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

Sunday Open Thread

Concepcion Marlins Reds Baseball

The Reds retired former shortstop Dave Concepcion’s number 13 last night during pregame ceremonies that included this painting.

On a football note: Romeo Crennel might think there’s no way you could boo the Browns for their performance in Denver last night. He’d be wrong. —Vince

 

82 comments to Sunday Open Thread

  • Toronto Fan in Raleigh | August 26, 2007 at 8:51 am |

    Nice Picture of Conception and nice stirupps!

  • Nicole | August 26, 2007 at 9:01 am |

    Not to disparage anything about his number being retired, but that “painting” looks like a high school art project – you know, something a fan did in tribute of their favorite player. Plus, it looks like it was done with pastels or colored pencils. Weird

  • Joe O. | August 26, 2007 at 9:23 am |

    I like the empty seats in the background…good to see baseball selling those tickets to all those seats!

  • kelmitch | August 26, 2007 at 9:27 am |

    Did Conception wear his stirrups that high? As I remember the Reds’ policy back in the day was low stirrups.

  • Bill T. | August 26, 2007 at 9:44 am |

    [quote comment=”136647″]Did Conception wear his stirrups that high? As I remember the Reds’ policy back in the day was low stirrups.[/quote]

    You are correct on that one. Pic.

  • Stuby | August 26, 2007 at 9:47 am |

    I wanted a picture of the best part of his uniform, though. His name wrapping around under his armpits. Also, you can see the standard for Reds stirrups. The ones depicted in that 5th grade art project are definitely too high.

  • Stuby | August 26, 2007 at 9:54 am |

    What are we booing with the Browns – the brown socks or Quinn’s enormous orange noggin?

  • Paul | August 26, 2007 at 10:12 am |

    [quote comment=”136654″]What are we booing with the Browns – the brown socks or Quinn’s enormous orange noggin?[/quote]

    I’m booing the use of the solid brown socks rather than the very dapper striped sock.

    They should dump that solid brown sock period.

    Make these a permanent fixture at home (sorry it’s the best pic I could find)

  • Paul | August 26, 2007 at 10:23 am |

    Sorry I screwed that last one up…let me clarify

    HOME

    AWAY

    NO

  • patrick | August 26, 2007 at 10:36 am |

    anyone on long island, or the lower NY area might wanna check out Newsday’s section Long Island sports. THey have an interesting piece on the best and worst 5 uniform changes in sports…

  • Stuby | August 26, 2007 at 10:36 am |

    At the very least, the Browns should get credit for the grey facemask and sleeve stripes (if only they had real sleeves)and eliminating the white from the pant striping. Yes, the all-brown socks look ridiculous.

  • Stuby | August 26, 2007 at 10:47 am |

    I was cleaning out my collection of Sports Ilustrated magazines yesterday and came across a few choice ones, which in hindsight, are pretty hilarious…

    Just read the caption

    A little New York bias perhaps?

    The classic SI cover jinx

  • Shayne M | August 26, 2007 at 11:12 am |

    After reading through yesterdays comments I felt compelled to re-write what I said about reebok and the NFL and NHL and whatever sports league they dress. Part of what saved reebok from becoming absolete (although Adidas now owns them) was the fact that they offered rediculous amounts of money to these sports leagues as well as a pecentage of ownership in their company. So now the reebok vector logo is everywhere but it’s also a property of these leagues.

    Also, this whole change for the sake of change and covering it up as innovation is silly. Reebok and their hockey stuff is no different then the 80’s cooperalls (which could be worn as shorts or pants. Basically it’s a girdle and a pair of shorts over it. Nothing all that different nor innovative.

  • Shayne M | August 26, 2007 at 11:12 am |

    After reading through yesterdays comments I felt compelled to re-write what I said about reebok and the NFL and NHL and whatever sports league they dress. Part of what saved reebok from becoming absolete (although Adidas now owns them) was the fact that they offered rediculous amounts of money to these sports leagues as well as a pecentage of ownership in their company. So now the reebok vector logo is everywhere but it’s also a property of these leagues.

    Also, this whole change for the sake of change and covering it up as innovation is silly. Reebok and their hockey stuff is no different then the 80’s cooperalls (which could be worn as shorts or pants. Basically it’s a girdle and a pair of shorts over it. Nothing all that different nor innovative.

  • TD | August 26, 2007 at 11:21 am |

    Watched the replay of the Vikings-Seahawks game last night. Brad Childress was wearing a forest green coaches sweater with a purple arch and a Vikes logo across the front. Had to check on a second TV to make sure something wasn’t broken (other than the sweater itself).

  • StevieW | August 26, 2007 at 11:39 am |

    They definitely missed the mark on the Big Red Machine low stirrups.

    Another interesting development out the ‘Nati as well here:
    A corn field maze with the Bengals logo.
    http://news.enquirer...

  • =bg= | August 26, 2007 at 11:49 am |

    Concepcion always wore white adidas/red stripes when he played the ASG, as the Reds had a rule that your shoes had to be all-black/no trim showing. hard to get a shoe deal that way.

  • =bg= | August 26, 2007 at 11:50 am |

    There was also some reason…can’t remember..about the color of the underside of the hat brim. or was it the shoes? Maybe the shoes. But the team thought the solid color helped pick up the ball better when fielding. SOmething like that.

  • interlockingtc | August 26, 2007 at 11:54 am |

    [quote comment=”136651″][quote comment=”136647″]Did Conception wear his stirrups that high? As I remember the Reds’ policy back in the day was low stirrups.[/quote]

    You are correct on that one. Pic.[/quote]

    The Astroturf surface of Riverfront Stadium in that photo looks like the world’s most most unforgiving concrete.

  • My Name is Not Earl | August 26, 2007 at 11:56 am |

    [quote comment=”136654″]What are we booing with the Browns – the brown socks or Quinn’s enormous orange noggin?[/quote]

    Don’t boo our Large-Headed Friend.

  • Dave S | August 26, 2007 at 12:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”136668″]I was cleaning out my collection of Sports Ilustrated magazines yesterday and came across a few choice ones, which in hindsight, are pretty hilarious…

    Just read the caption

    A little New York bias perhaps?

    The classic SI cover jinx[/quote]

    That Wood and Prior cover still pisses me off. As soon as I got that in the mail back then, I knew they were doomed forever!

  • Bryan | August 26, 2007 at 12:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”136665″]anyone on long island, or the lower NY area might wanna check out Newsday’s section Long Island sports. THey have an interesting piece on the best and worst 5 uniform changes in sports…[/quote]

    For those of you not in the LI area, here’s Newsday’s list…

    Worst:
    5. White Sox going to the pajama uniforms
    4. University of Oregon since 1996 being known as “Nike University”
    3. Pistons logo chane in 1996, with the turquoise and flaming horse.
    2. Canucks mustard colored “V” jersey from 1978
    1. Indians, Orioles, Astros, and Pirates from the “Technicolor 1970s”

    Best:
    5. KC Athletics going to green and gold (mostly for inspiring the “colorful and sharp” — Newsday’s words, not mine — alternate uniforms of today)
    4. Broncos ditching the yellow and brown in 1962
    3. Islanders ditching the Fishsticks jersey in 1997
    2. Army football being the first team to wear plastic helmets instead of leather in 1944
    1. Yankees in 1929 (adding numbers to the backs of jerseys, along with the Indians) and 1936 (adding the interlocking NY to the front of the pinstripe jersey, where it’s been for 71 years with no changes)

  • DenverGregg | August 26, 2007 at 12:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”136654″]What are we booing with the Browns – the brown socks or Quinn’s enormous orange noggin?[/quote]
    Was at the game. Several Browns linemen had only a thin line of white sock at the ankle. Looked even worse than Quinn. Sadly the Broncos’ performance was right down there too.

  • Stuby | August 26, 2007 at 12:43 pm |

    [quote comment=”136686″][quote comment=”136665″]anyone on long island, or the lower NY area might wanna check out Newsday’s section Long Island sports. THey have an interesting piece on the best and worst 5 uniform changes in sports…[/quote]

    For those of you not in the LI area, here’s Newsday’s list…

    Worst:
    5. White Sox going to the pajama uniforms
    4. University of Oregon since 1996 being known as “Nike University”
    3. Pistons logo chane in 1996, with the turquoise and flaming horse.
    2. Canucks mustard colored “V” jersey from 1978
    1. Indians, Orioles, Astros, and Pirates from the “Technicolor 1970s”

    Best:
    5. KC Athletics going to green and gold (mostly for inspiring the “colorful and sharp” — Newsday’s words, not mine — alternate uniforms of today)
    4. Broncos ditching the yellow and brown in 1962
    3. Islanders ditching the Fishsticks jersey in 1997
    2. Army football being the first team to wear plastic helmets instead of leather in 1944
    1. Yankees in 1929 (adding numbers to the backs of jerseys, along with the Indians) and 1936 (adding the interlocking NY to the front of the pinstripe jersey, where it’s been for 71 years with no changes)[/quote]
    So, they liked the A’s going to green and gold and the alternates that ensued but disliked the ‘technicolor 70’s’. Odd.

  • Talon Lardner | August 26, 2007 at 12:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”136671″]After reading through yesterdays comments I felt compelled to re-write what I said about reebok and the NFL and NHL and whatever sports league they dress. Part of what saved reebok from becoming absolete (although Adidas now owns them) was the fact that they offered rediculous amounts of money to these sports leagues as well as a pecentage of ownership in their company. So now the reebok vector logo is everywhere but it’s also a property of these leagues.

    Also, this whole change for the sake of change and covering it up as innovation is silly. Reebok and their hockey stuff is no different then the 80’s cooperalls (which could be worn as shorts or pants. Basically it’s a girdle and a pair of shorts over it. Nothing all that different nor innovative.[/quote]

    Overall, I can’t fault teams for trying out new looks. Yeah, cash is a motivation, but “old” uniforms CAN stagnate a team’s identity, since it is hard to pull off the “Old School” look without looking “cheap”. There can be only so many Yankees, Bruins, and Browns.

    But yeah, claiming Change as Innovation is stupid. Just be honest and call it a change.

  • Stuby | August 26, 2007 at 12:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”136681″][quote comment=”136654″]What are we booing with the Browns – the brown socks or Quinn’s enormous orange noggin?[/quote]

    Don’t boo our Large-Headed Friend.[/quote]
    Looks like Sputnik! He’ll be cryin’ himself to sleep tonight on his enormous pillow.

  • Tom C. | August 26, 2007 at 12:52 pm |

    Attended the AAA Rochester Redwings vs. Paw Sox last night. Rochester was wearing camo uniforms for Military appreciation night. The were so-so. I found the numbers really hard to read and I was sitting in the 4th row… you kind of get a sense of the difficulty here.

    Another oddity, the home batboy was wearing the camo jerseys, but the visiting bat boy was wearing the standard black Redwings home jerseys, wearing neither the visiting Pawsox uni or the special uni of the night. This made him the only player on the field in that uniform.

  • Wally1912 | August 26, 2007 at 1:29 pm |

    Check out “the Longest Name” about 2/3 of the way down this page in the NY Times. Good stuff about the Texas Rangers’ equipment guy trying to fit Saltalamacchia’s name on the jersey.

  • Ian K | August 26, 2007 at 1:30 pm |

    Regarding yesterday’s discussion of marketing the Reebok brand…

    Yes we hate the logo creep and no the Reebok mark is not necessary by any means. But after watching the World Series of Poker this week and the UFC pay-per-view last night, I’m thankful that the 4 major sports are not in a world of hurt like these minor sports are. Every poker player on ESPN wears a gambling website on their shirt/hat. UFC fighters only wear boxing trunks, but they are LITTERED with sponsorships.

    Because poker & UFC don’t have the same tradition as MLB, NFL, et al, there is no scrutiny in sponsoring unis.

  • Dave | August 26, 2007 at 2:05 pm |

    GOOD JOB PAUL!

  • SWC Susan (aka Tex) | August 26, 2007 at 2:23 pm |

    Special first base in use today for Bagwell Retirement Celebration. Total of three – one goes to him.

  • david | August 26, 2007 at 2:44 pm |

    Speaking of the Reds, Their new catcher Ryan Jorgensen came to the plate in the first inning with his name on his jersey being spelled “Jorgenson”. After hitting a grand slam he returned to the game with his name correctly spelled “Jorgensen”.

  • david | August 26, 2007 at 2:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”136644″]Not to disparage anything about his number being retired, but that “painting” looks like a high school art project – you know, something a fan did in tribute of their favorite player. Plus, it looks like it was done with pastels or colored pencils. Weird[/quote]

    The painting was done Dick Perez, an artist who does portraits for the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown.

    http://www.dickperez...

    http://www.topps.com...

  • DW in Tampa Bay | August 26, 2007 at 2:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”136646″]I like the empty seats in the background…good to see baseball selling those tickets to all those seats![/quote]

    Considering that it was a PRE-game ceremony that started at 6:00 pm for a 7:00 pm game in 95 degree heat, the attendance was 32,288.

    Your comment is baseless. Do some research.

  • Christopher | August 26, 2007 at 3:52 pm |

    The “Dressed to the Nines” site is starting to add more information to may pages. Especially early 20th century uniforms.

    In the list, if the link has a green box, it’ll also show you a photo of the uni plus some more info.

    Too bad its not on EVERY page.

  • Christopher | August 26, 2007 at 3:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”136646″]I like the empty seats in the background…good to see baseball selling those tickets to all those seats![/quote]

    Say huh?

    Baseball is at its highest percentage of ticket sales ever, I believe, in 2007.

  • =bg= | August 26, 2007 at 3:58 pm |

    Riverfront DID have concrete for a playing field.
    Went down on it a time or two—like a rock.

  • schuby | August 26, 2007 at 4:16 pm |

    there should be some kind of uni-law for using striped socks. and stirrups

  • ScottyJ in WV | August 26, 2007 at 4:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”136693″][quote comment=”136681″][quote comment=”136654″]What are we booing with the Browns – the brown socks or Quinn’s enormous orange noggin?[/quote]

    Don’t boo our Large-Headed Friend.[/quote]
    Looks like Sputnik! He’ll be cryin’ himself to sleep tonight on his enormous pillow.[/quote]

    It looks like an orange on a toothpick!

    It looks like a planetoid. It’s got its own weather system!

  • ScottyJ in WV | August 26, 2007 at 4:31 pm |

    It was awesome watching the ceremony at GABP for Davey. You could tell he was genuinely honored and moved by the Reds retiring his number.

    I know I’m in the minority, but I love the big font the Reds used for names during the “Machine” era!

    I was very fortunate to be a Reds fan growing up during the reign of the Big Red Machine. For my money, there were none better.

  • jere | August 26, 2007 at 4:41 pm |

    Eh, he was hikin’ em up pretty far by the 80s, like everybody else.

  • Bruce | August 26, 2007 at 5:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”136711″][quote comment=”136644″]Not to disparage anything about his number being retired, but that “painting” looks like a high school art project – you know, something a fan did in tribute of their favorite player. Plus, it looks like it was done with pastels or colored pencils. Weird[/quote]

    The painting was done Dick Perez, an artist who does portraits for the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown.

    http://www.dickperez...

    http://www.topps.com...

  • Bruce | August 26, 2007 at 5:09 pm |

    by david on 08.26.07 2:55 pm | Quote

    The painting was done Dick Perez, an artist who does portraits for the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown.

    http://www.dickperez
    http://www.topps.com

    Looks more like Tony Perez did it….

  • david | August 26, 2007 at 5:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”136730″]by david on 08.26.07 2:55 pm | Quote

    The painting was done Dick Perez, an artist who does portraits for the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown.

    http://www.dickperez
    http://www.topps.com

    Looks more like Tony Perez did it….[/quote]

    Well, different artists, different styles. The went with one of the most famous baseball artists there is. I know it isn’t everyones taste, but it isn’t exactly like they went cheap or something.

  • todd krevanchi | August 26, 2007 at 5:48 pm |

    just caught up with the weekends posts…
    gotta say pretty interesting….
    …along the lines of the whole logoing/branding debate.

    a few things if i may…
    1. one of the things that i like about message boards and blogs is that they attract people who have the same main interest (in this case, a keen eye for athletic uniform and accessory detail). i enjoy having an outlet to speak about these topics with you all.
    whats even more enjoyable is that there are varying opinions on the who, what, where, when and why’s of this “genre”. the fact that we can debate about these topics is great, as our opinions arent wrong.

    2. whether you mind or dont mind seeing swooshes, vectors, or stripes in any quantity, (1 or 20) on a uniform, do people agree that the term “logo creep” is being used too loosely on the board?

    3. we are a small minority of sports fans. we recognize things, and sweat the small stuff. but i think that if a sample of nfl fans or college football or basketball fans were interviewed and asked “based on your viewing of games, who is the official uniform supplier of the nfl; or who outfits a given D1 football or basketball team” i honestly think they would say they dont know, or would simply offer a random guess. when its said that “everyone” knows that reebok outfits the nfl or that nike does so at usc. i would disagree. WE know that, US, in OUR commUNIty know this.

    4. there have been excellent points made both against logoing/branding, as well as in its defense. the fact that we have these differing opinions (on this topic and every other topic), yet still “GET IT”, is what makes this board great.

  • todd krevanchi | August 26, 2007 at 5:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”136723″][quote comment=”136693″][quote comment=”136681″][quote comment=”136654″]What are we booing with the Browns – the brown socks or Quinn’s enormous orange noggin?[/quote]

    Don’t boo our Large-Headed Friend.[/quote]
    Looks like Sputnik! He’ll be cryin’ himself to sleep tonight on his enormous pillow.[/quote]

    It looks like an orange on a toothpick!

    It looks like a planetoid. It’s got its own weather system![/quote]

    HEED! PAPER! NOW!

  • Sean | August 26, 2007 at 5:57 pm |

    That’s odd that they’re making Brady Quinn bobbleheads already and he’s not even…

    …oh, that’s actually Brady Quinn. My bad.

  • Johnny O | August 26, 2007 at 6:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”136739″]just caught up with the weekends posts…
    gotta say pretty interesting….
    …along the lines of the whole logoing/branding debate.

    a few things if i may…
    1. one of the things that i like about message boards and blogs is that they attract people who have the same main interest (in this case, a keen eye for athletic uniform and accessory detail). i enjoy having an outlet to speak about these topics with you all.
    whats even more enjoyable is that there are varying opinions on the who, what, where, when and why’s of this “genre”. the fact that we can debate about these topics is great, as our opinions arent wrong.

    2. whether you mind or dont mind seeing swooshes, vectors, or stripes in any quantity, (1 or 20) on a uniform, do people agree that the term “logo creep” is being used too loosely on the board?

    3. we are a small minority of sports fans. we recognize things, and sweat the small stuff. but i think that if a sample of nfl fans or college football or basketball fans were interviewed and asked “based on your viewing of games, who is the official uniform supplier of the nfl; or who outfits a given D1 football or basketball team” i honestly think they would say they dont know, or would simply offer a random guess. when its said that “everyone” knows that reebok outfits the nfl or that nike does so at usc. i would disagree. WE know that, US, in OUR commUNIty know this.

    4. there have been excellent points made both against logoing/branding, as well as in its defense. the fact that we have these differing opinions (on this topic and every other topic), yet still “GET IT”, is what makes this board great.[/quote]
    EXACTLY! How many people do you think would know that Majestic makes all the MLB uniforms? I would say the very strong minority of the population. Sometimes we take our uni knowledge for granted.

  • Chuck Ryals | August 26, 2007 at 6:05 pm |

    I am trying to find out if the Browns have gone back to the metallic orange helmets this year, ( as oppossed to the burnt orange they used last year) here in Cleveland, our Browns beat reporter, Toni Grossi, is a uni curmudgeon, as he states in todays Cleveland Plain Dealer, “I refuse to answer questions about the Browns uniforms.” Anyone know about the Browns helmets this year?

  • Greg | August 26, 2007 at 6:22 pm |

    the logo discussion got out of hand yesterday, and thanks Todd for bringing it to the level. I disagree with corporate over-sponsorship like the Totistos Fiesta Bowl but when Reebok actually makes the uniforms, I don’t have a problem with a little logo on the sholder. Do we expect Ford to spend the money to develop, engineer, and produce the F-150 or the Mustang and not put their blue oval on it?

    i am enjoying the Cincinnati talk today. in the Reds game rookie Ryan Jorgensen wore his red sunday alt for the first time and had JORGENSON on the back. he comes to plate, hits a grand slam, and they give him a new jersey with his name correctly spelled JORGENSEN on the back. no pictures yet.

  • david | August 26, 2007 at 6:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”136708″]Speaking of the Reds, Their new catcher Ryan Jorgensen came to the plate in the first inning with his name on his jersey being spelled “Jorgenson”. After hitting a grand slam he returned to the game with his name correctly spelled “Jorgensen”.[/quote]

    I finally got the pictures:

    JorgenSON in the first:

    JorgenSEN after the mid game correction:

  • david | August 26, 2007 at 6:36 pm |

    JorgenSEN after the mid game correction:

  • david | August 26, 2007 at 6:36 pm |

  • david | August 26, 2007 at 6:37 pm |
  • Paul Lukas | August 26, 2007 at 8:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”136747″]Do we expect Ford to spend the money to develop, engineer, and produce the F-150 or the Mustang and not put their blue oval on it?[/quote]

    Sorry not to let this die, but the above analogy misses the point, because Ford is making a car to function as, um, a Ford car. But Reebok is making a Bills jersey to be, y’know, A BILLS JERSEY. It’s not about Reebok — it’s about the Bills (or it should be). Reebok is simply a contractor producing a product for a client.

    Here’s a better analogy: Somewhere there’s a company that makes the brake pedals for Ford cars. Do they put their logo on every pedal? No, because the finished car is not about them — it’s about Ford.

    See?

  • Kevin Z. | August 26, 2007 at 8:16 pm |

    Nothing to do with the open thread picture, but I was on NHL Tourney of logos which Paul linked to a few weeks ago and they were covering the new lightning logos, http://nhllogos.blog..., and highlighted the fact that the team has stripes on the underarm with a backstory/tradition. Check it out at link above.

  • Gabe | August 26, 2007 at 8:18 pm |

    Right before the start of Mets/Dodgers tonight on ESPN, there was a montage of famous homeruns. One thing I noticed was when Roger Maris hit his 61st HR, his jersey had the shortened sleeves that were discussed here a little while ago. Does anyone know if all of the ’61 Yankees had the shortened sleeves, or just him? I wasn’t able to get a good screencap of it…

  • TD | August 26, 2007 at 8:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”136754″][quote comment=”136747″]Do we expect Ford to spend the money to develop, engineer, and produce the F-150 or the Mustang and not put their blue oval on it?[/quote]

    Sorry not to let this die, but the above analogy misses the point, because Ford is making a car to function as, um, a car. But Reebok is making a Bills jersey to be, y’know, A BILLS JERSEY. It’s about the Bills (or it should be), it’s not about Reebok. They’re simply a contractor producing a product for a client.

    A better analogy: Somewhere there’s a company that makes the brake pedals for Ford cars. Do they put their logo on every pedal? No, because the finished car is not about them — it’s about Ford.

    See?[/quote]

    The best example of what Paul’s point is when the NFL went through the Nike/Puma/Reebok supplier transition in a short amount of years and several teams got stuck sewing the ‘new’ official corporate logo onto their old stock for compliance purposes even though the ‘new’ official company didn’t manufacture that laundry.

    It’s about product placement and marketing – football cleats have the swoosh or whatever logo on the soles of the shoes for visibility in piles when ALL FALL DOWN GO BOOM on TV. Plain and simple. It has no place in the game, it’s just a corporate sponsor strong-arming their field of influence for free visibility.

  • Kevin | August 26, 2007 at 8:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”136668″]I was cleaning out my collection of Sports Ilustrated magazines yesterday and came across a few choice ones, which in hindsight, are pretty hilarious…

    Just read the caption

    A little New York bias perhaps?

    The classic SI cover jinx[/quote]

    Cover 3 – looks like that jinx will continue for Michelle also…

  • Randy Williams | August 26, 2007 at 8:40 pm |

    [quote comment=”136744″]I am trying to find out if the Browns have gone back to the metallic orange helmets this year, ( as oppossed to the burnt orange they used last year) here in Cleveland, our Browns beat reporter, Toni Grossi, is a uni curmudgeon, as he states in todays Cleveland Plain Dealer, “I refuse to answer questions about the Browns uniforms.”

    Anyone know about the Browns helmets this year?[/quote]

    Hopefully info on the sock stripe, or lack thereof, comes to light when we get helmet info.
    Long time listener, 1st time caller by the way.

  • Jimbo | August 26, 2007 at 9:01 pm |

    The Browns socks must go, they are hideous. I think the helmets just appeared to be the old metallic/day glo color because it was a night game. When I have seen the Browns in-person this year, they appear to have the same pale-pumpkin color that they used last year, which is nearly as ugly as the socks.

    I share in most Browns fans anguish with their current uniform choice:

    http://theburningriv...

  • JJWasz | August 26, 2007 at 9:10 pm |

    What is everybody’s take on the whole new era marketing baseball hats to gang bangers? How much do you think MLB knew about this? To me it is reprehensible, I think MLB should drop new era as it’s hat supplier, not only due to the fact the they were intentionally marketing hats to gang bangers, but because the are just plain hideous!!

  • Kyle at IU | August 26, 2007 at 9:12 pm |

    This has nothing to do with uniforms and everything to do with my other obsession: stadiums. There’s an MNF commercial where Chad Johnson (i believe) is running down the field…at the Orange Bowl. Makes me a little sadder every time i see it. Another great facility that fell victim to the money driven world of modern sports.

    Has there been an announcement about a patch of some sort to celebrate the final season at the OB?

  • =bg= | August 26, 2007 at 9:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”136757″][quote comment=”136754″][quote comment=”136747″]Do we expect Ford to spend the money to develop, engineer, and produce the F-150 or the Mustang and not put their blue oval on it?[/quote]

    Sorry not to let this die, but the above analogy misses the point, because Ford is making a car to function as, um, a car. But Reebok is making a Bills jersey to be, y’know, A BILLS JERSEY. It’s about the Bills (or it should be), it’s not about Reebok. They’re simply a contractor producing a product for a client.

    A better analogy: Somewhere there’s a company that makes the brake pedals for Ford cars. Do they put their logo on every pedal? No, because the finished car is not about them — it’s about Ford.

    See?[/quote]

    The best example of what Paul’s point is when the NFL went through the Nike/Puma/Reebok supplier transition in a short amount of years and several teams got stuck sewing the ‘new’ official corporate logo onto their old stock for compliance purposes even though the ‘new’ official company didn’t manufacture that laundry.

    It’s about product placement and marketing – football cleats have the swoosh or whatever logo on the soles of the shoes for visibility in piles when ALL FALL DOWN GO BOOM on TV. Plain and simple. It has no place in the game, it’s just a corporate sponsor strong-arming their field of influence for free visibility.[/quote]

    You notice that now they’re all putting the logo just back from the toe, on the sides. So it will show even if the player tapes his ankles, spats, whatever.

  • Gabe | August 26, 2007 at 9:29 pm |

    Rick Peterson, the Mets’ pitching coach, is sans jacket again tonight. He normally was wearing a jacket at all times (regardless of the temperature or time of year), until that uni-related directive came down a few weeks ago. I noticed that the next night he wasn’t wearing a jacket, but then did again for a while, and now is without one again.

  • derek | August 26, 2007 at 9:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”136754″][quote comment=”136747″]Do we expect Ford to spend the money to develop, engineer, and produce the F-150 or the Mustang and not put their blue oval on it?[/quote]

    Sorry not to let this die, but the above analogy misses the point, because Ford is making a car to function as, um, a Ford car. But Reebok is making a Bills jersey to be, y’know, A BILLS JERSEY. It’s not about Reebok — it’s about the Bills (or it should be). Reebok is simply a contractor producing a product for a client.

    Here’s a better analogy: Somewhere there’s a company that makes the brake pedals for Ford cars. Do they put their logo on every pedal? No, because the finished car is not about them — it’s about Ford.

    See?[/quote]
    Get over it paul, you sound like a little child. Grow up and stop crying about it!

  • Zurk | August 26, 2007 at 9:47 pm |

    [quote comment=”136754″][quote comment=”136747″]Do we expect Ford to spend the money to develop, engineer, and produce the F-150 or the Mustang and not put their blue oval on it?[/quote]

    Sorry not to let this die, but the above analogy misses the point, because Ford is making a car to function as, um, a Ford car. But Reebok is making a Bills jersey to be, y’know, A BILLS JERSEY. It’s not about Reebok — it’s about the Bills (or it should be). Reebok is simply a contractor producing a product for a client.

    Here’s a better analogy: Somewhere there’s a company that makes the brake pedals for Ford cars. Do they put their logo on every pedal? No, because the finished car is not about them — it’s about Ford.

    See?[/quote]

    Hmmm – In my car I see a lot of AC Delco – Champion – stuff like that when I look at the parts. Point taken on the whole car concept but with the millions of dollars it costs them to get into that “car” I don’t begrudge them the logo placement.

    I know it isn’t the popular side…

    Just my .02

  • Bud Clark | August 26, 2007 at 9:48 pm |

    Will someone explain to me why the FIBA Americas mascot is a Sesame Street character with mad bling?

  • Chris | August 26, 2007 at 9:52 pm |

    I actually dont have a problem with Rbk or whomever putting a logo on the jersey. I just wish they wouldnt put it EVERYWEAR to the point that it messes with the overall look. Its really going to hurt on those Eagles throwbacks this year. They didn’t even design the original!

  • Dane | August 26, 2007 at 9:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”136754″][quote comment=”136747″]Do we expect Ford to spend the money to develop, engineer, and produce the F-150 or the Mustang and not put their blue oval on it?[/quote]

    Here’s a better analogy: Somewhere there’s a company that makes the brake pedals for Ford cars. Do they put their logo on every pedal? No, because the finished car is not about them — it’s about Ford.

    See?[/quote]

    There was a somewhat similar situation in Formula 1 this weekend. BBS provides wheels to Ferrari. A few races ago, Ferrari began using wheel covers to improve the aerodynamics. BBS was not happy that their logo was covered. So for the Turkish Grand Prix, the wheel covers were painted to look like the inside of the wheel, complete with the BBS logo. Standing still, they look cheesy. At high speed, they make Oregon football uniforms look good.
    http://www.itv-f1.co...

  • Paul Lukas | August 26, 2007 at 10:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”136769″][quote comment=”136754″][quote comment=”136747″]Do we expect Ford to spend the money to develop, engineer, and produce the F-150 or the Mustang and not put their blue oval on it?[/quote]

    Sorry not to let this die, but the above analogy misses the point, because Ford is making a car to function as, um, a Ford car. But Reebok is making a Bills jersey to be, y’know, A BILLS JERSEY. It’s not about Reebok — it’s about the Bills (or it should be). Reebok is simply a contractor producing a product for a client.

    Here’s a better analogy: Somewhere there’s a company that makes the brake pedals for Ford cars. Do they put their logo on every pedal? No, because the finished car is not about them — it’s about Ford.

    See?[/quote]
    Get over it paul, you sound like a little child. Grow up and stop crying about it![/quote]

    I won’t deny that the way of the world seems to be going counter to my preferences on this particular matter. But that doesn’t mean it’s right, or that I should stop decrying it. My object here is to get people to think a bit harder about this stuff instead of taking it as a given. And I’ll keep doing that.

    Also: I notice you didn’t even try to refute my argument.

  • bj | August 26, 2007 at 10:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”136764″]This has nothing to do with uniforms and everything to do with my other obsession: stadiums. There’s an MNF commercial where Chad Johnson (i believe) is running down the field…at the Orange Bowl. Makes me a little sadder every time i see it. Another great facility that fell victim to the money driven world of modern sports.

    Has there been an announcement about a patch of some sort to celebrate the final season at the OB?[/quote]

    Are you from Miami? The fact that the OB is an awful stadium is readily apparent to anyone who’s stepped foot in it. There’s no parking, not enough bathrooms, and it’s SMALL. UM’s two in-state rivals have some of the best stadiums in the nation. The Canes couldn’t even convince the city of Miami to spend the money to repaint the steel beams holding up the stadium: they’re still aqua and orange from when the Phins played there…

  • Kyle at IU | August 26, 2007 at 10:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”136775″][quote comment=”136764″]This has nothing to do with uniforms and everything to do with my other obsession: stadiums. There’s an MNF commercial where Chad Johnson (i believe) is running down the field…at the Orange Bowl. Makes me a little sadder every time i see it. Another great facility that fell victim to the money driven world of modern sports.

    Has there been an announcement about a patch of some sort to celebrate the final season at the OB?[/quote]

    Are you from Miami? The fact that the OB is an awful stadium is readily apparent to anyone who’s stepped foot in it. There’s no parking, not enough bathrooms, and it’s SMALL. UM’s two in-state rivals have some of the best stadiums in the nation. The Canes couldn’t even convince the city of Miami to spend the money to repaint the steel beams holding up the stadium: they’re still aqua and orange from when the Phins played there…[/quote]

    Nah, not from Miami. Just sad to see a classic go by the wayside. You bring up a good point in that the city wouldn’t do anything to keep the stadium up, and I think that’s because Miami is really bad at being nice to the sports entities that bring them money. The Florida Marlins have won two World Series and they’re about to leave town because the city won’t give them a half-decent ballpark (yes, I’m aware of the rumor that the new park is going on the OB site…i wouldn’t bet on it). When I see places like Wrigley Field and Fenway Park still standing despite being nearly 100 years old, I wonder why people don’t put the effort out to keep other venues going.

    Trust me on this one. My school’s (Indiana) basketball arena is poorly designed and feels really dated in many places. Still, I will shed a tear when it comes down in a few years because of the memories and history involved in the place.

    It’s all kinda like teams ditching a classic look for silly stripes and a red alternate…sad to see the classics get retired.

  • Stuby | August 26, 2007 at 11:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”136775″][quote comment=”136764″]This has nothing to do with uniforms and everything to do with my other obsession: stadiums. There’s an MNF commercial where Chad Johnson (i believe) is running down the field…at the Orange Bowl. Makes me a little sadder every time i see it. Another great facility that fell victim to the money driven world of modern sports.

    Has there been an announcement about a patch of some sort to celebrate the final season at the OB?[/quote]

    Are you from Miami? The fact that the OB is an awful stadium is readily apparent to anyone who’s stepped foot in it. There’s no parking, not enough bathrooms, and it’s SMALL. UM’s two in-state rivals have some of the best stadiums in the nation. The Canes couldn’t even convince the city of Miami to spend the money to repaint the steel beams holding up the stadium: they’re still aqua and orange from when the Phins played there…[/quote]
    I thought that commercial was filmed at The Swamp in Gainesville. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

  • Flip | August 26, 2007 at 11:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”136779″][quote comment=”136775″]
    Trust me on this one. My school’s (Indiana) basketball arena is poorly designed and feels really dated in many places. Still, I will shed a tear when it comes down in a few years because of the memories and history involved in the place.

    It’s all kinda like teams ditching a classic look for silly stripes and a red alternate…sad to see the classics get retired.[/quote]

    Indiana? Red? Silly stripes? Whadda ’bout those basketball warmups? :-)

  • Nick F | August 26, 2007 at 11:25 pm |

    Jimbo is right, I have been disappointed the past two weeks to see the hideous brown sock after my hopes were up from the first game. Chuck posted a comment about Browns Beat Writer Tony Grossi not answering uni related questions, I saw that online today and I wonder why? I don’t know what he has against the subject, but the Browns uniform is a topic of conversation unlike most places, where nobody cares. I like Grossi and really respect his opinions but I just don’t get him on this.

  • Nick | August 27, 2007 at 1:31 am |

    [quote comment=”136772″]I actually dont have a problem with Rbk or whomever putting a logo on the jersey. I just wish they wouldnt put it EVERYWEAR to the point that it messes with the overall look. Its really going to hurt on those Eagles throwbacks this year. They didn’t even design the original![/quote]

    1980 Sugar Bowl
    Notre Dame vs. Georgia

    Notre Dame’s White Jerseys have this huge obnoxious “C” on the ends of the sleeves. After a quarter I see it is the Champion “C”. It was my first understanding/recognition of the LOGO CREEP.

    I instinctively knew that right then that it was the true beginning of the LOGO CREEP SHIT TRAIN of USA athletes prostituted during forcibly prostituted as Shoe & Apparel Store billboards

  • ThresherK | August 27, 2007 at 3:50 am |

    @Kyle at IU

    The Florida Marlins have won two World Series and they’re about to leave town because the city won’t give them a half-decent ballpark

    Jeffrey Loria owns this team. Can it seriously be said this snuck up on anybody?

    Uni Note: US Women played “Goldfinger” against Finland, won 4-0. I hope they don’t start thinking those jerseys are good luck!

  • Joe O. | August 27, 2007 at 7:31 am |

    [quote comment=”136773″][quote comment=”136754″][quote comment=”136747″]Do we expect Ford to spend the money to develop, engineer, and produce the F-150 or the Mustang and not put their blue oval on it?[/quote]

    Here’s a better analogy: Somewhere there’s a company that makes the brake pedals for Ford cars. Do they put their logo on every pedal? No, because the finished car is not about them — it’s about Ford.

    See?[/quote]

    There was a somewhat similar situation in Formula 1 this weekend. BBS provides wheels to Ferrari. A few races ago, Ferrari began using wheel covers to improve the aerodynamics. BBS was not happy that their logo was covered. So for the Turkish Grand Prix, the wheel covers were painted to look like the inside of the wheel, complete with the BBS logo. Standing still, they look cheesy. At high speed, they make Oregon football uniforms look good.
    http://www.itv-f1.co...

    No one will probably ever read this. But your picand post about Ferrari brings up another interesting “Logo” tid bit. Ferrari’s main sponser is Marlboro, but they can only have the logo’s on the cars/uniforms for like 2 races a year. The rest of the year the team has those wierd white strip boxes in place of the cig manufacturer logo. For a few years Marlboro puts MILLIONS into the team, and for most races, their logo is not on the car…

  • Brian Baute | August 27, 2007 at 9:16 am |

    Let’s place the blame for logo creep where it belongs – on the sports franchises and college athletics administrations. The major league and major college (even smaller D1 schools) don’t pay retail or even wholesale for most of their gear, or they get big checks from the apparel companies for the right to be called the “official” whatever of MLB, NFL, NCAA, etc. And the apparel companies only agree to forego compensation for the product because they’re compensated with exposure and brand awareness through logo placement. MLB, NFL, NCAA, etc. could have uniforms completely free of manufacturers’ logos if they wish, but they don’t.

  • Adam | August 27, 2007 at 10:00 am |

    [quote comment=”136779″] When I see places like Wrigley Field and Fenway Park still standing despite being nearly 100 years old, I wonder why people don’t put the effort out to keep other venues going.[/quote]

    Have you been to Wrigley Field? Yes, it’s historic and all that, but it’s not a very nice place to watch a game. I think a lot of the time, people confuse “old” with “good”.