North Star Studies

The winter classic idea sounds horrible. The Dallas Stars will never be the North Stars. They should be flogged for even thinking about wearing the North Stars unis, especially in the state of Minnesota.

[quote comment=”368859″]Also, number 84 in the Bills photo appears to be Keith McKeller, based on some quick wiki searching and some cross referencing with pro-football-reference.com. He was a TE from ’87-’93, which seems to fit with the style of uniform in the picture. The Bills didn’t start using white facemasks until 87, and our player still has sleeves so it can’t really be any more recent than the mid 90’s.[/quote]

…and they only played the Cardinals in Buffalo one time in the 90’s, 1990. So, yeah, it’s McKeller.

link

McKeller’s career lines…

Not uni-related, but it should be up many readers’ alleys.

link

Re: Cooperstown Ballcap. Pretty sad that another U.S. garment manufacturer is closing down because, in part, “. . .the complexity of sewing one-of-a-kind caps in the U.S.”

Both my parents were in the garment industry at a time when their motto was Look for the Union Label. To quote coach Lombardi, “What the hell is going on out there?!!”

[quote comment=”368867″]A little something for all of you other Giants fans, and oh so more fitting after yesterdays performance.
link
OK, that was awfully dumb of me. Here
link

Hey Phil, where are the answers to yesterdays quiz?

[quote comment=”368861″]And I disagree with Joe R – I like the idea of Stars-Wild Winter Classic. The past is the past so embrace it (and I remain a bigger North Star fan than Wild fan).[/quote]

i bet ricko’s all over the idea too!

seriously tho, even if the nhl decides to go to two games next year (and i don’t think that’s wise), i doubt minnie would get one of the games

you gotta figure NYS is probably a 50% bet for one game, and toronto likely favored for a second game…if they only play one game (smarter and more likely), i’d bump those odds up even higher

be interesing to speculate on the next one, but i’d put minnesota’s chances of hosting one somewhere between zero and none

[quote comment=”368869″][quote comment=”368868″][quote comment=”368867″]A little something for all of you other Giants fans, and oh so more fitting after yesterdays performance.
link
OK, that was awfully dumb of me. Here
link
Concur.
I do wonder how the NFL managed to work the schedule so that the Jets would play the last football game at Giants Stadium
You could have gotten away with the first message. A link that goes nowhere seems just as appropriate. :D[/quote]

[quote comment=”368857″]Well, as much as I argue about color vs color being a good thing… gold vs orange shouldn’t be allowed. Definitely too close to each other on the color spectrum.[/quote]

Wrong. Gold is, and always has been, an alternate home color in basketball.

Ditto on @#%&*! sad the Cooperstown Ballcap Co. is done. Back in the early 80s, when I had some $ and was looking for reasonably priced quality MLB old time caps, they were my go to. While not everything was quite my taste, I wish I could’ve bought more of them. Back in 1979 when I walked into a sporting goods chain & asked for caps like that, they looked at me as if I was a fag for wanting more than the cheap shit. Now its worldwide. The flooding of the marketplace with crap hats along w/great stuff is amazing.

On Saturday M.Princip asked for a Ravens tweak with “some wings behind that bad ass flag shield” as the primary logo
link

[quote comment=”368872″][quote comment=”368861″]And I disagree with Joe R – I like the idea of Stars-Wild Winter Classic. The past is the past so embrace it (and I remain a bigger North Star fan than Wild fan).[/quote]

i bet ricko’s all over the idea too!

seriously tho, even if the nhl decides to go to two games next year (and i don’t think that’s wise), i doubt minnie would get one of the games

you gotta figure NYS is probably a 50% bet for one game, and toronto likely favored for a second game…if they only play one game (smarter and more likely), i’d bump those odds up even higher

be interesing to speculate on the next one, but i’d put minnesota’s chances of hosting one somewhere between zero and none[/quote]

Agree that Wild hosting Winter Classic is a long shot and shouldn’t happen next year, or even for a couple of years. Toronto and NY make sense as priorities (though once again those of us in “flyover land” get the shaft ;-) …).

Also I think Gopher stadium is a better bet if/when it happens though they are limited to 4 non-football events per year (per agreement with neighborhoods nearby) and that will include concerts, graduations, etc. Already hosting U2 next summer. And Twins have already said they are very leery about any on-field non-baseball events in the first couple of years – don’t want to ruin new turf.

So LI Phil is very likely right (again).

I am a purist of sorts.

Any team south of I-70 shouldn’t be in a Winter Classic.

Period.

Sorry about that this should read ‘his on-ice death’.

[quote comment=”368864″]Not uni-related, but it should be up many readers’ alleys.

link

A highlight of the season every year. Thanks kindly.

[quote comment=”368880″]On Saturday M.Princip asked for a Ravens tweak with “some wings behind that bad ass flag shield” as the primary logo
link

Hells yea! That’s what I’m talkin’ about. I’d even prefer the old Raven logo that owns those wings. You know, the Raven with the Ozzy Ozbourne hairdo circa late 80s/early 90s.

link

[quote comment=”368864″]Not uni-related, but it should be up many readers’ alleys.

link
I don’t know if it is technically “trite”, but I am mega sick of the term “pick six”. I used to enjoy watching interceptions returned for a touchdown (when that’s what they were called).

[quote comment=”368892″][quote comment=”368864″]Not uni-related, but it should be up many readers’ alleys.

link
I don’t know if it is technically “trite”, but I am mega sick of the term “pick six”. I used to enjoy watching interceptions returned for a touchdown (when that’s what they were called).[/quote]

Agreed! Its a silly way to say it too. I wouldn’t mind if the phrase were “pick FOR six”, because that makes a bit more sense.

Pick six sounds like a lottery game.

Hey,

Did anyone notice that Colts QB Painter was wearing a uni with the OLD NFL Logo on it?! As were a few others on the Colts?

I didnt get to take any photos but surely someone else did.

-Rahul

[quote comment=”368872″][quote comment=”368861″]And I disagree with Joe R – I like the idea of Stars-Wild Winter Classic. The past is the past so embrace it (and I remain a bigger North Star fan than Wild fan).[/quote]

i bet ricko’s all over the idea too!

seriously tho, even if the nhl decides to go to two games next year (and i don’t think that’s wise), i doubt minnie would get one of the games

you gotta figure NYS is probably a 50% bet for one game, and toronto likely favored for a second game…if they only play one game (smarter and more likely), i’d bump those odds up even higher

be interesing to speculate on the next one, but i’d put minnesota’s chances of hosting one somewhere between zero and none[/quote]

Let’s all take off our “fan hats” and look at this from a network/marketing/broadcasting point of view, okay?

Two WC’s would be absolutely, positively stupid. They have a good thing building with the one game. On New Year’s Day. When tons of people are off work, at home, and the day is just getting started. To assume the concept is so universally loved that a second game–anytime–would be anything but a lame shadow of the New Year’s Day event…is nuts. That’s as dumb as having two All-Star Games in baseball. And didn’t that go over well. You don’t split your focus this early in the deal. Asinine.

Perhaps they could stage a game for Canadian TV only. Perhaps.

First off, they’d have to find a network that would interested. As I said, for a Canadian audience, maybe.

Never forget…this the NHL’s vehicle for the U.S. audience. So cross Toronto off the list as likely site. The Canadian audience, as is the hockey fan base, is watching no matter where the game is played. They’re a given. The group to be courted is the casual American viewer. That means two American teams to attract two American markets. A game in Toronto gets viewers they already have, and eliminates an American viewing market.

Been saying this since before the 2010 game was announced.
Flyers at Bruins, 2010.
Capitals at Rangers, 2011
Stars at Wild, 2012

They will NOT go to Minnesota without first going to either Yankee Stadium or Citi. Why? Simple. If they go to Minnesota and, for some reason, they don’t like the numbers…they won’t want to be thinking, “We should have stuck to the largest markets in the early years, to be tapping the greatest audiences possible, to keep things as big as possible early.”

This is about broadcasting, about the “show/attraction/event”, about getting the best TV numbers. After that, it’s about hockey.

(And the Stars will NOT wear North Stars gear against the Wild. As much fun as that sounds like it would be, just plain common sense and a dollar’s worth of PR perception knows the downside of that is far greater than the upside. This “TV show” is about the joy of outdoor hockey, not about setting up a contentious situation and then televising it to, possibly, the second largest TV audience you’ll have all year.)

—Ricko

I’ve got to agree that New York is the next location. (Rangers vs. Devils was my initial thought, but Rangers/Caps probably does make a lot of sense).

In addition to the reasons already laid out by Ricko, Toronto’s got another thing working against it: where would they play?

SkyDome Rogers Centre? It sort of diminishes the whole outdoor aspect to play the game in a dome (even if the roof is open). I suppose they could use the new soccer stadium that was built where Exhibition Stadium was, but its seating capacity is barely larger than the Air Canada Centre.

Ok, let’s review a few things.

… the first player to wear a number over 30 since Stephane Richer did in it the year 2000.

Someone forgot about link in 2005-06. Or Jason Weimer wearing #42. Or Scott Clemmensen wearing #40. Or Jason Ryznar wearing #39. All of those happened in 05-06. Weimer and Ryznar did change to lower numbers after a few games, however.

Minnesota Winter Classic

Unlikely to happen due to the fact that Minnesotans would watch a game anywhere. As stated above, the object of this game is to strengthen the fanbase in cities that are important to the NHL’s overall numbers. Buffalo, Chicago, and Boston are all vitally important for different reasons.

Buffalo was in bankruptcy not long ago, and is fighting to have a larger presence to prevent the NHL from having a team infringe on its territorial fanbase.

Chicago witnessed a rebirth after Dollar Bill Wirtz kicked the bucket, and the Winter Classic brought a lot of fans back.

Boston is constantly lost in the championship shuffle that the Celtics and Patriots routinely pull off, so this is an opportunity to gain some momentum with in New England with this game.

North Stars

I had never seen the different logo, but I also wasn’t around in 1967. Great photo, and great story, Paul!

Phil — agreed totally — and once again, a Western Conference game has to be north of I-70.

And Ovechkin would pull ratings. Capitals might make a better game than Philly will this year. just my opinion too

[quote comment=”368864″]Not uni-related, but it should be up many readers’ alleys.

link

This article really got me torqued off. I don’t think he understands where many of these came from and because he doesn’t speak a certain way he thinks no one else should either.

“Went yard” – apparently he never played wiffleball or stickball or yardball where a ball very easily could go into the neighbor’s yard and be gone for an indiscriminate period of time.

“Shy of the first down…” – There is in fact an accepted definition of shy that means to be short of something, many words in the English language have multiple meanings, accept that.

“Flat out” – I have actually heard it used to describe a number of things not sports related. “Flat out cook,” “flat out sing,” “flat out act,” so I guess I don’t have to stop using it because of his clause.

“It depends on the spot” – Hate to say it Gene, but before a ball is spotted pretty sure that the difference between a first down and a fourth down does depend on the spot.

Also, at 27 I’ve never owned a pair of hockey pants that didn’t lace up (though they’ve also all had belts).

[quote comment=”368907″][quote comment=”368905″][quote comment=”368901″]putting the game in minnie would be a death-knell for a game barely on life-support as it is

of course, that’s just my opinion…YMMV[/quote]

Not to shoot a massive hole in your theory, Phil, but there are 300,000 people on the WAITING LIST for tickets this year.

It’s only a “gimmick” if it isn’t happening in your neck of the woods. And that’s why every team wants the game – people want to see a game like this LIVE.[/quote]

People want to see it LIVE, yeah. On TV it’s really just another game. It is a gimmick. It reminds me of the NFL playing in London – sure, those games sell out because it’s a one-time spectacle that people want to see – but there’s no way in hell that the city could actually support a team full time.[/quote]

Thanks, Jeff. Excellent point. Excuse my sarcasm.

If you can plan a gimmick that could get 300,000 on a waiting list for tickets, that’s one helluva gimmick you got going.

The NBA’s outdoor game didn’t pull in that interest, the NFL at Toronto didn’t do it, the NFL in London didn’t do it, MLB hasn’t done it.

But it’s a gimmick, right? It’s only gimmick because you can’t attend. Otherwise, it’s THE thing to do on New Year’s Day because it may never happen in your town again. So bring me all the gimmick you want.

I’ll take it hands-down over meaningless NCAA bowl games.

[quote comment=”368905″][quote comment=”368901″]putting the game in minnie would be a death-knell for a game barely on life-support as it is

of course, that’s just my opinion…YMMV[/quote]

Not to shoot a massive hole in your theory, Phil, but there are 300,000 people on the WAITING LIST for tickets this year.

It’s only a “gimmick” if it isn’t happening in your neck of the woods. And that’s why every team wants the game – people want to see a game like this LIVE.[/quote]

not to shoot a massive hole in your rebuttal teebz, but i was talking about the almighty TV RATINGS, not the number of bostonians who need an excuse to keep drinking on new year’s day the waiting list

it’s cool to see it live, im sure

and it was awesome in 08 to see it snowing and the pens break out the baby blues…almost as cool in 09 to see it in wrigley, but with the dumbing down of the game and the ‘where’s waldo’…it’s becoming stupider and stupider

put it in minnesota and bring back the glo puck…maybe have the refs dress in clown suits and the first guy to score a goal wins a free suit

i want for the game to succeed, i really do…

i just don’t see it gaining any kind of a foothold…and any traction…guaranteed this years ratings (all that matters, NOT THE WAITING LIST)…are down…likely WAY down…from last year

give the west a game (maybe even try edmonton again — i guarantee not too many in the us saw that live — i think it was either time delayed or otherwise not broadcast live at all in the NY market)

hell…give detroit a home and home with chicago again if you want to keep up the us market interest

the only ones who are going to be diehards about watching this game are the ones who are hosting it

the rest of the nation really doesn’t care about the wild/stars anymore than they’d want to see islanders or devils…hell, i wouldn’t want that

i hate the blueshirts, but they’d be a much better draw nationally…and that’s what the NHL needs

[quote comment=”368910″][quote comment=”368905″][quote comment=”368901″]putting the game in minnie would be a death-knell for a game barely on life-support as it is

of course, that’s just my opinion…YMMV[/quote]

Not to shoot a massive hole in your theory, Phil, but there are 300,000 people on the WAITING LIST for tickets this year.

It’s only a “gimmick” if it isn’t happening in your neck of the woods. And that’s why every team wants the game – people want to see a game like this LIVE.[/quote]

not to shoot a massive hole in your rebuttal teebz, but i was talking about the almighty TV RATINGS, not the number of bostonians who need an excuse to keep drinking on new year’s day the waiting list

it’s cool to see it live, im sure

and it was awesome in 08 to see it snowing and the pens break out the baby blues…almost as cool in 09 to see it in wrigley, but with the dumbing down of the game and the ‘where’s waldo’…it’s becoming stupider and stupider
[/quote]

TV ratings are still high. You guys seem to miss the fact that last year’s game had the highest showing of any game in NBC’s recent history, and continually ranks high on Canadian TV. The Pens-Sabres game was NBC’s best showing in 07-08.

The gimmick that Reebok put on? Totally useless. I agree with that. But people watched to win. And some people even said “hey, this is pretty good. Don’t change the channel”.

The NHL realizes it has ratings as close to rock-bottom as you can get in the US. Keeping this game going offers up something exciting before the major bowl games that most people don’t care about anyway. And if the NHL can capitalize on this like they have been, it is a smart and savvy move each and every year.

As for the teams, a strong rivalry always creates higher ratings. This is seen every year in the playoffs, and it would happen here. But it is paramount that the two teams involved have a strong and passionate hatred for one another.

Calgary-Edmonton, Toronto-Ottawa, NYR-NYI, Chicago-Detroit, Toronto-Montreal, etc.

Georgia had some pretty interesting unis in 1942: link

These link
link are two of my favorite program covers in Andy’s collection.

[quote comment=”368917″]Phil said…

“the rest of the nation really doesn’t care about the wild/stars anymore than they’d want to see islanders or devils”

Reality Check: Most of the of U.S. doesn’t care about the Wings/Hawks, either.

(That’s just another thing hockey fans—and don’t get me wrong, I love ’em—can’t seem to come to grips with, either).

—Ricko[/quote]

But the question is: did you watch?

Because if you did, even to see the gimmick played out, you added to the ratings.

Folks I need some jersey help and I’m at a loss where to go next.

I’m looking to get a retro Pens jersey that I can’t find anywhere on the Internet. Specifically, I’m looking for the 75-77 Penguins away jersey that is on display at the Heinz Museum in Pittsburgh:

link

I’ve found the home white, but I want to be different :) I would even be semi-ok with the 77+ navy blue that is displayed on NHL’s website but links into the ether:

link

Any ideas how I could go about getting this secured? Any help or direction would be much appreciated!

Thanks in advance!
John

PS: I plan on Kehoe or Malone’ing the jersey just in case anyone is worried about defiling such a treasure with a jersey foul :)

I was only seven or eight when the North Stars debuted, so I have no recollection of that first logo, but I find the switcheroo charming. “Rip those off. This looks better. Tape it on.”

As for the appearance of the North Stars uniform in a Winter Classic: I’m torn. I adored that team as a kid and for sentimental reasons would love to see it in action…but…by Dallas? No. (Yes, I still hold a grudge.)

The Wild are just an expansion team with an awful nickname and logo and haven’t earned the privilege of hosting an event like that.

Oh…the advertisements in the Tacoma Rockets program are wonderful. (The team shoulda had a logo on the jersey, though.)

[quote comment=”368912″]Keeping this game going offers up something exciting before the major bowl games that most people don’t care about anyway.[/quote]

in the US, i’d say “most people” don’t care about hockey, even outdoors, in boston…

if you think “most people” don’t care about bowl games, especially as compared to hockey, i’d say you’re wrong

lets see the ratings for this versus last year — maybe i’ll be wrong and be pleasantly surprised…but i can almost guarantee they’ll be lower than they were for the hawks/cougars last season

and then lets compare the ratings for this versus, say, the rose bowl (which, according to you, “most people” don’t care about)

i know you’re going to say “well that’s not fair, it’s college football”…but i say, if “most people” don’t care about the game, then why are they watching?

we may care, on here, very deeply aboot the WC

but we’re not the networks watching, very carefully, the nielsens…which are the only thing that matters…not the throwbacks, not the waiting lists, not the teams and not the venue (the things we care about)

bottom line is the ratings…and that’s the only line that matters

[quote comment=”368923″][quote comment=”368918″][quote comment=”368917″]Phil said…

“the rest of the nation really doesn’t care about the wild/stars anymore than they’d want to see islanders or devils”

Reality Check: Most of the of U.S. doesn’t care about the Wings/Hawks, either.

(That’s just another thing hockey fans—and don’t get me wrong, I love ’em—can’t seem to come to grips with, either).

—Ricko[/quote]

But the question is: did you watch?

Because if you did, even to see the gimmick played out, you added to the ratings.[/quote]

We’re saying the same thing, Teebz.

The “event” is the deal. People tuning in to watch 40,000 idiots sitting in the cold watching NHL players play outdoors. The spectacle. Not that “the Flyers are two points behind in the standings, so they need this one.”

—Ricko[/quote]

I’m aware.

(BTW, I’m using your example to prove my point to those calling it a gimmick. Keep that part quiet, though.)

[quote comment=”368924″]
bottom line is the ratings…and that’s the only line that matters[/quote]

So you want to compare a bowl game steeped in history in a football-mad country to a hockey game that is playing its fourth outdoor event ever in a country where hockey is seen as a fringe sport?

Come on, Phil.

How many bowl games did you watch last year on New Year’s Day? And how many hockey games did you watch? Now, how many of each are being played on those days?

[quote comment=”368927″]I’m going to jump in on this Winter Classic debate. I love marketing and thus this seems to fit perfectly inline with my loves (hockey and marketing). First, TV ratings for the Winter Classic aren’t going to come anywhere near the Rose Bowl, though if the WC can garner a 3.0 national share at some point that’s a huge deal for the smallest of the majors. The Rose Bowl will continue to plod along in the 11.0-12.5 range for the foreseeable future (though the perceived weakness of the Big Ten/Pac-10 vs the SEC/Big-12 will begin to take some fans away unless something changes).

Last year’s success was carried by the home markets as both Detroit and Chicago garnered over a 10.0 local share, a huge success. What I would expect to see is the game staying in markets with strong local support and a decent TV market.

Thus I would expect the following cities to hold a game:

2011 – New York (logical on all accounts..new stadium, huge population, rabid fan base. Perfect fit. Likely vs Devils, Isles, Leafs, or Caps.

2012 – Eastern Canadian team, Detroit, or Washington. I actually expect a Canadian hosted second outdoor game on Hockey Day in Canada by this time if not next year so that would end their hosting duties here. While Detroit has already played in one of these, their hockey fanbase is too good to not host one sooner or later (likely vs Toronto, Chicago, Colorado, or Nashville [longshot]). Capitals make the list because for some reason every sport thinks that the DC area is crazily important. The NHL is no different. I can see a Caps vs Pens game here if both are still quality teams.

2013 and beyond – Look for some of the visiting teams to get looks here as well as Minnesota and Colorado.

I doubt you’ll see a game west of Colorado or south of DC ever. You’ll also see the Canadian teams get their own games in rotational fashion which will be hugely successful. And don’t forget the first outdoor NHL game was an exhibition played in Vegas![/quote]

Not aimed specifically at you, Thomas, but…

For the time being (based 40 years in sports writing, marketing, PR, advertising…many of them in pro sports, a few in pro hockey) a few very likely hard criteria…

Not trying to match Rose Bowl, just get a good hold on that day part.
No doubleheader (suicide for the WC)
No repeat teams (this is softest, cuz still have northern teams who’ve played but haven’t hosted)
No repeat venues.
No Canadian teams.
No venues anywhere but where it’s “Winter”.

Gotta think like owners, leagues and networks think, or your notions will be way off the mark.

—Ricko

I would love to see photos of any of the caps any of you guys have from the Cooperstown Cap Co. All I have seen were the mock ups on their website. Thanks.

[quote comment=”368928″]the major bowl games that most people don’t care about anyway.[/quote]

and

[quote comment=”368928″]a bowl game steeped in history in a football-mad country [/quote]

either “most people” don’t care about a major bowl game or it’s game steeped in history in a football mad country

not both

because if “most people” don’t care about it, it wouldn’t be a game steeped in history in a football mad country

~~~~~~~~~~~

and last year, i watched the winter classic (as you know) but because my pop was still in the nursing home/rehab, i spent the rest of the day with him, i didn’t get to see any bowl games (maybe i saw a bit of the late game, but that’s about it)

~~~~~~~

look, we all have our ideas about what we think would make for the best (next) winter classic; ricko’s obviously the expert and the rest of us are just talking out our asses…but i agree with what thomas clark said in post #71 …

next year: NY
2012: “Eastern Canadian team, Detroit, or Washington. I actually expect a Canadian hosted second outdoor game on Hockey Day in Canada by this time if not next year so that would end their hosting duties here. While Detroit has already played in one of these, their hockey fanbase is too good to not host one sooner or later (likely vs Toronto, Chicago, Colorado, or Nashville [longshot]). Capitals make the list because for some reason every sport thinks that the DC area is crazily important. The NHL is no different. I can see a Caps vs Pens game here if both are still quality teams.”

disagree with warshington, but he makes an excellent argument for it

2013, if the game is still being played…maybe a game in the western time zone, maybe in minnesota

but not next year…NY first, toronto or detroit (maybe detroit hosting the leafs) next…

THEN somewhere else

[quote comment=”368920″]Folks I need some jersey help and I’m at a loss where to go next.

I’m looking to get a retro Pens jersey that I can’t find anywhere on the Internet. Specifically, I’m looking for the 75-77 Penguins away jersey that is on display at the Heinz Museum in Pittsburgh:

link

I’ve found the home white, but I want to be different :) I would even be semi-ok with the 77+ navy blue that is displayed on NHL’s website but links into the ether:

link

Any ideas how I could go about getting this secured? Any help or direction would be much appreciated!

Thanks in advance!
John

PS: I plan on Kehoe or Malone’ing the jersey just in case anyone is worried about defiling such a treasure with a jersey foul :)[/quote]

Hey John-

Saw your post on The Pensblog as well…not sure about your primary choice. I feel like I’ve seen those for sale somewhere, but I’ll be damned if I can remember where.

Definitely seen the 77-78 , live and in person…a fella I know has one. Mitchell and Ness made them a few years back. Not sure if they’re still in production, but a quick google search using “penguins jersey mitchell ness” turned up one on eBay. It’s the standard one with link

You might contact David Frost about making a custom version of the 75-76…I’ve seen his work firsthand, and it’s top notch. If nothing else, he could probably change the Schultz into a Malone or Kehoe, either of which would absolutely be the cat’s pajamas.

[quote comment=”368923″]The “event” is the deal. People tuning in to watch 40,000 idiots sitting in the cold watching NHL players play outdoors.[/quote]
HEY! link.

[quote comment=”368929″]We really should be arguing Winter Classic vs Capital One Bowl and the Gator Bowl btw. They are the two games going on head to head. Last year the Cap One Bowl garnered a 7.2 rating. Well above the WC’s 2.9 rating while the Gator Bowl snagged a 4.3.

This year you’ll probably see the Gator Bowl’s go up for Bobby Bowden’s last game and the Cap One Bowl is a Top 15 matchup. This could be a bit harmful for the WC. I’m expecting something like a 1.9 – 2.1 rating for the WC…carried by the Boston area. While most of Pennsylvania watches PSU and LSU.[/quote]

I can relate to this post. The last couple of years I tuned into the Winter Classic. Really enjoyed the Pens/Sabres game, too. Normally I only watch bowl games on New Year’s Day, but the early games don’t do as much for me.

This year, though, my Nittany Lions are in a good matchup – gamewise as well as uniwise. And with Bobby Bowden bowing out against another favorite of mine, West Virginia, I’ll only be watching the hockey when both bowl games are in a commercial break.

Can’t speak for the average American, but the WC’s not high on my list. I like having it as an alternative, though. I’d like it even more if the NHL played Olympic-style rules, but that’s another discussion for another day.

Interesting NFL uni-related note of the day:

The Cowboys are now 4-0 wearing blue this season and 6-5 wearing white.

Is the curse of blue dead?

[quote comment=”368937″]
Also something to think about. The Big Ten (a traditional good hockey region) will have 5 games on New year’s day starting next year. I would have to imagine that the Football fans in the Midwest will choose watching Big Ten bowl games over a hockey game (especially if it is a Rangers-Capitals game or similar). Big Ten bowl games took 5 out of the top 10 rated bowls last year
[/quote]

Considering the last time that my University of Minnesota Nocturnal Yellow Rodents were in a meaningful bowl game before my birth, if they made it into a meaningful NYD bowl game, I’d miss both the WC and the bowl game because I would be dead from a coronary.

[quote comment=”368945″]Ok Uniwatch, now that my softball season is over, I’d like for you guys to tell me which stirrup look was best.

1) link

2) link

3) link

So which one should I stick to for next season, Uniwatch?[/quote]

High pants, high stirrups. Classic look.

[quote comment=”368945″]Ok Uniwatch, now that my softball season is over, I’d like for you guys to tell me which stirrup look was best.

1) link

2) link

3) link

So which one should I stick to for next season, Uniwatch?[/quote]

The first one. No doubt.

[quote comment=”368946″][quote comment=”368945″]Ok Uniwatch, now that my softball season is over, I’d like for you guys to tell me which stirrup look was best.

1) link

2) link

3) link

So which one should I stick to for next season, Uniwatch?[/quote]

High pants, high stirrups. Classic look.[/quote]

Hah, I kept switching between the 80’s look and 70’s look. I don’t have any pictures of it, but I played some games wearing them the Rickey Henderson way, the stirrups pulled all the way up.

[quote comment=”368947″]I remember having the same discussion last year before Boston was announced as the host of this year’s Winter Classic.

My suggestion at that time was to have the San Jose Sharks host the game at Pac Bell Park, wearing Seals throwbacks. Maybe have them play the Kings wearing purple and gold. Show today’s fans how BRIGHT the uniforms used to be.

I agree with Ricko that Toronto won’t get a game, but on the other hand it would be cool for Skydome to get a game so it could be the only venue to have hosted games in all four North American major leagues (MLB, NFL, NBA and NHL).[/quote]
HHH Metrodome? Twins and Vikings, definitely; North Stars, almost positive, because Kirby Puckett made the catch in front of Plexiglas; I’d find it incredibly hard to believe the Metrodome never had a Timberwolves game.

Hard to project what they’re gonna do without defining the apparent model, isn’t it?

That’s what I’ve been trying to do, but evidently no one thinks that’s a necessary step. They just riff on about how Montreal (or somewhere) “deserves” to host a game. Nice thought, but quite likely totally irrelevant.

First off (again), the WC is a marketing tool for the NHL in the U.S. It’s a hockey game secondarily.

They’re not looking for the most important game on the schedule that week. They’re not looking to make loyal fans in some town happy. They’re looking for the best match up, venue and markets to suit their goals for the event/broadcast.

And I’m not saying they wouldn’t pick Toronto, either the team or the site. Just saying it doesn’t fit the model as presently constituted.

Now, if the NHL and NBC change the model for what the WC is all about, then anything could happen.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”368952″][quote comment=”368947″]I remember having the same discussion last year before Boston was announced as the host of this year’s Winter Classic.

My suggestion at that time was to have the San Jose Sharks host the game at Pac Bell Park, wearing Seals throwbacks. Maybe have them play the Kings wearing purple and gold. Show today’s fans how BRIGHT the uniforms used to be.

I agree with Ricko that Toronto won’t get a game, but on the other hand it would be cool for Skydome to get a game so it could be the only venue to have hosted games in all four North American major leagues (MLB, NFL, NBA and NHL).[/quote]
HHH Metrodome? Twins and Vikings, definitely; North Stars, almost positive, because Kirby Puckett made the catch in front of Plexiglas; I’d find it incredibly hard to believe the Metrodome never had a Timberwolves game.[/quote]

Wolves did play in the Metrodome their first year. Horrible sightlines but no one cared. They set the NBA season attendance record that year (unlikely to be broken but a rather dubious record in my mind) – over 1 million including nearly 50K for the last home game.

[quote comment=”368954″]Hard to project what they’re gonna do without defining the apparent model, isn’t it?

That’s what I’ve been trying to do, but evidently no one thinks that’s a necessary step. They just riff on about how Montreal (or somewhere) “deserves” to host a game. Nice thought, but quite likely totally irrelevant.

First off (again), the WC is a marketing tool for the NHL in the U.S. It’s a hockey game secondarily.

They’re not looking for the most important game on the schedule that week. They’re not looking to make loyal fans in some town happy. They’re looking for the best match up, venue and markets to suit their goals for the event/broadcast.

And I’m not saying they wouldn’t pick Toronto, either the team or the site. Just saying it doesn’t fit the model as presently constituted.

Now, if the NHL and NBC change the model for what the WC is all about, then anything could happen.

—Ricko[/quote]

Ricko – you are absolutely right (maybe should have weighed in sooner so you didn’t think you were the lone voice of reason).

The WC is ONLY about marketing and trying to attract a TV audience, ideally with a large number of non- or casual NHL fans (and I think there is a big distinction between being a fan of hockey and a fan of the NHL). Frankly NBC couldn’t care less if there were ANY fans AT the game, though they make a nicer backdrop than empty seats and they can show plenty of crowd shots where people look cold and do stupid stuff.

Your Toronto/Canada argument makes sense too. The NHL and NBC are not going to attract any new fans because of an outdoor game. The gimmick just isn’t interesting for a Canadian market where a lot of their hockey is still played outdoors I believe. Different – much different – scenario in the US market.

It’s interesting how other sports are sticking their nose under the tent of college football’s traditional showcase day, New Year’s Day. Not only will there be meaningless basketball games that day, but there will also be meaningless bowl games. The Winter Classic is the most genuine article out there, and I’m not a big hockey fan. You have to love anything outdoors.

Bowls have lost much of their allure because of the corporitization (the “Capital One” bowl? — come on, please), the proliferation of lesser bowls, and the spreading out of the games. I’m a huge college football fan, but by the time Jan. 7 rolls around I’m not as interested anymore. Just like I wasn’t as interested in the World Series in November and I’m not up for the NBA Final near July 4th.

For the life of me I don’t know why college football is choking itself to death this way. If not for the Rose Bowl, New Year’s Day might not survive as a traditional college football day.

Is it really a good comparision to compare WC ratings to other sports events or to compare it to other hockey games?

My questions, I suppose are:
1.) What percentage of the people who watch the bowl game are going to watch the bowl game just because it is college football?
2.) What percentage of WC watchers are going to watch it because it it hockey?
3.) What is the difference between the actual WC viewers and those who fall under #2?
4.) Short of having every game outdoors, how do you grow the people into #3 into those in #2?
5.) How do I make this question less convoluted?

[quote comment=”368962″]Is it really a good comparision to compare WC ratings to other sports events or to compare it to other hockey games?

My questions, I suppose are:
1.) What percentage of the people who watch the bowl game are going to watch the bowl game just because it is college football?
2.)

What percentage of WC watchers are going to watch it because it it hockey?
3.)

What is the difference between the actual WC viewers and those who fall under #2?
4.)

Short of having every game outdoors, how do you grow the people into #3 into those in #2?
5.)

How do I make this question less convoluted?[/quote]

If you’re the NHL, you don’t change a thing. This equation is working for them, and until things start going sour, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

[quote comment=”368957″][quote comment=”368941″]Ho

You want to make it really interesting? Put up the boards on the Duluth Harbor in February, no stands or anything…you’ll hear the game the way the players do instead of hearing the fans, the music and the extraneous stuff. Could you imagine hearing the chatter between players and refs, players and coaches, players and players? The lower pitched skate sounds that get drowned out in the buzz of the crowd? A slapper ringing off a pipe in the cold, crisp air? THAT’S hockey. Ratings would probably suck, but it would be a completely new experience.[/quote]

now here, i agree with you 100%

but you just also stated why that’s a disaster:

“Ratings would probably suck”

and that’s why it won’t happen

[/quote]

Let me take this onto a whole different direction/tangent.

With the way that arenas/stadia are being built today with the emphasis on the luxury box and amenity seating, how far are we away from professional sports being a “studio” game? Will there be a time where the stadia has no seats (or just boxes) and is configured solely for pay-per-view television?

I guess what set me to wondering was seeing, starting in the 90’s, how political conventions were being held in cavernous arenas that were reconfigured to appear studio-like.

[quote comment=”368960″] If not for the Rose Bowl, New Year’s Day might not survive as a traditional college football day.[/quote]

No way that happens anytime soon. Fox & ABC/ESPN have a stranglehold on the new Year’s Day coverage. NBC is the only network to have the stones to paddle upstream.

The NBA poses absolutely no threat unless they get TNT to broadcast a hugely hyped game. The only NBA game on New year’s that is broadcast “nationally” is on NBA TV. College basketball only has one game on ESPN all day (Purdue-West Virginia). It is a good game, but the time it is on puts it up against the Cap One & Rose Bowl.

The “meaningless” college football bowls are still a better draw than regular season NHL, NBA, and NCAA Basketball games.

[quote comment=”368963″][quote comment=”368959″][quote comment=”368957″]
two original six teams playing in wrigley[/quote]

And I’m sure you’re going to lay the smackdown on me for this, but I know you know that Philly is not an Original Six team. Nor have they actually played the game yet. ;o)[/quote]

im sorry, wasn’t i clear…wrigley isn’t fenway

but i know you know that chicago isn’t boston ;o)[/quote]

I was talking about the ratings because that’s how you started. Sorry, man. My bad.

What I was trying to stress is that the Chicago game was the best Winter Classic yet… out of both of them. PIT-BUF scored a 2.6, while DET-CHI scored a 2.9. It’s not about the teams playing. It’s about the entire event. Chicago and Detroit had huge numbers for the WC last year, as they should.

What I was saying is that Philly, not being an O-6 team, won’t matter one iota to people who don’t know the history. That will be part of the hype, but the event, in the end, is all that matters. And if people liked last season’s game, they will probably tune in this season even if they have no interest in either team. :D

Sorry for not being clearer, Phil!

[quote comment=”368968″][quote comment=”368960″] If not for the Rose Bowl, New Year’s Day might not survive as a traditional college football day.[/quote]

No way that happens anytime soon. Fox & ABC/ESPN have a stranglehold on the new Year’s Day coverage. NBC is the only network to have the stones to paddle upstream.

The NBA poses absolutely no threat unless they get TNT to broadcast a hugely hyped game. The only NBA game on New year’s that is broadcast “nationally” is on NBA TV. College basketball only has one game on ESPN all day (Purdue-West Virginia). It is a good game, but the time it is on puts it up against the Cap One & Rose Bowl.

The “meaningless” college football bowls are still a better draw than regular season NHL, NBA, and NCAA Basketball games.[/quote]

And I’ll watch them, for sure. It’s just sad to see how college football has slowly abandoned New Year’s Day. I loved it when eight bowl games were on that day. Have all bowl games end by Jan. 1, except for the BCS championship. And don’t play any basketball that day.

[quote comment=”368973″][quote comment=”368969″][quote comment=”368964″][quote comment=”368962″]

If you’re the NHL, you don’t change a thing. This equation is working for them, and until things start going sour, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.[/quote]

But if you’re the NHL, don’t you want those people who watch for the outdoor novelty to stay for the arena game? Don’t you want them to plop down in front of CenterIce, Versus, etc, and watch an indoor game?

Or…as I feared, were my questions far too convoluted?[/quote]

No. It’s not about the arena game, but if you attract a hundred more fans, that’s money through the gate.

This game is about making a dent on the TV ratings so that they have the upper hand in negotiations with broadcasters. If ESPN suddenly comes to them and says “we want the NBC Sunday afternoon games”, the NHL will ask them to pay up.

This is all about putting the game on the tube in a market (USA) where it has been rejected for more traditional sports like poker and dog shows.[/quote]

Maybe that’s the answer. Have World Series of Poker at center ice between periods…You wouldn’t want to do the dog shows because as well-trained as those dogs are, all it takes is one to cause a section of ice where no one wants to play the puck.

[quote comment=”368972″][quote comment=”368968″][quote comment=”368960″] If not for the Rose Bowl, New Year’s Day might not survive as a traditional college football day.[/quote]

No way that happens anytime soon. Fox & ABC/ESPN have a stranglehold on the new Year’s Day coverage. NBC is the only network to have the stones to paddle upstream.

The NBA poses absolutely no threat unless they get TNT to broadcast a hugely hyped game. The only NBA game on New year’s that is broadcast “nationally” is on NBA TV. College basketball only has one game on ESPN all day (Purdue-West Virginia). It is a good game, but the time it is on puts it up against the Cap One & Rose Bowl.

The “meaningless” college football bowls are still a better draw than regular season NHL, NBA, and NCAA Basketball games.[/quote]

And I’ll watch them, for sure. It’s just sad to see how college football has slowly abandoned New Year’s Day. I loved it when eight bowl games were on that day. Have all bowl games end by Jan. 1, except for the BCS championship. And don’t play any basketball that day.[/quote]

I get what you are saying. I don’t really think they have abandoned the date as far as premiere games. They still have two BCS games and quite a few good bowls early on. Can’t really blame them for spreading the wealth of games over a week vs. a day.

IF the NCAA ever felt threatened on January 1st, they would quickly make changes that would thwart any other league’s strategy to gain ground in the ratings. The only league that the bowl system will work around is the NFL (when Sunday falls on Jan. 1), who is king.

I think it is only a matter of time before the NFL turns Christmas into their new Thanksgiving. We will probably see two games on the date in the near future. The NBA had a good idea, but there is no way they could go head-to-head with the NFL.

sorry for the re-post. I got the warning message that said my anti-spam word was wrong but it went through anyway.

[quote comment=”368973″]This is all about putting the game on the tube in a market (USA) where it has been rejected for more traditional sports like poker and dog shows.[/quote]

and why is that?

why would the average american (at least in the eyes of the tv execs) want to watch poker over hockey?

cuz i can’t for the life of me understand why, but apparently it’s happened

i’d have to say that the fault lies partly with hockey itself…one of the appeals of hockey to me growing up (aside from having an actual hockey team to root for) was the fact that it was only 21 teams (even less when i was real young) and aside from white at home and no ads on the boards, there were fights…and good ones and lots of them

add lots of new teams in markets that never heard of hockey before, have lots of shitty teams, and rules changes that won’t allow a tie (cuz, ya know, that would be wrong)…but also won’t allow the one thing that made hockey unique — the fights

you never hear the phrase, “i went to a boxing match and a hockey game broke out” anymore

i know “hockey purists” will scoff at the notion that fights were what attracted fans, but you know what — i guarantee you they did

maybe if hockey reverted a bit more to what appealed to me as a youth, that might also appeal to other youth…the ones they’re trying to market to today

not saying that would save the winter classic, but it might endear a new generation of kids to hockey

…food for thought

[quote comment=”368980″][quote comment=”368973″]This is all about putting the game on the tube in a market (USA) where it has been rejected for more traditional sports like poker and dog shows.[/quote]

and why is that?

why would the average american (at least in the eyes of the tv execs) want to watch poker over hockey?

cuz i can’t for the life of me understand why, but apparently it’s happened

i’d have to say that the fault lies partly with hockey itself…one of the appeals of hockey to me growing up (aside from having an actual hockey team to root for) was the fact that it was only 21 teams (even less when i was real young) and aside from white at home and no ads on the boards, there were fights…and good ones and lots of them

add lots of new teams in markets that never heard of hockey before, have lots of shitty teams, and rules changes that won’t allow a tie (cuz, ya know, that would be wrong)…but also won’t allow the one thing that made hockey unique — the fights

you never hear the phrase, “i went to a boxing match and a hockey game broke out” anymore

i know “hockey purists” will scoff at the notion that fights were what attracted fans, but you know what — i guarantee you they did

maybe if hockey reverted a bit more to what appealed to me as a youth, that might also appeal to other youth…the ones they’re trying to market to today

not saying that would save the winter classic, but it might endear a new generation of kids to hockey

…food for thought[/quote]

I’m sure we all have our reasons for liking certain sports, but fights and tie games are not on my lists (though the ties are excusable).

[quote comment=”368981″]LI Phil said…

“not saying that would save the winter classic”

Again I ask, on what basis are you claiming the Winter Classic needs saving?[/quote]

just speculation that viewership will drop for this one, and for any subsequent ones, such that it will vanish from NYD…or any day

maybe you and i differ on what to do to boost ratings, but i think you’d agree, with your expertise in all things media, that if the ratings do slide, and continue to do so, there will likely not be a “year 5 (or 6)” of the WC to propose new venues for

if the ratings for this one improve over last year, then i’ll deem the whole thing a huge success and STFU

if they don’t, and i don’t think they will, then my “saving the winter classic” will have merit

i just don’t think having “spot the guy without the ad patch” contests have any place in this otherwise wonderful event…if it can’t be successful without them, then they may have lost me as a viewer

as i stated earlier, they may as well return the glo puck, pump in whatever music is really popular, load up the boards with ads (and the ice too), put ads on the players, and have a skillz competition…something that may attract new viewers but something i want no part in watching

the WC should be great and unique SOLELY as an outdoor event played ONCE a year on NYD with throwbacks with the possibility of a snowstorm

like hockey used to be

but i don’t think that sells anymore…and why i think the event may be in need of saving

[quote comment=”368979″]why is the minnesota team still not named the northstars still trying to figure it out when the went to dallas they dropped the north from the name so why not switch back besides the wild is kinda gay and the logo sucks. what about the thought of two wc’s in hockey one where it is now or christmas day and the second saturday before the superbowl or day of the superbowl with the 630 ish kick time it would be a great lead in and draw huge ratings. just wondering?[/quote]

Unlike Hartford, when the franchise moved to Dallas, they were allowed to retain the rights and records of the North Stars franchise. The new Minnesota Wild expansion is considered a new hockey club in the same way the Texans are not the Oilers.

This is why the Wild would not be allowed to wear the North Stars jerseys in a Winter Classic.

That being said, I predict Wild vs. Avs in Target Field. It makes the most sense given the patterns of the previous three and what they’ve said so far about next year.

[quote comment=”368932″]I would love to see photos of any of the caps any of you guys have from the Cooperstown Cap Co. All I have seen were the mock ups on their website. Thanks.[/quote]
I own one CBC cap. I’d looked at the drawings for years, and admired the range of caps they offered. I coveted about fifty of them, but at close to $50 a pop, it was tough to justify the purchase. The one I finally bought was a late Ted Williams era Red Sox cap. It came in timely fashion, but was a HUGE disappointment. The logo embroidery was sloppy, with big, uneven gaps between the scarlet and the white stitching. The crown of the cap featured a weird forehead bulge, like it had been made for a beluga whale, or a kid suffering from encephalitis. It kind of looks like an old timey railroad engineer’s hat, with baseball-style brim. I’ve never worn the cap in public; it’s that bad. I keep it in my office at work, as a reminder that there are lots of stupid ways to blow fifty bucks.

On the other hand, I have never, ever, ever been disappointed in anything I’ve purchased at Ebbets Field Flannels. Outstanding jerseys, great, durable t-shirts, and the best caps I’ve ever owned: I can’t say enough good about those guys.

[quote comment=”368980″][quote comment=”368973″]This is all about putting the game on the tube in a market (USA) where it has been rejected for more traditional sports like poker and dog shows.[/quote]

and why is that?

why would the average american (at least in the eyes of the tv execs) want to watch poker over hockey?

cuz i can’t for the life of me understand why, but apparently it’s happened

i’d have to say that the fault lies partly with hockey itself…one of the appeals of hockey to me growing up (aside from having an actual hockey team to root for) was the fact that it was only 21 teams (even less when i was real young) and aside from white at home and no ads on the boards, there were fights…and good ones and lots of them

add lots of new teams in markets that never heard of hockey before, have lots of shitty teams, and rules changes that won’t allow a tie (cuz, ya know, that would be wrong)…but also won’t allow the one thing that made hockey unique — the fights

you never hear the phrase, “i went to a boxing match and a hockey game broke out” anymore

i know “hockey purists” will scoff at the notion that fights were what attracted fans, but you know what — i guarantee you they did

maybe if hockey reverted a bit more to what appealed to me as a youth, that might also appeal to other youth…the ones they’re trying to market to today

not saying that would save the winter classic, but it might endear a new generation of kids to hockey

…food for thought[/quote]

Again, I don’t speak for the average American, but the fights are what keeps me away from hockey. I appreciate a good hard check, but the fights bore me.

I want scoring. Now there I think I speak for most of America.

Don’t get me wrong – I appreciate good goaltending and would watch a 1-0 game if it’s played well. In fact, one of my favorite soccer games was the 0-0 World Cup game between Sweden and Trinidad & Tobago. Great saves in that game.

Anyway, my point is, if you make the NHL into a hybrid of the All Star Game and the Olympics, you’d get more viewers. Yes, you’d turn off some purists, but when they die, so might the sport (in America, that is).

I don’t mind expansion or ads on the boards, but I don’t like bad unis or goons on the ice. Just give me something fun that’s easy on the eyes and a lot more Yanks like me will watch. In my opinion.

[quote comment=”368990″]

Again, I don’t speak for the average American, but the fights are what keeps me away from hockey. I appreciate a good hard check, but the fights bore me.

I want scoring. Now there I think I speak for most of America.

Don’t get me wrong – I appreciate good goaltending and would watch a 1-0 game if it’s played well. In fact, one of my favorite soccer games was the 0-0 World Cup game between Sweden and Trinidad & Tobago. Great saves in that game.

Anyway, my point is, if you make the NHL into a hybrid of the All Star Game and the Olympics, you’d get more viewers. Yes, you’d turn off some purists, but when they die, so might the sport (in America, that is).

I don’t mind expansion or ads on the boards, but I don’t like bad unis or goons on the ice. Just give me something fun that’s easy on the eyes and a lot more Yanks like me will watch. In my opinion.[/quote]

I look at hockey fights like I do bench clearing “brawls” in baseball. Very few have any real fighting going on. It is usually just a dance that is done in situations where fighting is expected in the sport (bean ball war, dirty check, ect.)

I could do without it, but I understand, like NASCAR crashes, there are some people that just crave dumb crap like that. Whatever.

[quote comment=”368875″][quote comment=”368870″]Hey Phil, where are the answers to yesterdays quiz?[/quote]

ricko posted them link[/quote]

That was fun. I only got a couple right. I knew most of the unis and had seen maybe 90% of the movies listed.

[quote comment=”368995″]The winter classic drives home one message – that the NFL learned a long time ago – atmosphere counts!!!. Playing hockey – what has a strong association with winter – in a winter environment – is a rare stroke of genius – now if the NHL can ever clue in and realize another lesson from the NFL – that less is more – and shorten their season to 60 games – and be finished by mid May – they would have a chance to make a small incremental growth step.

When even NHL insiders refer to certain fights – as “staged fights” you know how silly it is to have more fighting. I’m not against legitimate players having a real fight – but when goons A and B are on the ice – for their only shift – start a fight – it’s a joke.

Finally the reason why the US doesn’t embrace hockey is – well they’re not Canadians , and the reason we don’t flog to watch a Buffalo Bills game – well were not American. i.e it is what it is, the NHL can only hope for slow growth – which to be honest I think they’ve generally achieved.[/quote]

I agree with most of this, except I’m not a Canadian and I love the curling and the CFL. In fact, if I was forced to make a choice between the two, I’d take the CFL over the NFL in a heartbeat. Maybe I’ve had too much Tim Horton’s coffee or something…

[quote comment=”368987″]
excellent points, Teebz.[/quote]

I’d like to take credit, but that was all Phil that you quoted. :o)

[quote comment=”368990″]I don’t speak for the average American[/quote]

there’s a shock

[quote comment=”368999″][quote comment=”368988″][quote comment=”368932″]I would love to see photos of any of the caps any of you guys have from the Cooperstown Cap Co. All I have seen were the mock ups on their website. Thanks.[/quote]
I own one CBC cap. I’d looked at the drawings for years, and admired the range of caps they offered. I coveted about fifty of them, but at close to $50 a pop, it was tough to justify the purchase. The one I finally bought was a late Ted Williams era Red Sox cap. It came in timely fashion, but was a HUGE disappointment. The logo embroidery was sloppy, with big, uneven gaps between the scarlet and the white stitching. The crown of the cap featured a weird forehead bulge, like it had been made for a beluga whale, or a kid suffering from encephalitis. It kind of looks like an old timey railroad engineer’s hat, with baseball-style brim. I’ve never worn the cap in public; it’s that bad. I keep it in my office at work, as a reminder that there are lots of stupid ways to blow fifty bucks. [/quote]

Gee Cort, this sounds like something I read on a particular old board! :P Back in the late 1990s before the retro craze hit full-stride, I made the mistake of ordering a modern cap ’83 home White Sox cap from CCC. The white front panel was tan, the logo was wrong, too thin & off-centered crooked by a 45 degree angle, and the cap was at least 2 sizes too big & extremely flimsy. I promptly mailed it back for a refund.[/quote]

Sorry to hear about those experiences. I own two Cooperstown Caps – an early Baltimore Orioles and en even earlier Baltimore Terrapins – and I absolutely love and treasure both of them. The Orioles cap was the wrong style and size at first, but it was immediately corrected.

I am really disappointed the company couldn’t make it – I was actually planning to purchase another one or two in 2010. I guess I’ll look to Ebbets Field Flannels now … ?

[quote comment=”368994″][quote comment=”368875″][quote comment=”368870″]Hey Phil, where are the answers to yesterdays quiz?[/quote]

ricko posted them link[/quote]

That was fun. I only got a couple right. I knew most of the unis and had seen maybe 90% of the movies listed.[/quote]

I think next time we’ll just post keyhole photos of the unis and say, “Name the Movie.”

It’s supposed to fun, not a midterm you forgot to study for.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”368998″][quote comment=”368987″]
excellent points, Teebz.[/quote]

I’d like to take credit, but that was all Phil that you quoted. :o)[/quote]

Bob Loblaw?!?! Holy crap, I just saw you on TV a.k.a. Chachi. ;o)

Interesting comments about News Years day bowls and now all the bowls and events during and after. Why are there so many bowls after New Years?

I am one of the older ones here who remembers that there were only a handful of bowls. And all or most were on Jan, 1st. Blue Gray game I think was on Christmas.

Ok so then they put the so called National Championship a few days later. Now it is a week later. And other bowls I can not even keep track of.

All of this bugs me when you hear the excuses for not having an on the field playoff. You know playoffs just like every other level of football has.

Years ago the regular seasons were 10 games. Some had 9. Now we have 34-35 bowl games with 6-6 teams in them.

Grrrr.

[quote comment=”369001″]As for hockey talk. I have said that in person after college football that hockey is the most fun to attend. I have not been to a lot of hockey games, but they are a blast. Sadly I never even learned to ice skate. So I marvel at the talent and speed in which the guys play. The colors of hockey uniforms are sweet. When you watch a game in person you get a better feel of how often they have to make the shift changes. Plus the sound of puck hitting stick stood out to me.

Now I may have missed it but wasnt there a tie in with the North Stars or one of the new late 1960’s hockey teams to an old Cleveland AHL team? Crusaders. Off the top of my head I am forgetting the story or even if I am making sense about it.[/quote]

Golden Seals became Cleveland Barons, who folded and sort of merged into the North Stars when the Gund brothers, who owned the Barons, took over the North Stars. They, of course, sold that club to Norm Green and then became owners of the San Jose Sharks.

I think.

Teebz? Anybody?

—Ricko

[quote comment=”369008″]Interesting comments about News Years day bowls and now all the bowls and events during and after. Why are there so many bowls after New Years?

I am one of the older ones here who remembers that there were only a handful of bowls. And all or most were on Jan, 1st. Blue Gray game I think was on Christmas.

Ok so then they put the so called National Championship a few days later. Now it is a week later. And other bowls I can not even keep track of.

All of this bugs me when you hear the excuses for not having an on the field playoff. You know playoffs just like every other level of football has.

Years ago the regular seasons were 10 games. Some had 9. Now we have 34-35 bowl games with 6-6 teams in them.

Grrrr.[/quote]

agreed larry, but you don’t want a conference championship game, right?

so how can you be for playoffs then?

or would you rather end the regular season earlier, not have a conference championship, and then just start having playoffs for the month of december and ending on january 1st-ish?

Hockey pants still have tie ups.

link

My hockey pants do as well. It’s still standard. Some players (like Ovechkin above) replace the lace used with a skate lace.

[quote comment=”369012″][quote comment=”369008″]Interesting comments about News Years day bowls and now all the bowls and events during and after. Why are there so many bowls after New Years?

I am one of the older ones here who remembers that there were only a handful of bowls. And all or most were on Jan, 1st. Blue Gray game I think was on Christmas.

Ok so then they put the so called National Championship a few days later. Now it is a week later. And other bowls I can not even keep track of.

All of this bugs me when you hear the excuses for not having an on the field playoff. You know playoffs just like every other level of football has.

Years ago the regular seasons were 10 games. Some had 9. Now we have 34-35 bowl games with 6-6 teams in them.

Grrrr.[/quote]

agreed larry, but you don’t want a conference championship game, right?

so how can you be for playoffs then?

or would you rather end the regular season earlier, not have a conference championship, and then just start having playoffs for the month of december and ending on january 1st-ish?[/quote]

There is sort of a play-off system with the Bowl games – but instead of 64 (65) teams being invited, only two teams get invited – which effectively renders all other bowl games meaningless – and the selection process overly important – i.e. NCAA football has adopted the worst possible system. They would be far better off going to the old bowl system – that often made several games very meaningful, or adopt a wider play-off system than a mere 2 teams.

[quote comment=”369012″][quote comment=”369008″]Interesting comments about News Years day bowls and now all the bowls and events during and after. Why are there so many bowls after New Years?

I am one of the older ones here who remembers that there were only a handful of bowls. And all or most were on Jan, 1st. Blue Gray game I think was on Christmas.

Ok so then they put the so called National Championship a few days later. Now it is a week later. And other bowls I can not even keep track of.

All of this bugs me when you hear the excuses for not having an on the field playoff. You know playoffs just like every other level of football has.

Years ago the regular seasons were 10 games. Some had 9. Now we have 34-35 bowl games with 6-6 teams in them.

Grrrr.[/quote]

agreed larry, but you don’t want a conference championship game, right?

so how can you be for playoffs then?

or would you rather end the regular season earlier, not have a conference championship, and then just start having playoffs for the month of december and ending on january 1st-ish?[/quote]

Aha you remember me hating the conference championships. I do think those are stupid and only used to make money. Not to really determine a conference champion.

Like last year when Buffalo was 5-3 and beat Ball State 8-0 in an upset. Buffalo could not even beat Kent State in conference. and the Big 12 s always lopsided when it comes to the CCG. I wish they got rid of those and had the playoff instead.

College presidents have no problems with the added game for the CCG since it makes money for the conference. Yet you hear 99% of presidents say they are opposed to playoffs. Many of them give lame excuse of too many games for the poor student athletes.

Like you said cut the CCG and run playoffs during December.

AND they can still have bowls for teams not making the playoffs. Too bad it will never happen in my lifetime.

New Years day used to mean the end of college football for the season. Not any more.

The Cleveland to North Star tie in was a tad confusing

link

Ohio State pants

link

Flying monkey uni

[quote comment=”369023″][quote comment=”369022″]http://media.naplesnews.com/media/img/photos/2009/11/21/OhioStMichiganFootball_2_t607.jpg

Ohio State pants

link

Flying monkey uni[/quote]

They should have worn this helmet, with those pants: link

Assuming they should have worn those pants.

—Ricko

Well. Are we all ready to see which is worse, the horrible altercation twixt QB and Coach that ripped at the very fabric of Vikings, rending and tearing it in a manner never ever before seen in the NFL (eyeroll)…

…or whether the great Navy Blue Hole continues to suck Chicago Bears QBs, no matter what credentials they carry upon arrival, into its all-consuming vortex of incompetence and loserness?

Or maybe just whether Favre can win in the outdoor cold of December?

—Ricko

Looks like NikeBlog.com has photoshops of the Oregon uniforms for the Rose Bowl, including one with a Rose Bowl patch. Kind of digging them actually, looks simple and clean. link

[quote comment=”369013″]In an eight-team playoff, say, seven of top eight teams in the country would end the season with a loss, and two of them will have three additional neutral site games.

Not quite as simple as just saying, “Change it.”[/quote]

just out of curiosity…why would the playoff games HAVE to be “neutral site” games?

if you established a playoff system, you could have 16 teams, the top 8 of which would have home games (as a reward for, ya know, finishing in the top 8)…keep that going until you have a final four (so two weeks of home site games)

you have two games played at neutral sites (1-4 and 2-3 — or however those shake out), with the winners meeting in a BCS game and the losers either playing off or not, also at a neutral site…and you could have the final four play at two different sites (one in the eastern half of the country, one in the western half)…final game at one of the BCS sites (or mix that all up)

not saying this would really work either, as you screw up all the “traditional” bowls, but if you wanted to make it just the top 8 teams, four of which get a home game, then the big three (semis and final) at traditional bowl sites, the $$$ generated would make up for not seeing the ‘usual’ teams

and we’d get a true (or as true as could be) #1 then

not saying i particularly like this idea, but if you have playoffs, you’d need to give some teams home games as a reward for better records/play/strength of schedule

32 bowls (or whatever it is) with 16 winners sounds great, but really, if you’re 7-5 and you win the gatorade sponsored by nike bowl, does anyone really care? sure, the alumni might, but that’s about it…may as well have an “everyone who plays FBS gets a ribbon” bowl then

[quote comment=”369030″][quote comment=”369013″]In an eight-team playoff, say, seven of top eight teams in the country would end the season with a loss, and two of them will have three additional neutral site games.

Not quite as simple as just saying, “Change it.”[/quote]

just out of curiosity…why would the playoff games HAVE to be “neutral site” games?

if you established a playoff system, you could have 16 teams, the top 8 of which would have home games (as a reward for, ya know, finishing in the top 8)…keep that going until you have a final four (so two weeks of home site games)

you have two games played at neutral sites (1-4 and 2-3 — or however those shake out), with the winners meeting in a BCS game and the losers either playing off or not, also at a neutral site…and you could have the final four play at two different sites (one in the eastern half of the country, one in the western half)…final game at one of the BCS sites (or mix that all up)

not saying this would really work either, as you screw up all the “traditional” bowls, but if you wanted to make it just the top 8 teams, four of which get a home game, then the big three (semis and final) at traditional bowl sites, the $$$ generated would make up for not seeing the ‘usual’ teams

and we’d get a true (or as true as could be) #1 then

not saying i particularly like this idea, but if you have playoffs, you’d need to give some teams home games as a reward for better records/play/strength of schedule

32 bowls (or whatever it is) with 16 winners sounds great, but really, if you’re 7-5 and you win the gatorade sponsored by nike bowl, does anyone really care? sure, the alumni might, but that’s about it…may as well have an “everyone who plays FBS gets a ribbon” bowl then[/quote]

I was assuming, as most have supposed, that somehow the Bowls would be incorporated into the playoff system.

Certainly can’t take the top 16 (or even 8) teams out of the bowl picture. Might as well just stop playing them.

The alumni/student travel thing is a HUGE issue, make no mistake about it. College football, believe it or not, truly doesn’t exist solely to provide the best possible viewing for the TV audience.

Yeah, it’s about money. But it that’s really ALL it were about, we’d have had a playoff a decade (or more) ago.

Some kind of “Sweet 16” pretty much destroys the bowl system (if those games aren’t part of it), and it certainly relegates to surviving bowls to relative nothingness.

Using the basketball template: There was a time when the NIT was huge, really huge. But as the Big Dance got bigger and bigger…the NIT had no choice but to limp off into relative insignificance.

Devaluing the Insight Bowl, for example, may not cost Minnesota football money (in terms of what it might share from a playoff) but knocking down the year-end warm-weather junket to some lame little trip to a bowl that’s pooh-poohed could really cause “proud alumni” contributions to dip.

Not saying would, saying it could. And that’s a development AD’s and presidents/chancellors worry about. A lot. And they hold a pisspotful of clout in this whole thing.

—Ricko

One more point of view on the bowl/playoff thing.

With a Sweet 16 you end up, over the years, changing the definiton of a “successful” program.

As it is now, coaches, AD’s and presidents of programs that consistently win 7 or 8 games can tell recruits and alumni, “We go to a bowl game every year.”

After a decade or so of playoffs, that changes to…
“How many times you made the Sweet 16?”
“Well, um…none. But we go to a bowl game every year.”
“Big whoop.”

That’s what terrifies the majority of schools.

—Ricko

Absolutely. A four-team thing probably is viable. But they have to be certain, out of respect for schools even as large as, say, Illinois or Mississippi State (as examples of schools that might only occasionally have seasons at that level) that they don’t let the playoff become so huge…in terms of media attention, etc…. that it swallows everything else. That would be disatrous for all of NCAA football, at every level.

Basketball can handle a “Big Dance”. It’s easier for a small school to reach the heights. Not so in football.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”369037″][quote comment=”369036″]Basketball can handle a “Big Dance”. It’s easier for a small school to reach the heights.[/quote]

they can also play 64 games over a two week (three weekend) span

football requires at least a week between games

that’s the biggest hurdle[/quote]

How’s this? Determine the Final Four following all the conference championships.

The lesser bowls begin.

But, on the Saturday two weeks before the Saturday after January 1st, #3 plays at #2, #4 plays at #1…at the home fields of #2 and #1.

Then let the rest of the Bowls play out, through New Year’s Day. On the following Saturday, the tile game is played at a rotating site, as it is now.

Simple enough, and has minimal effect on the bowls.

—Ricko

well I can’t speak for today’s hockey pants but all the last time I played hockey (1999), all hockey pants were lace up to my recollection. I don’t know what else you would use.

JimV19 said…

“Does any college basketball program start the year with winning the NIT as its goal?”

They used to. That was my point.

and…

“So am I to believe that with the current glut of bowl games all these ADs, presidents and alumni are content to say “We go to a bowl game every year?” Don’t think so.”

You’d better believe they are. No ever school thinks of itself as USC-caliber football factory. You think Marshall, Ball State or even Louisvile (all just used as examples) honestly dream of being in a BCS bowl game every year? Dream, yes. But they’re smart enough to be realistic.

And plenty of athletes realize they might not get offers from the uppermost echelon schools…and bowls are a chance to show what they can do. To their friends and family AND pro scouts.

As bad you might believe the Poulan Weed Eater Bowl to be now, relegating it to the status of the Hula Bowl (now played in that puny high school stadium instead of Aloha Stadium) does no one any good.

—Ricko

Lance briggs for the bears isn’t wearing his captains patch, not sure about the rest of the bear’s D.

[quote comment=”369038″][quote comment=”369037″][quote comment=”369036″]Basketball can handle a “Big Dance”. It’s easier for a small school to reach the heights.[/quote]

they can also play 64 games over a two week (three weekend) span

football requires at least a week between games

that’s the biggest hurdle[/quote]

How’s this? Determine the Final Four following all the conference championships.

The lesser bowls begin.

But, on the Saturday two weeks before the Saturday after January 1st, #3 plays at #2, #4 plays at #1…at the home fields of #2 and #1.

Then let the rest of the Bowls play out, through New Year’s Day. On the following Saturday, the tile game is played at a rotating site, as it is now.

Simple enough, and has minimal effect on the bowls.

—Ricko[/quote]

(laughing) Man, did I make that complicated. Simply put, Final Four would be Saturday before Christmas; Title Game Saturday after New Year’s.
Bowls played before Final Four or between Final Four and Title Game.

That also elminated those 40+ off days possible for teams in Final Four.

—Ricko

Also, Red Wings at Columbus for the second leg of the home and home. Columbus wearing white at home this time, like Detroit did on Saturday. Hopefully this will catch on all over.

[quote comment=”369048″]Also, Red Wings at Columbus for the second leg of the home and home. Columbus wearing white at home this time, like Detroit did on Saturday. Hopefully this will catch on all over.[/quote]

white at home in the NHL?

what a concept…surprised bettman didn’t think of that

[quote comment=”369047″][quote comment=”369045″]Hoops on ESPN2
Is UNC wearing that retro-look uni all season?? Because I really really like it.
Rutgers has got some unnecessary black panels on their road reds.[/quote]

Unfortunately not. I’ve only seen it twice this season. I hope to see it during the conference schedule though.[/quote]

Maryland would look good in that style. Replace the Carolina Blue with Red and trim it out in the black and gold “stack” stripes.

[quote comment=”369053″][quote comment=”369036″]Absolutely. A four-team thing probably is viable. But they have to be certain, out of respect for schools even as large as, say, Illinois or Mississippi State (as examples of schools that might only occasionally have seasons at that level) that they don’t let the playoff become so huge…in terms of media attention, etc…. that it swallows everything else. That would be disatrous for all of NCAA football, at every level.

Basketball can handle a “Big Dance”. It’s easier for a small school to reach the heights. Not so in football.

—Ricko[/quote]

A couple of points – and I’m one of those people completely stupefied by the NCAA not wanting to adopt a proper play-off system.

My view from the GWN, is football is infinitely much more woven into the fabric of American culture than basketball, yet the NCAA basketball tournament is from what I can tell a bigger event , which to me means – a huge amout of money is being left on the table by the people who run NCAA football. A tournament of 16 for football would mean 15 very meaningful games – as opposed to the 1 and a few conference finals as of today – it’s a huge opportunity that for some reason alludes the NCAA.

And it can be easily scheduled to end at about the same time as the current championship game.[/quote]

Stop making sense…eh?
Hoser.

[quote comment=”369055″]See some of the posts above about the hesitation of a lot of presidents, etc.

I used to sit with a guy who worked for me trying to figure out how to make a playoff system work for NCAA football, incorporating the bowls.

We did it while waiting for WHA game stats to come into the league office. That was 1973.

In the 36 years since (despite all the gumflapping and pencil pushing that has gone on) the NCAA has moved to the point where it now includes a predetermined game between #1 and #2.
[/quote]

exactly, great point ricko

you and i (and many others here) sit an bemoan the disappearance of stripes and sleeves and want to keep things the way they have always been…

and the younger members laugh at us, play their madden and tell us “well it aint that way anymore, old man”

sounds exactly like those university presidents

for better or for worse, maybe THEY had better come around to the thinking that more than a sizeable majority of the country would probably welcome a playoff system THAT WORKS (yeah…there’s that devil and details thing)

but instead of clinging onto the antiquated notion that college sports are just something for young men to do between studying for classes and moving on to careers in the professional world, maybe they should begin to recognize (and get on the money bandwagon) that the colleges are merely serving as a very inexpensive farm system for the pros

so what to do?

cling on to the old ways until all the old presidents and alumni die, or adapt now, when the bucks involved are as great as they are, and scrap the current system

as long as enough money can be made to keep all the schools (the top say 100 universities) happy, and a reasonable playoff system can be established, the whole thing might actually work

or, we could keep trying to put stripes on sleeves that no longer exist

[quote comment=”369056″][quote comment=”369055″]See some of the posts above about the hesitation of a lot of presidents, etc.

I used to sit with a guy who worked for me trying to figure out how to make a playoff system work for NCAA football, incorporating the bowls.

We did it while waiting for WHA game stats to come into the league office. That was 1973.

In the 36 years since (despite all the gumflapping and pencil pushing that has gone on) the NCAA has moved to the point where it now includes a predetermined game between #1 and #2.
[/quote]

exactly, great point ricko

you and i (and many others here) sit an bemoan the disappearance of stripes and sleeves and want to keep things the way they have always been…

and the younger members laugh at us, play their madden and tell us “well it aint that way anymore, old man”

sounds exactly like those university presidents

for better or for worse, maybe THEY had better come around to the thinking that more than a sizeable majority of the country would probably welcome a playoff system THAT WORKS (yeah…there’s that devil and details thing)

but instead of clinging onto the antiquated notion that college sports are just something for young men to do between studying for classes and moving on to careers in the professional world, maybe they should begin to recognize (and get on the money bandwagon) that the colleges are merely serving as a very inexpensive farm system for the pros

so what to do?

cling on to the old ways until all the old presidents and alumni die, or adapt now, when the bucks involved are as great as they are, and scrap the current system

as long as enough money can be made to keep all the schools (the top say 100 universities) happy, and a reasonable playoff system can be established, the whole thing might actually work

or, we could keep trying to put stripes on sleeves that no longer exist[/quote]

So true. I was wanting playoffs back in the 1970’s.
And funny line about the kids saying “well it ain’t that way anymore old man”

[quote comment=”369057″]Thing is, we really shouldn’t fault the presidents.

They are legimately concerned that devalued bowls will take away alumni pride in seeing the ol’ alma mater on TV in a game with at least a bit of prestige attached.[/quote]

sounds like someone doesn’t want to devalue the insight bowl any more than it already is

i’d agree with you 100% rick IF there wasn’t so much friggin money being thrown at these schools already…shit, nike just ruined 10 “storied” programs traditions for about $100K a pop

if being one of the top 100 schools could keep the gophers “in the money” what difference would it make if they’re in a playoff? tha’d be awesome

and who said we should scrap any of the bowls?

they’re devalued as it is

all im saying is have a playoff system which incorporates the bowls

that way, everyone gets a ribbon, and we don’t have any arguments about who’s really #1

and when the gophers get knocked out of the playoffs (or don’t get invited), they can STILL go to the insight bowl…so you can still have alumni who’ll support the old maroon and gold

anything wrong with “bowls AND playoffs”?

the only thing that gets ruined are the “traditional” teams who play in the bigger bowls…which aren’t even that traditional anymore, and really haven’t been since 1992

Hurray. I got to see the Blue Jackets on Versus. And they won.

One thing about hockey is that when there are 5 minutes left to play in a game, you can be sure it will be darn close to 5 actual minutes. Unlike basketball or football.

Bad thing is when watching a game, if you sneeze or turn your head for 2 seconds you can miss a goal.

[quote comment=”369059″]I might be completely off the mark here but I think there’s a pretty strong vested interest in the smaller schools in keeping things the way they are.

There are about 120 Division I programs and about 34 bowl games.

Every year, 34 teams get to call themselves “Champion” of something. On average, you can expect to win a bowl game every 4 years.

In a playoff setup, assuming you could make the logistics work, only one team ends the season by winning the big one at the end. One national champion and 67 losers.

If you’re (say) 7-6 Marshall, why would you consider this? Right now you’re the LITTLE CAESARS PIZZA BOWL CHAMPION.

The coaches, the AD, everyone gets a ring and a parade and a giant boldface entry on their resume.

Even if you incorporate the minor bowls into a playoff system, a team like Marshall could be the pizza bowl champion but then go on to lose (say) the Capitol One Bowl. Suddenly that pizza bowl for winning the quarterfinals doesn’t look quite as shiny on your resume.[/quote]

I never liked that well 35 teams can say they ended season with a win mentality.

How about the 35 teams that suffer losses in all those bowl games.

If there were not so many meaningless bowl games odds are that many more% wise would have ended the regular season with a win.

I say have the playoffs using the bowls and have bowls for teams that do not make it.

Look at this year. There is the traditional Rose Bowl and then it is used for the BCS title game.

I do not mind giving my opinion on playoffs but sadly I will never see it happen in 1A.

[quote comment=”369063″]Just wondering – aren’t some of these bowls having trouble drawing fans? I seem to recall issues in the Boise Humane Society Smurf Turf Bowl and some others in cold climates or non-resort cities. Certain teams “travel well”, plenty more don’t.
And I also have to wonder if the recession isn’t catching up to the lesser of the 34 bowls. Pizza-Pizza had to step in for the Motor City bowl. Other sponsors are dropping off here and there as well, right?
So we have the BCS Bowls that appear to be well attended, well sponsored and get good TV ratings. The BIG football conferences want this money all to themselves and only grudgingly share with the TCU’s and Boises.

Maybe when it looks like more money is available for the big players in a playoff we will see a change. Not holding my breath.[/quote]

Yep, great points and things I have thought before too. Most of the smaller bowls get poor crowds and it is the big name conferences and presidents that are the greedy ones who want the money for themselves.

I saw Paterno interview the other day. He said it was not right that some teams or conferences are “ordained” to have the chance while most others do not.

[quote comment=”368999″][quote comment=”368988″][quote comment=”368932″]I would love to see photos of any of the caps any of you guys have from the Cooperstown Cap Co. All I have seen were the mock ups on their website. Thanks.[/quote]
I own one CBC cap. I’d looked at the drawings for years, and admired the range of caps they offered. I coveted about fifty of them, but at close to $50 a pop, it was tough to justify the purchase. The one I finally bought was a late Ted Williams era Red Sox cap. It came in timely fashion, but was a HUGE disappointment. The logo embroidery was sloppy, with big, uneven gaps between the scarlet and the white stitching. The crown of the cap featured a weird forehead bulge, like it had been made for a beluga whale, or a kid suffering from encephalitis. It kind of looks like an old timey railroad engineer’s hat, with baseball-style brim. I’ve never worn the cap in public; it’s that bad. I keep it in my office at work, as a reminder that there are lots of stupid ways to blow fifty bucks. [/quote]

Gee Cort, this sounds like something I read on a particular old board! :P Back in the late 1990s before the retro craze hit full-stride, I made the mistake of ordering a modern cap ’83 home White Sox cap from CCC. The white front panel was tan, the logo was wrong, too thin & off-centered crooked by a 45 degree angle, and the cap was at least 2 sizes too big & extremely flimsy. I promptly mailed it back for a refund.[/quote]

Sorry to hear about the bad experiences with CCBC. I’ll admit my ’33 Giants’ bill is a bit long and the ’36 Nats’ a bit short, but the ’39 Nats is just right. The embroidered narrow block W is just right compared to authentic originals I’ve seen. Likewise the red-on-white felt block W on the ’36 model; the middle point of the W is actually pointed rather than flat on the top.

I can’t speak to the accuracy of the ’33 Giants’ interlocking NY; it looks a bit flatter than the 1950’s Giants/modern Mets version but I don’t have enough of a sample to verify.

Oh, I guess you guys are right. Those alumni contributions mean dick. And the paychecks from the minor polls, worthless. Why would a school like Ohio or Villanova want to preserve them? Let ’em dry up so schools like USC can continue to supply players to the NFL. That’s in the NCAA’s mission statement, right?

Listen, I wanted a big-time playoff for years. At least 16 teams. Then the financial realities of it really became clear to me. Ask almost any university president. He/She will tell you it isn’t the bowl paycheck that matters so much (because generally they share with their conference), it’s the contributions that playing in a bowl generates afterward. That money the school can keep. 100 percent.

Best we can hope for is some kind of limited hybrid. Because if it’s good for only a few teams at the expensive of all the rest, it isn’t good.

—Ricko

ricko

last thing and i’ll shut up

what’s wrong with keeping the bowls AND having a playoff?

seems like even more money would be generated (probably not shared, but generated) and you’d still have the insight bowl to play in

because what you’re saying, or at least what i’m hearing, it that it’s important to have a bowl to play in, not necessarily to be good enough to be in the top 16

there are 32(?) bowls, and either all but one are meaningless, or none are, depending upon your perspective

playoff determines a true #1…bowls keep the alumni happy … big schools and small schools win, right?

[quote comment=”369075″]ricko

last thing and i’ll shut up

what’s wrong with keeping the bowls AND having a playoff?

seems like even more money would be generated (probably not shared, but generated) and you’d still have the insight bowl to play in

because what you’re saying, or at least what i’m hearing, it that it’s important to have a bowl to play in, not necessarily to be good enough to be in the top 16

there are 32(?) bowls, and either all but one are meaningless, or none are, depending upon your perspective

playoff determines a true #1…bowls keep the alumni happy … big schools and small schools win, right?[/quote]

But the 34 bowls AREN’T meaningless, not to the teams that play in them. Or their fans, alumni and students. And if we take the top 16 teams out of those bowls, we pretty much castrate the system. The Ohio-Marshall game wouldn’t command the ratings of Mt. Union and Wisconsin Whitewater, or the TV dollars.

Let’s suppose the Little Ceaser Bowl goes away. No paycheck for Marshall or Ohio, or their conferences. And let’s say, just for the hell of it, that after watching this year’s game, 2,000 Marshall grads sent an average contribution of a lousy 50 bucks. There’s another $100,000 Marshall doesn’t see if there’s no Little Ceaser’s Bowl.

My point is, the stain on this blotter is bigger than you think it is.

There’s a lot more to it that what’s worth watching on TV for those with no rooting interest in either school.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”369076″][quote comment=”369073″]Oh, I guess you guys are right. Those alumni contributions mean dick. And the paychecks from the minor polls, worthless. Why would a school like Ohio or Villanova want to preserve them? Let ’em dry up so schools like USC can continue to supply players to the NFL. That’s in the NCAA’s mission statement, right?

Listen, I wanted a big-time playoff for years. At least 16 teams. Then the financial realities of it really became clear to me. Ask almost any university president. He/She will tell you it isn’t the bowl paycheck that matters so much (because generally they share with their conference), it’s the contributions that playing in a bowl generates afterward. That money the school can keep. 100 percent.

Best we can hope for is some kind of limited hybrid. Because if it’s good for only a few teams at the expensive of all the rest, it isn’t good.

—Ricko[/quote]
Just bustin’ your balls here Ricko – but you used Villanova for an example. What is Villanova’s hidden benefit of the Football CHAMPIONSHIP Series victory. Three or four cable games and a national championship trophy. If they benefitted than Playoff = Good, right?[/quote]

I meant they’re likely a minor bowl caliber candidate.

Seriously, how big to you guys think Marshall’s cut of a 16-team playoff TV deal would be? I mean, if its gonna be a million or more per school per year, then maybe there’s something to it. But you know that, somehow, the NCAA would make sure the BCS schools and conferences got a bigger cut.

—Ricko

I actually want just the Sugar Bowl on New Year’s Eve on ABC; Lindsay Nelson calling the Cotton at 2:00 on the 1st, followed by the GrandDaddy called by Curt Gowdy and then the Orange Bowl in prime time on NBC with Anita Bryant or Up With People at halftime.
On January 2nd we get the poll results and some team somewhere gets the shaft.

fools gould

I guess all that matters is the top 40 or so schools then. The rest are all just losers.

And I did say I thought 16 teams would be good once upon a time, until I understood the financial realities of the bowls. And the possible travel hassles.

Now I think a Final Four is about the best we’ll ever see.

Hey, a lot of us remember when there were only four bowl games and they were really something special. But now it’s evolved (or devolved, for some) to the point where a lot of schools get something of a payday. Sure, many of the games are pretty dorky and in less-than-glamorous settings. But those checks are a good thing. And they’ll be difficult for schools to give up.

A 16-team playoff? Every single NCAA football program, no matter how lowly, is rightly entitled to ask, “What’s in it for us?” And if it’s not enough compared to what they’re realizing now (including projected post-bowl alumni contributions), they should vote against it.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”369081″]I actually want just the Sugar Bowl on New Year’s Eve on ABC; Lindsay Nelson calling the Cotton at 2:00 on the 1st, followed by the GrandDaddy called by Curt Gowdy and then the Orange Bowl in prime time on NBC with Anita Bryant or Up With People at halftime.
On January 2nd we get the poll results and some team somewhere gets the shaft.[/quote]

Precious.

[quote comment=”369085″]I guess all that matters is the top 40 or so schools then. The rest are all just losers.[/quote]

and how is this different than ANY other sport? only because you can’t play 3 games in a week are we even having this argument, but in EVERY OTHER SPORT, you crown an NCAA champ through a playoff of some sort

[quote comment=”369085″]And I did say I thought 16 teams would be good once upon a time, until I understood the financial realities of the bowls. And the possible travel hassles.

Now I think a Final Four is about the best we’ll ever see.[/quote]

that’s better than a final two, with every other team screwed…sometimes royally

[quote comment=”369085″]Hey, a lot of us remember when there were only four bowl games and they were really something special.[/quote]

even i remember that…and that wasn’t so bad…i’d vote to go back to that before i vote to keep the current system

[quote comment=”369085″]Now it’s evolved (or devolved, for some) to the point where a lot of schools get something of a payday. Sure, many of the games are pretty dorky and in less-than-glamorous settings. But those checks are a good thing. And they’ll be difficult for schools to give up.[/quote]

now you want your cake and you want to eat it too

either you dump the loser bowls (or have the playoff system AND the feeder system [playoff losers still get bowls]) or we go back to the big four … and when the HELL did the fiesta bowl replace the cotton? i don’t remember the fiesta EVER amounting to shit…now it’s a BCS bowl?

[quote comment=”369085″]A 16-team playoff? Every single NCAA football program, no matter how lowly, is rightly entitled to ask, “What’s in it for us?” And if it’s not enough compared to what they’re realizing now (including projected post-bowl alumni contributions), they should vote against it.[/quote]

just like the NCAA overtook the NIT, and for better or for worse, the bowl system has become the multi-headed beast that it is…the only problem is with so many bowls, but only one “true” bowl, you’ve got a mess

with a playoff, you may still have a mess, but you have a mess with a definite winner…now, you have legit teams getting COMPLTELY screwed…at least this year you have two undefeatededs going for the apple…what about last year, where texas got jobbed out of a fair shot at the #1 slot…didn’t they beat oklahoma? playoff solves that little problem

or what about a couple years ago when boise went undefeated? and had NO SHOT at #1…how is that fair?

you speak of fairness and the ‘little schools’ … well what about the little schools (or little in the eyes of the bcs, like boise and tcu and cincy) who don’t even get a shot?

florida lost a game, but they’re ranked ahead of undefeated boise? we’ll never know who’s better tho

maybe you’re right about the small (or less competitive) schools getting screwed on a yearly basis…maybe they should recruit better? lower their admission standards? sign a bigger deal with nike?

i don’t have an answer for them, but i do know this…the current system sucks ass

im all for keeping the minor bowls and letting schools like minnesota in…but then do away with the BCS shit altogether

either we have it AND real playoff, or go back to the way it was

since i don’t see it going back to the way it was, let the best 8 slug it out and let 9 and lower have the crumbs…give tcu or boise or cincy a REAL SHOT at #1…they all won every game they played, but in the absence of a playoff, just because of the BCS…they’re all fucked

Maybe it’s because I went to Akron, where the radio guy gets so hyped up about the MAC and how they can play with the big guys (until they lose again and we’re all reminded that the league should be in 1-AA), and maybe it’s because I’ve seen what Boise State has done, but I still think these schools in the lesser bowls are only happy about the money.

Sorry, but I’d rather watch the old Playoff Bowl than some of these already devalued bowl games. Even though I can now get more bowls on ESPN360, I haven’t watched a full one yet. I DID watch the FCS and D-II playoffs, though.

I don’t like the fact that 5th and 6th place teams are getting into bowl games (and ones with goofy sounding names, at that). I think only conference champs and second-place teams should get to play in a bowl. That’s twelve bowls right there. Maybe third-place teams as well, then you could have gold, silver and bronze tiers of bowls. Even then that’s 18 bowls. More than enough.

Any more than that, and I don’t really care. If my school scrapes in with a 6-6 record, I’d rather they just stayed home. It wouldn’t affect my contributions to the school even if they won the game.

I’m not saying I’ll never watch a lesser bowl (I like the Sun Bowl, for instance), but I don’t see them as a source of pride. Maybe a consolation prize, but that’s it.[/quote]

For many schools that have a long period of mediocrity, they would love a chance to go to any type of bowl game. I live in San Diego and if San Diego State had the opportunity to go the the Sun Bowl, the alumni would crap themselves, and the AD and administration would obviously thrilled with getting some needed money into the struggling program. Money coming from the game itself and increased donation from alumni.

It just seems to me that it’s close to impossible to make major changes to the structure of a sports league that contains 120 teams, because there’s no way that everyone will benefit from whatever changes are made. And if a large number of these smaller programs don’t benefit from a playoff, or are in fact hurt by a playoff, then there’s no way they will support it. I’m not saying that smaller schools would be negatively affected by a different system, but the possibility that they could hurts the chances of it happening.

Keith McKeller..the “K” in “K-Gun”.

God i couldn’t stand that team. They were Dolphin Killers…like the Texans.

try this again. we need one of link for nfl uniform violations