Skip to content

Uni Watch Blog Post


This has been a very NFL-ish week (two more unveilings this evening, whee!), but big things are also afoot in the world of college football. As you may have heard, the long-promised college football playoff series, set to debut following the 2014 regular season, now has an official name: The college football playoff will be called the College Football Playoff.

Boy, they really flexed their creative muscles with that one, eh? Granted, “BCS Championship Game” wasn’t exactly a stroke of rhetorical brilliance either, but come on. The new name is like the nomenclatorial version of a Penn State uniform (NNOB, natch).

There are four proposed logos for the playoff series. And in a nice bit of parallelism, the logo designs are just as bland as the name. Check it out (click to enlarge):


I kinda like the first one — or I would have back in 1973. The others feel hopelessly generic. Fans are being invited to vote on the one they like best, but that seems pointless without a “None of the above” option.

At first I thought they wanted a tame logo design so it wouldn’t compete with the inevitable corporate sponsor logo that would be added later on. But then I remembered that the playoff series won’t have a sponsor. Hmmm. On some level I should probably be pleased that the logos are all relatively simple and avoid many of the design clichés we tend to see so often in sports logos these days. Still, these are so underwhelming.

Or at least that’s my take. What’s yours?

+ + + + +

Uni Watch News Ticker: Uni unveilings scheduled this evening for the Vikings (6:15pm Eastern) and Dolphins (7pm Eastern). Once those happen, I’ll summarize my reactions over on and post a link here and on Twitter. … Speaking of the Vikings, here’s an illustrated timeline of their uniform history (from David Teigland). … Yesterday I linked to a story about Nike’s design process for the new Jags uniforms. If you look at one of the photos from that article, you can see that they were indeed tinkering with the idea of including the players’ names above the front-jersey patch, just as I had been told last week. Guess that element got scrapped along the way. … Remember when the Titans let fans vote on their 15th-season patch design? Here’s the winner. … The Chicken Sandwich Bowl may have to be renamed, and wouldn’t that be a crying shame. ”¦ New uniforms for the Japanese national table tennis team (from Jeremy Brahm). … Just what the world needs: corporate product placements in standardized school tests (from Andy Horne). … Here’s one guy’s concept of what the most awesome ballpark in the world would look like (from Walter Young). ”¦ Sporting KC will debut their third kit this weekend against Portland (from Eric Papke). … Reprinted from yesterday’s comments: A man charged with a shooting outside of Wrigley Field yesterday has a White Sox logo tattooed on his face (from Jim Walaitis). … The Boston Bombers are changing their name, for obvious reasons. … Meanwhile, in a depressingly predictable development, some douchebags out there want to trademark the term “Boston Strong.” … New design for the $100 bill, and boy is it a stinker. … Latest reason to love Joe Maddon: He has his name and number on his office chair. The penguin is a nice touch, too (thanks, Brinke). … Michael Princip scored an old leatherhead helmet on eBay and cleaned it up, resulting in a gorgeous display piece. … Nationals call-up Anthony Rendon didn’t have the correct size helmet Monday night, and it slipped off in mid-swing (from Laura Aimone). ”¦ Some buzz yesterday about this Illinois helmet. “It might be an option as part of the rebrand this fall,” says Eric Lovejoy.

Comments (158)

    As someone with a close enough relationship with Sporting KC, they will not be debuting the argyle 3rd this weekend. No idea why this guy is claiming this. Team will want to debut it on a nationally televised game to get the image of it out there, so expect it Memorial Day weekend on NBCSN against Houston.

    Not a fan of the logo choices, but I do like the name. Simplistic is the way to go. I don’t think it gets much more simplistic than the NBA, though … “The Finals.”

    I bet Nike really prefers the third logo choice (which looks a great deal like their nikelaces, IMO).

    I completely support any sporting endeavor that promotes or leads to the donning of fake facial hair.

    “College Football Playoff” – according to the Associated Press, “Premiere Sports Management in Overland Park, Kan., was hired to help come up with a name and brand the new system”!

    It’s not a new design. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing unveiled the design in 2010, and then ran into production problems with the big security ribbon, which has delayed introduction of the design three times. What’s new is the date for introducing this by now quite old design: October 2013.

    Paul, I’d be interested to hear more about why you don’t the the $100 bill, which I sorta dig. Maybe a good One-Man Focus Group?

    It’s just plain ugly! The big blue strip dividing it, the stupid orange inkwell…. inkwell? The pathetic job on the GIANT 100 on the back instead of nicely fitting it in the area given, rubbing out of an area just looks poorly done. Do I need to continue?

    The theme of the note is the Declaration of Independence. You’ve got Independence Hall, you’ve got text from the Declaration, you’ve got Ben Franklin, you’ve got a giant quill, so the inkwell makes perfect sense. And the giant 100 on the back is there to aid vision-impaired people in using the note. That is actually an example of good design, no matter how ugly one might think it is: It serves a critical functional purpose.

    The blue strip, though: On the one hand, it’s possibly the single most secure bit of anti-counterfeiting design that’s ever appeared on a U.S. note. On the other hand, the reason these bills weren’t released three years ago, as originally intended, is that the blue strip made it impossible at first to actually print the bills. Took three years to figure out how to get paper with that strip to run through printing presses without constantly folding and jamming. So maybe not actually good design there.

    Part of the reason I think the U.S. $100 is not very good looking is the lack of overall colour added. If you are going to add colour, change the main colour of the bill to something other than the traditional washed out green and incorporate colour throughout the bill; not just add a couple items that have colour. The large ‘100’ on the back looks out of place; I realize that was intended for those with vision problems but it just looks clunky and out of place.
    Also I think security features like the blue strip should not stand out so much and not look like something slapped on after the design.

    That being said the look of my country’s (Canada) banknotes has been on a steady downward spiral since the 1980s with the most recent changes (the new plastic money) looking the worst. I think all the series in the 1950s-70s time frame look good.

    To be honest, I think almost all of our money has become a real mess, compositionally speaking. The design philosophy is “add everything we can wherever it will fit.”

    There’s certain to be a better looking way to add security features to bills without screwing with the hierarchy of each bill and the overall visual style of the series.

    What else could they possibly call it? It’s pretty much either College Football Playoff or NCAA Football Playoff. They’re not bowl games and they’re not sponsored so they don’t need a special name, do they?

    I’m surprised the word “Championship” isn’t included.

    Also surprised they’re using “Playoff” (singular) instead of “Playoffs,” which would give the impression of several games.

    Agreed. I thought “NCAA Championship Series” or “College Football Championship” would be a top choice, not “_______ Playoffs.”

    Playoffs? Or perhaps, is there another brand yet to come down the pike for the final game?

    It’s almost like the college football powers to be had a hissy fit and said, “You want playoffs? If we give you the playoffs, will you stop whining? Here, we’ll give you playoffs. We’ll even call it ‘playoff’. Happy now?”

    Also, the singular “playoff” reminds me of Chris Rock’s “How much for one rib?” scene from ‘I’m Gonna Git You Sucka’.

    My basic reaction is, this is the same sport that is now dominated by Oregon-style costumes, flashy non-school-colored uniforms, and endless displays of shiny-object marketing and meaningless gasbag verbiage aimed at teenagers. And we’re complaining that the new championship has a straightforward name and four very plain logo candidates? I think three of the logos are pretty terrible, but still, I’m grateful that they’re not all abstract 48-color 3-D objects illustrating the World Collegiate Battle for Ultimate Mastery or some crap like that.

    Of course, “could be worse” is the faintest and least inspiring praise ever.

    i immediately thought, if ever there was a time for an over-the-top, beveled edge, gradient colored, bumper sticker, super logo… “the College Football Playoff” is it!

    Oh, but it will be sponsored. Sure as my name isn’t really Lose Remerswaal I am certain of this.

    So what then shoudl the OTHER college football playoffs (you know, the ones that have been going on for years!) be called?

    Or all they ALL (Div 1AA, Div 2, etc.) falling under this umbrella now?

    I don’t think so. Those were under the umbrella of the NCAA. The BCS (and now CPF) are not – probably a reason no variation of “Final Four” (also an NCAA property) was used.

    I’m anxiously awaiting the flurry of comments from Redskins defenders expressing their outrage that the Boston Bombers are giving in to PC over-sensitivity and changing the team name.

    Well, that or crickets.

    They’re not exactly a team anyone cares about so there probably won’t be much outrage. I personally do think it’s an unnecessary change though. It’s not exactly uncommon for sports teams to be named after somewhat tragic events – Miami Hurricanes, Chicago Fire, Atlanta/Calgary Flames, San Jose Earthquakes… and it’s also perfectly acceptable for sports teams to have unsavory names – Outlaws, Bandits, Pirates, etc. If the Boston Bombers were a team with a 30+ year history in a somewhat major league, there’d be a lot more noise made about the change.

    Actually, right now is a good time to change the name in light of the recent bombings. In about 5 or 6 years Boston will have become desensitized to the bombings and the name Boston Bombers will be acceptable again.

    Half the things The mentions are natural disaster team names, the other half are nearly fictional characters of long ago. As well, Boston Bombers (currently) refers to two specific people. Outlaws, hurricanes, etc are general in nature.

    If the name would be acceptable 5 years from now, then it’s acceptable now, especially since the team had it FIRST. No one with a functioning brain would actually think the team is trying to glorify those two fuckbags, especially if they had a logo that makes it an obvious reference to a US military aircraft.

    Isn’t this change more about PR than PC?
    Seems to me that the Bombers(I’ll venture a guess that very few UniWatchers and Bostonians even knew about until today, and even fewer are actual fans), while being genuinely sensitive to the events that took place at the marathon and Watertown, are also trying to generate some level of interest that was not going to come their way otherwise.
    Once the new name and logo are rolled out, it’s back to obscurity.

    Just ’cause it’s cyincal, doesn’t mean it’s improbable.

    What is probably going to happen is they’ll roll out something inane, that has bizarrely come to represent this moment in history: “Ladies and Gentlemen, please welcome your BOSTON 6-1-7!!!!”

    “…they’ll roll out something inane, that has bizarrely come to represent this moment in history…”

    Now that trademark applications have been filed, it appears that the Bombers waited too long to rebrand themselves the “Boston Strong”.

    They might, if any of them has ever HEARD of a pro team called the “Boston Bombers” before now. But it’s unlikely that they have.

    I agree with THE JEFF…there was no outcry to change the NY JETS name or logo’s after 9/11

    If there’s any “flurry of comments” from Washingtonians, I’m guessing it will more likely be empathy and a sincere hope that the former Boston Bombers have better luck coming up with a new team identity than the former Washington/Baltimore Bullets did.

    “Latest reason to love Joe Maddon” joins “Worthwhile Canadian initiative” on the list of word sequences so existentially true that they transcend the normal limits of language and meaning.

    In that particular photo, you could crop out the chair and the penguin and still have a guy not only wearing an awesome M*A*S*H shirt (he must have watched a lot of Nationals rain-delay games back in the aughts) but, in the shirt, looking more like a member of the 4077th than even most of the cast members. The list of M*A*S*H-iest looking people who ever lived now runs, Col Potter, BJ, Joe Maddon, Hawkeye, Radar, Klinger.

    I love thre MASH shirt. Love the pinewood derby car on the shelf behind him. But what’s the framed shirt on the wall? Looks like it has an “NFL Equipment” logo on a long sleeve…

    It looks like a jersey with a letter over top of it. The letter looks like it has the Pats logo at the top.

    i am wondering if it’s one of Belichick’s hoodies, note the Patriots letterhead hanging in front of it.

    Calling it “College Football Playoff” would have been fine if… they hadn’t dumped a bunch of money on a marketing company to help come up with it.

    It makes me want to investigate the relationship between the company and the NCAA (or whoever is responsible).

    Not to defend a bunch of money-grabbing, cheap labor exploiting, cynical asshats, but it looks like Premier Sports Management has a preexisting relationship with NCAA and BCS, and they weren’t hired solely to rename the BCS.

    And any rebranding project goes beyond just the name – logo explorations are quite the pain.

    I agree that the first college football logo looks like it comes out of 1973. I think they should go with it just because. And because it’s just better than the other options.

    First logo on the left is most definitely the only one with redeeming qualities (clean lines, stripes on the football integrated with the flag). Type could’ve been a bit more interesting (it’s a collegiate serif and all, but it could’ve been a more interesting collegiate serif).

    The other three are absolutely, tremendously atrocious … which means ones of them will be the choice. They’re so terrible it’s not even funny … could’ve hired the local community college to create ‘logos’ of that quality (if not considerably better). Amazed by what some of these design firms get away with foisting upon their clients. Stunned, actually.

    #1 is a nice bit of design. Connecting the stripes on the flag, which symbolizes “national,” with the stripes on the ball, which clearly says “college football,” is a very nice touch. Even if it makes it look a bit like a flag-vampire biting a football. #2 is an emoticon gone wrong. #3 would be a fine logo, if and only if the championship game ends with medals and ribbons that look exactly like the logo being draped around the necks of every player on the winning team, Olympics-style. #4 has no excuse to exist. That is seriously the worst-drawn compass rose I’ve ever seen. Plus the football lacks the distinctive white stripes.

    Being by far the worst of the lot, #4 will of course win.

    Hah! I think it’s more about being a natural pessimist. For example, I get really stressed out every fall when an election approaches, because I just know that the people I want to win usually lose. Except I counted it up last November, and I’m actually 5-for-6 at the presidential level, 4-for-5 among governors, and nearly perfect in terms of Congress and state legislative seats. And this includes candidates from both major parties and the one third-party candidate I’ve backed, who won. So, you know, I should probably stop being such a negative nabob and trust other people not to make terrible decisions!

    Lol, they only wish their kindygarten logo had half the creativity of MJK & Howerdel. ;)

    I quite like “College Football Playoff”. Simple, no gimmicks, no bogus attempts to be catchy, and (most importantly) no corporate sponsor. Now let’s hope that people casually call it “the Playoff” instead of making it into yet another three-letter acronym.

    No offense Dave, but it took you until 1989 to get a color photo of the Vikings uniforms??? bummer.

    Well, it’s a newspaper, and newspapers didn’t do color photos until relatively recently (and they were developing their photos in-house). I’m guessing they’re just pulling photos from their files rather than pay Getty Images for full color photos.

    I’m guessing the 1962 Vikings team picture is colorized, right? Because it’s colorized wrong. The purple pants are a royal, almost light blue, the numbers and sleeve stripes are navy, and the outline on the numbers is a lightish red – almost peach. It sure doesn’t look gold or yellow. I think the colorization (if that’s what it is) looks great! But they don’t look like the Vikings.

    Ok… I just re-scanned the ticker, and noticed the blurb about the Titans 15th season patch…. what’s up with that jersey? Shouldn’t we be able to see the navy blue shoulders in that shot?

    Nevermind… I could’ve sworn the navy started at the seam above the flywire collar, but it looks like it only does that on the replica jerseys, while it’s a bit higher up on the field.

    Of course it’s for the wrong reason the bowl isn’t the Chic Fil A bowl anymore.

    It should have always been the Peach Bowl, CFA was wrong to ask for the name change and worse that the bowl committee granted it.

    They get to keep their sponsorship but they should have been never granted the name.

    Kind of suspected that would happen.

    They’re setting up the BK teams to be the anti-MSG teams, so having one team (Isles) share the same colors as the “enemy” (Knicks) doesn’t make sense. Hopefully they won’t just mimic the Nets black/white.

    Right after I posted that, I thought that a straight blue/white uniform might be too similar to the Rangers… so why not go orange/white instead? Or would that be too similar to the flyers?

    “The colors are the same. The logo is the same.”

    You’d *have to* change the logo, right? I know Brooklyn is geographically on Long Island, psychologically, Kings County is about a million miles from Nassau.

    It’s too bad that blue/white/orange is too close to the Knicks, since those are the colors of the NYC flag, and it’d be sadly ironic that they’d lose those colors when they move to NYC.

    Maybe orange as the primary color, with royal blue trim would be a compromise? (think 1980s Broncos)

    The current logo only depicts Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Kings and Queens are not on there. If they want to include the location of their new home, they would at the very least need to elongate the Island. My prediction is that they will just change the Third jersey to black/white and leave the home/road as is, with perhaps the minor tweak to the depiction of the Island to include all 4 counties.

    “A member of one group told the Riverhead News-Review earlier this month he was asked to rate a new team jersey without any orange, one that looked like the old Brooklyn Dodgers uniform – blue and white.”

    This just spells minimalist and laziness…the Islanders re-branding efforts in the past (even the recent attempt w/the black 3rd) have all failed…I don’t see Brooklyn being home for long…(6-8 seasons)…Quebec City is getting an AHL team, and if they support it like Manitoba did with the Moose…Ill bet that Islanders become true Nordiques

    I’m not sure what you’re basing that conclusion on. What makes you think that Brooklyn wouldn’t support the Isles?

    Once the novelty wears off, and the team returns to its status quo…attendence will quickly follow…besides, how long before they get tempted with having their own arena again? Several cities are getting ready to make bids (Seattle, K.C. (which NYI had explored), Quebec City and Hamilton)…if in 8 seasons they stay and are committed to beng Brooklyn’s team forever, I will come on here and say “I was wrong”…but I see this move more as a band aid than a long term solution…

    All those cities you mentioned are smaller markets than Brooklyn, so that seems unlikely. I know there are issues with the seating capacity for hockey in Barclay’s, but I doubt they’ll have a hard time filling seats than they did in Nassau.

    As for Seattle, I think Phoenix moving north is a more likely possibility.

    The challenge will be twofold:

    * The Nets have already beaten them to the “Wow, Brooklyn has a sports team again!” novelty factor. I don’t know that hockey sweaters with “BROOKLYN” on the front will necessarily sell like similar basketball apparel.

    * Mikhail Pokhrov was willing to spend (almost to a fault) to bring the Nets to some sort of relevance. There’s no guarantee that the ownership – Charles Wang or otherwise, will do the same.

    And there’s the incalculable value of Jay-Z’s boosterism that helped the Nets branding. Islanders aren’t going to get that.

    Finally, while Brooklyn’s population may outnumber most North American cities, many of those are diehard Rangers fans. The hypothetical NHL fan in KC or Seattle will likely won’t have a preexisting allegiance to a team.

    We’ll see, but I don’t see there being any problems in Brooklyn.

    KC, on the other hand has something to prove, I think.
    It’s one of those cities that seems to fall through the cracks, not having a basketball or hockey team. Of course, St. Louis doesn’t have basketball either.

    They could still be the “New York (City)” Islanders, as Brooklyn is part of New York City and not a city unto itself.

    Those have been around for months, there’s no guarantee they will even be used, plus that’s the same uniform they have had for years, the only new part to it are the helmets.

    Thought this bit was interesting from the Jaguars design history piece:

    “I also like that a uniform can come to define a an era
    of the team – since they are used for five years”

    Call me paranoid (you’re paranoid!) but does this mean that the Swooshketeers are planning a five-year life cycle for all their uniforms?

    I think someone simply forgot to say the words “at least”, since 5 years is the minimum amount of time a team can wear a uniform before making another major change. For that matter, Nike only has a 5 year contract at this point, so they can’t really plan anything, diabolical or otherwise.

    B.S. TVH knew exactly what he was saying, and that is, “We design for the short term, not the long term. We don;t want people to get bored and forget about us.”

    Didn’t the Jaguars themselves just come out of a cycle where they wore their previous design for only 4 years (2009, 2010, 2011, 2012)?


    Hmmmm. I’m wondering if the five-year rule came after 2009 and the Jags were grandfathered in somehow?

    I didn’t know people still used clip art and MS Paint, but apparently the folks that designed the College Football Playoff logos do.

    Hacked? Please. Some guy making a script to vote every couple seconds because they were too stupid to limit the damn thing to one vote per IP is hardly “hacking”.

    As for the Playoff logos, gimme the one on the left. The one on the right is a distant second. Second from the right looks like horns. Second from the left looks like…um…what’s the word Mr. Johnson would use? I’d better not…

    Yesterday the good folks at Every Day Should Be Saturday called the second logo “The Golden V . . .”

    You say that the CF Playoff logos are bland. Maybe because they dont have any over-bearing sponsor logo ontop. They look pretty much identical to the BCS logo

    Its officially the Chick-fil-a Peach Bowl once again, they updated the story last night, it’s now titled “Chick-fil-A Bowl name to change.”

    The only question is when the name will go into effect (is it this year or for 2014?).

    Just thought you might want to update that part in the ticker.

    Nice job on that leather helmet Michael.

    And table tennis uniforms. I loved playing table tennis long ago and recently have been able to hit some at YMCA. Great game.

    I voted on the second one, it has a minimalist approach and it would be appropriate with the gold accents. The other ones I wouldn’t be upset to see adopt–except for the last one. What is with the spikes? Did someone do a drop of LSD and did their own take on the Seattle Mariners logo?

    With that said, having voted, I noticed that the Big East logo is still being used. Granted, I haven’t seen an AAC logo come out yet, but still…

    The logo’s are as bad as the name “College Football Playoff”. It should be Playoffs. If you’re going to have four teams, then it’s going to be at least two games. Hence the plural.

    Also, it sounds better.

    I took a tour of the Rays clubhouse during their Fan Fest. Everyone on the Rays had similar leather chairs with their names and numbers embroidered on them. I thought it was a nice touch. I took a closer look at the chairs and noticed that the embroidered portion of the chair was actually a panel that could be unzipped and replaced if they need to reuse it for someone else.

    The problem with that “ideal ballpark” thing is that it’s sort of already been done.

    The Houston Astros play in a ballpark that had flagpoles in play, like Tiger Stadium used to, and a hill in the outfield, like Crosley Field had, and a Fenway-style short left field, with a big green wall and a huge Citgo sign behind it, and an white arched facade, reminiscent of Yankee Stadium. And it doesn’t work. It’s Epcot goes to the ball game.

    A ballpark’s beauty is organic. It’s the way it combines with its surroundings that makes it great, not any one specific feature. That’s why Ebbets Field was iconic, and I’m Still Calling It Shea, which employs many of the same design elements, isn’t.

    The only problem with Enron Field is that it’s got a retractable roof. Otherwise I don’t mind at all that it’s borrowed some elements from other stadiums. Still far better than those ugly cookie cutters of the ’70s.

    Start placing your NOB bets now. There will be THREE Staal brothers on the ice tonight for the Carolina Hurricanes: Eric, Jordan and Jared.

    Unfortunately, Marc Staal is still on the IR for the NY Rangers, and will not play against his brothers.

    (Kudos to the Yahoo commenter who proposed NOBs as Staal, Staaler and Staalest.)

    You know what’s even cooler? Despite the fact that initial Twitter rumblings had Jared Staal as #34 in the scorecard, he may or may not be #13 instead. So that’s all the Staals, numerically bunched together!

    I think I’m with the consensus on the Vikings’ and Dolphins’ new uniforms. Miami: The package feels sterile because there’s too much navy and not enough orange. Minnesota: Just a mediocre-or-better font away from a perfectly good uniform.

    Still an upgrade over what they had. I can live with the sleeve stripes but I really wish they would’ve added outlines to the numbers but either way that number font looks weird. Why do I have the feeling the 3 will look like a reversed B from the old Binghamton Whalers logo?

    The pants stripes appear to be strange as well. Kind of an asymmetrical stripe thickness thing happening.

    I voted for the 3rd one of the logos. They are all the suck but the 3rd one was just a tad better IMO. I’m sure there will be crap around it explaining to everybody what they’re watching like the Rose Bowl but at least the 3rd one has the year on it. Not that it was a major issue but hey when given 4 piles of crap I took the one that smelled the least and wasn’t as wet.

    Not that I’ll see any of them anytime soon but as for the $100 bill. Well Definitely a downgrade. Reminds me of the trends in football. Add as much in as possible around unnecessarily oversized logos. Now if they could just find a way to make it matte.

    Nike Vapor Sock? Really? Have none of them ever been around guys who were just playing football? Those vapors ain’t very marketable.

    I Don’t mind the number font, don’t mind the funky sleeve stripe, really like the funky pant stripe, but the black face mask makes zero sense. If that mask were purple, white or gray it would be a home run. It’s a thousand times better than what it replaced.

    I thought the black facemask didn’t make sense either but it matches the black outline on the horn stickers on the sides of the helmet. As long as it matches something it makes sense.

    Would the number font look better, if both numbers were the same font style? Overall though – the number font is more interesting than first thought.

    Loose the Miami tramp stamp, add an aqua facemask and some aqua pants and I’d hate the Dolphins look a lot less. Looking at it today it doesn’t look quite as bad. Still way too bland with so much white though.

    Didn’t see that listed anywhere. OK I like the new look a lot more now. But the aqua facemask still needs to come back.

    Why are all your blog posts just a massive wall of text.

    Maybe you might consider have just a point or two per post and focus on making it readable. I find this stuff somewhat interesting, so why do you make it so cumbersome to get to the interest?

    It’s like doing historical research on small claims court documents.

    Considering this post is rather short and to the point, I assume you mean the news ticker? I think it’s a lot to take in (particularly on Mondays, as to be expected), but I like it how it is. It gives you a good idea just how much information is really out there.

Comments are closed.