NFL 2017 changes?

[Gothamite]

11 minutes ago, goforbroke said:

I think the the point of the five stars is like it's an achievement to be captain for 5 years.  It's not exactly to count the years, just to reach five and get the gold C. 

Think of it like a five-star general.   At some point in the army you can reach the ultimate honor of becoming a five star general.  That's the top. (I think, if there's someone in the military that wants to correct me that's fine I don't really know this for sure, just using this hypothetical to illustrate the NFL's intent). 

So once you become a five star general it doesn't really matter if you've been one for 3 years or 20 years.  Same with five star captain.      That's the intent anyway, not to literally count the years but to track to progress to the gold C. 

 

There hasn't been a five-star general since what, the fifties?  

 

I seriously doubt that was their rationale, but if it was it's a profoundly stupid one.  They literally count the years every year until the fourth, then they add a gold C, and then they stop.  It's just dumb.

[WSU151]

13 minutes ago, goforbroke said:

 

 

I think the the point of the five stars is like it's an achievement to be captain for 5 years.  It's not exactly to count the years, just to reach five and get the gold C. 

Think of it like a five-star general.   At some point in the army you can reach the ultimate honor of becoming a five star general.  That's the top. (I think, if there's someone in the military that wants to correct me that's fine I don't really know this for sure, just using this hypothetical to illustrate the NFL's intent). 

So once you become a five star general it doesn't really matter if you've been one for 3 years or 20 years.  Same with five star captain.      That's the intent anyway, not to literally count the years but to track to progress to the gold C. 

 

 

 

 

The last general to be given five stars was Bradley in 1950.

 

But there's really no other connection between a captain's patch and the military.  The number of stars on the patch are awarded by years, so it is literally counting the years. In the NFL, you can't be a 3-star captain for five years really hoping to get a fourth star

 

(Gothamite and I posted seconds apart)

[C-Squared]

Since we already know they're paying a shocking amount of taxpayer dollars to the NFL for advertising, I now wonder if these patches were requested by the US military in the first place...

[Pharos04]

9 minutes ago, goforbroke said:

 

 

I think the the point of the five stars is like it's an achievement to be captain for 5 years.  It's not exactly to count the years, just to reach five and get the gold C. 

Think of it like a five-star general.   At some point in the army you can reach the ultimate honor of becoming a five star general.  That's the top. (I think, if there's someone in the military that wants to correct me that's fine I don't really know this for sure, just using this hypothetical to illustrate the NFL's intent). 

So once you become a five star general it doesn't really matter if you've been one for 3 years or 20 years.  Same with five star captain.      That's the intent anyway, not to literally count the years but to track to progress to the gold C. 

 

 

 

5-star in the US military is usually reserved for very special occurrences.  Only nine in the history of the US.  So while it's a high honor, it's still a rarity.  The C patch with stars is just dumb overall.  Just have the C.  Who honestly cares if they've been captain for one year or ten? they're currently the captain for that year.

[WSU151]

1 hour ago, C-Squared said:

Since we already know they're paying a shocking amount of taxpayer dollars to the NFL for advertising, I now wonder if these patches were requested by the US military in the first place...

 

I highly doubt it, unless it was a specific branch, but then it'd be advertised as well ("Here's the Packers' five-star captain, presented by the US Army"). Plus it would be awkward since captain is already an officer rank.   Additionally, the Navy doesn't wear multiple stars as a rank

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, WSU151 said:

The last general to be given five stars was Bradley in 1950.

 

But there's really no other connection between a captain's patch and the military.  The number of stars on the patch are awarded by years, so it is literally counting the years. In the NFL, you can't be a 3-star captain for five years really hoping to get a fourth star

 

(Gothamite and I posted seconds apart)

 

Yeah, but you were able to name-check Bradley.  I was just guessing.  So you win.  

[WSU151]

Just now, Gothamite said:

 

Yeah, but you were able to name-check Bradley.  I was just guessing.  So you win.  

 

I had to double-check to see if Schwarzkopf ever got five stars

[oldschoolvikings]

4 hours ago, CreamSoda said:

My ideal Eagles uniform:

 

 

[dont care]

2 hours ago, C-Squared said:

Since we already know they're paying a shocking amount of taxpayer dollars to the NFL for advertising, I now wonder if these patches were requested by the US military in the first place...

Nope

[Matito]

3 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

I highly doubt it, unless it was a specific branch, but then it'd be advertised as well ("Here's the Packers' five-star captain, presented by the US Army"). Plus it would be awkward since captain is already an officer rank.   Additionally, the Navy doesn't wear multiple stars as a rank

Not to mention the sheer ridiculousness of comparing a football player to a high-ranking military official.

[goforbroke]

3 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

There hasn't been a five-star general since what, the fifties?  

 

I seriously doubt that was their rationale, but if it was it's a profoundly stupid one.  They literally count the years every year until the fourth, then they add a gold C, and then they stop.  It's just dumb.

 

The generals thing is my own analogy, I just mean in terms of the NFL setting five years as captain as some kind of honor or goal, and the stars show the progress to get there--- not necessarily to literally depict every year but the progress to five. And in that respect u don't need to count years after 5. 

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, goforbroke said:

I just mean in terms of the NFL setting five years as captain as some kind of honor or goal, and the stars show the progress to get there--- not necessarily to literally depict every year but the progress to five. And in that respect u don't need to count years after 5. 

 

Yes, except that's not what it means. That's just something you made up to justify their stupid "count to 4 stars" thing.

Admittedly, your rationalization is more clever than anything the NFL has come up with around those patches. But that still doesn't make it a thing.

[goforbroke]

16 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Yes, except that's not what it means. That's just something you made up to justify their stupid "count to 4 stars" thing.

Admittedly, your rationalization is more clever than anything the NFL has come up with around those patches. But that still doesn't make it a thing.

 

I def made it up, and I def agree that it's stupid.  But I think that's more or less the reasoning - just that at some point being a 5 year captain you kinda don't need to keep counting at that point, you earned your gold C and 7, 8, 9 years etc don't really matter.   They probably said Ok well we don't want to have like 12 stars on the uniform for the Eli mannings of the world, so we'll just say 5 gets you the gold C and that's that.    Which sorta makes sense but what would make even more sense would be to NOT count years at all and then they wouldn't have that problem. 

 

Incendently, it was the players council that came up with the idea for the captain C league-wide, not the NFL... although I don't know who decided on the design and the star system 

[C-Squared]

18 hours ago, dont care said:

Nope

 

Good talk.

 

20 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

I highly doubt it, unless it was a specific branch, but then it'd be advertised as well ("Here's the Packers' five-star captain, presented by the US Army"). Plus it would be awkward since captain is already an officer rank.   Additionally, the Navy doesn't wear multiple stars as a rank

 

If anything, it makes sense to avoid naming a specific branch, lest the NFL catch “stolen valor” heat for directly trivializing actual military ranks. Neither the NFL or the military wanted people to know about their “Paid Patriotism” deal, hence why the NFL “donated” all the taxpayer money earned from the military after the story broke. A vaguely military-themed patch aligns with the underhanded nature of the entire arrangement.

 

...or the NFL independently adopted a league-wide military-themed patch the same year they struck a big money deal with the military. Just because.

[Gothamite]

2 minutes ago, goforbroke said:

 

I def made it up, and I def agree that it's stupid.  But I think that's more or less the reasoning - just that at some point being a 5 year captain you kinda don't need to keep counting at that point, you earned your gold C and 7, 8, 9 years etc don't really matter.   They probably said Ok well we don't want to have like 12 stars on the uniform for the Eli mannings of the world, so we'll just say 5 gets you the gold C and that's that.

 

I think it's far more likely that they just didn't think ahead.   After all, most careers are about three years long. 

 

Regardless of what ex post facto ratuonalizations and explanations we want to try to come up with, the patch is ugly and pointless and every year they continue to use it is a crying shame. 

[C-Squared]

17 hours ago, Matito said:

Not to mention the sheer ridiculousness of comparing a football player to a high-ranking military official.

 

Sheer ridiculousness is the military spending $50 million in taxpayer money to indoctrinate sports with their agenda. The patch wisely avoids mirroring any one real honor, but is an obvious nod to the military - I'm just short of baffled nobody else will so much as entertain the idea on a site that is typically analytical and thorough about this kind of thing.

 

FWIW, they don't seem to mind painting the field, players, and coaching staff in camouflage... that the patch is military-inspired is an obvious yes. That this faux-regalia popped up the same year as all the other military gimmicks draws an increasingly convincing explanation for why they chose that theme...

[goforbroke]

14 minutes ago, C-Squared said:

 

Good talk.

 

 

If anything, it makes sense to avoid naming a specific branch, lest the NFL catch “stolen valor” heat for directly trivializing actual military ranks. Neither the NFL or the military wanted people to know about their “Paid Patriotism” deal, hence why the NFL “donated” all the taxpayer money earned from the military after the story broke. A vaguely military-themed patch aligns with the underhanded nature of the entire arrangement.

 

...or the NFL independently adopted a league-wide military-themed patch the same year they struck a big money deal with the military. Just because.

 

I painted myself into a corner with the 5 star general analogy.  Let me be clear that was MY analogy not the NFL's.  I was just using 5 star general as an example of sort of the ultimate honor.  I didn't mean to imply the NFL was literally channeling the military when they created this patch/star system. 

Here's another even worse analogy: In X-men, (at least in 1 of the weeker movies) they have Class 5 mutants.   Same thing-- there are probably class 5 mutants that are more powerful than other class 5 mutants, but it doesn't really matter Class 5 is Class 5 that's the top, you don't need to keep ranking or counting anymore.     That's all I'm saying.     Just trying to rationalize why the NFL stops counting at 5 years captain besides it being a design flaw in the patch. 

 

Yankee stadium has 3 ways to honor former players.  A plaque for everyone who was pretty good, retired numbers for the really good, elite players, and monuments for the super elite babe Ruth- type.  But monuments are monuments-- Lou Gehrigs monument is the same size as Mickey mantles.  (Ignore steinbrenner's)  So again there's a top and I'm rationalizing that the NFL decided that 5 years captain is the top no need to keep ranking and counting.  

[C-Squared]

Just now, goforbroke said:

 

I painted myself into a corner with the 5 star general analogy.  Let me be clear that was MY analogy not the NFL's.  I was just using 5 star general as an example of sort of the ultimate honor.  I didn't mean to imply the NFL was literally channeling the military when they created this patch/star system. 

Here's another even worse analogy: In X-men, they have Class 5 mutants.   Same thing-- there are probably class 5 mutants that are more powerful than other class 5 mutants, but it doesn't really matter Class 5 is Class 5 that's the top, you don't need to keep ranking or counting anymore.     That's all I'm saying.     Just trying to rationally why the NFL stops counting at 5 years captain besides it being a design flaw in the patch. 

 

No worries! I'm not basing my stance off your 5-Star analogy, but rather the fact that it began the same year as the “Paid Patriotism” agreement and the obvious visual overtones.

[Gothamite]

58 minutes ago, goforbroke said:

I painted myself into a corner with the 5 star general analogy.  Let me be clear that was MY analogy not the NFL's.  I was just using 5 star general as an example of sort of the ultimate honor.  I didn't mean to imply the NFL was literally channeling the military when they created this patch/star system. 

Here's another even worse analogy: In X-men, (at least in 1 of the weeker movies) they have Class 5 mutants.   Same thing-- there are probably class 5 mutants that are more powerful than other class 5 mutants, but it doesn't really matter Class 5 is Class 5 that's the top, you don't need to keep ranking or counting anymore.     That's all I'm saying.     Just trying to rationalize why the NFL stops counting at 5 years captain besides it being a design flaw in the patch.

 

Time to stop digging.

 

There was no deliberate justification behind including four and only four stars on the patch.  It is, as you say, a design flaw and nothing more. 

[WSU151]

3 hours ago, C-Squared said:

 

Good talk.

 

 

If anything, it makes sense to avoid naming a specific branch, lest the NFL catch “stolen valor” heat for directly trivializing actual military ranks. Neither the NFL or the military wanted people to know about their “Paid Patriotism” deal, hence why the NFL “donated” all the taxpayer money earned from the military after the story broke. A vaguely military-themed patch aligns with the underhanded nature of the entire arrangement.

 

...or the NFL independently adopted a league-wide military-themed patch the same year they struck a big money deal with the military. Just because.

 

But the patch isn't military themed (no matter how many dozens of times you try to tell us).  That's a narrative that sounds cool but with few underlying facts.  

 

What is the obvious nod to the military?  Stars?  Srsly?  If it was obviously military themed, shouldn't there be chevrons or eagles or oak leaves or bars or camo (for the full season)?  Why didn't they go with a name tape that said "CAPTAIN"?