There is no assuming about it. It was posted here by Phil several years ago. Sorry you didn't see it but feel free to search for it.
The funny thing is you don't understand that everyone wants realism, everyone wants tattoos.
You are telling yourself people are lying for what reason???
 |
Quote: |
 |
|
|
 |
Originally Posted by unfriendlyghst |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know, I know, here I go again on the tatoos.
I'm truely sorry for repeatedly kicking this dead horse in the mouth (Barbaro), but I just can't get my head around it.
The old tried and true response of "The NFL wants a certain 'Image' to be represented " has been thrown around for I don't know how long, I guess when ever they decided to remove them. I was fine with that reasoning and accepted it as "fact", even though NO ONE has been able to PROVIDE A SOURCE as to whom this is attributed. (NFL/EA)
Until a few days ago.
I was crusing the NFL shop online, the OFFICIAL NFL STORE, NFLshop.com, and guess who is using people with tatoos TO MODEL THEIR APPEARAL??!?!?
What the hell is going on here? You mean to tell me that the NFL doesn't want players to have tatoos in THEIR GAME, even though roughtly 50% of players have them in THE REAL NFL, (80% of linemen) and yet they are perfectly OK with advertising OFFICIAL NFL MERCHENDISE on people who have tatoos???
I am so lost. These excuses only work in a vaccum (Madden) and don't seem to have a real weight in the real word. Also, did they take a poll and just determined that "most people" are offended by non descript arm tats or what? But then resaerched and realised that models with tatoos would make their Raiders merch sell more rapidly?
Someone please explain? I'm really stumped and would like this to be put to bed.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Closing this because just like every year, we've had this discussion. No need to have it again.
08-26-2012, 06:56 PM
