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

Just Don’t Start Putting Player Names There Too, OK?

bottom-2.jpg

Buried amidst yesterday’s avalanche of Cowboys/Redskins comments was a small mention of the Belleville Bulls, an OHL (Major Junior) team that’s instituted an unusual quirk this year: They’re wearing uni numbers on their shorts.

This design element (which is also featured on the Bulls’ home uniform) raises an interesting question: Are uni numbers on pants ever a good idea?

In order to assess this query, we first need to look at the history of this phenomenon. Okay, then, one sport at a time:

Baseball: The first MLB team to wear pants-borne uni numbers was the 1975 Astros. By 1980 they’d taken the number off the pant leg, but the concept was revived in 1982 by the White Sox, who kept wearing the digitized pants even after switching to a different uni design — seven seasons in all. I’d like to think we can agree that these all fail the “Is it good or is it stupid?” test. Special Uni Watch bonus points to Floyd Bannister, who somehow managed to wear every one of these uniforms during his career.

Football: I’m aware of three NFL teams that have worn uni numbers on their pants: the 1982-89 Cowboys, the 1982-86 Colts (only at home), and the 1984-87 Packers. Not quite as bogus as the MLB examples, but still pointless, needless, a solution to a non-problem.

Hockey: The Belleville design is the first instance I’ve ever seen of uni numbers on breezers. There’s a certain appealing novelty to the look (just as there was, I’m sure, when the Astros and Cowboys introduced pants numbers to their respective sports), but it still feels like over-design to me.

Basketball: Lots of NBA teams have worn uni numbers on their shorts over the years. The current trend, though, is to go numeral-free, as the Bucks, Suns, and Sonics have all abandoned their shorts numbers in recent years. For some reason these all seem less objectionable than the examples from other sports. There’s something about the number on the shorts that resonates with a “Property of Athletic Dept.” sort of feel, which I kinda dig. Wish more NBA teams would go this route.

Soccer: As most of you know by now, my scope of soccer knowledge is very, very limited. But one thing I do know is that many (most?) teams wear uni numers on their shorts. Seems harmless enough, although I think I’d prefer to see it on the side, not on the front. I trust all you soccer fans out there will post some comments filling us in on the history and protocol for this uni element.

As for other sports, like rugby, volleyball, and the like, I hereby yield the floor to those of you who are better versed in those arcane disciplines. But I think our basic point is made: Uni numbers on pants are fairly rare, and for the most part that’s a good thing.

texas.austin.jpg

Austin Update: Thanks to all the Austin-ites who responded to yesterday’s query about possibly holding a Uni Watch gathering on the 27th (i.e., a week from tonight). The response was pretty sizable, so let’s definitely plan on getting together that evening.

I insist that we meet at a barbecue joint, and I’m partial to the ones that are outside of town (yes, I’m familiar with the area). I’d prefer Kreuz’s or Smitty’s in Lockhart, but they both close early, so that’s no good. Let’s make it 7:30 p.m. at the Salt Lick in Driftwood. Cool?

hickox.jpg

ITEM! Membership News: For those of you who’ve been waiting for us to lift the ban on NCAA-themed membership card designs, your patience has been rewarded: As of right now, NCAA designs are kosher. Actually, we already did one of them months ago — the Yale rugby design shown at right (which I liked so much when it was presented to us that I forgot all about the NCAA ban).

A few things to remember: The more obscure the school and/or sport, the more important it is for you to provide a rear-view photo. A backup design option is always a good idea, too. And the ban on purple-inclusive designs still stands. Aside from that, it’s open season — fire when ready.

And remember, discounted gift memberships are available for the holiday season. Full info on that is here. And non-gift membership ordering info is here.

Uni Watch News Ticker: Steiner Sports is selling a game-worn Manny Delcarmen World Series cap, and it turns out he had lots of underbrim scribblings. … Remember Lawrence Tynes’s Umbro cleats? Joe Skiba reports that the NFL has instructed him to black out the logos. … Maybe the NFL should have a talk with Brandon Marshall, too, because the Reebok logo was missing from his sleeves last night. Wasn’t like that a few weeks ago. … Back to Joe Skiba: Remember how the “ny” logo on the Jints’ nose bumpers switched from red-outlined blue to blue-outlined red a few games ago? Skiba says he likes the latter design so much that he’s gonna stick with it. Jeez, why not just make the helmets solid red and be done with it. … Jere Smith notes that Rajon Rondo frequently wears his headband upside-down. … Cincinnati maven David Sonny (who recenty conducted an interview with the Bengals’ equipment manager — look for that to appear here soon) reports that new Reds skipper Dusty Baker has claimed his usual No. 12 from Edwin Encarnacion, who will now wear No. 28. … The Canadiens retired Larry Robinson’s number (which he never wore on his shorts) last night and trotted out all the usual trappings — the all-honoree warm-up, the chest patch, etc. Happily, Robinson wore a straight-hemmed CCM jersey for the occasion, instead of the shirttail-hemmed models being worn by the current Habs. … ¡Cuba si, capitalism double-si!: After losing in the final round of the Baseball World Cup, Cuban pitcher Pedro Lazo sold his jersey to a collector after a sotto voce negotiation in a darkened corner. … Before Lloyd Carr dressed like this, he dressed like this and this (nice find by Doug Mooney). … According to this message board post (sent my way by Andres Douzoglou), Arizona State uses tape stripes on belts as an award system, like helmet merit decals. I’ve never heard this before. Anyone know more about it?

 

223 comments to Just Don’t Start Putting Player Names There Too, OK?

  • Pete | November 20, 2007 at 8:51 am |

    Not to be a dick about it or anything but in Hockey they are not called shorts, the correct term is either buckets or shells

  • Jeff | November 20, 2007 at 8:55 am |

    Karate uses belt stripes and belt colors as an award system. Blue belt, black belt, blue belt with red stripes and so on

  • Thorold Blair | November 20, 2007 at 8:59 am |

    [quote comment=”173898″]Not to be a dick about it or anything but in Hockey they are not called shorts, the correct term is either buckets or shells[/quote]

    Actually.. the correct term is pants.

  • todd krevanchi | November 20, 2007 at 9:05 am |

    juan encarnacion play(s/ed) for st. louis.
    edwin was on the reds.

  • LI Phil | November 20, 2007 at 9:08 am |

    what’s the correct term for the hockey player’s top? sweater or jersey?

  • jsdryden | November 20, 2007 at 9:15 am |

    Paul,

    WOW! What a surprise to see my little post from yesterday as the lead topic today.

    I feel honoured, and proud to see the team I proudly support featured.

    Thanks,

    Jonathan

  • josh's twin | November 20, 2007 at 9:18 am |

    what’s the correct term for the hockey player’s top? sweater or jersey?

    Both were ok, and sweater made most sense when they were made out of wool. “Jersey” became more common when they switched to polyester, but many Canadians stuck with “sweater”, which was fine. As of this year, the only appropriate name is, “wetsuit”.

  • Tricia | November 20, 2007 at 9:19 am |

    [quote comment=”173904″][quote comment=”173898″]Not to be a dick about it or anything but in Hockey they are not called shorts, the correct term is either buckets or shells[/quote]

    Actually.. the correct term is pants.[/quote]

    Yeah. This is the only place I have ever heard them called ‘breezers’ and ‘shells’ is only correct if they have no padding in them. I don’t believe ‘shorts’ is correct in any context though.

    I assume Belleville has numbers for both home and away because most teams only have one pair of pants. The pictures linked are the same in both cases, so I can’t tell if the number design is different.

    Also, did anyone see Heatley sporting a new Easton helmet last night? How new are those? Looked a lot like a Mission one, but not quite.

  • jsdryden | November 20, 2007 at 9:19 am |

    Paul,

    Looks like the link to the dark sweater (the OHL switches the colour worn at home after New year’s) points to the light. Here is the dark sweater for reference.

  • Matt Lake | November 20, 2007 at 9:23 am |

    I know Syracuse football used to wear numbers on their pants as well, back in the late-80s through the 90s (before they screwed everything up). I also know that the team used to give their older pants to Nottingham High School, a Syracuse inner-city high school I played against.

  • Paul Lukas | November 20, 2007 at 9:23 am |

    [quote comment=”173906″]juan encarnacion play(s/ed) for st. louis.
    edwin was on the reds.[/quote]

    Fixed. Thanks.

    [quote comment=”173921″]Paul,

    Looks like the link to the dark sweater (the OHL switches the colour worn at home after New year’s) points to the light. Here is the dark sweater for reference.[/quote]

    Fixed. Thanks.

  • LI Phil | November 20, 2007 at 9:28 am |

    [quote comment=”173919″]what’s the correct term for the hockey player’s top? sweater or jersey?

    Both were ok, and sweater made most sense when they were made out of wool. “Jersey” became more common when they switched to polyester, but many Canadians stuck with “sweater”, which was fine. As of this year, the only appropriate name is, “wetsuit”.[/quote]

    thanks for the clarification…i was always semi-confused, although i also thought the terms were somewhat interchangeable…

    two of my canadian buddies (one from sudsbury & one from winnipeg) both refer to them as sweaters, but most yanks call them jerseys

    i like your ‘new’ term: “wetsuit” even better

  • Steve | November 20, 2007 at 9:30 am |

    [quote comment=”173904″][quote comment=”173898″]Not to be a dick about it or anything but in Hockey they are not called shorts, the correct term is either buckets or shells[/quote]

    Actually.. the correct term is pants.[/quote]

    Agreed. Always, always pants. Shells only if you are wearing the old Cooperall system – protective girdle and then the outer shell (long or short).

    Breezers, no. Buckets, no.

  • Lester Shen | November 20, 2007 at 9:31 am |

    Celtic FC used to have numbers on the back of their shorts rather than the back of their shirts. Here’s proof:

  • Lester Shen | November 20, 2007 at 9:32 am |

    Whoops, here’s the URL:

    http://www.jimmyjohn...

  • Pat | November 20, 2007 at 9:32 am |

    [quote]Jere Smith notes that Rajon Rondo frequently wears his headband upside-down.[/quote]

    If by “frequently” you mean “always” then you are correct sir.

  • dm00n | November 20, 2007 at 9:33 am |

    [quote comment=”173898″]Not to be a dick about it or anything but in Hockey they are not called shorts, the correct term is either buckets or shells[/quote]

    Can’t we just agree that when someone says breezers/shorts/pants/shells/whatever that we know what they are talking about?

    It seems like this discussion comes up from time to time, and even among people who play hockey nobody can really come to a consensus. Makes me wonder if it is a regional thing. Maybe someone could make one of those coke/pop/soda surveys that links to a map for hockey gear.

    Sometimes I don’t get all the pedantry when it comes to this stuff. Like insisting on calling soccer cleats boots or soccer uniforms kits. (Although nobody seems to insist on those things, when I read something like “those aren’t football cleats, they are soccer boots, you can tell because..” it just seems odd.)

    And since this seems to be a good time to ask, there was something in the ticker recently about some team having a new “strip.” What’s that?

  • Greg G | November 20, 2007 at 9:36 am |

    Not to be a dick about it or anything but in Hockey they are not called shorts, the correct term is either buckets or shells

    Actually.. the correct term is pants.

    Agreed. Always, always pants. Shells only if you are wearing the old Cooperall system – protective girdle and then the outer shell (long or short).

    Breezers, no. Buckets, no.

    They are known as hockey pants. I’m sick of coming on here and hearing them called something different week after week. By the way, did anyone notice the picture Manny Delcarmen’s hat where he pulled all the back plastic strings out of the inside front of his hat? This reduces the “poofy hat” look. This process have been mentioned in a previous blog, but it is a major practice by professional ball players, and that picture is a prime example.

  • Greg G | November 20, 2007 at 9:36 am |

    * I mean BLACK plastic strands, not back

  • Marty Met | November 20, 2007 at 9:39 am |

    [quote comment=”173907″]what’s the correct term for the hockey player’s top? sweater or jersey?[/quote]

    SWEATER.

  • Marty Met | November 20, 2007 at 9:43 am |

    The Canadiens organization should be embarassed. 18 years to retire Larry’s number. It should have been retired the second he took it off for the last time.

  • Jay | November 20, 2007 at 9:48 am |

    Did you note this on the Salt Lick’s page?

    The Salt Lick is located in a dry precinct. You may bring your own alcoholic beverage of choice.

    BYO Shiners!

  • dm00n | November 20, 2007 at 9:49 am |

    Seems weird to me to be in the process of retiring a number and have four guys wearing it.

  • u2horn | November 20, 2007 at 9:50 am |

    Nice bbq joint selections for Austin!

    By the way, Manny D. wears a 7 1/8? That might have fit me in 7th grade.

  • steve | November 20, 2007 at 9:51 am |

    Is there anyone with the ability to make screen captures from the NE-Buffalo game last weekend? I’m trying to get a shot from pre-game. If you can help, please e-mail me – nyclipper[at]hotmail.com

  • Marty Met | November 20, 2007 at 9:53 am |

    [quote comment=”173946″]Did you note this on the Salt Lick’s page?

    The Salt Lick is located in a dry precinct. You may bring your own alcoholic beverage of choice.

    BYO Shiners![/quote]

    and chicken is available in season. I didn’t know there was a chicken season.

  • Anthony Verna | November 20, 2007 at 9:55 am |

    [quote comment=”173954″][quote comment=”173946″]Did you note this on the Salt Lick’s page?

    The Salt Lick is located in a dry precinct. You may bring your own alcoholic beverage of choice.

    BYO Shiners![/quote]

    and chicken is available in season. I didn’t know there was a chicken season.[/quote]

    Duck season!

  • Harry | November 20, 2007 at 9:55 am |

    Putting numbers on shorts? Why would you want to do that! Are the players men or cattle?

    A bit of history: the England rugby team first wore numbers at a home game on 18 March 1922. 1922. King George V, a keen rugby supporter, saiud to the secretary of the Scottish Rugby Union, J Aikman Smith, “I see England have numbers. What a good idea. When are Scotland going to get numbers?” Aikman Smith was somewhat of a conservative and replied “Sire, my players are men, not cattle.”
    When numbers began to appear on rugby shirts (they were first used in 1897), players objected, considering numbers to smack of professionalism (which was a bad thing back then). Others objected because numbers made it easy for referees to identify miscreants.

  • Kevin F | November 20, 2007 at 9:55 am |

    As a soccer player, I think the best explanation for soccer players with numbers on their shorts is this: there needs to be a number on the front and back of every player’s jersey (so the referee can call fouls and stuff), and when a club team wears ads on the front of their shirt, it’s the most logical secondary place to put it. Of course, the picture that Paul linked to was of Brazil, a national team, who doesn’t really need two numbers on the front … go figure …

    I play small-school college soccer, and the NCAA is pretty strict on what goes on a uniform. I know that my first two years, my jersey (I’m a goalkeeper) had a number on front and back — this year, my new jersey had no number on the front, but we had shorts with numbers on them.

  • Anthony Verna | November 20, 2007 at 9:58 am |

    [quote comment=”173937″][quote comment=”173898″]Not to be a dick about it or anything but in Hockey they are not called shorts, the correct term is either buckets or shells[/quote]

    Can’t we just agree that when someone says breezers/shorts/pants/shells/whatever that we know what they are talking about?

    It seems like this discussion comes up from time to time, and even among people who play hockey nobody can really come to a consensus. Makes me wonder if it is a regional thing. Maybe someone could make one of those coke/pop/soda surveys that links to a map for hockey gear.

    Sometimes I don’t get all the pedantry when it comes to this stuff. Like insisting on calling soccer cleats boots or soccer uniforms kits. (Although nobody seems to insist on those things, when I read something like “those aren’t football cleats, they are soccer boots, you can tell because..” it just seems odd.)

    And since this seems to be a good time to ask, there was something in the ticker recently about some team having a new “strip.” What’s that?[/quote]

    And my English friends steam up at my when I call it a “cleat.” Ah well. I tell them that they can use the Queen’s verbage and I’ll understand as long as I use American words and they can understand it, also.

    (Though, a friend of mine was telling me about tea with jam and he was trying to tell me jam meant “jell-o.” I immediately started cracking up. He quickly corrected himself, as jam is jam in both countries!)

  • Moose | November 20, 2007 at 9:59 am |

    [quote comment=”173904″][quote comment=”173898″]Not to be a dick about it or anything but in Hockey they are not called shorts, the correct term is either buckets or shells[/quote]

    Actually.. the correct term is pants.[/quote]

    Actually…the correct term is breezers.

  • dm00n | November 20, 2007 at 10:00 am |

    Anyone know more about this?

    THE NSW Waratahs have run into a protest from rugby broadcasters Fox Sports over a radical move to wear player initials, rather than numbers, on the back of their Super 14 jerseys. Wallaby centre Lote Tuqiri eagerly modelled his “LT” jumper yesterday but the jersey identification for NSW halfback Brett Sheehan better sums up the broadcaster’s reaction. The Waratahs will unveil their new look — they will continue to wear numbers on their shorts — in Saturday’s trial…

    link.

  • Kyle Shannon | November 20, 2007 at 10:00 am |

    Just a bit to go along with the number on the soccer shorts. I played in college for a small D-1 school and there were numbers on everything that the school provided. Our bags had our numbers, training shirts had numbers, warm-up suits, and even socks. I think the biggest reason for this is that when they order clothes they order everything in XL and the only way to distinguish whose is whose is by player number. I know that in some of the top flite leagues in europe the managers will wear team clothing and they have their initials put on the clothes rather than a number. Thought this may provide some insight.

  • dm00n | November 20, 2007 at 10:01 am |

    (That Waratahs story is from 2006, but is an example of both numbered shorts and uni weirdness)

  • Paul Lukas | November 20, 2007 at 10:02 am |

    [quote comment=”173946″]Did you note this on the Salt Lick’s page?

    The Salt Lick is located in a dry precinct. You may bring your own alcoholic beverage of choice.

    BYO Shiners![/quote]

    Whoa, I’d forgotten all about that. But yeah, the last time I was there (four-ish yrs ago), lots of people brought their own COOLERS! Which actually made things feel extra-festive.

  • Moose | November 20, 2007 at 10:03 am |

    [quote comment=”173962″][quote comment=”173904″][quote comment=”173898″]Not to be a dick about it or anything but in Hockey they are not called shorts, the correct term is either buckets or shells[/quote]

    Actually.. the correct term is pants.[/quote]

    Actually…the correct term is breezers.[/quote]

    Actually…let me correct myself. I’ve played hockey since I was 8, played through high school, played DIII for a few years, and have played on various clubs since in Wisconsin. MOST people I know call them “breezers;” however, “pants” isn’t uncommon. Our equipment guys at UWSP always called them breezers, as did our European recruits and the Canadians on the team, however.

  • Mark in Shiga | November 20, 2007 at 10:05 am |

    Unrelated to today’s comments, but those of you who are interested in baseball jerseys with (1) vertical writing, (2) a cool calligraphic font, (3) embroidered borders for the lettering, (4) a nice sleeve patch, and (4) a funky collar, should check out this baseball jersey from Nara Women’s College Preparatory High School. More here:

    http://page18.auctio...

  • Shaeff | November 20, 2007 at 10:08 am |

    I actually like the names on pants – its different. When done right (Cowboys and Hockey team) – it looks pretty cool.When done wrong (Astros), it does look ridiculous.

    By the way, anyone notice the use of white space in the old White Sox logo?

  • Shaeff | November 20, 2007 at 10:08 am |

  • Shaeff | November 20, 2007 at 10:09 am |

    how do I get the link to work???

    http://www.sportslog...

  • Shaeff | November 20, 2007 at 10:11 am |

    never mind – i got it

  • Perry | November 20, 2007 at 10:12 am |

    [quote comment=”173937″][quote comment=”173898″]Not to be a dick about it or anything but in Hockey they are not called shorts, the correct term is either buckets or shells[/quote]

    Can’t we just agree that when someone says breezers/shorts/pants/shells/whatever that we know what they are talking about?

    It seems like this discussion comes up from time to time, and even among people who play hockey nobody can really come to a consensus. Makes me wonder if it is a regional thing. Maybe someone could make one of those coke/pop/soda surveys that links to a map for hockey gear.

    Sometimes I don’t get all the pedantry when it comes to this stuff. Like insisting on calling soccer cleats boots or soccer uniforms kits. (Although nobody seems to insist on those things, when I read something like “those aren’t football cleats, they are soccer boots, you can tell because..” it just seems odd.)

    And since this seems to be a good time to ask, there was something in the ticker recently about some team having a new “strip.” What’s that?[/quote]

    Strip = kit = uniform.

  • Mike Engle | November 20, 2007 at 10:13 am |

    Allow me to add another NBA team that used to have numbered shorts. (Don’t think they do anymore.)
    The New York Knicks.

  • Tim | November 20, 2007 at 10:23 am |

    I don’t mind the numbers on the hockey breezers. I actually kind of like it. It would look better without all those Reebok logos. I count seven on that one player.

  • Miguel | November 20, 2007 at 10:24 am |

    Sweet, I’ll see ya’ll at the Salt Lick. Make sure you bring beer and come hungry. Family-style dining is not for delicate eating.

  • Neil | November 20, 2007 at 10:26 am |

    Check out the 19 on the Larry Robinson banner. The number is not centered over the striping. However, the current players on the ice have the 19 centered over the stripes. I believe the banner is correct, at least back to the days Robinson played.

  • jsdryden | November 20, 2007 at 10:29 am |

    [quote comment=”173986″]I don’t mind the numbers on the hockey breezers. I actually kind of like it. It would look better without all those Reebok logos. I count seven on that one player.[/quote]

    I agree, when I first posted the pictures yesterday, I noticed the many logos too, but what can you do.

    When you are watching from the press box keeping stats (which I do for the OHL) you can’t see most of the Reebok logos, and having the numbers on the pants certainly helps at times when you can’t see the arm or back numbers.

    The numbers on the helmets help to, but of course being a Uniwatcher on top of a stat’s guy has me looking at these things from two different perspectives…

  • Tim | November 20, 2007 at 10:29 am |

    Being a WVU grad, I was interested in the helmet decal that WVU wore after the Marshall tragedy. Does anyone know if photo evidence exists of it? I haven’t been able to find any.

  • Pat | November 20, 2007 at 10:31 am |

    [quote comment=”173972″]I actually like the names on pants – its different. When done right (Cowboys and Hockey team) – it looks pretty cool.When done wrong (Astros), it does look ridiculous.

    By the way, anyone notice the use of white space in the old White Sox logo?

    [/quote]

    I’m not seeing any special use of white (negative) space. I’m just seeing some negative space below the player’s arm.

  • tim ahner | November 20, 2007 at 10:34 am |

    In soccer, the NCAA mandates that there be a minimum 4 inch number on the front of the uniform, and an 8 inch number on the back of the uniform. The team can choose to put the number on either the shorts or the front of the jersey. As far as the international rules, I believe that they are simmilar rules to the NCAA.

  • Anthony Verna | November 20, 2007 at 10:34 am |

    [quote comment=”173990″]Check out the 19 on the Larry Robinson banner. The number is not centered over the striping. However, the current players on the ice have the 19 centered over the stripes. I believe the banner is correct, at least back to the days Robinson played.[/quote]

    And that’s a nice touch. I love it.

    (You know what still ticks me off? If I go to Philly to see the 76ers play and I gaze up, the logo on Charles Barkley’s retirement banner has the current logo that he NEVER played under. Bugs me to no end.)

  • Randy Miller | November 20, 2007 at 10:34 am |

    When I was in grad school in Austin, we used to have an end-of-the-semester student bash at the Salt Lick. I wonder if they still have the hummingbird feeders in the trees.

    Logistically, the digitized pants would seem to be problem for professional baseball and football managers. Too many players and too many size changes, I would think.

    OTOH, numbers on workout sweatpants work fine.

  • seven | November 20, 2007 at 10:36 am |

    RE. Rajon Rondo’s head band. The Raptors’ TJ Ford seems to wear his headband inside-out as the NBA logo is never visible. Sorry no pics.

  • Kevin G. | November 20, 2007 at 10:36 am |

    Wasn’t there also a time in the mid-80’s that the Colts had gray in their color scheme? It looks like the pants in that one photo are gray. I also remember very vividly that their “UCLA-type” shoulder stripes on the white unis were blue-gray-blue instead of the standard blue-white-blue. Does anyone else remember this?

  • Kevin G. | November 20, 2007 at 10:43 am |

    Also, I seem to remember that at one point, the Colts of the mid-80’s did not have any holes in the horseshoe on their helemt.

  • Monte | November 20, 2007 at 10:43 am |

    Sorry if this has been mentioned before.
    I usually do not get to read all the comments- too busy at work -in case they are watching me :)

    But check out this guy’s name

    Over the last two years, Alabama State head coach Lewis Jackson likely has signed more players than probably any other college coach in the country. When Jackson’s Hornets hit the floor for an exhibition game tonight against Georgia Southwestern, he’ll have 20 players suited up and ready to go.

    He’s got four or five guards and more forwards than the average NBA squad. He’s got returning stars and incoming scorers. He’s got guys who can knock down the long-range shots, some who can slice their way to the basket in any situation and others who can find an open teammate anywhere on the floor.

    But all anyone wants to talk about is the one guy who can’t do any of that stuff — “Chief,” the Hornets’ 7-foot-1 transfer center.

    Or, if you prefer to use his given name, Grienntys Kickingstallionsims.

    “I’ve never seen anything like the attention this guy has been getting,” Jackson said. “Every day somebody asks me about Chief. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that he’s just so danged tall. People are excited over having a true big man in there. Plus, he’s so easy to spot that everybody sees him, so everybody thinks they know him.”

    But so few really do.

    While he might be the talk of the ASU campus, Kickingstallionsims isn’t much of a talker himself. Described by his coaches and teammates as a “quiet giant,” he sees himself as simply “laid back.”

    “I’m not big into the attention,” Kickingstallionsims said. “I don’t mind it at all. But I’ve never really sought it out. It’s just sort of come my way.”

    With his name and his size, extra attention isn’t exactly a new phenomenon for Chief. He dealt with it most of his life growing up in Florida and he learned early on the best ways to deflect some of it.

    “I just go by Chief most of the time because that helps people out,” he said. “They see the name and they think I’m messing with them or something. You can see the look on their faces when I tell them my name or they see it.”

    There’s not much that can be done to mask 7-foot-1, however. So, Kickingstallionsims has gradually learned to embrace his height and the attention from it.

    The only problem is that that increased attention often translates into increased expectations for Kickingstallionsims on the court.

    Here’s the link to the article but they don’t get into the origin of his name.

  • Monte | November 20, 2007 at 10:44 am |

    http://www.montgomer...

    there’s the missing link

  • The Ol Goaler | November 20, 2007 at 10:50 am |

    [quote comment=”173955″][quote comment=”173954″][quote comment=”173946″]Did you note this on the Salt Lick’s page?

    The Salt Lick is located in a dry precinct. You may bring your own alcoholic beverage of choice.

    BYO Shiners![/quote]

    and chicken is available in season. I didn’t know there was a chicken season.[/quote]

    Duck season![/quote]

    Rabbit Season! (obligatory Looney Tunes quote!)

    On this morning’s main topic, having numbers on the outside of a football player’s pants made a certain amount of sense, since they usually have each player’s number in Magic Marker on the inside, so each player gets “his” pants!

  • Shaeff | November 20, 2007 at 10:51 am |

    The white space under his arm is a baseball

  • Robert | November 20, 2007 at 10:52 am |

    Dusty Baker is taking one of his player’s number? That is so weak. It might be different if Baker had played for the Reds or was a Hall of Famer associated with a particular number, but neither of these exceptions applies.

  • Tao of Stieb | November 20, 2007 at 10:59 am |

    @ Tricia re: Heatley helmet

    Noticed the new brain bucket on Heatley on Saturday, and scoured around for any sort of info. It’s apparently not even going to hit the market for another six months, so Heatley’s the first out of the box to wear it.

    Also, Alfredsson went with a Mission helmet a few nights ago (a one off, apparently) before switching to a new version of the Bauer 5500. Finding it hard to get a good pic of it, although you can see it clearly on the cover of the Ottawa Sun.

  • Stuby | November 20, 2007 at 11:04 am |

    [quote comment=”174021″]Dusty Baker is taking one of his player’s number? That is so weak. It might be different if Baker had played for the Reds or was a Hall of Famer associated with a particular number, but neither of these exceptions applies.[/quote]
    My wife can’t watch games in which Dusty Baker manages because she’s afraid he’ll get that toothpick lodged in his throat. Very weak that he would steal a player’s number, unless that player willingly gave it up.

  • Kenny | November 20, 2007 at 11:05 am |

    Heard an interview yesterday here in Chicago with Rex Hudler talking about Orlando Cabrera. He was saying how he (OC) liked to skew away from the ordinary and that led to the untucking of the jersey after the game. Hudler also said how it related to the old days. Anyone else hear that interview yesterday on Mac, Jurko, & Harry??

  • Joe Drennan | November 20, 2007 at 11:05 am |

    [quote comment=”173898″]Not to be a dick about it or anything but in Hockey they are not called shorts, the correct term is either buckets or shells[/quote]
    Not to be a dick, but in all the years I’ve played/coached hockey, I’ve never heard breezers/pants refered to as buckets. I’ve heard a helmet refered to as a brain bucket though. I’ve heard some non-hockey folks refer to them as shorts though for obvious reasons.

    Other fun hockey terms.
    Twig – stick
    Nut cup – obvious
    Shinny – pick up pond hockey

    I’ll think of more.

  • Kenny | November 20, 2007 at 11:06 am |

    [quote comment=”173919″]what’s the correct term for the hockey player’s top? sweater or jersey?

    Both were ok, and sweater made most sense when they were made out of wool. “Jersey” became more common when they switched to polyester, but many Canadians stuck with “sweater”, which was fine. As of this year, the only appropriate name is, “wetsuit”.[/quote]

    These Starburst are juicy.

    Good thing we are wearing these wetsuits.

  • Kenny | November 20, 2007 at 11:11 am |

    [quote comment=”173955″][quote comment=”173954″][quote comment=”173946″]Did you note this on the Salt Lick’s page?

    The Salt Lick is located in a dry precinct. You may bring your own alcoholic beverage of choice.

    BYO Shiners![/quote]

    and chicken is available in season. I didn’t know there was a chicken season.[/quote]

    Duck season![/quote]

    Rabbit season!!

  • Kenny | November 20, 2007 at 11:12 am |

    [quote comment=”174039″][quote comment=”173955″][quote comment=”173954″][quote comment=”173946″]Did you note this on the Salt Lick’s page?

    The Salt Lick is located in a dry precinct. You may bring your own alcoholic beverage of choice.

    BYO Shiners![/quote]

    and chicken is available in season. I didn’t know there was a chicken season.[/quote]

    Duck season![/quote]

    Rabbit season!![/quote]

    Excuse me…Wabbit season!!

  • Lincoln | November 20, 2007 at 11:12 am |

    I haven’t seen a mention of this yet this year, but I have noticed it a lot recently: Has the NCAA put a ban on basketball players wearing headbands? I have watched many games this year including my Michigan State Spartans and I cannot recall seeing any players wearing headbands. Travis Walton, Marquise Gray, and Raymar Morgan were all headband wearers last year, but not this year. It is just not Michigan State either. I can’t recall anyone wearing headbands this year. Anyone know more?

  • Frank Mercogliano | November 20, 2007 at 11:14 am |

    Interesting change last week for the big rivalry game between the University of Idaho and Boise State. The Vandals, who normally have a helmet that looks like this, changed to this one for the game … not sure why they made the change though…I’ll try to find out.

    Frank

  • Phil | November 20, 2007 at 11:17 am |

    I personally would rather see them put the numbers on the pants than on the front of the jersey like the islanders.

    I think it adds a nice touch to the pants which at times seem bare. Obviously It would need to remain fairly neutral like Belleville did.

  • Harv Antle | November 20, 2007 at 11:21 am |

    The numbers on the pants never bothered me, in fact they were somewhat welcomed when there was no number on the front of the jersey. Helps for identification purposes for media types.

  • jim borwick | November 20, 2007 at 11:23 am |

    [quote comment=”173968″][quote comment=”173962″][quote comment=”173904″][quote comment=”173898″]Not to be a dick about it or anything but in Hockey they are not called shorts, the correct term is either buckets or shells[/quote]

    Actually.. the correct term is pants.[/quote]

    Actually…the correct term is breezers.[/quote]

    Actually…let me correct myself. I’ve played hockey since I was 8, played through high school, played DIII for a few years, and have played on various clubs since in Wisconsin. MOST people I know call them “breezers;” however, “pants” isn’t uncommon. Our equipment guys at UWSP always called them breezers, as did our European recruits and the Canadians on the team, however.[/quote]

    This from a website (based in Minnesota, naturally)
    Breezers: Hockey pants are know as breezers (based on our anecdotal research, they are only referred to as Breezers in Wisconsin and Minnesota) they are shorts that come down to the top of the knee and extend high over the waist. Breezers have padding in many places in order to cushion shots and falls. Because breezers are usually very wide in the legs, a fair amount of “breeze” will blow into them when a player skates – hence the name.
    I doubt the Canadians on your team used that term. This is the only place I’ve ever heard it and I’ve lived in Canada forever and have been playing for 35 years.
    Never, ever shorts though.

  • Brian Kallion | November 20, 2007 at 11:23 am |

    Hey Paul, was there ever any explanation from Reebok as to why they have the rounded hemlines on the new crap jerseys? Only reason I can think of is to discourage teams from having horizontal stripes at the bottom, yet a lot of teams have done it anyway.

  • Mike Engle | November 20, 2007 at 11:31 am |

    [quote comment=”174051″]Hey Paul, was there ever any explanation from Reebok as to why they have the rounded hemlines on the new crap jerseys? Only reason I can think of is to discourage teams from having horizontal stripes at the bottom, yet a lot of teams have done it anyway.[/quote]
    Well, we all know that the RBK jerseys were originally designed to be tucked in, but the players disapproved, so either the designers didn’t bother to change back to a straight hem or they decided that it would be a “cool” subtle ad for RBK (think Nike World horns–technically not swooshes but the design sure does scream Nike).

  • Steven | November 20, 2007 at 11:31 am |

    Clinton Portis has been wearing these hideous cleats all season, or at least in a majority of the games. They seemed “extra flashy” Sunday in Dallas. I looked through many pics only to come up empty… over 50% of the shoes were yellow accents.

  • Robert | November 20, 2007 at 11:35 am |

    [quote comment=”174031″][quote comment=”174021″]Dusty Baker is taking one of his player’s number? That is so weak. It might be different if Baker had played for the Reds or was a Hall of Famer associated with a particular number, but neither of these exceptions applies.[/quote]
    My wife can’t watch games in which Dusty Baker manages because she’s afraid he’ll get that toothpick lodged in his throat. Very weak that he would steal a player’s number, unless that player willingly gave it up.[/quote]

    It is a good thing that U.L. Washington has been retired for a long time, because your wife would have been even more tense watching him play shortstop with a toothpick in place.

  • John M | November 20, 2007 at 11:36 am |

    Wasn’t there also a time in the mid-80’s that the Colts had gray in their color scheme? It looks like the pants in that one photo are gray. I also remember very vividly that their “UCLA-type” shoulder stripes on the white unis were blue-gray-blue instead of the standard blue-white-blue. Does anyone else remember this?
    The Colts pants in the photo are gray, and the color scheme you describe was in use when the Colts moved to Indianapolis. I’m curious where the photo was taken. The game is outdoors, so it couldn’t be the Hoosier Dome, and it’s on artificial turf, and I don’t recall Baltimore Memorial Stadium ever having the fake stuff. It could be a road, game, of course. Back then it seems to me that there were fewer NFL teams wearing white at home (Washington and Dallas are the only ones I recall–it could be Dallas). Or, it could have been an exhibition game on a neutral field somewhere. Any thoughts?

  • Jerry | November 20, 2007 at 11:48 am |

    Before Lloyd Carr dressed like this, he dressed like this and this (nice find by Doug Mooney)

    Finally some Northern Michigan University references. Good to see the alma mater on the website.

    For those of you from Michigan. How ironic is it that Lloyd Carr and Tom Izzo went to the same school?

    BTW, Jerry Glanville, Dallas Drake, and Steve Mariucci also attended NMU.

  • James Craven | November 20, 2007 at 11:50 am |

    Duck season!

    Rabbit season!!

    Elmer season!!!

  • Mike Engle | November 20, 2007 at 11:51 am |

    Anybody have a close-up of the Larry Robinson patch?

  • Stuby | November 20, 2007 at 11:53 am |

    [quote comment=”174059″][quote comment=”174031″][quote comment=”174021″]Dusty Baker is taking one of his player’s number? That is so weak. It might be different if Baker had played for the Reds or was a Hall of Famer associated with a particular number, but neither of these exceptions applies.[/quote]
    My wife can’t watch games in which Dusty Baker manages because she’s afraid he’ll get that toothpick lodged in his throat. Very weak that he would steal a player’s number, unless that player willingly gave it up.[/quote]

    It is a good thing that U.L. Washington has been retired for a long time, because your wife would have been even more tense watching him play shortstop with a toothpick in place.[/quote]
    Ah, U.L. with the toothpick. One of those 70s-80s oddities like Joe Morgan’s chicken wing, Yaz’s extra large ear-hole, and Billy Martin’s hat crosses that made baseball great. I don’t recall U.L. actully flipping the toothpick around in his mouth like Dusty does. His was cemented in the corner of his mouth.

  • John M | November 20, 2007 at 12:01 pm |

    Upon further review, the Colts did play at Dallas in 1984. They played at various other outdoor, artificial turf stadiums in 1982-1985 (the player pictured, Mike Pagel, wasn’t with the team in 1986): NYJ, BUF, NE, CIN, PHI, PIT, KC, CHI. Other than Dallas, I don’t recall any of those teams wearing white at home in the mid 1980s. So, unless it was an exhibition game (or unless I’m mistaken about artificial turf in Baltimore), Dallas 1984 seems like the most likely.

  • Christopher | November 20, 2007 at 12:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”174021″]Dusty Baker is taking one of his player’s number? That is so weak. It might be different if Baker had played for the Reds or was a Hall of Famer associated with a particular number, but neither of these exceptions applies.[/quote]

    Yeah. I’m curious if Encarnacion will take it back after Dusty is shipped out in 2 years.

  • Ronnie Poore | November 20, 2007 at 12:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”174007″]Wasn’t there also a time in the mid-80’s that the Colts had gray in their color scheme? It looks like the pants in that one photo are gray. I also remember very vividly that their “UCLA-type” shoulder stripes on the white unis were blue-gray-blue instead of the standard blue-white-blue. Does anyone else remember this?[/quote]
    here’s what the 82-86 colts wore:
    http://s5.photobucke...
    in 87 they dropped the grey pants with horseshoe and went with the white with blue/grey/blue stripe pattern both home and away. in 88 they dropped grey entirely, returning to the traditional, best known colts unis.

  • todd krevanchi | November 20, 2007 at 12:20 pm |

    according to the football uniforms site, the colts indeed wore gray pants for a few years in the early to mid 80’s, however finding concrete photographic evidence has proven fruitless…

  • Jordan | November 20, 2007 at 12:21 pm |

    Following the rugby sub-topic topic, dap to my un-named Second Row brother whose membership card is featured on the front page today. To this day, in Rugby Union and League each position wears an assigned number (4 & 5 are worn by the locks, who form the second row of the scrum), so the Waratahs plan seems a little progressive for my taste. What other sports follow this system of specific uniform numbers? At the moment, only Polo comes to mind.

  • Josh Petty | November 20, 2007 at 12:23 pm |

    The following is a link to the pdf file of the 2007-08 Barclays Premier League handbook.

    http://www.premierle...,,12306~93486,00.pdf

    Starting on page 125 of 509, there are 4 pages about player uniforms. Hope that helps Paul!

  • jsbean | November 20, 2007 at 12:33 pm |

    Celtic FC used to have numbers on the back of their shorts rather than the back of their shirts. Here’s proof:

    This was just after it was made mandatory to have numbers on the back of players/ Celtic were too proud of their hoops to deface them, so put the numbers on their shorts.

    Other numbers on shirts are Athletics name numbers.

  • jsbean | November 20, 2007 at 12:34 pm |

    sorry, shorts (damned I and O being too close together)

  • Philly Bill | November 20, 2007 at 12:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”174078″][quote comment=”174021″]Dusty Baker is taking one of his player’s number? That is so weak. It might be different if Baker had played for the Reds or was a Hall of Famer associated with a particular number, but neither of these exceptions applies.[/quote]

    Yeah. I’m curious if Encarnacion will take it back after Dusty is shipped out in 2 years.[/quote]

    Well, Dusty was a pretty fine player in his day, but my image searching isn’t turning up any evidence whether he always wore #12.

    In a somewhat related story regarding Dusty’s hiring, Austin area native Homer Bailey’s right arm just detached itself and hid under the sofa.

  • Bernard Shakey | November 20, 2007 at 12:43 pm |

    Not to be a dick…if the Colts only had their numbers on their pants at home (as indicated), and the picture linked shows the numbers on the pants, then something doesn’t match up. The linked photo is definitely an outdoor game being played on artificial turf. The shade of the turf looks similar to the carpet at Bush II in the mid 80s. Any experts?

  • Kenny | November 20, 2007 at 12:53 pm |

    So remember the Chaminade University logo contest where the winner was going to be announced at the Maui Invitational? It looks like they already put the new logo up on their website…LINK

  • Joe Drennan | November 20, 2007 at 12:53 pm |

    Good news for those who dislike the Blackhawks black alternate jersey which one would assume would return next season when alternates are allowed again. Cups president John McDounough (the guy who put the kibosh on the Cubs blue alternate) is to be named Blackhawks president at a noon CT news conference today.

    This might be a ditch the black (although it made sense in this case and I own a black Blackhawks jersey) victory.

  • Jim | November 20, 2007 at 12:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”174070″]Anybody have a close-up of the Larry Robinson patch?[/quote]

    Sorry – can’t find one, but if you want to see one up close, you can place an order here!…

    http://canadiens.nhl...

  • Zach Smith | November 20, 2007 at 1:00 pm |

    Really Really wish I could be in the Austin area next week, as the Salt Lick just might be one of my favorite places ever. Oh well…whatcha gonna do.

  • Philly Bill | November 20, 2007 at 1:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”174104″][quote comment=”174070″]Anybody have a close-up of the Larry Robinson patch?[/quote]

    Sorry – can’t find one, but if you want to see one up close, you can place an order here!…

    http://canadiens.nhl...

    It’s surely a clone of the previous two for Savard and Dryden… en Francais seulement!

    [quote comment=”174113″]Really Really wish I could be in the Austin area next week, as the Salt Lick just might be one of my favorite places ever. Oh well…whatcha gonna do.[/quote]

    I’d drive the four hours down there if it was on a weekend. Learn from my mistakes: if you love barbecue, don’t shack up with a vegetarian.

  • todd krevanchi | November 20, 2007 at 1:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”174092″][quote comment=”174078″][quote comment=”174021″]Dusty Baker is taking one of his player’s number? That is so weak. It might be different if Baker had played for the Reds or was a Hall of Famer associated with a particular number, but neither of these exceptions applies.[/quote]

    Yeah. I’m curious if Encarnacion will take it back after Dusty is shipped out in 2 years.[/quote]

    Well, Dusty was a pretty fine player in his day, but my image searching isn’t turning up any evidence whether he always wore #12.[/quote]

    hows this!
    http://www.baseball-...

  • Philly Bill | November 20, 2007 at 1:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”174116″][quote comment=”174092″][quote comment=”174078″][quote comment=”174021″]Dusty Baker is taking one of his player’s number? That is so weak. It might be different if Baker had played for the Reds or was a Hall of Famer associated with a particular number, but neither of these exceptions applies.[/quote]

    Yeah. I’m curious if Encarnacion will take it back after Dusty is shipped out in 2 years.[/quote]

    Well, Dusty was a pretty fine player in his day, but my image searching isn’t turning up any evidence whether he always wore #12.[/quote]

    hows this!
    http://www.baseball-...

    Wow, he’s never worn any other numnber!

    His superstition in wearing the number 12 is a good indicator of his managing tactics, ie, wholly illogical. Hey, when does Neifi Perez’s steroid suspension end?

  • subway | November 20, 2007 at 1:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”174075″]Upon further review, the Colts did play at Dallas in 1984. They played at various other outdoor, artificial turf stadiums in 1982-1985 (the player pictured, Mike Pagel, wasn’t with the team in 1986): NYJ, BUF, NE, CIN, PHI, PIT, KC, CHI. Other than Dallas, I don’t recall any of those teams wearing white at home in the mid 1980s. So, unless it was an exhibition game (or unless I’m mistaken about artificial turf in Baltimore), Dallas 1984 seems like the most likely.[/quote]

    The Jets did wear white jerseys at “home” from 1985-1989 or 90. Maybe it was because they had just moved to GIANTS Stadium and they did’nt feel like they had a home. (Still don’t btw)
    Other teams like Cincy, NE and Buffalo would wear the white jerseys for the first month or so back then before going to darks.

  • Stuby | November 20, 2007 at 1:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”174092″][quote comment=”174078″][quote comment=”174021″]Dusty Baker is taking one of his player’s number? That is so weak. It might be different if Baker had played for the Reds or was a Hall of Famer associated with a particular number, but neither of these exceptions applies.[/quote]

    Yeah. I’m curious if Encarnacion will take it back after Dusty is shipped out in 2 years.[/quote]

    Well, Dusty was a pretty fine player in his day, but my image searching isn’t turning up any evidence whether he always wore #12.

    In a somewhat related story regarding Dusty’s hiring, Austin area native Homer Bailey’s right arm just detached itself and hid under the sofa.[/quote]
    Dusty has always worn #12, including his previous 2 stints as a manager. He says it is to honor Tommy Davis, his favorite player growing up.

  • Robert | November 20, 2007 at 1:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”174092″][quote comment=”174078″][quote comment=”174021″]Dusty Baker is taking one of his player’s number? That is so weak. It might be different if Baker had played for the Reds or was a Hall of Famer associated with a particular number, but neither of these exceptions applies.[/quote]

    Yeah. I’m curious if Encarnacion will take it back after Dusty is shipped out in 2 years.[/quote]

    Well, Dusty was a pretty fine player in his day, but my image searching isn’t turning up any evidence whether he always wore #12.

    In a somewhat related story regarding Dusty’s hiring, Austin area native Homer Bailey’s right arm just detached itself and hid under the sofa.[/quote]

    Philly Bill gets a gold star each for the great line and for finding that photo of Dusty Baker in that awesome Braves uniform.

  • patrick | November 20, 2007 at 1:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”173964″]Just a bit to go along with the number on the soccer shorts. I played in college for a small D-1 school and there were numbers on everything that the school provided. Our bags had our numbers, training shirts had numbers, warm-up suits, and even socks. I think the biggest reason for this is that when they order clothes they order everything in XL and the only way to distinguish whose is whose is by player number. I know that in some of the top flite leagues in europe the managers will wear team clothing and they have their initials put on the clothes rather than a number. Thought this may provide some insight.[/quote]

    Steve Nicol had a HUGE SN on his jacket at MLS cup

  • Kevin G. | November 20, 2007 at 1:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”174119″][quote comment=”174075″]Upon further review, the Colts did play at Dallas in 1984. They played at various other outdoor, artificial turf stadiums in 1982-1985 (the player pictured, Mike Pagel, wasn’t with the team in 1986): NYJ, BUF, NE, CIN, PHI, PIT, KC, CHI. Other than Dallas, I don’t recall any of those teams wearing white at home in the mid 1980s. So, unless it was an exhibition game (or unless I’m mistaken about artificial turf in Baltimore), Dallas 1984 seems like the most likely.[/quote]

    The Jets did wear white jerseys at “home” from 1985-1989 or 90. Maybe it was because they had just moved to GIANTS Stadium and they did’nt feel like they had a home. (Still don’t btw)
    Other teams like Cincy, NE and Buffalo would wear the white jerseys for the first month or so back then before going to darks.[/quote]
    For some reason that does not look like Giant Stadium. My first thought was Busch Stadium in St. Louis, which someone else had also mentioned. Since they didn’t play the Cardinals there in the regular season, could it have been pre-season? I believe the Cardinals did wear white at home for certain games during the 80’s.

  • Michael Doucette | November 20, 2007 at 1:28 pm |

    As in my comments last night, my old high school hockey team I used to play for also put numbers on our shorts, and nowwww, I have a picture to show of it.

    You’re lucky I showed one of our players in his away white jersey, instead of the home purples we had to wear.

  • Elwood | November 20, 2007 at 1:28 pm |

    Looking at Manny’s cap–I thought the removal of some of the plastic had the effect of making the holes look like angry eyes, not just lowering the profile of the cap.

  • subway | November 20, 2007 at 1:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”174131″][quote comment=”174119″][quote comment=”174075″]Upon further review, the Colts did play at Dallas in 1984. They played at various other outdoor, artificial turf stadiums in 1982-1985 (the player pictured, Mike Pagel, wasn’t with the team in 1986): NYJ, BUF, NE, CIN, PHI, PIT, KC, CHI. Other than Dallas, I don’t recall any of those teams wearing white at home in the mid 1980s. So, unless it was an exhibition game (or unless I’m mistaken about artificial turf in Baltimore), Dallas 1984 seems like the most likely.[/quote]

    The Jets did wear white jerseys at “home” from 1985-1989 or 90. Maybe it was because they had just moved to GIANTS Stadium and they did’nt feel like they had a home. (Still don’t btw)
    Other teams like Cincy, NE and Buffalo would wear the white jerseys for the first month or so back then before going to darks.[/quote]
    For some reason that does not look like Giant Stadium. My first thought was Busch Stadium in St. Louis, which someone else had also mentioned. Since they didn’t play the Cardinals there in the regular season, could it have been pre-season? I believe the Cardinals did wear white at home for certain games during the 80’s.[/quote]

    Yeah, the Cardinals were another team that wore white at home early but looking at that picture again I thought it might be Cincy. Did the Colts play the Bengals early one season?

  • Moose | November 20, 2007 at 1:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”174050″][quote comment=”173968″][quote comment=”173962″][quote comment=”173904″][quote comment=”173898″]Not to be a dick about it or anything but in Hockey they are not called shorts, the correct term is either buckets or shells[/quote]

    Actually.. the correct term is pants.[/quote]

    Actually…the correct term is breezers.[/quote]

    Actually…let me correct myself. I’ve played hockey since I was 8, played through high school, played DIII for a few years, and have played on various clubs since in Wisconsin. MOST people I know call them “breezers;” however, “pants” isn’t uncommon. Our equipment guys at UWSP always called them breezers, as did our European recruits and the Canadians on the team, however.[/quote]

    This from a website (based in Minnesota, naturally)
    Breezers: Hockey pants are know as breezers (based on our anecdotal research, they are only referred to as Breezers in Wisconsin and Minnesota) they are shorts that come down to the top of the knee and extend high over the waist.

    Breezers have padding in many places in order to cushion shots and falls. Because breezers are usually very wide in the legs, a fair amount of “breeze” will blow into them when a player skates – hence the name.
    I doubt the Canadians on your team used that term. This is the only place I’ve ever heard it and I’ve lived in Canada forever and have been playing for 35 years.
    Never, ever shorts though.[/quote]

    Hmmm…but they did. Most of them came out of the USHL–several from Waterloo, some from Cedar Rapids–maybe they picked it up along the way from playing in the States. I think we can chalk this discussion up to the fact that there are several accepted terms for “breezers.”

  • Scott | November 20, 2007 at 1:42 pm |

    Getting back to the numbers on pants/shorts – I agree that it looks completely stupid in baseball but I find it has a purpose for scorekeepers/stat guys in other sports.

    I can’t tell you how many times I have waited for a player to turn around so I can read his/her number during a contest. (Volleyball is bad, and soccer can be – most people watch the game from the sidelines and a player can mask the front/back numbers pretty easily.)

    Uniform-wise, maybe numbers on shorts/pants doesn’t always pass “is it good or is it stupid” test, but the more ways we can accurately identify players during a game is always a good thing.

  • dgc | November 20, 2007 at 1:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”174033″][quote comment=”173898″]Not to be a dick about it or anything but in Hockey they are not called shorts, the correct term is either buckets or shells[/quote]
    Not to be a dick, but in all the years I’ve played/coached hockey, I’ve never heard breezers/pants refered to as buckets. I’ve heard a helmet refered to as a brain bucket though. I’ve heard some non-hockey folks refer to them as shorts though for obvious reasons.

    Other fun hockey terms.
    Twig – stick
    Nut cup – obvious
    Shinny – pick up pond hockey

    I’ll think of more.[/quote]

    I’ve always been amused by “puts the biscuit in the basket” and imagining some kids taking some leftover biscuits and playing hockey.

  • Ian K | November 20, 2007 at 1:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”174115″]
    I’d drive the four hours down there if it was on a weekend. Learn from my mistakes: if you love barbecue, don’t shack up with a vegetarian.[/quote]

    I’d be on board too – I love the Austin area. BUT…weekdays aren’t good days for an 8 hour round trip. I’ve lived in Texas for 10 years and I still don’t seek out barbecue joints like I seek out a good Mexican place.

  • Andre Roussimoff | November 20, 2007 at 1:57 pm |

    The referee in the Brasil-Germany picture is one of the scariest people I’ve ever seen.

  • Mike W. | November 20, 2007 at 2:26 pm |

    Sorry if someone already posted this:

    http://philadelphia....

    It’s hard to keep up with all the comments.

  • Josh Petty | November 20, 2007 at 2:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”174163″]The referee in the Brasil-Germany picture is one of the scariest people I’ve ever seen.[/quote]

    I never noticed that, but I’ll definately have to agree with you now that I have. Not sure how Uncle Fester got approved by FIFA…..

  • al | November 20, 2007 at 2:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”174179″][quote comment=”174163″]The referee in the Brasil-Germany picture is one of the scariest people I’ve ever seen.[/quote]

    I never noticed that, but I’ll definately have to agree with you now that I have. Not sure how Uncle Fester got approved by FIFA…..[/quote]
    Haven’t seen the picture, but from the assorted reactions that ref can be no other than the famous Italian Collina!

  • Jerico | November 20, 2007 at 2:35 pm |

    Re: Colts picture

    It may be at Foxboro Stadium against their AFC East rival Patriots. During the 1985 season, the Patriots wore their white uniforms at home.

  • Josh Petty | November 20, 2007 at 2:36 pm |

    [quote comment=”174181″][quote comment=”174179″][quote comment=”174163″]The referee in the Brasil-Germany picture is one of the scariest people I’ve ever seen.[/quote]

    I never noticed that, but I’ll definately have to agree with you now that I have. Not sure how Uncle Fester got approved by FIFA…..[/quote]
    Haven’t seen the picture, but from the assorted reactions that ref can be no other than the famous Italian Collina![/quote]

    Yep, that’s him.

  • Jerico | November 20, 2007 at 2:36 pm |

    Colts picture part II

    Some things I forgot: The Pats wore red pants beginning in 1978, and Foxboro Stadium (then Schaefer/Sullivan Stadium) was artificial turf until 1990.

  • Stuby | November 20, 2007 at 2:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”174183″][quote comment=”174181″][quote comment=”174179″][quote comment=”174163″]The referee in the Brasil-Germany picture is one of the scariest people I’ve ever seen.[/quote]

    I never noticed that, but I’ll definately have to agree with you now that I have. Not sure how Uncle Fester got approved by FIFA…..[/quote]
    Haven’t seen the picture, but from the assorted reactions that ref can be no other than the famous Italian Collina![/quote]

    Yep, that’s him.[/quote]
    This Guy?

  • Kevin G. | November 20, 2007 at 2:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”174182″]Re: Colts picture

    It may be at Foxboro Stadium against their AFC East rival Patriots. During the 1985 season, the Patriots wore their white uniforms at home.[/quote]
    I thought that could be it too because I remember the Pats wearing white at home. It’s hard to tell, but it just doesn’t look like Foxboro from that picture.

  • todd krevanchi | November 20, 2007 at 3:04 pm |

    the official in this picture
    http://cache.eb.com/...

    reminds me of actor michael berryman (whom i remember most famously in the movie “weird science”)
    http://farm3.static....

  • DonD | November 20, 2007 at 3:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”174102″]Good news for those who dislike the Blackhawks black alternate jersey which one would assume would return next season when alternates are allowed again. Cups president John McDounough (the guy who put the kibosh on the Cubs blue alternate) is to be named Blackhawks president at a noon CT news conference today.

    This might be a ditch the black (although it made sense in this case and I own a black Blackhawks jersey) victory.[/quote]
    His next stop should be to the Bears so he can kill the orange.

  • Bill | November 20, 2007 at 3:28 pm |

    One of the Titans Defensive Backs last night (sorry, name escapes me) had an orange and blue mouthpiece in… generally not a big deal, but when you’re playing the broncos couldn’t you opt for something more in line w/ your team?

  • Brian from Short Island | November 20, 2007 at 3:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”174090″]Celtic FC used to have numbers on the back of their shorts rather than the back of their shirts. Here’s proof:

    This was just after it was made mandatory to have numbers on the back of players/ Celtic were too proud of their hoops to deface them, so put the numbers on their shorts.

    Other numbers on shirts are Athletics name numbers.[/quote]
    I had heard that this was because there was an emerging market in printed shirts (name/number) that Celtic couldn’t take advantage of, so they made the switch.

    I’m just kind of upset that they won’t go to that style just once for the 40th anniversary of the lisbon lions team (for the uninformed, in that year Celtic won every competition they entered, including the Scottish League, Scottish Cup and European Cup after winning the European Cup final in Lisbon, hence the name), but I’m thinking there are rules against numberless shirts now. It’s not in the laws of the game, but it would be a league or competition rule.

  • todd krevanchi | November 20, 2007 at 3:38 pm |

    has anyone come up with pics of the colts wearing gray pants? im starting to doubt the football uniforms website.

  • Aaron Scholder | November 20, 2007 at 3:54 pm |

    I believe the Knicks wore uni numbers on their shorts in the ’98-’99 season when they went to the Finals.

  • Jordan | November 20, 2007 at 4:05 pm |

    As a former soccer player, it was REQUIRED to have numbers on the front of your soccer shorts in club, high school and college ball.

  • Moose | November 20, 2007 at 4:07 pm |

    Here is a picture of ex-Colts RB Curtis Dickey [1980 to 1985] that shows the gray pants. Also, he has numbers on his hip!

    Hope this helps.

  • todd krevanchi | November 20, 2007 at 4:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”174219″]I believe the Knicks wore uni numbers on their shorts in the ’98-’99 season when they went to the Finals.[/quote]

    prior to the knicks wearing their numbers on the sides of their shorts, they appeared on the front.
    http://www.nba.com/m...

  • Moose | November 20, 2007 at 4:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”174224″]Here is a picture of ex-Colts RB Curtis Dickey [1980 to 1985] that shows the gray pants. Also, he has numbers on his hip!

    Hope this helps.[/quote]

    Also note the gray sock stripes, making this consistent with the team uniform templates posted above.

  • Mike D. | November 20, 2007 at 4:11 pm |

    I think in hockey, the number looks better on the shorts (or whatever it’s called) then on the front of the jersey.

  • todd krevanchi | November 20, 2007 at 4:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”174224″]Here is a picture of ex-Colts RB Curtis Dickey [1980 to 1985] that shows the gray pants. Also, he has numbers on his hip!

    Hope this helps.[/quote]

    those are gray? i must have looked at that picture 3 times today when researching this myself and not once did i see gray.
    when i see the raiders, there is no doubting they wear gray pants. thats what im looking for…

  • CV | November 20, 2007 at 4:13 pm |

    I also forgot the Colts wore blue pants on the road for one season, 1995, but check out the Marshall Faulk pic on this page.

    http://www.sportsecy...

    Personally, I think it looks great, and the Colts should have kept them.

  • John | November 20, 2007 at 4:15 pm |

    I had forgotten but they also wore blue pants for a while

  • patrick | November 20, 2007 at 4:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”174223″]As a former soccer player, it was REQUIRED to have numbers on the front of your soccer shorts in club, high school and college ball.[/quote]

    Played in NY, never had to do that for any of my leagues, club, HS or middle school

  • ryan c | November 20, 2007 at 4:16 pm |

    “By the way, did anyone notice the picture Manny Delcarmen’s hat where he pulled all the back plastic strings out of the inside front of his hat”

    -i’ve been doing that to my on-field mlb pirate hats for years now. i also cut out the white mesh stuff. makes a great low-pro hat. otherwise you’ve got a billboard on your head!

    “What other sports follow this system of specific uniform numbers? At the moment, only Polo comes to mind”

    -football loosely follows the position-specific numbering system

    “You’re lucky I showed one of our players in his away white jersey, instead of the home purples we had to wear”

    -no, i think YOU’RE lucky you didn’t post a purple jersey! haha

  • CV | November 20, 2007 at 4:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”174229″][quote comment=”174224″]Here is a picture of ex-Colts RB Curtis Dickey [1980 to 1985] that shows the gray pants. Also, he has numbers on his hip!

    Hope this helps.[/quote]

    those are gray? i must have looked at that picture 3 times today when researching this myself and not once did i see gray.
    when i see the raiders, there is no doubting they wear gray pants. thats what im looking for…[/quote]

    Looks 100% grey to me. Compare it to the white of the helmet, etc.

  • patrick | November 20, 2007 at 4:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”174197″]the official in this picture
    http://cache.eb.com/...

    reminds me of actor michael berryman (whom i remember most famously in the movie “weird science”)
    http://farm3.static....

    I immediately went to IMDB to see if he played sloth in the goonies

  • dm00n | November 20, 2007 at 4:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”174213″]has anyone come up with pics of the colts wearing gray pants? im starting to doubt the football uniforms website.[/quote]

    Found these so far (gray in the whites):

    image 1

    image 2

  • Moose | November 20, 2007 at 4:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”174229″][quote comment=”174224″]Here is a picture of ex-Colts RB Curtis Dickey [1980 to 1985] that shows the gray pants. Also, he has numbers on his hip!

    Hope this helps.[/quote]

    those are gray? i must have looked at that picture 3 times today when researching this myself and not once did i see gray.
    when i see the raiders, there is no doubting they wear gray pants. thats what im looking for…[/quote]

    Yup, its not a very dark shade of gray, but it is definitely gray. Compare it to the whites in the uni and look at the sock stripes as well. It’s gray.

  • todd krevanchi | November 20, 2007 at 4:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”174235″][quote comment=”174197″]the official in this picture
    http://cache.eb.com/...

    reminds me of actor michael berryman (whom i remember most famously in the movie “weird science”)
    http://farm3.static....

    I immediately went to IMDB to see if he played sloth in the goonies[/quote]

    didnt former raider jon matuzek play sloth?
    he wore gray pants during his playing days…

    there has got to be a better photo of the colts in gray pants.

  • LI Phil | November 20, 2007 at 4:36 pm |

    here’s some pics from the 10/2/83 colts vs. bengals game

    looks gray to me

  • Moose | November 20, 2007 at 4:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”174245″]here’s some pics from the 10/2/83 colts vs. bengals game

    looks gray to me[/quote]

    Those are great, and also confirm that the pants were a very light shade of gray, just as we saw in the Dickey pic.

  • josh's twin | November 20, 2007 at 4:46 pm |

    here’s some pics from the 10/2/83 colts vs. bengals game

    looks gray to me

    Those are great, and also confirm that the pants were a very light shade of gray, just as we saw in the Dickey pic.

    They also confirm that the picture in the ticker was taken 10/2/83 against the Bengals, Riverfront Stadium.

  • u2horn | November 20, 2007 at 4:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”174006″]RE. Rajon Rondo’s head band. The Raptors’ TJ Ford seems to wear his headband inside-out as the NBA logo is never visible. Sorry no pics.[/quote]

    Josh Howard does the SAME

  • Kevin G. | November 20, 2007 at 5:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”174249″]here’s some pics from the 10/2/83 colts vs. bengals game

    looks gray to me

    Those are great, and also confirm that the pants were a very light shade of gray, just as we saw in the Dickey pic.

    They also confirm that the picture in the ticker was taken 10/2/83 against the Bengals, Riverfront Stadium.[/quote]
    Yup, good research guys! I also like the blue pants the Colts wore in ’95.

  • todd krevanchi | November 20, 2007 at 5:05 pm |

    jesus! that has to be the lightest shade of gray ive seen in a uniform!

    why even use gray unless you use real GRAY!

    according to the nfl uniforms site, their gray pants were to be like raider gray pants. those arent even close.

  • Jerico | November 20, 2007 at 5:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”174249″]here’s some pics from the 10/2/83 colts vs. bengals game

    looks gray to me

    Those are great, and also confirm that the pants were a very light shade of gray, just as we saw in the Dickey pic.

    They also confirm that the picture in the ticker was taken 10/2/83 against the Bengals, Riverfront Stadium.[/quote]
    Yup, there it is…question here is, the Bengals wore white in October?

  • Henry | November 20, 2007 at 5:05 pm |

    Just a note on the “sweater versus jersey” issue — Montreal was one of the last NHL teams to use the old ultra-fil/knit material on their jerseys (if not the last — I think Vancouver switched to air-knit/mesh last year but please correct me if I’m wrong). They tend to be thicker but are also a little heaver and don’t disperse the heat as well, hence why most teams switched to air-knit/mesh (of course, until the Rbk Edge was unveiled this year).

    Montreal is also the origin of “The Sweater”, a famous short story/movie originally written in 1979 about a boy who loves the Montreal Canadiens: http://en.wikipedia....

  • Jim | November 20, 2007 at 5:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”174228″]I think in hockey, the number looks better on the shorts (or whatever it’s called) then on the front of the jersey.[/quote]

    For Pete’s sake people… they are “Pants”, if they have padding included. The term “Shell” is used if they cover up a “Girdle”.

    Never, ever, “Shorts”!

  • Brian from Short Island | November 20, 2007 at 5:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”174179″][quote comment=”174163″]The referee in the Brasil-Germany picture is one of the scariest people I’ve ever seen.[/quote]

    I never noticed that, but I’ll definately have to agree with you now that I have. Not sure how Uncle Fester got approved by FIFA…..[/quote]
    Are you kidding? Pierluigi Collina is the best referee ever!

  • Armadillo | November 20, 2007 at 5:20 pm |

    I’ve always heard them called “breezers.” Not pants, shells, shorts, ball-tuckers, whatever. Having read the link that was posted earlier, i can only assume this is because I was born and raised in Minnesota. I had no idea that was a regional thing. And now I know.

    And they’re called sweaters. Period.

  • KevinC | November 20, 2007 at 5:29 pm |

    Someone should write Reebok. On their website they call them pants.

  • subway | November 20, 2007 at 5:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”174256″][quote comment=”174249″]here’s some pics from the 10/2/83 colts vs. bengals game

    looks gray to me

    Those are great, and also confirm that the pants were a very light shade of gray, just as we saw in the Dickey pic.

    They also confirm that the picture in the ticker was taken 10/2/83 against the Bengals, Riverfront Stadium.[/quote]
    Yup, there it is…question here is, the Bengals wore white in October?[/quote]

    It could be that it’s still warm enough in early October so that they’d still want to wear white.
    Looked like a bright sunny day with coaches wearing short sleeves.

  • Steve Rogers | November 20, 2007 at 5:38 pm |

    Paul, I see no evidence on the net that the ceremony honoring Curtis Martin was nothing more than a “Thank You” ceremony and that the Jets did NOT retire #28 Sunday. Someday maybe, probably after he gets into Canton, but it wasn’t Sunday.

  • Scott B. | November 20, 2007 at 6:01 pm |

    Rajon Rondo wouldn’t be the first to wear a headband upside down….anyone ever heard of Desmond Farmer from USC back in the early 2000’s?

  • Greg | November 20, 2007 at 6:24 pm |

    I haven’t seen a mention of this yet this year, but I have noticed it a lot recently: Has the NCAA put a ban on basketball players wearing headbands? I have watched many games this year including my Michigan State Spartans and I cannot recall seeing any players wearing headbands. Travis Walton, Marquise Gray, and Raymar Morgan were all headband wearers last year, but not this year. It is just not Michigan State either. I can’t recall anyone wearing headbands this year. Anyone know more?

    This is not a rule. Check out Syracuse when you get a chance, I think 4 out of 5 starters wear headbands.

  • Steve | November 20, 2007 at 6:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”174262″]I’ve always heard them called “breezers.” Not pants, shells, shorts, ball-tuckers, whatever. Having read the link that was posted earlier, i can only assume this is because I was born and raised in Minnesota. I had no idea that was a regional thing. And now I know.

    And they’re called sweaters. Period.[/quote]

    Agree on the sweater.

    Sounds like breezers is a regional term, so we should default to pants – if that is what Canadians call it, and it is the “home” of the game.

    Not other regional terms are used – e.g., “anyone see that great rouge in the CFL game Sunday?”

  • Andrew Gitto | November 20, 2007 at 6:55 pm |

    First post here.
    Love the site.
    I was watching the Clemson Boston College game on saturday, and i noticed a black stripe on the sleeves of both teams. Was wondering what that was?

  • Andrew Gitto | November 20, 2007 at 6:56 pm |

    Wow. Link didnt work

  • Andrew Gitto | November 20, 2007 at 6:56 pm |

    I dont know how to post pictures.
    But heres the link
    http://www.charlesto...

  • College Kid | November 20, 2007 at 7:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”174283″]First post here.
    Love the site.
    I was watching the Clemson Boston College game on saturday, and i noticed a black stripe on the sleeves of both teams. Was wondering what that was?
    [/quote]

    Welcome to Uni Watch!

    All ACC schools are wearing a small black stripe on their uniforms in memory of the Virginia Tech victims. Teams have varied where they put them, but most are on the chest, shoulder, sleeve, or back of the neck area.

  • Patrick | November 20, 2007 at 7:16 pm |

    Sorta uni-related…mugshots of people wearing college apparel.

    http://www.thesmokin...

  • ToasterPoodle | November 20, 2007 at 7:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”174069″]Duck season!

    Rabbit season!!

    Elmer season!!![/quote]
    “I’m a dirty skunk…I’m a dirty skunk!”

  • dannyb | November 20, 2007 at 7:22 pm |

    Re: Colts white unis from the early 80’s

    Is that light grey around the numbers too???

  • josh's twin | November 20, 2007 at 7:25 pm |

    Sorta uni-related…mugshots of people wearing college apparel.

    http://www.thesmokin

    That’s hilarious. Think there’s any connection between whose gear they’re wearing and how high they look? Dude in the Florida shirt is off the chart. UCLA looks right out of Aryan nation.

  • derek | November 20, 2007 at 7:29 pm |

    Not uni realted but a grreat site of the Aud in buffalo.
    http://www.theaudclu...

  • LI Phil | November 20, 2007 at 7:43 pm |

    [quote comment=”174293″]Sorta uni-related…mugshots of people wearing college apparel.

    http://www.thesmokin

    That’s hilarious. Think there’s any connection between whose gear they’re wearing and how high they look? Dude in the Florida shirt is off the chart. UCLA looks right out of Aryan nation.[/quote]

    good $h!+ indeed…id have to venture a few of those fine looking men and women aren’t alums…in fact, i wouldn’t be surprised if some of those tops were lifted pre-crime

    the rest were prolly DPs or DNDs

  • James Craven | November 20, 2007 at 7:46 pm |

    [quote comment=”174290″][quote comment=”174069″]Duck season!

    Rabbit season!!

    Elmer season!!![/quote]
    “I’m a dirty skunk…I’m a dirty skunk!”[/quote]
    I’m a dirty dog…I’m a mongoose…I’m a (insert animal here)…

    Only on UniWatch can people like us have fun with old Looney Tunes cartoons.

    IT’S BASEBALL SEASON!

    We now return to your discussion of uniforms already in progress.

  • Mike | November 20, 2007 at 7:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”174255″]jesus! that has to be the lightest shade of gray ive seen in a uniform!

    why even use gray unless you use real GRAY!

    according to the nfl uniforms site, their gray pants were to be like raider gray pants. those arent even close.[/quote]
    They’re pretty gray man, definitely more so then the patriots silver/gray jersey

  • Kevin | November 20, 2007 at 7:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”174298″][quote comment=”174293″]Sorta uni-related…mugshots of people wearing college apparel.

    http://www.thesmokin

    That’s hilarious. Think there’s any connection between whose gear they’re wearing and how high they look? Dude in the Florida shirt is off the chart. UCLA looks right out of Aryan nation.[/quote]

    good $h!+ indeed…id have to venture a few of those fine looking men and women aren’t alums…in fact, i wouldn’t be surprised if some of those tops were lifted pre-crime

    the rest were prolly DPs or DNDs[/quote]

    Anyone else scared by the florida state pic or get a laugh at the duke and usf one…dude still has his alumni sticker on.

  • Stevo | November 20, 2007 at 7:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”174289″]Sorta uni-related…mugshots of people wearing college apparel.

    http://www.thesmokin...

    Anyone else recognize the irony of a mugshot with a guy wearing a #4 Michigan jersey?

  • LI Phil | November 20, 2007 at 8:02 pm |

    [quote]Anyone else scared by the florida state pic?[/quote]

    i think i hit that

    [quote]Anyone else recognize the irony of a mugshot with a guy wearing a #4 Michigan jersey?[/quote]

    c-webb the point barber?

  • Stevo | November 20, 2007 at 8:03 pm |

    [quote comment=”174301″]
    Anyone else scared by the florida state pic or get a laugh at the duke and usf one…dude still has his alumni sticker on.[/quote]

    USF guy probably had one too many people say “Why is it South Florida when it’s not in South Florida?” (BTW, the answer is that it was the southernmost state univeristy when it was established)

  • Broker75 | November 20, 2007 at 9:40 pm |

    [quote comment=”174102″]Good news for those who dislike the Blackhawks black alternate jersey which one would assume would return next season when alternates are allowed again. Cups president John McDounough (the guy who put the kibosh on the Cubs blue alternate) is to be named Blackhawks president at a noon CT news conference today.

    This might be a ditch the black (although it made sense in this case and I own a black Blackhawks jersey) victory.[/quote]
    Seems the tides are turning in Chi-town..And miracle of miracles, the Blackhawks are actually allowing a local cable outfit to broadcast regular-season home games for the first time in decades.

  • Jeremy | November 20, 2007 at 9:40 pm |

    Duke in Black Jerseys, with Illinois in Orange jerseys. Looks pretty good actually.

  • Minna H. | November 20, 2007 at 9:44 pm |

    I have to say, placing the numbers on the pants/shorts/ wetsuits doesn’t bother me. I’m not a fan, but I don’t think it detracts, either. In fact, I’m hugely neutral towards the whole concept.

    What I am NOT neutral towards, though, is going to CostCo. with my brother (long, grim story in itself. I hate CostCo.) and seeing a woman wearing a pink Yankees’ cap. I asked my brother if I could use his cell phone camera to take a pic so I could post it here (I don’t have a cell phone), but he just looked at me strangely, and we moved on.

  • Stevo | November 20, 2007 at 9:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”174324″][quote comment=”174102″]Good news for those who dislike the Blackhawks black alternate jersey which one would assume would return next season when alternates are allowed again. Cups president John McDounough (the guy who put the kibosh on the Cubs blue alternate) is to be named Blackhawks president at a noon CT news conference today.

    This might be a ditch the black (although it made sense in this case and I own a black Blackhawks jersey) victory.[/quote]
    Seems the tides are turning in Chi-town..And miracle of miracles, the Blackhawks are actually allowing a local cable outfit to broadcast regular-season home games for the first time in decades.[/quote]

    As insensitive as this may sound, the death of Mr Wirtz may have been the best thing to happen to the Blackhawks in years.

  • Colin | November 20, 2007 at 9:45 pm |

    I know it’s an laternate and all that crap, but why are Duke and Illinois both wearing dark colors? Does it have something to do with the Maui Invite?

  • LI Phil | November 20, 2007 at 9:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”174326″]What I am NOT neutral towards, though, is going to CostCo. with my brother (long, grim story in itself. I hate CostCo.) and seeing a woman wearing a pink Yankees’ cap.[/quote]

    THANK YOU!

    it used to KILL me to see spike lee wearing a frikkin’ RED yankee cap & jersey at knicks games…disgrace

    not a fan of the ladies in pink gear either…no matter what the team

    i’ll make a slight exception for a st. patty’s green cap ifn the team wore it for ST…but these alt colors (aimed no doubt at the youth), especially if they’re NOT a part of the color scheme…EVIL

  • Stevo | November 20, 2007 at 9:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”174325″]Duke in Black Jerseys, with Illinois in Orange jerseys. Looks pretty good actually.[/quote]

    As much as I hate the Illini (I’m an Iowan, it’s in my blood) I do like their orage crush unis.

  • Minna H. | November 20, 2007 at 9:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”174331″][quote comment=”174326″]What I am NOT neutral towards, though, is going to CostCo. with my brother (long, grim story in itself. I hate CostCo.) and seeing a woman wearing a pink Yankees’ cap.[/quote]

    THANK YOU!

    it used to KILL me to see spike lee wearing a frikkin’ RED yankee cap & jersey at knicks games…disgrace

    not a fan of the ladies in pink gear either…no matter what the team

    i’ll make a slight exception for a st. patty’s green cap ifn the team wore it for ST…but these alt colors (aimed no doubt at the youth), especially if they’re NOT a part of the color scheme…EVIL[/quote]

    Amen to that, LI Phil. This has been an ongoing discussion on this board for awhile. I don’t like caps/jerseys/etc. in anything but the teams’ colors, and as a woman, I doubly-loathe the whole ‘rope them in with pink’ mentality.

    Then again, my favorite color is black–which is pretty much the antithesis of pink.

  • Stevo | November 20, 2007 at 9:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”174328″]I know it’s an laternate and all that crap, but why are Duke and Illinois both wearing dark colors? Does it have something to do with the Maui Invite?[/quote]

    Duke might have only brought their blacks to Maui, or maybe they want to save their whites for the Championship. The same for Illinois and their oranges.

  • Brian from Short Island | November 20, 2007 at 9:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”174223″]As a former soccer player, it was REQUIRED to have numbers on the front of your soccer shorts in club, high school and college ball.[/quote]
    FIFA and USSF do not sanction US school matches at any level (except in one or two states, where they follow FIFA Laws of the Game rather than NFHS or NCAA rules)

    If it’s a match played under LOTG, any requirement with numbers is a league or competition rule.

  • Broker75 | November 20, 2007 at 10:06 pm |

    Then again, my favorite color is black–which is pretty much the antithesis of pink.
    What’s wrong with the color black? I’ve owned three vehicles in my life, none of them black.. And everytime I look back at the color I chose for my new vehicle I ask myself “why the hell didn’t I pick black??”! Black sucks when a team just adds to there color scheme ie. the Blue Jays, Royals. Black = good in Pittsburgh, Raiderland, Jaguars/Bruins/Tigers territory [Blackhawks black jersey sucks], New Orleans [NFL] is good, seems to be ALOT of good black in sports.. again, What is wrong with the color black?

  • Stevo | November 20, 2007 at 10:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”174338″]Then again, my favorite color is black–which is pretty much the antithesis of pink.
    What’s wrong with the color black? I’ve owned three vehicles in my life, none of them black.. And everytime I look back at the color I chose for my new vehicle I ask myself “why the hell didn’t I pick black??”! Black sucks when a team just adds to there color scheme ie. the Blue Jays, Royals. Black = good in Pittsburgh, Raiderland, Jaguars/Bruins/Tigers territory [Blackhawks black jersey sucks], New Orleans [NFL] is good, seems to be ALOT of good black in sports.. again, What is wrong with the color black?[/quote]

    I don’t see anywhere in that post that’s against black, they simply said that black is about as far away from pink as you can get in the color scheme world. But I do admit that when pink and black are put togehter, it looks kinda cool.

  • LI Phil | November 20, 2007 at 10:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”174338″]Then again, my favorite color is black–which is pretty much the antithesis of pink.

    What’s wrong with the color black? [/quote]

    NOTHIN is wrong with the color black…it’s my favorite color too…but…

    DO NOT buy a black car…trust me on that one…first new car i ever bought was black, and it will also be the last

    black unis on the other hand…they rock

  • Colin | November 20, 2007 at 10:14 pm |

    I don’t mind the orange, since it is a school color, but I really don’t like teams, such as Duke, using black as alternate. I understand alternates, and actually like the L.A. Lakers use with the white, it’s a color of the team. Duke and many other teams, not all of them, just magically adopt black as a color. I just checked Duke’s offical website and thier colors are listed there as royal blue and white. They should stick to those colors.

  • Colin | November 20, 2007 at 10:22 pm |

    [quote comment=”174339″][quote comment=”174338″]Then again, my favorite color is black–which is pretty much the antithesis of pink.
    What’s wrong with the color black? I’ve owned three vehicles in my life, none of them black.. And everytime I look back at the color I chose for my new vehicle I ask myself “why the hell didn’t I pick black??”! Black sucks when a team just adds to there color scheme ie. the Blue Jays, Royals. Black = good in Pittsburgh, Raiderland, Jaguars/Bruins/Tigers territory [Blackhawks black jersey sucks], New Orleans [NFL] is good, seems to be ALOT of good black in sports.. again, What is wrong with the color black?[/quote]

    I don’t see anywhere in that post that’s against black, they simply said that black is about as far away from pink as you can get in the color scheme world. But I do admit that when pink and black are put togehter, it looks kinda cool.[/quote]

    You must be a fan of the Hart Foundation. Don’t act like nobody else thought the same thing.
    http://www.hoffco-in...

  • Thomps | November 20, 2007 at 10:32 pm |

    Is anyone else watching the UCLA – Michigan State game? The center court logo for this CBE classic is busy as hell and overwhelming. The O’Reilly Auto Parts is as big as the tournament logo and then there is a giant “presented by Sonic” logo underneath. I am feeling some corporate logo creep.

    Is anyone in the marketing business? What is the difference between being the sponsor (O’Reilly Auto Parts) of an event and presenting (Sonic) an event? Just curious…

  • Stevo | November 20, 2007 at 10:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”174341″]I don’t mind the orange, since it is a school color, but I really don’t like teams, such as Duke, using black as alternate. I understand alternates, and actually like the L.A. Lakers use with the white, it’s a color of the team. Duke and many other teams, not all of them, just magically adopt black as a color. I just checked Duke’s offical website and thier colors are listed there as royal blue and white. They should stick to those colors.[/quote]

    I personally consider both black and white to be implied team colors for every sports team that has ever existed.

  • Minna H. | November 20, 2007 at 10:35 pm |

    Many people on this board are pretty anti-black. Golly, there is even a Ditch The Black Campaign going on somewhere.

    I don’t care. I will defend all-black uniforms to (and with) my last breath.

    LI Phil, when I buy a new car, it’s black for me. I might counter with a light interior, though. Naaaaah. As Billy Crystal (as Fernando) would say, “It is better to look good than to feel good.” Ok. He doesn’t say it in that clip, but it’s still pretty funny, and I couldn’t find the relevant clip. Hey, it was the 80s!

  • Stevo | November 20, 2007 at 10:39 pm |

    [quote comment=”174351″]Is anyone else watching the UCLA – Michigan State game? The center court logo for this CBE classic is busy as hell and overwhelming. The O’Reilly Auto Parts is as big as the tournament logo and then there is a giant “presented by Sonic” logo underneath. I am feeling some corporate logo creep.

    Is anyone in the marketing business? What is the difference between being the sponsor (O’Reilly Auto Parts) of an event and presenting (Sonic) an event? Just curious…[/quote]

    I’m not a marketer, but I do remember tghe difference between the 2 from when the Rose Bowl brought on a Presenting Sponsor. The difference is that O’Reilly is the Title Sponsor, like Tostitos for the Fiesta Bowl, while Sonic is the Presnting Sponsor, like what Citi is for the Rose Bowl. Basically, O’Reilly’s name is part of the actual title of the event, the O’Reilly Auto Parts CBE Classic, while Sonic’s is not.

  • LI Phil | November 20, 2007 at 10:46 pm |

    [quote comment=”174353″] I will defend all-black uniforms to (and with) my last breath.[/quote]

    so…minna you dig this eh?

    [quote]LI Phil, when I buy a new car, it’s black for me. I might counter with a light interior, though.[/quote]

    mine was too…i loved the color, but too hot in summer & showed too much dirt

    [quote]Hey, it was the 80s![/quote]

    heh

  • Colin | November 20, 2007 at 11:04 pm |

    Teams should have three colors. White and any two colors of thier choosing. If they pick black, then use black. The Portland Trailblazers use it and I think it’s fine. If you are the U of Michigan, only maize, blue, and white.

  • joe spizz | November 20, 2007 at 11:06 pm |
  • Broker75 | November 20, 2007 at 11:12 pm |

    ..well in speaking of the color black: 1) reflects the color of ice nice 2) comments outdoor playing surface-grass 3) and looks good indoors. I just don’t know why people have a hard time accepting the color black on uniforms.

  • Broker75 | November 20, 2007 at 11:13 pm |

    that all wasn‘t supposed to be all bold work

  • Broker75 | November 20, 2007 at 11:15 pm |

    can someone shut this thing off? hello?!

  • Minna H. | November 20, 2007 at 11:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”174356″][quote comment=”174353″] I will defend all-black uniforms to (and with) my last breath.[/quote]

    so…minna you dig this eh?

    [/quote]

    LI Phil, I love the Haka! And while all-black unis rock, a shirtless Moari player rocks even more.

    Broker75, you broke the board! Fix it! I’m just teasing you. I can’t remember all the times I’ve done that.

  • ToasterPoodle | November 20, 2007 at 11:24 pm |

    Hey Paul,
    Have you ever thought about doing a write up on what the coaches wear at the Maui Invitational?

    I noticed that Bruce Weber’s floral print shirt comes with an Illinois logo.
    Coach K on the other hand is wearing a basic black Duke polo.

    It seems there are four options for the coaches:
    1. generic floral shirt (with or without lei)
    2. team logo floral shirt (with or without lei)
    3. Polo shirt (usually without lei)
    4. Other misc. athletic gear (I think I saw a coach in a short-sleeved wind jacket like you’d wear on a golf course.

  • dannyb | November 20, 2007 at 11:24 pm |

    So yeah, check out THIS wonderment on ebay. This seller has all sorts of really.. uh… nice…. looking things.

  • dannyb | November 20, 2007 at 11:25 pm |

    .
    Hmm.. tried to close those tags there, didn’t seem to work.

  • dannyb | November 20, 2007 at 11:31 pm |

    Apparently it’s a trend? Another jersey seller from Korea, same horrific fonts..

  • Broker75 | November 20, 2007 at 11:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”174373″][quote comment=”174356″][quote comment=”174353″] I will defend all-black uniforms to (and with) my last breath.[/quote]

    so…minna you dig this eh?

    [/quote]

    LI Phil, I love the Haka! And while all-black unis rock, a shirtless Moari player rocks even more.

    Broker75, you broke the board! Fix it! I’m just teasing you. I can’t remember all the times I’ve done that.[/quote]
    I tried, but I had to run away, I thought it was gonna blow.

  • LI Phil | November 20, 2007 at 11:37 pm |

    how’d ya get the name broker?

  • Adam Wyss | November 20, 2007 at 11:47 pm |

    I was at the Purdue vs Lipscomb men’s basketball agme last night, and noticed Lipscomb’s mascot, the bisons. as you can tell from their athletics website they are clearly the bisons. and i found myself durign the game thinking, “isn’t the plural form of bison, bison?” and sure enough, after consulting dictionary.com the plural form of bison is bison. so my question is, does anyone know of other teams whose names utilize incorrect grammar? there have to be more.

  • The Original Lee | November 20, 2007 at 11:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”174356″][quote comment=”174353″] I will defend all-black uniforms to (and with) my last breath.[/quote]

    so…minna you dig this eh?

    [quote]LI Phil, when I buy a new car, it’s black for me. I might counter with a light interior, though.[/quote]

    mine was too…i loved the color, but too hot in summer & showed too much dirt

    [quote]Hey, it was the 80s![/quote]

    heh[/quote]

    everyone loves the haka.

    i like some of the smaller island nations better than new zealands, but that just may be because you see them less often. but all of the war dances are amazing.

  • km | November 20, 2007 at 11:59 pm |

    done

  • LI Phil | November 21, 2007 at 12:18 am |

    [quote comment=”174393″]everyone loves the haka.

    i like some of the smaller island nations better than new zealands, but that just may be because you see them less often. but all of the war dances are amazing.[/quote]

    it is weird to see high school footballers doin the haka

    of course, get pumped for some warrior haka vs. boise this friday night

  • Jody Moore | November 21, 2007 at 12:24 am |

    I was looking on the Billy Bob’s Texas website and found this picture of a rodeo clown at their bullpen inside the actual honky tonk. I went as a rodeo clown for halloween this year, but I didn’t have socks that were nearly as cool.

  • Josh | November 21, 2007 at 12:37 am |

    Arizona State’s belt stripes stand for the number of arrests for violent crimes that a given player has.

  • Doug [dm00n] | November 21, 2007 at 1:45 am |

    [quote comment=”174393″]everyone loves the haka.[/quote]

    I think I only know about it from here, and I don’t watch rugby, but to my untrained eye it is ridiculously silly. I think if I was going to play a sport and the other team came out and did a line dance while making wrestler faces I wouldn’t exactly swell up with fear.

  • todd krevanchi | November 21, 2007 at 2:00 am |

    [quote comment=”174378″]

    So yeah, check out THIS wonderment on ebay. This seller has all sorts of really.. uh… nice…. looking things.[/quote]

    he has things. i would disagree that they are nice looking. he hocks fakes.

  • notbudselig | November 21, 2007 at 3:12 am |

    Guardian (UK) does a credible uniwatch knockoff today based on readers’ questions about strips (= kits = soccer uniforms). Uniform-name typos, striped home shirts, and crests depicting bears sniffing trees are covered.

    Great moments in football shirt typos

  • rpt319 | November 21, 2007 at 4:01 am |

    [quote comment=”174390″]I was at the Purdue vs Lipscomb men’s basketball agme last night, and noticed Lipscomb’s mascot, the bisons. as you can tell from their athletics website they are clearly the bisons. and i found myself durign the game thinking, “isn’t the plural form of bison, bison?” and sure enough, after consulting dictionary.com the plural form of bison is bison. so my question is, does anyone know of other teams whose names utilize incorrect grammar? there have to be more.[/quote]

    The University of Manitoba are also the Bisons.
    The University of Saskatchewan are the Huskies which isn’t incorrect. However when they refer to a player as a member of the team, the usually refer to them as a Huskie player as opposed to a Husky player.

    Those are the only examples I can think of that use incorrect grammar. Unless you want to count the teams that use Z’s instead of S’s.

  • James Craven | November 21, 2007 at 4:20 am |

    [quote comment=”174408″]“Arizona State’s belt stripes stand for the number of arrests for violent crimes that a given player has.”[/quote]

    Taken from the Cincoinnati Bengals? :lol: :rotflmmfao:

  • Dan | November 21, 2007 at 5:30 am |

    Just a quick word on the Colts’ unis – when did they start having a darker (maybe black) thin outline round the horseshoe and the helmet stripe? It seems to have been on there a while but I can’t pinpoint the year. As for the grey pants from the 1980’s, it was almost like a light shiny silver which is perhaps why it doesn’t photograph too dark – but it definitely was there.

  • LI Phil | November 21, 2007 at 8:02 am |

    [quote comment=”174390″]does anyone know of other teams whose names utilize incorrect grammar? there have to be more.[/quote]

    would red sox/white sox count? not so much grammar as spelling…how bout some wnba teams which use the ‘singular’ instead of the plural (sun, shock, fever, etc.); prolly some MLS teams too

  • emd2k3 | November 21, 2007 at 11:37 am |

    [quote comment=”174728″][quote comment=”174390″]does anyone know of other teams whose names utilize incorrect grammar? there have to be more.[/quote]

    would red sox/white sox count? not so much grammar as spelling…how bout some wnba teams which use the ‘singular’ instead of the plural (sun, shock, fever, etc.); prolly some MLS teams too[/quote]

    Or perhaps someone spelling probably as ‘prolly’? ; )

  • emd2k3 | November 21, 2007 at 11:39 am |

    [quote comment=”174101″]So remember the Chaminade University logo contest where the winner was going to be announced at the Maui Invitational? It looks like they already put the new logo up on their website…LINK[/quote]

    And they picked a beauty, didn’t they? (/sarcasm)

  • William Harrison | November 21, 2007 at 3:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”174390″] so my question is, does anyone know of other teams whose names utilize incorrect grammar? there have to be more.[/quote]

    The most obvious one is the Toronto Maple Leafs…

  • Mark | November 21, 2007 at 5:20 pm |

    Correction to the following from 11/21 blog:

    “By now I think most of you are aware of the Minnesota high school hockey jerseys that are on display at the Xcel Center.”

    The jerseys in the photo are actually from the WCHA (and is in Mariucci Arena I believe). The Minnesota HS jerseys at Xcel are not flat under glass but hang loose. There are also several dozen on display.

  • Wes | February 7, 2008 at 4:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”173898″]Not to be a dick about it or anything but in Hockey they are not called shorts, the correct term is either buckets or shells[/quote]

    No they are called pants