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

Powder Blue: The Empire Strikes Back

williewilson

By Bryan Redemske

“Welcome, Uni Watch. We’ve been expecting you.”

OK, so it wasn’t quite like that, but Curt Nelson of the Kansas City Royals wasn’t exactly surprised when he received a phone call about the team’s new powderblue alternate jersey.

“We were wondering when we’d hear from you,” he said. “We have a few people around here who read Uni Watch regularly.”

A self-described uniform geek, Nelson is the Royals’ marketing director. That makes the first question easy: Is this all about selling more merchandise?

“Our idea was to bring back powder blue for historical reasons — to honor those teams in the ’70s and ’80s who wore it,” Nelson said. “We wanted the color back, but also a current-day, new-Royals look; a modern-day version of powder blue.”

The Royals have a long relationship with powder blue, beginning in 1973. The new jersey is the team’s third generation of powder blue. The first featured “Kansas City” in white caps, vertically arched, and was worn from 1973-1982. The second, and perhaps more iconic, featured the familiar script “Royals” in white. It was worn from 1983-1992.

With this kind of heritage, it would have been easy for the Royals to put together a retro uni package like Toronto or Milwaukee, but this project was more about the color of the old style rather than a replication of it. The end result was a modern take on a classic design. Kind of like this.

“Lots of people have asked for throwback designs,” Nelson said. “A lot of people have been attached to the era and to the uniform for a long time. We’ve done give-aways based on them, like the one based on the 1983 George Brett pine tar game. There’s a lot of nostalgia for the color and we wanted to bring it back. But to do all powder blue — that’s the connotation of a road uniform.”

With that in mind, the new powder blue was designed as a home alternate. It will be used much like other teams’ alternate jerseys, though it will mostly be seen on Sundays and will be worn with white pants.

“Teams wear colored jerseys all the time, but white pants means ‘home,'” Nelson said. The current royal blue alternate will remain in use, most likely for road games.

The powder blues also further distance the Royals from the black trim era, which ran from 2002-05 and featured a black alternate jersey and cap. “As a Royals fan, black was never the color — it never fit in,” Nelson said. “That was a reaction to other teams. It seemed to be the color that was sweeping through. It fell out of favor early in 2006, and we just sort of got rid of it.”

So far, opinions on the new jersey appear to be making the same split as age-old powder blue debates: love or hate. Old-school fans are mostly happy to see the team return to the hue. Some, though, are nitpicking about the script “Royals” wordmark — blue outlined in white.

“The traditionalist would say, ‘The script was always just white,'” Nelson said, “but there’s a a consistency thing with the [current] road uniform. I think it’s a good-looking uniform. And the powder blues’ numbers are white outlined in blue. There’s a stylistic thing with the contrasting colors — it gives the jersey its own design. It stands out; it’s different.”

Major thanks to Curt for making time for an interview. We traded phone calls a few times trying to get connected, but when we finally did it was a great conversation.

As far as my personal opinion, I’m not a fan of powder blues. I think there’s a very good reason they went away, just like pullover tops and elastic waistbands. And I don’t believe it’s a coincidence that most teams that have powder blue heritage don’t dust them off often.

That said, however, I’ll give the Royals’ new blues a chance to change my mind. (Mostly because I love their home unis.) We’ve only seen them as stationary objects at a season ticket-holders event — they may look better in the sunshine. Maybe.

rafflet ticket by ben thoma.jpg

Raffle-O-Rama: Paul here. Bill O’Reilly keeps on bleating about the “war against Christmas,” but he’ll have to change his tune after he hears about our biggest raffle yet, with five separate prizes. Without further ado (and with big thanks to everyone who donated prizes):

Lot No. 1: A vintage-era college football helmet of your choice from Gridiron Memories. As most of you know by now, this is the retail arm of Helmet Hut, and their helmets are impeccably period-authentic in every detail.

Lot No. 2: Two pairs of throwback Kansas City Monarchs pants — one home, one road. Reader Dan Merker picked these up at a Royals season ticket-holders event (although it’s not clear if they were actually worn in a game) and generously donated them in my direction. The home pants have red-navy-red side piping, red belt loops (including one at 12 o’clock), and red flap pockets. Size 36 x 28. The road set has red-navy-red piping on the sides and belt loops, and navy flap pockets with red buttons. Size 36 x 30.

Lot No. 3: An assortment of New York Giants gear, including a mesh cap (here’s the rear view), a white polo shirt (size medium; team insignia on the rear collar), and a blue windbreaker (also medium; reflective stripe on the back, NFL Equipment logo on the left sleeve).

Lot No. 4: Two pennants from Victory Pennants (one Notre Dame, one Duke), plus a free pennant of your choice from the company’s web site.

Lot No. 5: A free Level One Uni Watch membership or any item from the Uni Watch store.

I’ll pick five winners. The first one will get his or her choice of any of the five lots, then the second winner can choose from the remaining four lots, and so on.

To enter, send an e-mail to uniraffle at earthlink dot net (not to the usual Uni Watch address, please) by next Wednesday, December 19th, at 10 p.m. eastern. I’ll announce the winners the next day. One entry per person but, as always, all enrollees in the Uni Watch membership program at the time of the drawing will automatically get three bonus raffle entries, even if they don’t enter by e-mail. (Members can also enter the raffle by e-mail just like anyone else, giving themselves a fourth entry.)

norris.jpg

Speaking of which, I mailed out about two dozen membership kits yesterday, including all the discounted gift memberships, so those should all be arriving in plenty of time for Christmas. Thanks again to everyone who’s made the membership program’s first year such a big success.

Uni Watch News Ticker: So much for my dream of daily stirrups action for the Mets next season. … Willie Harris and his double-flapped batting helmet are now on the market. … New uniforms for Northwest Airlines. Details here. … In other non-sports uniform news, the Swedish army has made an anatomical adjustment to a patch on their uni (with thanks to Dave Burns). … Latest installment of “Equipped with Joe Skiba” is now available on the Giants’ home page. … Remember the confusion over whether the Red Sox wore the Massachusetts bicentennial patch in 1975, 1976, or both? John English has come across with something very similar on eBay: a 1975 Pawsox jersey with a Rhode Island bicentennial patch. … “The way the NFL is going, this may become a mandatory uni accessory,” writes Michael Rich, and he’s not talking about the mismatched socks. … Jerry Kill was named the coach of Northern Illinois yesterday, which led to this unfortunate spectacle (with thanks to Frank Mercogliano). … This Inter Milan kit is at the center of a legal and cultural controversy (with thanks to Matt Corica). … While looking at pics of the Texans’ solid reds from last night, two things jumped out at me: (1) The monochromatic look is modern, or futuristic, or whatever you want to call it, but the Texans use very traditional pants striping (esp. when compared to the Broncos), which makes for an odd with the clash of old vs. new, and (2) check out John Engelberger (No. 60) — looks like his chest horns have been truncated. … Speaking of NFL monochromes, several Minnesota readers report that the big rumor out that way is that the Vikes may go solid purple on Monday night, in which case we may as well just get it over with and press the planet’s “Self Destruct” button.

 

161 comments to Powder Blue: The Empire Strikes Back

  • ChrisM70 | December 14, 2007 at 9:22 am |

    This is my Photoshopped version of how the Royals new powder blue unis SHOULD look…

  • Seth H | December 14, 2007 at 9:23 am |

    The Mets/stirrups link goes to a blank page.

  • Seth H | December 14, 2007 at 9:25 am |

    Same thing with the Engelberger link.

  • Moose | December 14, 2007 at 9:26 am |

    Engleburger link isn’t working.

    On a side note….if the Vikiings go all purple, I might pass out. My Bears are their opponent. It may be perfect example of “Best Uniforms Ever vs. Worst Uniforms Imaginable.”

  • Paul Lukas | December 14, 2007 at 9:27 am |

    Both bad links now fixed.

  • BobA | December 14, 2007 at 9:28 am |

    Speaking of NFL monochromes, several Minnesota readers report that the big rumor out that way is that the Vikes may go solid purple on Monday night, in which case we may as well just get it over with and press the planet’s “Self Destruct” button.

    Thats funny stuff right there.

    As for the Texans. I didn’t hate the all-reds as much as I thought I would. And I think the reason is the wide pants striping that Paul alluded to. It breaks up the red enough to make it palatable, at least to me. Our all-blues sort of won me over in the same way. I love the red jerseys under any circumstances. Hey when the Texans win, I think they look GREAT!!

  • Nate from Slippery Rock | December 14, 2007 at 9:30 am |

    [quote comment=”186178″]This is my Photoshopped version of how the Royals new powder blue unis SHOULD look…[/quote]

    I agree. When I first saw the design, I was thinking to myself it should be white with a blue background. Maybe we can call up the Royals and get them to change it before the start of the season… (oh if only it worked that way)

  • =bg= | December 14, 2007 at 9:37 am |

    Texans all-red…meh. Reminds me of the description of the Indians all-red in the 70’s.
    “a giant blood clot.”

  • Stuby | December 14, 2007 at 9:41 am |

    Weird seeing John Engelberger wearing #60. I looked it up and he is listed as a Defensive End but I’m pretty sure he used to play for the Niners as a Linebacker and wear #50

  • Boston Nick | December 14, 2007 at 9:42 am |

    That Inter kit isn’t offensive to Muslims.

    It’s offensive to AC Milan fans who don’t want to see their biggest rival and its evil fanbase stealing their colors. Inter team may be ahead in the league standings this year, but they’ll always be the little sister that could never be Milan, no matter how hard they will apparently try.

  • NateL | December 14, 2007 at 9:43 am |

    At the risk of being ostracized from UniWatch forever…I kind of like the Texans all-red motif. Generally, I’m not a huge fan of the monochrome look (like the Ravens all-black look) but the Texans appeals to me. And I like the “classic” striping on the pants. Makes the uni a little less monochrome.

    However, I think basketball teams like the Wizards should be forced to go one-color. Those things are hideous!

  • Ken | December 14, 2007 at 9:43 am |

    All purple Vikes jerseys.

    There’s a reason they named him Grimace.

  • Boston Nick | December 14, 2007 at 9:44 am |

    I want to see the Texans wear the red pants with the navy jerseys. I think that would be a great look.

  • Adam | December 14, 2007 at 9:50 am |

    Was watching the today show this morning (or whatever show has Al Roker on it), and noticed they were running ads for the upcoming giants/’skins game. Both helmets were incorrect (sorry, no screen grab). The giants had a red face mask and the ‘skins was white. Being an official sponsor, shouldn’t they get this right?
    I wonder how many “official sponsors/stations” get things like this incorrect…it would be interesting to find out.

  • JJD | December 14, 2007 at 9:50 am |

    Was I the only one who thought it odd that the Texans had a monochrome kit with their ALTERNATE color? Had they ever worn red pants before? It would be like the Dolphins in orange from head-to-toe, or the Chargers suddenly showing baby blue pants.

  • Ian | December 14, 2007 at 9:53 am |

    Wow… That ’75 PawSox gamer is a true thing of beauty. Personally, I feel that screams ’70s more than the powder blues.

    And speaking of which, doesn’t this shot seem a bit reminiscent of the Go-Go Sox?

  • Mike Edgerly | December 14, 2007 at 9:54 am |

    [quote comment=”186192″]That Inter kit isn’t offensive to Muslims.

    It’s offensive to AC Milan fans who don’t want to see their biggest rival and its evil fanbase stealing their colors. Inter team may be ahead in the league standings this year, but they’ll always be the little sister that could never be Milan, no matter how hard they will apparently try.[/quote]
    Shouldn’t they also complain about the AC Milan Crest and the Milan City Flag? Also, shouldn’t AC Milan start winning some home games in Serie A before they complain about this year’s Inter uni’s?

  • Frank | December 14, 2007 at 9:58 am |

    You know how a certain look grows on you as time goes by? Well, with regards to the Chargers new unis this year that Paul linked to above, the exact opposite is happening with me. Every time I see them on tv, I keep thinking that their look just isn’t right – it doesn’t have that look that says ‘Chargers’ to me. Most of my problem with the road uni – white jersey, navy pants. Those, along with the white helmet, simply looks awful with that crappy new number font splotched on the jerseys. I’m probably alone in thinking this, but I think they should simply go back to what they had last year, or just go completely retro. Either one would beat this year’s look.

  • Moose | December 14, 2007 at 10:01 am |

    Regarding the Royals jerseys….I too have never been a fan of the powder blues. But in this case, coupled with the explanation Bryan received, I like the new ones. I think they successfully accomplished what they set out to do — an “update” of a Royals classic. We’ll see what it looks like on the field, but I think the white-outline blue looks pretty nice, and I love the outlined names/numbering on the back.

    I think we can all agree there have been FAR worse alternates created by other teams (and by the Royals — the blacks) in the past!

  • skott daltonic | December 14, 2007 at 10:03 am |

    i agree, i liked the all red, to be honest, and i thought i’d hate it.

    i love the pants stripe. i just wish the shoulder stripe was the same color…

    the only real problem was the sox. when you’re wearing all one color, there HAVE to be stripes on those things, right?

  • Jon | December 14, 2007 at 10:04 am |

    Nice interview. I’m OK with the powder blues, particularly for the Royals, who wore ’em in their best era. Wish the Mets would learn to ditch the black as swiftly as KC did.

  • BobA | December 14, 2007 at 10:15 am |

    [quote comment=”186208″]i agree, i liked the all red, to be honest, and i thought i’d hate it.

    i love the pants stripe. i just wish the shoulder stripe was the same color…

    the only real problem was the sox. when you’re wearing all one color, there HAVE to be stripes on those things, right?[/quote]

    Yup, you are right. The socks should have been striped. And to answer JJD (post #15).. nope, they never have worn the red pants before. I’d like to see them wear them with their white jerseys for a game. I like that look on the Chiefs.

  • PattyB23 | December 14, 2007 at 10:15 am |

    The story about the lawsuit over the Inter Milan uniform is ridiculous. It’s good to see the rest of the world catching up to the US in terms of senseless litigation. Will the Turkish lawyer be suing England soon to since their flag closely resembles the Milan flag?

  • Jet | December 14, 2007 at 10:18 am |

    Never been crazy about the Royals’ powder blues, although ChrisM70’s Photoshopped version of the new ones looks good.

    And although I’ve been as opposed to the gratuitous addition of black to jerseys as anyone else, is it blasphemous for me to say that I REALLY like the Royals “black trim era” jerseys?? (But NOT the all-black alternates – GAKKK!!!)

    -Jet

  • Mets/Jets Fan in Chicagoland | December 14, 2007 at 10:20 am |

    [quote comment=”186195″]I want to see the Texans wear the red pants with the navy jerseys. I think that would be a great look.[/quote]

    So long as they don’t go red jerseys/navy pants “just because” – THAT would be a nightmare on par with the Wizards alts

  • Mets/Jets Fan in Chicagoland | December 14, 2007 at 10:23 am |

    [quote comment=”186185″][quote comment=”186178″]This is my Photoshopped version of how the Royals new powder blue unis SHOULD look…[/quote]

    I agree. When I first saw the design, I was thinking to myself it should be white with a blue background.

    Maybe we can call up the Royals and get them to change it before the start of the season… (oh if only it worked that way)[/quote]

    OK, y’all – you must check out this article….who knew that Mr. Project Runway was a closet Un-Watcher? ;-)

  • Shane | December 14, 2007 at 10:25 am |

    What the hell is with the end of Peter Schaefer’s stick?

  • docious | December 14, 2007 at 10:26 am |

    Check out these paint over spat. The paint is attempting to replicate the shape of the shoe.

    And that’s Spurrier and the ’76 0-14 Bucs.

  • Neil | December 14, 2007 at 10:27 am |

    In the photo of the Bo Jackson SI cover, is he wearing stirrups or wearing socks with a stirrup line?

  • Mets/Jets Fan in Chicagoland | December 14, 2007 at 10:31 am |

    [quote comment=”186224″]In the photo of the Bo Jackson SI cover, is he wearing stirrups or wearing socks with a stirrup line?[/quote]

    Looks like socks with the stirrup line to me.
    But, you never know, since…….
    “Bo Knows Hose”

  • Shaftman | December 14, 2007 at 10:31 am |

    [quote comment=”186223″]Check out these paint over spat. The paint is attempting to replicate the shape of the shoe.

    And that’s Spurrier and the ’76 0-14 Bucs.[/quote]

    Could that paint have come off of the field? From the mid field or endzone logos perhaps?

  • Cork | December 14, 2007 at 10:41 am |

    With the Tampa Bay Rays cap mentioned by Paul yesterday, and reports that the Rays would have an alternate jersey in 2009 to go with their new unis…it is possible that the Rays may jump on the powder blue bandwagon.

    HERE is what is may look like.

  • Jet | December 14, 2007 at 10:42 am |

    [quote comment=”186222″]What the hell is with the end of Peter Schaefer’s stick?[/quote]

    Back in my goaltending days, it was common practice to create a “knob” of tape at the end of the stick shaft, so that if you wanted to extend the stick to it’s full reach with a one-handed stick check to poke a loose puck away, the stick wouldn’t slide right out of your hand. Apparently this goalie prefers the “knob” further down on the shaft…
    -Jet

  • Shane | December 14, 2007 at 10:46 am |

    [quote comment=”186235″] Apparently this goalie prefers the “knob” further down on the shaft…
    -Jet[/quote]

    ….here’s the twist. He’s a winger. Plus the top bit after the knob looks thinner than the shaft of the stick.

  • Chris | December 14, 2007 at 10:47 am |

    I think the all-reds look outstanding with white socks, but awful with red socks.

    I also agree with whoever said the dark jerseys with the red pants would look pretty cool.

  • The Hemogoblin | December 14, 2007 at 10:48 am |

    Those red pants look really really cool, hope that Houston busts those out against their blue uniforms. As for the purple, it eats people.

  • Bucky | December 14, 2007 at 10:49 am |

    Anyone know if Roddy White or DHall were fined for the MV stunts on Sunday?

  • Trevor Kruger | December 14, 2007 at 10:50 am |

    [quote comment=”186216″][quote comment=”186208″]i agree, i liked the all red, to be honest, and i thought i’d hate it.

    i love the pants stripe. i just wish the shoulder stripe was the same color…

    the only real problem was the sox. when you’re wearing all one color, there HAVE to be stripes on those things, right?[/quote]

    Yup, you are right. The socks should have been striped. And to answer JJD (post #15).. nope, they never have worn the red pants before. I’d like to see them wear them with their white jerseys for a game. I like that look on the Chiefs.[/quote]
    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

    Stay away from our classic beauties.

  • Trevor Kruger | December 14, 2007 at 10:51 am |

    whoops, i misread, i thought you said you wanted us to go all red too…sorry about that.

  • Seth H | December 14, 2007 at 10:59 am |

    The story about the lawsuit over the Inter Milan uniform is ridiculous. It’s good to see the rest of the world catching up to the US in terms of senseless litigation. Will the Turkish lawyer be suing England soon to since their flag closely resembles the Milan flag?

    Imagine what would happen if they played a friendly against the Crusaders of the College of the Holy Cross. http://goholycross.c...

    (Paul would probably file a friend of the court brief against Holy Cross.)

  • Trevor Kruger | December 14, 2007 at 11:00 am |

    [quote comment=”186184″]

    As for the Texans. I didn’t hate the all-reds as much as I thought I would. And I think the reason is the wide pants striping that Paul alluded to. It breaks up the red enough to make it palatable, at least to me. Our all-blues sort of won me over in the same way. I love the red jerseys under any circumstances. Hey when the Texans win, I think they look GREAT!![/quote]
    Sage always finds a way to win in the all-redno matter how ugly it looks.

  • Cathy | December 14, 2007 at 11:06 am |

    Interesting Uniforms for Brevard County, Florida Highschool soccer teams. A star soccer player from Sattlelite HS died suddenly at practice a couple of weeks ago due to an undiagnosed heart ailment. Cocoa Beach HS and Merritt Island HS remebered him, Rafe Maccarone, by wearing t-shirts with his number on the front with the words “Brevard’s Finest”. While wearing their own number on their shorts and back with his name above the number. Pretty slick tribute to an apparently popular HS soccer player.

  • Cathy | December 14, 2007 at 11:08 am |

    Try again:

    His number on Front

    His name, own number on back.

  • NEO | December 14, 2007 at 11:11 am |

    I definately liked the All Red Unis by Houston last night…they do have some sort of “classic” look to them with the USC shoulder stripe and wide pants stripe. I didnt see the game on TV because i dont get the NFL Network (and i can still hear Mike Wilbon telling me to get a dish) but the Texans looked much better than the Wisconsin Badgers did this year in all red. I was at one of the Badgers games, and their all Cardinal unis seemed a tad darker than Houstons…I like the bright red!

  • scott | December 14, 2007 at 11:11 am |

    At least the Royals, unlike the Blue Jays, were smart enough to realize that powder blues were a road uniform, not a home uniform.

  • dm00n [Doug] | December 14, 2007 at 11:12 am |

    [quote comment=”186236″][quote comment=”186235″] Apparently this goalie prefers the “knob” further down on the shaft…
    -Jet[/quote]

    ….here’s the twist. He’s a winger. Plus the top bit after the knob looks thinner than the shaft of the stick.[/quote]

    I had a friend who played hockey in high school and he wouldn’t put the tape to the top of the stick, he’d leave it exposed to jab into the other guy’s side when fighting for a puck. Reminds me of that. Only pointier.

  • Abe | December 14, 2007 at 11:17 am |

    [quote comment=”186193″]At the risk of being ostracized from UniWatch forever…I kind of like the Texans all-red motif. Generally, I’m not a huge fan of the monochrome look (like the Ravens all-black look) but the Texans appeals to me. And I like the “classic” striping on the pants. Makes the uni a little less monochrome.

    However, I think basketball teams like the Wizards should be forced to go one-color. Those things are hideous![/quote]

    Wizards alternates = ugliest uniforms in professional sports (and probably uglier than anything in college either).

  • Mike Edgerly | December 14, 2007 at 11:18 am |

    [quote comment=”186245″]The story about the lawsuit over the Inter Milan uniform is ridiculous. It’s good to see the rest of the world catching up to the US in terms of senseless litigation. Will the Turkish lawyer be suing England soon to since their flag closely resembles the Milan flag?

    Imagine what would happen if they played a friendly against the Crusaders of the College of the Holy Cross. http://goholycross.c...

    (Paul would probably file a friend of the court brief against Holy Cross.)[/quote]

    Hopefully the NCAA won’t continue the political correctness kick by going after all schools with “Crusaders” (Valpo is another) in their nickname. Maybe they’ll strike a deal with the Vatican or something, like FSU struck a deal with the real Seminoles. You’re right though, if Holy Cross has to change their name, maybe they’ll change their colors too!

  • ryan c #40 | December 14, 2007 at 11:19 am |

    “You know how a certain look grows on you as time goes by? Well, with regards to the Chargers new unis this year that Paul linked to above, the exact opposite is happening with me. Every time I see them on tv, I keep thinking that their look just isn’t right – it doesn’t have that look that says ‘Chargers’ to me. Most of my problem with the road uni – white jersey, navy pants. Those, along with the white helmet, simply looks awful with that crappy new number font splotched on the jerseys. I’m probably alone in thinking this, but I think they should simply go back to what they had last year, or just go completely retro. Either one would beat this year’s look.”

    I love powder blue… but it’s that number font! it’s horrible! I miss the navy blue jerseys too!

  • Hank | December 14, 2007 at 11:19 am |

    [quote comment=”186235″][quote comment=”186222″]What the hell is with the end of Peter Schaefer’s stick?[/quote]

    Back in my goaltending days, it was common practice to create a “knob” of tape at the end of the stick shaft, so that if you wanted to extend the stick to it’s full reach with a one-handed stick check to poke a loose puck away, the stick wouldn’t slide right out of your hand. Apparently this goalie prefers the “knob” further down on the shaft…
    -Jet[/quote]

    Schaefer is a left wing. Looks like he uses a 2-piece composite stick. What is shown is where the blade attaches to the shaft.

  • NEO | December 14, 2007 at 11:20 am |

    [quote comment=”186253″]I definately liked the All Red Unis by Houston last night…they do have some sort of “classic” look to them with the USC shoulder stripe and wide pants stripe. I didnt see the game on TV because i dont get the NFL Network (and i can still hear Mike Wilbon telling me to get a dish) but the Texans looked much better than the Wisconsin Badgers did this year in all red. I was at one of the Badgers games, and their all Cardinal unis seemed a tad darker than Houstons…I like the bright red![/quote]

    And former Badgers Ron Dayne, Jamar Fletcher, and Owen Daniels sure looked great in red again!

  • The Ol Goaler | December 14, 2007 at 11:20 am |

    [quote comment=”186236″][quote comment=”186235″] Apparently this goalie prefers the “knob” further down on the shaft…
    -Jet[/quote]

    ….here’s the twist. He’s a winger. Plus the top bit after the knob looks thinner than the shaft of the stick.[/quote]
    My guess is that Schaefer wraps his “top” hand around that thinner part of the stick, with the “knob” designed to keep that top hand from sliding lower on his stick.

    Skaters use a number of methods to help them grip the top of their sticks. Goalies are required to put their tape knob at the very end of their sticks by rule… “Battling” Billy Smith of the New York Islanders used to leave two to three inches of the “butt-end” of his stick untaped, using it as a weapon against opponents who skated too close to his net!

  • HtownTim | December 14, 2007 at 11:21 am |

    Bryan, you hit the nail on the head with the texans jerseys, i think they look very sharp and modern without over doing it. Not making the jerseys and pants crazy ie. Vikings, Falcons, Cardinals

  • CV | December 14, 2007 at 11:25 am |

    Vikings – where did someone here the all purple rumors? I’ve been out of the loop for a few days now.

    Texans – I will go against the grain, and say the all-red was to me just as hideous as I thought it would be.

    Wizards alts – Simply ugly. Look like something someone would wear in a YMCA pickup game.

    Royals – The Poder alts are growing on me. Alot.

    Chargers – The white jerseys with the navy pants IMO are actually the BEST combo. The home navy were much better in last years set. In fact, the navy jerseys with the navy helmet are the best of all the conbos from the 2 sets. I like how the bolt on the old jersey was just a bolt, and not set apart in a color patch on the shoulder.

  • Greg V. | December 14, 2007 at 11:25 am |

    Yesterday was the first time I have seen the MLB Players Union logo. It was behind Donald Fehr when he was discussing the Mitchell Report. What a nice logo….striped stirrups and all.

    http://www.associate...

    If only the players would look like this.

  • Boomer | December 14, 2007 at 11:31 am |

    I’m surprised at the lack of love for the powder blues. As a life-long Royals fan, I love the powder blues. They remind me of growing up in southwest Missouri, watching Royals games on TV (as the blues were the road unis, of course). I really wish that they would bring back the full road uniform. Seriously, could a ballplayer really cut a better figure than this:

    http://suttonplace.m...

    Plus, powder blue is really the best color to wear when one attempts to strangle Tim McClelland:

    http://www.wizards.c...

    (The signed version of the last shot hangs in my house.)

    I was a little disappointed to see that the new alternate powder blue would be worn with white pants. I really hate, hate, hate the whole mismatch thing. For baseball, I prefer symmetry – white top, white pants; grey top, grey pants, powder blue top, powder blue pants. Hopefully, the new alternate will look better on the field than in the ballroom at Bartle Hall in KC.

  • The Ol Goaler | December 14, 2007 at 11:33 am |

    [quote comment=”186260″][quote comment=”186245″]The story about the lawsuit over the Inter Milan uniform is ridiculous. It’s good to see the rest of the world catching up to the US in terms of senseless litigation. Will the Turkish lawyer be suing England soon to since their flag closely resembles the Milan flag?

    Imagine what would happen if they played a friendly against the Crusaders of the College of the Holy Cross. http://goholycross.c...

    (Paul would probably file a friend of the court brief against Holy Cross.)[/quote]

    Hopefully the NCAA won’t continue the political correctness kick by going after all schools with “Crusaders” (Valpo is another) in their nickname. Maybe they’ll strike a deal with the Vatican or something, like FSU struck a deal with the real Seminoles. You’re right though, if Holy Cross has to change their name, maybe they’ll change their colors too![/quote]
    Nahh… Apparently, NCAA schools can use people as mascots/nicknames as long as they’re white (Fighting Irish and Ragin’ Cajuns), from countries that don’t exist anymore (Spartans and Trojans), or from “tribes” that existed in Europe (Vikings and Vandals). “Crusaders”, “Musketeers”, “Knights” (of whatever color) all pass the PC muster.

    Hmmmm… Army’s been the “Black Knights” since about the dawn of time. Is that nickname/mascot “abusive and demeaning”?

  • zeta_1374 | December 14, 2007 at 11:37 am |

    You think that Kill 1 jersey was bad, try the headline ESPN put up on the main page – “Kill new S. Illinois coach”.

  • jere | December 14, 2007 at 11:44 am |

    Love that “ri 75” patch! And one thing about the Red Sox bicentennial patch–the confusion was more about whether or not they wore them on the road, not which year. It was clearly worn in both ’75 and ’76, I definitely provided the proof of that. It’s more a matter of, did they wear them all year long both years, or just at home, or what? Was very glad Paul linked my little report.

    And on blue unis–I did a little wrap-up of those back in ’05, which, if nothing else, gives a rundown of who wore blue when.

  • Richard Craig | December 14, 2007 at 11:47 am |

    The new Northwest Airlines outfits are all right, but they can’t hold a candle to these

  • todd krevanchi | December 14, 2007 at 11:47 am |

    ok so the red on red didnt look so hot, but because there is no real secondary color in their color palate (red, white and blue all work for this team) having red white and blue jerseys AND pants and thus all the combinations works for them. (like the arizona wildcats)

    just like i think it works in tennessee with all 3 prominent colors in use in both jerseys and pants.

    it would work in jacksonville too if they had teal pants as well (but make sure the black and teal pants have the stripes like the white ones).

    i also think it could work in washington too but only if its done in the right way. the yellow would have to be done correctly.

  • Jet | December 14, 2007 at 11:49 am |

    [quote comment=”186236″]

    ….here’s the twist. He’s a winger. Plus the top bit after the knob looks thinner than the shaft of the stick.[/quote]

    Oops, my mistake. From the pic looked like he might have been a goalie. Shows you how little I follow modern hockey. But ask me anything about 60’s/70’s hockey, LOL!!

    -Jet

  • ross | December 14, 2007 at 11:50 am |

    [quote comment=”186269″]Yesterday was the first time I have seen the MLB Players Union logo. It was behind Donald Fehr when he was discussing the Mitchell Report. What a nice logo….striped stirrups and all.

    http://www.associate...

    If only the players would look like this.[/quote]

    I like how the stirrups are made with negative space

  • duku | December 14, 2007 at 12:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”186190″]Weird seeing John Engelberger wearing #60. I looked it up and he is listed as a Defensive End but I’m pretty sure he used to play for the Niners as a Linebacker and wear #50[/quote]

    John Engelberger wore #95 as a defensive end with the Niners. Derek Smith is, and was then, the LB that wears #50.

  • Boston Nick | December 14, 2007 at 12:03 pm |

    Further looking at Peter Schaefer’s stick-end, I’m assuming he has the wooden plug that you can put in the top of a composite stick/shaft and then he sands that down due to his personal preference for a thinner-diameter where he puts his top hand.

    I’m assuming that since Schaefer isn’t anywhere close to a goon, he doesn’t use that to poke anyone,. I’ve seen a somewhat similar style with former BU and current Penguins defenseman Ryan Whitney, who had sanded down the top of his sticks as well, though not to the same extent as Schaefer.

  • Minna H. | December 14, 2007 at 12:06 pm |

    I will take royal blue over baby blue any day of the week–and any night, too.

    As for the all-red Texans unis, I am actually going to *gasp* say I was underwhelmed. I can’t believe I’m saying that about an all-red uni, but the red was too muted, and I didn’t like the white stripe on the pants. They could have been so much better.

  • Kek | December 14, 2007 at 12:07 pm |

    I didn’t catch any of the game last night on NFL Network, but from the photos, I have to say, I really didn’t mind the Texans all-red as much as I thought I would. Maybe it’s the shade of red, I don’t know. I hated the Cardinals when they’ve done it but maybe these I could live with. I thought when I first heard it that the blue socks should have been worn but I didn’t mind the all-red look. And I too wouldn’t mind seeing the blue jersey with the red pants.

    I’m not crazy about the other solid color looks, although I think the Ravens look much better with the black shoes this time around.

  • Monte | December 14, 2007 at 12:09 pm |

    I usually hate the monochromatic look but something about the Texans last night was really sharp. I think some people that are on this forum really need to be less clothes-minded. BA ZING!

  • Dean | December 14, 2007 at 12:17 pm |

    I’m sure this had been explained before, but what all do I need in the email to enter the raffle? Just name, addr, that type of thing?

  • Mark W | December 14, 2007 at 12:27 pm |

    Paul, not to worry, the Nats signed Willie Harris yesterday.

  • Mets/Jets Fan in Chicagoland | December 14, 2007 at 12:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”186288″]I didn’t catch any of the game last night on NFL Network, but from the photos, I have to say, I really didn’t mind the Texans all-red as much as I thought I would. Maybe it’s the shade of red, I don’t know. I hated the Cardinals when they’ve done it but maybe these I could live with. I thought when I first heard it that the blue socks should have been worn but I didn’t mind the all-red look. And I too wouldn’t mind seeing the blue jersey with the red pants.

    I’m not crazy about the other solid color looks, although I think the Ravens look much better with the black shoes this time around.[/quote]

    I’m with you on the Cardinals all-red – maybe it’s the white helmet that throws it off – since the Texans’ navy helmet looked (comparatively) better. In my mind, the same applies for the Dolphins unfortunate all-aqua look, since the white helmet just throws it off completely (methinks that not even a dark helmet would save that combo). Having said that, let’s hope we never see the Chargers bust out a navy jersey and pants combo with their new white helmets – the thought of the weird font combined with the dysfunctional “bolts” on the shoulders and n all-navy look – ACK!

  • Patrick | December 14, 2007 at 12:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”186203″]You know how a certain look grows on you as time goes by? Well, with regards to the Chargers new unis this year that Paul linked to above, the exact opposite is happening with me. Every time I see them on tv, I keep thinking that their look just isn’t right – it doesn’t have that look that says ‘Chargers’ to me. Most of my problem with the road uni – white jersey, navy pants. Those, along with the white helmet, simply looks awful with that crappy new number font splotched on the jerseys. I’m probably alone in thinking this, but I think they should simply go back to what they had last year, or just go completely retro. Either one would beat this year’s look.[/quote]

    You aren’t alone.

    Regarding the Texans, the all red was a bit too much, but at least we were reminded just how much BETTER the red works as the primary home jersey color for them. Pair the red jersey with white pants (and blue socks), and that is a beautiful uniform. Plus it makes the helmets pop out more.

  • todd krevanchi | December 14, 2007 at 12:36 pm |

    as far as the photoshopped “preferred” royals powder blue alternate goes, didnt joe h make that exact same photoshop last week?

    also, many people are gushing over them as though its a never been seen before combo, however, carolina baseball has been going that route for years, with no fanfare at all. i think the carolina blue and white combo is one of the sharpest and cleanest in sports.

    also, why is there such a push to see powder blue unis come back when that creates a monochromatic uniform?

    isnt that something that a significant majority on this blog bash in football on a regular basis?

    i can see it now…
    kc royals in all powder blue? gorgeous.
    tennessee titans in all powder blue? hideous.

    for some colors, monochrome looks great in football… navy, burgundy, maybe a few others…

    in baseball, not at all. white (and its spinoffs in san fran and, im stretching here, san diego) and gray work.

    on another note,
    i know its early, but since these raffle items went up today, i’ll chime in.

    id like to thank the 2007 uni watch staff (PL, Ek, Vince, Scott, Bryan, Nina and any other staffer that flies under the radar) for a great season (since its sports, i’ll call it a season and not a year).

    its easy to read the end result when you dont see the time consuming hard work that goes into it. believe me guys, these folks have a neat “job” but it really is time consuming, hours upon hours, and in some cases very frustrating. kudos to you all. 07 was better than ever and i look forward to you raising the bar for 08.

    thanks to all the sponsors who support the site, who have donated raffle items throughout the year, or have allowed for discount codes to uni watch readers this year. its great to see outside support for such an odd interest we have. your support, donations and discounts make our interest that much more enjoyable. i look forward to your continued support and perhaps other sponsors to join the nation. (come on in, the water’s fine!)

    to uni watch nation, another great season. we all have our opinions. many of us agree, many of us disagree. and outside of a few isolated flare ups, we’ve all respected one another, posted with the utmost professionalism and have acted as the adults we are. thats rare on many blogs and message boards, but something i love about this commUNIty. i look forward to reading your intelligent, humorous and insightful contributions next season.

    thanks for a great 07 season, and an even better 08.

  • Mike Engle | December 14, 2007 at 12:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”186300″]
    on another note,
    i know its early, but since these raffle items went up today, i’ll chime in.

    id like to thank the 2007 uni watch staff (PL, Ek, Vince, Scott, Bryan, Nina and any other staffer that flies under the radar) for a great season (since its sports, i’ll call it a season and not a year).

    its easy to read the end result when you dont see the time consuming hard work that goes into it. believe me guys, these folks have a neat “job” but it really is time consuming, hours upon hours, and in some cases very frustrating. kudos to you all. 07 was better than ever and i look forward to you raising the bar for 08.

    thanks to all the sponsors who support the site, who have donated raffle items throughout the year, or have allowed for discount codes to uni watch readers this year. its great to see outside support for such an odd interest we have. your support, donations and discounts make our interest that much more enjoyable. i look forward to your continued support and perhaps other sponsors to join the nation. (come on in, the water’s fine!)

    to uni watch nation, another great season. we all have our opinions. many of us agree, many of us disagree. and outside of a few isolated flare ups, we’ve all respected one another, posted with the utmost professionalism and have acted as the adults we are. thats rare on many blogs and message boards, but something i love about this commUNIty. i look forward to reading your intelligent, humorous and insightful contributions next season.

    thanks for a great 07 season, and an even better 08.[/quote]
    Amen.

  • Moose | December 14, 2007 at 12:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”186302″][quote comment=”186300″]
    on another note,
    i know its early, but since these raffle items went up today, i’ll chime in.

    id like to thank the 2007 uni watch staff (PL, Ek, Vince, Scott, Bryan, Nina and any other staffer that flies under the radar) for a great season (since its sports, i’ll call it a season and not a year).

    its easy to read the end result when you dont see the time consuming hard work that goes into it. believe me guys, these folks have a neat “job” but it really is time consuming, hours upon hours, and in some cases very frustrating. kudos to you all. 07 was better than ever and i look forward to you raising the bar for 08.

    thanks to all the sponsors who support the site, who have donated raffle items throughout the year, or have allowed for discount codes to uni watch readers this year. its great to see outside support for such an odd interest we have. your support, donations and discounts make our interest that much more enjoyable. i look forward to your continued support and perhaps other sponsors to join the nation. (come on in, the water’s fine!)

    to uni watch nation, another great season. we all have our opinions. many of us agree, many of us disagree. and outside of a few isolated flare ups, we’ve all respected one another, posted with the utmost professionalism and have acted as the adults we are. thats rare on many blogs and message boards, but something i love about this commUNIty. i look forward to reading your intelligent, humorous and insightful contributions next season.

    thanks for a great 07 season, and an even better 08.[/quote]
    Amen.[/quote]

    Couldn’t have said it better.

  • Patrick | December 14, 2007 at 1:10 pm |

    This is how the Texans should look full time.

  • Jason | December 14, 2007 at 1:12 pm |

    This past week against the Dolphins, Terrence McGee and Marshawn Lynch wore red cleats instead of the normal black or black/white the rest of the team had on.

    It also appears McGee switched cleats sometime after the opening kickoff (compared to the first pic).

    Looks like Lynch has had them for much of the year as has McGee.

    I wonder if McGee uses those first cleats on kick returns only…

  • Big L | December 14, 2007 at 1:13 pm |

    The Swing of the Quad Cities has re-named their team to the Quad Cities River Bandits, which was the team’s name 4 years ago.

    Unis to be unveiled early next year.

  • u2horn | December 14, 2007 at 1:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”186254″]At least the Royals, unlike the Blue Jays, were smart enough to realize that powder blues were a road uniform, not a home uniform.[/quote]

    actually, the Royals’ powder blues are a HOME alternate.

    From todays column:

    [quote]With that in mind, the new powder blue was designed as a home alternate. It will be used much like other teams’ alternate jerseys, though it will mostly be seen on Sundays and will be worn with white pants.

    “Teams wear colored jerseys all the time, but white pants means ‘home,’” Nelson said. The current royal blue alternate will remain in use, most likely for road games.[/quote]

  • todd krevanchi | December 14, 2007 at 1:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”186309″]This past week against the Dolphins, Terrence McGee and Marshawn Lynch wore red cleats instead of the normal black or black/white the rest of the team had on.

    It also appears McGee switched cleats sometime after the opening kickoff (compared to the first pic).

    Looks like Lynch has had them for much of the year as has McGee.

    I wonder if McGee uses those first cleats on kick returns only…[/quote]

    actually only mcgee’s shoes were red.
    red with black trim,
    whereas each lynch photo shown and the shoes mcgee switched to are black with red trim.

  • Tony Payne | December 14, 2007 at 1:31 pm |

    Basketball should be forced to wear same color shirts and shorts
    its the one sport where that actually looks better b/c the tops are sleeveless and the bottoms are shorts not pants

  • Mets/Jets Fan in Chicagoland | December 14, 2007 at 1:36 pm |

    [quote comment=”186317″]Basketball should be forced to wear same color shirts and shorts
    its the one sport where that actually looks better b/c the tops are sleeveless and the bottoms are shorts not pants[/quote]

    Agreed – this ain’t a good look

  • Zak | December 14, 2007 at 1:36 pm |

    [quote comment=”186197″]I wonder how many “official sponsors/stations” get things like this incorrect…it would be interesting to find out.[/quote]

    Check out espn.com or tsn.ca, they havn’t updated the Bruins logo yet. I’ve also seen Tampa’s old logo still used in some places. I guess it’s to be expected when seven different teams change their logo over the summer.

  • Deron | December 14, 2007 at 1:39 pm |

    At the sports bar I was at last night, some of the tv’s had their color a little off (some a lot off) and I finally got to see an NFL team in an all pink uni.

  • Frankie | December 14, 2007 at 1:40 pm |

    Texans all red was bad. Navy blue socks would have made it marginally better. I would, however, like to see the red pants with the white jerseys and blue socks.

    I don’t like the Royals powder blues for one reason… they had a perfect uni set before. The all white, the all gray, and then the royal alt were perfect.

  • derek | December 14, 2007 at 1:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”186284″][quote comment=”186269″]Yesterday was the first time I have seen the MLB Players Union logo. It was behind Donald Fehr when he was discussing the Mitchell Report. What a nice logo….striped stirrups and all.

    http://www.associate...

    If only the players would look like this.[/quote]

    I like how the stirrups are made with negative space[/quote]

    Stirrups are disgusting!!!

  • CV | December 14, 2007 at 1:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”186306″]This is how the Texans should look full time.[/quote]

    I like the current unis much better. The one I really dislike in the pair you show is the all-white roads.

    Also, as stated above, I do like the monochrome look in baseball and basketball, but really dislike the monochrome look in football and Hockey. Different sports, different tastes I guess.

  • ryan c #40 | December 14, 2007 at 1:54 pm |

    i actually like basketball with different colored shorts… and, for some reason (don’t kill me), i think i kinda like the wizards uniforms (there, i said it!)… can’t put my finger on it… maybe because it’s something new???

    and, well said “todd krevanchi”

  • todd krevanchi (krvanch) | December 14, 2007 at 2:07 pm |

    dpnation,
    on your homemade “ditka sweater style” bear’s t mentioned the other day.
    how did you go about making it?
    zazzle?

  • josh | December 14, 2007 at 2:18 pm |

    Yesterday was the first time I have seen the MLB Players Union logo. It was behind Donald Fehr when he was discussing the Mitchell Report. What a nice logo….striped stirrups and all.

    http://www.associate

    If only the players would look like this.

    I like how the stirrups are made with negative space

    That’s not negative space. That’s the uni of the ’69 ChiSox (white stirrups, blue sanis). That’s likely a silouette of Ken Berry.

  • Greg Riffenburgh | December 14, 2007 at 2:20 pm |

    Bush Sr. also got into the all-red look last night. Also a mistake.

  • Robert | December 14, 2007 at 2:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”186333″]i actually like basketball with different colored shorts… and, for some reason (don’t kill me), i think i kinda like the wizards uniforms (there, i said it!)… can’t put my finger on it… maybe because it’s something new???

    and, well said “todd krevanchi”[/quote]

    Agreed. The different colored shorts works well on the Wizards, and I genuinely like their alts for their old school goodness. If every team tried to pull this off, it would become tiresome, but with only the Wiz and perhaps a few others in the future, I give them a thumbs up.

  • Pat | December 14, 2007 at 2:26 pm |

    By the by; this was genius. No talk on it?

    Anyone have a good picture of Brett during that blow up. Looks like the pine tar stains were strategically placed and I’d like to see if there was faint stains on his shirt on those places. Which would make the t-shirt all that much cooler.

  • Philly Bill | December 14, 2007 at 2:26 pm |

    Housekeeping note for search functionality: In the Ticker, change “Northen” to “Northern”.

    [quote comment=”186310″]The Swing of the Quad Cities has re-named their team to the Quad Cities River Bandits, which was the team’s name 4 years ago.

    Unis to be unveiled early next year.[/quote]

    I can’t believe they wouldn’t want their namesake to be a musical prodigy who drank himself to death at age 28 on Prohibition-era swill.

    [quote comment=”186295″]Paul, not to worry, the Nats signed Willie Harris yesterday.[/quote]

    At this point we may as well just list the castoffs they *haven’t* signed yet…

  • Paul Lukas | December 14, 2007 at 2:34 pm |

    I’ll re-post this on Monday, but for those who are reading the comments today:

    My ESPN colleague Mary Buckheit is working on a piece about women’s volleyball uniforms — why they’re so skimpy, why some players have issues with them, why they’re so different from the men’s uniforms, whether they’re so revealing that they’ve actually led some players to develop eating disorders, that sort of thing. Here’s a note from her:

    The sport of volleyball has seen it all — unitards, mesh shorts, bun huggers, long sleeves, racerback jerseys, tall socks, no socks — what’s the deal? What is the functionality of volleyball uniforms, specifically the super-short spandex? Are women really inhibited by “cumbersome” traditional athletic shorts? You know, the ones that are perfectly suitable for soccer and basketball. Do the minis really make you perform better? Would men’s statistics spike if they dared ditch their mesh or board shorts in favor of a biker boxer brief type uni? Would they tally more digs that way? C’mon.

    When you see volleyball on TV, do you stop and watch for an extra second to scope out the 6-foot college coeds in 3-inch spandex shorts? If so, any feelings on what it would be like as a father of a high school volleyball player knowing guys in the gym are doing the same thing to your 16-year-old sophomore setter?

    If anyone has any thoughts on this, please feel free to contact me. Thanks!

  • todd krevanchi (krvanch) | December 14, 2007 at 2:41 pm |

    re: wizards alternates.

    sometimes its funny how what we think as odd or not appropriate for uniforms on the professional level, is generally accepted and looks fine at the the very grassroots and basic level of the sport.

    virtually every summer league hoops game ive played in from my freshman year of HS to when i gave it up as an adult, i cant remember but a handful of players wearing shorts in the same color of the jersey. (when i say a handful, its probably a few hundred… 15 or so summer league games per league, 2 leagues a summer, 15 years of summer league)

    personally i went out and bought shorts to go with my teams jerseys. usually the secondary color of the jersey.

    so although it went together stylistically, i looked like the wizards, and so did my teammates, however not the ones who just threw on any ol’ color pair of shorts. it made for some eye opening combinations.

  • Eriq Jaffe | December 14, 2007 at 2:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”186200″]doesn’t this shot seem a bit reminiscent of the Go-Go Sox?[/quote]Reminds me of this a bit more, actually. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a powder blue batting helmet (in the majors, at least), and I’m not sure if I ever want to again.

  • Matt D. | December 14, 2007 at 2:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”186217″]The story about the lawsuit over the Inter Milan uniform is ridiculous. It’s good to see the rest of the world catching up to the US in terms of senseless litigation. Will the Turkish lawyer be suing England soon to since their flag closely resembles the Milan flag?[/quote]

    By this logic, Braves Fans could file a suit to invalidate the results of the 1996 and 1999 World Series as the name “Yankees” causes memories of great pain and sufering in the South. Deal with it, man. Your soccer team is lousy and it’s got nothing to do with politics and history.

  • Robert | December 14, 2007 at 2:58 pm |

    “When you see volleyball on TV, do you stop and watch for an extra second to scope out the 6-foot college coeds in 3-inch spandex shorts? If so, any feelings on what it would be like as a father of a high school volleyball player knowing guys in the gym are doing the same thing to your 16-year-old sophomore setter?”

    Yes, I do, and I will continue to do so regardless of the skimpiness of the uniforms. As for the fathers of the players, hey, sorry man, but that’s the way it goes.

  • LockBull | December 14, 2007 at 3:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”186345″]I’ll re-post this on Monday, but for those who are reading the comments today:

    My ESPN colleague Mary Buckheit is working on a piece about women’s volleyball uniforms — why they’re so skimpy, why some players have issues with them, why they’re so different from the men’s uniforms, whether they’re so revealing that they’ve actually led some players to develop eating disorders, that sort of thing. Here’s a note from her:

    The sport of volleyball has seen it all — unitards, mesh shorts, bun huggers, long sleeves, racerback jerseys, tall socks, no socks — what’s the deal? What is the functionality of volleyball uniforms, specifically the super-short spandex? Are women really inhibited by “cumbersome” traditional athletic shorts? You know, the ones that are perfectly suitable for soccer and basketball. Do the minis really make you perform better? Would men’s statistics spike if they dared ditch their mesh or board shorts in favor of a biker boxer brief type uni? Would they tally more digs that way? C’mon.

    When you see volleyball on TV, do you stop and watch for an extra second to scope out the 6-foot college coeds in 3-inch spandex shorts? If so, any feelings on what it would be like as a father of a high school volleyball player knowing guys in the gym are doing the same thing to your 16-year-old sophomore setter?

    If anyone has any thoughts on this, please feel free to contact me. Thanks!

    [/quote]
    Is this also going to cover Beach Volleyball? How about other sports, such as Track and Field or Triathlon, where men go as skimpy as the women?

    On a personal note, when I was in Grad School over the summer about 15 years ago, I was in hog heaven when the campus hosted a High School volleyball camp. Now that I have a daughter in high school (not a volleyball player), I feel like such a total dirtbag for feeling like that.

  • Colin | December 14, 2007 at 3:06 pm |

    Saw this and thougth it was interesting. The logo for the NAIA National Championship Game uses the revolution style helmets. Scroll down on the homepage to see it. Has anyone ever seen the use of a “newer” equipment design in a logo before?
    http://football.vict...

  • CV | December 14, 2007 at 3:07 pm |

    Can anyone give me an idea of a source on the all-purple for Monday night Vikings rumor? Any credibility to it?

    While I think they would look like crap, I must admit I am kinda hoping for it so I can witness the purple hate meltdown here on Tuesday. :)

  • Kek | December 14, 2007 at 3:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”186359″][quote comment=”186345″]I’ll re-post this on Monday, but for those who are reading the comments today:

    My ESPN colleague Mary Buckheit is working on a piece about women’s volleyball uniforms — why they’re so skimpy, why some players have issues with them, why they’re so different from the men’s uniforms, whether they’re so revealing that they’ve actually led some players to develop eating disorders, that sort of thing. Here’s a note from her:

    The sport of volleyball has seen it all — unitards, mesh shorts, bun huggers, long sleeves, racerback jerseys, tall socks, no socks — what’s the deal? What is the functionality of volleyball uniforms, specifically the super-short spandex? Are women really inhibited by “cumbersome” traditional athletic shorts? You know, the ones that are perfectly suitable for soccer and basketball. Do the minis really make you perform better? Would men’s statistics spike if they dared ditch their mesh or board shorts in favor of a biker boxer brief type uni? Would they tally more digs that way? C’mon.

    When you see volleyball on TV, do you stop and watch for an extra second to scope out the 6-foot college coeds in 3-inch spandex shorts? If so, any feelings on what it would be like as a father of a high school volleyball player knowing guys in the gym are doing the same thing to your 16-year-old sophomore setter?

    If anyone has any thoughts on this, please feel free to contact me. Thanks!

    [/quote]
    Is this also going to cover Beach Volleyball? How about other sports, such as Track and Field or Triathlon, where men go as skimpy as the women?

    On a personal note, when I was in Grad School over the summer about 15 years ago, I was in hog heaven when the campus hosted a High School volleyball camp. Now that I have a daughter in high school (not a volleyball player), I feel like such a total dirtbag for feeling like that.[/quote]
    I wonder if it’s a phenomenon where the skimpy beach unis have had elements move into the traditional indoor game.

    Volleyball has it’s share of lookers, but I’d be more happy with a story on college gymnastics!

  • joe | December 14, 2007 at 3:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”186256″][quote comment=”186236″][quote comment=”186235″] Apparently this goalie prefers the “knob” further down on the shaft…
    -Jet[/quote]

    ….here’s the twist. He’s a winger. Plus the top bit after the knob looks thinner than the shaft of the stick.[/quote]

    I had a friend who played hockey in high school and he wouldn’t put the tape to the top of the stick, he’d leave it exposed to jab into the other guy’s side when fighting for a puck. Reminds me of that. Only pointier.[/quote]

    any decent ref would have kicked him off the ice, its against the rules to not have a knob.

  • Shaftman | December 14, 2007 at 3:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”186361″]Can anyone give me an idea of a source on the all-purple for Monday night Vikings rumor? Any credibility to it?

    While I think they would look like crap, I must admit I am kinda hoping for it so I can witness the purple hate meltdown here on Tuesday. :)[/quote]

    I don’t think we’ll have a meltdown…I think we would type in uniwatchblog.com and all you would see on the screen is…this.

  • Adam | December 14, 2007 at 3:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”186319″]I wonder how many “official sponsors/stations” get things like this incorrect…it would be interesting to find out.[/quote]

    Not exactly what you’re looking for, but Yahoo Sports still uses the “Chief” logo for Illinois, despite it being retired last year.

  • joe | December 14, 2007 at 3:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”186359″][quote comment=”186345″]I’ll re-post this on Monday, but for those who are reading the comments today:

    My ESPN colleague Mary Buckheit is working on a piece about women’s volleyball uniforms — why they’re so skimpy, why some players have issues with them, why they’re so different from the men’s uniforms, whether they’re so revealing that they’ve actually led some players to develop eating disorders, that sort of thing. Here’s a note from her:

    The sport of volleyball has seen it all — unitards, mesh shorts, bun huggers, long sleeves, racerback jerseys, tall socks, no socks — what’s the deal? What is the functionality of volleyball uniforms, specifically the super-short spandex? Are women really inhibited by “cumbersome” traditional athletic shorts? You know, the ones that are perfectly suitable for soccer and basketball. Do the minis really make you perform better? Would men’s statistics spike if they dared ditch their mesh or board shorts in favor of a biker boxer brief type uni? Would they tally more digs that way? C’mon.

    When you see volleyball on TV, do you stop and watch for an extra second to scope out the 6-foot college coeds in 3-inch spandex shorts? If so, any feelings on what it would be like as a father of a high school volleyball player knowing guys in the gym are doing the same thing to your 16-year-old sophomore setter?

    If anyone has any thoughts on this, please feel free to contact me. Thanks!

    [/quote]
    Is this also going to cover Beach Volleyball? How about other sports, such as Track and Field or Triathlon, where men go as skimpy as the women?

    On a personal note, when I was in Grad School over the summer about 15 years ago, I was in hog heaven when the campus hosted a High School volleyball camp. Now that I have a daughter in high school (not a volleyball player), I feel like such a total dirtbag for feeling like that.[/quote]

    Not a dirtbag, maybe her v-ball friends were hot.

  • Tom | December 14, 2007 at 3:45 pm |

    I’m a medieval historian and I think its kind of cool that Inter Milan is sporting the Crusader kit. I’m not sure how to handle the issue of being offensive to Muslims. It seems like nearly everything is offensive in some form or another. Although if memory serves me, the Muslims ended up soundly defeating the Crusaders.

  • LI Phil | December 14, 2007 at 3:50 pm |

    [quote]any feelings on what it would be like as a father of a high school volleyball player knowing guys in the gym are doing the same thing to your 16-year-old sophomore setter?[/quote]

    “my only goal in life is keepin’ her off the pole”
    -Chris Rock

  • Mike | December 14, 2007 at 3:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”186373″]I’m a medieval historian and I think its kind of cool that Inter Milan is sporting the Crusader kit. I’m not sure how to handle the issue of being offensive to Muslims. It seems like nearly everything is offensive in some form or another. Although if memory serves me, the Muslims ended up soundly defeating the Crusaders.[/quote]
    Well they got turned away in the middle east/holy land…but the Crusaders did succeed in kicking them out of Europe and much and Africa…for awhile there Spain was a predominantly Muslim country.

    So no, considering Islam’s westward expansion was totally destroyed I wouldn’t call it a “sound” victory.

  • Brandon | December 14, 2007 at 4:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”186361″]Can anyone give me an idea of a source on the all-purple for Monday night Vikings rumor? Any credibility to it?

    While I think they would look like crap, I must admit I am kinda hoping for it so I can witness the purple hate meltdown here on Tuesday. :)[/quote]

    I’m thinking where most of the Minnesota people heard it from is Paul Allen, who is the “voice” of Vikings radio broadcasts. He has a daily radio show on KFAN in Minneapolis. He mentioned something in passing yesterday that he heard that because of the national television exposure that the team is considering going Purple on Purple. I can’t speak to how credible the source is, but he does interact with team personnel pretty frequently.

    I’m really hoping they don’t go with them, because if they do I’m going to have to deal with tons of clueless people around MN saying how sharp they looked. Blah.

  • Tom | December 14, 2007 at 4:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”186377″][quote comment=”186373″]I’m a medieval historian and I think its kind of cool that Inter Milan is sporting the Crusader kit. I’m not sure how to handle the issue of being offensive to Muslims. It seems like nearly everything is offensive in some form or another. Although if memory serves me, the Muslims ended up soundly defeating the Crusaders.[/quote]
    Well they got turned away in the middle east/holy land…but the Crusaders did succeed in kicking them out of Europe and much and Africa…for awhile there Spain was a predominantly Muslim country.

    So no, considering Islam’s westward expansion was totally destroyed I wouldn’t call it a “sound” victory.[/quote]

    True the Reconqista did succeed in taking the Iberian Peninsula and many historians do think of that as a Crusade. What I was referring to was the smashing of the last Crusader kingdom in 1291. Which was followed by the successful Turkish conquest of Easter Roman Empire in 1453, given the Empire place in Orthodox Christianity the taking of Constantinople was a huge blow.

  • Michael Emody | December 14, 2007 at 4:25 pm |

    Wasting time again.

  • Michael Emody | December 14, 2007 at 4:28 pm |

    Sorry, I fu’d the link. Added captions to the Corbis photo from earlier in the week. I’ll try again later.

  • Sammy | December 14, 2007 at 4:31 pm |

    Is there an actual “C. Norris” that is a new Uni Watch member, or do we have a celebrity in our midst?

  • Matt Powers | December 14, 2007 at 4:43 pm |

    How refreshing to gauge the true intellect of the Uni-Watch community discussing correlations between modern sports uniforms and historical events!

    However, I feel the responsibility to bring Uni-Watch back down to the masses:

    I heard a rumor concerning our resident celebrity:
    http://thebrokenchai...

    At some point in history, he counted to infinity…twice!

    He also went hunting with Dick Cheney(of the Texan’s red uniform sponsor, Halliburton, fame!) and noone survived!

  • =bg= | December 14, 2007 at 5:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”186367″][quote comment=”186359″][quote comment=”186345″]I’ll re-post this on Monday, but for those who are reading the comments today:

    My ESPN colleague Mary Buckheit is working on a piece about women’s volleyball uniforms — why they’re so skimpy, why some players have issues with them, why they’re so different from the men’s uniforms, whether they’re so revealing that they’ve actually led some players to develop eating disorders, that sort of thing. Here’s a note from her:

    The sport of volleyball has seen it all — unitards, mesh shorts, bun huggers, long sleeves, racerback jerseys, tall socks, no socks — what’s the deal? What is the functionality of volleyball uniforms, specifically the super-short spandex? Are women really inhibited by “cumbersome” traditional athletic shorts? You know, the ones that are perfectly suitable for soccer and basketball. Do the minis really make you perform better? Would men’s statistics spike if they dared ditch their mesh or board shorts in favor of a biker boxer brief type uni? Would they tally more digs that way? C’mon.

    When you see volleyball on TV, do you stop and watch for an extra second to scope out the 6-foot college coeds in 3-inch spandex shorts? If so, any feelings on what it would be like as a father of a high school volleyball player knowing guys in the gym are doing the same thing to your 16-year-old sophomore setter?

    If anyone has any thoughts on this, please feel free to contact me. Thanks!

    [/quote]
    Is this also going to cover Beach Volleyball? How about other sports, such as Track and Field or Triathlon, where men go as skimpy as the women?

    On a personal note, when I was in Grad School over the summer about 15 years ago, I was in hog heaven when the campus hosted a High School volleyball camp. Now that I have a daughter in high school (not a volleyball player), I feel like such a total dirtbag for feeling like that.[/quote]

    Not a dirtbag, maybe her v-ball friends were hot.[/quote]

    Heh, like that cell phone commercial where the dad says to the daughter, “Maybe you should have uglier friends.”

  • todd krevanchi | December 14, 2007 at 5:02 pm |

    my christmas gift to you all…

    (i know its black and many dont appreciate that if it doesnt go with the regular colors of a team, but i think it looks fine here)

    http://farm3.static....

  • LI Phil | December 14, 2007 at 5:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”186381″][if memory serves me, the Muslims ended up soundly defeating the Crusaders.[/quote]

    when an episode of Walker Texas Ranger was aired in turkey, the muslims surrendered to chuck norris just to be on the safe side

  • Jordan | December 14, 2007 at 5:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”186373″]I’m a medieval historian and I think its kind of cool that Inter Milan is sporting the Crusader kit. I’m not sure how to handle the issue of being offensive to Muslims. It seems like nearly everything is offensive in some form or another. Although if memory serves me, the Muslims ended up soundly defeating the Crusaders.[/quote]

    Reminds me that one of the traditional rugby clubs in the English Premiership is the Saracens — whose crest & logos feature the Turkish crescent.

  • warren thompson | December 14, 2007 at 5:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”186317″]Basketball should be forced to wear same color shirts and shorts
    its the one sport where that actually looks better b/c the tops are sleeveless and the bottoms are shorts not pants[/quote]

    It’s all in the eye of the beholder, I suspect. In basketball, as opposed to football, lighter-colored jerseys cum darker shorts often can be fairly attractive. {But, again, it’s all in the eye of the beholder …. Stylistically speaking, there’s no absolute right or wrong here.}

  • Tod H. | December 14, 2007 at 5:25 pm |

    wow… that was…um… awesome?

    [quote comment=”186402″]my christmas gift to you all…

    (i know its black and many dont appreciate that if it doesnt go with the regular colors of a team, but i think it looks fine here)

    http://farm3.static....

  • jeff | December 14, 2007 at 5:27 pm |

    Looks to me like the Royals jersey Guillen is wearing is a replica! The tag looks to be heat pressed paint which are on many of the Majestic replica jerseys. The authenics have a stiched on tag that looks just about the same but without the rounded edges. How cheap if the Royals would use a replica for the official introduction!

    http://farm3.static....

  • DenverGregg | December 14, 2007 at 5:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”186306″]This is how the Texans should look full time.[/quote]
    Except that the low-whites would look better as high-whites, I agree completely.

  • Tod H. | December 14, 2007 at 5:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”186300″]also, why is there such a push to see powder blue unis come back when that creates a monochromatic uniform?

    isnt that something that a significant majority on this blog bash in football on a regular basis?

    i can see it now…
    kc royals in all powder blue? gorgeous.
    tennessee titans in all powder blue? hideous.[/quote]

    Following your logic…

    big boobs on a woman? gorgeuos
    big boobs on a man? hideous

  • LI Phil | December 14, 2007 at 5:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”186417″][quote comment=”186306″]This is how the Texans should look full time.[/quote]
    Except that the low-whites would look better as high-whites, I agree completely.[/quote]

    i very much like that mock up…and i prefer the red top to the blue…any chance of seeing how that would look with a white top & red pants? (or, just because a couple of posters had suggested it, red top/blue pants or blue top/red pants?)

    as far as the red monochrome, i didn’t see the game (damn cable), but i saw the highlights and i thought the battle red was pretty sharp…but i could see how it could get very annoying if they trotted it out with any kind of regularity…i agree with those who thought the piping on the jersey should be white, as opposed to blue, so as to match the pant stripes…and i DEFINITELY like the pant strips!

    hope they keep the red pants tho, even if they only wear them once or twice a season

  • Mike Engle | December 14, 2007 at 5:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”186416″]Looks to me like the Royals jersey Guillen is wearing is a replica! The tag looks to be heat pressed paint which are on many of the Majestic replica jerseys. The authenics have a stiched on tag that looks just about the same but without the rounded edges. How cheap if the Royals would use a replica for the official introduction!

    http://farm3.static....
    Definitely not. Alex Gordon (immediately to Guillen’s right) has a Majestic logo on the left sleeve, without the lame-o clunky “Majestic” written under the symbol (which replicas have, generally on the right sleeve). Furthermore, the jocktag says “Authentic,” juxtaposed with the batter logo.

  • Boomer's Wife | December 14, 2007 at 5:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”186341″]
    Anyone have a good picture of Brett during that blow up. Looks like the pine tar stains were strategically placed and I’d like to see if there was faint stains on his shirt on those places. Which would make the t-shirt all that much cooler.[/quote]

    Can’t help you on the picture, but I remember that the KC Star reported around the time of the Pine Tar T-shirt promotion that Brett had reviewed the design and had them add more “pine tar” b/c the first design was too skimpy.

    I can’t find a link to the original Jeffrey Flanagan column, but here’s an excerpt:
    When the Royals showed George Brett a sample T-shirt of the one they’re giving away tonight for the 24th anniversary of the Pine Tar game, Brett suggested the T-shirt’s design needed a little tweaking.

    “It just didn’t have enough pine tar on it,” Brett said. “My uniform used to get pretty full of it, front and back, so I had them put a few more splotches on the T-shirt.”

  • Tim McCabe | December 14, 2007 at 5:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”186416″]Looks to me like the Royals jersey Guillen is wearing is a replica! The tag looks to be heat pressed paint which are on many of the Majestic replica jerseys. The authenics have a stiched on tag that looks just about the same but without the rounded edges. How cheap if the Royals would use a replica for the official introduction!

    http://farm3.static....

    It’s a Cool Base jersey. That’s the style of tag cool base and the BP jerseys use.

  • Patrick | December 14, 2007 at 6:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”186422″][quote comment=”186417″][quote comment=”186306″]This is how the Texans should look full time.[/quote]
    Except that the low-whites would look better as high-whites, I agree completely.[/quote]

    i very much like that mock up…and i prefer the red top to the blue…any chance of seeing how that would look with a white top & red pants? (or, just because a couple of posters had suggested it, red top/blue pants or blue top/red pants?)

    as far as the red monochrome, i didn’t see the game (damn cable), but i saw the highlights and i thought the battle red was pretty sharp…but i could see how it could get very annoying if they trotted it out with any kind of regularity…i agree with those who thought the piping on the jersey should be white, as opposed to blue, so as to match the pant stripes…and i DEFINITELY like the pant strips!

    hope they keep the red pants tho, even if they only wear them once or twice a season[/quote]

    Here they are with red top/blue pants and white top/red pants. I have to say, I thought I’d hate these but actually like them both.

  • LI Phil | December 14, 2007 at 6:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”186441″][quote comment=”186422″][quote comment=”186417″][quote comment=”186306″]This is how the Texans should look full time.[/quote]
    Except that the low-whites would look better as high-whites, I agree completely.[/quote]

    i very much like that mock up…and i prefer the red top to the blue…any chance of seeing how that would look with a white top & red pants? (or, just because a couple of posters had suggested it, red top/blue pants or blue top/red pants?)

    as far as the red monochrome, i didn’t see the game (damn cable), but i saw the highlights and i thought the battle red was pretty sharp…but i could see how it could get very annoying if they trotted it out with any kind of regularity…i agree with those who thought the piping on the jersey should be white, as opposed to blue, so as to match the pant stripes…and i DEFINITELY like the pant strips!

    hope they keep the red pants tho, even if they only wear them once or twice a season[/quote]

    Here they are with red top/blue pants and white top/red pants. I have to say, I thought I’d hate these but actually like them both.[/quote]

    thanks man

    you know…i agree…thought i’d hate em…but i kind like both as well

    cheers

  • David | December 14, 2007 at 7:23 pm |

    Wow. Giants home page says, “Big Blue can put an exclamation point on their regualr season…”

  • aaron | December 14, 2007 at 7:25 pm |

    yeah, i don’t really think that those vikings purple on purple jersey rumor is credible. i’ve been reading message boards all week and have just seen fans talking about it, but nothing solid anywhere else. like someone else said, if they do go all purple, i am going to hear idiots saying how awesome it was and i might just lose my head.

  • Neil | December 14, 2007 at 7:40 pm |

    On this message board, I’m sure that this has been posted before.

    But I came across this Stade Francais jersey while shopping for rugby boots….

    Brown with pink flowers? Seriously?

  • Neil | December 14, 2007 at 7:41 pm |

    http://www.stade.fr/...

    Can’t get the link to work so you can just copy and paste…

  • Russ | December 14, 2007 at 8:31 pm |

    How come nobody ever brings up the fact that the Royals have been ripping off the Dodgers uniforms for the last 15 years. The colors, the script, it’s a complete knock-off. At least the powder blue was original.

  • LI Phil | December 14, 2007 at 8:52 pm |

    [quote comment=”186477″]How come nobody ever brings up the fact that the Royals have been ripping off the Dodgers uniforms for the last 15 years. The colors, the script, it’s a complete knock-off. At least the powder blue was original.[/quote]

    good point

    royals

    dodgers

  • LI Phil | December 14, 2007 at 8:54 pm |

    better version

    dodgers

  • Robert | December 14, 2007 at 9:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”186477″]How come nobody ever brings up the fact that the Royals have been ripping off the Dodgers uniforms for the last 15 years. The colors, the script, it’s a complete knock-off. At least the powder blue was original.[/quote]

    The Royals have worn the same basic home whites for nearly forty years, not fifteen, and with their thin blue stripes on the pants and trim on the jerseys, they have consistently looked better than the Dodgers.

    Now don’t get me wrong, I like the Dodgers uniforms just fine. However, the Royals have long had one of the cleanest, most attractive home uniforms, which is difficult in my opinion, since I hate blue.

  • Russ | December 14, 2007 at 9:23 pm |

    I’m not debating which uniform is cleaner or more attractive. I’m just saying that the Royals uniform is VERY derivative. It’s like they didn’t even try to be original. They saw a great, classic uniform and basically copied it.

  • diz | December 14, 2007 at 9:47 pm |

    [quote comment=”186468″]

    On this message board, I’m sure that this has been posted before.

    But I came across this Stade Francais jersey while shopping for rugby boots….

    Brown with pink flowers? Seriously?[/quote]

    yeah, stade strips are usually pretty mental. Nothing to get excited about really.

  • Gnu | December 14, 2007 at 9:53 pm |

    Looks like Appalachian State will book end their season by putting down the winged Yost helmets of the maize and blue. Bring on Princeton and they’ll have a clean sweep of that particular design.

  • Bryan Redemske | December 14, 2007 at 10:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”186496″]I’m not debating which uniform is cleaner or more attractive. I’m just saying that the Royals uniform is VERY derivative. It’s like they didn’t even try to be original. They saw a great, classic uniform and basically copied it.[/quote]

    So … how is that a problem? When it seems like every other college football or basketball team looks alike, you’re worried about the Royals? If a nearly 40-year-old concept is an issue, we’re in better shape than I thought.

    Oh, wait. Purple is coming … crap.

  • Drew Glover | December 14, 2007 at 10:26 pm |

    On a search for a rear view of an ASU uniform, I found a picture which shows a nameplate inconsistency.

    Picture

    The “E” and “T” were most noticeable. I’m not sure what year this picture is from.

  • Flip | December 14, 2007 at 10:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”186496″]I’m not debating which uniform is cleaner or more attractive. I’m just saying that the Royals uniform is VERY derivative. It’s like they didn’t even try to be original. They saw a great, classic uniform and basically copied it.[/quote]
    Graceful KC
    Brutish LA

  • Jeff Kope | December 14, 2007 at 10:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”186515″]On a search for a rear view of an ASU uniform, I found a picture which shows a nameplate inconsistency.

    Picture

    The “E” and “T” were most noticeable. I’m not sure what year this picture is from.[/quote]

    I am an App State student and I am pretty sure that pic is of last years title game against Massachusetts.

  • Russ | December 14, 2007 at 10:44 pm |

    So … how is that a problem? When it seems like every other college football or basketball team looks alike, you’re worried about the Royals? If a nearly 40-year-old concept is an issue, we’re in better shape than I thought.

    Oh, wait. Purple is coming … crap.

    So out of only 32 teams you have no problem with the fact that 2 of them have almost the exact same uniform? I can understand college football with 119 teams and the fact that most of them need the Nike or Adidas money, but this is Major League Baseball. 40 years or not, the fact of the matter is that the Royals completely lack creativity when it comes to anything but baby blue.

  • matt1977 | December 14, 2007 at 10:47 pm |

    Texans-Red on red looked bad. I would be interested in white jersey w/red pants though.

    Chargers-I don’t like them as much as I did at first. I realize they went white helmets because you can only have one helmet design (excluding throwbacks) and they needed it to go with both the regular(navy) and alt(powder blue), but I don’t like the way the navy facemask looks with the powder blues. It ends up looking black and clashing w/the rest of the uniform. I think they should have gone with a more all encompassing gray facemask.

  • LI Phil | December 14, 2007 at 11:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”186511″]Oh, wait. Purple is coming … crap.[/quote]

    is this what’s coming?

    the bears will need to kick the everloving shit out of the vikes if they dare break that out

  • Bryan Redemske | December 14, 2007 at 11:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”186521″]So … how is that a problem? When it seems like every other college football or basketball team looks alike, you’re worried about the Royals? If a nearly 40-year-old concept is an issue, we’re in better shape than I thought.

    Oh, wait. Purple is coming … crap.

    So out of only 32 teams you have no problem with the fact that 2 of them have almost the exact same uniform? I can understand college football with 119 teams and the fact that most of them need the Nike or Adidas money, but this is Major League Baseball. 40 years or not, the fact of the matter is that the Royals completely lack creativity when it comes to anything but baby blue.[/quote]

    So because they’re both blue and white and have a script wordmark on the front, they’re almost exactly the same? The typefaces are very different. The Royals have piping. The Dodgers have red numbers on the front.

    By your logic, then, didn’t the Red Sox copy the Yankees’ road jerseys from 1938 to 1968, and again from 1979 to now? They each have navy blue type — though in different fonts — radially arched, no numbers on the front and stripes or piping on the sleeves. Why aren’t the Red Sox derivative, too? How about the Tigers in the 1960s and early 70s? They had plain, navy blue lettering on their roadies, too.

    And there are only 30 MLB teams.

  • LI Phil | December 14, 2007 at 11:17 pm |

    [quote]Texans-Red on red looked bad. I would be interested in white jersey w/red pants though.[/quote]

    red on blue and white on red

    patrick did that mock up for me in post #130

  • Robb | December 14, 2007 at 11:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”186360″]Saw this and thougth it was interesting. The logo for the NAIA National Championship Game uses the revolution style helmets. Scroll down on the homepage to see it. Has anyone ever seen the use of a “newer” equipment design in a logo before?
    http://football.vict...

    I think ESPN’s NFL Live stocks mainly revolution helmets on the set – in the back room. CBS – I think – represents teams with revolution helmets in their graphics.
    On a similar note, the Big 33 game (PA vs Ohio) fields every player in a revolution helmet, but their logo is still old school (left side, bottom of the navigation menu)

    The BCS Championship t-shirt which is not bad looking, but not too many Nike swooshes considering its another Nike-on-Nike match up for all the marbles.

  • Russ | December 14, 2007 at 11:45 pm |

    Put the 4 uniforms side by side and tell me that the KC uniform is not almost the same and very derivative. I understand that you have a new buddy, but don’t let it get in the way of the facts.

  • Tony Payne | December 15, 2007 at 12:07 am |

    [quote comment=”186342″]Housekeeping note for search functionality: In the Ticker, change “Northen” to “Northern”.

    [quote comment=”186310″]The Swing of the Quad Cities has re-named their team to the Quad Cities River Bandits, which was the team’s name 4 years ago.

    Unis to be unveiled early next year.[/quote]

    I can’t believe they wouldn’t want their namesake to be a musical prodigy who drank himself to death at age 28 on Prohibition-era swill.

    [quote comment=”186295″]Paul, not to worry, the Nats signed Willie Harris yesterday.[/quote]

    At this point we may as well just list the castoffs they *haven’t* signed yet…[/quote]

    you know who bix is
    you are my best friend ever

  • tom | December 15, 2007 at 12:16 am |

    [quote comment=”186249″]Interesting Uniforms for Brevard County, Florida Highschool soccer teams. A star soccer player from Sattlelite HS died suddenly at practice a couple of weeks ago due to an undiagnosed heart ailment. Cocoa Beach HS and Merritt Island HS remebered him, Rafe Maccarone, by wearing t-shirts with his number on the front with the words “Brevard’s Finest”. While wearing their own number on their shorts and back with his name above the number. Pretty slick tribute to an apparently popular HS soccer player.[/quote]
    this is one of the classicist thing i have ever heard. i wish more schools would do this

  • Patrick | December 15, 2007 at 12:19 am |

    [quote comment=”186515″]On a search for a rear view of an ASU uniform, I found a picture which shows a nameplate inconsistency.

    Picture

    The “E” and “T” were most noticeable. I’m not sure what year this picture is from.[/quote]

    It’s like looking at one of those 3-d pix, I don’t get it! What are we supposed to be looking at?

  • Bryan Redemske | December 15, 2007 at 12:29 am |

    [quote comment=”186542″]Put the 4 uniforms side by side and tell me that the KC uniform is not almost the same and very derivative. I understand that you have a new buddy, but don’t let it get in the way of the facts.[/quote]

    It’ll be easy — as I stated before. The typefaces and tails are different. The trim is different. The front number color is different. The sleeve patches are different. Those are the only facts. Whether or not they’re almost the same and very derivative is your opinion.

    Similar, yes. Almost the same, no.

  • sebastian | December 15, 2007 at 2:48 am |

    There should be an end to monochrome uniforms. It’s cool when it’s all-black or all-white, but the rest is garbaaaaage

  • S.W.P. | December 15, 2007 at 11:40 am |

    Here’s a preview of Monday night’s purple on purple.

  • James Craven | December 15, 2007 at 1:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”186808″]“Here’s a preview of Monday night’s purple on purple.”[/quote]

    B-squared S-squared.

    Bites. Blows. Stinks. Sucks. All at the same time.

    You Cramer boardies know what I speak of.

  • DM Parada | December 17, 2007 at 12:51 am |

    For those who desire the classic powder blue Charger uni’s, Dean Spanos will never let that happen.

    I think the current uni’s were as far as he would give in.