs or whatever position they'd normally play, and simply stay off to the side with the K and P while the real players practice (which for many teams, is just t-shirts and shorts these days.) Hell - some Ks and Ps don't even wear shoulder pads! Let them go shirtless. To quote the rock, "IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU WEAR". Seriously - does it actually matter?

Technically, there's punters that act as holders, so both would be on the field together.

But that actually highlights the problems - it stops being an oddity when it becomes the norm. Jim Jensen and Keyshan Johnson were oddities. Now a good WR in the 80s is the oddity. One thing I do find funny is how over the years as the old rule evolved, 50-99, except 80-89 became ineligible, but they just kinda left the "end" numbers as eligible, even though they were in the middle of that range. Logically, it doesn't make sense to have some range of eligibles in the middle of the larger range of inelligibles.

Great coach... or a curse on the organization. Here me out - if he's constantly going 9-7, 10-7 with 5-12 talent, then it's probably masking their flaws on the personnel side, which is preventing them from making meaningful moves necessary to seriously compete. That's clearly not a knock on Tomlin, but I think it's fair to say that in the long run, they may be better off without him. This is in contract to Andy Reid, who built Super Bowl Champion caliber teams, but coached them to multiple home NFC CG losses as a favorite, a SB loss, or just generally short of where they should have been. That's a case where a Gruden-esque guy should have been brought in to put them over the top. Kinda the opposite of the Tomlin thing.

I think we're going to need a "pointless numbering system outpost" thread to go along with the "pointless realignment outpost".

One challenge is that theres a lot of ambiguity with position these days, as defenses typically look (to the untrained eye... and even a trained eye requires more training these days) like 11 guys in random spots, as opposed to your old-school 4-3 or 3-4 or nickel. There's more versatility than ever amongst players, so categorizing them is tough, and in some cases, unfair (especially to players, who for franchise-tag and overall salary purposes, don't want to be categorized into one of the lower-paying positions when they actually play a lot of snaps at a higher-paying one.)