This real money site caters to all players, with reviews on mobile games you can play, including slots, blackjack, and roulette.

Aggie Antiquities

aggies.jpg

Another university is doing a public service by putting its visual history on the web. Reader Dan Hardin has the details:

Texas A&M has an ongoing project to digitize historic pictures related to the university. Many are of athletic teams, and touch on some of your favorite uni-related items:

• From pre-1900s baseball, here are some interesting collars and pants.

• Here’s another early baseball shot, with some players with pointed collars and some with turtlenecks, a couple wearing ties, and oh my, the socks! [The “AMC” insignia refers to the school’s original name, Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas. And yes, this baseball team sure looks football-ish, but note the bats and gloves in the foreground. — PL]

• In 1923, the team name was on the placket. This isn’t the greatest picture, but it’s more notable for who’s included — in the back row, second from left, is King Gill, the original A&M “12th Man.” And in the middle of the back row, the tallest one, that’s Pat Olsen, a former major leaguer for whom the A&M baseball stadium is now named.

• The football team of the 1970s featured some interesting stripeage.

• These 1943-44 basketball uniforms, however, were much more unfortunate, at least in my view. [I beg to differ. — PL]

This is just a sampling. You can access the entire collection here.

The archive is a friggin’ gold mine, whether you’re into baseball (look here, here, here, and here), basketball (here, here [those sneakers!], here, here [love those matching striped kneepads], and here [is that the most amazing jersey design ever or what?]), or football (here, here [note the refs in jackets and bow ties], here, here [ref now in slacks and broadcloth shirt], here, here, here [rear pants striping!], here, here, and here).

Sorry, got a little carried away there, but that’s how good this material is. And there’s a lot more where that came from. Lots of little anomalies, too — two different members of the 1938 football team, for example, were photographed while wearing a No. 57 jersey, and both of them had mismatched numbers on their helmets.

Kudos to Texas A&M for documenting its own history, and thanks again to Dan for the tip.

oregon.jpg

Duck L’orange L’jaune: By now we’ve all seen the yellow Oregon helmet shown at right. But until yesterday, I hadn’t seen anyone actually wearing the damn thing. That changed last night, when Uni Watch Omaha bureau chief Bryan Redemske sent me a trio of pics that went out over the AP wire but somehow never circulated on the web. Take a look here, here, and here.

They look kinda like motorcycle helmets, no? Fortunately, I already have plans for Thursday night (gonna be attending the annual holiday fish fry at the completely wonderful Sunny’s Tavern, hosted by the even more wonderful Sunny Balzano), so I won’t have to watch the horrid spectacle of the Las Vegas Bowl.

Uni Watch News Ticker: Logo Creep Alert from Travis McGuire, who writes: “I found this photo on the Arena Football web site promoting their new video game. The funny thing is, the Russell Athletic logo on the sleeve is quite large, but it doesn’t appear on this version of the photo, which is on the Chicago Rush home page.” … “Anquan Boldin looks like he needs a belt,” observes Uni Watch intern Vince Grzegorek, who also sent along this circa-1950 photo of a primitive facemask being worn by Brown goalie (and future U.S. Olympian) Don Whiston. … Yesterday’s post about outdoor basketball prompted several readers to mention that basketball was played on a clay court at the 1936 Olympics (the first year it was a medal sport). Brian Jackson turned up this photo (which doesn’t really show the court, but at least you can tell it’s outside) and a booklet digitized in this PDF file, which includes a player’s recollections of the court (go to the 18th page of the document, which is page 14 of the booklet itself). … Amusing blog entry here about the Redskins’ cheerleaders. There’s also a mention of the now-defunct Steelerettes, who clearly had the best cheerleader unis of all time (further details on them here, but you might wanna hit your mute button first; tip courtesy of Neal Shaffer, who also sent along a page of great Iowa high school patches).

December Call-Up: Attentive readers (which means, y’know, all of you) have undoubtedly noticed my recent references to Uni Watch intern Vince Grzegorek, who scored the trivia quiz and has been helping me out lately with photo research. Tomorrow he joins the active roster, as I’m turning over the blog’s main entry to him for a day. Not gonna tell you what he’s writing about, but I’ll give you a hint: Vince lives just outside of Cleveland, and his debut entry definitely reflects his locale.

Finally, I’m not gonna be around for most of today (Uni Watch hedge fund analyst Jenny Strasburg and I are gonna go see this and this, and then check out what we’re gonna cook for dinner!). So talk amongst yourselves today, treat Vince right tomorrow, and I’ll be back on Friday.

 

148 comments to Aggie Antiquities

  • Ethan R | December 20, 2006 at 8:36 am |

    Paul got this one posted early! Good morning everyone!

  • DJL | December 20, 2006 at 9:01 am |

    I am glad to hear that Vince is from Cleveland. Northeast Ohio has produces a fair share of Uni Watchers.

    Plus, the more I see of this guy, the better.

  • dilbert719 | December 20, 2006 at 9:07 am |

    Motorcycle helmet? Not a bad way to describe them. Frankly, to me, they make the players look like round-tip highlighter pens.

    Liking the X-men Aggies jerseys; it’s interesting, to say the least. The kneepads have to go, but the rest I think is kind of neat.

    Also absolutely love the shoulder to shoulder striping on the 70’s football jerseys. That’s a fantastic look.

    Not so much, though, the AggTies jersey. Everything is perfect with it except they need to pick either the T or the “Aggies,” and get rid of the other.

    I’m wondering which of the AFL football game covers will be coming out. Somehow I’m not surprised that the Rush are on the cover, seeing as they won the Arena Bowl, but the logo creep? Wonder how much that’d cost Russell. On a completely unrelated note, here’s to hoping that Tony Graziani’s pimping the Soul jersey on the third game. ;-)

    And don’t worry, Paul, we’ll be good to Vince, I’m sure!

  • Bo class of '91 | December 20, 2006 at 9:12 am |

    Allright, some Aggie love!

    Doesn’t maroon and white look better than that t.u. orange?

  • Nolan | December 20, 2006 at 9:16 am |

    The other day someone was talking about jaw protection in the NHL. I was looking for a specific one and came up with all of these

    Benoit Hogue
    Phillipe Boucher
    Bill Guerin ignore the jersey…please
    Another Joe Sakic
    John MacLean
    Richard Matvichuck

    That’s only from looking at the Dallas Stars photos. I can only assume this means the jaw protection is more common than you might think.

    The picture I was looking for and can’t find is of Blake Sloan. There were a few games where he wore a Riddell Kra-Lite face mask on his normal helmet. I’m so pissed there is no record of this.

    Any help?

  • drjwtexas | December 20, 2006 at 9:18 am |

    Also link the extra set of numbers.

    And the ties on the two guys in thre front row.

    Take Care
    Dennis

  • Burrill | December 20, 2006 at 9:20 am |

    I, too, am not sold on the AggTies jersey. It sounds like a description of a formal event or something. Some places hold black tie events; TAMU holds aggtie events. Or something like that.

    That reminds me: every time I see the modern TAMU helmets with the ATM logo, I can’t help but call them the Money Machines.

  • Jordan | December 20, 2006 at 9:22 am |

    As a uni fan, I’d have to say I like the AggTies jersey, but as a Longhorns fan, I have to say it’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen in my life.

  • ed gaug | December 20, 2006 at 9:22 am |

    paul, enjoy the design exhibit, i had the chance to see a bunch of kid robot’s new stuff at an opening show in new haven.

  • Chris | December 20, 2006 at 9:29 am |

    First off, the basketball jerseys are awesome, the belts fit well. Second, I still don’t get it Ducks and Flames????

  • Tim | December 20, 2006 at 9:30 am |

    From that one photo, I’m more impressed with the player names. Some great old-time baseball names.

    Manor Puckett, Lefty Rogers, Petey Wilson, Bugs Morris, Horace Griffin, King Gill, Pud Johnson and Homer Womack.

  • Steve C. | December 20, 2006 at 9:30 am |

    My favorite part of the Texas A&M photo collection was the fact that in the first baseball picture (the pre-1900s one), four or five of the players had to write the team name on the front of their jerseys in chalk. That’s devotion.

    One question: what do the yellow flames have to do with a team named the Ducks?

  • Kerry | December 20, 2006 at 9:43 am |

    Wow, I’m surprised that no one else has mentioned the suddle logo creep found ON THIS PICTURE.

  • Micah | December 20, 2006 at 9:45 am |

    Wow, if you look closely on the Oregon helmet, you can even see a Swoosh engraved on the little rubber tab on the facemask…..now that is a little bit gratuitous….

  • Micah | December 20, 2006 at 9:46 am |

    Kerry, ya just beat me to that when I was typing..LOL.

  • Kerry | December 20, 2006 at 9:52 am |

    [quote comment=”31641″]Kerry, ya just beat me to that when I was typing..LOL.[/quote]
    HAHAHAHAAAAAAAA! My evil planned is working…..actually, I was surprised that no one had mentioned it. Usually when I see things like that someone has already mentioned it once I get down to the comments section.

  • DVG | December 20, 2006 at 9:57 am |

    Wow, if you look closely on the Oregon helmet, you can even see a Swoosh engraved on the little rubber tab on the facemask…..now that is a little bit gratuitous….

    Above that, on the faceshield, you can even make out a Nike-based URL:

    http://www.nikevisio...

    Subtle is Nike’s middle name?

  • Dave | December 20, 2006 at 9:57 am |

    DJL, here’s your guy on Troy Smith last night

    http://photo.the-ozo...

  • Dave | December 20, 2006 at 9:59 am |

    Actually its not your guy DJL

    Who is that guy, I know he was wearing a Browns jacket

  • Pat | December 20, 2006 at 9:59 am |

    [quote comment=”31639″]Wow, I’m surprised that no one else has mentioned the suddle logo creep found ON THIS PICTURE.[/quote]

    I saw that, I guess I just wasn’t too surprised. Nike puts that swoosh everywhere. When I was younger I had a pair of Nike basketball shoes and on the soles was one HUGE swoosh. I thought it was so cool at the time because I had Nikes. They will literally put it anywhere.

    Anybody know what the “ADAMS” written on his straps means? I checked their roster and didn’t see an Adams anywhere.

  • Jason | December 20, 2006 at 10:01 am |

    All I could think of when I saw that lead picture was “Degeneration X”. And I’m stopped watching wrestling 10 years ago. What’s wrong with me? Also that looks like some damn fine meat there, Paul. Enjoy!

  • joe | December 20, 2006 at 10:02 am |

    I’m not opposed to the premise of flames on a helmet, but the flames on the Oregon helmet (like every other part of their uniform) seems poorly executed. That, and I don’t see how you could get flames (or steel diamond plate for that matter) from a Duck mascot. The whole uniform reminds me of a Honda Civic with cheap plastic add-ons purchased from K-Mart – it looks terribly disjointed and un-uniform.

    Why don’t they just put some Chinese symbols on the helmet sides (a la Navy) and maybe some gothic script like “Pimpin’ Ain’t Easy” on the jersey nameplates – it would be no more tasteless.

  • Teebz | December 20, 2006 at 10:07 am |

    In other facial protection news, I believe Herb Raglan of the 1991 Quebec Nordiques wore a half cage on his helmet that covered his eyes only. I am looking for a picture, and I know I have it on a hockey card at home. If anyone has a card and wishes to scan the hockey card, please do so.

    The half-cage visor has not been work since, to the best of my knowledge.

  • Teebz | December 20, 2006 at 10:10 am |

    “Not been used since” rather than “not been work since”.

    Some get me a large double-double. Yes… I know the Americans on here won’t get that. Yes, I’ll gladly explain if someone asks.

  • Teebz | December 20, 2006 at 10:11 am |

    Holy Toledo! “Someone”. I’m now banned until I have a cup of coffee. See you in five minutes.

  • Anthony Verna | December 20, 2006 at 10:12 am |

    Being a Case Western grad and being in Cleveland when the Browns left, I’m curous about tomorrow’s post now. I still have a fondness for the Indians teams of the time (even though I’m a dyed-in-the-wool Philadelphian).

    (Could there be any mention of the rumors of light bulbs that used to be sold from Jacobs’ Field after they burned out? The rumor was that the Tribe slapped the Chief Wahoo logo on the bulb and then mount it.)

  • Broker75 | December 20, 2006 at 10:17 am |

    To continue yesterdays topic about indoor games played outdoors, turns out the Maple Leafs are interested also.

  • Tony Edwards | December 20, 2006 at 10:18 am |

    [quote comment=”31646″][quote comment=”31639″]Wow, I’m surprised that no one else has mentioned the suddle logo creep found ON THIS PICTURE.[/quote]

    I saw that, I guess I just wasn’t too surprised. Nike puts that swoosh everywhere. When I was younger I had a pair of Nike basketball shoes and on the soles was one HUGE swoosh. I thought it was so cool at the time because I had Nikes. They will literally put it anywhere.

    Anybody know what the “ADAMS” written on his straps means? I checked their roster and didn’t see an Adams anywhere.[/quote]

    ADAMS manufactures chinstaps.

  • Joe Hilseberg | December 20, 2006 at 10:18 am |

    The Redskins Cheerleader article has some false info. The Baltimore Colts, not the Steelers, were the first NFL team to have cheerleaders in 1953.

    There go the deadskins again…trying to take something else from B-More.

  • austin | December 20, 2006 at 10:20 am |

    [quote comment=”31646″][quote comment=”31639″]Wow, I’m surprised that no one else has mentioned the suddle logo creep found ON THIS PICTURE.[/quote]

    I saw that, I guess I just wasn’t too surprised. Nike puts that swoosh everywhere. When I was younger I had a pair of Nike basketball shoes and on the soles was one HUGE swoosh. I thought it was so cool at the time because I had Nikes. They will literally put it anywhere.

    Anybody know what the “ADAMS” written on his straps means? I checked their roster and didn’t see an Adams anywhere.[/quote]
    It’s an Adams chinstrap

  • specs | December 20, 2006 at 10:20 am |

    [quote comment=”31650″]”Not been used since” rather than “not been work since”.

    Some get me a large double-double. Yes… I know the Americans on here won’t get that. Yes, I’ll gladly explain if someone asks.[/quote]

    Is that a Tim Horton’s reference?

  • DJL | December 20, 2006 at 10:21 am |

    [quote comment=”31644″]DJL, here’s your guy on Troy Smith last night

    http://photo.the-ozo...

    Dave, I actually posted that jacket last Friday. The stiffarming Elf is my favorite interpretation of the Brownie.

    For the Cleveland Uni Watchers, there is a place in Rocky River called GPS Gift Gallery on that specializes in products adorned with the Brownie Elf. The Web site sucks, but the store itself is pretty cool. Lots of autographed memorabilia as well.

  • Teebz | December 20, 2006 at 10:22 am |

    [quote comment=”31658″][quote comment=”31650″]”Not been used since” rather than “not been work since”.

    Some get me a large double-double. Yes… I know the Americans on here won’t get that. Yes, I’ll gladly explain if someone asks.[/quote]

    Is that a Tim Horton’s reference?[/quote]

    Yes. And another subtle hockey reference. :o)

  • Metsfan AZ | December 20, 2006 at 10:24 am |

    [quote comment=”31646″][quote comment=”31639″]Wow, I’m surprised that no one else has mentioned the suddle logo creep found ON THIS PICTURE.[/quote]

    I saw that, I guess I just wasn’t too surprised. Nike puts that swoosh everywhere. When I was younger I had a pair of Nike basketball shoes and on the soles was one HUGE swoosh. I thought it was so cool at the time because I had Nikes. They will literally put it anywhere.

    Anybody know what the “ADAMS” written on his straps means? I checked their roster and didn’t see an Adams anywhere.[/quote]
    That’s a brand of chinstrap

  • Teebz | December 20, 2006 at 10:26 am |

    Herb Raglan with a half-cage.

    See? That coffee does help.

  • Miguel | December 20, 2006 at 10:31 am |

    [quote comment=”31644″]DJL, here’s your guy on Troy Smith last night

    http://photo.the-ozo...

    That’s quite a chain on Mr. Smith! I thought he wasn’t accepting money from boosters anymore?

  • Rich | December 20, 2006 at 10:36 am |

    [quote comment=”31634″]Sounds like it was pretty miserable to play basketball in the ’36 Olympics[/quote]

    wow, 19-8. What a barn-burner! They couldn’t dribble? That must’ve been a sight. So I guess the traveling rule wasn’t invented yet!

  • Broker75 | December 20, 2006 at 10:47 am |

    [quote comment=”31650″]”Not been used since” rather than “not been work since”.

    Some get me a large double-double. Yes… I know the Americans on here won’t get that. Yes, I’ll gladly explain if someone asks.[/quote]

    Teebz :) that’s easy, (I spend a lot of time in Canada) you’re talking about Timmy’s -I know, someone beat me to it- but I had to give a shout out to a good coffee franchise, and ex-NHLer. You got a pic of Tim Horton?

  • BCrisp | December 20, 2006 at 10:47 am |

    Not to steal Dan Hardin’s thunder or anything, but I brought up the Texas A&M Cushing Library site a long time ago.
    Chain Letter
    Look at comment #5
    I guess Dan made a better presentation of it than I did.
    No sour grapes here though. It is a great site and most of my destops come from there.
    Gig ’em

  • Haze | December 20, 2006 at 10:49 am |

    Found this link that shows a prototype of the “smartshirt”, an exoskeleton, and something called liquid body armor

  • Patrick McAvoy | December 20, 2006 at 10:57 am |

    I read in today’s Arizona Republic that the Coyotes practiced in the new Reebok jerseys set to be unveiled next month. Defenseman Keith Ballard liked the tighter socks but didn’t like the tighter jersey due to lack of freedom of movement. He also said it breatehd less than he was expecting.

    I’m assuming other teams have started practicing as well… any spy shots out there?

  • Teebz | December 20, 2006 at 11:02 am |

    Tim Horton

    That unauthorized biography that was just released makes Tim sound like a raving lunatic when it came to running his business.

  • Pat | December 20, 2006 at 11:08 am |

    [quote comment=”31673″]I read in today’s Arizona Republic that the Coyotes practiced in the new Reebok jerseys set to be unveiled next month. Defenseman Keith Ballard liked the tighter socks but didn’t like the tighter jersey due to lack of freedom of movement. He also said it breatehd less than he was expecting.

    I’m assuming other teams have started practicing as well… any spy shots out there?[/quote]

    Anybody think that this idea will go over as badly as the new ball in the NBA? Seems like the same approach David Stern and company used to introduce the new ball. Introduced it at the all-star game the previous year. Allowed each team to practice with the ball over the offseason and then introduced it very first thing the next season. I think all the hub-bub about the ball was stupid and am kind of upset they are going back to the old ball in the first place. I wonder how hockey players, reporters and fans will react to the new uniform design?

  • Ian K | December 20, 2006 at 11:09 am |

    two different members of the 1938 football team, for example, were photographed while wearing a No. 57 jersey, and both of them had mismatched numbers on their helmets.

    This has Aggie joke written all over it. But from a Texas outsider’s perspective (non-UT or A&M, and non-TX native), Texas A&M holds their traditions more reverently than any school I’ve seen.

  • Teebz | December 20, 2006 at 11:11 am |

    [quote comment=”31675″]I wonder how hockey players, reporters and fans will react to the new uniform design?[/quote]

    It is bad for hockey. Period.

    At least they aren’t tucking the jerseys in, though. That’s a huge relief.

  • Broker75 | December 20, 2006 at 11:13 am |

    [quote comment=”31674″]Tim Horton

    That unauthorized biography that was just released makes Tim sound like a raving lunatic when it came to running his business.[/quote]
    awesome

  • drjwtexas | December 20, 2006 at 11:17 am |

    Again from the A&M web site.

    Check out the “Gig Em” symbol on the girl socks.

  • drjwtexas | December 20, 2006 at 11:25 am |

    Nice shin guards.

    Dennis

  • joe | December 20, 2006 at 11:29 am |

    http://www.gamewornh...

    I stumbled across this. Its not the same as the side-link Game-Worn Hockey Jersey Museum. Enjoy.

  • Doug Healy | December 20, 2006 at 11:31 am |

    Not a fan at all of the Aggie basketball jersey. Am I the only one that sees it as a nod to the Confederacy? In that respect, it makes them more interesting, but for all the wrong reasons, like the Frito Bandito.

  • Tim | December 20, 2006 at 11:39 am |

    [quote comment=”31659″][quote comment=”31644″]DJL, here’s your guy on Troy Smith last night

    http://photo.the-ozo...

    Dave, I actually posted that jacket last Friday. The stiffarming Elf is my favorite interpretation of the Brownie.

    For the Cleveland Uni Watchers, there is a place in Rocky River called GPS Gift Gallery on that specializes in products adorned with the Brownie Elf.

    The Web site sucks, but the store itself is pretty cool. Lots of autographed memorabilia as well.[/quote]

    I don’t know how many times I’ve driven past that place, as my sister lives in the area. I guess now I have a reason to stop and have a look.

  • Metsfan AZ | December 20, 2006 at 11:50 am |

    [quote comment=”31680″]Again from the A&M web site.

    Check out the “Gig Em” symbol on the girl socks.[/quote]
    Ok, what does “Gig Em” mean?

  • Kerry | December 20, 2006 at 12:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”31683″]Not a fan at all of the Aggie basketball jersey. Am I the only one that sees it as a nod to the Confederacy? In that respect, it makes them more interesting, but for all the wrong reasons, like the Frito Bandito.[/quote]
    Um…..in a word, “Yes.”

  • Seattle Matt | December 20, 2006 at 12:07 pm |

    Here’s a picture with the outdoor basketball clay court.

    Mexico vs Phillipines

  • Metsfan AZ | December 20, 2006 at 12:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”31686″][quote comment=”31680″]Again from the A&M web site.

    Check out the “Gig Em” symbol on the girl socks.[/quote]
    Ok, what does “Gig Em” mean?[/quote]
    Found an article to answer my own question.

  • UwantRadie | December 20, 2006 at 12:22 pm |

    I was watching “Rudy” the other night and I noticed that he is the only one that isnt wearing his name on his jersey.

    a few questions…

    1)Did ND ever really have naems on their jerseys?
    2)Was it common practice for players that werent sonsistant players to not have their name on their jersey?

    By the way, ona side note, my boss is an ND alum and has met the real Rudy. He says the guy is a total douchebag. Just a note.

  • Greg Riffenburgh | December 20, 2006 at 12:24 pm |

    Note that the Duck in this picture has a six point chin strap hookup (one on top, two on the bottom) but doesn’t have them all connected. I wanted to bring this up yesterday because I distinctly remember some linemen wearing six point chinstraps. But I couldn’t find any photo evidence. Anyone?

  • Greg Riffenburgh | December 20, 2006 at 12:24 pm |

    Sorry, this picture.

  • Matty L. | December 20, 2006 at 12:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”31654″]To continue yesterdays topic about indoor games played outdoors, turns out the Maple Leafs are interested also.[/quote]
    I don’t see how that’s a good idea as a) BMO is getting a bubble over it in winter so it won’t be outdoors. And b) it’s hardly any bigger then the ACC. They should hold it in the Rogers Centre with the lid open if they want a huge crowd.

    On the subject of outdoor sports gone wrong, a charity hockey game that got held in Hamilton during the lockout, “Our Game to Give” was played in a largely empty Ivor Wynne Stadium in a driving rain.

    The highlight of the game was Mike Vanderjagt switching from skates to cleats during the second intermission and trying to kick a 30-ish yard field goal from the ice. Unsurprisingly he slipped and fell and the kick was no good.

  • Banker Bill | December 20, 2006 at 12:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”31662″]Herb Raglan with a half-cage.

    See? That coffee does help.[/quote]
    Not only the cage – but behold the majestic beauty that was the Nordiques road uni – loved the fleur-de-lis and even the logo – like the logo on the pants too.

  • John from KY | December 20, 2006 at 1:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”31693″]I was watching “Rudy” the other night and I noticed that he is the only one that isnt wearing his name on his jersey.

    a few questions…

    1)Did ND ever really have naems on their jerseys?
    2)Was it common practice for players that werent sonsistant players to not have their name on their jersey?[/quote]

    Notre Dame did have names on their jerseys from sometime toward the end of the Ara Parsegian (sp?) era in the early 1970s through the Gerry Faust era in the 1980s. When Lou Holtz came (in 1986 IIRC) he took the names off.

    Considering that universities didn’t have these huge equipment contracts like today where they not only get free equipment but get paid to wear a brand, it would make sense that those practice squad walk-ons who only dressed for the final home game would get left-over jerseys without names, etc.

    In fact, ND always appeared to be kind of tight regarding recycling uniforms, as I remember them still wearing pants with nylon (not spandex, but the backpack/tent type of nylon) front/knit back in the era when virtually every other team was wearing all knit pants (in those pre-spandex days).

  • Philly Bill | December 20, 2006 at 1:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”31673″]I’m assuming other teams have started practicing as well… any spy shots out there?[/quote]

    I’ve read that a few teams have been using them in practice, including Nashville and, I think, Colorado. Does this photo depict the “new style” practice jersey? I can’t tell: http://www.nashville...

    Also, A.I. will continue to wear #3 with the Nuggets, as mentioned deep in the bowels of this article:
    http://www.denverpos...

  • Teebz | December 20, 2006 at 1:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”31703″][quote comment=”31662″]Herb Raglan with a half-cage.

    See? That coffee does help.[/quote]
    Not only the cage – but behold the majestic beauty that was the Nordiques road uni – loved the fleur-de-lis and even the logo – like the logo on the pants too.[/quote]

    100% with you on that, Banker Bill. One of the best jerseys ever in hockey.

  • Jay Palmer | December 20, 2006 at 1:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”31705
    I’ve read that a few teams have been using them in practice, including Nashville and, I think, Colorado. Does this photo depict the “new style” practice jersey? I can’t tell: http://www.nashville...

    [/quote]

    Looks like it’s their regular practice sweaters.

  • Peter | December 20, 2006 at 1:27 pm |

    I saw this picture on sportsline yesterday during the Iverson hoopla, and I noticed the shoulder pattern. What was the occasion for this jersey? And where can I buy one?

  • Peter | December 20, 2006 at 1:28 pm |

    Sorry, here’s the link to the picture of AI in his jersey.

    http://www.cbc.ca/cp...

  • Teebz | December 20, 2006 at 1:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”31705″][quote comment=”31673″]I’m assuming other teams have started practicing as well… any spy shots out there?[/quote]

    I’ve read that a few teams have been using them in practice, including Nashville and, I think, Colorado. Does this photo depict the “new style” practice jersey? I can’t tell: http://www.nashville...
    [/quote]

    Those are the Reebok “Slim-Fit” practice jerseys. You can see more of them here. This is a better view of how they look. Notice that the logo is tiny compared to game jerseys.

    The old practice jerseys that were made by CCM and had the JOFA label on them looked like this.

  • Matthew S. | December 20, 2006 at 1:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”31710″]I saw this picture on sportsline yesterday during the Iverson hoopla, and I noticed the shoulder pattern. What was the occasion for this jersey? And where can I buy one?

    [/quote]

    Several NBA teams played preseason games overseas. To commemorate this, most of the teams worked the colors of the host nation’s flag into their jerseys. The Sixers played against a club team in Barcelona. Red and Orange are the colors of the Spanish flag. http://s389.nxs.nl/f...

    Full Story: http://www.nba.com/n...

  • Matthew S. | December 20, 2006 at 1:36 pm |

    Did I say orange? Damn I need coffee. I meant red and gold are the colors of the Spanish flag.

  • James | December 20, 2006 at 1:46 pm |

    is it just me or does troy smith look exactly like reggie bush

  • Ben | December 20, 2006 at 2:07 pm |

    I like the new Oregon helmets.

    I think they’re pretty damn cool.

    And despite what Paul and other posters have been endlessly bleating and shrieking, they aren’t going to cause the world to end or for Nike to take over the world and install Phil Knight as worldwide dictator for life.

    Nike spent a good bit of money developing and designing the helmets and I have no problem with Nike making that fact now by putting the swoosh in a prominent position on the helmet, in fact it’d be horrible from a business and marketing standpoint if they didn’t.

    As I said in my Saturday Open thread post, this is what the majority of helmets in college and the pros will look like inside of ten years. The trend towards this started a few years back when teams switched to metallic paint on their helmets.

    And I find it really hypocritical of Paul to continually bemoan the Logo creep on unis etc, and yet he has said nothing about how every square inch of the boards in every NHL hockey arena has advertising plastered on it so you can barely see the puck anymore.

  • al | December 20, 2006 at 2:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”31706″][quote comment=”31703″][quote comment=”31662″]Herb Raglan with a half-cage.

    See? That coffee does help.[/quote]
    Not only the cage – but behold the majestic beauty that was the Nordiques road uni – loved the fleur-de-lis and even the logo – like the logo on the pants too.[/quote]

    100% with you on that, Banker Bill. One of the best jerseys ever in hockey.[/quote]

    I prefer the home jersey, predominantly white with similar flor de lis and such, and I remember the nord logo to be small?

    I also loved the away Cleveland Barons’ and home North Star’s jerseys. Also dug the KC Scouts’ logo.

  • Matthew S. | December 20, 2006 at 2:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”31717″]I like the new Oregon helmets.

    I think they’re pretty damn cool.

    And despite what Paul and other posters have been endlessly bleating and shrieking, they aren’t going to cause the world to end or for Nike to take over the world and install Phil Knight as worldwide dictator for life.

    Nike spent a good bit of money developing and designing the helmets and I have no problem with Nike making that fact now by putting the swoosh in a prominent position on the helmet, in fact it’d be horrible from a business and marketing standpoint if they didn’t.

    As I said in my Saturday Open thread post, this is what the majority of helmets in college and the pros will look like inside of ten years. The trend towards this started a few years back when teams switched to metallic paint on their helmets.

    And I find it really hypocritical of Paul to continually bemoan the Logo creep on unis etc, and yet he has said nothing about how every square inch of the boards in every NHL hockey arena has advertising plastered on it so you can barely see the puck anymore.[/quote]

    Ben, firstly I’m not sure that anyone on this board, let alone Paul is worried Nike will take over the world. There is nothing wrong (at least in my opinion) of Nike or any other manufacturer putting their logo on a piece of equipment or apparel that they manufacture. But rather it’s HOW they do it. But a uniform is much more than just apparel. It’s the connection between a fan and their team (which itself is an increasingly harder concept to realize as athletes continue to make more and more money and act like they are above the game they play and the team they play for).

    I don’t pretend to speak for Paul, but I think the majority of people who dislike Oregon’s new helmet do so simply because it’s ugly. Alsothe majority of people would think so if the design originated with Nike, Reebok, Adidas, or some Joe Schmo in Anytown, USA. Someone asked it earlier: what exactly do flames have to do with a team that’s nickname is the Ducks?

    And if you don’t think logos can get out of control, they can: http://oilerfan64.tr...

  • Steve C. | December 20, 2006 at 2:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”31717″]As I said in my Saturday Open thread post, this is what the majority of helmets in college and the pros will look like inside of ten years. The trend towards this started a few years back when teams switched to metallic paint on their helmets.[/quote]

    This is what most pro and college football helmets will look like in ten years??! Uh oh. Well, Congress is already involved in steroids in baseball, so maybe we could get them to pass a law stating that all football teams must immediately switch to helmets that look like Penn State’s.

    Speaking seriously, you’re probably right about the Oregon helmets being trend-setters, though that doesn’t mean I can’t still pine for the days of the old Patriots helmets!

  • Matthew S. | December 20, 2006 at 2:23 pm |

    Ok, that logo creep photo didn’t work, so hopefully this one will: http://216.92.65.7/i...

  • Pat | December 20, 2006 at 2:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”31715″]is it just me or does troy smith look exactly like reggie bush[/quote]

    A little bit, but I’m still going to say it’s just you.

    Troy.
    Reggie.

    On second thought… I think they do look a lot a like. Troy looks a lot like an unpolished Reggie Bush.

  • Metsfan AZ | December 20, 2006 at 2:31 pm |

    [quote comment=”31717″]I like the new Oregon helmets.

    I think they’re pretty damn cool.

    And despite what Paul and other posters have been endlessly bleating and shrieking, they aren’t going to cause the world to end or for Nike to take over the world and install Phil Knight as worldwide dictator for life.

    Nike spent a good bit of money developing and designing the helmets and I have no problem with Nike making that fact now by putting the swoosh in a prominent position on the helmet, in fact it’d be horrible from a business and marketing standpoint if they didn’t.

    As I said in my Saturday Open thread post, this is what the majority of helmets in college and the pros will look like inside of ten years. The trend towards this started a few years back when teams switched to metallic paint on their helmets.

    And I find it really hypocritical of Paul to continually bemoan the Logo creep on unis etc, and yet he has said nothing about how every square inch of the boards in every NHL hockey arena has advertising plastered on it so you can barely see the puck anymore.[/quote]
    Corporate logos in stadiums have never been the focus of anti logo creep. Those are ads. The main issue is the manufacturer of the equipment/uniform putting their logo on it. As Paul has said before, I want to root for my team not the company that made their uniforms. That being said, unadorned stadiums are gone forever. I actually think the subtle logo on the facemask is neat in that it is unobtrusive. I also like that they left the bumper for the school logo unlike Riddell, Schutt, et al.

  • Matthew S. | December 20, 2006 at 2:37 pm |

    Unadorned stadiums are gone forever, but some stadiums have successfuly resisted or even pushed back some levels of advertising.

    Wrigley Field has, I think someone pointed out here over the summer, some of the smallest amount of advertising of any stadium in sports. It’s also worth mentioning that the Green Monster did not become known as such until after WW II when it was painted green. Prior to that it was covered in advertisements. You can see that here:http://www.ballparks...
    and here: http://www.ballparks...

  • Teebz | December 20, 2006 at 2:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”31717″]
    And I find it really hypocritical of Paul to continually bemoan the Logo creep on unis etc, and yet he has said nothing about how every square inch of the boards in every NHL hockey arena has advertising plastered on it so you can barely see the puck anymore.[/quote]

    Since the boards on a hockey rink are rarely considered anyone’s jersey or apparel, I think you had better realize what board you’re on. Uniforms can be billboards (Nike), but billboards cannot be uniforms.

    And since you fail to take into account that the money generated from the sale of space around the boards to businesses who have a relationship with the teams who advertise them, perhaps you wouldn’t mind NHL teams charging you $300/ticket to sit in the nosebleed section? Since corporate America pays to have their logo on the board, the team, in turn, can use that money any way they feel fit, whether they sign new players, lower ticket prices, or whatever.

    Revenue from advertising helps the consumer in this case. If you, Ben, buy any products from anyone who ever advertised on the boards of an NHL rink, shame on you. That would make you, Ben, hypocritical to your own cause.

  • Matthew S. | December 20, 2006 at 2:40 pm |

    And here’s the history of Wrigley Field:

    http://www.ballparks...

  • Broker75 | December 20, 2006 at 2:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”31727″]And here’s the history of Wrigley Field:

    http://www.ballparks...
    I wonder if Wrigley Field or the Cubs would make more money if they did in fact build a new stadium. Wrigley only cost $250,000!!, but that was way back. Unless the taxes are killing them, the Cubs franchise must be making a lot of $$. But they don’t seem to spend it wisely. Although Mark Prior and Kerry Wood were shit for luck draft picks.

  • Broker75 | December 20, 2006 at 3:02 pm |

    Actually, come to think of it, didn’t the Cubs just sign Soriano? Pinella I know of. Derek Bell didn’t work out, Clemens would look good in a Cubs uni. Alfonso Soriano is gonna make a difference (I hope) it’s about time they win.
    Cubs vs Yankees early World Series prediction. That would be lovely for Mr. Nielson, and me :)

  • Matthew S. | December 20, 2006 at 3:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”31730″]Actually, come to think of it, didn’t the Cubs just sign Soriano? Pinella I know of. Derek Bell didn’t work out, Clemens would look good in a Cubs uni. Alfonso Soriano is gonna make a difference (I hope) it’s about time they win.
    Cubs vs Yankees early World Series prediction. That would be lovely for Mr. Nielson, and me :)[/quote]

    You had to suffer through Derek Bell too? As an Astros fan we had to deal with his ‘tude for several years. He had one good year and a couple of decent (but not outstanding) years and suddenly he was walking around like he owned the city of Houston and that the Astrodome should be renamed Derek Bell’s Plaza of Greatness.

    Any Pirates fans out there remember “Operation Shutdown”? I’m so glad that guy’s out of baseball.

    I’m no financial expert, but I’m willing to bet that $250,000 in 1914 dollars is a little bit higher in 2006 dollars. Any financial services folks care to do that conversion?

    Last thing, on that website (http://www.ballparks...), you can look back at past ballparks as well. It’s interesting to see how much quicker it was to throw together a stadium back in the day. Even Cleveland’s “Mistake by the Lake” with it’s 75,000 person capacity, only took a little over a year to build.

  • Mel H. | December 20, 2006 at 3:20 pm |

    Hey I was watching an old NBA Films show on ESPN, and saw that Isaiah Thomas had both his first and last names on the back of his jersey. Is he the only guy who did that? It’s really odd…

  • Banker Bill | December 20, 2006 at 3:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”31726″][quote comment=”31717″]
    And I find it really hypocritical of Paul to continually bemoan the Logo creep on unis etc, and yet he has said nothing about how every square inch of the boards in every NHL hockey arena has advertising plastered on it so you can barely see the puck anymore.[/quote]

    [quote comment=”31726″][quote comment=”31717″]
    And I find it really hypocritical of Paul to continually bemoan the Logo creep on unis etc, and yet he has said nothing about how every square inch of the boards in every NHL hockey arena has advertising plastered on it so you can barely see the puck anymore.[/quote]

    Since the boards on a hockey rink are rarely considered anyone’s jersey or apparel, I think you had better realize what board you’re on. Uniforms can be billboards (Nike), but billboards cannot be uniforms.

    And since you fail to take into account that the money generated from the sale of space around the boards to businesses who have a relationship with the teams who advertise them, perhaps you wouldn’t mind NHL teams charging you $300/ticket to sit in the nosebleed section? Since corporate America pays to have their logo on the board, the team, in turn, can use that money any way they feel fit, whether they sign new players, lower ticket prices, or whatever.

    Revenue from advertising helps the consumer in this case. If you, Ben, buy any products from anyone who ever advertised on the boards of an NHL rink, shame on you. That would make you, Ben, hypocritical to your own cause.[/quote]

    Besides, advertising on the boards does not impair your ability to see a puck ON THE ICE. If it did, I’m sure the players would have complained – and they’re more in danger from a speeding puck – I think they’d beef if they couldn’t see it. Does a billboard on the side of the road hamper your ability to drive?

    Advertising and logo creep are seperate animals. Teebz is well stated about the revenue generated from board advertising, scoreboard advertising, you even sometimes see little RBK ads on the line marks on the boards. I have no problem with any of this. The minute my beloved team becomes the “Canon Digital Solutions New York Rangers” with a big Canon logo on the jersey, then I have a problem.

  • Banker Bill | December 20, 2006 at 3:28 pm |

    Somehow the tags didn’t close…

  • Banker Bill | December 20, 2006 at 3:30 pm |

    Derek Bell left his stench on the Mets as well – I don’t think ANYONE wore their uniform sloppier than Derek Bell.

  • Metsfan AZ | December 20, 2006 at 3:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”31737″][quote comment=”31726″][quote comment=”31717″]
    The minute my beloved team becomes the “Canon Digital Solutions New York Rangers” with a big Canon logo on the jersey, then I have a problem.[/quote]
    Not trying to be contentious, just a question, isn’t that what the European soccer clubs are? Stereotypical ignorant American here. From the looks of the European hockey leagues we’ve seen on this board, I would guess the same thing about them?

  • Deron Steinke | December 20, 2006 at 3:36 pm |

    [quote comment=”31723″][quote comment=”31717″]I like the new Oregon helmets.

    I think they’re pretty damn cool.

    And despite what Paul and other posters have been endlessly bleating and shrieking, they aren’t going to cause the world to end or for Nike to take over the world and install Phil Knight as worldwide dictator for life.

    Nike spent a good bit of money developing and designing the helmets and I have no problem with Nike making that fact now by putting the swoosh in a prominent position on the helmet, in fact it’d be horrible from a business and marketing standpoint if they didn’t.

    As I said in my Saturday Open thread post, this is what the majority of helmets in college and the pros will look like inside of ten years. The trend towards this started a few years back when teams switched to metallic paint on their helmets.

    And I find it really hypocritical of Paul to continually bemoan the Logo creep on unis etc, and yet he has said nothing about how every square inch of the boards in every NHL hockey arena has advertising plastered on it so you can barely see the puck anymore.[/quote]
    Corporate logos in stadiums have never been the focus of anti logo creep. Those are ads. The main issue is the manufacturer of the equipment/uniform putting their logo on it. As Paul has said before, I want to root for my team not the company that made their uniforms. That being said, unadorned stadiums are gone forever. I actually think the subtle logo on the facemask is neat in that it is unobtrusive. I also like that they left the bumper for the school logo unlike Riddell, Schutt, et al.[/quote]

    Since this is a Schutt helmet and the paint color and design was Nike’s imput, Schutt does leave the bumper available for schools, additionally most schools cover both brands with stickers of their school name or mascot.

    Also Schutt has to make blank bumpers for the NFL as Riddellhas hte exclusive right to advertising on helmets which is also why you won’t see an Adams chinstrap labeled as such in the NFL.

  • Broker75 | December 20, 2006 at 3:40 pm |

    [quote comment=”31727″]And here’s the history of Wrigley Field:

    http://www.ballparks...
    I can’t believe it took the Minnesota Twins how long?, to finally figure out that they were lacking this important feature.

  • Metsfan AZ | December 20, 2006 at 3:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”31741″][quote comment=”31723″][quote comment=”31717″]I also like that they left the bumper for the school logo unlike Riddell, Schutt, et al.[/quote]

    Since this is a Schutt helmet and the paint color and design was Nike’s imput, Schutt does leave the bumper available for schools, additionally most schools cover both brands with stickers of their school name or mascot.

    Also Schutt has to make blank bumpers for the NFL as Riddellhas hte exclusive right to advertising on helmets which is also why you won’t see an Adams chinstrap labeled as such in the NFL.[/quote]
    My mistake, I assumed from the comment that it was a Nike helmet. I knew about the NFL mandated blank bumper but not the school logos. Thanks for the info.

  • UwantRadie | December 20, 2006 at 3:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”31717″]
    And I find it really hypocritical of Paul to continually bemoan the Logo creep on unis etc, and yet he has said nothing about how every square inch of the boards in every NHL hockey arena has advertising plastered on it so you can barely see the puck anymore.[/quote]

    Dont forget the constant pushing of his stickers. No offense to a guy trying to make a buck but isnt it a bit ironic that someone that hates logo creeps wants us to buy stickers with HIS logo? What are the stickers for? One would assume so that you could stick them somewhere as a bit of free advertising (technically better then free as we have to buy the stickers). Wouldnt that make us all logo creeps?

    Nothing against you Paul, I love your site and your work, just calling a spade a spade.

  • Teebz | December 20, 2006 at 3:44 pm |

    [quote comment=”31740″][quote comment=”31737″]The minute my beloved team becomes the “Canon Digital Solutions New York Rangers” with a big Canon logo on the jersey, then I have a problem.[/quote]
    Not trying to be contentious, just a question, isn’t that what the European soccer clubs are? Stereotypical ignorant American here. From the looks of the European hockey leagues we’ve seen on this board, I would guess the same thing about them?[/quote]

    Absolutely not. European hockey is not financed by billionaires and a league that uses corporate advertising to build a world-class league. The reason they have advertising on their jerseys is so the games remain affordable for the fans who don’t live and die as their teams go. The games in the Japanese Ice Hockey League have tickets as low as $12 for games. The Russian SuperLeague has no tickets that I’ve seen for more than $25 US.

    In the case of MoDo in Sweden, perhaps the most famous of the elite European league teams, they are owned by a paper mill. This paper mill is hardly a multi-billion dollar factory. The team, however, gives each of its players an apartment rent-free, a vehicle payment-free, and pay throughout the season. How can they afford this? Advertising all over their jerseys. They already sell the space on their boards, and generate more revenue by allowing teams to outbid each other for a logo on their jerseys.

    This goes back to my “uniforms can be billboards, but billboards can’t be uniforms” explanation.

  • Teebz | December 20, 2006 at 3:46 pm |

    “and generate more revenue by allowing teams to outbid each other for a logo on their jerseys”

    That should read “and generate more revenue by allowing businesses to outbid each other for a logo on their jerseys”. Sorry… got a little ahead of myself there.

  • E.T. | December 20, 2006 at 3:51 pm |

    with all the helmet talk today, it hough this pic is interesting

    Vic Emery of the 64 Canadian bobsled team holding what looks like a football helmet with a 2 bar cage. Anyone have an idea if this was the norm back then.

    http://archives.cbc....

  • UwantRadie | December 20, 2006 at 3:56 pm |

    Well, in the movie “Cool Runnings’, I am pretty sure that Doug E. Doug wore a football helmet when they were practicing bobsledding in Jamaica

  • Teebz | December 20, 2006 at 4:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”31748″]with all the helmet talk today, it hough this pic is interesting

    Vic Emery of the 64 Canadian bobsled team holding what looks like a football helmet with a 2 bar cage. Anyone have an idea if this was the norm back then.

    http://archives.cbc....

    That is correct. I don’t know if it was the norm, but Vic Emery was the driver. In this picture, a man in the bottom right is holding a helmet as well. It appears to be close to a football helmet.

    The Italians from the Innsbruck Games wore other types of helmets, as seen here.

    I would guess that the Canadian team picked whatever helmet that his team figured would provide the most protection. Since football players run into each other and crack skulls, that might have been their choice.

  • bg | December 20, 2006 at 4:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”31717″]I like the new Oregon helmets.

    I think they’re pretty damn cool.

    And despite what Paul and other posters have been endlessly bleating and shrieking, they aren’t going to cause the world to end or for Nike to take over the world and install Phil Knight as worldwide dictator for life.

    Nike spent a good bit of money developing and designing the helmets and I have no problem with Nike making that fact now by putting the swoosh in a prominent position on the helmet, in fact it’d be horrible from a business and marketing standpoint if they didn’t.

    As I said in my Saturday Open thread post, this is what the majority of helmets in college and the pros will look like inside of ten years. The trend towards this started a few years back when teams switched to metallic paint on their helmets.

    And I find it really hypocritical of Paul to continually bemoan the Logo creep on unis etc, and yet he has said nothing about how every square inch of the boards in every NHL hockey arena has advertising plastered on it so you can barely see the puck anymore.[/quote]

    I think there is a difference between logo creep on uniforms and ads in stadiums and arenas. there have always been ads posted all over parks and stadiums; ‘bullpen’ came from the bull durham tobacco ad hanging over an area where the pitchers warmed up.

  • junkland | December 20, 2006 at 4:26 pm |

    In the new movie, Rocky Balboa is wearing “Jumpman” boxing shoes.

  • Metsfan AZ | December 20, 2006 at 4:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”31746″][quote comment=”31740″][quote comment=”31737″]The minute my beloved team becomes the “Canon Digital Solutions New York Rangers” with a big Canon logo on the jersey, then I have a problem.[/quote]
    Not trying to be contentious, just a question, isn’t that what the European soccer clubs are? Stereotypical ignorant American here. From the looks of the European hockey leagues we’ve seen on this board, I would guess the same thing about them?[/quote]

    Absolutely not. European hockey is not financed by billionaires and a league that uses corporate advertising to build a world-class league. The reason they have advertising on their jerseys is so the games remain affordable for the fans who don’t live and die as their teams go. The games in the Japanese Ice Hockey League have tickets as low as $12 for games. The Russian SuperLeague has no tickets that I’ve seen for more than $25 US.

    In the case of MoDo in Sweden, perhaps the most famous of the elite European league teams, they are owned by a paper mill. This paper mill is hardly a multi-billion dollar factory. The team, however, gives each of its players an apartment rent-free, a vehicle payment-free, and pay throughout the season. How can they afford this? Advertising all over their jerseys. They already sell the space on their boards, and generate more revenue by allowing teams to outbid each other for a logo on their jerseys.

    This goes back to my “uniforms can be billboards, but billboards can’t be uniforms” explanation.[/quote]
    TEEBZ!! Hockey guru this side of the pond AND across! Thanks for the info.

  • Stuby | December 20, 2006 at 4:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”31739″]Derek Bell left his stench on the Mets as well – I don’t think ANYONE wore their uniform sloppier than Derek Bell.[/quote]

    Combine the sloppy uni with the porno ‘stache and the faceful of copenhagen and he was a joy to behold. To me, he always looked like he just woke up.

  • Minna H | December 20, 2006 at 4:39 pm |

    [quote comment=”31742″][quote comment=”31727″]And here’s the history of Wrigley Field:

    http://www.ballparks...
    I can’t believe it took the Minnesota Twins how long?, to finally figure out that they were lacking this important feature.[/quote]

    Broker75, the Twins have wanted an outdoor park (if that is what you’re saying) for as long as the Minneapolis Marshmallow has been up. It’s just that the MN public has not wanted to PAY for it and had successfully blocked public funding until the local government rammed it through—taxation without representation at its finest.

  • ML | December 20, 2006 at 4:39 pm |

    Paul, the plate you have your dinner on is shaped exactly like the Oregon “O”.

    Coincidence?

  • Fraser | December 20, 2006 at 4:44 pm |

    Check out these facemasks from womens field hockey

    rip hamiltons got nothing on them

  • Stuby | December 20, 2006 at 4:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”31760″][quote comment=”31742″][quote comment=”31727″]And here’s the history of Wrigley Field:

    http://www.ballparks...
    I can’t believe it took the Minnesota Twins how long?, to finally figure out that they were lacking this important feature.[/quote]

    Broker75, the Twins have wanted an outdoor park (if that is what you’re saying) for as long as the Minneapolis Marshmallow has been up. It’s just that the MN public has not wanted to PAY for it and had successfully blocked public funding until the local government rammed it through—taxation without representation at its finest.[/quote]
    I can’t tell the difference between the Twins new stadium and the new ones in Philly, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Detroit, etc. I guess that’s bound to happen when one Architectural company designs everything. Its close to being a cookie-cutter stadium epidemic.

  • Minna H | December 20, 2006 at 4:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”31745″][quote comment=”31717″]
    And I find it really hypocritical of Paul to continually bemoan the Logo creep on unis etc, and yet he has said nothing about how every square inch of the boards in every NHL hockey arena has advertising plastered on it so you can barely see the puck anymore.[/quote]

    Dont forget the constant pushing of his stickers. No offense to a guy trying to make a buck but isnt it a bit ironic that someone that hates logo creeps wants us to buy stickers with HIS logo? What are the stickers for? One would assume so that you could stick them somewhere as a bit of free advertising (technically better then free as we have to buy the stickers). Wouldnt that make us all logo creeps?

    Nothing against you Paul, I love your site and your work, just calling a spade a spade.[/quote]

    UWantRadie, I disagree. Paul is not constantly pushing the tattoos, and he is doing it for a free site that we all enjoy. Besides (and I’m not speaking for Paul—he has said something similar in the past), he is not against logos per se, just the wanton and rampant placement of the logo. Paul is not asking us to slap a tattoo on each arm, leg, neck, face, shin, chest, etc. He might not object (except under the pretext that it isn’t aesthetically pleasing)

    Ah, hell. Paul can explain it better himself. Read here under Tattoo Update.

  • Metsfan AZ | December 20, 2006 at 4:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”31767″]Check out these facemasks from womens field hockey

    rip hamiltons got nothing on them[/quote]
    …fava beans and chianti…
    Shouldn’t underarmour be “under” something?

  • ToasterPoodle | December 20, 2006 at 4:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”31722″][quote comment=”31715″]is it just me or does troy smith look exactly like reggie bush[/quote]

    A little bit, but I’m still going to say it’s just you.

    Troy.
    Reggie.

    On second thought… I think they do look a lot a like. Troy looks a lot like an unpolished Reggie Bush.[/quote]
    A better way to say it might be that Troy looks a lot like a Reggie Bush who can also throw

  • Minna H | December 20, 2006 at 4:52 pm |

    [quote comment=”31771″][quote comment=”31745″][quote comment=”31717″]
    And I find it really hypocritical of Paul to continually bemoan the Logo creep on unis etc, and yet he has said nothing about how every square inch of the boards in every NHL hockey arena has advertising plastered on it so you can barely see the puck anymore.[/quote]

    Dont forget the constant pushing of his stickers. No offense to a guy trying to make a buck but isnt it a bit ironic that someone that hates logo creeps wants us to buy stickers with HIS logo? What are the stickers for? One would assume so that you could stick them somewhere as a bit of free advertising (technically better then free as we have to buy the stickers). Wouldnt that make us all logo creeps?

    Nothing against you Paul, I love your site and your work, just calling a spade a spade.[/quote]

    UWantRadie, I disagree. Paul is not constantly pushing the tattoos, and he is doing it for a free site that we all enjoy. Besides (and I’m not speaking for Paul—he has said something similar in the past), he is not against logos per se, just the wanton and rampant placement of the logo. Paul is not asking us to slap a tattoo on each arm, leg, neck, face, shin, chest, etc. He might not object (except under the pretext that it isn’t aesthetically pleasing)

    Ah, hell. Paul can explain it better himself. Read here under Tattoo Update.[/quote]

    Wow. I need to re-read before I post. Was going to say, He might not object (except under the pretext that it isn’t aesthetically pleasing)
    , but he’s not asking for that.

    And now, I’m quoting myself. How depressingly redundant.

  • Minna H | December 20, 2006 at 4:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”31768″][quote comment=”31760″][quote comment=”31742″][quote comment=”31727″]And here’s the history of Wrigley Field:

    http://www.ballparks...
    I can’t believe it took the Minnesota Twins how long?, to finally figure out that they were lacking this important feature.[/quote]

    Broker75, the Twins have wanted an outdoor park (if that is what you’re saying) for as long as the Minneapolis Marshmallow has been up. It’s just that the MN public has not wanted to PAY for it and had successfully blocked public funding until the local government rammed it through—taxation without representation at its finest.[/quote]
    I can’t tell the difference between the Twins new stadium and the new ones in Philly, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Detroit, etc. I guess that’s bound to happen when one Architectural company designs everything. Its close to being a cookie-cutter stadium epidemic.[/quote]

    Stuby, I heard that. We HAD an outdoor stadium called the MET. It was torn down when the Dome was built. The Megamall’s parking lot now stands where the Met used to be.

  • Stuby | December 20, 2006 at 5:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”31779″][quote comment=”31768″][quote comment=”31760″][quote comment=”31742″][quote comment=”31727″]And here’s the history of Wrigley Field:

    http://www.ballparks...
    I can’t believe it took the Minnesota Twins how long?, to finally figure out that they were lacking this important feature.[/quote]

    Broker75, the Twins have wanted an outdoor park (if that is what you’re saying) for as long as the Minneapolis Marshmallow has been up. It’s just that the MN public has not wanted to PAY for it and had successfully blocked public funding until the local government rammed it through—taxation without representation at its finest.[/quote]
    I can’t tell the difference between the Twins new stadium and the new ones in Philly, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Detroit, etc. I guess that’s bound to happen when one Architectural company designs everything. Its close to being a cookie-cutter stadium epidemic.[/quote]

    Stuby, I heard that. We HAD an outdoor stadium called the MET. It was torn down when the Dome was built. The Megamall’s parking lot now stands where the Met used to be.[/quote]
    And the Vikings haven’t been the same since.

  • dchis | December 20, 2006 at 5:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”31779″][quote comment=”31768″][quote comment=”31760″][quote comment=”31742″][quote comment=”31727″]And here’s the history of Wrigley Field:

    http://www.ballparks...
    I can’t believe it took the Minnesota Twins how long?, to finally figure out that they were lacking this important feature.[/quote]

    Broker75, the Twins have wanted an outdoor park (if that is what you’re saying) for as long as the Minneapolis Marshmallow has been up. It’s just that the MN public has not wanted to PAY for it and had successfully blocked public funding until the local government rammed it through—taxation without representation at its finest.[/quote]
    I can’t tell the difference between the Twins new stadium and the new ones in Philly, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Detroit, etc. I guess that’s bound to happen when one Architectural company designs everything. Its close to being a cookie-cutter stadium epidemic.[/quote]

    Stuby, I heard that. We HAD an outdoor stadium called the MET. It was torn down when the Dome was built. The Megamall’s parking lot now stands where the Met used to be.[/quote]

    The problem with your theory, Stuby, that the new parks in Philly, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and Detroit is that you can’t just look at an overhead long shot of the stadium and truly see what is neat about those stadiums. Each one has idiosyncrasies that make it unique and special. Comerica Park is breathtaking. When I went to a game there the second season it was around I said that this is the coolest ballpark I had been in other than Fenway Park (and that’s saying alot). I’ve been to Yankee Stadium, Oriole Park at Camden Yards, Atlanta Fulton County Stadium, Turner Field, Shea Stadium, Dodger Stadium, Chase Field (Bank One Ballpark), Angels Field, Qualcomm Stadium, Veterans Stadium, Citizens Bank Park, Jacobs Field, Cleveland Municipal Stadium, Cynergy Field (Cincinnatti old), Three Rivers Stadium (Pittsburgh old), The New Comisky Park (AT&T Park), Coors Field, Tiger Stadium, Comerica Park, Fenway Park and I think that is it. All of them were interesting in some way or another. The old Cookie Cutters were awful though. Atlanta, Cincinnatti, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia were just awful ballparks, Philly was fun because the crowd is fun other than that all those stadiums looked the same from the inside out. These new stadiums do not look the same when you go and visit them. Philly has a ver interesting layout with beasutiful brickwork. The outfield is fun to sit in because the entire field of play is not visible same with the Jake, also the bullpens in right-center and the scoreboards and the big Liberty Bell it’s really unique to itself. Detroit’s has monuments and statues all over the place and is the biggest field of play I have ever seen and I was sad to see that they moved the fences in but it is very historic to walk around in and very nicely made. None of these compare to Fenway Park and I hope that that Park is never torn down, that will be a sad day if it ever comes.

    Sorry for the long post but these ballparks are very unique.

  • bg | December 20, 2006 at 5:34 pm |

    really..ugle….adidas.
    http://img.photobuck...

  • bg | December 20, 2006 at 5:40 pm |

    [quote comment=”31792″][quote comment=”31779″][quote comment=”31768″][quote comment=”31760″][quote comment=”31742″][quote comment=”31727″]And here’s the history of Wrigley Field:

    http://www.ballparks...
    I can’t believe it took the Minnesota Twins how long?, to finally figure out that they were lacking this important feature.[/quote]

    Broker75, the Twins have wanted an outdoor park (if that is what you’re saying) for as long as the Minneapolis Marshmallow has been up. It’s just that the MN public has not wanted to PAY for it and had successfully blocked public funding until the local government rammed it through—taxation without representation at its finest.[/quote]
    I can’t tell the difference between the Twins new stadium and the new ones in Philly, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Detroit, etc. I guess that’s bound to happen when one Architectural company designs everything. Its close to being a cookie-cutter stadium epidemic.[/quote]

    Stuby, I heard that. We HAD an outdoor stadium called the MET. It was torn down when the Dome was built. The Megamall’s parking lot now stands where the Met used to be.[/quote]

    The problem with your theory, Stuby, that the new parks in Philly, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and Detroit is that you can’t just look at an overhead long shot of the stadium and truly see what is neat about those stadiums. Each one has idiosyncrasies that make it unique and special. Comerica Park is breathtaking. When I went to a game there the second season it was around I said that this is the coolest ballpark I had been in other than Fenway Park (and that’s saying alot). I’ve been to Yankee Stadium, Oriole Park at Camden Yards, Atlanta Fulton County Stadium, Turner Field, Shea Stadium, Dodger Stadium, Chase Field (Bank One Ballpark), Angels Field, Qualcomm Stadium, Veterans Stadium, Citizens Bank Park, Jacobs Field, Cleveland Municipal Stadium, Cynergy Field (Cincinnatti old), Three Rivers Stadium (Pittsburgh old), The New Comisky Park (AT&T Park), Coors Field, Tiger Stadium, Comerica Park, Fenway Park and I think that is it. All of them were interesting in some way or another. The old Cookie Cutters were awful though. Atlanta, Cincinnatti, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia were just awful ballparks, Philly was fun because the crowd is fun other than that all those stadiums looked the same from the inside out. These new stadiums do not look the same when you go and visit them. Philly has a ver interesting layout with beasutiful brickwork. The outfield is fun to sit in because the entire field of play is not visible same with the Jake, also the bullpens in right-center and the scoreboards and the big Liberty Bell it’s really unique to itself. Detroit’s has monuments and statues all over the place and is the biggest field of play I have ever seen and I was sad to see that they moved the fences in but it is very historic to walk around in and very nicely made. None of these compare to Fenway Park and I hope that that Park is never torn down, that will be a sad day if it ever comes.

    Sorry for the long post but these ballparks are very unique.[/quote]

    Yup, as far as I know, when I sit in the cheap seats at PacBell-SBC-AT&T Park and look over my shoulder at The Bay..or over my other shoulder to see the GGB, I am fairly sure there’s no other park in the world that has that view. Just sayin’.

  • Bill T. | December 20, 2006 at 5:42 pm |

    I like the first Aggies baseball pic. Can’t help but think of this guy.

  • Chuck Ryals | December 20, 2006 at 5:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”31675″][quote comment=”31673″]I read in today’s Arizona Republic that the Coyotes practiced in the new Reebok jerseys set to be unveiled next month. Defenseman Keith Ballard liked the tighter socks but didn’t like the tighter jersey due to lack of freedom of movement. He also said it breatehd less than he was expecting.

    I’m assuming other teams have started practicing as well… any spy shots out there?[/quote]

    Anybody think that this idea will go over as badly as the new ball in the NBA? Seems like the same approach David Stern and company used to introduce the new ball. Introduced it at the all-star game the previous year. Allowed each team to practice with the ball over the offseason and then introduced it very first thing the next season. I think all the hub-bub about the ball was stupid and am kind of upset they are going back to the old ball in the first place. I wonder how hockey players, reporters and fans will react to the new uniform design?[/quote]

    this has the makings of a TRAIN WRECK! messing with tradition. how do you change the original six teams unis?

  • redemske | December 20, 2006 at 6:11 pm |

    Derek Bell never played for the Cubs.

  • Stuby | December 20, 2006 at 6:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”31794″][quote comment=”31792″][quote comment=”31779″][quote comment=”31768″][quote comment=”31760″][quote comment=”31742″][quote comment=”31727″]And here’s the history of Wrigley Field:

    http://www.ballparks...
    I can’t believe it took the Minnesota Twins how long?, to finally figure out that they were lacking this important feature.[/quote]

    Broker75, the Twins have wanted an outdoor park (if that is what you’re saying) for as long as the Minneapolis Marshmallow has been up. It’s just that the MN public has not wanted to PAY for it and had successfully blocked public funding until the local government rammed it through—taxation without representation at its finest.[/quote]
    I can’t tell the difference between the Twins new stadium and the new ones in Philly, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Detroit, etc. I guess that’s bound to happen when one Architectural company designs everything. Its close to being a cookie-cutter stadium epidemic.[/quote]

    Stuby, I heard that. We HAD an outdoor stadium called the MET. It was torn down when the Dome was built. The Megamall’s parking lot now stands where the Met used to be.[/quote]

    The problem with your theory, Stuby, that the new parks in Philly, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and Detroit is that you can’t just look at an overhead long shot of the stadium and truly see what is neat about those stadiums. Each one has idiosyncrasies that make it unique and special. Comerica Park is breathtaking. When I went to a game there the second season it was around I said that this is the coolest ballpark I had been in other than Fenway Park (and that’s saying alot). I’ve been to Yankee Stadium, Oriole Park at Camden Yards, Atlanta Fulton County Stadium, Turner Field, Shea Stadium, Dodger Stadium, Chase Field (Bank One Ballpark), Angels Field, Qualcomm Stadium, Veterans Stadium, Citizens Bank Park, Jacobs Field, Cleveland Municipal Stadium, Cynergy Field (Cincinnatti old), Three Rivers Stadium (Pittsburgh old), The New Comisky Park (AT&T Park), Coors Field, Tiger Stadium, Comerica Park, Fenway Park and I think that is it. All of them were interesting in some way or another. The old Cookie Cutters were awful though. Atlanta, Cincinnatti, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia were just awful ballparks, Philly was fun because the crowd is fun other than that all those stadiums looked the same from the inside out. These new stadiums do not look the same when you go and visit them. Philly has a ver interesting layout with beasutiful brickwork. The outfield is fun to sit in because the entire field of play is not visible same with the Jake, also the bullpens in right-center and the scoreboards and the big Liberty Bell it’s really unique to itself. Detroit’s has monuments and statues all over the place and is the biggest field of play I have ever seen and I was sad to see that they moved the fences in but it is very historic to walk around in and very nicely made. None of these compare to Fenway Park and I hope that that Park is never torn down, that will be a sad day if it ever comes.

    Sorry for the long post but these ballparks are very unique.[/quote]

    Yup, as far as I know, when I sit in the cheap seats at PacBell-SBC-AT&T Park and look over my shoulder at The Bay..or over my other shoulder to see the GGB, I am fairly sure there’s no other park in the world that has that view. Just sayin’.[/quote]
    Sometimes it feels like the quaintness and charm is being forced, though. I never really went to a ballgame for the view outside the stadium. I guess I just miss my freezing August nights at the ‘Stick.

    And not to sound like a wise-ass, but its the Bay Bridge you can see from the SF ballpark.

  • Andy from KC | December 20, 2006 at 6:22 pm |

    [quote comment=”31754″]In the new movie, Rocky Balboa is wearing “Jumpman” boxing shoes.[/quote]

    Yeah, I posted a pic yesterday. I thought it was interesting because they’re these shoes, i.e., Roy Jones Jr. shoes. Not what I’d wear if I was in the ring with Antonio Tarver, but that’s just me.

  • blakeruns | December 20, 2006 at 6:35 pm |

    maybe ive missed it among the past few days
    but i am SO PERPLEXED

    let me begin by saying
    i like the new Oregon helmets
    in the sense of colour and first glance appereance

    i think the changing shades depending on angle
    and lighting is a neat idea.

    HOWEVER
    WHYYYYYY are there flames on it?
    why? why? why?

    there is absolutely NO reason that makes any sense
    to put flames on the helmet of the Ducks.
    can anyone make some sense out of this for me

    i dont see any logic behind
    other than simply
    “because we can”

    which is deplorable in my opinion
    it seems like nike has been reading this board
    and tried to offend us when they designed these.

  • Charles M. | December 20, 2006 at 7:21 pm |

    The University of Pittsburgh has historic photos on its website, too: Historic Pittsburgh. They have pictures of old Pitt teams (including 1889 WUP–Pitt’s former name–football here), old Pirates pictures, and high school sports teams. Click on images, then search the archives.

  • Frank Mercogliano | December 20, 2006 at 7:29 pm |

    Was reading the Salt Lake Tribune on the plane on the way to play Illinois in basketball on Thursday, and I came across this article about Oregon’s uniforms, with a little shout out to Paul in it as well.

    Frank

  • redemske | December 20, 2006 at 7:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”31801″][quote comment=”31675″][quote comment=”31673″]I read in today’s Arizona Republic that the Coyotes practiced in the new Reebok jerseys set to be unveiled next month. Defenseman Keith Ballard liked the tighter socks but didn’t like the tighter jersey due to lack of freedom of movement. He also said it breatehd less than he was expecting.

    I’m assuming other teams have started practicing as well… any spy shots out there?[/quote]

    Anybody think that this idea will go over as badly as the new ball in the NBA? Seems like the same approach David Stern and company used to introduce the new ball. Introduced it at the all-star game the previous year. Allowed each team to practice with the ball over the offseason and then introduced it very first thing the next season. I think all the hub-bub about the ball was stupid and am kind of upset they are going back to the old ball in the first place. I wonder how hockey players, reporters and fans will react to the new uniform design?[/quote]

    this has the makings of a TRAIN WRECK! messing with tradition. how do you change the original six teams unis?[/quote]

    Stop freaking out. They’re just changing the fabric template on which the jerseys are created. Rather than a body and two sleeves as the basis for the jersey, there may be more panels sewn in. But that doesn’t mean they’ll all be different colors or something.

    And that doesn’t mean every jersey is going to look the same. They’ll be tighter, but that’s probably going to be about it in most cases. Do you thing the Red Wings, Bruins, Canadiens, etc. are going to trash their uniforms after 9,000 years? Jesus, relax.

  • redemske | December 20, 2006 at 7:36 pm |

    [quote comment=”31824″]Was reading the Salt Lake Tribune on the plane on the way to play Illinois in basketball on Thursday, and I came across this article about Oregon’s uniforms, with a little shout out to Paul in it as well.

    Frank[/quote]

    that dude only butchered the name of the blog a little bit. yikes.

  • Burrill | December 20, 2006 at 8:12 pm |

    As far as the baseball park topic goes, I must profess that I, like Stuby, prefer the older enclosed ballparks to the new open parks. I have been to Comerica Park a few times, and it really isn’t bad at all, but for me, there’s nothing like experiencing a game in a closed park like the old Tigers Stadium. It just feels right. (I will freely admit that this is a matter of opinion.)

    As far as Comerica’s nods to history, yes, they did a nice job with that. But even with an acknowledgment of history, you can’t build history into a park. Of course, that is true of every new park. It takes time to let history seep into a park, and I hope the Tigers do just that with Comerica so that it begins to feel storied and great. But for that, only time will tell.

    Concerning the new hockey jerseys: I think the comparison to the new-and-soon-to-be-old-new basketball is a good one, simply because it prompts the same question in my mind. Was it needed? I heard nothing (outside league offices) about the old ball being outdated and inadequate, and I hear nothing (outside league offices) about the current hockey jerseys being outdated and inadequate. So is a change really warranted or necessary?

    (Teebz, I already know your answer!)

  • Kevin Dugal | December 20, 2006 at 8:13 pm |

    hey, looking for an original Mighty Ducks jersey, the ones from the first movie. Anyone know where to find one, or any compaies that would do custom made jerseys?

  • todd krevanchi (krvanch) | December 20, 2006 at 8:24 pm |

    jesus, what the hell do you think the street value of troy smith’s torso is?
    a. the diamond encrusted chain
    b. the mitchell and ness browns jacket

    its gotta be a 25,000 chain at least, and the jacket is 400.

    that is just 1 nights gear! ahhh, remember when you were a senior in college and how much of a struggle is was to buy a 38 dollar pair of gap jeans? i do… and i also remember that the value of what troy was wearing was equivalent to 6 times what i bought my college car for…
    but i guess thats typical gear for a kid from cleveland… i hope vince can back me up on that tomorrow…

  • Travis | December 20, 2006 at 8:29 pm |

    Does anyone know if Oregon will be wearing only Schutt DNA helmets? All of the photos showed only that one style.

  • Minna H | December 20, 2006 at 8:58 pm |

    [quote comment=”31827″]As far as the baseball park topic goes, I must profess that I, like Stuby, prefer the older enclosed ballparks to the new open parks. I have been to Comerica Park a few times, and it really isn’t bad at all, but for me, there’s nothing like experiencing a game in a closed park like the old Tigers Stadium. It just feels right. (I will freely admit that this is a matter of opinion.)

    As far as Comerica’s nods to history, yes, they did a nice job with that. But even with an acknowledgment of history, you can’t build history into a park. Of course, that is true of every new park. It takes time to let history seep into a park, and I hope the Tigers do just that with Comerica so that it begins to feel storied and great.

    But for that, only time will tell.
    [/quote]

    Because NOTHING says tradition like ‘Comerica Park’. I can’t wait to see what the new MN stadium will be called. There are people who want it named Kirby Puckett Stadium, but we all know the chances of THAT happening. Maybe they will call it the 3M Stadium—at least that’s a local company.

    It’ll probably be called Comcast Stadium, or, worse yet, Qwest Stadium.

    Harumph. Bah, humbug.

    M. Scrooge.

  • Minna H | December 20, 2006 at 9:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”31841″]jesus, what the hell do you think the street value of troy smith’s torso is?
    a. the diamond encrusted chain
    b. the mitchell and ness browns jacket

    its gotta be a 25,000 chain at least, and the jacket is 400.

    that is just 1 nights gear! ahhh, remember when you were a senior in college and how much of a struggle is was to buy a 38 dollar pair of gap jeans? i do… and i also remember that the value of what troy was wearing was equivalent to 6 times what i bought my college car for…
    but i guess thats typical gear for a kid from cleveland… i hope vince can back me up on that tomorrow…[/quote]

    Too bad that necklace is butt-ugly. If you’re going to spend the equivalent of a samall country’s GNP (is that the abbreviation I want?) on a meaningless piece of jewelry, at least have the good sense to make sure it looks good.

  • Minna H | December 20, 2006 at 9:06 pm |

    small country. My fingers don’t know what the hell they are typing, and the lag between the time I type and the time the words show up doesn’t help.

  • Big Green | December 20, 2006 at 9:16 pm |

    So Iverson is getting to keep his same number. Not quite used to it in baby blue.

  • My Name is Not Earl | December 20, 2006 at 9:22 pm |

    Yeah, but when you got out of college, did you have a million-dollar job waiting for you so that you could pay off whatever those things cost?

  • Burrill | December 20, 2006 at 9:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”31845″]Because NOTHING says tradition like ‘Comerica Park’. I can’t wait to see what the new MN stadium will be called. There are people who want it named Kirby Puckett Stadium, but we all know the chances of THAT happening. Maybe they will call it the 3M Stadium—at least that’s a local company.

    It’ll probably be called Comcast Stadium, or, worse yet, Qwest Stadium.

    Harumph. Bah, humbug.

    M. Scrooge.[/quote]

    Yeah, I’m with you on that. I’d like a stadium to be named after important figures in the organization’s history, but I guess that’s not really realistic anymore. And I guess corporate naming is another issue.

    But hey, as bad as the Lions are, at least their stadium came as close as possible to being named after someone important to the organization. (Even if Ford Field is actually named after the company, and even if most people blame the Fords for the franchise’s problems.)

    This is what I appreciate about going to Michigan Stadium. No corporate name, and no advertisements. It’s very refreshing.

    Oh, and Minna, I see the U of Minnesota’s new football stadium is going to be named TCF Bank Stadium. It really warms your heart and makes you think of Minnesota football, doesn’t it?

    On the naming note, there were a number of people who wanted Ann Arbor to name its yet-under-construction third high school after Bo Schembechler. But the school board has adopted a policy of refusing to name buildings after people, so they said no way. And now the new high school has the amazingly unique, immediately-makes-you-think-of-Ann-Arbor name of Skyline High School. Sounds like a suburb or a subdivision to me. Of course, their other option was Northcrest, which is even more of a subdivision name.

    They refuse to name buildings after people because they say there are too many worthy candidates, and they dismissed the idea of Schembechler High by saying Bo didn’t really do much of anything for Ann Arbor schools. At which point I wonder if Chelsea schools should rename Beach Middle School, named after a World War II general who came from Chelsea and probably, by Ann Arbor standards, didn’t do much for Chelsea schools, either.

    Honestly, I wasn’t really set on the idea of Schembechler High; it wasn’t the rejection of the name that bothered me so much as it was the attitude toward naming buildings after people.

    Anyway. Meanwhile, back at the topic…

  • bg | December 20, 2006 at 10:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”31806″][quote comment=”31794″][quote comment=”31792″][quote comment=”31779″][quote comment=”31768″][quote comment=”31760″][quote comment=”31742″][quote comment=”31727″]And here’s the history of Wrigley Field:

    http://www.ballparks...
    I can’t believe it took the Minnesota Twins how long?, to finally figure out that they were lacking this important feature.[/quote]

    Broker75, the Twins have wanted an outdoor park (if that is what you’re saying) for as long as the Minneapolis Marshmallow has been up. It’s just that the MN public has not wanted to PAY for it and had successfully blocked public funding until the local government rammed it through—taxation without representation at its finest.[/quote]
    I can’t tell the difference between the Twins new stadium and the new ones in Philly, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Detroit, etc. I guess that’s bound to happen when one Architectural company designs everything. Its close to being a cookie-cutter stadium epidemic.[/quote]

    Stuby, I heard that. We HAD an outdoor stadium called the MET. It was torn down when the Dome was built. The Megamall’s parking lot now stands where the Met used to be.[/quote]

    The problem with your theory, Stuby, that the new parks in Philly, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and Detroit is that you can’t just look at an overhead long shot of the stadium and truly see what is neat about those stadiums. Each one has idiosyncrasies that make it unique and special. Comerica Park is breathtaking. When I went to a game there the second season it was around I said that this is the coolest ballpark I had been in other than Fenway Park (and that’s saying alot). I’ve been to Yankee Stadium, Oriole Park at Camden Yards, Atlanta Fulton County Stadium, Turner Field, Shea Stadium, Dodger Stadium, Chase Field (Bank One Ballpark), Angels Field, Qualcomm Stadium, Veterans Stadium, Citizens Bank Park, Jacobs Field, Cleveland Municipal Stadium, Cynergy Field (Cincinnatti old), Three Rivers Stadium (Pittsburgh old), The New Comisky Park (AT&T Park), Coors Field, Tiger Stadium, Comerica Park, Fenway Park and I think that is it. All of them were interesting in some way or another. The old Cookie Cutters were awful though. Atlanta, Cincinnatti, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia were just awful ballparks, Philly was fun because the crowd is fun other than that all those stadiums looked the same from the inside out. These new stadiums do not look the same when you go and visit them. Philly has a ver interesting layout with beasutiful brickwork. The outfield is fun to sit in because the entire field of play is not visible same with the Jake, also the bullpens in right-center and the scoreboards and the big Liberty Bell it’s really unique to itself. Detroit’s has monuments and statues all over the place and is the biggest field of play I have ever seen and I was sad to see that they moved the fences in but it is very historic to walk around in and very nicely made. None of these compare to Fenway Park and I hope that that Park is never torn down, that will be a sad day if it ever comes.

    Sorry for the long post but these ballparks are very unique.[/quote]

    Yup, as far as I know, when I sit in the cheap seats at PacBell-SBC-AT&T Park and look over my shoulder at The Bay..or over my other shoulder to see the GGB, I am fairly sure there’s no other park in the world that has that view. Just sayin’.[/quote]
    Sometimes it feels like the quaintness and charm is being forced, though. I never really went to a ballgame for the view outside the stadium. I guess I just miss my freezing August nights at the ‘Stick.

    And not to sound like a wise-ass, but its the Bay Bridge you can see from the SF ballpark.[/quote]

    you are COMPLETELY correct. All those park name changes have me turned around.

  • maximumK | December 21, 2006 at 12:19 am |

    very cool name and number font for Western Michigan’s basketball team. Couldn’t find a picture of the back, but it looks much the same as the front. WMU

  • Bob A | December 21, 2006 at 12:31 am |

    I recently came across this Ebbets Field site that I don’t recall being mentioned previously. Not a ton of uni pics but there is a gallery of logos and patches and a really great photo of Casey Stengel from very early in his career sporting a nice pair of sunglasses.

  • Sammy | December 21, 2006 at 12:55 am |

    [quote comment=”31827″]Concerning the new hockey jerseys: I think the comparison to the new-and-soon-to-be-old-new basketball is a good one, simply because it prompts the same question in my mind. Was it needed? I heard nothing (outside league offices) about the old ball being outdated and inadequate, and I hear nothing (outside league offices) about the current hockey jerseys being outdated and inadequate. So is a change really warranted or necessary?
    [/quote]

    In both cases, the change wasn’t exactly necessary, in my opinion, but there was a chance for improvement, and that was enough for Stern and the NHL guys to start implementing the change. The old leather was obviously not environmentally friendly, and the commish wanted to make the consistency of the ball better, so he hired the Spalding people to come up with the synthetic one; a good idea, just poor execution, it seems to me.

    As for the NHL jerseys, they probably could have gone forever with the loose sweaters, but somebody thought it would be a good idea to make them tighter, faster, lighter, so the game moves faster (less holding) and the players can last longer (less heat fatigue). I’m all for it, mostly. I think a major problem will be with the new panel template, and how it may force bad changes in classic or otherwise good designs. The shirt being tucked into the pants is a separate issue, but still a major problem with the new design.

    I think these innovations will eventually work themselves out for the better, as everything in sports does. Remember, the forward pass, hockey helmets, and the Wild Card were all new once, and met with much resistance.

  • Teebz | December 21, 2006 at 1:03 am |

    [quote comment=”31825″]
    And that doesn’t mean every jersey is going to look the same. They’ll be tighter, but that’s probably going to be about it in most cases. Do you thing the Red Wings, Bruins, Canadiens, etc. are going to trash their uniforms after 9,000 years? Jesus, relax.[/quote]

    If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. The players have said they don’t like them, yet Reebok is trying to force the changes through. If Reebok/Adidas wants to change anything, try making the equipment smaller and lighter, yet just as durable. That would solve the “huge” jersey problem in a heartbeat.

    But no, they take the easy way out and redesign the jerseys because that’s where they’ll make the most money. Do you think Zdeno Chara’s 6’9″ 260lbs. frame will look sleeker and smaller and faster in a redesigned jersey? Because that’s how Reebok is marketing these new jerseys.

  • Minna H | December 21, 2006 at 1:11 am |

    [quote comment=”31853″][quote comment=”31845″]Because NOTHING says tradition like ‘Comerica Park’. I can’t wait to see what the new MN stadium will be called. There are people who want it named Kirby Puckett Stadium, but we all know the chances of THAT happening. Maybe they will call it the 3M Stadium—at least that’s a local company.

    It’ll probably be called Comcast Stadium, or, worse yet, Qwest Stadium.

    Harumph. Bah, humbug.

    M. Scrooge.[/quote]

    Yeah, I’m with you on that. I’d like a stadium to be named after important figures in the organization’s history, but I guess that’s not really realistic anymore. And I guess corporate naming is another issue.

    But hey, as bad as the Lions are, at least their stadium came as close as possible to being named after someone important to the organization. (Even if Ford Field is actually named after the company, and even if most people blame the Fords for the franchise’s problems.)

    This is what I appreciate about going to Michigan Stadium. No corporate name, and no advertisements. It’s very refreshing.

    Oh, and Minna, I see the U of Minnesota’s new football stadium is going to be named TCF Bank Stadium. It really warms your heart and makes you think of Minnesota football, doesn’t it?[/quote]

    Yeah, especially since the government rammed through public funding for this stadium, too. I have a friend who works at the U who is pissed at the name. At least we still have THE BARN!

    Oh, Burrill. I think I am upgrading you to full-time cynic—I can’t carry the load by myself.

    p.s. I agree with you about the attitude of disdain towards the idea of using Bo’s name—disturbing.

  • Minna H | December 21, 2006 at 1:13 am |

    [quote comment=”31861″][quote comment=”31825″]
    And that doesn’t mean every jersey is going to look the same. They’ll be tighter, but that’s probably going to be about it in most cases. Do you thing the Red Wings, Bruins, Canadiens, etc. are going to trash their uniforms after 9,000 years? Jesus, relax.[/quote]

    If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. The players have said they don’t like them, yet Reebok is trying to force the changes through. If Reebok/Adidas wants to change anything, try making the equipment smaller and lighter, yet just as durable. That would solve the “huge” jersey problem in a heartbeat.

    But no, they take the easy way out and redesign the jerseys because that’s where they’ll make the most money. Do you think Zdeno Chara’s 6’9″ 260lbs. frame will look sleeker and smaller and faster in a redesigned jersey? Because that’s how Reebok is marketing these new jerseys.[/quote]

    Pleez, Teebz, tell us how you really feel. I am glad you can retain the fire because I get worn down fighting for my pet causes. Power to the Puckman!

  • Teebz | December 21, 2006 at 1:14 am |

    [quote comment=”31860″]
    As for the NHL jerseys, they probably could have gone forever with the loose sweaters, but somebody thought it would be a good idea to make them tighter, faster, lighter, so the game moves faster (less holding) and the players can last longer (less heat fatigue). I’m all for it, mostly. I think a major problem will be with the new panel template, and how it may force bad changes in classic or otherwise good designs. The shirt being tucked into the pants is a separate issue, but still a major problem with the new design.
    [/quote]

    Exactly what is “heat fatigue”? Fatigue indicates tiredness of the muscles/mind, and your exciting new term would indicate that the players get overheated. This might be the case for a small percentage of players, but CCM changed their jersey design long before Reebok got into the mix. The players appreciate the Cool-Flo jerseys, and this “heat fatigue” you speak of is a thing of a the past.

    And I’m not sure about you, but there aren’t a ton of NHL players who hold a player by grabbing their jersey and get away with it. In fact, I’d say less than 5% of holding penalties or obstruction penalites are because someone is tugging on a jersey. The number one called penalty in the game right now? Hooking. Not holding. In fact, holding is number three, behind hooking and interference. So going to a tighter fitting jersey, as it stands right now, appears to be a Reebok/NHL money grab. If you’re gonna rob the fans blind, at least be honest with them. That way, they have no one to blame but themselves.

    And since I broke the news about the NHLPA blocking the tuck-in rule, the jerseys will NOT be tucked in the pants next season.

  • Chris | December 21, 2006 at 2:17 am |

    The Nets wore their God aweful red alternates. Stick to the basic team colors guys. Pretty terrible

  • Chris | December 21, 2006 at 5:37 am |

    It seems like to me most of the people here just can’t make up your mind about this logo creep issue. Face it logos are going to be on products so you can’t complain when the logos are big and also when the logos are small, like the swoosh on the Oregon facemask. It’s just business. If someone makes a product its only good business to put your logo on it, so its only natural when shoes, jerseys, gloves, sweatbands, visors, etc end up being made by the same company you end up with lots of logos. None of that is even “logo creep” in my opinion since its all different products. It benefits companies everyone is familiar with like Nike…I mean who would have known of the Nike Vision website if it wasn’t on the visor

  • Kerry | December 21, 2006 at 11:19 am |

    [quote comment=”31874″]The Nets wore their God aweful red alternates. Stick to the basic team colors guys. Pretty terrible[/quote]
    I like the red jerseys.