Auction Action

25_a.jpg

As I’ve lamented several times, basketball is by far worst-documented of the major sports, at least from a uniform perspective. So the best way to catch up on hoops history is often through memorabilia sales, one of which is currently underway over at Grey Flannel Auctions, which is conducting its second annual Basketball Hall of Fame auction. Tons of great stuff here, including all sorts of stuff I’d never seen before. Here are some highlights:

• We all love the Warriors’ “The City” design, with its cable car uni number. What I didn’t know until now, however, is that the team’s warm-up jacket from that era was arguably even better. My compliments to the chef.

• It’s come up several times that Brooks Robinson used to run his own sporting goods operation (which produced, among other things, these), but until now I’d never seen the company’s totally gorgeous tag design. So many odd things about this tag: Did they have permission to use that O’s logo? Why’d they put a uni number on Brooks’s sleeve (a completely erroneous detail)? Isn’t it a little weird to a baseball player depicted on a basketball uniform, even if only on the tag? This is probably my favorite discovery of the entire auction.

• The House of David is famous for its baseball team, but they also played basketball, as evidenced by this magnificent warm-up jacket.

• The Globetrotters weren’t the only Harlem-based barnstorming team — there were also the Harlem Magicians, formed by former Globetrotter Marques Haynes in 1953.

• Speaking of the ’Trotters, check out this warm-up set, complete with striped stirrups!

• When I first saw this Peoria Cats jersey, my initial reaction was, “Whoa, a snap-on crotch tab!” But then I read the full auction listing and learned that “Cats” was short for “Caterpillars,” which of course makes perfect sense, because the construction equipment company Caterpillar is headquartered in Peoria. (Even better than the Cats uni: this Cats warm-up outfit.)

• If you like vertically arched lettering, you’ll love this, this, and this.

• I knew Walt Bellamy wore the nickname “Bells” on the back of his Hawks uni in the early ’70s, but I’d never seen a photo of it — until now.

This jersey struck me as odd, because the front uni number is so much more compressed than the rear number. (Also, note the size tag — 42. If you look through these auction lots, you’ll find that many of the jersey sizes are surprisingly small.)

• Here’s something you don’t see very often: an ABA all-star jersey.

• I’d say this one might qualify for the “So bad it’s great” category.

• But this one is just great — no qualification needed.

• That was one weird-ass font that the Kentucky Colonels used for their player names.

• Note to self: Compile a list of uniforms with diagonal uniform numbers. Here’s another. Who’s got more?

• Last but not least, if you’re dying to own John Havlicek’s jockstrap, here’s your chance.

Want to see more? You can scroll through all the auction lots here.

(Big thanks to Jason Taylor, who tipped me wise to this auction.)

Uni Watch News Ticker: Actually, there’s no Ticker today, because I was on the road all day yesterday, didn’t get home until 2 a.m., and was too pooped to deal with the 100+ e-mails that had piled up. But I will pass along this major bit of news: The NFL is revamping its logo (further details here). I’ll have more to say about this next week.

Speaking of which: We’ll have open threads on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday; regular entries will resume on Tuesday. A happy Labor Day weekend to all.

 

229 comments to Auction Action

  • Original Jim | August 31, 2007 at 9:06 am |

    Interesting thing about that San Diego Rockets jersey…the 3-D shading goes up and to the right, for all characters and numbers.

    That would have been nice for your article the other day.

  • Jason G. | August 31, 2007 at 9:08 am |

    I like everything about the new NFL logo except the new font. It’s not that the new font is terrible but the old font was so identifiable with the NFL that they should have never changed it. Any time you see that L with the curled lower leg you immediately knew what it is. I say add the old font to the new logo and it’s perfect.

  • James P. | August 31, 2007 at 9:09 am |

    Nice article yesterday. I had to do a double take when I saw my Louisiana Tech Bulldogs represented in the image that was on the front of Page 2. Yeah, I have no idea WTF they were thinking when they went with the round nameplate…and I was under the impression that the shoulder stripes would have continued from pit to pit. I’m just glad they didn’t add a stripe the the helmet like it was hinted the new head coach was wanting.

  • Aaron | August 31, 2007 at 9:10 am |

    That NFL logo SUCKS. Why change something thats awesome? Why, why, why?

  • Eric S. | August 31, 2007 at 9:11 am |

    I’ve noticed over the last few years that lighter shades of blue are being phased out for darker shades, and the new NFL logo is just another example.

    Of course now that I actually need to cite some examples, I can’t think of any.

  • Luther Mahoney | August 31, 2007 at 9:11 am |

    I like the new streamlined NFL logo,but please,keep the current NFL letters and incorporate it into the new logo. The letters on
    the new logo look too generic.

  • Gabe | August 31, 2007 at 9:12 am |

    Am I first? If so, wow. Either way, love the article today. Two other great places for basketball research can be found here and here.

  • Stuby | August 31, 2007 at 9:12 am |

    Wow, what a treasure trove of classic unis. Pretty cool that the Warriors used the same interlocking ‘SF’ as the Giants.

    As far as the NFL logo re-design posted yesterday…if you’re going to change the font of ‘NFL’ (which, I wish they wouldn’t) at least make sure that it matches up with the space in which it sits. I don’t really mind if they want to cut down on the number of stars and update the football shape, though. Here’s the New NFL Logo posted by MikeB yesterday.

  • FXS | August 31, 2007 at 9:13 am |

    why would Havlicek’s jockstrap have a big safety pin attached? seems dangerous to say the least.

  • =bg= | August 31, 2007 at 9:13 am |

    If the NFL logo gets a re-do, the similiarly-dated MLB & NBA can’t be far behind, can they?

  • CJ | August 31, 2007 at 9:15 am |

    The new NFL logo is TERRIBLE and UNNECESSARY. The great thing about the old was its classic look and awesome lettering. The NFL needs to learn that it has the major things down pat and should only be tweaking with things like hi-def instant replay.

    Anyone have photos of the new Sharks uniforms?

  • Eric S. | August 31, 2007 at 9:15 am |
  • Peter Wunsch | August 31, 2007 at 9:18 am |

    Why would you need to write “Bellamy” on the inside of a jersey that has his uniform number and his name on the back of the jersey?

  • Anthony M | August 31, 2007 at 9:19 am |

    Great update by the NFL.

    Sure, I’ll miss the old “L”… who won’t? But look at the improvements.
    – Football replaced from hamburger to Lombardi Trophy ball. Way better.
    – Meaningless 25 stars replaced with 8 to represent the divisions. Awesome.

    Overall it’s a step in the right direction.

    And the MLB will ever change their logo… ever.

  • Jim | August 31, 2007 at 9:20 am |

    [quote comment=”138908″]Great update by the NFL.

    Sure, I’ll miss the old “L”… who won’t? But look at the improvements.
    – Football replaced from hamburger to Lombardi Trophy ball. Way better.
    – Meaningless 25 stars replaced with 8 to represent the divisions. Awesome.

    Overall it’s a step in the right direction.

    And the MLB will ever change their logo… ever.[/quote]

    Is your “N” key not working, or am I missing a point you’re making?

  • Johnny O | August 31, 2007 at 9:21 am |

    Check out Argentina’s unis at the FIBA Tournament. (Sorry if this has been mentioned before)

    woof!

  • Stuby | August 31, 2007 at 9:22 am |

    [quote comment=”138906″]Wait. I thought of some.

    Old Bills. New Bills.

    Old Patriots. New Patriots.

    Old Warriors. New Warriors.[/quote]
    No pictures, but I know the Mavs, Nets and Pacers to some degree have gone to a darker blue over the years. Lets not forget the Chargers, although thats been a while.

  • Anthony M | August 31, 2007 at 9:22 am |

    You’re right, I meant the MLB will never change their logo.
    I had written “I doubt the MLB will ever change their logo” but I decided to be more definitive.

  • Stuby | August 31, 2007 at 9:26 am |

    [quote comment=”138912″]You’re right, I meant the MLB will never change their logo.
    I had written “I doubt the MLB will ever change their logo” but I decided to be more definitive.[/quote]
    What makes you so sure that the Selig Braintrust wouldn’t do something like that?

  • LunchBox | August 31, 2007 at 9:26 am |

    C’mon, how cool does this look?

  • Jason G. | August 31, 2007 at 9:27 am |

    [quote comment=”138906″]Wait. I thought of some.

    Old Bills. New Bills.

    Old Patriots. New Patriots.

    Old Warriors. New Warriors.[/quote]

    Old Rams, New Rams.

  • Stuby | August 31, 2007 at 9:28 am |

    [quote comment=”138914″]C’mon, how cool does this look?[/quote]
    Pretty much perfect.

  • Jason G. | August 31, 2007 at 9:28 am |

    [quote comment=”138914″]C’mon, how cool does this look?[/quote]
    They have to use that. I knew that would look good.

  • Joe H | August 31, 2007 at 9:29 am |

    Brooks Robinson’s sporting goods company was one of Baltimore’s biggest in the 70’s. Because of who he was he got the inside track on some really cool jobs. And even some MLB unis. Yes…he did those!

    I’m sure he had permission to use the bird in his logo…back in the day there didn’t seem to be much thought put into copyright infringement.

  • Rich | August 31, 2007 at 9:30 am |

    and a happy Labor Day weekend to you too, Paul. Hope you find something to pick you up after that awful 4-game sweep by the Phillies (ugh!)

    New NFL logo’s not bad, could’ve been worse I suppose.

  • Stephen | August 31, 2007 at 9:30 am |

    [quote comment=”138914″]C’mon, how cool does this look?[/quote]
    Now, that is awesome.

  • Anthony M | August 31, 2007 at 9:30 am |

    [quote comment=”138913″][quote comment=”138912″]You’re right, I meant the MLB will never change their logo.
    I had written “I doubt the MLB will ever change their logo” but I decided to be more definitive.[/quote]
    What makes you so sure that the Selig Braintrust wouldn’t do something like that?[/quote]

    Because that logo is baseball. It’s defined the back of baseball caps for many years now. It’s versatile in its colour scheme, and the batter can be a righty or lefty which appeals to everyone. It’s a great logo, and I don’t think it can or ever will be changed.

  • Martyn | August 31, 2007 at 9:33 am |

    With Seattle (and their BP jerseys) in town to play Blue Jays tonight, it got me wondering if Toronto has ever worn BP jerseys in a game before?

    They had the same BP jersey for a decade in the 80’s, but I don’t recall ever seeing it in a game.

    Was such a thing common/taboo in decades past?

  • Joe H | August 31, 2007 at 9:34 am |

    • Last but not least, if you’re dying to own John Havlicek’s jockstrap, here’s your chance.

    hahahaha

    I actually have Cal Ripken’s compression undies from 1999, so I guess it’s not that wierd.

  • Pat | August 31, 2007 at 9:37 am |

    NFL changing it’s logo. Bullshit.

    The new font is terrible. The old font was classic, very unique to the NFL. There was no other American professional league that had such a lavish font in their leagues logo. It seemed to make the logo flow. You didn’t look at it as a static logo because of that font.

    Now when I look at it it’s just going to be this static image. One that has a very generic looking, clunky font. Taking away the finishing “swirl” on the L is really ruining the balance of the space inside the shield. Now it looks heavy on the left side with this big white space on the right where the extra “oompf” on the L came in handy.

    The letters also just don’t seem big enough for the space they are sitting in. The serifs of the N and F used to flow nicely with the shape of the shield now they are just straight lines that really have no motion to them.

    I don’t have a huge problem with the update in the football with the stars section. It just seems like a way to modernize it, which in this case doesn’t make all that much difference. Although, I really liked the fact that they had so many stars in the previous one and I always found something great about the fact that they had that one star at the top, in the middle point. It always stood out to me for some reason. So it’s not a huge downgrade like the wordmark, but it’s not helping it at all.

    I always thought the NFL had the best logo of all the major sports (with the NBA a close second). I can’t think of one adjective to describe it’s classic feel. It had a lot of vintage charm. Now it seems like they are trying to toughen it up by taking away the fluidity.

    Not that many fans will notice but this is something that will always bug me.

    For me to get this upset about something football when the entire post was about basketball, which hardly ever gets time here but is by far my favorite, means the NFL must be screwing up.

  • Eric S. | August 31, 2007 at 9:37 am |

    [quote comment=”138915″][quote comment=”138906″]Wait. I thought of some.

    Old Bills. New Bills.

    Old Patriots. New Patriots.

    Old Warriors. New Warriors.[/quote]

    Old Rams, New Rams.[/quote]
    Good call. They’re probably the best example of what I’m getting at. They pretty much kept the same style, but just updated it from a regular blue to a darker, more stylish navy.

  • Dan | August 31, 2007 at 9:38 am |

    I wouldn’t have minded just updating the blue section. I like the new football. I can live with fewer stars…but the old typeface on NFL…it just had class. It was like Tom Landry’s hat or Johnny U’s shoes!

    The old logo was almost like a coat of arms…now it’s another Madison Ave. focus-group tested, antiseptic marketing arm.

    A huge, Giant thumbs down.

  • Adam | August 31, 2007 at 9:40 am |

    I’m really amused by those who think the new NFL logo is “terrible” or “horrible” or whatever. You might think it’s an unnecessary to change it, or that it’s not as good, but that doesn’t mean it’s terrible. I can’t see how somebody could love the old one and hate the new one, they aren’t that different.

  • Brian Baute | August 31, 2007 at 9:41 am |

    Yep, the new logo with the old font. Thing of beauty.

  • Stuby | August 31, 2007 at 9:43 am |

    [quote comment=”138921″][quote comment=”138913″][quote comment=”138912″]You’re right, I meant the MLB will never change their logo.
    I had written “I doubt the MLB will ever change their logo” but I decided to be more definitive.[/quote]
    What makes you so sure that the Selig Braintrust wouldn’t do something like that?[/quote]

    Because that logo is baseball. It’s defined the back of baseball caps for many years now. It’s versatile in its colour scheme, and the batter can be a righty or lefty which appeals to everyone. It’s a great logo, and I don’t think it can or ever will be changed.[/quote]
    What I’m saying is that if the NFL and NHL can change their logos for no particular reason, there’s nothing to prevent MLB from doing the same. The fact that it has been on the back of baseball caps for around 17 years really doesn’t make much of a difference as they can just have New Era slap a new logo on the back.

    I’m not arguing for a new logo, mind you. I just don’t think one can say with certainty that it will never change.

  • DJ | August 31, 2007 at 9:46 am |

    The Islanders, Oilers, and Pacers also went from royal blue to navy blue

  • Joe Drennan | August 31, 2007 at 9:46 am |

    My thoughts on the new NFL logo – It looks good, but, as mentioned before, the old one was so classic it’s hard to change. I like the bolder blue and the updated football, but I love the old font and the gagle of stars. The new version’s stars look like they were simply plaed there because they had to be. The old version they look like they might actualy represent something, say each team (not sure on the history behind it so if you do, please share) as they’re dissappearing behind the ball.

    Again, I like it, but I like the old one too.

    Watching last night’s Cubs game, Jason Kendall came to bat with his all white batting gloves. The Cubs TV announcers posed the question of is it OK for Kendall to wear the all white gloves after Monday. They went a step further questioning is the A’s are breaking any rules wearing their all white shoes too. My wife said the two needed to get a life and talk about baseball nto fashion, but she doesn’t get it.

  • TBDRO | August 31, 2007 at 9:47 am |

    [quote comment=”138928″]I’m really amused by those who think the new NFL logo is “terrible” or “horrible” or whatever. You might think it’s an unnecessary to change it, or that it’s not as good, but that doesn’t mean it’s terrible. I can’t see how somebody could love the old one and hate the new one, they aren’t that different.[/quote]
    Uh oh… somebody doesn’t “get it.”

  • Jason G. | August 31, 2007 at 9:48 am |

    [quote comment=”138933″]My thoughts on the new NFL logo – It looks good, but, as mentioned before, the old one was so classic it’s hard to change. I like the bolder blue and the updated football, but I love the old font and the gagle of stars. The new version’s stars look like they were simply plaed there because they had to be. The old version they look like they might actualy represent something, say each team (not sure on the history behind it so if you do, please share) as they’re dissappearing behind the ball.

    Again, I like it, but I like the old one too.

    Watching last night’s Cubs game, Jason Kendall came to bat with his all white batting gloves. The Cubs TV announcers posed the question of is it OK for Kendall to wear the all white gloves after Monday. They went a step further questioning is the A’s are breaking any rules wearing their all white shoes too. My wife said the two needed to get a life and talk about baseball nto fashion, but she doesn’t get it.[/quote]

    The article Paul linked to says that there was no signifigance to the previous number of stars.

  • The Ol Goaler | August 31, 2007 at 9:49 am |

    Regarding “diagonal” uniform numbers; I guess these don’t really count since they were only diagonal on the bottom! (That font did weird things to Al MacInnis’ #2, but I couldn’t find a picture, alas…)

  • ross | August 31, 2007 at 9:51 am |

    [quote comment=”138926″][quote comment=”138915″][quote comment=”138906″]Wait. I thought of some.

    Old Bills. New Bills.

    Old Patriots. New Patriots.

    Old Warriors. New Warriors.[/quote]

    Old Rams, New Rams.[/quote]
    Good call. They’re probably the best example of what I’m getting at. They pretty much kept the same style, but just updated it from a regular blue to a darker, more stylish navy.[/quote]

    The Eagles jumped on this in the mid 90s, switching from kelly green to what they call midnight green. I don’t like that teams darken iconic colors to look a little meaner. Maybe that’s why these colors are so refreshing.

  • Joe Drennan | August 31, 2007 at 9:54 am |

    [quote comment=”138930″][quote comment=”138921″][quote comment=”138913″][quote comment=”138912″]You’re right, I meant the MLB will never change their logo.
    I had written “I doubt the MLB will ever change their logo” but I decided to be more definitive.[/quote]
    What makes you so sure that the Selig Braintrust wouldn’t do something like that?[/quote]

    Because that logo is baseball. It’s defined the back of baseball caps for many years now. It’s versatile in its colour scheme, and the batter can be a righty or lefty which appeals to everyone. It’s a great logo, and I don’t think it can or ever will be changed.[/quote]
    What I’m saying is that if the NFL and NHL can change their logos for no particular reason, there’s nothing to prevent MLB from doing the same. The fact that it has been on the back of baseball caps for around 17 years really doesn’t make much of a difference as they can just have New Era slap a new logo on the back.

    I’m not arguing for a new logo, mind you. I just don’t think one can say with certainty that it will never change.[/quote]

    The NHL claims to have a reason for changing it’s logo though. They originaly changed the sheild color from orange to silver to represent the new millenium. Then they changed the direction of the lettering from slanting down to slanting up aftr the lock-out because they wanted it to symbolize that the league is on the rise. While I like the older classic sheild, I accept the new one because of this reasoning. It did take some getting used to of the letters on the rise as it just feels un-natural.

  • Dan | August 31, 2007 at 9:55 am |

    [quote comment=”138928″]I’m really amused by those who think the new NFL logo is “terrible” or “horrible” or whatever. You might think it’s an unnecessary to change it, or that it’s not as good, but that doesn’t mean it’s terrible. I can’t see how somebody could love the old one and hate the new one, they aren’t that different.[/quote]

    Not that different, no. But one has character and the other is just sterile.

    Imagine if the Red Wings cleaned up their logo…took some of the feathers out of the wing, fewer spokes on the tire, to make it more streamlined and modern. There would be rioting and fires! (Of course, that’s not really that uncommon in Detroit, huh?)

    Just an un-necessary change.

  • neal s | August 31, 2007 at 9:57 am |

    [quote comment=”138928″]I’m really amused by those who think the new NFL logo is “terrible” or “horrible” or whatever. You might think it’s an unnecessary to change it, or that it’s not as good, but that doesn’t mean it’s terrible. I can’t see how somebody could love the old one and hate the new one, they aren’t that different.[/quote]

    Actually, it really is quantifiably bad. WIth the new typography, assuming they don’t tweak it, there’s an unnatural gap between the “F” and the “L”. Whoever did the original logo was obviously skilled enough to understand that uppercase “F” and “L” don’t kern well, and that something needed to be done to unify the type. The new logo doesn’t take stock of that, even though it’s arguably better in other ways.

  • Latrell | August 31, 2007 at 9:59 am |

    Changing the subject a little, did anyone see the Santoro-Blake match from last night? Santoro wore the best alligator polo I’ve ever seen. I thought Santoro was playing a character from Miami Vice.

  • Shadeymonk | August 31, 2007 at 10:04 am |

    [quote comment=”138941″][quote comment=”138928″]I’m really amused by those who think the new NFL logo is “terrible” or “horrible” or whatever. You might think it’s an unnecessary to change it, or that it’s not as good, but that doesn’t mean it’s terrible. I can’t see how somebody could love the old one and hate the new one, they aren’t that different.[/quote]

    Actually, it really is quantifiably bad. WIth the new typography, assuming they don’t tweak it, there’s an unnatural gap between the “F” and the “L”. Whoever did the original logo was obviously skilled enough to understand that uppercase “F” and “L” don’t kern well, and that something needed to be done to unify the type. The new logo doesn’t take stock of that, even though it’s arguably better in other ways.[/quote]

    Maybe I’m missing it but I really don’t see a difference between the old one and new one in terms of a “gap between the F and L”

  • cathy | August 31, 2007 at 10:07 am |

    [quote comment=”138933″]My thoughts on the new NFL logo – It looks good, but, as mentioned before, the old one was so classic it’s hard to change. I like the bolder blue and the updated football, but I love the old font and the gagle of stars. The new version’s stars look like they were simply plaed there because they had to be. The old version they look like they might actualy represent something, say each team (not sure on the history behind it so if you do, please share) as they’re dissappearing behind the ball.

    Again, I like it, but I like the old one too.

    Watching last night’s Cubs game, Jason Kendall came to bat with his all white batting gloves. The Cubs TV announcers posed the question of is it OK for Kendall to wear the all white gloves after Monday. They went a step further questioning is the A’s are breaking any rules wearing their all white shoes too. My wife said the two needed to get a life and talk about baseball nto fashion, but she doesn’t get it.[/quote]
    Bob Brenly the color guy for the Cubs often talks about uni related issues (I’m the one who wrote Paul about him commenting on wearing a cup when he managed and coached). I believe Bob is somewhat obsessed with uniforms and he may be a uniwatch blog reader…..he fits the bill.

  • WVU Tom | August 31, 2007 at 10:09 am |

    [quote comment=”138906″]Wait. I thought of some.

    Old Bills. New Bills.

    Old Patriots. New Patriots.

    Old Warriors. New Warriors.[/quote]

    Refering back to Aug 24 entry on drop shadows, I just realized the the old Pats uni you reference here has drop shadows that go down and to the left.

    (sorry if this was already mentioned–I admit I’ve been away for a while and definately haven’t been keeping up with the comments section).

  • WVU Tom | August 31, 2007 at 10:11 am |

    (Comment #47, continued)

    …and of course, this is something I never would have noticed prior to the Aug. 24 entry. It amazes me how many subtle uni details I now notice which I never would have paid attention to before.

  • jere | August 31, 2007 at 10:12 am |

    I stopped paying attention to the NFL a few years ago, but I’d like to add my own slow-motion “Nooooo,” in response to the loss of the curly-cue “L.”

  • John O'Hare | August 31, 2007 at 10:27 am |

    Regarding that pic of the O’s on the orange nightmares made by Brooks Robinson’s company: didja notice that ol’ Brooks himself was too smart to be pictured wearing those evil things?

  • Paul Lukas | August 31, 2007 at 10:27 am |

    On Wednesday, there was a lot of chatter in the comments about what font the Canucks were using for their numbers on the back. I believe someone chimed in and actually identified the font by name, but now I can’t find that comment. Anyone..?

  • Rich O. | August 31, 2007 at 10:28 am |

    my objection to the new NFL shield font is the F more so than the L.

    The bottom curve of the F doesn’t match the curve of the shield like the old F did.

  • Jim | August 31, 2007 at 10:30 am |

    [quote comment=”138914″]C’mon, how cool does this look?[/quote]

    Honestly, I have mixed feelings. No doubt in my mind the logo meld seen above on it’s own merits is definitely a more “comfortable” and familiar look.

    That said … Look at the old lettering, and JUST the old lettering (ignore the shield and other distractions). Do the curly letters REALLY scream football? Ballet, yeah. Ice Skating? Sure. But football? No way. I’ve always felt this way, but this may be the only time to mention it without being lynched by the Unimob.

    Am I alone on this?

  • trev | August 31, 2007 at 10:33 am |

    Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but has anyone posted a link to the LSU sailor cap logo? I was reading Paul’s comments on the new college jerseys and was reminded about that discussion.

  • TWood | August 31, 2007 at 10:43 am |

    Love the old font with the new logo. There is no need to change the font but I see only having the eight stars for each divison.

  • Terri | August 31, 2007 at 10:43 am |

    [quote comment=”138965″][quote comment=”138914″]C’mon, how cool does this look?[/quote]

    Honestly, I have mixed feelings. No doubt in my mind the logo meld seen above on it’s own merits is definitely a more “comfortable” and familiar look.

    That said … Look at the old lettering, and JUST the old lettering (ignore the shield and other distractions). Do the curly letters REALLY scream football? Ballet, yeah. Ice Skating? Sure. But football? No way. I’ve always felt this way, but this may be the only time to mention it without being lynched by the Unimob.

    Am I alone on this?[/quote]

    My thoughts exactly.

  • Philly Bill | August 31, 2007 at 10:44 am |

    The new NFL logo font, I believe, is meant to fit in with some larger branding initiative, meaning it’s not designed to fit into the shield or be aesthetically airtight on its own. The font and design just look familiar to me, like it refreshed my mental picture of something I saw on the NFL Network. (Yes, I actually have the NFL Network.)

    It’s days like today when I wish I was good with Photoshop — I’d design an updated MLB logo with the batting helmet shape “modernized” to include a crust of filth and pine tar, and a bunch of braids flowing out of the bottom of it.

    And the new NBA logo, instead of the silhouette of Jerry West dribbling, would be Dwyane Wade shooting an off-balance leaner while crashing to the floor to try to draw a foul. (Or perhaps the silhouette of a referee with a whistle in his mouth…)

  • Dan | August 31, 2007 at 10:47 am |

    [quote comment=”138970″]The new NFL logo font, I believe, is meant to fit in with some larger branding initiative, meaning it’s not designed to fit into the shield or be aesthetically airtight on its own. The font and design just look familiar to me, like it refreshed my mental picture of something I saw on the NFL Network. (Yes, I actually have the NFL Network.)

    It’s days like today when I wish I was good with Photoshop — I’d design an updated MLB logo with the batting helmet shape “modernized” to include a crust of filth and pine tar, and a bunch of braids flowing out of the bottom of it.

    And the new NBA logo, instead of the silhouette of Jerry West dribbling, would be Dwyane Wade shooting an off-balance leaner while crashing to the floor to try to draw a foul. (Or perhaps the silhouette of a referee with a whistle in his mouth…)[/quote]

    And a wad of cash in his back pocket!

  • DenverGregg | August 31, 2007 at 10:48 am |

    [quote comment=”138908″]Great update by the NFL.

    Sure, I’ll miss the old “L”… who won’t? . . . [/quote]
    I guess I’m the lone wacko who won’t miss the old “L”. The angularity of the new typeface seems more fitting for the gridiron than a semi-rounded style. The old “L” always bugged me, though I’ve always been partial to the old “F”.

  • Pat | August 31, 2007 at 10:48 am |

    [quote comment=”138965″][quote comment=”138914″]C’mon, how cool does this look?[/quote]

    Honestly, I have mixed feelings. No doubt in my mind the logo meld seen above on it’s own merits is definitely a more “comfortable” and familiar look.

    That said … Look at the old lettering, and JUST the old lettering (ignore the shield and other distractions). Do the curly letters REALLY scream football? Ballet, yeah. Ice Skating? Sure. But football? No way. I’ve always felt this way, but this may be the only time to mention it without being lynched by the Unimob.

    Am I alone on this?[/quote]

    That’s precisely the reason I loved the old logo. It was the last thing that wasn’t “toughened up” by the NFL. I loved the fact that they were able to use such a distinct representation of their league. Just because football is thought of as a rough and tough manly sport doesn’t mean the shield has to be dumbed down so that people will know that the NFL is a rough and tough league.

    It had an older more vintage feel to it. Now, it’s the same as everything else. It’s no different to me than any other logo that comes out these days. Instead of having character and individuality it has become the generic corporate marketing campaign of the 21st century.

  • CJ | August 31, 2007 at 10:49 am |

    [quote comment=”138962″]On Wednesday, there was a lot of chatter in the comments about what font the Canucks were using for their numbers on the back. I believe someone chimed in and actually identified the font by name, but now I can’t find that comment. Anyone..?[/quote]

    http://www.uniwatchb...

    Canadian Olympic 2006 font?

  • Broker75 | August 31, 2007 at 10:51 am |

    [quote comment=”138914″]C’mon, how cool does this look?[/quote]
    is there another source for the new NFL logo? cause I can’t seem to open the existing usatoday page, my work computer boots me out and I’m really interested in seeing this thing. Also espn has nothing on it.

  • Ryan | August 31, 2007 at 10:51 am |

    I was wondering if I was the only one who noticed that not only is the SD Rockets jersey odd with the number size, but also the shadow is up and to the right

  • Philly Bill | August 31, 2007 at 10:51 am |

    [quote comment=”138974″]That’s precisely the reason I loved the old logo. It was the last thing that wasn’t “toughened up” by the NFL. I loved the fact that they were able to use such a distinct representation of their league. Just because football is thought of as a rough and tough manly sport doesn’t mean the shield has to be dumbed down so that people will know that the NFL is a rough and tough league.

    It had an older more vintage feel to it. Now, it’s the same as everything else. It’s no different to me than any other logo that comes out these days. Instead of having character and individuality it has become the generic corporate marketing campaign of the 21st century.[/quote]

    That is very well put. Couldn’t have said it better.

  • Robert | August 31, 2007 at 10:52 am |

    [quote comment=”138970″]It’s days like today when I wish I was good with Photoshop — I’d design an updated MLB logo with the batting helmet shape “modernized” to include a crust of filth and pine tar, and a bunch of braids flowing out of the bottom of it.

    And the new NBA logo, instead of the silhouette of Jerry West dribbling, would be Dwyane Wade shooting an off-balance leaner while crashing to the floor to try to draw a foul. (Or perhaps the silhouette of a referee with a whistle in his mouth…)[/quote]

    That’s hilarious. Despite your lack of photoshop skills, you have painted the picture clearly.

  • CJ | August 31, 2007 at 10:52 am |

    [quote comment=”138975″][quote comment=”138962″]On Wednesday, there was a lot of chatter in the comments about what font the Canucks were using for their numbers on the back. I believe someone chimed in and actually identified the font by name, but now I can’t find that comment. Anyone..?[/quote]

    http://www.uniwatchb...

    Canadian Olympic 2006 font?[/quote]

    Nope, self, it’s Agency Bold. Not patient enough this morning with Firefox search.

    http://www.uniwatchb...

  • Anthony Verna | August 31, 2007 at 10:54 am |

    [quote comment=”138963″]my objection to the new NFL shield font is the F more so than the L.

    The bottom curve of the F doesn’t match the curve of the shield like the old F did.[/quote]

    Bingo. That’s what makes the new one inferior. The darker blue looks good. The fewer amount of stars that mean something means less clutter. The football has some extra meaning. The font? Ick. It just doesn’t fit in that space.

  • Kenny | August 31, 2007 at 10:56 am |

    While I don’t agree with change in the font, I must say the other improvements are just that. Some relevance in the stars instead of just ploppin’ 25 stars in there for no apparent reason. The new football is great. Having said all that, the new logo is not going to stop me from enjoying Sunday football.

    Plus the “L” is top notch

  • Phil | August 31, 2007 at 10:56 am |

    RE: the change in the font of the NFL Logo. Does the phrase “putting a square peg into a round hole” apply here? It just looks like the straight lines of the new font are crammed into the curved lines of the shield.

  • adr | August 31, 2007 at 10:59 am |

    New NFL logo: As mentioned above, what bothers me most is that the baseline of the letters don’t flow parallel with the border of the sheild, and the loss of the “curly-q’ is a loss of something unique. And although the new ‘NFL’ does say ‘football’ moreso than the old, the older one does say ‘heritage’ better.

    Insofar as the stars are concerned, not only are there fewer stars, but they are larger as well, making scalability for print and other applications easier.

  • Ian K | August 31, 2007 at 11:01 am |

    Re: yesterday’s comment about Francona and the blood thinning medication he takes. The comment says he wears the MLB pullover for warmth.

    Does anyone know what Francona did when he managed the Phillies from 1996-2000? I don’t remember the manager pullover being as popular then. Did he always wear a bullpen jacket maybe?

  • Pat | August 31, 2007 at 11:07 am |

    [quote comment=”138983″]RE: the change in the font of the NFL Logo. Does the phrase “putting a square peg into a round hole” apply here? It just looks like the straight lines of the new font are crammed into the curved lines of the shield.[/quote]

    Brilliant

  • Casey Hart | August 31, 2007 at 11:07 am |

    [quote comment=”138963″]my objection to the new NFL shield font is the F more so than the L.

    The bottom curve of the F doesn’t match the curve of the shield like the old F did.[/quote]

    This is the cardinal sin of the new logo. Best part about the old one was the F going into the point of the shield.

  • Perry | August 31, 2007 at 11:08 am |

    [quote comment=”138922″]With Seattle (and their BP jerseys) in town to play Blue Jays tonight, it got me wondering if Toronto has ever worn BP jerseys in a game before?

    They had the same BP jersey for a decade in the 80’s, but I don’t recall ever seeing it in a game.

    Was such a thing common/taboo in decades past?[/quote]

    What do you mean by “decades past”? There were no such things as “BP jerseys” until fairly recently. I don’t remember when the concept started. I’d have said the 90s, but you say you remember the Jays having them in the 80s. I didn’t think it was team-by-team, either, rather an MLB-wide thing. Anyone know the history of the special BP jersey?

  • Ben K | August 31, 2007 at 11:09 am |

    Ok, I’ll come out and say it. I like the new NFL shield. I “get it” just as much as the next person on this site, but lets be logical: we can all agree the needed a redesign, and the whole 31 stars was inaccurate to have. BUT, I understand people didn’t want the font to change. Well to be honest, that fat L tail was goofy looking, it hardly personified the league or anything, ergo I like the new logo more

  • Matt D. | August 31, 2007 at 11:10 am |

    [quote comment=”138937″][quote comment=”138926″][quote comment=”138915″][quote comment=”138906″]Wait. I thought of some.

    Old Bills. New Bills.

    Old Patriots. New Patriots.

    Old Warriors. New Warriors.[/quote]

    Old Rams, New Rams.[/quote]
    Good call. They’re probably the best example of what I’m getting at. They pretty much kept the same style, but just updated it from a regular blue to a darker, more stylish navy.[/quote]

    The Eagles jumped on this in the mid 90s, switching from kelly green to what they call midnight green. I don’t like that teams darken iconic colors to look a little meaner. Maybe that’s why these colors are so refreshing.[/quote]
    I keep having to fight the urge to yell out the line form Slap Shot where they take a sledgehammer to the bus – “Makin’ it look mean!!”

  • Nuk | August 31, 2007 at 11:12 am |

    [quote comment=”138962″]On Wednesday, there was a lot of chatter in the comments about what font the Canucks were using for their numbers on the back. I believe someone chimed in and actually identified the font by name, but now I can’t find that comment. Anyone..?[/quote]

    Well – I think I know what this is about (good service to work so quickly on my request!). The font is not the Canadian Olympic Team font (which looks like a thin Arial) – According to the Canucks message board – the font they used is “Agency

  • Matt D. | August 31, 2007 at 11:14 am |

    [quote comment=”138989″][quote comment=”138922″]With Seattle (and their BP jerseys) in town to play Blue Jays tonight, it got me wondering if Toronto has ever worn BP jerseys in a game before?

    They had the same BP jersey for a decade in the 80’s, but I don’t recall ever seeing it in a game.

    Was such a thing common/taboo in decades past?[/quote]

    What do you mean by “decades past”? There were no such things as “BP jerseys” until fairly recently. I don’t remember when the concept started. I’d have said the 90s, but you say you remember the Jays having them in the 80s. I didn’t think it was team-by-team, either, rather an MLB-wide thing. Anyone know the history of the special BP jersey?[/quote]
    I think they’ve only been in service since the late 70’s-early 80’s. Even then, they’re rarely, rarely seen in games. The Orioles wore a hideous orange jersey (no orange pants this time) in the ’79 World Series (the mort retina-burning series of all time, bar none), but I think that was just an alternate. The Mets had their Blue jersey as a road alternate in ’83 and ’84. My only clear memory of those was Mike Torrez destroying Dickie Thon’s face.

  • Perry | August 31, 2007 at 11:16 am |

    [quote comment=”138911″][quote comment=”138906″]Wait. I thought of some.

    Old Bills. New Bills.

    Old Patriots. New Patriots.

    Old Warriors. New Warriors.[/quote]
    No pictures, but I know the Mavs, Nets and Pacers to some degree have gone to a darker blue over the years. Lets not forget the Chargers, although thats been a while.[/quote]

    BYU ditched their royal blue for a much darker shade a few years ago. Of course, they remain despicable in any color, but they used to look much nicer.

  • Nuk | August 31, 2007 at 11:16 am |

    [quote comment=”138992″][quote comment=”138962″]On Wednesday, there was a lot of chatter in the comments about what font the Canucks were using for their numbers on the back. I believe someone chimed in and actually identified the font by name, but now I can’t find that comment. Anyone..?[/quote]

    Well – I think I know what this is about (good service to work so quickly on my request!). The font is not the Canadian Olympic Team font (which looks like a thin Arial) – According to the Canucks message board – the font they used is “Agency“[/quote]

    And I see CJ beat me too it. I salute you.

  • Casey Hart | August 31, 2007 at 11:20 am |

    In an unrelated story (and pardon me if this was mentioned yesterday), the biggest problem with the new style of Nike and Under Armour uniforms is that the futuristic piping and striping doesn’t match the traditional striping of the helmets. See Miami, Clemson, Maryland, South Carolina (new UAs) and now, sadly, my Tar Heels with their stupid new pants. If you don’t have the guts to change the helmet, don’t change the whole theme of the uniform.

  • Nuk | August 31, 2007 at 11:20 am |

    As a side note – all good women UniWatchers – and the men who support them – should rise up against this travesty

  • CJ | August 31, 2007 at 11:23 am |

    [quote comment=”138985″]Does anyone know what Francona did when he managed the Phillies from 1996-2000?[/quote]

    Other than run them into the ground?

  • Christopher | August 31, 2007 at 11:24 am |

    [quote comment=”138925″]NFL changing it’s logo. Bullshit.

    The new font is terrible. The old font was classic, very unique to the NFL. There was no other American professional league that had such a lavish font in their leagues logo. It seemed to make the logo flow. You didn’t look at it as a static logo because of that font.

    Now when I look at it it’s just going to be this static image. One that has a very generic looking, clunky font. Taking away the finishing “swirl” on the L is really ruining the balance of the space inside the shield. Now it looks heavy on the left side with this big white space on the right where the extra “oompf” on the L came in handy.

    The letters also just don’t seem big enough for the space they are sitting in. The serifs of the N and F used to flow nicely with the shape of the shield now they are just straight lines that really have no motion to them.

    I don’t have a huge problem with the update in the football with the stars section. It just seems like a way to modernize it, which in this case doesn’t make all that much difference. Although, I really liked the fact that they had so many stars in the previous one and I always found something great about the fact that they had that one star at the top, in the middle point. It always stood out to me for some reason. So it’s not a huge downgrade like the wordmark, but it’s not helping it at all.

    I always thought the NFL had the best logo of all the major sports (with the NBA a close second). I can’t think of one adjective to describe it’s classic feel. It had a lot of vintage charm. Now it seems like they are trying to toughen it up by taking away the fluidity.

    Not that many fans will notice but this is something that will always bug me.

    For me to get this upset about something football when the entire post was about basketball, which hardly ever gets time here but is by far my favorite, means the NFL must be screwing up.[/quote]

    Agreed 110% on the font. It was perfect. Just perfect.

    However, I do think the 8 stars and the new little football look much better. The old football which was slapped over a field of stars was awkward.

    But, man, that old NFL font treatment was georgous and timeless.

  • Christopher | August 31, 2007 at 11:26 am |

    [quote comment=”138985″]Re: yesterday’s comment about Francona and the blood thinning medication he takes. The comment says he wears the MLB pullover for warmth.

    Does anyone know what Francona did when he managed the Phillies from 1996-2000? I don’t remember the manager pullover being as popular then. Did he always wear a bullpen jacket maybe?[/quote]

    Yep, he wore the pull over:

    http://gallery.phill...

    http://boston.redsox...

  • Robert | August 31, 2007 at 11:27 am |

    [quote comment=”138970″]It’s days like today when I wish I was good with Photoshop — I’d design an updated MLB logo with the batting helmet shape “modernized” to include a crust of filth and pine tar, and a bunch of braids flowing out of the bottom of it.

    And the new NBA logo, instead of the silhouette of Jerry West dribbling, would be Dwyane Wade shooting an off-balance leaner while crashing to the floor to try to draw a foul. (Or perhaps the silhouette of a referee with a whistle in his mouth…)[/quote]

    That’s hilarious. Despite your lack of photoshop skills, you have painted the picture clearly.
    [quote comment=”138989″][quote comment=”138922″]With Seattle (and their BP jerseys) in town to play Blue Jays tonight, it got me wondering if Toronto has ever worn BP jerseys in a game before?

    They had the same BP jersey for a decade in the 80’s, but I don’t recall ever seeing it in a game.

    Was such a thing common/taboo in decades past?[/quote]

    What do you mean by “decades past”? There were no such things as “BP jerseys” until fairly recently. I don’t remember when the concept started. I’d have said the 90s, but you say you remember the Jays having them in the 80s. I didn’t think it was team-by-team, either, rather an MLB-wide thing. Anyone know the history of the special BP jersey?[/quote]

    I don’t know about the ’70s, but in the 1980s a lot of teams began wearing BP jerseys. I own one that was worn by John Franco when he was with the Reds. He was such a smaller guy in those days; the jersey is tiny.

  • Christopher | August 31, 2007 at 11:28 am |

    Ok, I just posted this photo of Francona when he was with the Phils… and I looked again and can’t identify the hat he and Schilling are wearing:

    http://boston.redsox...

    Anyone? BP hat? Something else?

    Its a Phillies hat with the P in blue and some stars next to it?

  • jesse | August 31, 2007 at 11:32 am |

    [quote comment=”138985″]Re: yesterday’s comment about Francona and the blood thinning medication he takes. The comment says he wears the MLB pullover for warmth.

    Does anyone know what Francona did when he managed the Phillies from 1996-2000? I don’t remember the manager pullover being as popular then. Did he always wear a bullpen jacket maybe?[/quote]

    Peter Gammons was on Mike and Mike this morning and the three of them lambasted whomever it was that went into the dugout to check on his jersey. They found it to be highly inappropriate.

  • Dan | August 31, 2007 at 11:32 am |

    [quote comment=”138997″]In an unrelated story (and pardon me if this was mentioned yesterday), the biggest problem with the new style of Nike and Under Armour uniforms is that the futuristic piping and striping doesn’t match the traditional striping of the helmets. See Miami, Clemson, Maryland, South Carolina (new UAs) and now, sadly, my Tar Heels with their stupid new pants. If you don’t have the guts to change the helmet, don’t change the whole theme of the uniform.[/quote]

    The Maryland unis that you show there are their old Nike duds. They have different unis now. There’s only so much you can do with a helmet (unless you run a big ugly frat-boy-tattoo spear down the middle of it).

  • Rich | August 31, 2007 at 11:34 am |

    [quote comment=”138971″][quote comment=”138970″]The new NFL logo font, I believe, is meant to fit in with some larger branding initiative, meaning it’s not designed to fit into the shield or be aesthetically airtight on its own. The font and design just look familiar to me, like it refreshed my mental picture of something I saw on the NFL Network. (Yes, I actually have the NFL Network.)

    It’s days like today when I wish I was good with Photoshop — I’d design an updated MLB logo with the batting helmet shape “modernized” to include a crust of filth and pine tar, and a bunch of braids flowing out of the bottom of it.

    And the new NBA logo, instead of the silhouette of Jerry West dribbling, would be Dwyane Wade shooting an off-balance leaner while crashing to the floor to try to draw a foul. (Or perhaps the silhouette of a referee with a whistle in his mouth…)[/quote]

    And a wad of cash in his back pocket![/quote]

    Something like this, perhaps? ^_^
    http://www.cagle.com...

  • Daniel | August 31, 2007 at 11:34 am |

    Does Joba Chamberlain remove the stitching from his hat? I was watching his ejection from yesterday and it looks very loose up there…

  • Broker75 | August 31, 2007 at 11:35 am |

    Regarding Vancouver’s new duds, I don’t mind them but check this out.

  • Daniel | August 31, 2007 at 11:42 am |
  • Patrick | August 31, 2007 at 11:45 am |

    [quote comment=”139009″]Regarding Vancouver’s new duds, I don’t mind them but check this out.[/quote]

    So keep the crappy logo, but revert back to the ugly colors that never made any sense to begin with? Um, no.

  • Giancarlo | August 31, 2007 at 11:46 am |

    [quote comment=”138989″]

    What do you mean by “decades past”? There were no such things as “BP jerseys” until fairly recently. I don’t remember when the concept started. I’d have said the 90s, but you say you remember the Jays having them in the 80s. I didn’t think it was team-by-team, either, rather an MLB-wide thing. Anyone know the history of the special BP jersey?[/quote]

    Actually it was team-by-team. They first appeared in 1979 worn by a couple of MLB teams, I forget which. This issue is dealt with in William F. Henderson’s CD-ROM.

  • Christopher | August 31, 2007 at 11:52 am |

    [quote comment=”139013″][quote comment=”138989″]

    What do you mean by “decades past”? There were no such things as “BP jerseys” until fairly recently. I don’t remember when the concept started. I’d have said the 90s, but you say you remember the Jays having them in the 80s. I didn’t think it was team-by-team, either, rather an MLB-wide thing. Anyone know the history of the special BP jersey?[/quote]

    Actually it was team-by-team. They first appeared in 1979 worn by a couple of MLB teams, I forget which. This issue is dealt with in William F. Henderson’s CD-ROM.[/quote]

    The White Sox had red ones in 1983 (or so). And I believe they had one in 1981 that accompanied their butterfly collar unis.

  • Dan | August 31, 2007 at 11:53 am |

    [quote comment=”139007″][quote comment=”138971″][quote comment=”138970″]The new NFL logo font, I believe, is meant to fit in with some larger branding initiative, meaning it’s not designed to fit into the shield or be aesthetically airtight on its own. The font and design just look familiar to me, like it refreshed my mental picture of something I saw on the NFL Network. (Yes, I actually have the NFL Network.)

    It’s days like today when I wish I was good with Photoshop — I’d design an updated MLB logo with the batting helmet shape “modernized” to include a crust of filth and pine tar, and a bunch of braids flowing out of the bottom of it.

    And the new NBA logo, instead of the silhouette of Jerry West dribbling, would be Dwyane Wade shooting an off-balance leaner while crashing to the floor to try to draw a foul. (Or perhaps the silhouette of a referee with a whistle in his mouth…)[/quote]

    And a wad of cash in his back pocket![/quote]

    Something like this, perhaps? ^_^
    http://www.cagle.com...

    Wow…I’d not seen that. How appropriate!

  • Christopher | August 31, 2007 at 11:53 am |

    [quote comment=”139014″][quote comment=”139013″][quote comment=”138989″]

    What do you mean by “decades past”? There were no such things as “BP jerseys” until fairly recently. I don’t remember when the concept started. I’d have said the 90s, but you say you remember the Jays having them in the 80s. I didn’t think it was team-by-team, either, rather an MLB-wide thing. Anyone know the history of the special BP jersey?[/quote]

    Actually it was team-by-team. They first appeared in 1979 worn by a couple of MLB teams, I forget which. This issue is dealt with in William F. Henderson’s CD-ROM.[/quote]

    The White Sox had red ones in 1983 (or so). And I believe they had one in 1981 that accompanied their butterfly collar unis.[/quote]

    Scratch that… the CD actually documents a White Sox BP jersey from 1972!

    I didn’t look at each team, but it apparently started at least 35 years ago.

  • Shadeymonk | August 31, 2007 at 12:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”138990″]Ok, I’ll come out and say it. I like the new NFL shield. I “get it” just as much as the next person on this site, but lets be logical: we can all agree the needed a redesign, and the whole 31 stars was inaccurate to have. BUT, I understand people didn’t want the font to change. Well to be honest, that fat L tail was goofy looking, it hardly personified the league or anything, ergo I like the new logo more[/quote]

    I agree with you. I generally agree with the popular consensus on this site, but a lot of times it seems people only want to see uniforms or logos that are classic or resemble classic. If it changes, how dare it change to look a bit modern. While the old font was very identifiable, the new logo keeps what was identifiable and pleasant about the old logo, while modernizing it a bit for the current times. In my opinion a solid upgrade.

  • My name is not Earl | August 31, 2007 at 12:17 pm |

    Saints wore all black again last night against Miami. But at least the Dolphins look like they’ve decided to keep the aqua pants out of circulation.

  • Kenny | August 31, 2007 at 12:17 pm |

    Here’s some funky double sockage by Rashied Davis

  • Adam | August 31, 2007 at 12:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”139021″]
    I agree with you. I generally agree with the popular consensus on this site, but a lot of times it seems people only want to see uniforms or logos that are classic or resemble classic. If it changes, how dare it change to look a bit modern. While the old font was very identifiable, the new logo keeps what was identifiable and pleasant about the old logo, while modernizing it a bit for the current times. In my opinion a solid upgrade.[/quote]

    I fully agree. People complain that the old one was “vintage” and “classic” and the new one isn’t. Well, the NFL doesn’t want to be “vintage” and “classic”, so of course they’re going to get rid of a logo that makes them look old-fashioned. Sometimes it seems like some people here never want anything to change, ever.

  • Jeff | August 31, 2007 at 12:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”139001″][quote comment=”138985″]Re: yesterday’s comment about Francona and the blood thinning medication he takes. The comment says he wears the MLB pullover for warmth.

    Does anyone know what Francona did when he managed the Phillies from 1996-2000? I don’t remember the manager pullover being as popular then. Did he always wear a bullpen jacket maybe?[/quote]

    Yep, he wore the pull over:

    http://gallery.phill...

    http://boston.redsox...

    That was also a knee surgery or two ago, and the blood condition may not have been as severe as it is now.

    Interesting to see that Schill’s mouth was in the same position then as it is now- always open!

  • Johnny O | August 31, 2007 at 12:24 pm |

    The Packers wore their home green jerseys yesterday in Tennessee. Did I miss the memo on something, or are the Titans one of those teams who wear white at home?

    pre-season away darks

  • Johnny O | August 31, 2007 at 12:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”139029″]The Packers wore their home green jerseys yesterday in Tennessee. Did I miss the memo on something, or are the Titans one of those teams who wear white at home?

    pre-season away darks[/quote]
    Well, I guess I answered my own question. I found a some pics of Titan home games, and they are indeed wearing dark unis. So what gave last night?

    Titans at home
    last night in TN

  • Stuby | August 31, 2007 at 12:40 pm |

    Another Diagonal number.

  • DP30 | August 31, 2007 at 12:44 pm |

    In response to Paul’s desire of compiling unis with diagonal numbers, I’d like to nominate the mid-1990’s St. Louis Blues, as well as the mid-90’s New York Islanders fisherman-style unis.

  • Dan | August 31, 2007 at 12:46 pm |

    [quote comment=”139025″][quote comment=”139021″]
    I agree with you. I generally agree with the popular consensus on this site, but a lot of times it seems people only want to see uniforms or logos that are classic or resemble classic. If it changes, how dare it change to look a bit modern. While the old font was very identifiable, the new logo keeps what was identifiable and pleasant about the old logo, while modernizing it a bit for the current times. In my opinion a solid upgrade.[/quote]

    I fully agree. People complain that the old one was “vintage” and “classic” and the new one isn’t. Well, the NFL doesn’t want to be “vintage” and “classic”, so of course they’re going to get rid of a logo that makes them look old-fashioned. Sometimes it seems like some people here never want anything to change, ever.[/quote]

    We’re all for crappy old things changing. But great “vintage” or “old” things…no. If it aint f*cking broke, leave it the h*ll alone!

  • Aaron Scholder | August 31, 2007 at 12:47 pm |

    Updated Toronto Maple Leafs jersey news:
    ***UPDATE (Aug. 31, 10:35 a.m. EDT): RECEIVED THIS NOTE TODAY FROM A LICENSED STORE OWNER WHO HAS SEEN THE NEW LEAFS JERSEY.

    “Exact same shirt as last year, minus, TML shoulder patches, bottom stripes are gone, (sleeves stripes remain). Silver twill is gone. Number font is the same as last year, block style, basically Marlies lettering — blue, white blue, and white blue white. Names remain one colour as per last year. Very, very plain.”

    http://www.hockeybuz...

  • Andy | August 31, 2007 at 12:50 pm |

    Paul – You should have polls on your blog every once in a while. Today’s could have been about the NFL logo.
    Maybe set it up so that you vote and have the option of explaining the reason for your vote.
    This way, we can easily see how many like it, how many dislike it, and why.

    On a related note, how come you don’t sell Uni Watch stickers?

  • Shadeymonk | August 31, 2007 at 12:58 pm |

    [quote comment=”139037″][quote comment=”139025″][quote comment=”139021″]
    I agree with you. I generally agree with the popular consensus on this site, but a lot of times it seems people only want to see uniforms or logos that are classic or resemble classic. If it changes, how dare it change to look a bit modern. While the old font was very identifiable, the new logo keeps what was identifiable and pleasant about the old logo, while modernizing it a bit for the current times. In my opinion a solid upgrade.[/quote]

    I fully agree. People complain that the old one was “vintage” and “classic” and the new one isn’t. Well, the NFL doesn’t want to be “vintage” and “classic”, so of course they’re going to get rid of a logo that makes them look old-fashioned. Sometimes it seems like some people here never want anything to change, ever.[/quote]

    We’re all for crappy old things changing. But great “vintage” or “old” things…no. If it aint f*cking broke, leave it the h*ll alone![/quote]

    So out of curiosity, what’s a “crappy old thing” that has changed for the better recently or needs to be changed for the better?

  • Edel. | August 31, 2007 at 12:58 pm |

    OK, a little help. I just bought an authentic Eagles jersey. It is white ( http://i.a.cnn.net/s...). My question is what color should I wear under it. I don’t support the use of black. I dislike the “midnight green” and it is hard to match (I want to say that the Eagles trademarked the color). If I wear white, the only option left, will it be too much white? Ahhh… The important problems one is faced with as summer turns to fall.

  • Eric S. | August 31, 2007 at 12:58 pm |

    The White Sox absolutely had a red batting practice jersey in the 80’s. Apparently they had a blue one too.

    The Cubs also had a batting practice jersey that looked very similar to the blue road uniforms they wore at that time, only the numbers were white instead of red.

    Batting practice jerseys are not a recent development. I think the concept of batting practice HATS is pretty new, though.

  • Jordan | August 31, 2007 at 1:00 pm |

    More on Terry Francona and the uniform police

  • Eric S. | August 31, 2007 at 1:01 pm |

    Found the red ones.

  • Andy | August 31, 2007 at 1:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”139043″]OK, a little help. I just bought an authentic Eagles jersey. It is white ( http://i.a.cnn.net/s...). My question is what color should I wear under it. I don’t support the use of black. I dislike the “midnight green” and it is hard to match (I want to say that the Eagles trademarked the color). If I wear white, the only option left, will it be too much white?

    Ahhh…

    The important problems one is faced with as summer turns to fall.[/quote]

    Gray.

  • Broker75 | August 31, 2007 at 1:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”139012″][quote comment=”139009″]Regarding Vancouver’s new duds, I don’t mind them but check this out.[/quote]

    So keep the crappy logo, but revert back to the ugly colors that never made any sense to begin with? Um, no.[/quote]
    hey buddy, it’s a mockup relax

  • Anthony Verna | August 31, 2007 at 1:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”139004″]Ok, I just posted this photo of Francona when he was with the Phils… and I looked again and can’t identify the hat he and Schilling are wearing:

    http://boston.redsox...

    Anyone? BP hat? Something else?

    Its a Phillies hat with the P in blue and some stars next to it?[/quote]

    Yes. The Phils dot their I’s with stars. So the two stars are the same as on the uniform. This is an older BP hat.

  • J-P | August 31, 2007 at 1:11 pm |

    What I find impressive about that Peoria Cat’s warm-up is that the player’s last name is written in Dodger script on the warm-up on the left chest. I can’t recall seeing that before.

  • Dan | August 31, 2007 at 1:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”139042″][quote comment=”139037″][quote comment=”139025″][quote comment=”139021″]
    I agree with you. I generally agree with the popular consensus on this site, but a lot of times it seems people only want to see uniforms or logos that are classic or resemble classic. If it changes, how dare it change to look a bit modern. While the old font was very identifiable, the new logo keeps what was identifiable and pleasant about the old logo, while modernizing it a bit for the current times. In my opinion a solid upgrade.[/quote]

    I fully agree. People complain that the old one was “vintage” and “classic” and the new one isn’t. Well, the NFL doesn’t want to be “vintage” and “classic”, so of course they’re going to get rid of a logo that makes them look old-fashioned. Sometimes it seems like some people here never want anything to change, ever.[/quote]

    We’re all for crappy old things changing. But great “vintage” or “old” things…no. If it aint f*cking broke, leave it the h*ll alone![/quote]

    So out of curiosity, what’s a “crappy old thing” that has changed for the better recently or needs to be changed for the better?[/quote]

    I think that The Broncos changed for the better (especially the helmet) which is a WILDLY unpopular concept round these parts.

    I think the Chargers update of their unis is great. They made the old-school happy by incorporating the white helmet and powder blue trim…but went with a very sharp, clean and modern look to the bolts. I like it.

    I didn’t hate the Bills newer duds…I just hated the dark on dark combo that they decided to go with…

    And I think the new Seahawks unis are VASTLY better than the Largent-era ones. Again…I just wish they’d wear the white pants with the dark jersey.

    I don’t think the Falcons improved, nor the Cardinals, with their updates…and the Vikings just missed the mark so badly, they should have their own category of suckage.

  • Chad G | August 31, 2007 at 1:15 pm |

    wow, they were talking about the new NFL logo on ESPN radio and all they mentioned was that the stars and the football changed. No mention of the botching of the font…also Linda Cohn said it took her a half hour to figure out anything was different. What an idiot.

  • Original Jim | August 31, 2007 at 1:21 pm |

    I was flipping through a few of the college football games last night, and found some inconsistencies with nameplates. LSU’s jerseys had some nameplates that extended into the truncated shoulder stripes, and Oregon State had some that didn’t line up with the sports-bra thingie on the back.

    I also noticed that there’s not much room between the shoulder stripes on LSU’s jerseys, and many names had to be switched to a compressed font (like Perilloux’s).

  • Jim | August 31, 2007 at 1:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”139042″][quote comment=”139037″][quote comment=”139025″][quote comment=”139021″]
    I agree with you. I generally agree with the popular consensus on this site, but a lot of times it seems people only want to see uniforms or logos that are classic or resemble classic. If it changes, how dare it change to look a bit modern. While the old font was very identifiable, the new logo keeps what was identifiable and pleasant about the old logo, while modernizing it a bit for the current times. In my opinion a solid upgrade.[/quote]

    I fully agree. People complain that the old one was “vintage” and “classic” and the new one isn’t. Well, the NFL doesn’t want to be “vintage” and “classic”, so of course they’re going to get rid of a logo that makes them look old-fashioned. Sometimes it seems like some people here never want anything to change, ever.[/quote]

    We’re all for crappy old things changing. But great “vintage” or “old” things…no. If it aint f*cking broke, leave it the h*ll alone![/quote]

    So out of curiosity, what’s a “crappy old thing” that has changed for the better recently or needs to be changed for the better?[/quote]

    My Cubs

  • mrachmiel | August 31, 2007 at 1:24 pm |

    Two unrelated comments:

    On last night’s game it appeared that Tulsa was using nameplates with rounded edges.

    This weeks’s Sports Illustrated has a Corona ad with a football helmet that has lemon wedge pride stickers. I thought it was a clever ad for the NFL preview issue, even though the league doesn’t permit pride stickers.

  • mrachmiel | August 31, 2007 at 1:25 pm |

    Sorry, the pride stickers were actually lime wedges, not lemon.

  • Jake | August 31, 2007 at 1:29 pm |

    I think there is a general consensus here that, regarding the new NFL logo:

    1. The darker blue is good
    2. The 8 stars are great
    3. The new football is great
    4. The new lettering is an egregious unecessary bow to recentism, and will ironically send the NFL brand backwards rather than forwards.

    Anyone have contact information for the NFL (PR dept, perhaps)? There is still time to stop this. Let them know that fans do *NOT* think it is tougher, but stupider.

  • interlockingtc | August 31, 2007 at 1:31 pm |

    [quote comment=”138974″][quote comment=”138965″][quote comment=”138914″]C’mon, how cool does this look?[/quote]

    Honestly, I have mixed feelings. No doubt in my mind the logo meld seen above on it’s own merits is definitely a more “comfortable” and familiar look.

    That said … Look at the old lettering, and JUST the old lettering (ignore the shield and other distractions). Do the curly letters REALLY scream football? Ballet, yeah. Ice Skating? Sure. But football? No way. I’ve always felt this way, but this may be the only time to mention it without being lynched by the Unimob.

    Am I alone on this?[/quote]

    That’s precisely the reason I loved the old logo. It was the last thing that wasn’t “toughened up” by the NFL. I loved the fact that they were able to use such a distinct representation of their league. Just because football is thought of as a rough and tough manly sport doesn’t mean the shield has to be dumbed down so that people will know that the NFL is a rough and tough league.

    It had an older more vintage feel to it. Now, it’s the same as everything else. It’s no different to me than any other logo that comes out these days. Instead of having character and individuality it has become the generic corporate marketing campaign of the 21st century.[/quote]

    Well said.

    It’s like being greeted by your beloved, wisened, old grandma on the porch and you are shocked to see that she has undergone cosmetic plastic surgery. It makes no sense. I mean, she has every right, but…who is she trying to impress?

  • PFGuay | August 31, 2007 at 1:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”138995″][quote comment=”138992″][quote comment=”138962″]On Wednesday, there was a lot of chatter in the comments about what font the Canucks were using for their numbers on the back. I believe someone chimed in and actually identified the font by name, but now I can’t find that comment. Anyone..?[/quote]

    Well – I think I know what this is about (good service to work so quickly on my request!). The font is not the Canadian Olympic Team font (which looks like a thin Arial) – According to the Canucks message board – the font they used is “Agency“[/quote]

    And I see CJ beat me too it. I salute you.[/quote]

    I’m searched for the font using this engine:
    http://www.myfonts.c...
    which is correct 99.9% of the time, and it didnt ring
    up anything close for the ‘Nucks font so I figured it
    was especially made for them.

  • Dan | August 31, 2007 at 1:43 pm |

    [quote comment=”139059″]I think there is a general consensus here that, regarding the new NFL logo:

    1. The darker blue is good
    2. The 8 stars are great
    3. The new football is great
    4. The new lettering is an egregious unecessary bow to recentism, and will ironically send the NFL brand backwards rather than forwards.

    Anyone have contact information for the NFL (PR dept, perhaps)? There is still time to stop this. Let them know that fans do *NOT* think it is tougher, but stupider.[/quote]

    National Football League, Inc.
    280 Park Ave.
    New York, NY 10017

    And I’m guessing address it ATTN: Public Relations or just straight to Commissioner Goodell

  • Patrick | August 31, 2007 at 1:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”139048″][quote comment=”139012″][quote comment=”139009″]Regarding Vancouver’s new duds, I don’t mind them but check this out.[/quote]

    So keep the crappy logo, but revert back to the ugly colors that never made any sense to begin with? Um, no.[/quote]
    hey buddy, it’s a mockup relax[/quote]

    Understood that it’s a mock up. I don’t think anyone was under the impression that the Canucks would be changing their design 2 days after unveiling. I was just pointing out that the mock up itself would be a bad, bad idea. Although the work itself is very nicely rendered.

  • Perry | August 31, 2007 at 1:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”139052″][quote comment=”139042″][quote comment=”139037″][quote comment=”139025″][quote comment=”139021″]
    I agree with you. I generally agree with the popular consensus on this site, but a lot of times it seems people only want to see uniforms or logos that are classic or resemble classic. If it changes, how dare it change to look a bit modern. While the old font was very identifiable, the new logo keeps what was identifiable and pleasant about the old logo, while modernizing it a bit for the current times. In my opinion a solid upgrade.[/quote]

    I fully agree. People complain that the old one was “vintage” and “classic” and the new one isn’t. Well, the NFL doesn’t want to be “vintage” and “classic”, so of course they’re going to get rid of a logo that makes them look old-fashioned. Sometimes it seems like some people here never want anything to change, ever.[/quote]

    We’re all for crappy old things changing. But great “vintage” or “old” things…no. If it aint f*cking broke, leave it the h*ll alone![/quote]

    So out of curiosity, what’s a “crappy old thing” that has changed for the better recently or needs to be changed for the better?[/quote]

    I think that The Broncos changed for the better (especially the helmet) which is a WILDLY unpopular concept round these parts.
    [/quote]

    I’m kind of the opposite — I’m not crazy about all aspects of the Nike template, but the IDEA of changing the jerseys from orange with blue trim to blue with orange trim was fine. But I liked the old helmets MUCH more than the new, especially the the “D” logo. Had they switched jerseys from orange to the present dark blue, made the helmets match, and kept the old logo, that would have been great.

  • Adam | August 31, 2007 at 1:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”139059″]I think there is a general consensus here that, regarding the new NFL logo:

    1. The darker blue is good
    2. The 8 stars are great
    3. The new football is great
    4. The new lettering is an egregious unecessary bow to recentism, and will ironically send the NFL brand backwards rather than forwards.

    Anyone have contact information for the NFL (PR dept, perhaps)? There is still time to stop this. Let them know that fans do *NOT* think it is tougher, but stupider.[/quote]

    I highly, highly, highly doubt that the NFL would care in the slightest that most people here (which is a very small sample size, and which in no way is representative of the general population) doesn’t like the new font. This is especially true because the REASON that you all like the old font so much is a large part of the reason they probably want to change it. No offense to anyone here, but the NFL doesn’t care if 30 and 40 and 50 year olds like the logo. I’m sure they’re going for young people, and as a semi-young 26 year old, I think the new font is much less old-fashioned looking, which is a positive thing.

  • Jason G. | August 31, 2007 at 1:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”139067″][quote comment=”139059″]I think there is a general consensus here that, regarding the new NFL logo:

    1. The darker blue is good
    2. The 8 stars are great
    3. The new football is great
    4. The new lettering is an egregious unecessary bow to recentism, and will ironically send the NFL brand backwards rather than forwards.

    Anyone have contact information for the NFL (PR dept, perhaps)? There is still time to stop this. Let them know that fans do *NOT* think it is tougher, but stupider.[/quote]

    I highly, highly, highly doubt that the NFL would care in the slightest that most people here (which is a very small sample size, and which in no way is representative of the general population) doesn’t like the new font. This is especially true because the REASON that you all like the old font so much is a large part of the reason they probably want to change it. No offense to anyone here, but the NFL doesn’t care if 30 and 40 and 50 year olds like the logo. I’m sure they’re going for young people, and as a semi-young 26 year old, I think the new font is much less old-fashioned looking, which is a positive thing.[/quote]

    Well as a fellow 26 year old, I strongly disagree with your sentiments about the logo.

  • Ian K | August 31, 2007 at 1:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”139004″]Ok, I just posted this photo of Francona when he was with the Phils… and I looked again and can’t identify the hat he and Schilling are wearing:

    http://boston.redsox...

    Anyone? BP hat? Something else?

    Its a Phillies hat with the P in blue and some stars next to it?[/quote]

    I’ve seen those hats before. They may have been a Sunday hat in the mid-90s. Variations of this design are still sold:
    http://www.lids.com/...

  • Adam | August 31, 2007 at 1:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”139069″]
    Well as a fellow 26 year old, I strongly disagree with your sentiments about the logo.[/quote]

    Do you disagree with the fact that it’s better, or with what I think the reasoning behind it is?

    Not that it’s any more scientific than this is, but the USA Today poll seems very in favor of the new logo, with like 8000 responses.

  • Josh | August 31, 2007 at 1:57 pm |

    The Suns had Diagonal Numbers on the front but not the back of the unis they wore from 1992-2000

  • Adam | August 31, 2007 at 1:59 pm |

    I’ve also got to wonder, if this board was around in 1970 would people have complained about removing the stripes, changing the sheild shape, and changing the letters? The current version looks a lot more modern than the 60’s version, so I’ve got to think yes.

  • Pat | August 31, 2007 at 2:01 pm |

    I just want to clear up my problem with the NFL logo update.

    My problem isn’t with the NFL’s intention with the redesign, which I fully understand. They are trying to bring themselves a more streamlined, modern design. That’s all fine and dandy. My problem with it is that it is VERY poorly designed. Well, what I should say is that the font choice or treatment of the individual letters is what bothers me, as a graphic designer.

    First of all, as has been pointed out, they don’t fit in the shield. Whoever said square peg in a round hole is the winner of best way to describe the lettering.

    Second of all, the letters are too static. The just seem to be, there. The old font used to invite you to read through the letters, the baseline moved in the same curving shape as the shield. The new letters seem to form a V shape on the bottom, not allowing the shape of the shield to affect the shape of the letters at all. Almost like they are completely separate from each other.

    Third, the play between the F and L in the old logo was close to brilliant. It kind of looked like they might lock together at the top with the treatment of the serifs.

    If they were to keep the same font but give the baseline a little more curve or at least match the angles of the diagonals a little more to the angles in the shield it might work a little better. As it is now, the baseline of the N and F kind of leads you out of the shield. The angle of the line doesn’t lead anywhere near the bottom point. it’s creating a larger gap between the blue line and the letters in different areas where the shield curves away from the letters. Same deal with the L.

    Again, I don’t have any problem with where the NFL is going with this. I loved the old logo and would rather see it stick around because it’s give the NFL something unique to hang it’s hat on. I do think the top of the shield with the new football and 8 stars is an upgrade, even though I thought different before (it grew on me the more I looked at it).

    I just wish they would get the “stupid” out of it before they unveil it for real. Fix the treatment of the letters.

  • John E | August 31, 2007 at 2:06 pm |

    I ain’t enough of an artiste to illustrate what the Nucks shoulda done with their new jerseys, except to offer this as a hint to what I’m thinkin’.

    LMAO

  • John E | August 31, 2007 at 2:06 pm |

    I’m not enough of an artiste to illustrate what the Nucks shoulda done with their new jerseys, except to offer this as a hint to what I’m thinkin’.

    LMAO

  • Stuby | August 31, 2007 at 2:07 pm |

    Anyone remember what the numbers on the backs of the Turn Ahead the Clock unis looked like? I remember some or all had the player’s name running vertically, but I can’t remember whether the numbers had a standard orientation or not. Unfortunately the link over there on the right only shows the jersey fronts.

  • John E | August 31, 2007 at 2:07 pm |

    I’m not enough of an artiste to illustrate what the Nucks shoulda done with their new jerseys, except to offer this as a hint to what I’m thinkin’.

    LMAO

  • Nael M. | August 31, 2007 at 2:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”138904″]Anyone have photos of the new Sharks uniforms?[/quote]

    Latest internet rumors say September 17th for San Jose unveiling their uniforms, making them the last team in the league to unveil their uniforms. The NHL 08 screenshot leak hints that they’re going to an old-school design (at least from the back, anyway).

  • Stuby | August 31, 2007 at 2:09 pm |

    Oh, and I found this jersey/sweater that mimics the St. Louis Blues diagonal-ish numbers.

  • Shadeymonk | August 31, 2007 at 2:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”139081″][quote comment=”138904″]Anyone have photos of the new Sharks uniforms?[/quote]

    Latest internet rumors say September 17th for San Jose unveiling their uniforms, making them the last team in the league to unveil their uniforms. The NHL 08 screenshot leak hints that they’re going to an old-school design (at least from the back, anyway).[/quote]

    Is there a date for the Avalanche to unveil there new unis?

  • Tom | August 31, 2007 at 2:23 pm |

    This whole NFL shield update is a bad idea. In the USA Today article the NFL is saying that the new shield will, “pop better” on TV. Of course it will, the new shield is a cartoon. It looks like something off a Saturday morning kids show. Everyone already knows the NFL shield there is no reason to try to update it. When I look at the NFL shield on my Bears jersey, I don’t just see a marketing logo. I get images of Butkus and Sayers, Bart Starr and Paul Hornung, Tom Landry and Roger Staubauch. It connects the current players to a long proud and glorious tradition. Message to Roger Goodell please in the name of Vince Lombardi do not go through with this.

  • Dan | August 31, 2007 at 2:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”139088″]This whole NFL shield update is a bad idea. In the USA Today article the NFL is saying that the new shield will, “pop better” on TV. Of course it will, the new shield is a cartoon. It looks like something off a Saturday morning kids show. Everyone already knows the NFL shield there is no reason to try to update it. When I look at the NFL shield on my Bears jersey, I don’t just see a marketing logo. I get images of Butkus and Sayers, Bart Starr and Paul Hornung, Tom Landry and Roger Staubauch. It connects the current players to a long proud and glorious tradition. Message to Roger Goodell please in the name of Vince Lombardi do not go through with this.[/quote]

    Damn. For a Bears fan to call upon the name of Lombardi…you KNOW they’re serious! lol.

  • Ron | August 31, 2007 at 2:26 pm |

    A good recap of all the new NHL jerseys that have been made public thus far.

  • Jason G. | August 31, 2007 at 2:38 pm |

    In response to post #136:

    I disagree that it is an improvement. I was trying to show that age doesn’t necessarily affect your opinion on something. Your comments about the motive are probably right and that’s a whole other discussion entirely.

    I’ve been sitting here thinking of my arguments, and I realize I could write a 3 three page paper on the subject. I order to keep it short, I’ll simply say that the old font is too unique and identifiable to change. That shield could be identified by the L alone. Something that identifiable should never be changed. It’d almost be like changing the G on the Packers helmet. The new font is completely generic and uninspired. The only thing that makes it any different than any other lettering is that they had to fit it into the shield (and it doesn’t even fit well). You can’t connect that L with anything let alone the NFL.

  • Adam | August 31, 2007 at 2:44 pm |

    [quote comment=”139088″]This whole NFL shield update is a bad idea. In the USA Today article the NFL is saying that the new shield will, “pop better” on TV. Of course it will, the new shield is a cartoon. It looks like something off a Saturday morning kids show. Everyone already knows the NFL shield there is no reason to try to update it. When I look at the NFL shield on my Bears jersey, I don’t just see a marketing logo. I get images of Butkus and Sayers, Bart Starr and Paul Hornung, Tom Landry and Roger Staubauch. It connects the current players to a long proud and glorious tradition. Message to Roger Goodell please in the name of Vince Lombardi do not go through with this.[/quote]

    The NFL changed to the current logo in either 1980 (according to the USA Today article) or 1970 (according to the sportslogos site). In either case, most of those people spent most of their careers under a DIFFERENT logo.

    People just hate change. In a decade, people will feel attached to the new logo and think the old one looks horribly outdated.

  • Jason G. | August 31, 2007 at 2:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”139097″][quote comment=”139088″]This whole NFL shield update is a bad idea. In the USA Today article the NFL is saying that the new shield will, “pop better” on TV. Of course it will, the new shield is a cartoon. It looks like something off a Saturday morning kids show. Everyone already knows the NFL shield there is no reason to try to update it. When I look at the NFL shield on my Bears jersey, I don’t just see a marketing logo. I get images of Butkus and Sayers, Bart Starr and Paul Hornung, Tom Landry and Roger Staubauch. It connects the current players to a long proud and glorious tradition. Message to Roger Goodell please in the name of Vince Lombardi do not go through with this.[/quote]

    The NFL changed to the current logo in either 1980 (according to the USA Today article) or 1970 (according to the sportslogos site). In either case, most of those people spent most of their careers under a DIFFERENT logo.

    People just hate change. In a decade, people will feel attached to the new logo and think the old one looks horribly outdated.[/quote]

    They only removed some stripes and thickened the font a little in 70 or 80 whichever it is. The font was still basically the same as it is now. So they have had essentially the same font for 48 years.

  • Adam | August 31, 2007 at 3:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”139100″]
    They only removed some stripes and thickened the font a little in 70 or 80 whichever it is. The font was still basically the same as it is now. So they have had essentially the same font for 48 years.[/quote]

    Are you really trying to say the difference between the 60s version and the current version is smaller than the difference between the current version and the 2008 version? I couldn’t disagree more. The stripes alone are, IMO, a much bigger and more noticable change than anything being changed this time.

  • Little Wolf | August 31, 2007 at 3:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”139084″][quote comment=”139081″][quote comment=”138904″]Anyone have photos of the new Sharks uniforms?[/quote]

    Latest internet rumors say September 17th for San Jose unveiling their uniforms, making them the last team in the league to unveil their uniforms. The NHL 08 screenshot leak hints that they’re going to an old-school design (at least from the back, anyway).[/quote]

    Is there a date for the Avalanche to unveil there new unis?[/quote]

    Paul had posted a link to The NHL Tournamet of Logos before, which has the dates for all but 4 teams right now (including a juicy leak of the Wild jerseys right now). The Avalanche haven’t announced a date yet.

  • zorro | August 31, 2007 at 3:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”139025″][quote comment=”139021″]
    I agree with you. I generally agree with the popular consensus on this site, but a lot of times it seems people only want to see uniforms or logos that are classic or resemble classic. If it changes, how dare it change to look a bit modern. While the old font was very identifiable, the new logo keeps what was identifiable and pleasant about the old logo, while modernizing it a bit for the current times. In my opinion a solid upgrade.[/quote]

    I fully agree. People complain that the old one was “vintage” and “classic” and the new one isn’t. Well, the NFL doesn’t want to be “vintage” and “classic”, so of course they’re going to get rid of a logo that makes them look old-fashioned. Sometimes it seems like some people here never want anything to change, ever.[/quote]

    I’ve been visiting this site everyday for nearly a year, and I have to agree with the sentiments expressed above. The consensus opinion here seems to be a knee jerk reaction to anything new or modern. Uniforms and logos seem to be judged based only on one criterion: how closely they match things from the early 20th century. Does it look exactly like things looked in the 1920s or 30s or 40s? Yes–then it’s amazing. No–then it’s hideous. That’s an awfully narrow-minded approach to design. Truth be told, there were just as many crappy designs back then as there are now. Just because it’s old doesn’t mean it’s good. And the ironic thing is that what people here consider “vintage” and “classy” their grandfathers considered “radical” and “innovative.” It’s all a matter of perspective.

  • Kenny | August 31, 2007 at 3:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”139090″]A good recap of all the new NHL jerseys that have been made public thus far.[/quote]

    And RBK forced an ugly looking league on us. (minus Boston and Detroit) UUUUUUUUUgley

  • Broker75 | August 31, 2007 at 3:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”139064″][quote comment=”139059″]I think there is a general consensus here that, regarding the new NFL logo:

    1. The darker blue is good
    2. The 8 stars are great
    3. The new football is great
    4. The new lettering is an egregious unecessary bow to recentism, and will ironically send the NFL brand backwards rather than forwards.

    Anyone have contact information for the NFL (PR dept, perhaps)? There is still time to stop this. Let them know that fans do *NOT* think it is tougher, but stupider.[/quote]

    National Football League, Inc.
    280 Park Ave.
    New York, NY 10017

    And I’m guessing address it ATTN: Public Relations or just straight to Commissioner Goodell[/quote]
    I think the Commish has bigger things on his plate.

  • Drew | August 31, 2007 at 3:22 pm |

    hey Paul
    Miami isn’t the first team to have the rear belt loop logo, as Texas Tech has had it since it switched to Under Armour

  • Broker75 | August 31, 2007 at 3:26 pm |

    I think this jersey looks official. Now that’s a wildleak.

  • Robert | August 31, 2007 at 3:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”139107″]Truth be told, there were just as many crappy designs back then as there are now. Just because it’s old doesn’t mean it’s good.[/quote]

    True enough. However, I like to think that the crappy designs from decades past were long ago discarded, while the quality logos have persisted due to their inherent greatness.

  • Kenny | August 31, 2007 at 3:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”139111″]I think this jersey looks official. Now that’s a wildleak.[/quote]

    If that is real…oh man…daddy like

    [quote comment=”139108″][quote comment=”139090″]A good recap of all the new NHL jerseys that have been made public thus far.[/quote]

    And RBK forced an ugly looking league on us. (minus Boston and Detroit) UUUUUUUUUgley[/quote]

    to qualify this statement i must say that looking at them all at once on that page makes them all look ugly

  • Pat | August 31, 2007 at 3:36 pm |

    I actually find this logo to be an improvement on both. If you tweaked it a little bit and sharpened it up: evened out the stars at the top, made the stripes thicker, more evenly spaced and a light shade of gray.

    I really like the red stitching on the football, maybe taking the new football/stars and adding the red stitching would improve on that aspect.

  • Daniel | August 31, 2007 at 3:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”139108″][quote comment=”139090″]A good recap of all the new NHL jerseys that have been made public thus far.[/quote]

    And RBK forced an ugly looking league on us. (minus Boston and Detroit) UUUUUUUUUgley[/quote]
    $250?!?! I got an authentic personalized CCM for $150. Ridiculous. At least we should know the Original 6 will remain the same. And I expect good things from my Blues

  • ross | August 31, 2007 at 3:43 pm |

    [quote comment=”139090″]A good recap of all the new NHL jerseys that have been made public thus far.[/quote]

    looking at all of the jerseys together, the islanders unis don’t look so bad. maybe because there are so many horrible ones or the chest numbers aren’t there, but it’s not as cluttered as the panthers or predators

  • M | August 31, 2007 at 3:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”139048″][quote comment=”139012″][quote comment=”139009″]Regarding Vancouver’s new duds, I don’t mind them but check this out.[/quote]

    So keep the crappy logo, but revert back to the ugly colors that never made any sense to begin with? Um, no.[/quote]
    hey buddy, it’s a mockup relax[/quote]
    The people on this blog are often WAY to sensitive. Relax? For expressing an opinion with a little emphasis?

  • Eric B | August 31, 2007 at 3:52 pm |

    Screenshot of the an NFL sidejudge having uniform issues from last night’s Chiefs/Rams game. What doesn’t show in the screenshot is the second number that was actually there but appeared to have a large patch of masking tape over the top of it. Pop Warner refs look better than this.

    http://i13.photobuck...

  • Anthony Verna | August 31, 2007 at 3:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”139111″]I think this jersey looks official. Now that’s a wildleak.[/quote]

    THAT is very nice.

  • Broker75 | August 31, 2007 at 3:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”139122″][quote comment=”139048″][quote comment=”139012″][quote comment=”139009″]Regarding Vancouver’s new duds, I don’t mind them but check this out.[/quote]

    So keep the crappy logo, but revert back to the ugly colors that never made any sense to begin with? Um, no.[/quote]
    hey buddy, it’s a mockup relax[/quote]
    The people on this blog are often WAY to sensitive. Relax? For expressing an opinion with a little emphasis?[/quote]
    yup

  • E Ro | August 31, 2007 at 4:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”139111″]I think this jersey looks official. Now that’s a wildleak.[/quote]

    if real, i like what i see, sad about the bottom stripe, which obviously disappeared due to the rbk cape draping off the back.

  • Ian | August 31, 2007 at 4:05 pm |

    http://en.wikipedia....

    Anyone want to help me expand on this article? There’s a lot that can be put in it like jersey unveilings, controversy and other stuff.

  • Stuby | August 31, 2007 at 4:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”139109″][quote comment=”139064″][quote comment=”139059″]I think there is a general consensus here that, regarding the new NFL logo:

    1. The darker blue is good
    2. The 8 stars are great
    3. The new football is great
    4. The new lettering is an egregious unecessary bow to recentism, and will ironically send the NFL brand backwards rather than forwards.

    Anyone have contact information for the NFL (PR dept, perhaps)? There is still time to stop this. Let them know that fans do *NOT* think it is tougher, but stupider.[/quote]

    National Football League, Inc.
    280 Park Ave.
    New York, NY 10017

    And I’m guessing address it ATTN: Public Relations or just straight to Commissioner Goodell[/quote]
    I think the Commish has bigger things on his plate.[/quote]
    You know, I’ve been thinking. As soon as Michael Vick, Tank Johnson and Pacman Jones got into hot water they all cut their dreadlocks/braids. That being said, how long before the commish imposes a leaguewide personal grooming policy?

  • Ian | August 31, 2007 at 4:08 pm |

    Oh, the link is too long. Its the Rbk Edge article on Wikipedia.

  • David I. | August 31, 2007 at 4:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”139118″]I actually find this logo to be an improvement on both. If you tweaked it a little bit and sharpened it up: evened out the stars at the top, made the stripes thicker, more evenly spaced and a light shade of gray.

    [/quote]

    Are you trying to say that the NFL is full of a bunch of law-breakers. Because that would be the implication with the stripes in the shield (They look like cell bars”)

  • ThresherK | August 31, 2007 at 4:13 pm |

    New Logo + Old Font. I’m not much for piling on, but sometimes I gotta chime in.

    The current logo also stands for NFL Films and their incredible pioneering slo-mo camerawork and The Voice of God. Not bad company at all.

  • Tod H. | August 31, 2007 at 4:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”139052″][quote comment=”139042″][quote comment=”139037″][quote comment=”139025″][quote comment=”139021″]
    I agree with you. I generally agree with the popular consensus on this site, but a lot of times it seems people only want to see uniforms or logos that are classic or resemble classic. If it changes, how dare it change to look a bit modern. While the old font was very identifiable, the new logo keeps what was identifiable and pleasant about the old logo, while modernizing it a bit for the current times. In my opinion a solid upgrade.[/quote]

    I fully agree. People complain that the old one was “vintage” and “classic” and the new one isn’t. Well, the NFL doesn’t want to be “vintage” and “classic”, so of course they’re going to get rid of a logo that makes them look old-fashioned. Sometimes it seems like some people here never want anything to change, ever.[/quote]

    We’re all for crappy old things changing. But great “vintage” or “old” things…no. If it aint f*cking broke, leave it the h*ll alone![/quote]

    So out of curiosity, what’s a “crappy old thing” that has changed for the better recently or needs to be changed for the better?[/quote]

    I think that The Broncos changed for the better (especially the helmet) which is a WILDLY unpopular concept round these parts.

    I think the Chargers update of their unis is great. They made the old-school happy by incorporating the white helmet and powder blue trim…but went with a very sharp, clean and modern look to the bolts. I like it.

    I didn’t hate the Bills newer duds…I just hated the dark on dark combo that they decided to go with…

    And I think the new Seahawks unis are VASTLY better than the Largent-era ones. Again…I just wish they’d wear the white pants with the dark jersey.

    I don’t think the Falcons improved, nor the Cardinals, with their updates…and the Vikings just missed the mark so badly, they should have their own category of suckage.[/quote]

    With your first 4 remarks, you lost ALL credibility. You can’t be serious about the Bills and Seahwaks looking better! Chargers and Broncos, I could see being open to debate, but still – a hands down regression.

  • David I. | August 31, 2007 at 4:17 pm |

    With the new NFL logo, I’ll take the bad with the good. I never did like the curly-L. However, maybe they should have found a more rounded font to match the curves of the shield. But, maybe it’s somehow cheaper to use the font they have now than the previous one. It’s always about the money, you know (which is why it was dropped to 8 stars as well.)

  • Pat | August 31, 2007 at 4:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”139140″][quote comment=”139118″]I actually find this logo to be an improvement on both. If you tweaked it a little bit and sharpened it up: evened out the stars at the top, made the stripes thicker, more evenly spaced and a light shade of gray.

    [/quote]

    Are you trying to say that the NFL is full of a bunch of law-breakers. Because that would be the implication with the stripes in the shield (They look like cell bars”)[/quote]

    Wow, reading a bit too far into things aren’t we? Or maybe that’s just the way our brains are supposed to work now that the only NFL players you ever hear about are the ones causing trouble and that damn Peyton Manning.

    Look at it this way, which is the first thing I thought of. All sorts of football traditionalists, cheesy sportscasters and even some fans refer to football as the gridiron. Therefore……………..

    That’s the first thing I thought of.

  • Broker | August 31, 2007 at 4:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”139134″][quote comment=”139109″][quote comment=”139064″][quote comment=”139059″]I think there is a general consensus here that, regarding the new NFL logo:

    1. The darker blue is good
    2. The 8 stars are great
    3. The new football is great
    4. The new lettering is an egregious unecessary bow to recentism, and will ironically send the NFL brand backwards rather than forwards.

    Anyone have contact information for the NFL (PR dept, perhaps)? There is still time to stop this. Let them know that fans do *NOT* think it is tougher, but stupider.[/quote]

    National Football League, Inc.
    280 Park Ave.
    New York, NY 10017

    And I’m guessing address it ATTN: Public Relations or just straight to Commissioner Goodell[/quote]I think the Commish has bigger things on his plate.[/quote]
    You know, I’ve been thinking. As soon as Michael Vick, Tank Johnson and Pacman Jones got into hot water they all cut their dreadlocks/braids. That being said, how long before the commish imposes a leaguewide personal grooming policy?[/quote]
    Good point. The Yankees have one..and the Red Sox should look into it too. Sorry Red Sox fans, no offense. But Manny can’t even fit his helmet on. And his ballcap keeps flying off, even when there is no pop fly in his direction..but I love his swing.

  • Pat | August 31, 2007 at 4:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”139143″]With the new NFL logo, I’ll take the bad with the good. I never did like the curly-L. However, maybe they should have found a more rounded font to match the curves of the shield. But, maybe it’s somehow cheaper to use the font they have now than the previous one. It’s always about the money, you know (which is why it was dropped to 8 stars as well.)[/quote]

    You gotta be kidding me. They chose crappy design over spending an extra $200 on a new/better font. Plus the fact that the font they had is easily changed to curve with the shield in any vector graphic application. Adobe Illustrator, the former Macromedia Fireworks.

  • Broker | August 31, 2007 at 4:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”139145″][quote comment=”139134″][quote comment=”139109″][quote comment=”139064″][quote comment=”139059″]I think there is a general consensus here that, regarding the new NFL logo:

    1. The darker blue is good
    2. The 8 stars are great
    3. The new football is great
    4. The new lettering is an egregious unecessary bow to recentism, and will ironically send the NFL brand backwards rather than forwards.

    Anyone have contact information for the NFL (PR dept, perhaps)? There is still time to stop this. Let them know that fans do *NOT* think it is tougher, but stupider.[/quote]

    National Football League, Inc.
    280 Park Ave.
    New York, NY 10017

    And I’m guessing address it ATTN: Public Relations or just straight to Commissioner Goodell[/quote]I think the Commish has bigger things on his plate.[/quote]
    You know, I’ve been thinking. As soon as Michael Vick, Tank Johnson and Pacman Jones got into hot water they all cut their dreadlocks/braids. That being said, how long before the commish imposes a leaguewide personal grooming policy?[/quote]
    Good point. The Yankees have one..and the Red Sox should look into it too. Sorry Red Sox fans, no offense. But Manny can’t even fit his helmet on. And his ballcap keeps flying off, even when there is no pop fly in his direction..but I love his swing.[/quote]
    no offense->I should clarify, by “offense” I meant I didn’t want to offend (ugh I hate this phrase-Red Sox Nation).

  • David I. | August 31, 2007 at 4:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”139144″]
    Wow, reading a bit too far into things aren’t we? Or maybe that’s just the way our brains are supposed to work now that the only NFL players you ever hear about are the ones causing trouble and that damn Peyton Manning.

    Look at it this way, which is the first thing I thought of. All sorts of football traditionalists, cheesy sportscasters and even some fans refer to football as the gridiron. Therefore……………..

    That’s the first thing I thought of.[/quote]

    But, you have to look at the general audience. What have they seen and heard about in regards to the NFL recently? Michael Vick, PacMan Jones, Chris Henry, Tank Johnson, Lance Briggs, etc. It doesn’t take the average fan much “reading into” to look at that particular logo and the first thing you think of is cell bars.

  • David I. | August 31, 2007 at 4:40 pm |

    [quote comment=”139147″][quote comment=”139143″]With the new NFL logo, I’ll take the bad with the good. I never did like the curly-L. However, maybe they should have found a more rounded font to match the curves of the shield. But, maybe it’s somehow cheaper to use the font they have now than the previous one. It’s always about the money, you know (which is why it was dropped to 8 stars as well.)[/quote]

    You gotta be kidding me. They chose crappy design over spending an extra $200 on a new/better font. Plus the fact that the font they had is easily changed to curve with the shield in any vector graphic application. Adobe Illustrator, the former Macromedia Fireworks.[/quote]

    I’m not obviously familiar with the graphics process of printing for apparel and things of that nature, but is it that easy to change the font on the items they print for apparel purposes? I work in insurance, not graphic printing.

  • Casey Hart | August 31, 2007 at 4:42 pm |

    [quote]The [quote comment=”139006″][quote comment=”138997″]In an unrelated story (and pardon me if this was mentioned yesterday), the biggest problem with the new style of Nike and Under Armour uniforms is that the futuristic piping and striping doesn’t match the traditional striping of the helmets. See Miami, Clemson, Maryland, South Carolina (new UAs) and now, sadly, my Tar Heels with their stupid new pants. If you don’t have the guts to change the helmet, don’t change the whole theme of the uniform.[/quote]

    The Maryland unis that you show there are their old Nike duds. They have different unis now. There’s only so much you can do with a helmet (unless you run a big ugly frat-boy-tattoo spear down the middle of it).[/quote]
    Maryland unis that you show there are their old Nike duds. They have different unis now. There’s only so much you can do with a helmet (unless you run a big ugly frat-boy-tattoo spear down the middle of it).[/quote]

    Point is not whether the unis are Nike or Under Armour (both are 00s-era space-age models with lots of piping and whatnot), but that the helmet striping does not match the theme of the uni. Would have been very easy to take the stripes off altogether. If the helmet is too iconic to change, then the basic concept of the unis should probably stay too (which, in most cases, is the way to go). Oh, and State is another example. If you’re gonna wear a clown suit, go ahead and put on the wig.

    P.S.
    I like use of the adjective “frat-boy-tattoo” in front of the word spear.

  • schuby | August 31, 2007 at 5:05 pm |

    This is totally random, but i think that Nebraska has the best way to put the captain’s C on their jerseys. The Nebraska patch on their jerseys usually just has an N and Huskers, but they inconspicuously place a captains C inside it instead. I like it because it doesn’t take up extra space on the jersey, and it just looks good. But of course you all already knew this!

  • Philly Bill | August 31, 2007 at 5:16 pm |

    One thing I just noticed about the new Rbk Edge jerseys — it’s easier to distinguish a replica from an authentic than it was before. Only the authentics have the “shirt tails” — in other words, they look worse than the replicas.

  • Brad Foster | August 31, 2007 at 5:29 pm |

    I don’t think it went through when I posted it last night, so I’m gonna post it again. Kent St. changed it’s football uniforms a little bit this year, thanks to the switch from Russell to New Balance:

    Last year’s: Russell version
    This year’s: New Balance version

  • E Ro | August 31, 2007 at 5:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”139170″]One thing I just noticed about the new Rbk Edge jerseys — it’s easier to distinguish a replica from an authentic than it was before. Only the authentics have the “shirt tails” — in other words, they look worse than the replicas.[/quote]

    not to mention the replicas have that terrible patch on the front, because the other 3 reebok logos arent enough.

  • Ben | August 31, 2007 at 6:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”138937″][quote comment=”138926″][quote comment=”138915″][quote comment=”138906″]Wait. I thought of some.

    Old Bills. New Bills.

    Old Patriots. New Patriots.

    Old Warriors. New Warriors.[/quote]

    Old Rams, New Rams.[/quote]
    Good call. They’re probably the best example of what I’m getting at. They pretty much kept the same style, but just updated it from a regular blue to a darker, more stylish navy.[/quote]

    The Eagles jumped on this in the mid 90s, switching from kelly green to what they call midnight green. I don’t like that teams darken iconic colors to look a little meaner. Maybe that’s why these colors are so refreshing.[/quote]
    I realized today why I like the new Vancouver uni so much. It reminds me of the classic 70’s and 80’s Seahawks unis. The green blue and silver was a great combination. The colors they have now don’t exist anywhere in nature. It looks like someone drank a bunch of blue raspberry koolaid and threw up a couple hours later.

  • Chris | August 31, 2007 at 6:38 pm |

    Little late but here is some interesting commentary on the ‘Nuckleheads new jerseys.

  • Chuck Ryals | August 31, 2007 at 6:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”139038″]Updated Toronto Maple Leafs jersey news:
    ***UPDATE (Aug. 31, 10:35 a.m. EDT): RECEIVED THIS NOTE TODAY FROM A LICENSED STORE OWNER WHO HAS SEEN THE NEW LEAFS JERSEY.

    “Exact same shirt as last year, minus, TML shoulder patches, bottom stripes are gone, (sleeves stripes remain). Silver twill is gone. Number font is the same as last year, block style, basically Marlies lettering — blue, white blue, and white blue white. Names remain one colour as per last year. Very, very plain.”

    http://www.hockeybuz...
    Leafs home site store states that there will be shoulder patchs on the new jerseys. I hope the patchs will be the old style leaf.

  • Dikembe Meiztombo | August 31, 2007 at 7:11 pm |

    Paul,
    For what its worth one of my good friends is in tight with the guy that runs Grey Flannel.

    And MS Auctions

  • JJD | August 31, 2007 at 7:15 pm |

    Get ready to gag on UW-Syracuse. You’ve got the Huskies in white shirts, gold helmets, purple pants. (Which I think is awesome but I know the feeling about purple on this site.)

    And you have Syracuse in HEAD-TO-TOE ORANGE. BLEECH.

  • Guy | August 31, 2007 at 7:22 pm |

    Phil Hughes continues to wear the 06 wool hats. On an August night in NY there is only one question-WHY?

  • mike | August 31, 2007 at 8:18 pm |

    uw – cuse is absoloultely HIDEOUS. A the orange is burning out my eyes right now

  • mike | August 31, 2007 at 8:20 pm |

    UW – Cuse game is HIDEOUS. The syracuse unis are burning my retinas, not to mention that their helmet logo is obnoxiously big.

  • Brandon from Tampa | August 31, 2007 at 8:44 pm |

    It had to have been a player who picked all Orange… if I were on the team I’d have led a revolt… also I’m not a fan of ‘Cuse but the Large S ont he helmet just ain’t getting it done… Their helmet should just have a plain orange helmet with the blue stripe… the numbers last couple of years were still better than this though.

  • Johnny Bacardi | August 31, 2007 at 8:46 pm |

    As someone who spent many an evening and afternoon in Louisville watching the Colonels as a teenager in the 70’s, it was sweet but also sad to go to that auction site and see Gene Rhodes’ championship ring up for sale…

    Regarding the font on the Colonels jersey, all I can say is that it was cutting edge in 1972…

  • Brandon from Tampa | August 31, 2007 at 8:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”139211″]Phil Hughes continues to wear the 06 wool hats. On an August night in NY there is only one question-WHY?[/quote]

    because the wool hats fit right… I made the mistake of buying a new perfomance 59/50 and guess what They freaking suck. they don’t shrink in the slightest…It will probably take me years to break it in as apposed to the tim it took to wet the wool and then wear it till it was dry…. I can tell I’m on the road to not being in the young crowd anymore…. what’s the deal with the straight hat bill and stuff? the 59/50 is supposed to fit your skull and have a curved bill and that is all.

  • Cavan | August 31, 2007 at 8:55 pm |

    Washington looks good. There is nothing wrong with purple in a uniform.

  • Daniel | August 31, 2007 at 9:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”139241″]Washington looks good. There is nothing wrong with purple in a uniform.[/quote]
    Blasphamy!

  • ja | August 31, 2007 at 9:41 pm |

    never noticed the NY on the back of the ‘cuse helmet before…anyone have the story there?

  • Mr. Met | August 31, 2007 at 9:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”139210″]Get ready to gag on UW-Syracuse. You’ve got the Huskies in white shirts, gold helmets, purple pants. (Which I think is awesome but I know the feeling about purple on this site.)

    And you have Syracuse in HEAD-TO-TOE ORANGE. BLEECH.[/quote]

    LOVE THE ORANGE!!!! LOVE IT!!!!

  • C.N. | August 31, 2007 at 9:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”139254″]never noticed the NY on the back of the ‘cuse helmet before…anyone have the story there?[/quote]

    It’s in the notes from yesterday, I think. If not, check the Uni Watch article from Page 2 on espn.com.

  • BS | August 31, 2007 at 10:24 pm |

    csn’t dee priperly becsuse of cuae oranhe on oranhe unigorms

  • JM Rempt | August 31, 2007 at 10:27 pm |

    The Syracuse jerseys are a hate crime perpetrated upon the eyeballs of decent people.

    Watching the Navy-Temple game reminded me how much I love Navy’s unis. Simple, clean and classic.

  • BS | August 31, 2007 at 10:33 pm |

    Ok, my eyes have recovered.
    The only team in college football that should be able to wear orange jerseys and helmets is the Florida Gators.
    Emmitt Smith

  • BS | August 31, 2007 at 10:42 pm |

    BRING BACK THE ORANGE JERSEYS AND PANTS (not at same time though)!

  • BS | August 31, 2007 at 10:48 pm |

    I’m a Gators fan, in case you haven’t figured that out yet.

    Championships
    B-Ball:
    2(06,07)
    Football:
    2(96,07)

    2006-2007: The Year of the Gators!

  • Lake | August 31, 2007 at 10:49 pm |

    I just now got home and turned on ESPN. I’m so ashamed to be from the ‘Cuse right now.

  • Aaron Scholder | August 31, 2007 at 11:08 pm |

    Philadelphia Flyers NEW JERSEYS HERE:
    http://img478.images...

  • Aaron Scholder | August 31, 2007 at 11:10 pm |
  • Stuby | August 31, 2007 at 11:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”139267″]csn’t dee priperly becsuse of cuae oranhe on oranhe unigorms[/quote]
    My thoughts exactly.

  • C.N. | August 31, 2007 at 11:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”139280″]I’m a Gators fan, in case you haven’t figured that out yet.

    Championships
    B-Ball:
    2(06,07)
    Football:
    2(96,07)

    2006-2007: The Year of the Gators![/quote]

    well, it’s over.

  • Patrick | August 31, 2007 at 11:51 pm |

    Syracuse looked like a bunch of construction workers out there tonight!

    /cue Great Pumpkin comments

  • zach | September 1, 2007 at 12:04 am |

    New sharks?

    Follow this link

    home
    http://farm2.static....

    away
    http://farm2.static....

  • Cavan | September 1, 2007 at 12:13 am |

    Everyone is complaining about the orange Syracuse wore. It seems you all dislike orange more than purple…

  • Brandon | September 1, 2007 at 12:26 am |

    [quote comment=”139304″]Everyone is complaining about the orange Syracuse wore. It seems you all dislike orange more than purple…[/quote]

    Not that I dislike Orange.. I actually like it but for the longest time they had a simplicity that matched PSU and Bama(at least in my book). Now it just seem like an abomination to say the least. Still Not as bad as Nike U though

  • Josh | September 1, 2007 at 12:39 am |

    Logo creep at it’s finest…the reebok logo has infiltrated Nike’s advertising.

    There is a new ad campaign created around zoom air – a kind of cushioning technology that Nike uses.
    Ladanian Tomlinson is one of the guys featured in these series of ads. There’s one in last week’s Sports Illustrated and I saw a TV version of the ad tonight and the reebok logo is clearly visable on all the NFL jerseys in the ad…it’s very odd.
    You’d think that Nike would have edited it out of the ads, but there it is.
    It kind of makes you wonder if it’s a reebok ad because you see their logo even before you see the swoosh anywhere in the ad.

    TV ad.

    I dont have a pic of the print ad but the reebok logos are clearly placed in those as well.

  • Tom H | September 1, 2007 at 1:46 am |

    I don’t know if its been stated, but you said that it seemed erroneous detail that they put a uni number on the tag. But it seems to make sense since Brooks Robinson’s uni number was #5. Maybe you meant it was erroneous for some other reason. But it makes sense to me.

  • Johnny Bacardi | September 1, 2007 at 7:12 am |

    [quote comment=”139273″]Ok, my eyes have recovered.
    The only team in college football that should be able to wear orange jerseys and helmets is the Florida Gators.
    Emmitt Smith[/quote]

    University of Tennessee fans might disagree…

  • Freehawk | September 1, 2007 at 7:26 am |

    “Actually, there’s no Ticker today, because I was on the road all day yesterday, didn’t get home until 2 a.m., and was too pooped to deal with the 100+ e-mails that had piled up.”
    Yoda says, excuses make you not.

  • Paul Lukas | September 1, 2007 at 7:36 am |

    [quote comment=”139330″]I don’t know if its been stated, but you said that it seemed erroneous detail that they put a uni number on the tag. But it seems to make sense since Brooks Robinson’s uni number was #5. Maybe you meant it was erroneous for some other reason. But it makes sense to me.[/quote]

    The point I was making is that the O’s never wore uni numbers on their sleeves. And since there was already a ‘5’ visible on the chest area, why put one on the sleeve, which is erroneous AND redundant?

  • Vince | September 1, 2007 at 7:42 am |

    [quote comment=”139226″]UW – Cuse game is HIDEOUS. The syracuse unis are burning my retinas, not to mention that their helmet logo is obnoxiously big.[/quote]

    My idea for SU is that they switch to kakhi colored pants to fully embrace the “creamsicle” look.

  • Stuby | September 1, 2007 at 9:16 am |

    [quote comment=”139408″][quote comment=”139273″]Ok, my eyes have recovered.
    The only team in college football that should be able to wear orange jerseys and helmets is the Florida Gators.
    Emmitt Smith[/quote]

    University of Tennessee fans might disagree…[/quote]
    Probably too late for anyone to read this but, um, Tennessee wears white helmets dude.

  • Gabe | September 1, 2007 at 10:30 am |

    I love this site and this is the first time I have posted. Reading all of the SU comments i felt i needed to comment. I am from Syracuse and I could not agree with you guys more about the Orange uniforms. Ever since we got our new athletic director from USC he has done his best to ruin our uniforms. The classic navy blue uniforms with the orange pants and helmet were just classic! He was slowly been trying to transform the Orangemen into the Trojans for the last few years. I wish he would leave so we could just go back to the old unis.

  • Mike Edgerly | September 1, 2007 at 10:48 am |

    Fox Soccer Channel is showing what is in my opinion the best uniform matchup I’ve seen in any sport in quite some time. Fulham is in their home kits, Tottenham is in their away kits. With the traditional collared shirts and the lack of distracting colors and stripes on the shirts, this game is a thing of beauty from a uni perspective. The sponsor logos are the only thing keeping this from perfection (although I kinda like the Chinese writing next to Spurs’ “Mansion” logo).

  • Johnny Bacardi | September 1, 2007 at 1:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”139442″][quote comment=”139408″][quote comment=”139273″]Ok, my eyes have recovered.
    The only team in college football that should be able to wear orange jerseys and helmets is the Florida Gators.
    Emmitt Smith[/quote]

    University of Tennessee fans might disagree…[/quote]
    Probably too late for anyone to read this but, um, Tennessee wears white helmets dude.[/quote]

    Nah, I read it…dude.

    I misread the intent of the statement I quoted- he meant solid orange helmets together with orange jerseys. My bad.

  • Jason G | September 4, 2007 at 5:44 am |

    I actually like the new NFL logo.

    I think it looks cleaner, and just a bit more modern, but not so much that I had to take a step back to say WTF.

    This is the kind of updating iconic logos SHOULD have.

    One example is the Chargers lightning bolt. (Yes, I dislike the unis, but the helmet bolt is much better)

    Another is the Miami Dolphin logo. The 70’s logo=bad, current=good.

    Seahawks, new logo is better.
    Vikings, new logo is better. (Even though the changes were very minor)

    All in all, it’ll end up just like everything else that gets changed. After a couple of months, people will in general forget the hubub and go along with life.

  • K | September 4, 2007 at 7:55 pm |

    Regarding the “weird ass font” used by the Colonels, I don’t know the specific name of the typeface (it may be custom), but it is in the Bauhaus style.