Finally, Something That Passes the ‘Is It Good or Is It Stupid?’ Test

hawks1.jpg

We’ve had a lot of chatter in the Comments section lately about the use of Native American imagery on uniforms and logos. So it felt like a nice coincidence the other day when my friend Rob Walker told me about a clothing brand called No Mas, which specializes in politically charged appropriations and recontextualizations of sports logos — like this T-shirt (note the tears), this patch, and these jackets (click on the thumbnails for bigger views — they’re amazing).

But No Mas’s designs go way behind Indian symbology. Check out this Baghdad Oilers tee, this Astros appropriation (there’s also a jacket; here’s the rear view), and this totally brilliant ode to Wilt (if you don’t get the joke, look here).

In some cases you have to look closely to get the point. This jacket, for example, seems pretty conventional, until you see the back. Others are simpler but just as clever, like this backed with this. Some of the messages are strictly sports-related, like these two jackets, whose rear designs speak for themselves. And then there’s my favorite of the whole lot.

It helps to know that the guy behind all this is really, really smart. His name is Chris Isenberg, and you can read Rob Walker’s excellent two-part interview with him, which touches on a lot of sports-related topics (some of them logo-related), here and here. Isenberg and one of his buddies (who simply goes by “Large”) also maintain a sports blog on the No Mas site, and it’s impressive stuff — sharp, articulate, and willing to cut against the grain. Two recent entries, for example, do a good job of arguing that this whole “Ali invented rap” thing is bullshit at best, condescending at worst.

Isenberg lives in Brooklyn, but I haven’t met him yet. I’m looking forward to rectifying that soon (we were supposed to have dinner last night, in fact, but he had to cancel at the last minute). Want to get your hands on some of his merch? Unfortunately, many of the designs I linked to earlier in this entry are no longer available, but you can get some of them here and here.

Update: If you’re interested in any of the jackets or other art pieces shown in this entry but not listed in No Mas’s online store, contant Chris Isenberg directly, here.

Contest Follow-Up: Got a note yesterday from Derek Traini, who won contest for the $200 Distant Replays gift card. Here’s what he spent it on:

I wound up using this as an opportunity to get my dad a cool Xmas gift. As long as I can remember, he’s always said Ernie Banks personified everything the game should be about, so I got a 1969 Banks jersey for him. And even though the 1919 Black Sox nearly destroyed the game, for some reason I still love those jerseys of theirs, and Eight Men Out is one of my favorite movies too, so I bit the bullet and got that one for myself. Threw in a cool Houston Colt .45s hat, too — something you’ll hardly ever see. So yeah, I went a little nuts, but it was fun.

Congrats again to Derek. I hope to have word soon on which helmet was chosen by Pete Ellingsworth, who won the Gridiron Memories helmet raffle.

Elms [Family] Tree: Last week I mentioned that reader Elena Elems had helped ring in the holidays by graciously sending a tin of stirrup-frosted cookies to Uni Watch HQ. Now her sister Vernona has contributed a pair of cat toys for Uni Watch mascots Tucker and Caitlin. “Since I live in Washington, D.C.,” she writes, “I thought I should send the kitties something political (and bi-partisan, since I don’t know if they’re Republicans or Democrats).” The result: catnip toys shaped like George Bush and Hillary Clinton, which are being licked, swatted, and generally ripped to shreds at this very moment.

A big thanks to the Elms gals, who are giving sibling rivalry a good name. If you too would like to see your cookies, cat toys, or other gifts showcased in this space, the address is 671 DeGraw St., Brooklyn, NY 11217.

Uni Watch News Ticker: Looks like the Gators may be wearing that 100th-anniversary patch in the BCS title game after all (with thanks to Josh Coney). … Our occasional discussions of pointed collars are put into new perspective by this photo of the 1903 Georgia Tech women’s hoops team (good find by Mike Raymer). … Speaking of Swoosh, Inc., you’ve probably heard that they’ve struck a big deal with Virginia Tech. What you may not have heard — and what I didn’t realized until Pat Kenny pointed it out — is that the deal was secret until the Roanoke Times filed a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain it. Details here. … Excellent interview here with Panthers equipment manager Jackie Miles. … Gee, what a surprise. … Carlos Beltran sure does love that Jesus guy. The cap is part of this auction lot (spotted by Eric Stangel). … Good shot here of Jeff O’Neill clearly wearing a necklace. The odd thing is that he doesn’t wear uni No. 18 (or play first base), so what’s with the pendant? (An assist to Dan Sherman, who also sent along links to two eBay auctions — one for what might be history’s most amusingly ugly hockey jersey, and another for a jersey with the coolest uni number ever.) … Several readers have noted that CCM has a new logo, as seen here on Alex Ovechkin’s helmet. … Kudos to the Indianapolis Police Dept., which has decided to ditch the black — or, more specifically, decided not to use black in the first place. Details here (with thanks to Blaine Williams). … Reprinted from last night’s comments: Radim Vrbata, who normally wears a visor, was wearing a full-face cage last night. … Also from last night’s comments: Nice article in today’s New York Times about NHL goalies. Note that the circa-1954 photo at the top of the article shows two different Rangers wearing the captain’s “C” — what’s that all about?

 

137 comments to Finally, Something That Passes the ‘Is It Good or Is It Stupid?’ Test

  • B | December 13, 2006 at 9:04 am |

    First Comment!

    Good Choices on the purchases at Distant Replays

  • jesse | December 13, 2006 at 9:13 am |

    [quote comment="29223"]First Comment!

    Good Choices on the purchases at Distant Replays[/quote]

    I like how the guy bought $600 worth of stuff with a $200 gift card. I really like the Ernie Banks jersey, but where would you wear the White Sox jersey? For the same money I would have bought an 05 Jersey with a World Series patch.

  • Mike C. | December 13, 2006 at 9:15 am |

    On Jeff O’neill, could it be for his brother, how passed in the off season, which is why he went to Toronto, to be closer to home and family.
    Slainte’
    Mike

  • Matt B | December 13, 2006 at 9:16 am |

    No Mas biffed on the “Jewboys” lettering. The serifs in the W and B should extend to meet each other.

  • Burrill | December 13, 2006 at 9:26 am |

    Encouraging comments by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell at the end of this article. Concerning Nolan’s and Del Rio’s suits:

    “I love it. I think it’s great,” he said. “It reflects well on the coaches and reflects well on the National Football League. Our coaches are a very important reflection of the NFL. I think the more impressive the look, the better it reflects on us.”

  • Miguel | December 13, 2006 at 9:34 am |

    So do they just get vintage Starter jackets and add their own designs?

  • skhab | December 13, 2006 at 9:40 am |

    Sometimes hockey teams will have two co-captains instead of a captain and alternates. Right now I believe the Sabres are captained by both Daniel Briere and Chris Drury.

  • Tim B | December 13, 2006 at 9:42 am |

    one of those rated rookie shirts will be mine!

  • al | December 13, 2006 at 9:44 am |

    Think of the possibilities on this type of clothing….

    Cubbies: ‘100 summers and counting’
    Sox : ‘2004 was but a blip on the screen’.
    TBl’zrs: ‘DUI, Felonies & Misdomeaners’
    Chavez : ‘The pesky underdog’ or the ‘Esa Tikkanen of Global Politics’.

    i’m sure people much more clever than I can fill in the rest and run with such a premise.

  • GTFan | December 13, 2006 at 9:47 am |

    Interesting item about the 1903 Georgia Tech women’s team. Question: Since Georgia Tech did not admit women until 1952, does that mean the 1903 team were students from another school? For instance, I’ve heard that the Tech cheerleading squad consisted mainly of girls from other Atlanta schools (Emory, Agnes Scott, etc.) until well into the 1960’s.

  • Paul Lukas | December 13, 2006 at 9:47 am |

    [quote comment="29248"]So do they just get vintage Starter jackets and add their own designs?[/quote]

    Yes.

  • GR | December 13, 2006 at 9:47 am |

    The 1903 image of the women’s basketball team is not from Georgia Tech. The first women at Georgia Tech did not enroll until 1952. They didn’t have a women’s b-ball team until many years later.

  • Terry | December 13, 2006 at 9:48 am |

    From checking out the New York Rangers website, Gump Worsley played for the Rangers from 1952 to 1963. I recognized in the picture that one of the captains is Allan Stanley who was captain from Dec. 20, 1951 to Nov. 3, 1953. I think the other captain is Don Raleigh, who succeeded Stanley as captain of the Rangers.

  • Zach | December 13, 2006 at 9:51 am |

    The Baghdad Oilers shirt will be mine!

  • tedkerwin | December 13, 2006 at 9:53 am |

    The first Captain on the left might be Don Raliegh

    Not Sure

  • tedkerwin | December 13, 2006 at 9:55 am |
  • Jason | December 13, 2006 at 10:00 am |

    That “Rated Rookie” shirt is sweet. Donruss rules!!

  • tedkerwin | December 13, 2006 at 10:05 am |

    Check out the Goalie padding in this photo, think the skirt would block the Five hole pretty effectively?

    Jim Henry

  • Teebz | December 13, 2006 at 10:06 am |

    Jeff O’Neill has worn #92 in Hartford, Carolina and Toronto. 9 x 2 = 18.

    Robert Kron wore #18 when O’Neill broke into the NHL in 1995 with the Hartford Whalers. In 2000-01, Kron had left the Hurricanes franchise, but Mike Rucinski wore #18 for two games. While it would suggest that he got used to being Carolina’s best player wearing #92, #18 could have been his. Mike Zigomanis wore #18 in Carolina in 03-04 for 17 games, so it’s not like he couldn’t change.

    When he arrived in Toronto, Chad Kilger was already wearing #18. I guess he’s content with #92 since he’s worn it for his whole career. In junior, he was forced to wear #92 because the Guelph Storm have #18 retired in honour of Paul Fendley. Paul Fendley was a former member of the Guelph CMC’s who died in an on-ice accident at Guelph Memorial Gardens in 1972. His number has been officially retired by the city of Guelph and is not issued to any hockey players at any level within the city.

    I assume that #18 might be his number of choice, but he has never worn it in a junior or pro hockey game.

  • tedkerwin | December 13, 2006 at 10:09 am |

    And continuing the goalies wearing baseball hats

    Norman Smith

  • Teebz | December 13, 2006 at 10:10 am |

    I should note… the Guelph CMC’s were a junior “A” ice hockey team in the Ontario Hockey Association.

    A little more on Paul Fendley and why his number was retired by the city:

    “Fendley was checked by an opponent with 11 minutes to play in the game. He tried to catch his balance while still handling the puck and lost his helmet in the process, falling and striking the bare back of his head on the ice.

    Fendley was the 1972 SOJHL Leading Scorer with 20 goals and 24 assists in 43 games. He also scored 14 goals and 18 assists in 26 playoff games before his accident. The game in which he was fatally injured was the final and clinching game of the Centennial Cup.”

  • tedkerwin | December 13, 2006 at 10:11 am |
  • NickNH | December 13, 2006 at 10:15 am |

    [quote comment="29255"]Sometimes hockey teams will have two co-captains instead of a captain and alternates. Right now I believe the Sabres are captained by both Daniel Briere and Chris Drury.[/quote]

    They are co-captains, but I believe NHL rules allow only one player to be officially designated as the C per game, so Drury and Briere swap the C. When Drury wears the C, Briere wears an A and vice versa.

    I’m not certain, but I believe when each of them plays a game in an old stomping ground of sorts (Drury in Boston since he played at BU, Briere in Montreal since he’s from Quebec), the guy who’s playing at ‘home’ wears the C.

  • Korch | December 13, 2006 at 10:30 am |

    New logos, uniforms, hats, etc for Scranton Wilkes-Barre Yankees (formerly the SWB Red Barrons):

    http://minors.mlbcon...

  • Bill | December 13, 2006 at 10:33 am |

    Hey Paul…

    any idea where Vernona bought the catnip toys? I’d love to see my cats rip GB to shreds!

  • Paul Lukas | December 13, 2006 at 10:42 am |

    [quote comment="29305"]any idea where Vernona bought the catnip toys? I’d love to see my cats rip GB to shreds![/quote]

    Just google “George Bush cat toy” and you’ll find plenty of mail-order options.

  • Dave K | December 13, 2006 at 10:52 am |

    On the Bullets jacket, “Hinckley” is misspelled.

    Second, the two Rangers with the C’s, the guy on the left has a “C” lacking the serif; also, why are they wearing game sweaters in practice? Looks like a staged shot for publicity.

  • Leroy | December 13, 2006 at 10:56 am |

    [quote comment="29269"][quote comment="29248"]So do they just get vintage Starter jackets and add their own designs?[/quote]

    Yes.[/quote]

    well so much for my rant on unlicensed products, I guess as long as they’re not adding or altering team logos then the owners of those logos have no recourse. the 3 indian logo t-shirt however is an issue.

  • Paul Lukas | December 13, 2006 at 11:00 am |

    [quote comment="29330"][quote comment="29269"][quote comment="29248"]So do they just get vintage Starter jackets and add their own designs?[/quote]

    Yes.[/quote]

    well so much for my rant on unlicensed products, I guess as long as they’re not adding or altering team logos then the owners of those logos have no recourse. the 3 indian logo t-shirt however is an issue.[/quote]

    I think it’s fair use (although I realize others might disagree). Isenberg addresses these issues in this interview.

  • todd krevanchi | December 13, 2006 at 11:02 am |

    from yesterday..

    [quote comment="29019"]Wonder if there is going to be any corporate naming rights or logo creep on this baby. wow.
    http://stadium.dalla...

    i was at one of the very first games at texas stadium back in 71–but this is something else.[/quote]

    WOW!!! that is amazing!

    from today…
    the no mas stuff is incredible…
    the super tecmo stuff brought me back to all nighter full seasons and a 2.0 gpa freshman year of college.

    i would love a gift certificate from that place…

    the reason of course that Scranton-Wilkes Barre was renamed the yankees from the red barons is that they changed team affiliation. the phillies were affiliated with SWB, however they moved and the new affiliate will be the Lehigh Valley Iron Pigs.
    http://www.ironpigsb...

  • Leroy | December 13, 2006 at 11:14 am |

    [quote comment="29333"][quote comment="29330"][quote comment="29269"][quote comment="29248"]So do they just get vintage Starter jackets and add their own designs?[/quote]

    Yes.[/quote]

    well so much for my rant on unlicensed products, I guess as long as they’re not adding or altering team logos then the owners of those logos have no recourse. the 3 indian logo t-shirt however is an issue.[/quote]

    I think it’s fair use (although I realize others might disagree). Isenberg addresses these issues in this interview.[/quote]

    maybe i’m an old fuddy-duddy, and in the interest of disclosure i do make my living in the sale of licensed sports products, but i think the slope mr. isenberg is traveling is just too slippery. does that same thinking protect the reprehensible calvin and hobbes calvin t-shirts, or some of the vulgar slogans made especially about players such as derek jeter and alex rodriguez? are we closing our eyes to the legality of this issue just because one side is everyday folks and one side is millionaire/billionaires?

  • Bouj | December 13, 2006 at 11:21 am |

    I cannot praise the No Mas stuff enough. I have 3 of the t-shirts (BALCO in Giants colors, the Barry “Say No To Drugs”, and Baghdad Oilers) and they always get props when I wear them out. I had a guy at the counter of the Mirage sports book laughing his head off over the BALCO one.

    The downside is that a lot of the stuff is limited edition or hard to get because they aren’t mass-produced. It took me 2 months of searching to get a Baghdad Oilers tee in my size (XL).

  • Leroy | December 13, 2006 at 11:24 am |

    and furthermore, maybe the vulgar logos would not be protected, but would an NY Mets with the Mets “NY” transformed into a swastika in the middle be protected? what about a Duke Basketball t-shirt that said “Fucking Aristocrats” on the back? or an Alabama Football t-shirt that said 1961 national champions with pictures of Alabama players in Klan hoods on the back? just because some of us agree with isenberg’s messages doesn’t settle their legality

  • Lou | December 13, 2006 at 11:27 am |

    Great, now my company is blocking images at flckr as well! This blows.

  • Patrick O'Donnell | December 13, 2006 at 11:30 am |

    [quote comment="29343"][quote comment="29333"][quote comment="29330"][quote comment="29269"][quote comment="29248"]So do they just get vintage Starter jackets and add their own designs?[/quote]

    Yes.[/quote]

    well so much for my rant on unlicensed products, I guess as long as they’re not adding or altering team logos then the owners of those logos have no recourse. the 3 indian logo t-shirt however is an issue.[/quote]

    I think it’s fair use (although I realize others might disagree). Isenberg addresses these issues in this interview.[/quote]

    maybe i’m an old fuddy-duddy, and in the interest of disclosure i do make my living in the sale of licensed sports products, but i think the slope mr. isenberg is traveling is just too slippery. does that same thinking protect the reprehensible calvin and hobbes calvin t-shirts, or some of the vulgar slogans made especially about players such as derek jeter and alex rodriguez? are we closing our eyes to the legality of this issue just because one side is everyday folks and one side is millionaire/billionaires?[/quote]

    I have to agree with you 100%. If it’s not illegal, than it is at least wrong. If Nike did that, everyone on this board would throw a fit like nobody’s business. Well said.

  • Kerry | December 13, 2006 at 11:33 am |

    THESE are perhaps the BEST boots EVER!

  • Gary | December 13, 2006 at 11:39 am |

    [quote comment="29358"]THESE are perhaps the BEST boots EVER![/quote]

    Boots? There were boots in that picture?

  • Shylock | December 13, 2006 at 11:43 am |

    Hockey teams are allowed to have up to 2 captains, and three assistant captains.

  • specs | December 13, 2006 at 11:45 am |

    [quote comment="29357"][quote comment="29343"][quote comment="29333"][quote comment="29330"][quote comment="29269"][quote comment="29248"]So do they just get vintage Starter jackets and add their own designs?[/quote]

    Yes.[/quote]

    well so much for my rant on unlicensed products, I guess as long as they’re not adding or altering team logos then the owners of those logos have no recourse. the 3 indian logo t-shirt however is an issue.[/quote]

    I think it’s fair use (although I realize others might disagree). Isenberg addresses these issues in this interview.[/quote]

    maybe i’m an old fuddy-duddy, and in the interest of disclosure i do make my living in the sale of licensed sports products, but i think the slope mr. isenberg is traveling is just too slippery. does that same thinking protect the reprehensible calvin and hobbes calvin t-shirts, or some of the vulgar slogans made especially about players such as derek jeter and alex rodriguez? are we closing our eyes to the legality of this issue just because one side is everyday folks and one side is millionaire/billionaires?[/quote]

    I have to agree with you 100%. If it’s not illegal, than it is at least wrong. If Nike did that, everyone on this board would throw a fit like nobody’s business. Well said.[/quote]

    Why is it “at least wrong”? If its illegal, then its illegal. If not, then it’s strictly a matter of opinion as to whether they’re in good taste. If certain teams didn’t have logos that were in questionable taste to begin with, then the shirts would never have been made.

  • todd krevanchi | December 13, 2006 at 11:47 am |

    [quote comment="29358"]THESE are perhaps the BEST boots EVER![/quote]

    boots like that are dangerous. the heels can dig into your calves and lower leg leaving bad black and blue marks…
    understand what i’m talking about…please.

  • todd krevanchi | December 13, 2006 at 11:51 am |

    [quote comment="29372"][quote comment="29357"][quote comment="29343"][quote comment="29333"][quote comment="29330"][quote comment="29269"][quote comment="29248"]So do they just get vintage Starter jackets and add their own designs?[/quote]

    Yes.[/quote]

    well so much for my rant on unlicensed products, I guess as long as they’re not adding or altering team logos then the owners of those logos have no recourse. the 3 indian logo t-shirt however is an issue.[/quote]

    I think it’s fair use (although I realize others might disagree). Isenberg addresses these issues in this interview.[/quote]

    maybe i’m an old fuddy-duddy, and in the interest of disclosure i do make my living in the sale of licensed sports products, but i think the slope mr. isenberg is traveling is just too slippery. does that same thinking protect the reprehensible calvin and hobbes calvin t-shirts, or some of the vulgar slogans made especially about players such as derek jeter and alex rodriguez? are we closing our eyes to the legality of this issue just because one side is everyday folks and one side is millionaire/billionaires?[/quote]

    I have to agree with you 100%. If it’s not illegal, than it is at least wrong. If Nike did that, everyone on this board would throw a fit like nobody’s business. Well said.[/quote]

    Why is it “at least wrong”? If its illegal, then its illegal. If not, then it’s strictly a matter of opinion as to whether they’re in good taste. If certain teams didn’t have logos that were in questionable taste to begin with, then the shirts would never have been made.[/quote]

    wouldnt that wipe out the entire t-shirt industry created by fraternity’s and college organizations towards opponents? ive seen some anti dook shirts in chapel hill i’d pay for, and multiple schools have created some creative anti-michigan ones as well. there is a nice one about ann arbor and her, lets say, promiscuity…

  • Ed | December 13, 2006 at 11:55 am |

    IANAL, but the fair use argument makes sense to me. I don’t think anyone can legitimately argue that No Mas is a serious threat to the trademark owners – heck, they aren’t even going after the same customer. Parody is protected speech under the First Amendment.

    I’m a diehard Cleveland Indians fan…but wish they’d change their logo for certain, and perhaps the name (e.g., bring back the Spiders.)

    ed

  • Metsfan AZ | December 13, 2006 at 11:58 am |

    [quote comment="29373"][quote comment="29358"]THESE are perhaps the BEST boots EVER![/quote]

    boots like that are dangerous. the heels can dig into your calves and lower leg leaving bad black and blue marks…
    understand what i’m talking about…please.[/quote]
    reminds me of the girl with the cast on her ankle that almost knocked me out cold.

  • Leroy | December 13, 2006 at 12:00 pm |

    given the cost of t-shirts (generally 4-5 dollars per garment), i’d say no mas is doing pretty well for themselves
    all i’m saying is, would those that are defending no mas stand up for a shirt with the 1961 ‘Bama Football team that said “Winning the White Way is the only way to win”? if you are going to allow one political message you must allow them all, and given the significance of sports logos and athletes in our culture, i’d be more comfortable allowing none.

  • Joe Hilseberg | December 13, 2006 at 12:01 pm |

    [quote comment="29353"]I cannot praise the No Mas stuff enough. I have 3 of the t-shirts (BALCO in Giants colors, the Barry “Say No To Drugs”, and Baghdad Oilers) and they always get props when I wear them out. I had a guy at the counter of the Mirage sports book laughing his head off over the BALCO one.

    The downside is that a lot of the stuff is limited edition or hard to get because they aren’t mass-produced. It took me 2 months of searching to get a Baghdad Oilers tee in my size (XL).[/quote]

    Balco shirts and Rated Rookie shirts also here too as long as you guys brought it up!

  • Ian K | December 13, 2006 at 12:04 pm |

    [quote comment="29356"]Great, now my company is blocking images at flckr as well! This blows.[/quote]

    That’s funny, I raised the issue yesterday, but today all the Flickr images work! I am so happy, the best work diversion is back in full force!

  • Jonathan | December 13, 2006 at 12:07 pm |

    [quote comment="29374"][quote comment="29372"][quote comment="29357"][quote comment="29343"][quote comment="29333"][quote comment="29330"][quote comment="29269"][quote comment="29248"]So do they just get vintage Starter jackets and add their own designs?[/quote]

    Yes.[/quote]

    well so much for my rant on unlicensed products, I guess as long as they’re not adding or altering team logos then the owners of those logos have no recourse. the 3 indian logo t-shirt however is an issue.[/quote]

    I think it’s fair use (although I realize others might disagree). Isenberg addresses these issues in this interview.[/quote]

    maybe i’m an old fuddy-duddy, and in the interest of disclosure i do make my living in the sale of licensed sports products, but i think the slope mr. isenberg is traveling is just too slippery. does that same thinking protect the reprehensible calvin and hobbes calvin t-shirts, or some of the vulgar slogans made especially about players such as derek jeter and alex rodriguez? are we closing our eyes to the legality of this issue just because one side is everyday folks and one side is millionaire/billionaires?[/quote]

    I have to agree with you 100%. If it’s not illegal, than it is at least wrong. If Nike did that, everyone on this board would throw a fit like nobody’s business. Well said.[/quote]

    Why is it “at least wrong”? If its illegal, then its illegal. If not, then it’s strictly a matter of opinion as to whether they’re in good taste. If certain teams didn’t have logos that were in questionable taste to begin with, then the shirts would never have been made.[/quote]

    wouldnt that wipe out the entire t-shirt industry created by fraternity’s and college organizations towards opponents? ive seen some anti dook shirts in chapel hill i’d pay for, and multiple schools have created some creative anti-michigan ones as well. there is a nice one about ann arbor and her, lets say, promiscuity…[/quote]

    Not sure if anyone took the time to read the interview Paul posted (comment 30), but the precedent seems to have been set. As long as the re-interpreted work is far enough away from the original, it should be acceptable. If that means adding tears to the Indians and Redskins logos is a substantial enough change, then so be it. It’s a political statement, much like those Che Guevara shirts you see 14-year-olds wearing at every Fall Out Boy concert. Political statements are supposed to be just that: a statement. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion, whether on a T-shirt or in a conversation. And while you may or may not agree with what someone else says, the fact that you disagree with it does not make it illegal.

  • BDH | December 13, 2006 at 12:08 pm |

    Thought folks might be interested in this:

    The Library and Archives Canada have taken what is believed to be the first-ever hockey book, Hockey: Canada’s Royal Winter Game, and preserved it with an online edition which is available for anyone to read (now with a flash, page-turning version for the first time). From James Mirtle’s blog.

    It has some pretty cool, although a bit tough to see, pics of hockey unis. The flash version is good for zoom function, etc. Check it out here

  • specs | December 13, 2006 at 12:13 pm |

    [quote comment="29389"]given the cost of t-shirts (generally 4-5 dollars per garment), i’d say no mas is doing pretty well for themselves
    all i’m saying is, would those that are defending no mas stand up for a shirt with the 1961 ‘Bama Football team that said “Winning the White Way is the only way to win”? if you are going to allow one political message you must allow them all, and given the significance of sports logos and athletes in our culture, i’d be more comfortable allowing none.[/quote]

    This is where the basic premise of capitalism comes in. Someone can make a t-shirt with whatever they want on it, but if no one else agrees or supports the idea being expressed, it will fail in terms of sales. In addition, I think you’re comparing apples to oranges. Alabama’s football program is not white-only, and hasn’t been for some time. Cleveland, Washington and Chicago, on the other hand, are currently using logos depicting Native Americans.

  • jesse | December 13, 2006 at 12:18 pm |

    [quote comment="29372"][quote comment="29357"][quote comment="29343"][quote comment="29333"][quote comment="29330"][quote comment="29269"][quote comment="29248"]So do they just get vintage Starter jackets and add their own designs?[/quote]

    Yes.[/quote]

    well so much for my rant on unlicensed products, I guess as long as they’re not adding or altering team logos then the owners of those logos have no recourse. the 3 indian logo t-shirt however is an issue.[/quote]

    I think it’s fair use (although I realize others might disagree). Isenberg addresses these issues in this interview.[/quote]

    maybe i’m an old fuddy-duddy, and in the interest of disclosure i do make my living in the sale of licensed sports products, but i think the slope mr. isenberg is traveling is just too slippery. does that same thinking protect the reprehensible calvin and hobbes calvin t-shirts, or some of the vulgar slogans made especially about players such as derek jeter and alex rodriguez? are we closing our eyes to the legality of this issue just because one side is everyday folks and one side is millionaire/billionaires?[/quote]

    I have to agree with you 100%. If it’s not illegal, than it is at least wrong. If Nike did that, everyone on this board would throw a fit like nobody’s business. Well said.[/quote]

    Why is it “at least wrong”? If its illegal, then its illegal. If not, then it’s strictly a matter of opinion as to whether they’re in good taste. If certain teams didn’t have logos that were in questionable taste to begin with, then the shirts would never have been made.[/quote]

    Attached is a fact sheet from the U.S. Copyright Office regarding fair use. I doubt it clears everything (or anything) up regarding the issue. They are not being sued which leads me to believe either [1] it is protected by the first amendment, [2] certain parties do not want bring attention to the products by bring suit, given the relatively small distribution of the items or [3] given this is a pretty obscure operation, the copyright holders don’t know.

    I believe that most of the items are protected under the first amendment (Blackhawks, Indians, Bullets, Redskins) bacause they would be considered political speech. Selling the shirts for a profit, even in limited quantities, may void the protection however.

    It is an interesting question.

  • DCM | December 13, 2006 at 12:20 pm |

    Nice to know so many Georgia Tech fans/alumni read Uni Watch. Wish GT would streamline/update their unis!

  • Paul Lukas | December 13, 2006 at 12:25 pm |

    [quote comment="29401"]all i’m saying is, would those that are defending no mas stand up for a shirt with the 1961 ‘Bama Football team that said “Winning the White Way is the only way to win”? if you are going to allow one political message you must allow them all, and given the significance of sports logos and athletes in our culture, i’d be more comfortable allowing none.[/quote]

    I have no problem “allowing them all,” as you say. The Nazis were allowed to march in Skokie, the Supreme Court has ruled that people are allowed to burn the flag (this week, at least), etc. As the saying goes, freedom of speech doesn’t just mean freedom for the thought we love — it also means freedom for the thought we hate.

    I don’t mean to compare those landmark cases to a bunch of T-shirts. I’m just saying that my support for No Mas’s position has nothing to do with my feelings for (or against) their political point of view.

  • Leroy | December 13, 2006 at 12:33 pm |

    [quote comment="29420"][quote comment="29401"]all i’m saying is, would those that are defending no mas stand up for a shirt with the 1961 ‘Bama Football team that said “Winning the White Way is the only way to win”? if you are going to allow one political message you must allow them all, and given the significance of sports logos and athletes in our culture, i’d be more comfortable allowing none.[/quote]

    I have no problem “allowing them all,” as you say. The Nazis were allowed to march in Skokie, the Supreme Court has ruled that people are allowed to burn the flag (this week, at least), etc. As the saying goes, freedom of speech doesn’t just mean freedom for the thought we love — it also means freedom for the thought we hate.

    I don’t mean to compare those landmark cases to a bunch of T-shirts. I’m just saying that my support for No Mas’s position has nothing to do with my feelings for (or against) their political point of view.[/quote]

    Thanks Paul, I was just asking people to think a little deeper about the issue. Personally I take rights issues regarding logos, personalities, authors, artists, etc.. very seriously. I know if it was my logo/franchise I would not want someone making money off of it without paying me a cent while spreading a political message that may or may not offend my fans. And although it is clear from the information Mr. Isenberg provides that he does have some protection, I was arguing that perhaps, he should not.

  • Jonathan | December 13, 2006 at 12:34 pm |

    [quote comment="29420"][quote comment="29401"]all i’m saying is, would those that are defending no mas stand up for a shirt with the 1961 ‘Bama Football team that said “Winning the White Way is the only way to win”? if you are going to allow one political message you must allow them all, and given the significance of sports logos and athletes in our culture, i’d be more comfortable allowing none.[/quote]

    I have no problem “allowing them all,” as you say. The Nazis were allowed to march in Skokie, the Supreme Court has ruled that people are allowed to burn the flag (this week, at least), etc. As the saying goes, freedom of speech doesn’t just mean freedom for the thought we love — it also means freedom for the thought we hate.

    I don’t mean to compare those landmark cases to a bunch of T-shirts. I’m just saying that my support for No Mas’s position has nothing to do with my feelings for (or against) their political point of view.[/quote]

    Well put. I also don’t see the merit in comparing a company that is taking a logo that is often regarded as offensive (and adding context to it), and adding offensive messages to the Mets logo. And while we’re at it, did Andy Warhol need permission from Campbell’s or Coca-Cola to create his art? Is the principle behind his work that far removed from what No Mas is doing?

  • jesse | December 13, 2006 at 12:48 pm |

    [quote comment="29436"][quote comment="29420"][quote comment="29401"]all i’m saying is, would those that are defending no mas stand up for a shirt with the 1961 ‘Bama Football team that said “Winning the White Way is the only way to win”? if you are going to allow one political message you must allow them all, and given the significance of sports logos and athletes in our culture, i’d be more comfortable allowing none.[/quote]

    I have no problem “allowing them all,” as you say. The Nazis were allowed to march in Skokie, the Supreme Court has ruled that people are allowed to burn the flag (this week, at least), etc. As the saying goes, freedom of speech doesn’t just mean freedom for the thought we love — it also means freedom for the thought we hate.

    I don’t mean to compare those landmark cases to a bunch of T-shirts. I’m just saying that my support for No Mas’s position has nothing to do with my feelings for (or against) their political point of view.[/quote]

    Thanks Paul, I was just asking people to think a little deeper about the issue. Personally I take rights issues regarding logos, personalities, authors, artists, etc.. very seriously. I know if it was my logo/franchise I would not want someone making money off of it without paying me a cent while spreading a political message that may or may not offend my fans. And although it is clear from the information Mr. Isenberg provides that he does have some protection, I was arguing that perhaps, he should not.[/quote]

    Leroy makes an excellent point. I believe that certain of the pieces would be protected as a protest against the club, all of the Indians ones for example. However, the Baghdad Oliers one takes a position on the war, which I do not think that copyright holder has to allow their mark to be associated with.

  • Jason | December 13, 2006 at 1:15 pm |

    I’m a diehard Cleveland Indians fan…but wish they’d change their logo for certain, and perhaps the name (e.g., bring back the Spiders.)

    ed[/quote]

    I am another Tribe fan that would love to see the Spiders! The only problem is that they would probably have to add black to their color scheme.

  • Austin Gray | December 13, 2006 at 1:17 pm |

    [quote comment="29499"]

    I am another Tribe fan that would love to see the Spiders! The only problem is that they would probably have to add black to their color scheme.[/quote]

    Did they have black when they were the Spiders? University of Richmond is the spiders, and they actually have the same color scheme as the Indians.

  • Matt from the 'Ville | December 13, 2006 at 1:20 pm |

    Man, I think uniwatch is almost turning into a political board. I know that most of the issues arise from uni-related subjects but man in the past 2 weeks we have descused race, flag issues, and now 1st admendmant.

    That being said, I am glad that we can have these topics and for 99.99% of the posts are responses and not personal attacks. Keep up the good work fellow readers.

  • Nolan | December 13, 2006 at 1:23 pm |

    Whoever writes these must be an avid Uni Watch reader.

  • Joe Hilseberg | December 13, 2006 at 1:30 pm |

    Article about the Raven’s Equipment Manager here.

  • Steve | December 13, 2006 at 1:30 pm |

    All this talk about the use of logos in “bad” ways is like the story out of Dickinson College. A few of their sports and frats like to create “Big Dick” shirts of which the school isn’t too fond. I’ll try to dig up press coverage of it (it’s always a big stink but I know it was brought up in a big way a year or so ago [I think a new president tried to fight his/her first battle with the shirts]).

  • Tape | December 13, 2006 at 1:32 pm |

    [quote comment="29479"]
    Leroy makes an excellent point. I believe that certain of the pieces would be protected as a protest against the club, all of the Indians ones for example. However, the Baghdad Oliers one takes a position on the war, which I do not think that copyright holder has to allow their mark to be associated with.[/quote]

    it’s not relevant if the humorous target of the parody/satire is the original source of the parodical/satirical material.

  • Tape | December 13, 2006 at 1:35 pm |

    [quote comment="29508"][quote comment="29479"]
    Leroy makes an excellent point. I believe that certain of the pieces would be protected as a protest against the club, all of the Indians ones for example. However, the Baghdad Oliers one takes a position on the war, which I do not think that copyright holder has to allow their mark to be associated with.[/quote]

    it’s not relevant if the humorous target of the parody/satire is the original source of the parodical/satirical material.[/quote]

    for example, from the American Heritage Dictionary:

    parody (n): A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule.

    nowhere does that definition state that the new work must ridicule the original author/work. there simply needs to be a comic effect or ridicule of some sort.

  • Paul Lukas | December 13, 2006 at 1:41 pm |

    A note from No Mas prexy Chris Isenberg: If you’re interested in any of the jackets or other art pieces that are shown in today’s entry but not listed in No Mas’s online store, contant Chris directly, here.

  • joe | December 13, 2006 at 1:44 pm |

    [quote comment="29502"]Man, I think uniwatch is almost turning into a political board. I know that most of the issues arise from uni-related subjects but man in the past 2 weeks we have descused race, flag issues, and now 1st admendmant.[/quote]

    Here here. Lets find something else to discuss.

    Oh yes, for everyone’s amusement, here are photos of T-shirts which appropriate corporate logos to glorify and express pride in an ethnic group. Is it a double standard? Is it ok to wear an Indian head if you are an Indian? Is it ok to profit from the sales of Indian head shirts if you are an Indian?

    The jackets from the article were clever, I will give them that. Except the Bullets one, which was kind of dumb. That being said, I think many people enjoy sports because it is an escape from the viciousness of politics, society and reality. Lets keep it that way.

  • Chad G | December 13, 2006 at 1:51 pm |

    [quote comment="29354"]and furthermore, maybe the vulgar logos would not be protected, but would an NY Mets with the Mets “NY” transformed into a swastika in the middle be protected? what about a Duke Basketball t-shirt that said “Fucking Aristocrats” on the back? or an Alabama Football t-shirt that said 1961 national champions with pictures of Alabama players in Klan hoods on the back? just because some of us agree with isenberg’s messages doesn’t settle their legality[/quote]

    Where did you find those shirts?

  • Chad G | December 13, 2006 at 1:52 pm |

    [quote comment="29512"][quote comment="29354"]and furthermore, maybe the vulgar logos would not be protected, but would an NY Mets with the Mets “NY” transformed into a swastika in the middle be protected? what about a Duke Basketball t-shirt that said “Fucking Aristocrats” on the back? or an Alabama Football t-shirt that said 1961 national champions with pictures of Alabama players in Klan hoods on the back? just because some of us agree with isenberg’s messages doesn’t settle their legality[/quote]

    Where did you find those shirts?[/quote]
    nevermind, i should read first, they aren’t real

  • Minna H | December 13, 2006 at 2:04 pm |

    I think the No Mas idea is excellent, and I don’t think he’s going down a slippery slope. If someone wanted to wear an Alabama Whites-Only shirt, that’s his prerogative. I wouldn’t want to be friends with that person, but I wouldn’t say he couldn’t wear the shirt. I agree that artistic license should be weighed heavily in favor of people trying to create art, and political freedom for people making political statements.

    As for a double-standard, yes, there is one. People from a group can joke about said group or make a shirt expressing pride in that group whereas people outside the group (especially a disenfranchised one) should tread more carefully. It’s the difference between being on the inside versus the outside and who gets to do the defining.

    As for sports being an escape from the ‘real’ world, it’s not always possible. I liked today’s subject, and I think there is room for seriousness as well as more lighthearted topics.

    As for the latter—I saw a Christmas card with two penguins playing hockey with candy cane sticks(movable sticks and puck). The referee penguin was wearing a striped sweater. Too bad I don’t know any hockey fans. People in my real life are distressingly sports-avoiders for the most part.

  • Jason | December 13, 2006 at 2:11 pm |

    [quote comment="29501"][quote comment="29499"]

    I am another Tribe fan that would love to see the Spiders! The only problem is that they would probably have to add black to their color scheme.[/quote]

    Did they have black when they were the Spiders? University of Richmond is the spiders, and they actually have the same color scheme as the Indians.[/quote]

    It looks black, but I was mainly going off the general color associated with spiders.
    Of course there is this one red and blue spider. He does have a link to Cleveland, though.

  • Minna H | December 13, 2006 at 2:15 pm |

    [quote comment="29516"][quote comment="29501"][quote comment="29499"]

    I am another Tribe fan that would love to see the Spiders! The only problem is that they would probably have to add black to their color scheme.[/quote]

    Did they have black when they were the Spiders? University of Richmond is the spiders, and they actually have the same color scheme as the Indians.[/quote]

    It looks black, but I was mainly going off the general color associated with spiders.
    Of course there is this one red and blue spider. He does have a link to Cleveland, though.[/quote]

    Jason, the Cleveland SpiderMen….I like it! I think it would be great if they were the Cleveland Spiders and used black (of course I do). Of course, one of the deadliest spiders is the Black Widow, but that’s probably not appropriate.

  • Jason | December 13, 2006 at 2:21 pm |

    [quote comment="29519"][quote comment="29516"][quote comment="29501"][quote comment="29499"]

    I am another Tribe fan that would love to see the Spiders! The only problem is that they would probably have to add black to their color scheme.[/quote]

    Did they have black when they were the Spiders? University of Richmond is the spiders, and they actually have the same color scheme as the Indians.[/quote]

    It looks black, but I was mainly going off the general color associated with spiders.
    Of course there is this one red and blue spider. He does have a link to Cleveland, though.[/quote]

    Jason, the Cleveland SpiderMen….I like it! I think it would be great if they were the Cleveland Spiders and used black (of course I do). Of course, one of the deadliest spiders is the Black Widow, but that’s probably not appropriate.[/quote]

    I’m not crazy about the pants but the jersey has potential.

  • Jason | December 13, 2006 at 2:23 pm |

    Arrgh. Stupid links. Sorry.

  • big j | December 13, 2006 at 2:26 pm |

    Not only are there two guys wearing the C, but the C’s are different style letters! Weird.

  • Jordan | December 13, 2006 at 2:37 pm |

    [quote comment="29390"]Balco shirts and Rated Rookie shirts also here too as long as you guys brought it up![/quote]

    WOW. I wanted the BALCO bridge shirt enough, but now I HAVE to get that Cardinals syringe shirt. It’s the least I can do to express my rage for the Cards and McGwire.

  • joe | December 13, 2006 at 2:42 pm |

    [quote comment="29526"][quote comment="29390"]Balco shirts and Rated Rookie shirts also here too as long as you guys brought it up![/quote]
    [/quote]

    The problem with the rated rookie shirt is no one knows what the hell its about. I only realized it after someone made the Donruss collection, and I used to collect baseball cards (used to…) This is all a distraction though from a far graver issue: that of grey encroachment onto NFL sideline jackets.

    And a 4-9 record is nothing to cry about…there is always next decade.

  • Super Rookie | December 13, 2006 at 2:50 pm |

    Vrbata’s Full Mask

    Located inthe bottom of the write-up it talks about a broken bone in Vrbata’s face that is being allowed to heal.

    I believe that the league has to okay a full shield as they are illegal to wear unless for a medical condition….see how Don Cherry feels about this one.

    Does anyone remember a guy in the NHL that had a broken jaw so he wore a face mask on the bottom part of his face but not over the eyes? I vividly recall someone doing this.

    Go Hawks.

  • Minna H | December 13, 2006 at 2:58 pm |

    Ok. I am going to ask. What is a Rated Rookie?

  • Joe Hilseberg | December 13, 2006 at 3:05 pm |

    [quote comment="29536"]Ok. I am going to ask. What is a Rated Rookie?[/quote]

    It’s how Donruss delegates a rookie in its card sets.

  • Minna H | December 13, 2006 at 3:06 pm |

    [quote comment="29548"][quote comment="29536"]Ok. I am going to ask. What is a Rated Rookie?[/quote]

    It’s how Donruss delegates a rookie in its card sets.[/quote]

    Thanks, Joe H. Should have thought of something like that.

  • al | December 13, 2006 at 3:11 pm |

    [quote comment="29515"]I think the No Mas idea is excellent, and I don’t think he’s going down a slippery slope. If someone wanted to wear an Alabama Whites-Only shirt, that’s his prerogative. I wouldn’t want to be friends with that person, but I wouldn’t say he couldn’t wear the shirt. I agree that artistic license should be weighed heavily in favor of people trying to create art, and political freedom for people making political statements.

    As for a double-standard, yes, there is one. People from a group can joke about said group or make a shirt expressing pride in that group whereas people outside the group (especially a disenfranchised one) should tread more carefully. It’s the difference between being on the inside versus the outside and who gets to do the defining.

    As for sports being an escape from the ‘real’ world, it’s not always possible. I liked today’s subject, and I think there is room for seriousness as well as more lighthearted topics.

    As for the latter—I saw a Christmas card with two penguins playing hockey with candy cane sticks(movable sticks and puck). The referee penguin was wearing a striped sweater. Too bad I don’t know any hockey fans. People in my real life are distressingly sports-avoiders for the most part.[/quote]
    Minna,

    I’m willing to bet that you still purchased that card… If only to send it to Uni-Watch Sports Museum’s Hockey wing curator: Teebz!

    C’mon, you know it makes sense :)

  • tessa | December 13, 2006 at 3:19 pm |

    [quote comment="29511"]That being said, I think many people enjoy sports because it is an escape from the viciousness of politics, society and reality. Lets keep it that way.[/quote]

    Sports as an escape from society? I beg to differ. Jackie Robinson’s effect on race relations in this country, Magic Johnson’s diagnosis bringing awareness to HIV/AIDS victims, Jesse Owens v. Hitler proving that there is no “master race,” Babe Didrikson Zaharias’ effect on the perception of women… The mind boggles at the effect that sport has had on society.
    Bringing up these issues as a part of both sports and society is perfectly appropriate and necessary – sports have always been a microcosm of society (for better or for worse). Some of us love sports for that reason, too.

    In lighter news, did you see that Evel Knievel is suing Kanye West for copyright infringement for using his uniform/costume in his “Touch the Sky” video? Evel was covered by the Wide World of Sports, so there is a tenuous sports-related connection…

  • Minna H | December 13, 2006 at 3:20 pm |

    [quote comment="29551"][quote comment="29515"]

    As for the latter—I saw a Christmas card with two penguins playing hockey with candy cane sticks(movable sticks and puck). The referee penguin was wearing a striped sweater. Too bad I don’t know any hockey fans. People in my real life are distressingly sports-avoiders for the most part.[/quote]
    Minna,

    I’m willing to bet that you still purchased that card… If only to send it to Uni-Watch Sports Museum’s Hockey wing curator: Teebz!

    C’mon, you know it makes sense :)[/quote]

    al, I didn’t, but I actually considered it for several seconds. How sad is it that Teebz and hockey are indelibly intertwined in my mind? Teebz, your quest for hockey domination is well on its way! Hey, maybe you can be the brand for hockey. Teebz Hockey (TM)—good for what ails ya. Old style hockey when jerseys were sweaters.

    Man, Teebz, you have GOT to be the Uni-Watch Sports Museum’s hockey wing curator. I will be Head Gopher.

  • Matthew S. | December 13, 2006 at 3:22 pm |

    [quote comment="29535"]Vrbata’s Full Mask

    Located inthe bottom of the write-up it talks about a broken bone in Vrbata’s face that is being allowed to heal.

    I believe that the league has to okay a full shield as they are illegal to wear unless for a medical condition….see how Don Cherry feels about this one.

    Does anyone remember a guy in the NHL that had a broken jaw so he wore a face mask on the bottom part of his face but not over the eyes? I vividly recall someone doing this.

    Go Hawks.[/quote]

    I thought I remembered Pat Lafontaine wearing one, but since I could find absolutely no photographic evidence of it, I’m going to assume my memory is screwing with me.

    Bret Hedican wore one briefly in 2001 as can be seen in a practice shot here: http://www.brethedic...

    That’s all I got though.

  • Matthew S. | December 13, 2006 at 3:25 pm |

    And since Hedican was wearing a visor there, it doesn’t technically meet your criteria. But finding guys who wore those jaw guards is pretty difficult.

  • joe | December 13, 2006 at 3:30 pm |

    [quote comment="29552"][quote comment="29511"]That being said, I think many people enjoy sports because it is an escape from the viciousness of politics, society and reality. Lets keep it that way.[/quote]

    Sports as an escape from society? I beg to differ. Jackie Robinson’s effect on race relations in this country, Magic Johnson’s diagnosis bringing awareness to HIV/AIDS victims, Jesse Owens v. Hitler proving that there is no “master race,” Babe Didrikson Zaharias’ effect on the perception of women… The mind boggles at the effect that sport has had on society.
    Bringing up these issues as a part of both sports and society is perfectly appropriate and necessary – sports have always been a microcosm of society (for better or for worse). Some of us love sports for that reason, too.
    [/quote]

    No disagreeing that sports is a microcosm of society, but the last thing people want to see/hear when they attend a football game is a political speech. ESPN has screwed up Monday Night Football by being too political with controversial press box guests…how many American TVs went *click* when Spike Lee showed up? Leave that stuff out of the game, particularly when it has nothing to do with the game. Some of us just like watching a football game, not contemplating its impact on American society. Ultimately, in the great scheme of things, sports are irrelevant aside from their entertainment value, when there are more pressing issues for all people in life. Let sports be something we can cherish collectively without using it as a forum for every pet cause.

  • Minna H | December 13, 2006 at 3:49 pm |

    [quote comment="29552"][quote comment="29511"]That being said, I think many people enjoy sports because it is an escape from the viciousness of politics, society and reality. Lets keep it that way.[/quote]

    Sports as an escape from society? I beg to differ. Jackie Robinson’s effect on race relations in this country, Magic Johnson’s diagnosis bringing awareness to HIV/AIDS victims, Jesse Owens v. Hitler proving that there is no “master race,” Babe Didrikson Zaharias’ effect on the perception of women… The mind boggles at the effect that sport has had on society.
    Bringing up these issues as a part of both sports and society is perfectly appropriate and necessary – sports have always been a microcosm of society (for better or for worse). Some of us love sports for that reason, too.

    In lighter news, did you see that Evel Knievel is suing Kanye West for copyright infringement for using his uniform/costume in his “Touch the Sky” video? Evel was covered by the Wide World of Sports, so there is a tenuous sports-related connection…[/quote]
    tessa, good to see ya, and good points on the intersection between sports and the world.

    I thought about the Kanye West/Evel Knievel thing when reading the thread on copyright infringement, too. Funny how serendipitous life is sometimes. Sports and the real world, brought to you by Paul Lukas, Uni-Watcher Extraordinaire.

  • Ray | December 13, 2006 at 3:55 pm |

    This might be old, but I saw the Cowboys game this weekend and Chris Canty’s facemask immediately reminded me of the “Kitchen Sink”
    Am I the only one? I can’t find a picture anywhere of his mask but if someone has it, you see what I mean.

  • jesse | December 13, 2006 at 4:12 pm |

    [quote comment="29509"][quote comment="29508"][quote comment="29479"]
    Leroy makes an excellent point. I believe that certain of the pieces would be protected as a protest against the club, all of the Indians ones for example. However, the Baghdad Oliers one takes a position on the war, which I do not think that copyright holder has to allow their mark to be associated with.[/quote]

    it’s not relevant if the humorous target of the parody/satire is the original source of the parodical/satirical material.[/quote]

    for example, from the American Heritage Dictionary:

    parody (n): A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule.

    nowhere does that definition state that the new work must ridicule the original author/work. there simply needs to be a comic effect or ridicule of some sort.[/quote]

    The dictonary definition of satire does not control as to application of first ammendment or copyright law.

    My point, and I could be wrong, may be easier to explain via a hypothetical. Suppose Company X is a large red state corporation, who sposors NASCAR, which has a predominantly pro-war audience.

    Company X has no stated agenda regarding the war.

    Interest Group Y creates a satire using Company X’s copyrighted image disparaging the war.

    My opinion is that Company X can sue to prevent Interest Group Y from using their trademark to further Group Y’s agenda. I believe that Company X’s interest in protecting its image insofar as the satire may mislead the general public as to Company X’s position on the war.

    Remember the Jerry Falwell Campari Ad from The People versus Larry Flint (or Hustler Magazine)? That Supreme Court case held that satire was protected under the first amendment, but Falwell did not contend that any copyrighted image was being misused. The question is could Campari have made that claim, I assert that they could.

    I realize this post may be a touch boring, but realized after I finished it sorry.

  • James Craven | December 13, 2006 at 4:17 pm |

    [quote comment="29301"][b][i]“New logos, uniforms, hats, etc for Scranton Wilkes-Barre Yankees (formerly the SWB Red Barrons):”[/i][/b]

    http://minors.mlbcon...

    And needless to say, they ripped off Staten Island’s logo, and are as boring as heck. Man, I’m glad the Lehigh Valley Iron Pigs start play in 2008!

  • Paul Lukas | December 13, 2006 at 4:22 pm |

    Regarding this whole “use of trademarks” discussion, I have two words to contribute: Wacky Packages.

  • Nolan | December 13, 2006 at 4:26 pm |

    [quote comment="29535"]Vrbata’s Full Mask

    Located inthe bottom of the write-up it talks about a broken bone in Vrbata’s face that is being allowed to heal.

    I believe that the league has to okay a full shield as they are illegal to wear unless for a medical condition….see how Don Cherry feels about this one.

    Does anyone remember a guy in the NHL that had a broken jaw so he wore a face mask on the bottom part of his face but not over the eyes? I vividly recall someone doing this.

    Go Hawks.[/quote]
    If you’re referring to one of these but without the eye protection. Joe Juneau used one in Washington circa ’95 or ’96. I can’t find many pics of Joe, much less one with the mask.

  • Patrick W. | December 13, 2006 at 4:32 pm |

    [quote comment="29557"]And since Hedican was wearing a visor there, it doesn’t technically meet your criteria. But finding guys who wore those jaw guards is pretty difficult.[/quote]

    I’m pretty sure Joe Sakic wore a jaw guard last season and during the last winter olympics. (of course he also wore a visor, too)

  • Nolan | December 13, 2006 at 4:35 pm |

    [quote comment="29570"][quote comment="29557"]And since Hedican was wearing a visor there, it doesn’t technically meet your criteria. But finding guys who wore those jaw guards is pretty difficult.[/quote]

    I’m pretty sure Joe Sakic wore a jaw guard last season and during the last winter olympics. (of course he also wore a visor, too)[/quote]

    I thought so, but couldn’t find a picture of him wearing it, and therefore, decided it was my imagination

  • Greg Riffenburgh | December 13, 2006 at 4:38 pm |

    I found something interesting when searching for pictures to show my wife who was confusing Tony Romo with Brett Favre. (I don’t know how she got them confused but she insists that she heard that Brett Favre was dating Jessica Simpson)

    When I put “Tony Romo” into Google Images, I found this which came from this page. It’s an archive of headshots of the Dallas Cowboys. It’s definitely from this season because of first year Cowboys Terrell Owens, Mike Vanderjagt and rookies Marion Barber III and Miles Austin who are displayed. What’s interesting is that most of the players are wearing a Nike jersey tailored for linemen, complete with a single shoulder stripe, checkered shoulder yoke alterations, and a reinforced neckline with a eyelet for tying down. But some guys are wearing a different Nike jersey, with the old NFL patch that used to be on the jersey instead of the Reebok-designed “NFL Equipment” patch, which was never on a Nike made jersey like this. But both are on Nike jerseys. Then there are some guys wearing a Reebok jersey. My guess is that they just have a pile of old jerseys just for photo day to use before the players are issued their own jersey.

    Anyone have any more info or ideas?

  • Jim | December 13, 2006 at 4:39 pm |

    [quote comment="29558"][quote comment="29552"][quote comment="29511"]That being said, I think many people enjoy sports because it is an escape from the viciousness of politics, society and reality. Lets keep it that way.[/quote]

    Sports as an escape from society? I beg to differ. Jackie Robinson’s effect on race relations in this country, Magic Johnson’s diagnosis bringing awareness to HIV/AIDS victims, Jesse Owens v. Hitler proving that there is no “master race,” Babe Didrikson Zaharias’ effect on the perception of women… The mind boggles at the effect that sport has had on society.
    Bringing up these issues as a part of both sports and society is perfectly appropriate and necessary – sports have always been a microcosm of society (for better or for worse). Some of us love sports for that reason, too.
    [/quote]

    No disagreeing that sports is a microcosm of society, but the last thing people want to see/hear when they attend a football game is a political speech. ESPN has screwed up Monday Night Football by being too political with controversial press box guests…how many American TVs went *click* when Spike Lee showed up? Leave that stuff out of the game, particularly when it has nothing to do with the game. Some of us just like watching a football game, not contemplating its impact on American society. Ultimately, in the great scheme of things, sports are irrelevant aside from their entertainment value, when there are more pressing issues for all people in life. Let sports be something we can cherish collectively without using it as a forum for every pet cause.[/quote]

    My TV goes “click” when Jim Belushi shows up.

  • Super Rookie | December 13, 2006 at 4:42 pm |

    [quote comment="29555"]
    I thought I remembered Pat Lafontaine wearing one, but since I could find absolutely no photographic evidence of it, I’m going to assume my memory is screwing with me.

    Bret Hedican wore one briefly in 2001 as can be seen in a practice shot here: http://www.brethedic...

    That’s all I got though.[/quote]

    Thanks for the lead on Hedican who is easily the best player to ever come out of St. Cloud State and one of the better players from the city of St. Paul.

    What we really need is someone to do a full bore research project on the Jaw Protector and of course the face-mask in the NHL…when it is allowed and what is not…why is Ovechin’s darker (perhaps he is used to hyper intensive rays on the steppe of Russia)…

    I need some pics of a jaw protector that Lafontaine (don cherry would like to point out he is french) use to wear.

  • Brian | December 13, 2006 at 4:43 pm |

    [quote comment="29535"]Vrbata’s Full Mask

    Located inthe bottom of the write-up it talks about a broken bone in Vrbata’s face that is being allowed to heal.

    I believe that the league has to okay a full shield as they are illegal to wear unless for a medical condition….see how Don Cherry feels about this one.

    Does anyone remember a guy in the NHL that had a broken jaw so he wore a face mask on the bottom part of his face but not over the eyes? I vividly recall someone doing this.

    Go Hawks.[/quote]

    God I hate those Black Jerseys…er…Sweaters. Why must everyone ruin a good thing.

  • Super Rookie | December 13, 2006 at 4:43 pm |

    by jaw protector I mean not having an attached eye shield….

    i just want the lower part not the upper part.

  • Shawn Knowles | December 13, 2006 at 4:50 pm |

    [quote comment="29569"][quote comment="29535"]Vrbata’s Full Mask

    Located inthe bottom of the write-up it talks about a broken bone in Vrbata’s face that is being allowed to heal.

    I believe that the league has to okay a full shield as they are illegal to wear unless for a medical condition….see how Don Cherry feels about this one.

    Does anyone remember a guy in the NHL that had a broken jaw so he wore a face mask on the bottom part of his face but not over the eyes? I vividly recall someone doing this.

    Go Hawks.[/quote]
    If you’re referring to one of these but without the eye protection. Joe Juneau used one in Washington circa ’95 or ’96. I can’t find many pics of Joe, much less one with the mask.[/quote]

    Guys wear different variations of a full facemask all the time in the NHL, whether it be a full cage, or just a bottom part to cover the jaw.
    The purpose is to protect a broken bone (usually jaw or cheek).

    It is, however, illegal in the NHL to use a full facemask or any mask other than the half visor (shield) unless needed for a medical reason.

  • Matthew S. | December 13, 2006 at 4:54 pm |

    [quote comment="29575"][quote comment="29555"]
    I thought I remembered Pat Lafontaine wearing one, but since I could find absolutely no photographic evidence of it, I’m going to assume my memory is screwing with me.

    Bret Hedican wore one briefly in 2001 as can be seen in a practice shot here: http://www.brethedic...

    That’s all I got though.[/quote]

    Thanks for the lead on Hedican who is easily the best player to ever come out of St. Cloud State and one of the better players from the city of St. Paul.

    What we really need is someone to do a full bore research project on the Jaw Protector and of course the face-mask in the NHL…when it is allowed and what is not…why is Ovechin’s darker (perhaps he is used to hyper intensive rays on the steppe of Russia)…

    I need some pics of a jaw protector that Lafontaine (don cherry would like to point out he is french) use to wear.[/quote]

    Like I said, I looked for pictures, but could find nothing. Nor could I find a mention of Lafontaine ever wearing one. So I think I might have been confusing him with someone else.

    If you do look at the Bret Hedican picture, the visor and jaw guard are separate pieces. So in a sense, it is what you’re looking for. It’s not the full cage that the NCAA and other leagues require.

  • Philly Bill | December 13, 2006 at 4:59 pm |

    [quote comment="29577"]by jaw protector I mean not having an attached eye shield….

    i just want the lower part not the upper part.[/quote]

    As of last week, Chris Clark was wearing this piece of equipment. Not sure why; if he had a broken jaw, it’d be wired shut, and it’s not.

    http://www.washingto...

    Hope this link works…

  • Nolan | December 13, 2006 at 5:00 pm |

    [quote comment="29578"][quote comment="29569"][quote comment="29535"]Vrbata’s Full Mask

    Located inthe bottom of the write-up it talks about a broken bone in Vrbata’s face that is being allowed to heal.

    I believe that the league has to okay a full shield as they are illegal to wear unless for a medical condition….see how Don Cherry feels about this one.

    Does anyone remember a guy in the NHL that had a broken jaw so he wore a face mask on the bottom part of his face but not over the eyes? I vividly recall someone doing this.

    Go Hawks.[/quote]
    If you’re referring to one of these but without the eye protection. Joe Juneau used one in Washington circa ’95 or ’96. I can’t find many pics of Joe, much less one with the mask.[/quote]

    Guys wear different variations of a full facemask all the time in the NHL, whether it be a full cage, or just a bottom part to cover the jaw.
    The purpose is to protect a broken bone (usually jaw or cheek).

    It is, however, illegal in the NHL to use a full facemask or any mask other than the half visor (shield) unless needed for a medical reason.[/quote]
    Here’s Sakic I know, not exactly what you’re looking for, he has the jaw protector anlong with his standard half visor. Strange, why not just wear the full clear cage.
    If the link doesn’t work try here getty images

  • LouUmp | December 13, 2006 at 5:02 pm |

    [quote comment="29373"][quote comment="29358"]THESE are perhaps the BEST boots EVER![/quote]

    boots like that are dangerous. the heels can dig into your calves and lower leg leaving bad black and blue marks…
    understand what i’m talking about…please.[/quote]

    You would make them leave the boots ON??

  • Matthew P | December 13, 2006 at 5:06 pm |

    [quote comment="29592"][quote comment="29373"][quote comment="29358"]THESE are perhaps the BEST boots EVER![/quote]

    boots like that are dangerous. the heels can dig into your calves and lower leg leaving bad black and blue marks…
    understand what i’m talking about…please.[/quote]

    You would make them leave the boots ON??[/quote]

    Some sort of footwear with high, preferably spiked heels are the “uniform” of the adult-film industry. So this is definitely a valid topic!

  • specs | December 13, 2006 at 5:11 pm |

    [quote comment="29592"][quote comment="29373"][quote comment="29358"]THESE are perhaps the BEST boots EVER![/quote]

    boots like that are dangerous. the heels can dig into your calves and lower leg leaving bad black and blue marks…
    understand what i’m talking about…please.[/quote]

    You would make them leave the boots ON??[/quote]

    I definitely would. Unless there were equally seductive striped knee-high socks on underneath.

  • Souder | December 13, 2006 at 5:14 pm |

    Chris Clark of the Capitals wore a jaw guard against the Penguins Monday night.
    A game I’m happy to say the Penguins won with a rally from 4 goals down and a shootout.

  • GoTerriers | December 13, 2006 at 5:17 pm |

    [quote comment="29575"]

    I need some pics of a jaw protector that Lafontaine (don cherry would like to point out he is french) use to wear.[/quote]

    Um, not for nothing, but Pat Lafontaine is from St. Louis.

  • GoTerriers | December 13, 2006 at 5:19 pm |

    [quote comment="29578"]

    It is, however, illegal in the NHL to use a full facemask or any mask other than the half visor (shield) unless needed for a medical reason.[/quote]

    Which, if you recall our discussion from last week, is RIDICULOUS (IMO) . . .

  • Nick | December 13, 2006 at 5:41 pm |

    Jeff O’Neill wears a #18 necklace because that was his brother Don’s number when he played.

    Don died in a car accident in Toronto last summer. His death is one of the reasons for Jeff’s trade to the Leafs, so he could be closer to his family.

  • smcs | December 13, 2006 at 6:16 pm |

    [quote comment="29596"][quote comment="29575"]

    I need some pics of a jaw protector that Lafontaine (don cherry would like to point out he is french) use to wear.[/quote]

    Something like this?

    Don Cherry would like to point out that he wore this because of concussions and it is a tragedy that Lafontaine could not complete his career.

  • Andy from KC | December 13, 2006 at 6:24 pm |

    Heck, my only problem with the No Mas shirts is that they want $30 for them.

  • Tape | December 13, 2006 at 6:32 pm |

    [quote comment="29564"][quote comment="29509"][quote comment="29508"][quote comment="29479"]
    Leroy makes an excellent point. I believe that certain of the pieces would be protected as a protest against the club, all of the Indians ones for example. However, the Baghdad Oliers one takes a position on the war, which I do not think that copyright holder has to allow their mark to be associated with.[/quote]

    it’s not relevant if the humorous target of the parody/satire is the original source of the parodical/satirical material.[/quote]

    for example, from the American Heritage Dictionary:

    parody (n): A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule.

    nowhere does that definition state that the new work must ridicule the original author/work. there simply needs to be a comic effect or ridicule of some sort.[/quote]

    The dictonary definition of satire does not control as to application of first ammendment or copyright law.

    My point, and I could be wrong, may be easier to explain via a hypothetical. Suppose Company X is a large red state corporation, who sposors NASCAR, which has a predominantly pro-war audience.

    Company X has no stated agenda regarding the war.

    Interest Group Y creates a satire using Company X’s copyrighted image disparaging the war.

    My opinion is that Company X can sue to prevent Interest Group Y from using their trademark to further Group Y’s agenda. I believe that Company X’s interest in protecting its image insofar as the satire may mislead the general public as to Company X’s position on the war.[/quote]

    I don’t see how that works at all.

    Group Y has created a derivative parodical work. The message behind the derivative work, the original work created by Company X, or Company X’s position/belief/agenda are all irrelevant to copyright/fair use arguments.

    Company X can protect its trademark if it is unmodified, but Group Y has modified it for the purposes of parody. WHO or WHAT they are parodying is not relevant.

  • Tape | December 13, 2006 at 6:35 pm |

    [quote comment="29601"]Heck, my only problem with the No Mas shirts is that they want $30 for them.[/quote]

    seriously. that Tecmo Bo shirt is exactly two things:

    1) Awesome.
    2) $42.41, including shipping. for a freaking T-SHIRT.

  • todd krevanchi (krvanch) | December 13, 2006 at 7:22 pm |

    [quote comment="29604"][quote comment="29601"]Heck, my only problem with the No Mas shirts is that they want $30 for them.[/quote]

    seriously. that Tecmo Bo shirt is exactly two things:

    1) Awesome.
    2) $42.41, including shipping. for a freaking T-SHIRT.[/quote]

    super tecmo= reason for my 2.0 gpa freshman year of college

  • Warren Thompson | December 13, 2006 at 7:45 pm |

    [quote comment="29519"][quote comment="29516"][quote comment="29501"][quote comment="29499"]

    I am another Tribe fan that would love to see the Spiders! The only problem is that they would probably have to add black to their color scheme.[/quote]

    Did they have black when they were the Spiders? University of Richmond is the spiders, and they actually have the same color scheme as the Indians.[/quote]

    It looks black, but I was mainly going off the general color associated with spiders.
    Of course there is this one red and blue spider. He does have a link to Cleveland, though.[/quote]

    Jason, the Cleveland SpiderMen….I like it! I think it would be great if they were the Cleveland Spiders and used black (of course I do). Of course, one of the deadliest spiders is the Black Widow, but that’s probably not appropriate.[/quote]

    Not all spiders, deadly or not, are black.
    One of the more venomous happens to be the Brown Recluse (aka the “Fiddleback”).

    Plus, there’s also the Brown Widow, and various others in green, yellow, and
    grey/charcoal.

    Some spiders even have hair, i.e., the Hairy Rock Spider in South Africa.

  • Denis | December 13, 2006 at 8:18 pm |

    I am watching the Penguins vs. Flyers game and Todd Fedoruk is wearing a full cage, like we have talked about before, cause he got his face all messed up in a tilt with Minnesota’s boogie man.
    Anyways the reason Im bringing this up is because Fedoruk is wearing a white Jofa mask. Jofa is not a company anymore. Jofa was purchased by Reebok and The Hockey Company.
    The face mask should say Reebok on it instead of Jofa.

    http://us.news2.yimg...

  • Steve | December 13, 2006 at 8:31 pm |

    [quote comment="29624"]I am watching the Penguins vs. Flyers game and Todd Fedoruk is wearing a full cage, like we have talked about before, cause he got his face all messed up in a tilt with Minnesota’s boogie man.
    Anyways the reason Im bringing this up is because Fedoruk is wearing a white Jofa mask. Jofa is not a company anymore. Jofa was purchased by Reebok and The Hockey Company.
    The face mask should say Reebok on it instead of Jofa.

    http://us.news2.yimg...

    Just what is going on in that photo that has Brodeur holding three sticks at once?

  • ed gaug | December 13, 2006 at 8:42 pm |

    [quote comment="29627"][quote comment="29624"]I am watching the Penguins vs. Flyers game and Todd Fedoruk is wearing a full cage, like we have talked about before, cause he got his face all messed up in a tilt with Minnesota’s boogie man.
    Anyways the reason Im bringing this up is because Fedoruk is wearing a white Jofa mask. Jofa is not a company anymore. Jofa was purchased by Reebok and The Hockey Company.
    The face mask should say Reebok on it instead of Jofa.

    http://us.news2.yimg...

    Just what is going on in that photo that has Brodeur holding three sticks at once?[/quote]

    Brodeur is most likely holding on to the stick of one of his defensemen or of the opposing team that may have fallen to the ice in the crease. if it stays on the ice, it may work as something to deflect a shot off of.

  • Mike Sanderson | December 13, 2006 at 9:09 pm |

    [quote comment="29555"][quote comment="29535"]Vrbata’s Full Mask

    Located inthe bottom of the write-up it talks about a broken bone in Vrbata’s face that is being allowed to heal.

    I believe that the league has to okay a full shield as they are illegal to wear unless for a medical condition….see how Don Cherry feels about this one.

    Does anyone remember a guy in the NHL that had a broken jaw so he wore a face mask on the bottom part of his face but not over the eyes? I vividly recall someone doing this.

    Go Hawks.[/quote]

    I thought I remembered Pat Lafontaine wearing one, but since I could find absolutely no photographic evidence of it, I’m going to assume my memory is screwing with me.

    Bret Hedican wore one briefly in 2001 as can be seen in a practice shot here: http://www.brethedic...

    That’s all I got though.[/quote]

    Rick Tocchet wore one when he broke his jaw in the middle of a game… broke his jaw in the first period, slapped a bottom shield on, and then didn’t miss a shift!

    The Rangers wore Captain C’s on their jerseys as part of an experiment on the Ranger’s part.. A captain (or associate) is the one who has to talk to the referee to get clarification and such, and so he has to be on the ice for that… The Rangers (Lester Patrick’s brainchild, btw) thought that if the goalie were captain, then he would always be able to communicate with the referees… This experiment only worked for a couple years, though…

    You can also thank Lester Patrick for two goalies. One year, he had two equally good goalies, and so he decided that he would sub them every THREE shifts in every game, and dress them both. This experiment only worked for a few games, as the delay for the switch was slowing the game down…

  • Jon in SLC | December 13, 2006 at 10:12 pm |

    [quote comment="29628"][quote comment="29627"][quote comment="29624"]I am watching the Penguins vs. Flyers game and Todd Fedoruk is wearing a full cage, like we have talked about before, cause he got his face all messed up in a tilt with Minnesota’s boogie man.
    Anyways the reason Im bringing this up is because Fedoruk is wearing a white Jofa mask. Jofa is not a company anymore. Jofa was purchased by Reebok and The Hockey Company.
    The face mask should say Reebok on it instead of Jofa.

    http://us.news2.yimg...

    Just what is going on in that photo that has Brodeur holding three sticks at once?[/quote]

    Brodeur is most likely holding on to the stick of one of his defensemen or of the opposing team that may have fallen to the ice in the crease. if it stays on the ice, it may work as something to deflect a shot off of.[/quote]

    Notice the Flyer in front of him has no stick.

  • Jon in SLC | December 13, 2006 at 10:16 pm |

    [quote comment="29638"][quote comment="29628"][quote comment="29627"][quote comment="29624"]I am watching the Penguins vs. Flyers game and Todd Fedoruk is wearing a full cage, like we have talked about before, cause he got his face all messed up in a tilt with Minnesota’s boogie man.
    Anyways the reason Im bringing this up is because Fedoruk is wearing a white Jofa mask. Jofa is not a company anymore. Jofa was purchased by Reebok and The Hockey Company.
    The face mask should say Reebok on it instead of Jofa.

    http://us.news2.yimg...

    Just what is going on in that photo that has Brodeur holding three sticks at once?[/quote]

    Brodeur is most likely holding on to the stick of one of his defensemen or of the opposing team that may have fallen to the ice in the crease. if it stays on the ice, it may work as something to deflect a shot off of.[/quote]

    Notice the Flyer in front of him has no stick.[/quote]

    And it also seems that the 3rd stick is being held by someone else to Brodeurs’ glove side. That’s why the blade is the opposite direction.

  • Minna H | December 13, 2006 at 10:47 pm |

    Watching the Timberwolves and Spurs tonight was an aesthetic treat. The Spurs’ homes are simple and clean, whereas the ‘Wolves’ aways are black and a bit funky. Now, if only the Wolves could have held onto that sixteen point lead, I would have been a lot happier.

  • Jon in SLC | December 14, 2006 at 1:20 am |

    Probably too late for many of you to read this. Anyway, SI is reporting Greg Maddux will wear #37 this season for the Padres.

    As for the Boots, those are just white vinyl with red tape applied. My wife has the same pair. Her twin wore them for Halloween.

  • Andrew | December 14, 2006 at 2:04 am |

    [quote comment="29255"]Sometimes hockey teams will have two co-captains instead of a captain and alternates. Right now I believe the Sabres are captained by both Daniel Briere and Chris Drury.[/quote]

    Yeah they are both captains, but only one wears it. They never both wear it on one game

  • Teebz | December 14, 2006 at 2:11 am |

    I spent most of my day looking for Don O’Neill’s number, but came up with nothing. Can someone provide photographic evidence of this? Otherwise, I’m tempted to say that it is more speculation that Don wore #18. Otherwise, why would Jeff select #92 as his number when it serves no significant purpose?

    As for Rick Tocchet’s broken jaw, he was hit by a puck and it broke his jaw. I vividly remember that game as they showed him on the bench and his teeth no longer lined up. The Penguins’ trainers wanted him to come out, but he insisted on playing. They froze his jaw, put the lower jaw protection on, and he went out and scored a goal shortly after that.

    And speaking of the Penguins, did anyone catch that Jordan Stall goal against Philly tonight? This team is a year away from being a scary-good team again.

  • Teebz | December 14, 2006 at 2:12 am |

    Cripes… Jordan Staal. My bad. I am ashamed.

  • Greg Riffenburgh | December 14, 2006 at 3:27 am |

    Today’s Sports Illustrated featured a photo similar to this in it’s Leading Off section. I had always thoght of the Chargers’ unis as one of the last sacred unis that Reebok has not yet f—ed up. (see the Broncos who looked respectable when Nike made it, the Eagles who look like they raided a replica gift shop, the ameteur Vikings and Cardinals, the Falcons who have something gross on their sleeve…) Then I looked at the picture more closely. It seems to be the consensus here that truncated stripes are not cool. How in the world could one truncate a lightning bolt?, you may ask. Well, believe it or not, Reebok found a way to ruin yet another NFL team’s look.

    Look closely at the shoulder bolts of McNeill and Dielman compared to those of Tomlinson, Gates and Neal in this shot. The skill players have a little kink in the bolt in order to keep it symmetrical on the front and back of the jersey. This has been happening for quite some time. But some of the bigger guys who get special sleeves (like McNeill and Dielman) get an uninterupted bolt like that on the helmet and pants. In a word: lame.

    Compare:
    Dielman to Jackson and Rivers
    These two
    Mithrow to everyone else

    Yet another attempt by Reebok to keep the uni out of uniform…

  • Greg Riffenburgh | December 14, 2006 at 3:30 am |

    Sorry that some of the links above don’t work. I found all of the pictures of the Chargers (except Ryan Leaf) from this gallery.

  • Andrew | December 14, 2006 at 4:05 am |

    Jordan Staals goal was sick! With the new ownership coming in and a new arena, it will help them to become a contender in a year. Its scary how good they are and how young they are. But I still think Staal should be wearing a visor for sucha young guy

  • baude | December 14, 2006 at 4:29 am |

    Lafontaine on the road. I rememebr the white one he wore at home (He was actually wearing it in a picture used on a hockey card). This is the first time I’ve seen a blue one though. Also note the 75th anni patch on the chest.

    During the search I came accross this. Using Chris Creamer’s site, it’s a
    memorial patch for Roger Crozier who died in 1996. I’d hazard to say we won’t see such a simple design again.

  • baude | December 14, 2006 at 4:32 am |

    … and staalsy’s goal last night was quite smooth.

  • Richard | December 14, 2006 at 8:11 am |

    [quote comment="29618"][quote comment="29604"][quote comment="29601"]Heck, my only problem with the No Mas shirts is that they want $30 for them.[/quote]

    seriously. that Tecmo Bo shirt is exactly two things:

    1) Awesome.
    2) $42.41, including shipping. for a freaking T-SHIRT.[/quote]

    super tecmo= reason for my 2.0 gpa freshman year of college[/quote]

    because it would have been lower without it?

  • Kel | December 14, 2006 at 8:27 am |

    [quote comment="29386"][quote comment="29373"][quote comment="29358"]THESE are perhaps the BEST boots EVER![/quote]

    boots like that are dangerous. the heels can dig into your calves and lower leg leaving bad black and blue marks…
    understand what i’m talking about…please.[/quote]
    reminds me of the girl with the cast on her ankle that almost knocked me out cold.[/quote]

    Having a hip-to-toe cast for three months made for some nasty abrasions. I finally found some 80s leg warmers and put them over the cast. :)

  • Jeff A | December 14, 2006 at 9:24 am |

    Adidas has come out with a line of team inspired shoes.

  • James | December 14, 2006 at 7:43 pm |

    Nice to see limo liberals start up clothing companies.

  • KF | February 4, 2007 at 9:45 pm |

    I have his (Don’s) hockey card showing him wearing #18…….

    [quote comment="29742"]I spent most of my day looking for Don O’Neill’s number, but came up with nothing. Can someone provide photographic evidence of this? Otherwise, I’m tempted to say that it is more speculation that Don wore #18. Otherwise, why would Jeff select #92 as his number when it serves no significant purpose?

    As for Rick Tocchet’s broken jaw, he was hit by a puck and it broke his jaw. I vividly remember that game as they showed him on the bench and his teeth no longer lined up. The Penguins’ trainers wanted him to come out, but he insisted on playing. They froze his jaw, put the lower jaw protection on, and he went out and scored a goal shortly after that.

    And speaking of the Penguins, did anyone catch that Jordan Stall goal against Philly tonight? This team is a year away from being a scary-good team again.[/quote]