Tomorrow is Independence Day. I always like to call it that — Independence Day, not the 4th of July — because that’s what the holiday is about, after all: our independence from the British crown. It’s a special day, an important day. If you haven’t read the Declaration of Independence lately, I suggest that you do so — it’s a pretty stirring document, and it serves as a compelling reminder that we always need to be vigilant, because liberty is a fragile thing, something we have to nurture and protect from anything that threatens it.
As it happens, I myself have recently identified precisely such a threat, an evil seed that bids to lay waste to everything we hold dear. And I can assure you that I plan to do everything within my power to expunge this threat from the face of this earth.
I am referring, of course, to Ronnie Belliard’s socks.
In case you missed it (as I did myself, until there was a brief mention of it in yesterday’s comments), Belliard — who usually goes pajama-pantsed — hiked up his cuffs on Tuesday night, revealing the mark of the beast on his stockings. Although it’s hard to be sure, it appears that this wasn’t an isolated incident (that photo is from Sunday).
This isn’t the first time the scourge of logo creep has afflicted MLB hose. Back in 2005, I identified at least at least four players with the Rawlings logo on their socks: Kelvim Escobar, Orlando Cabrera, Paul Byrd (here’s another view of him), and Joe Crede. At the time, I worried that we’d soon start seeing sock-borne maker’s marks throughout MLB diamonds. Fortunately, that hasn’t come to pass, but Belliard’s legwear is a reminder that we can’t take lower-leg tranquility for granted.
And to think this team is called the Nationals.
Why is this so important? Because socks are just about the only brand-free oasis remaining on the baseball diamond. Think about it: Jerseys are visibly branded, along with pants, shoes, fielder’s gloves, batting gloves, catching gear, and undershirts (not always, but the chest swoosh is often exposed to view). The only things that aren’t logo-creepy are headwear (well, usually) and socks. Socks are also unbranded — at least for now — in the other major pro sports leagues.
And it damn well better stay that way. Because if there’s one thing this country stands for, it’s freedom, and that definitely includes freedom from advertising-infested hosiery. Rise up, my fellow Americans! Whether it means dumping boxes of socks into Boston Harbor, driving a bullpen buggy through the countryside while shouting, “The sock swooshes are coming! The sock swooshes are coming!,” or burning Ronnie Belliard in effigy (maybe just from the knees down), we must take arms against this savage incursion. Repeat after me, fellow citizens: Give us advertising-free socks, or give us death.
Uni Watch Calender Correction: Yesterday I mentioned the possibility of convening a Uni Watch gathering in Manhattan after the Don Larsen perfect game screening “next Tuesday, July 10th” — a tricky concept, since next Tuesday is the actually 8th. Oops. The correct day/date is next Thursday, the 10th. So let’s try this again: If there’s sufficient interest among NYC readers, we can have a Uni Watch confab at 8:30ish on July 10th at Jimmy’s Corner on West 44th. If this appeals, send me a note.
Uni Watch News Ticker: The Giants and Cubs apparently couldn’t wait until the holiday weekend to start wearing the star-spangled caps — further evidence that almost every idea gets taken too far these days. Meanwhile, Chris Bruggeman reports that Ryan Dempster had some XYZ issues during that game. Several Cubs fans apparently noticed it and e-mailed the broadcast team, leading Len Kasper and Bob Brenly to discuss the situation. I don’t have access to the Cubs broadcast feed, alas, but Chris says that at one point Brenly quipped, “If [Dempster] pitches a shutout, I think the whole staff will go out to greet him with their barn doors open.” ”¦ In a related item, the Pedro porthole was in full force last night in St. Looey. … In yesterday’s entry on tags and labels, I quoted Terry Proctor thusly: “For the NBA or NFL teams that SandKnit outfitted, they would say something like, ‘Custom-Crafted by Medalist SandKnit for the Boston Celtics of the National Basketball Association’ (or whatever the appropriate team was).” That prompted Doug Rogers to send along a photo of the label from one of his old Vikings jerseys — check it out. Notice anything amiss? They got it right on this one. ”¦ Brooks Robinson was presented with an All-Time Gold Glove on Tuesday night. York Revolution players wore “B. Robinson” nameplates in his honor (with thanks to Chris Laughman). ”¦ Good observation here about an update to the Hornets’ logo (with thanks to Ernie Ballard). ”¦ Another great job by Nike (with thanks to Christian Ruzich). ”¦ The Mid-American Conference has a new logo (with thanks to Tom Konecny). ”¦ Odd observation from Ellen Schmidt, who notes that Greg Dobbs was wearing eye black early in one of the recent Phils/Rangers games but had removed it later in the game. ”¦ Who picks the Twins’ uniforms each day? Answer here (with thanks to Joe Drennan). ”¦ LI Phil found something interesting: a site that’s sort of a soda bottle version of Uni Watch. The home page is here. ”¦ Also from Phil (reprinted from yesterday’s comments): a bearded Yankee! Must’ve been from one of Thurman’s periodic “I’m gonna fuck with Steinbrenner” phases. ”¦ Another smoking athlete (but not in uniform): Sean Avery (courtesy of Andrew Jobe). ”¦ Check out what the Bossier-Shreveport Battle Wings (arenafootball2) will be wearing for the 4th of July. ”¦ More news on SMU’s new football togs here, here, here, here, here, here, and here (with thanks to Chris Mycoskie and Tod Meisner). ”¦ Reprinted from yesterday’s comments: More hoops jerseys with crotch extensions. That’s Washington coach Tippy Dye checking out the team’s uniforms. ”¦ Also from yesterday: Full gallery here of the West Michigan Whitecaps’ Darth Vader jerseys. ”¦ Yet another noteworthy bit from yesterday’s comments: Numberless catcher? Nope, it’s just Bengie Molina, who combines two rarities: a catcher wearing No. 1 and a really thick vertical strap. ”¦ Hey, speaking of graphics on MLB hosiery, check out the stirrups in this photo from Bill Henderson’s CD. Don’t think I’ve ever seen a uni number sewn into the bottom of the strap like that. Also can’t say I recall seeing the ’Stros wearing stars on their calves — hmmmm. … The Brewers and Pirates will wear Negro Leagues throwbacks on Saturday (with thanks to Jeff Ash). ”¦Ever heard of the National Indoor Football League or the United Indoor Football League? Yeah, me neither, but Marc Viquez says a team called the Fort Wayne Freedom belonged to both of those leagues, and he recently spotted one of their helmets for sale at an Indianapolis shop. ”¦ Admirably detail-obsessive observation from Brandon Davis, who writes: “It appears that MLB started adding the TM symbol to the MLB logo on the back of batting helmets in 2006, the same time teams started wearing CoolFlo helmets.”
Holiday Schedule: Uni Watch will be closed tomorrow. Bryan will handle the weekend, as usual. See you all next week, and try not to blow off too many of your fingers with fireworks.
First linked image is not Belliard.
Was gonna ask if there was a reason teams were wearing their Stars n’ Stripes early. And apparently there isn’t. At least not a policy reason, anyway.
Funny thing about new Ray unis. First time I saw them(was in a magazine in O’Hare) I thought…”They’re gonna have a great year.” Same thought I had when I first saw current Twins unis back in ’87. Take a young team that’s struggled and is finding itself, change their unis from something a little “odd” to something the looks a major leaguer would wear (Twins scrapped powder blue sansabelt and those dumb red hats) and it has a huge uplifting affect.
So I’m surprised at Ray success. “If you look good, you feel good. If you feel good, you do good.”
The Giants look God-awlful in theose blue hats.
I’m NOT surprised by Rays’ success.
link
[quote comment=”278185″]Funny thing about new Ray unis. First time I saw them(was in a magazine in O’Hare) I thought…”They’re gonna have a great year”…Take a young team that’s struggled and is finding itself, change their unis from something a little “odd” to something the looks a major leaguer would wear…and it has a huge uplifting affect.[/quote]
well admittedly, link was an absolute joke…but
link link, even the link, was one of the nicer and cleaner unis in the bigs…plus, it’s a nice deep hunter green
link…not so much, especially with the annoying habit of the jersey to spell “RAAYS”
*INTERSTING CONCEPT link here
By the way, this is a great weekend to remind those with a narrow definition of patriotism that dissent in our genes.
It is our birthright, our responsibility.
The Boston Tea Party was not a $1,000 a plate fundraiser. It was a freakin’ protest.
And THAT’s what those stars n’strips hats are celebrating (even though they’re dumb and ugly): The courage to dissent, to stand up in the face of the powerful.
NOT blind allegiance. Blind allegiance gets guys to fly jets into skyscrapers. Dissent is decidedly preferable.
(I will now put my soapbox away).
on a uni related note…
last night UW stalwart mike engle made a request, which i shall echo here, of those with some photoshop skills…
would someone be able to do mock ups of the starspangled cap LOGOS on their CURRENT-color caps?
in other words, “starspangled A” on a green cap, “starspangled SF” on a black cap, etc.
i think they will look crappy on the non-red or blue hats, but i bet they don’t look completely horrible on say a reds (non black-bill), cards, d-back (red), mets, yanks, dodgers, royals, etc…ya know…those whose base colors compliment the starspangled logo
anyway…if ANYONE can do that (photoshop)…tha’d be great
While you’re at it, Ricko, get off of Philip’s lawn, will ya?
BTW, have a safe and sane Fourth of July. As Bob Barker reminded us a couple decades ago, “Have your fireworks spayed or neutered.”
Something else interesting about the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…”
In the recorded history of mankind, that was the first time a government ever wrote that down.
And it was baseball, in 1947, that went a long way to helping us remember that.
You can mention that to anyone who doesn’t think baseball is endemic to the American experience in the 20th century and, hopefully, beyond.
[quote comment=”278184″]First linked image is not Belliard.[/quote]
Now fixed.
[quote comment=”278188″]link[/quote]
Excellent — thanks!
[quote comment=”278193″]Something else interesting about the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…”
In the recorded history of mankind, that was the first time a government ever wrote that down.[/quote]
those exact words…yes
however, james monroe borrowed a large portion of the DI from another famous document written 561 years earlier on the plains of runnymede
So, should we start the “Stop swoosh socks, wear stirrups!” campaign?
I am envisioning one lonely figure, wearing a Mets cap, standing on a pier, solemnly dumping a box of stirrups into Boston Harbor, with only a camera crew there to record the act of defiance. I like it.
I’d love to see the Giants go with this uni every year on the 4th of July. Maybe with the waistband worn a bit lower, though. Will the Thrill looks like Steve Urkel in that shot.
link
[quote]And it damn well better stay that way. Because if there’s one thing this country stands for, it’s freedom, and that definitely includes freedom from advertising-infested hosiery. [/quote]
Paul, I disagree completely with your views on Nike, and “logo creep.” While you have a right to voice your opinion, and I have a right to choose whether or not to read this space each day, I disagree 100% with the above statement. You are right that we have a freedom to choose what we choose, and what that truly means is that Belliard, and everyone else has a right to choose what socks they wear, and if those socks happen to have a swoosh, or Adidas logo, or nothing at all the choice is up to them.
Who are you to say that everyone has a right to be free from “logo creep?” What about those of us who are not offended by it? Don’t we have an equal right? I chose to wear Nike products through my football career in high school and college, wasn’t it my right to wear Nike socks, wristbands, cleats, and gloves? I think your comments are way off base. While preaching meanings of freedom you overlook what freedom is truly about.
[quote comment=”278188″]link[/quote]
you beat me too it. I wish the Astros would wear those throwbacks…including the star stirrups…
Though it’s well documented that Thurman Munson had numerous “I’m gonna fuck with Steinbrenner” phases, George didn’t buy the team from CBS until 1973. So not being a baseball card expert, is it conceivable that the baseball card depicting Thurman with a beard is pre-1973 and therefore pre-dates the Yankees no-beard policy?
[quote comment=”278193″]Something else interesting about the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…”
In the recorded history of mankind, that was the first time a government ever wrote that down.
And it was baseball, in 1947, that went a long way to helping us remember that.
You can mention that to anyone who doesn’t think baseball is endemic to the American experience in the 20th century and, hopefully, beyond.[/quote]
Listen to NPR’s Morning Edition tomorrow for the annual reading of the Declaration of Independence. It will stir your soul like nothing else.
[quote comment=”278196″][quote comment=”278193″]Something else interesting about the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…”
In the recorded history of mankind, that was the first time a government ever wrote that down.[/quote]
those exact words…yes
however, james monroe borrowed a large portion of the DI from another famous document written 561 years earlier on the plains of runnymede[/quote]
True enough. I’ve read that one, too – inspiring, all.
Time for my family to break out the DVD of 1776….
[quote comment=”278185″]So I’m surprised at Ray success. “If you look good, you feel good. If you feel good, you do good.”[/quote]
And to paraphrase Dick Allen: “I hit better when I look bitchin’!”
On the subject of branded hoisery:
I play and manage a team in a Long Island 18 and over league and, as you can probably imagine, uniforms are quite interesting. My club tries to take the Uni Watch stance on a lot of things (I order the unis) but it can be difficult to either get everyone to comply. One thing most guys do though is hike up the socks, but there is an epidemic more prominent than Nike on our fields: Under Armor. I’d say a good half the league that goes high socks are equipped with the Under Armor ‘H’, but much more prominent than the Rawlings and Nike marks. The logo is right in the center of the shin facing forward.
[quote comment=”278200″][quote]And it damn well better stay that way. Because if there’s one thing this country stands for, it’s freedom, and that definitely includes freedom from advertising-infested hosiery. [/quote]
Paul, I disagree completely with your views on Nike, and “logo creep.” While you have a right to voice your opinion, and I have a right to choose whether or not to read this space each day, I disagree 100% with the above statement. You are right that we have a freedom to choose what we choose, and what that truly means is that Belliard, and everyone else has a right to choose what socks they wear, and if those socks happen to have a swoosh, or Adidas logo, or nothing at all the choice is up to them.
Who are you to say that everyone has a right to be free from “logo creep?” What about those of us who are not offended by it? Don’t we have an equal right? I chose to wear Nike products through my football career in high school and college, wasn’t it my right to wear Nike socks, wristbands, cleats, and gloves? I think your comments are way off base. While preaching meanings of freedom you overlook what freedom is truly about.[/quote]
Another point – Which is the lesser of two evils? Pajama pants, or logo’d hosiery? The jerseys have logos. The gloves have logos. The shoes have logos. The sweat bands have logos. The body armor has logos. Why should lower legs be exempt? I’m not saying I like it. I’m just saying if they’re generally accepted everywhere else, why not there?
On a totally different note, shouldn’t the link for the Bossier-Shreveport Battle Wings promotion read “for Independence Day”?
[quote comment=”278200″]Paul, I disagree completely with your views on Nike, and “logo creep.”[/quote]
Be my guest — disagree all you like. Fuck stand on the corner and distribute anti-Lukas pamphlets, for all I care. I’m sure Tom Paine would approve.
[quote comment=”278209″]The jerseys have logos. The gloves have logos. The shoes have logos. The sweat bands have logos. The body armor has logos. Why should lower legs be exempt?[/quote]
A, B, C, D, and E suck, so why shouldn’t F suck as well?
Sounds logical to me.
“those exact words” is what I meant, no slight to the Magna Carta intended.
re: Astros. Yeah, always thought those first Astros unis (after switch from Colt .45s) were pretty classy. When they flipflopped the orange and navy for a few years prior to Rainbow Guts the orange stirrups had a navy star…but that uni wasn’t nearly as nice looking as the one shown here today.
re: Solitary Met dumping things into harbor. Hope those are the black socks…and maybe the black/royal and black hats, too?
re: Freedom from logo creep. Think maybe Paul was doing an “exasperation” thing cuz of holiday. Kinda think he knows stirrups weren’t on the minds of Founding Fathers. Although, they did wear those nifty stockings with bloused breeches, didn’t they. Hmmm, I wonder…
“Damn that Paul Revere, sticking his logo all over his cutlery.”
Oh, forgot, for NBA: “Oklahoma City Laters.”
When spending sports entertainment dollars Okalhomans would then be thinking, “Hmmm, I guess I’m gonna spend money (blank) or (blank)?” If I have to explain that, you’re at the wrong web site. LOL
rimshot
(Hey, I am in WAY too good a mood cuz of short week).
Can we go back to the stirrups talk and all other ancient, museum-worthy relics that remind you of sad, old times?
[quote]I’m sure Tom Paine would approve.[/quote]
paul displaying some common sense
just not gonna go there with the swoosh sox
As for the Athletes Formerly Known As Sonics – I’d like a logical explanation of the OKC abbreviation. Yes, “OK” is the official postal service abbreviation for the state of Oklahoma. I’m sure C is for City. But usually when you put three letters together like that, each letter stands for something. The “K” has no right being there!
Am I along here, or just in a stinky mood for being reprimanded by the zoo keeper?
I know that it’s completely unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but I found the title strangely fitting, given what’s happening with Seattle and the NBA at the moment.
[quote comment=”278204″]“Time for my family to break out the DVD of ‘1776’…”[/quote]
OH FOR GOD’S SAKES JOHN, SIT DOWN!
Could not resist doing that line.
BTWE, uni-related, the colonial soldiers’ messanger uniform? It is spot-on.
Man, I miss this guy…
link
[quote comment=”278198″]I am envisioning one lonely figure, wearing a Mets cap, standing on a pier, solemnly dumping a box of stirrups into Boston Harbor, with only a camera crew there to record the act of defiance. I like it.[/quote]
Except it would be a box of logo branded socks, not stirrups. So far, they are logo-free.
Love the flag on your post Paul. I fly the Gadsden link flag year round at my house. Of course, most people think I’m part of an extreme right wing militia (couldn’t be farther from the truth). For those who stop to ask (and they do), I explain what the flag is. link
…I will fly the Stars and Sriped tomorrow though.
While I’m with Paul in preferring logo-free equipment, I think I’d be willing to put up with it on socks if it meant that everyone was showing them, preferably with stirrups. If I never had to see a ballplayer wearing his pants to his shoetops again, I could stand a little swoosh.
If you really want to be moved, you should hear the reading of the Declaration of Independence at the Old State House in Boston tomorrow morning.
I never miss it. They read the DI from the exact spot it was initially read in 1776.
After all I am descended from a simple cobbler from Connecticut (no not THAT one, but my grandparents and great grandparents were cobblers from Connecticut).
[quote comment=”278207″][quote comment=”278185″]So I’m surprised at Ray success. “If you look good, you feel good. If you feel good, you do good.”[/quote]
And to paraphrase Dick Allen: “I hit better when I look bitchin’!”[/quote]
Dick Stewart!!!
I got goosebumps.
[quote comment=”278207″][quote comment=”278185″]So I’m surprised at Ray success. “If you look good, you feel good. If you feel good, you do good.”[/quote]
And to paraphrase Dick Allen: “I hit better when I look bitchin’!”[/quote]
Wasn’t it Dick Stuart? In Ball Four Bouton quotes him as saying “I add 20 points to my average if I know I look bitchin’ out there.”
[quote comment=”278225″][quote comment=”278207″][quote comment=”278185″]So I’m surprised at Ray success. “If you look good, you feel good. If you feel good, you do good.”[/quote]
And to paraphrase Dick Allen: “I hit better when I look bitchin’!”[/quote]
Wasn’t it Dick Stuart? In Ball Four Bouton quotes him as saying “I add 20 points to my average if I know I look bitchin’ out there.”[/quote]
Too bad Mel Allen isn’t around anymore. He’d probably know.
one night in pittsburgh, thirty-thousand fans gave me a standing ovation when i caught a hot dog wrapper on the fly
[quote comment=”278216″]I know that it’s completely unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but I found the title strangely fitting, given what’s happening with Seattle and the NBA at the moment.[/quote]
I hadn’t stopped to think the SuperSonics had been around for 41 years! SportsCenter pointed out the last time teams moved that had been located in a city that long or longer were Browns to Baltimore and Senators to Minnesota, the latter being close to 50 years ago.
Long time. So is truly a moment of significance in pro sports history.
[quote comment=”278217″][quote comment=”278204″]“Time for my family to break out the DVD of ‘1776’…”[/quote]
OH FOR GOD’S SAKES JOHN, SIT DOWN!
[/quote]
Never!
NEVER!
;)
This is apparently the new Arsenal away kit for next season:
link
I like it. I DON’T like that the home kit is apparently going to have wide, black-bordered white stripes down the sleeves, rather than the traditional all-white sleeve.
In case anyone was curious, Sean Avery is hanging out with Thom Browne, he was menswear designer of the year in 2006, and makes the best oxford shirts on the planet. Any hardcore Uni-watch reader would be quite impressed with the quality and the hand made construction (in the USA with NO logos Paul). His whole line is very 1950\’s inspired and the materials are the best in the world. His boutique is on 100 Hudson St, in NYC if Paul or anyone else is in the neighborhood.
I am assuming this was a follow up to Sean’s new “fashion intern” gig at Vogue. Where on men.style.com he gave the top ten ugliest sports uniforms ever just a few days back. He was also on MTV cribs the other day… talk about a marketer. Reebok socks will follow.
Logo creep on socks and otherwise is a way of shaming us into paying more for what we used to get for less, or free. Essentially buying what we don’t need, we fall for the classic marketing stunt of “creating a need.”
We used to wear an old tee-shirt under our sports unis, the older, softer and smellier the better. Now we feel like lesser athletes if we don’t shell out for synthetic Under Armor shirts designed specifically for our sport and the prevailing temperature on game-day. Ten-dollar hockey socks (or your freebies from High School – who cared?) were fine until RBK Edge came along with their $40 logoed product, and suddenly there’s an urge that was never there before. We didn’t used to care where our socks came from but suddenly we’re prepared to fork over forty bucks to be like Sydney (or teammates who caved). We fear we may be losing out on the authentic sports experience as fan or athlete if we don’t have the real deal. So we buy in, feeling suddenly like we’re in the know, like we’re getting an actual “edge” — not realizing that we’ve actually been had.
I’m using the ‘royal we’ here, knowing there are lots of fellow dissenters, to illustrate the mindgame that logo creep plays. On this glorious Fourth I’m not saying it should be banned – just, maybe, BUCK IT a little. You know, it can start with a Sharpie – if you find yourself with a swoosh on your socks and you don’t like it – just black it out. And support Paul when he tries to take a stand, no matter how hopeless the battle may seem. That’s what John Adams woulda done!
[quote]support Paul when he tries to take a stand, no matter how hopeless the battle may seem[/quote]
i’ll support paul when he’s right
and he’s wrong about nike (maybe not about his definition of logo creep, which is NOT my definition, but it IS his board)
but we agree to disagree…as some great american once said…i may not agree with a word you say, but i’ll fight to the death for your right to say it
[quote comment=”278200″][quote]And it damn well better stay that way. Because if there’s one thing this country stands for, it’s freedom, and that definitely includes freedom from advertising-infested hosiery. [/quote]
Paul, I disagree completely with your views on Nike, and “logo creep.” While you have a right to voice your opinion, and I have a right to choose whether or not to read this space each day, I disagree 100% with the above statement. You are right that we have a freedom to choose what we choose, and what that truly means is that Belliard, and everyone else has a right to choose what socks they wear, and if those socks happen to have a swoosh, or Adidas logo, or nothing at all the choice is up to them.
Who are you to say that everyone has a right to be free from “logo creep?” What about those of us who are not offended by it? Don’t we have an equal right? I chose to wear Nike products through my football career in high school and college, wasn’t it my right to wear Nike socks, wristbands, cleats, and gloves? I think your comments are way off base. While preaching meanings of freedom you overlook what freedom is truly about.[/quote]
no one is saying they shouldn’t wear Nike stuff. The point is that the player is not playing for Nike, they are playing for the TEAM they are on. The corporate graphics that are not part of the teams branding do not belong and should not be on the uniforms. You can say its marketing all you want, but even if they didn’t put the logo on the jersey, when I person wants to buy an authentic jersey, nike, russell, reebok, ect would still get the sale, its un-need. No one is going to walk into a store for a “real” jersey and say “hmm I’d buy that cubs jersey if only it had a majestic logo on it”
As a Nats fan, I encourage Ronnie to continue wearing his Nike socks. The first photo Paul linked was Belliard bashing a grand slam in Miami. The second was a two-run homer that beat Baltimore.
So no offense to the general Uni population, but…
Viva la Swoosh!
New Orleans Hornets Logo:
Damnit New Orleans! GET RID OF HUGO! That was the worst logo idea when Charolette created it when they expanded, when the team was moved I was certain they would ditch the worst logo in the NBA, but they didn’t. They even created a secondary logo that is vastly superior, but does not cordinate with the main logo at all. But they reserve it for the tank top strap. I thought for sure they were just easing that logo in to take over, but no. They revamped Hugo to look like a cheap tracing of the previous Hugo logo. Fuck.
[quote comment=”278233″]
but we agree to disagree…as some great american once said…i may not agree with a word you say, but i’ll fight to the death for your right to say it[/quote]
That quote is attributed to Voltaire, who was French, not American.
[quote comment=”278237″][quote comment=”278233″]
but we agree to disagree…as some great american once said…i may not agree with a word you say, but i’ll fight to the death for your right to say it[/quote]
That quote is attributed to Voltaire, who was French, not American.[/quote]
fuckin’ french…
however…”i disapprove of what you say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it” is widely attributed to voltaire, but cannot be found in his writings…with good reason…the phrase was invented by a later author as an epitome of his attitude…
in 1906, i believe
nevertheless…mea culpa, and thanks for the correction
I don’t mind a manufacturer’s symbol on gear too much, any more than I mind an aligator or little polo player on a shirt. What does bug me are flat-out ads, such as corporate names across the chest of soccer unis or those patches all over Arena football jerseys (Aaron’s, US Army, et al).
A Russell “R” on a pants pocket I can live with. Even a swoosh up high on a sock. A quarterback under center being a billboard, though, that’s something else. Just…tacky, that’s all.
(Of course, since when anyone worrying about being tacky these days).
I noticed the drawings of the SMU uniforms were Adidas; however if you look at page 2 of the mailbag, June Jones is holding a Nike SMU jersey. Who will be their sponsor?
link
[quote comment=”278200″]No one is going to walk into a store for a “real” jersey and say “hmm I’d buy that cubs jersey if only it had a majestic logo on it”[/quote]
I for one, if walking into a store to buy an “authentic” jersey, WOULD walk out if it had a Russell (or otherwise) logo on it, and not Majestic.
But maybe that’s why I’m here, and not on the “UniWhatBlog” down the street.
[quote comment=”278238″][quote comment=”278237″][quote comment=”278233″]
but we agree to disagree…as some great american once said…i may not agree with a word you say, but i’ll fight to the death for your right to say it[/quote]
That quote is attributed to Voltaire, who was French, not American.[/quote]
fuckin’ french…
however…”i disapprove of what you say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it” is widely attributed to voltaire, but cannot be found in his writings…with good reason…the phrase was invented by a later author as an epitome of his attitude…
in 1906, i believe
nevertheless…mea culpa, and thanks for the correction[/quote]
Yeah, like Descartes. He wasn’t so damn authoritative, was typically French ambivalent. Just had a good editor.
His original draft read:
“I think, therefore I am…I think.”
I’ve actually heard of the football leagues you mentioned – I’m in Sioux Falls, SD, home of the Sioux Falls Storm, who were in the NIFL before moving to the UIF (where they’ve won all three league championships and are playing for the fourth next week). It’s basically another minor league catering to cities that aren’t big enough to get real Arena League teams – the kind of places that have NBADL or low-minor/independent baseball teams. I’ve been to a game, and they do put on a good (albeit obnoxiously loud) show.
From a uni perspective, it’s probably what you’d expect – the uniforms are all very much minor league, with lots of bold, trendy colors, side piping, helmets with full-fledged team logos instead of more understated designs, etc.
[quote comment=”278241″][quote comment=”278200″]No one is going to walk into a store for a “real” jersey and say “hmm I’d buy that cubs jersey if only it had a majestic logo on it”[/quote]
I for one, if walking into a store to buy an “authentic” jersey, WOULD walk out if it had a Russell (or otherwise) logo on it, and not Majestic.
But maybe that’s why I’m here, and not on the “UniWhatBlog” down the street.[/quote]
No, the point was if they didn’t put the logos on the real ones, no one would *not* buy one because of the lack of a logo if it was the authentic jersey. Having a manufacturer logo is not the selling point of the product.
Paul’s a lot easier to support or defend when his responses (#25 & 26) don’t sound like they are from Pee Wee Herman trying to make his point. “I know you are, but what am I?”
The only way to stop logos on socks or anywhere else on the uniform is for MLB to say it can’t be there.
[quote comment=”278208″]On the subject of branded hoisery:
My club tries to take the Uni Watch stance on a lot of things (I order the unis) but it can be difficult to either get everyone to comply. One thing most guys do though is hike up the socks, but there is an epidemic more prominent than Nike on our fields: Under Armor. I’d say a good half the league that goes high socks are equipped with the Under Armor ‘H’, but much more prominent than the Rawlings and Nike marks. The logo is right in the center of the shin facing forward.[/quote]
There is an excellent chance your kids are buying soccer sock, which are laden with logos and brand identifiers. They’re also one of the few options available at the average sports store if you want something other than white socks or black anklets.
The Twin City baseball socks I currently wear are garbage and I tend to go through a pair every couple of games. I’ve heard that the Under Armour socks are much better, but because of the logo on the shin, I won’t buy them.
Can anyone recommend a quality non-logoed baseball sock?
[quote]not on the “UniWhatBlog” down the street.[/quote]
link?
……..
and just one more thing before this gets ad nauseum about one’s definition of logo creep…IF we agree with paul’s definition that a swoosh on a sock is logo creep…then so to is the majestic logo on every mlb uni…except one (i believe)
so, then, by extension, i guess that one team should be held up to the highest esteem by our founder, no?
[quote comment=”278210″][quote comment=”278200″]Paul, I disagree completely with your views on Nike, and “logo creep.”[/quote]
Be my guest — disagree all you like. Fuck stand on the corner and distribute anti-Lukas pamphlets, for all I care. I’m sure Tom Paine would approve.[/quote]
If you do write up a pamphlet, make sure to mention that he still hasn’t polished his softball cleats.
SB
[quote comment=”278236″]New Orleans Hornets Logo:
Damnit New Orleans! GET RID OF HUGO! That was the worst logo idea when Charolette created it when they expanded, when the team was moved I was certain they would ditch the worst logo in the NBA, but they didn’t. They even created a secondary logo that is vastly superior, but does not cordinate with the main logo at all. But they reserve it for the tank top strap. I thought for sure they were just easing that logo in to take over, but no. They revamped Hugo to look like a cheap tracing of the previous Hugo logo. Fuck.[/quote]
Yea… you know, perhaps they should just change the name of the team as well… How’s New Orleans Levee sound? I mean it would fit right in with that franchise’s history of failure when it matters…
Darren Rovell’s CNBC Sports biz blog has an interesting uni conspiracy tilt to it this morning.
link
[quote comment=”278247″]The Twin City baseball socks I currently wear are garbage and I tend to go through a pair every couple of games. I’ve heard that the Under Armour socks are much better, but because of the logo on the shin, I won’t buy them.
Can anyone recommend a quality non-logoed baseball sock?[/quote]
PearSox aren’t too bad. But nothing seems to hold up real well anymore.
[quote comment=”278248″]IF we agree with paul’s definition that a swoosh on a sock is logo creep…then so to is the majestic logo on every mlb uni…except one (i believe)[/quote]
Yes, duh, of course that’s logo creep! Maker’s marks on uniforms are why I came up with the term “logo creep” to begin with!
[quote comment=”278248″]so, then, by extension, i guess that one team should be held up to the highest esteem by our founder, no?[/quote]
I have written many times about my admiration for the Yankees’ logo-free uniforms (although it’s because they cut their own deal with Adidas, not because they’re anti-logos).
Here’s something I bet most of you haven’t seen: Mariano Rivera in the 2005 All-Star Game, with a Majestic logo on his sleeve:
link
All the Yankees in that ASG wore the Majestic logo, because the jerseys with the ASG patch came straight from Majestic (instead of from Adidas like the rest of the Yanks’ gear).
[quote comment=”278252″][quote comment=”278247″]The Twin City baseball socks I currently wear are garbage and I tend to go through a pair every couple of games. I’ve heard that the Under Armour socks are much better, but because of the logo on the shin, I won’t buy them.
Can anyone recommend a quality non-logoed baseball sock?[/quote]
PearSox aren’t too bad. But nothing seems to hold up real well anymore.[/quote]
Or did you mean stirrups?
I don’t know about that tidbit on the Hornets’ logo. That updated logo on Gulf Coast Offense is nowhere to be found on the team’s official website.
During this season’s postseason run – especially if you went to the merchandise shop at N.O. Arena or received the any of the promotional t-shirts that were given away at the home games – it actually looks like the team is using the Fleur de Bee logo on EVERYTHING. Sure it’s got a goofy name, but it’s far superior to the old logo.
Watching the draft last week, it looked to me like the hat Darrell Arthur put on when the Hornets drafted him had the Fleur de Bee on it as well.
Anywho, just a couple other Hornets logo observations.
Nice use of the “Don’t Tread on Me” flag- but I would have used the Gadsen Flag version-
link
much cooler looking snake, but alas, no stripes.
Happy Independence Day!
Aside from the absolute pain this story brings, I am also intriguied by the undershirt….is that some sort of new compression shirt, or a new take on the old “pox” shirts?
link
[quote comment=”278256″]much cooler looking snake, but alas, no stripes.[/quote]
Exactly. The stripes sealed it for me.
From story on who picks Twins’ uni for the day:
“Why so many jerseys?
” ‘This gives our merchandising folks opportunities, as there’s a lot for fans to buy. It’s a variety,’ said Smith. ”
Well, at least they admit it.
The Giants (and Cubs)were honoring the Troops last night.They had a big pregame ceremony and had many troops in attendance has well as sending prerecorded messages from the players to the troops via the broadcast which was carried on the Armed Services Radio and TV network…(SO They didn’t jump the Gun on the 4th by wearing the blue hats)
Oops, I’m a jackass. (ref #34)
The “find” for “tread” before posting didn’t do the job.
I’ll write “Read Before Posting” 10 times on the chalkboard as pennance.
Didn’t feel like reading through all those comments so somebody may have already mentioned this, but those blue SMU jerseys look just like the bills throwbacks:]
link
btw, I hate sleeveless alternates, such as when the Twins wear them. Don’t like the “just for the hell of it” aspect. Guess I’m old school enough to remember when Reds and Pirates went to them in ’56 and ’57 respectively it was unique because it was the style they elected to wear that year.
Now is kind a like a hockey team wearing Cooperalls once in a while as “alternate breezers.”
I just think it looks gimmicky on teams that do it, far moreso than merely a dark-colored jersey. That seems to be a legitimate “alternate.” The vest is like a whole different style.
I’m probably alone in that thought, I know.
“the mark of the beast”
honestly…
[quote comment=”278253″]Here’s something I bet most of you haven’t seen: Mariano Rivera in the 2005 All-Star Game, with a Majestic logo on his sleeve:
link
All the Yankees in that ASG wore the Majestic logo, because the jerseys with the ASG patch came straight from Majestic (instead of from Adidas like the rest of the Yanks’ gear).[/quote]
wait…i have a question…
i thought (and that is of course, dangerous) the yankees wear majestic uniforms, but the specifically PAY majestic NOT to put the logo on them…not that they wear adidas uniforms
do i have that correct? i know they have a deal with adidas (and next year the wonderful swoosh)…but i still thought their uni’s were made by majestic, just logo-free (with that fee prolly paid for by adidas)
[quote comment=”278202″]Though it’s well documented that Thurman Munson had numerous “I’m gonna fuck with Steinbrenner” phases, George didn’t buy the team from CBS until 1973. So not being a baseball card expert, is it conceivable that the baseball card depicting Thurman with a beard is pre-1973 and therefore pre-dates the Yankees no-beard policy?[/quote]
It is a 1976 Topps baseball card.
As soon as I saw the words “mark of the beast”, I immediately skipped ahead to the Ticker. Hopefully we have many uni-incidents over the weekend for digestion and dissection on Monday. Until then, enjoy your Nathan’s Famous! (times 66)
Paul, maybe we could get a Seattle SuperSonics uniform retrospective? Even though I hated everything about them being a Houston Rockets fan, I know how it feels to lose a team. Seeing those classic Oiler uniforms next to the modern Texans still makes me feel sad.
In the spirit of relocation, I offer up my suggestion for a team name: The Oklahoma City Joads.
[quote comment=”278264″]”the mark of the beast”
honestly…[/quote]
Hey, you can have your anti-Christ and I can have mine….
[quote comment=”278225″][quote comment=”278207″][quote comment=”278185″]So I’m surprised at Ray success. “If you look good, you feel good. If you feel good, you do good.”[/quote]
And to paraphrase Dick Allen: “I hit better when I look bitchin’!”[/quote]
Wasn’t it Dick Stuart? In Ball Four Bouton quotes him as saying “I add 20 points to my average if I know I look bitchin’ out there.”[/quote]
Yup – and that is why I didn’t win the prize when that question appeared on the UniWatch Triva contest last year . ..
[quote comment=”278268″][quote comment=”278264″]”the mark of the beast”
honestly…[/quote]
Hey, you can have your anti-Christ and I can have mine….[/quote]
Oh boy, no comment on that one.
Seriously though, have you ever addressed a stance on logos on say batting gloves, fielders’ gloves, bats, cleats and other non-uniform related gear? I understand your issue with logos being on the uniform itself and that the team name is the brand, etc, etc, but comment #26 leads me to believe that you may have issue with the equipment end of the spectrum.
[quote comment=”278266″][quote comment=”278202″]Though it’s well documented that Thurman Munson had numerous “I’m gonna fuck with Steinbrenner” phases, George didn’t buy the team from CBS until 1973. So not being a baseball card expert, is it conceivable that the baseball card depicting Thurman with a beard is pre-1973 and therefore pre-dates the Yankees no-beard policy?[/quote]
It is a 1976 Topps baseball card.
As soon as I saw the words “mark of the beast”, I immediately skipped ahead to the Ticker. Hopefully we have many uni-incidents over the weekend for digestion and dissection on Monday. Until then, enjoy your Nathan’s Famous! (times 66)[/quote]
oh damn…i must have missed that first post…yeah, i actually found that card when i did a search yesterday for “1976 world series pictures”…(looking for the NL ump pillbox hats)…sorry…i should have chimed in sooner…thanks dane, for clearing it up
[quote comment=”278270″]have you ever addressed a stance on logos on say batting gloves, fielders’ gloves, bats, cleats and other non-uniform related gear? I understand your issue with logos being on the uniform itself and that the team name is the brand, etc, etc, but comment #26 leads me to believe that you may have issue with the equipment end of the spectrum.[/quote]
I have less of an issue with labels and logos on equipment, because equipment is a matter of personal choice (i.e., you can choose to wear a Rawlings glove, a Wilson glove, etc.), not team uniformity. That doesn’t mean it’s a great thing when Reebok plasters its logo all over a glove — advertising overkill is still advertising overkill — but it doesn’t offend me in the same way that the Majestic logo on jersey sleeve (or a swoosh on a sock) does.
[quote comment=”278271″][quote comment=”278266″][quote comment=”278202″]Though it’s well documented that Thurman Munson had numerous “I’m gonna fuck with Steinbrenner” phases, George didn’t buy the team from CBS until 1973. So not being a baseball card expert, is it conceivable that the baseball card depicting Thurman with a beard is pre-1973 and therefore pre-dates the Yankees no-beard policy?[/quote]
It is a 1976 Topps baseball card.
As soon as I saw the words “mark of the beast”, I immediately skipped ahead to the Ticker. Hopefully we have many uni-incidents over the weekend for digestion and dissection on Monday. Until then, enjoy your Nathan’s Famous! (times 66)[/quote]
oh damn…i must have missed that first post…yeah, i actually found that card when i did a search yesterday for “1976 world series pictures”…(looking for the NL ump pillbox hats)…sorry…i should have chimed in sooner…thanks dane, for clearing it up[/quote]
I seem to recall Sparky Lyle writing about Munson and his beard in “The Bronx Zoo” (one of my favorite baseball books of all time). He said that Munson would grow the beard to piss off the boss but that he was miserable and uncomfortable in the dog days of summer with that beard rubbing against his catcher’s mask.
[quote comment=”278272″][quote comment=”278270″]have you ever addressed a stance on logos on say batting gloves, fielders’ gloves, bats, cleats and other non-uniform related gear? I understand your issue with logos being on the uniform itself and that the team name is the brand, etc, etc, but comment #26 leads me to believe that you may have issue with the equipment end of the spectrum.[/quote]
I have less of an issue with labels and logos on equipment, because equipment is a matter of personal choice (i.e., you can choose to wear a Rawlings glove, a Wilson glove, etc.), not team uniformity. That doesn’t mean it’s a great thing when Reebok plasters its logo all over a glove — advertising overkill is still advertising overkill — but it doesn’t offend me in the same way that the Majestic logo on jersey sleeve (or a swoosh on a sock) does.[/quote]
That’s kind of what I figured but I would caution that although nike and reebok are in the glove game these days, that one shouldn’t be biased against them as far as logos on gloves.
It may be the easy thing to do by picking on the big companies like Nike, Reebok, Under Armor, etc, but do a search on Rawlings gloves on Dicks or Eastbay. Their logos are just a prominent on fielders gloves as anyone else in the game. Don’t give them a pass because they are a traditional baseball manufacturer and not a multi-national conglomerate.
And to those in the know, that red label, Red “R” and Rawlings script are just as recognizable as said mark of the beast.
[quote] that red label, Red “R” and Rawlings script are just as recognizable as said mark of the beast.[/quote]
of course, dougie, but they’re not nike
therefore, they’re not evil
[quote comment=”278275″][quote] that red label, Red “R” and Rawlings script are just as recognizable as said mark of the beast.[/quote]
of course, dougie, but they’re not nike
therefore, they’re not evil[/quote]
I’d like to make the argument that when it comes to logos on uniforms, equipment, etc., I’d PREFER Nike over other companies’ marks. As has been noted on this site, it sometimes looks like a fold or a shadow, sometimes it’s obviously just the swoosh. Nike’s logo is relatively subtle and simple, and can blend in. With the other logos, there’s no doubt what you’re looking at.
[quote comment=”278275″][quote] that red label, Red “R” and Rawlings script are just as recognizable as said mark of the beast.[/quote]
of course, dougie, but they’re not nike
therefore, they’re not evil[/quote]
Well, they don’t have a carpet-bombing/scorched-earth approach to branding like Nike does. So yeah, they’re not as evil. But I assure you I was just as upset about those Rawlings logos on the socks in 2005 as I am about Belliard’s now. And I’ve criticized Reebok (for the “Ree-Box” on NHL jerseys, e.g.), Adidas (for adding three stripes to NBA refs’ jerseys), Majestic (for their MLB marks), etc.
So I’d say I’m pretty equal-opportunity when it comes to critiquing logo creep. But when it comes to the overall “Let’s brand every fucking thing in sight” approach, nobody can compare to Nike, and you know it. So, yes, I reserve my greatest venom for them.
All the talk about the rays, their winning ways, & their new uniforms has got those fans excited down in Tampa…. check out how this guy got to celebrate!
link
[quote comment=”278276″][quote comment=”278275″][quote] that red label, Red “R” and Rawlings script are just as recognizable as said mark of the beast.[/quote]
of course, dougie, but they’re not nike
therefore, they’re not evil[/quote]
I’d like to make the argument that when it comes to logos on uniforms, equipment, etc., I’d PREFER Nike over other companies’ marks. As has been noted on this site, it sometimes looks like a fold or a shadow, sometimes it’s obviously just the swoosh. Nike’s logo is relatively subtle and simple, and can blend in. With the other logos, there’s no doubt what you’re looking at.[/quote]
Agreed. I hate hate hate the identical Adidas 3 stripes that adorn the sleeves of every damn soccer jersey they do (all of MLS, Liverpool, Chelsea, Newcastle, Germany, Spain, Real Madrid, etc. etc. etc.). Nike’s soccer jerseys (e.g. Arsenal, Barcelona) are very classy and understated, and the logo unobtrusive.
[quote comment=”278267″]Paul, maybe we could get a Seattle SuperSonics uniform retrospective? Even though I hated everything about them being a Houston Rockets fan, I know how it feels to lose a team. Seeing those classic Oiler uniforms next to the modern Texans still makes me feel sad.
In the spirit of relocation, I offer up my suggestion for a team name: The Oklahoma City Joads.[/quote]
I believe they are keeping the Sonics name and colors, but I could be wrong. Either way, I’m sure they’re going to get new unis, although the Grizzlies didn’t get new unis after moving to Memphis. I think the Sonics jerseys look like cheap jerseys of a 7th grade team.
In other news, do we know yet what numbers the newly drafted players will wear in the pros? I saw a D. Rose jersey on Eastbay where he was #1 for the Bulls. I doubt he’ll be able to wear #23 for the Bulls like he did at Memphis. Something about the Bulls and #23, I forget who wore that. Was it Ed Nealy? No. Bill Wennington? No. It’s on the tip of my tongue. Oh yeah, Dave Corzine! No, that’s not it either…
[quote comment=”278279″]http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/712634/[/quote]
despite the fact that it is prolly fake…
you might wanna label that thing NSFW
thanks!
[quote comment=”278275″][quote] that red label, Red “R” and Rawlings script are just as recognizable as said mark of the beast.[/quote]
of course, dougie, but they’re not nike
therefore, they’re not evil[/quote]
I guess that’s sort of my point, when talking about baseball gloves and batting gloves ONLY, you can’t fault nike anymore than rawlings or say Franklin because the branding is pretty consistant.
When you see a ballplayer wearing a Nike glove it’s not really fair to say “UGH, there’s a swoosh on it, I can’t stand it” because that’s based on an opinion of them as an overall company. It’s two separate issues. If you don’t like Nike because their global branding that’s a valid opinion, but you can’t fault them for branding a piece of equipment the same way a Rawlings or Wilson or Franklin does.
And isn’t Rawlings the orignal “logo creep” in MLB, wasn’t their script logo on uniform sleeves (albeit very small) back in the day?
[quote comment=”278281″][quote comment=”278267″]Paul, maybe we could get a Seattle SuperSonics uniform retrospective? Even though I hated everything about them being a Houston Rockets fan, I know how it feels to lose a team. Seeing those classic Oiler uniforms next to the modern Texans still makes me feel sad.
In the spirit of relocation, I offer up my suggestion for a team name: The Oklahoma City Joads.[/quote]
I believe they are keeping the Sonics name and colors, but I could be wrong. Either way, I’m sure they’re going to get new unis, although the Grizzlies didn’t get new unis after moving to Memphis. I think the Sonics jerseys look like cheap jerseys of a 7th grade team.
In other news, do we know yet what numbers the newly drafted players will wear in the pros? I saw a D. Rose jersey on Eastbay where he was #1 for the Bulls. I doubt he’ll be able to wear #23 for the Bulls like he did at Memphis. Something about the Bulls and #23, I forget who wore that. Was it Ed Nealy? No. Bill Wennington? No. It’s on the tip of my tongue. Oh yeah, Dave Corzine! No, that’s not it either…[/quote]
You’re wrong. Part of the court deal that allowed them to leave specified that the name and colors would remain to be owned by the city of Seattle. So when they get a team back, It’ll be the sonics.
So that means weeks? Months? of fun speculation and rumors…
i came across this today
link
link
it made me think, the only thing bad about those uniforms are the logo, i really like the color combinations. Your opnions?
[quote comment=”278285″]i came across this today
link
link
it made me think, the only thing bad about those uniforms are the logo, i really like the color combinations. Your opnions?[/quote]
I’m getting 404 errors on both of those…
Speaking of pants high, socks shown, etc. I was able to head back to my home town this week for a Eugene Emeralds game. It was interesting to see the whole team, coaches included, wearing their pants high. No pics posted though. Time to open a Flickr account I guess. Anyway, I looked a little online and also found this image from last year. Way to go boys, way to go.
link
(Haven’t posted here in months. What happened to the link button? Firefox not work well anymore?)
link
link
heres a working link
[quote comment=”278283″]When you see a ballplayer wearing a Nike glove it’s not really fair to say “UGH, there’s a swoosh on it, I can’t stand it” because that’s based on an opinion of them as an overall company. It’s two separate issues.[/quote]
So let me get this straight: One’s “opinion of [Nike] as an overall company” shouldn’t influence how one feels about something Nike does?
Context matters. And in the context of sports branding, Nike has basically taken an aerosol spray can of swooshes and sprayed it on every available surface. So yes, that makes each individual swoosh that much more irritating.
Much like a recidivist criminal, a habitual liar, or just that annoying guy who shows up at every party and won’t shut the fuck up, people’s track records are perfectly legitimate bases on which to judge them. And Nike’s track record is very, very poor.
[quote comment=”278283″]And isn’t Rawlings the orignal “logo creep” in MLB, wasn’t their script logo on uniform sleeves (albeit very small) back in the day?[/quote]
Yes, absolutely. Insipid, intolerable, unacceptable.
Thank god they never built a giant aerosol can like Nike, Reebok, and others have done.
[quote comment=”278277″][quote comment=”278275″][quote] that red label, Red “R” and Rawlings script are just as recognizable as said mark of the beast.[/quote]
of course, dougie, but they’re not nike
therefore, they’re not evil[/quote]
Well, they don’t have a carpet-bombing/scorched-earth approach to branding like Nike does. So yeah, they’re not as evil. But I assure you I was just as upset about those Rawlings logos on the socks in 2005 as I am about Belliard’s now. And I’ve criticized Reebok (for the “Ree-Box” on NHL jerseys, e.g.), Adidas (for adding three stripes to NBA refs’ jerseys), Majestic (for their MLB marks), etc.
So I’d say I’m pretty equal-opportunity when it comes to critiquing logo creep. But when it comes to the overall “Let’s brand every fucking thing in sight” approach, nobody can compare to Nike, and you know it. So, yes, I reserve my greatest venom for them.[/quote]
I don’t know Paul. I look at something like this, and I can hardly tell who makes the product.
link,,12306~1338041,00.html
In all seriousness though, although Nike has taken the scorched-earth approach far-and-wide in the US, I think that internationally, Adidas really is the worse offender. Some examples:
Soccer: link
Tennis: link
Shoes: link
Hats: link
Golf: link
Basically, I see three stripes now and I go into convulsions. I can’t even play tic-tac-toe because of it!
You’re wrong. Part of the court deal that allowed them to leave specified that the name and colors would remain to be owned by the city of Seattle. So when they get a team back, It’ll be the sonics.
So that means weeks? Months? of fun speculation and rumors…[/quote]
Great. New unis. Adidas hasn’t messed up any new NBA jerseys yet, so I’m looking forward to what they’re going to do.
I vote for the Oklahoma City Aardvarks. We have Tigers and Lions and Bears, but no aardvarks! Time they get some love!
[quote comment=”278284″][quote comment=”278281″][quote comment=”278267″]Paul, maybe we could get a Seattle SuperSonics uniform retrospective? Even though I hated everything about them being a Houston Rockets fan, I know how it feels to lose a team. Seeing those classic Oiler uniforms next to the modern Texans still makes me feel sad.
In the spirit of relocation, I offer up my suggestion for a team name: The Oklahoma City Joads.[/quote]
I believe they are keeping the Sonics name and colors, but I could be wrong. Either way, I’m sure they’re going to get new unis, although the Grizzlies didn’t get new unis after moving to Memphis. I think the Sonics jerseys look like cheap jerseys of a 7th grade team.
In other news, do we know yet what numbers the newly drafted players will wear in the pros? I saw a D. Rose jersey on Eastbay where he was #1 for the Bulls. I doubt he’ll be able to wear #23 for the Bulls like he did at Memphis. Something about the Bulls and #23, I forget who wore that. Was it Ed Nealy? No. Bill Wennington? No. It’s on the tip of my tongue. Oh yeah, Dave Corzine! No, that’s not it either…[/quote]
You’re wrong. Part of the court deal that allowed them to leave specified that the name and colors would remain to be owned by the city of Seattle. So when they get a team back, It’ll be the sonics.
So that means weeks? Months? of fun speculation and rumors…[/quote]
So Seattle will build an arena AND someone may also have to fork over an NBA expansion fee.
Dumb, dumb, dumb move on part of city and citizens. We learned that the hard way in Minn. with getting Wild established after losing (giving up?) the North Stars.
Although the situations alos are somewhat similar in that the core issue largely was, “Hate to see the team go, but get that f-ing OWNER out of here!”
Almost happened here twice, but Red McCombs found a buyer for the Vikings. What a two-faced, BS-slinging phony. Well, hey, he was a car dealer, what should we have expected.
[quote comment=”278291″]I think that internationally, Adidas really is the worse offender. Some examples:
Soccer: link
Tennis: link
Shoes: link
Hats: link
Golf: link
Basically, I see three stripes now and I go into convulsions. I can’t even play tic-tac-toe because of it![/quote]
DON’T FORGET
SOCCERlink[quote comment=”278293″][quote comment=”278284″][quote comment=”278281″][quote comment=”278267″]Paul, maybe we could get a Seattle SuperSonics uniform retrospective? Even though I hated everything about them being a Houston Rockets fan, I know how it feels to lose a team. Seeing those classic Oiler uniforms next to the modern Texans still makes me feel sad.
In the spirit of relocation, I offer up my suggestion for a team name: The Oklahoma City Joads.[/quote]
I believe they are keeping the Sonics name and colors, but I could be wrong. Either way, I’m sure they’re going to get new unis, although the Grizzlies didn’t get new unis after moving to Memphis. I think the Sonics jerseys look like cheap jerseys of a 7th grade team.
In other news, do we know yet what numbers the newly drafted players will wear in the pros? I saw a D. Rose jersey on Eastbay where he was #1 for the Bulls. I doubt he’ll be able to wear #23 for the Bulls like he did at Memphis. Something about the Bulls and #23, I forget who wore that. Was it Ed Nealy? No. Bill Wennington? No. It’s on the tip of my tongue. Oh yeah, Dave Corzine! No, that’s not it either…[/quote]
You’re wrong. Part of the court deal that allowed them to leave specified that the name and colors would remain to be owned by the city of Seattle. So when they get a team back, It’ll be the sonics.
So that means weeks? Months? of fun speculation and rumors…[/quote]
So Seattle will build an arena AND someone may also have to fork over an NBA expansion fee.
Dumb, dumb, dumb move on part of city and citizens. We learned that the hard way in Minn. with getting Wild established after losing (giving up?) the North Stars.
Although the situations alos are somewhat similar in that the core issue largely was, “Hate to see the team go, but get that f-ing OWNER out of here!”
Almost happened here twice, but Red McCombs found a buyer for the Vikings. What a two-faced, BS-slinging phony. Well, hey, he was a car dealer, what should we have expected.[/quote]
Too many cities want to have their cake and eat it too. If the CEO of some company can get a better deal somewhere else why wouldn’t they take their company there?
[quote comment=”278295″][quote comment=”278293″][quote comment=”278284″][quote comment=”278281″][quote comment=”278267″]Paul, maybe we could get a Seattle SuperSonics uniform retrospective? Even though I hated everything about them being a Houston Rockets fan, I know how it feels to lose a team. Seeing those classic Oiler uniforms next to the modern Texans still makes me feel sad.
In the spirit of relocation, I offer up my suggestion for a team name: The Oklahoma City Joads.[/quote]
I believe they are keeping the Sonics name and colors, but I could be wrong. Either way, I’m sure they’re going to get new unis, although the Grizzlies didn’t get new unis after moving to Memphis. I think the Sonics jerseys look like cheap jerseys of a 7th grade team.
In other news, do we know yet what numbers the newly drafted players will wear in the pros? I saw a D. Rose jersey on Eastbay where he was #1 for the Bulls. I doubt he’ll be able to wear #23 for the Bulls like he did at Memphis. Something about the Bulls and #23, I forget who wore that. Was it Ed Nealy? No. Bill Wennington? No. It’s on the tip of my tongue. Oh yeah, Dave Corzine! No, that’s not it either…[/quote]
You’re wrong. Part of the court deal that allowed them to leave specified that the name and colors would remain to be owned by the city of Seattle. So when they get a team back, It’ll be the sonics.
So that means weeks? Months? of fun speculation and rumors…[/quote]
So Seattle will build an arena AND someone may also have to fork over an NBA expansion fee.
Dumb, dumb, dumb move on part of city and citizens. We learned that the hard way in Minn. with getting Wild established after losing (giving up?) the North Stars.
Although the situations alos are somewhat similar in that the core issue largely was, “Hate to see the team go, but get that f-ing OWNER out of here!”
Almost happened here twice, but Red McCombs found a buyer for the Vikings. What a two-faced, BS-slinging phony. Well, hey, he was a car dealer, what should we have expected.[/quote]
Too many cities want to have their cake and eat it too. If the CEO of some company can get a better deal somewhere else why wouldn’t they take their company there?[/quote]
The CEO analogy is a poor one, because it doesn’t take into account that sports teams are civic entities as well as business ones.
[quote comment=”278291″][quote comment=”278277″][quote comment=”278275″][quote] that red label, Red “R” and Rawlings script are just as recognizable as said mark of the beast.[/quote]
of course, dougie, but they’re not nike
therefore, they’re not evil[/quote]
Well, they don’t have a carpet-bombing/scorched-earth approach to branding like Nike does. So yeah, they’re not as evil. But I assure you I was just as upset about those Rawlings logos on the socks in 2005 as I am about Belliard’s now. And I’ve criticized Reebok (for the “Ree-Box” on NHL jerseys, e.g.), Adidas (for adding three stripes to NBA refs’ jerseys), Majestic (for their MLB marks), etc.
So I’d say I’m pretty equal-opportunity when it comes to critiquing logo creep. But when it comes to the overall “Let’s brand every fucking thing in sight” approach, nobody can compare to Nike, and you know it. So, yes, I reserve my greatest venom for them.[/quote]
I don’t know Paul. I look at something like this, and I can hardly tell who makes the product.
link,,12306~1338041,00.html
In all seriousness though, although Nike has taken the scorched-earth approach far-and-wide in the US, I think that internationally, Adidas really is the worse offender. Some examples:
Soccer: link
Tennis: link
Shoes: link
Hats: link
Golf: link
Basically, I see three stripes now and I go into convulsions. I can’t even play tic-tac-toe because of it![/quote]
Back to my point of last week, Nike is trying out-adidas adidas. That’s why the apparent aversion to anything that looks like straight-line stripes in their designs, especially of team uniforms. Takes a non-second of looking at those new SMU football unis to think, “Stripes. Not a Nike design.”
I found the NBA warmups this past season to look kind of amateurish because of the prevelant and predominant three stripes. Looked they bought them off the rack and stuck team logos on them.
[quote comment=”278280″][quote comment=”278276″][quote comment=”278275″][quote] that red label, Red “R” and Rawlings script are just as recognizable as said mark of the beast.[/quote]
of course, dougie, but they’re not nike
therefore, they’re not evil[/quote]
I’d like to make the argument that when it comes to logos on uniforms, equipment, etc., I’d PREFER Nike over other companies’ marks. As has been noted on this site, it sometimes looks like a fold or a shadow, sometimes it’s obviously just the swoosh. Nike’s logo is relatively subtle and simple, and can blend in. With the other logos, there’s no doubt what you’re looking at.[/quote]
Agreed. I hate hate hate the identical Adidas 3 stripes that adorn the sleeves of every damn soccer jersey they do (all of MLS, Liverpool, Chelsea, Newcastle, Germany, Spain, Real Madrid, etc. etc. etc.). Nike’s soccer jerseys (e.g. Arsenal, Barcelona) are very classy and understated, and the logo unobtrusive.[/quote]
I recently talked about this with my brother. he’s also passionate about uniforms but I don’t think he visits this blog much (he doesn’t really do blogs or message boards in general). So I keep him up-to-date with what’s going on and we talk about logo creep from time to time and we both feel that adidas is the much bigger culprit because for years they have incorporated their logo within the design element of a uniform. I think the plain, mundane style of the three stripes gives them somewhat of a pass when it comes to this. Say what you will about Nike but aside from the Broncos uni I mention before (the pants stripes vaguely look swooshy and it sure looks like the nostril of the horse is a swoosh), aside from this guy: link I can’t think of the swoosh becoming a design element in a uni. I know we got into this with the new Cal football unis but there is no way those pants stripes look like a swoosh.
Here’s another question, how long has a box of Newports looked like this: link As long as I can remember. Did Nike simply rip that logo off and turn it upside down?
I just hate this whole concept of a city keeping a franchise’s name, logo, colors, etc. I’m sad to see the SuperSonics leave: but they ARE the SuperSonics. The next team, if ever, will not be.
I’m sure OK would change the name anyway, but the whole “fake Cleveland Browns” rubs me the wrong way. I’m sorry you lost them, but you can’t pretend an expansion team has decades of history- its a mockery of that history.
The CEO analogy is a poor one, because it doesn’t take into account that sports teams are civic entities as well as business ones.[/quote]
How do you figure? At the end of the day (most) teams are owned by one main person. What do you mean by “civic entities”? Certianly not that the team is owned by the city (except the Packers)?
[quote comment=”278295″][quote comment=”278293″][quote comment=”278284″][quote comment=”278281″][quote comment=”278267″]Paul, maybe we could get a Seattle SuperSonics uniform retrospective? Even though I hated everything about them being a Houston Rockets fan, I know how it feels to lose a team. Seeing those classic Oiler uniforms next to the modern Texans still makes me feel sad.
In the spirit of relocation, I offer up my suggestion for a team name: The Oklahoma City Joads.[/quote]
I believe they are keeping the Sonics name and colors, but I could be wrong. Either way, I’m sure they’re going to get new unis, although the Grizzlies didn’t get new unis after moving to Memphis. I think the Sonics jerseys look like cheap jerseys of a 7th grade team.
In other news, do we know yet what numbers the newly drafted players will wear in the pros? I saw a D. Rose jersey on Eastbay where he was #1 for the Bulls. I doubt he’ll be able to wear #23 for the Bulls like he did at Memphis. Something about the Bulls and #23, I forget who wore that. Was it Ed Nealy? No. Bill Wennington? No. It’s on the tip of my tongue. Oh yeah, Dave Corzine! No, that’s not it either…[/quote]
You’re wrong. Part of the court deal that allowed them to leave specified that the name and colors would remain to be owned by the city of Seattle. So when they get a team back, It’ll be the sonics.
So that means weeks? Months? of fun speculation and rumors…[/quote]
So Seattle will build an arena AND someone may also have to fork over an NBA expansion fee.
Dumb, dumb, dumb move on part of city and citizens. We learned that the hard way in Minn. with getting Wild established after losing (giving up?) the North Stars.
Although the situations alos are somewhat similar in that the core issue largely was, “Hate to see the team go, but get that f-ing OWNER out of here!”
Almost happened here twice, but Red McCombs found a buyer for the Vikings. What a two-faced, BS-slinging phony. Well, hey, he was a car dealer, what should we have expected.[/quote]
Too many cities want to have their cake and eat it too. If the CEO of some company can get a better deal somewhere else why wouldn’t they take their company there?[/quote]
Not uni-related, but grammar related – and it’s one of many things that drive me absolutely NUTS. “Have your cake and eat it too.” It’s backwards. If I’m going to have my cake, I’m damn well going to eat it – what else am I supposed to do with it – take it to the zoo? The correct phrase is “eat your cake and have it too” – implying that once it’s gone, you still want to have it, which is physically impossible.
And in deference to LI Phil, you kids get off of MY lawn!!
[quote comment=”278299″]I just hate this whole concept of a city keeping a franchise’s name, logo, colors, etc. I’m sad to see the SuperSonics leave: but they ARE the SuperSonics. The next team, if ever, will not be.
I’m sure OK would change the name anyway, but the whole “fake Cleveland Browns” rubs me the wrong way. I’m sorry you lost them, but you can’t pretend an expansion team has decades of history- its a mockery of that history.[/quote]
Sort of like how the Jazz have Maravich’s #7 retired (I don’t think he ever played in Utah, feel free to correct me)?
“…sports teams are civic entities as well as business ones.”
No, they aren’t. They’re privately held for-profit entertainment corporations. Except the Packers, maybe, and they’re owned by the individiual citizens of Green Bay and Wisconsin, not by any government body.
Not uni-related, but grammar related – and it’s one of many things that drive me absolutely NUTS. “Have your cake and eat it too.” It’s backwards. If I’m going to have my cake, I’m damn well going to eat it – what else am I supposed to do with it – take it to the zoo? The correct phrase is “eat your cake and have it too” – implying that once it’s gone, you still want to have it, which is physically impossible.
And in deference to LI Phil, you kids get off of MY lawn!![/quote]
Nice and Smooth say “You can’t have your cake and eat it too.” Old School hip hoppers will get that!
[quote comment=”278289″][quote comment=”278283″]When you see a ballplayer wearing a Nike glove it’s not really fair to say “UGH, there’s a swoosh on it, I can’t stand it” because that’s based on an opinion of them as an overall company. It’s two separate issues.[/quote]
So let me get this straight: One’s “opinion of [Nike] as an overall company” shouldn’t influence how one feels about something Nike does?
Context matters. And in the context of sports branding, Nike has basically taken an aerosol spray can of swooshes and sprayed it on every available surface. So yes, that makes each individual swoosh that much more irritating.
Much like a recidivist criminal, a habitual liar, or just that annoying guy who shows up at every party and won’t shut the fuck up, people’s track records are perfectly legitimate bases on which to judge them. And Nike’s track record is very, very poor.[/quote]
I think you’re missing my point. You don’t like Nike, we get it. All I’m saying is that if you look at this strictly on the level of what fielder’s gloves look like, there is not that much difference in branding.
Look at these fucking gloves: link
Now look at these fucking gloves: link
I really don’t see there being that much of a difference in the amount of and sizes of said logos. (As an aside, I’ve always though that Nike baseball logo was nicely done, simple but nice).
I could see if every finger had a swoosh on it and the webs had hundreds of tiny little swooshes on it. By your logic, it’s almost as if you’re saying “I don’t care if Nike makes baseball gloves but they shouldn’t have their logo on them” which is ridiculous.
[quote comment=”278302″][quote comment=”278299″]I just hate this whole concept of a city keeping a franchise’s name, logo, colors, etc. I’m sad to see the SuperSonics leave: but they ARE the SuperSonics. The next team, if ever, will not be.
I’m sure OK would change the name anyway, but the whole “fake Cleveland Browns” rubs me the wrong way. I’m sorry you lost them, but you can’t pretend an expansion team has decades of history- its a mockery of that history.[/quote]
Sort of like how the Jazz have Maravich’s #7 retired (I don’t think he ever played in Utah, feel free to correct me)?[/quote]
Played 17 games for Utah and 26 for Boston in 79-80 to end his career.
[quote]The CEO analogy is a poor one, because it doesn’t take into account that sports teams are civic entities as well as business ones.[/quote]
and THAT, my friends, is where the whole damn rub comes in
because if you argue they are civic entities, THEN you cannot also argue that public funds should NOT be spent, in part (whether it’s for tax-free bonding for a new stadium, fixing the roads or subways, cleaning up a neighborhood, etc.) in order to “keep” the team there…if a team can get a better deal from another city willing to make those concessions, it should (because it’s a team, right? not Mr. Steinhitler’s Yankees, it’s the new york yankees)…remember those of you “small” cities bemoaning the “loss” of your beloved teams…new york (2 teams), boston, philly, st. louis, etc…ALL lost baseball teams in the 20th century…and well…that sucks, but that’s life
but if you want to argue that public funds should ONLY be spent on infrastructure, schools, police, fire etc…i certainly won’t argue with you…but then you can’t ALSO argue that teams are civic entities UNLESS you’re ALSO willing to spend on them as you would other civic ventures
talk about cake and eating it
…and that is the rub
Great White Sox uni article, Paul. Sorry I couldn’t comment sooner but I was out on business this week with a broken laptop battery, ugh. I’ve got many comments about teh SOx held deep inside that I’ll subdue as it’s way off topic now.
[quote comment=”278299″]I just hate this whole concept of a city keeping a franchise’s name, logo, colors, etc. I’m sad to see the SuperSonics leave: but they ARE the SuperSonics. The next team, if ever, will not be.
I’m sure OK would change the name anyway, but the whole “fake Cleveland Browns” rubs me the wrong way. I’m sorry you lost them, but you can’t pretend an expansion team has decades of history- its a mockery of that history.[/quote]
I totally agree. When the Browns became the Ravens, we in Steeler Country hated them right off the bat because they were the Browns. Although the new Browns are improving and the rivalry is still there with Cleveland, they are playing catch-up. I still look down upon them as an expansion team.
When using the quote option, how about just quoting the last comment, or only a few, instead of a whole discussion? No need for posts that show 15 previous comments. And there’s my beef…sorry.
As for the Sonics, the person to blame is the owner of Starbuck’s. He’s the one who sold the team to the OKC group in the first place. What did he think was going to happen?? Now, he’s trying to play the Prince by ‘getting the team back’. Give me a break. I’m never going to Starbuck’s again. And this from a Blazers fan. Even though they’re the long time rival, people here in Portland don’t want to see the Sonics move either. OKC will draw crowds for 5 years or so, and then play in a half empty (full) arena after that when the nostalgia wears off.
Does anyone know why yesterday around 2:00 P.M. the link for the Blue Jays “star-spangled” hat showed a scarlet cap, but an hour later and when they wore them they were navy? The product description also described them as scarlet when you selected a color and size.
My logo creep nightmare:
2042, man walks on mars. Our good friends over at nike either develop a shoe for our spacemen, or pay NASA a huge amount of money to slap their logo on the bottom of the shoe, leaving that unmistakable swoosh imprinted on the martian surface for all eternity…
[quote comment=”278312″]My logo creep nightmare:
2042, man walks on mars. Our good friends over at nike either develop a shoe for our spacemen, or pay NASA a huge amount of money to slap their logo on the bottom of the shoe, leaving that unmistakable swoosh imprinted on the martian surface for all eternity…[/quote]
what if nike foots the bill?
is that any more obnoxious (especially to a non-american) than the american flag on the moon?
[quote comment=”278313″][quote comment=”278312″]My logo creep nightmare:
2042, man walks on mars. Our good friends over at nike either develop a shoe for our spacemen, or pay NASA a huge amount of money to slap their logo on the bottom of the shoe, leaving that unmistakable swoosh imprinted on the martian surface for all eternity…[/quote]
what if nike foots the bill?
is that any more obnoxious (especially to a non-american) than the american flag on the moon?[/quote]
Shit Phil, you’re just asking for a yellow-box rebuke!!!!
[quote comment=”278298″][quote comment=”278280″][quote comment=”278276″][quote comment=”278275″][quote] that red label, Red “R” and Rawlings script are just as recognizable as said mark of the beast.[/quote]
of course, dougie, but they’re not nike
therefore, they’re not evil[/quote]
I’d like to make the argument that when it comes to logos on uniforms, equipment, etc., I’d PREFER Nike over other companies’ marks. As has been noted on this site, it sometimes looks like a fold or a shadow, sometimes it’s obviously just the swoosh. Nike’s logo is relatively subtle and simple, and can blend in. With the other logos, there’s no doubt what you’re looking at.[/quote]
Agreed. I hate hate hate the identical Adidas 3 stripes that adorn the sleeves of every damn soccer jersey they do (all of MLS, Liverpool, Chelsea, Newcastle, Germany, Spain, Real Madrid, etc. etc. etc.). Nike’s soccer jerseys (e.g. Arsenal, Barcelona) are very classy and understated, and the logo unobtrusive.[/quote]
I recently talked about this with my brother. he’s also passionate about uniforms but I don’t think he visits this blog much (he doesn’t really do blogs or message boards in general). So I keep him up-to-date with what’s going on and we talk about logo creep from time to time and we both feel that adidas is the much bigger culprit because for years they have incorporated their logo within the design element of a uniform. I think the plain, mundane style of the three stripes gives them somewhat of a pass when it comes to this. Say what you will about Nike but aside from the Broncos uni I mention before (the pants stripes vaguely look swooshy and it sure looks like the nostril of the horse is a swoosh), aside from this guy: link I can’t think of the swoosh becoming a design element in a uni. I know we got into this with the new Cal football unis but there is no way those pants stripes look like a swoosh.
Here’s another question, how long has a box of Newports looked like this: link As long as I can remember. Did Nike simply rip that logo off and turn it upside down?[/quote]
I’d agree that the 3-striped Adidas look is way over done now, and has become pretty bland, and also many times stands out more than Nike’s branding, BUT, it is stripes, and stripes is good. Me likey da stripey. Just wish they’d come up with more original stuff from team to team, which Nike does do, BUT, they also tend to go overboard with the ugly sometimes(Oregon). So where does that leave us? Who knows. And I’m not one to care if a uni has a logo on it to show who makes it, but one per uni, and I mean the whole uni not each piece, that should be sufficient.
[quote comment=”278312″]My logo creep nightmare:
2042, man walks on mars. Our good friends over at nike either develop a shoe for our spacemen, or pay NASA a huge amount of money to slap their logo on the bottom of the shoe, leaving that unmistakable swoosh imprinted on the martian surface for all eternity…[/quote]
Or Adidas could put 3 stripes down the astronauts jacket!
[quote comment=”278312″]My logo creep nightmare:
2042, man walks on mars. Our good friends over at nike either develop a shoe for our spacemen, or pay NASA a huge amount of money to slap their logo on the bottom of the shoe, leaving that unmistakable swoosh imprinted on the martian surface for all eternity…[/quote]
It will help to know that since mars has an atmosphere, winds and storms, It’ll last only a day or so…
[quote comment=”278312″]My logo creep nightmare:
2042, man walks on mars. Our good friends over at nike either develop a shoe for our spacemen, or pay NASA a huge amount of money to slap their logo on the bottom of the shoe, leaving that unmistakable swoosh imprinted on the martian surface for all eternity…[/quote]
One problem with that senerio is that there’s large wind/sand storms on Mars. It’s not the Moon, it has an atmosphere so it would only last until the next storm. Sure that’s plenty of time for Nike to print up posters showing the event, but it’s not exactly going to be there for eternity.
[quote comment=”278314″]Shit Phil, you’re just asking for a yellow-box rebuke!!!![/quote]
bring it…im sick of the nike bashing just for the sake of nike bashing
[quote comment=”278318″][quote comment=”278312″]My logo creep nightmare:
2042, man walks on mars. Our good friends over at nike either develop a shoe for our spacemen, or pay NASA a huge amount of money to slap their logo on the bottom of the shoe, leaving that unmistakable swoosh imprinted on the martian surface for all eternity…[/quote]
One problem with that senerio is that there’s large wind/sand storms on Mars. It’s not the Moon, it has an atmosphere so it would only last until the next storm. Sure that’s plenty of time for Nike to print up posters showing the event, but it’s not exactly going to be there for eternity.[/quote]
I think it was the principle of logo creep he was talking about, not *literally* putting a swoosh on mars. Just the fact that Nike (or another company) wouldn’t be below it.
Split decision on names leaving with teams or staying behind. Never think of Johnny Unitas or Raymond Berry or Art Donovan as having anything to do with Indianapolis.
Or that Walter Johnson pitched as a Twins’ ancestor.
But somehow Bobby Thomson still belongs in the heritage of the Giants, wherever they are, as long as they’re the Giants.
Same with Jackie Robinson and the Dodgers.
[quote comment=”278316″][quote comment=”278312″]My logo creep nightmare:
2042, man walks on mars. Our good friends over at nike either develop a shoe for our spacemen, or pay NASA a huge amount of money to slap their logo on the bottom of the shoe, leaving that unmistakable swoosh imprinted on the martian surface for all eternity…[/quote]
Or Adidas could put 3 stripes down the astronauts jacket![/quote]
I work for a company the makes/made many pieces of the current space suits worn by NASA, and the only logos they have are NASA’s, the US flag, and the mission patch. We didn’t win the latest contract, but hopefully the next suit will stay as classy.
hey ducks
congrats in order yet?
[quote comment=”278321″]Split decision on names leaving with teams or staying behind. Never think of Johnny Unitas or Raymond Berry or Art Donovan as having anything to do with Indianapolis.
Or that Walter Johnson pitched as a Twins’ ancestor.
But somehow Bobby Thomson still belongs in the heritage of the Giants, wherever they are, as long as they’re the Giants.
Same with Jackie Robinson and the Dodgers.[/quote]
Think about Jerry Seinfeld’s routine. You root for the uniform, not the player. A-Rod almost a Red Soc? SWEET! A-Rod a Yankee? SCUM! Since rosters typically turnover at least once every ten years or so anyway, why NOT leave the team identity in Seattle? If you shot forward in time and got a roster from 2018, how many fans today could tell you if it was from the “current” team that’s leaving, or the next team that comes into town?
[quote comment=”278323″]hey ducks
congrats in order yet?[/quote]
Not unless your refering to the 94 I shot the other day. No, we’re stilling waiting, but we did have a walkthrough of the hospital last week, and to my surprise(sorta) no advertisments/logos on the ceilings in the rooms. But there were on the sturrips, and I’m not talking about the kind Paul wears. Taking a picture of it might have creeped out the nurses a little, so I resisted.
[quote comment=”278325″][quote comment=”278323″]hey ducks
congrats in order yet?[/quote]
Not unless your refering to the 94 I shot the other day. [/quote]
how’d ya do on the back 9?
but seriously, keep us posted…;)
[quote comment=”278303″]”…sports teams are civic entities as well as business ones.”
No, they aren’t. They’re privately held for-profit entertainment corporations. Except the Packers, maybe, and they’re owned by the individiual citizens of Green Bay and Wisconsin, not by any government body.[/quote]
You missed my point. I’m not saying sports teams are owned by local governments in any way, and I fully understand that they are for-profit corporations usually owned by a single person or group. When I say a “civic entity”, I mean that the team also belongs to a city in a civic pride sense- like the Sonics are Seattle’s team, the Broncos are Denver’s team, etc. In that respect, they simply aren’t like other corporations, which is why I felt the CEO analogy was poor.
[quote comment=\”278319\”]bring it…im sick of the nike bashing just for the sake of nike bashing[/quote]
I have to admit, I dont really get the \”logo creep\” thing. I mean, I know what it means and I guess I can see how it can be annoying at times. But what do people expect? They\’re businesses…of course they\’re going to want to show their logo. As far as the \’creep\’, UnderArmor has to be the worst. But still, I see why they want to plaster the UA all over the place. Does it have to do with business practices? Are Nike, Adidas, Reebok, UnderArmor any different? I doubt it.
[quote comment=”278326″][quote comment=”278325″][quote comment=”278323″]hey ducks
congrats in order yet?[/quote]
Not unless your refering to the 94 I shot the other day. [/quote]
how’d ya do on the back 9?
but seriously, keep us posted…;)[/quote]
I’ll be the first to admit the course was pretty weak, probably about 5 years old by the size of the trees, but there were flames coming off of my driver I’ll tell ya!
international baseball…. I don’t know where to start:
link
[quote comment=”278327″][quote comment=”278303″]”…sports teams are civic entities as well as business ones.”
No, they aren’t. They’re privately held for-profit entertainment corporations. Except the Packers, maybe, and they’re owned by the individiual citizens of Green Bay and Wisconsin, not by any government body.[/quote]
You missed my point. I’m not saying sports teams are owned by local governments in any way, and I fully understand that they are for-profit corporations usually owned by a single person or group. When I say a “civic entity”, I mean that the team also belongs to a city in a civic pride sense- like the Sonics are Seattle’s team, the Broncos are Denver’s team, etc. In that respect, they simply aren’t like other corporations, which is why I felt the CEO analogy was poor.[/quote]
Certainly sports owners are slower to relocate, but that has more to do with everything being done in the spotlight than out of any any sense of public-spiritedness.
Hell, Carl Pohlad, who made, literally, billions by being Minnesota’s banker, was so civic-minded that he was willing to let the Twins be “contracted” (i.e., vanish from the face of the earth) a few years ago…if someone gave him enough money.
Never, repeat NEVER, expect an owner to do anything other than what’s good for him when it comes to the city where his team will play.
[quote comment=”278299″]I just hate this whole concept of a city keeping a franchise’s name, logo, colors, etc. I’m sad to see the SuperSonics leave: but they ARE the SuperSonics. The next team, if ever, will not be.
I’m sure OK would change the name anyway, but the whole “fake Cleveland Browns” rubs me the wrong way. I’m sorry you lost them, but you can’t pretend an expansion team has decades of history- its a mockery of that history.[/quote]
Sorry, as a Browns fan, I don’t feel that way at all. I see the team colors and the uniform and hear them referred to as “Browns,” and by god they ARE the Browns. They just turned over the entire roster at once instead of over a period of years. I would much much much rather have a team called the Browns and wearing brown and orange than the Cleveland Whatevers wearing purple, black and teal.
[quote comment=”278331″][quote comment=”278327″][quote comment=”278303″]”…sports teams are civic entities as well as business ones.”
No, they aren’t. They’re privately held for-profit entertainment corporations. Except the Packers, maybe, and they’re owned by the individiual citizens of Green Bay and Wisconsin, not by any government body.[/quote]
You missed my point. I’m not saying sports teams are owned by local governments in any way, and I fully understand that they are for-profit corporations usually owned by a single person or group. When I say a “civic entity”, I mean that the team also belongs to a city in a civic pride sense- like the Sonics are Seattle’s team, the Broncos are Denver’s team, etc. In that respect, they simply aren’t like other corporations, which is why I felt the CEO analogy was poor.[/quote]
Certainly sports owners are slower to relocate, but that has more to do with everything being done in the spotlight than out of any any sense of public-spiritedness.
Hell, Carl Pohlad, who made, literally, billions by being Minnesota’s banker, was so civic-minded that he was willing to let the Twins be “contracted” (i.e., vanish from the face of the earth) a few years ago…if someone gave him enough money.
Never, repeat NEVER, expect an owner to do anything other than what’s good for him when it comes to the city where his team will play.[/quote]
Couldn’t agree more about owners being selfish.
Some poeple don’t want to believe that sports is a business and that *all* players are part of the community and have civic pride blah blah blah. The minute another town has more money to offer them they are gone. I know if I was offered a job in another state making 10 grand more/year I’d take it in a heartbeat. It’s no different.
If you want good wholesome athletics go to a high school basketball game.
Sorry for sounding negative.
[quote comment=”278332″][quote comment=”278299″]I just hate this whole concept of a city keeping a franchise’s name, logo, colors, etc. I’m sad to see the SuperSonics leave: but they ARE the SuperSonics. The next team, if ever, will not be.
I’m sure OK would change the name anyway, but the whole “fake Cleveland Browns” rubs me the wrong way. I’m sorry you lost them, but you can’t pretend an expansion team has decades of history- its a mockery of that history.[/quote]
Sorry, as a Browns fan, I don’t feel that way at all. I see the team colors and the uniform and hear them referred to as “Browns,” and by god they ARE the Browns. They just turned over the entire roster at once instead of over a period of years. I would much much much rather have a team called the Browns and wearing brown and orange than the Cleveland Whatevers wearing purple, black and teal.[/quote]
In fact, to follow up my own post, I wouldn’t even be a fan of the Cleveland team if they weren’t the Browns. The Browns were my first favorite team, since I grew up in Ohio, but I haven’t lived there since 1975. I wouldn’t care about the Baltimore Browns, or the Cleveland Bombers, but because they’re still called the Browns and still wear the laundry I grew up rooting for, I’m still a fan. Maybe that makes no sense, but there you are.
[quote comment=”278258″][quote comment=”278256″]much cooler looking snake, but alas, no stripes.[/quote]
Exactly. The stripes sealed it for me.[/quote]
Gadsden has no Stripes….but it is Green and Gold Paul ;)
[quote comment=”278332″][quote comment=”278299″]I just hate this whole concept of a city keeping a franchise’s name, logo, colors, etc. I’m sad to see the SuperSonics leave: but they ARE the SuperSonics. The next team, if ever, will not be.
I’m sure OK would change the name anyway, but the whole “fake Cleveland Browns” rubs me the wrong way. I’m sorry you lost them, but you can’t pretend an expansion team has decades of history- its a mockery of that history.[/quote]
Sorry, as a Browns fan, I don’t feel that way at all. I see the team colors and the uniform and hear them referred to as “Browns,” and by god they ARE the Browns. They just turned over the entire roster at once instead of over a period of years. I would much much much rather have a team called the Browns and wearing brown and orange than the Cleveland Whatevers wearing purple, black and teal.[/quote]
I can understand, as a fan.
But as a fan of the sport, with no stake in the Browns (Bears and Saints fan here)… I really think its a disservice to the history of the game.
The Baltimore Ravens had a dominating team in the 1950’s when they were in Cleveland. The current team in Cleveland did not.
I totally understand a fan’s emotions would differ from mine… but I just think this is the historically accurate way to look at it.
[quote]When I say a “civic entity”, I mean that the team also belongs to a city in a civic pride sense- like the Sonics are Seattle’s team, the Broncos are Denver’s team, etc.[/quote]
the dodgers are brooklyn’s team…the giants are new york’s team…the athletics are philadephia’s team…the braves are boston’s team…the browns are st. louis’ team…shall i go on?
it SUCKS when your team leaves…entire neighborhoods and cities get attached to ‘their’ team and then what happens…they just up and leave? why? to spite that fan base or because they enjoy having their owners burned in effigy?
if only it were that simple…
if a team leaves your town, there’s a reason, and it’s not PURELY greed on the owners part…it takes two to tango…
doesn’t mean it sucks any less
but i GUARANTEE those same people who live and die by “their” team are also bitching and moaning about the team getting a tax-free loan to build a new stadium in the city from which them may leave…but i don’t see them attacking the “new” city when “their” team leaves because that other city was willing to do what their’s wouldn’t/couldn’t
doesn’t mean it sucks any less
baseball (and all sports) have been a business FROM THE BEGINNING … people who lived and bled dodger blue in brooklyn got over it (for the most part) but it doesn’t mean they hated o’malley any less…when they REALLY should have hated robert moses…but it’s a business
doesn’t mean it sucks any less
[quote comment=”278321″]Split decision on names leaving with teams or staying behind. Never think of Johnny Unitas or Raymond Berry or Art Donovan as having anything to do with Indianapolis.
Or that Walter Johnson pitched as a Twins’ ancestor.
But somehow Bobby Thomson still belongs in the heritage of the Giants, wherever they are, as long as they’re the Giants.
Same with Jackie Robinson and the Dodgers.[/quote]
This got me thinking. Are the Colts the Colts as a nod to Pimlico or is it just random?
I think a name should stay with a city if it is specifically attached to that city, so we don’t end up with idiotic names like the Utah Jazz and Memphis grizzles. When the name is random, for example Braves its ok to keep the name when in a different place. i.e. Boston Braves, Milwalkee Braves, Atlanta Braves.
[quote comment=”278337″][quote comment=”278332″][quote comment=”278299″]I just hate this whole concept of a city keeping a franchise’s name, logo, colors, etc. I’m sad to see the SuperSonics leave: but they ARE the SuperSonics. The next team, if ever, will not be.
I’m sure OK would change the name anyway, but the whole “fake Cleveland Browns” rubs me the wrong way. I’m sorry you lost them, but you can’t pretend an expansion team has decades of history- its a mockery of that history.[/quote]
Sorry, as a Browns fan, I don’t feel that way at all. I see the team colors and the uniform and hear them referred to as “Browns,” and by god they ARE the Browns. They just turned over the entire roster at once instead of over a period of years. I would much much much rather have a team called the Browns and wearing brown and orange than the Cleveland Whatevers wearing purple, black and teal.[/quote]
I can understand, as a fan.
But as a fan of the sport, with no stake in the Browns (Bears and Saints fan here)… I really think its a disservice to the history of the game.
The Baltimore Ravens had a dominating team in the 1950’s when they were in Cleveland. The current team in Cleveland did not.
I totally understand a fan’s emotions would differ from mine… but I just think this is the historically accurate way to look at it.[/quote]
This has to be taken on a case by case basis. In this case, I don’t know anyone that really considers old Browns history attached in any way to the Ravens, it should follow the name and go back to the current Browns. The Colts history has to stay with the Colts, not travel back to Baltimore. I guess what I’m saying is if they change the teams identity(name and colors), then you lose it’s history. But that’s coming from a guy that’s never rooted for a team in that situation, although the Sox did almost move to Tampa when I was a kid, but I can’t speculate how my allegances would have fallen or followed.
[quote comment=\”278222\”]If you really want to be moved, you should hear the reading of the Declaration of Independence at the Old State House in Boston tomorrow morning.
I never miss it. They read the DI from the exact spot it was initially read in 1776.
After all I am descended from a simple cobbler from Connecticut (no not THAT one, but my grandparents and great grandparents were cobblers from Connecticut).[/quote]
It was \”initially\” read in Philadelphia.
Yes, “Colts” is/was a nod to Pimlico, and Maryland horse racing in general.
Personally, I was hoping back then that Colts legacy would stay in Baltimore, but such things weren’t done then.
Remember thinking “Indiana Troopers” would have been a cool new name for the Colts. Change to navy blue and light gold (to nod at, but not replicate, Notre Dame)…and cuz has “oo” like Hoosiers.
[quote comment=”278294″][quote comment=”278291″]I think that internationally, Adidas really is the worse offender. Some examples:
Soccer: link
Tennis: link
Shoes: link
Hats: link
Golf: link
Basically, I see three stripes now and I go into convulsions. I can’t even play tic-tac-toe because of it![/quote]
DON’T FORGET
SOCCERlink[/quote]Adidas has even gone into field hockey. Of course, it’s played in more countries than any other sport except soccer.
link
[quote comment=”278338″][quote]When I say a “civic entity”, I mean that the team also belongs to a city in a civic pride sense- like the Sonics are Seattle’s team, the Broncos are Denver’s team, etc.[/quote]
the dodgers are brooklyn’s team…the giants are new york’s team…the athletics are philadephia’s team…the braves are boston’s team…the browns are st. louis’ team…shall i go on?
it SUCKS when your team leaves…entire neighborhoods and cities get attached to ‘their’ team and then what happens…they just up and leave? why? to spite that fan base or because they enjoy having their owners burned in effigy?
if only it were that simple…
if a team leaves your town, there’s a reason, and it’s not PURELY greed on the owners part…it takes two to tango…
doesn’t mean it sucks any less
but i GUARANTEE those same people who live and die by “their” team are also bitching and moaning about the team getting a tax-free loan to build a new stadium in the city from which them may leave…but i don’t see them attacking the “new” city when “their” team leaves because that other city was willing to do what their’s wouldn’t/couldn’t
doesn’t mean it sucks any less
baseball (and all sports) have been a business FROM THE BEGINNING … people who lived and bled dodger blue in brooklyn got over it (for the most part) but it doesn’t mean they hated o’malley any less…when they REALLY should have hated robert moses…but it’s a business
doesn’t mean it sucks any less[/quote]
I don’t think anyone here was arguing that professional sports aren’t a business. My point is that, in addition to that, there is a civic aspect to sports franchises.
Along with them being a business.
For profit.
Which I also understand.
[quote comment=”278340″][quote comment=”278337″][quote comment=”278332″][quote comment=”278299″]I just hate this whole concept of a city keeping a franchise’s name, logo, colors, etc. I’m sad to see the SuperSonics leave: but they ARE the SuperSonics. The next team, if ever, will not be.
I’m sure OK would change the name anyway, but the whole “fake Cleveland Browns” rubs me the wrong way. I’m sorry you lost them, but you can’t pretend an expansion team has decades of history- its a mockery of that history.[/quote]
Sorry, as a Browns fan, I don’t feel that way at all. I see the team colors and the uniform and hear them referred to as “Browns,” and by god they ARE the Browns. They just turned over the entire roster at once instead of over a period of years. I would much much much rather have a team called the Browns and wearing brown and orange than the Cleveland Whatevers wearing purple, black and teal.[/quote]
I can understand, as a fan.
But as a fan of the sport, with no stake in the Browns (Bears and Saints fan here)… I really think its a disservice to the history of the game.
The Baltimore Ravens had a dominating team in the 1950’s when they were in Cleveland. The current team in Cleveland did not.
I totally understand a fan’s emotions would differ from mine… but I just think this is the historically accurate way to look at it.[/quote]
This has to be taken on a case by case basis. In this case, I don’t know anyone that really considers old Browns history attached in any way to the Ravens, it should follow the name and go back to the current Browns. The Colts history has to stay with the Colts, not travel back to Baltimore. I guess what I’m saying is if they change the teams identity(name and colors), then you lose it’s history. But that’s coming from a guy that’s never rooted for a team in that situation, although the Sox did almost move to Tampa when I was a kid, but I can’t speculate how my allegances would have fallen or followed.[/quote]
You also have to keep in mind that the Browns are a franchise. That franchise is, quite literally, a certificate issued by the League giving the team the right to play in league games.
The organization moved to Baltimore, but the franchise itself stayed in Cleveland. Usually, the franchise moves with the team. But not always (see “Sonics, Seattle). The Browns franchise retained all its history.
The Cleveland Browns of today are the same Cleveland Browns of old.
[quote comment=”278297″]Back to my point of last week, Nike is trying out-adidas adidas.[/quote]
Huh?
I think adidas is trying to out-Nike Nike.
Remember the USA hockey uniforms for World Cup ’96? Swoosh on the front, back, tail, shoulder, helmet, pants, etc. etc.
[quote]
I don’t think anyone here was arguing that professional sports aren’t a business. My point is that, in addition to that, there is a civic aspect to sports franchises.
Along with them being a business.
For profit.
Which I also understand.[/quote]
WE often hear of it when it’s a sports team involved, but this type of thing happens with lots of different businesses. There are companies that have fostered that attachment too. Rochester is Kodak. Hershey, PA is the chocolate factory. But I doubt anyone would argue that either of those companies are “civic entities” even though they would fit the bill every bit as much as a pro franchise.
Lots of one horse towns lose their horses. “coz business is business, and business must grow…”
SB
Check this out – there was a team who actually wore these?
link
[quote]Rochester is Kodak. Hershey, PA is the chocolate factory…[/quote]
what’s beaverton, OR?
Speaking of logo creep, has anyone ever discussed the late 80’s trend in hockey of painting over the maker of their equipment?
link
[quote comment=”278307″][quote]The CEO analogy is a poor one, because it doesn’t take into account that sports teams are civic entities as well as business ones.[/quote]
and THAT, my friends, is where the whole damn rub comes in
because if you argue they are civic entities, THEN you cannot also argue that public funds should NOT be spent, in part (whether it’s for tax-free bonding for a new stadium, fixing the roads or subways, cleaning up a neighborhood, etc.) in order to “keep” the team there.[/quote]
Cart/horse, Phil. The fact that most teams already play in publicly funded facilities and get tax breaks and get infrastructure improvements and get sweetheart leases is part of WHY they’re civic entities.
But it’s not the only reason why.
Pro sports teams are civic entities because they embody our hopes and fantasies, because they wear our city and state names on their chests, because we bond with our neighbors when rooting for them, because we live and die with them, because we CARE so much about stuff like their colors and uniforms. Yes, of course they’re businsses — duh. But to say they’re not different than any other corporate entity is a willful misrepresentation.
Here’s another thing to consider: Two leagues (MLB and the NFL) operate with a huge advantage that most other businesses don’t have: an antitrust exemption. That gives them an added responsibility to operate in the public interest.
Now then, about this:
[quote comment=”278319″]im sick of the nike bashing just for the sake of nike bashing[/quote]
And I’m sick of people referring to my critiques as “bashing,” a term usually reserved for the big and powerful beating up on the small and weak (wife-bashing, gay-bashing, etc.). The idea that I, a solitary writer, am even capable of “bashing” a multi-national corporation like Nike is laughable.
Do I like Nike? No. I think they’re evil, and they’ve done a lot to ruin many things that are important to me. When they do something I don’t like, you can bet I’ll say so. That’s not “bashing” and it’s not gratuitous; that’s calling it like I see it and fighting to stop the incursion of a mentality that I think is dangerous. If you see it differently, that’s fine. But don’t expect me to stop saying what I think, and one thing I think is that Nike totally sucks.
I want to make one thing clear, though: With the exception of the words, “mark of the beast,” I would have written the exact same entry today if Belliard had been wearing an UA, Reebok, Adidas, or Rawlings logo. Word for word. The issue here (as it was in 2005) is the unacceptable presence of makers’ marks on socks; the fact that this particular mark is a swoosh is just an extra element in the stew.
[quote comment=”278348″]Check this out – there was a team who actually wore these?
link
Wore what?
That’s in no way the ugliest thing the link ever wore….
[quote comment=”278348″]Check this out – there was a team who actually wore these?
link
I didn’t know that … but I bet Bo knows!
oh. my. god.
you’re right, chance, it could have been worse.
For those who weren’t yet regular readers of this site back in December, this might be a good time to check out this entry, which addresses many of the concerns being discussed in today’s comments:
link
Plus, looks like they had corporate sponsorship.
link
[quote comment=”278351″]Now then, about this:
[quote comment=”278319″]im sick of the nike bashing just for the sake of nike bashing[/quote]
And I’m sick of people referring to my critiques as “bashing,” a term usually reserved for the big and powerful beating up on the small and weak (wife-bashing, gay-bashing, etc.). The idea that I, a solitary writer, am even capable of “bashing” a multi-national corporation like Nike is laughable.[/quote]
just so we’re clear here, paul, that comment was NOT directed towards you
it was directed to everyone who feels it’s ingratiating or otherwise just fun to pile on everytime you (sometimes quite legitimately) bash nike…sorry..critique the swoosh…without actually supporting your very valid (sometimes) criticisms of the folks from beaverton
you have every right to hate nike, as i have every right NOT to…i just take umbrage at those who become nike-trashing-lemmings whenever the opportunity arises
there…we’re good now (i hope)
have a great 4th and i look forward to some fresh stirrupy goodness come monday
[quote comment=”278353″][quote comment=”278348″]Check this out – there was a team who actually wore these?
link
I didn’t know that … but I bet Bo knows![/quote]
That red “thing” is a Chicks BP shirt from that time.
re: “Civic entities” I think it’s a semantics/definition issue. Of course pro teams are involved communitywide in terms of visibility and public interest, and most often playing in publically funded venues. So let’s say they are de facto civic entities, but not legally so….and, with that, there would seem to be more agreement than disagreement here.
But the truth is, ownership is no more obligated to provide a quality product, or stay in business in a given town, than the public is to buy tickets or to supply the team a place to play. Those are choices, and the owner and the public live with a result of one another’s decisions.
Here is something that I found to be interesting. With the new OKC NBA franchise looking for a name and colors, people have been throwing out ideas all day. This is probably my favorite and very classic looking. Any thoughts:
link
[quote comment=”278346″][quote comment=”278297″]Back to my point of last week, Nike is trying out-adidas adidas.[/quote]
Huh?
I think adidas is trying to out-Nike Nike.
Remember the USA hockey uniforms for World Cup ’96? Swoosh on the front, back, tail, shoulder, helmet, pants, etc. etc.[/quote]
Worldwide back in Nike’s formative years and before, Adidas was everywhere (relatively speaking compared to today’s era of logo saturation). What I meant was Nike trying to reverse that position, take the top spot, hold it and widen the gap between them and others, despite periodic “marketing surges” through the years by Reebok (in the 80s), Adidas every now and then, and newcomer Under Armour these days.
So, the reference to “out-adidas adidas” means an apparent attitude established maybe thirty years ago.
(Just remembered this movie, featuring “Native Indian Knitting Enterprises.” Anyone here ever seen it? Talk about product placement, LOL)
link
And I’m NOT Nike bashing. I’m in advertising and marketing and its just interesting to try to figure out why they do what they do…from the outside looking in. I have a closet full of Nikes myself (not an exaggeration).
[quote comment=”278357″][quote comment=”278351″]Now then, about this:
[quote comment=”278319″]im sick of the nike bashing just for the sake of nike bashing[/quote]
And I’m sick of people referring to my critiques as “bashing,” a term usually reserved for the big and powerful beating up on the small and weak (wife-bashing, gay-bashing, etc.). The idea that I, a solitary writer, am even capable of “bashing” a multi-national corporation like Nike is laughable.[/quote]
just so we’re clear here, paul, that comment was NOT directed towards you
it was directed to everyone who feels it’s ingratiating or otherwise just fun to pile on everytime you (sometimes quite legitimately) bash nike…sorry..critique the swoosh…without actually supporting your very valid (sometimes) criticisms of the folks from beaverton
you have every right to hate nike, as i have every right NOT to…i just take umbrage at those who become nike-trashing-lemmings whenever the opportunity arises
there…we’re good now (i hope)
have a great 4th and i look forward to some fresh stirrupy goodness come monday[/quote]
I have to second Phil’s thoughts on this one. I think it’s the herd mentality that develops in here after something about Nike is brought up. For instance, the discussion Cal’s new football set recently.
I also think you (Paul that is) have set a bias in here against the swoosh and what I mean is that I don’t ever see an objective review of a Nike design and then the conversation sort of morphs into everyone ragging on the Oregon unis and goes downhill from there. Whether you hate nike or not, I’m sure if you tried really, really hard you could find one uniform, shoe, piece of equipment, etc they’ve designed that you like. (I dislike President Bush but I can think of a few things he’s done that I’ve agreed with!!!)
Like Phil says, there is a lot of legit criticism you can lay on Nike, but you could do it lay similar critiques on other large, non-sports corporations. However, some other stuff is nitpitcky and has grown quite tiresome.
I’m glad some folks in here are recognizing that Under Armour is starting to out-logo the usual suspects. I think most know I look at “logo creep” as a non-issue, but if you don’t, you have to be fair and bash (sorry, I’m going to keep using that term) ALL companies.
I’m going to hold you to that sock comment if we see someone with another MLB player with a sock with the maker’s mark on it.
[quote comment=”278359″]Here is something that I found to be interesting. With the new OKC NBA franchise looking for a name and colors, people have been throwing out ideas all day. This is probably my favorite and very classic looking. Any thoughts:
link
Not bad. Not bad at all.
[quote comment=”278330″]international baseball…. I don’t know where to start:
link
Why are the Cubans wearing blue jeans?
[quote comment=”278364″][quote comment=”278330″]international baseball…. I don’t know where to start:
link
Why are the Cubans wearing blue jeans?[/quote]
Cuba is simply carrying on a proud tradition of having some of the most butt-ugly baseball uniforms on the planet.
How ’bout that, “Americathon” isn’t available on dvd (Nike probably owns it by now; I would if I were Phil Knight).
But, you CAN get a VHS copy.
link
Cal Bears got new uniforms for the upcoming football season.
I was at the Angels game on Monday and noticed that while all of the base coaches that I have ever seen have been of the “flapless” variety…the Angels’ first base coach was wearing a right-handed batters helmet with a flap over the left ear.
I am sure this has probably been discussed, but I have not seen it, and when my friend and I saw it the first thing we thought of was posting it here.
I am going again tomorrow…I’ll try and get a picture.
[quote comment=”278350″]“Speaking of logo creep, has anyone ever discussed the late 80’s trend in hockey of painting over the maker of their equipment?”
link
Yeah. John Ziegler, a/k/a the subject of the movie “The Memoirs of an Invisible Man”, when he was NHL President (predating the commissioner role) wanted companies to pay the NHL to have their logo on on-ice equipment (Helmets, gloves, etc.) Ziegler makes Gary Bettman look like a fricking genius!
[quote comment=”278363″][quote comment=”278359″]Here is something that I found to be interesting. With the new OKC NBA franchise looking for a name and colors, people have been throwing out ideas all day. This is probably my favorite and very classic looking. Any thoughts:
link
Not bad. Not bad at all.[/quote]
I think the OKC Bandits sounds much more appropriate.
[quote comment=”278367″]“Cal Bears got new uniforms for the upcoming football season.”[/quote]
link. You’re a couple weeks late.
As I was saying about the news on Cal’s new football uniforms…
link.
I find it a bit ironic that Paul uses the “Don’t Tread on Me” flag/reference with the Nike logo creep. As you may or may not know, Nike has been using a “Don’t Tread on Me” campaign for the US Men’s National Soccer Team for the past couple of years. Here are some photos of the USA Kit:
link
and
link
[quote comment=”278373″]I find it a bit ironic that Paul uses the “Don’t Tread on Me” flag/reference with the Nike logo creep. As you may or may not know, Nike has been using a “Don’t Tread on Me” campaign for the US Men’s National Soccer Team for the past couple of years. Here are some photos of the USA Kit:
link
and
link
D’oh! (and Casey, go Ags!)
[quote comment=”278362″]I’m going to hold you to that sock comment if we see someone with another MLB player with a sock with the maker’s mark on it.[/quote]
Dude, I’ve already held MYSELF to it! When those players wore the Rawlings mark on their socks in 2005, I wrote about it (and decried it, heavily) on ESPN.
You think I’m biased against Nike — and yeah, I am. Hard not to be biased against something you think is evil. But just as you think I have a blind spot for what other companies do, I think YOU (and some others) have a blind spot for my critiques of what other companies do. As noted in comment #92, I have plenty of issues with other companies. But you think all I do is complain about Nike.
As for other people piling on and such, don’t blame me for what other people do.
Speaking of which: We could have avoided this whole discussion if Ronnie Belliard has simply WORN STANDARD NON-LOGO NAVY SOCKS like everyone else on the Nats. It’s amazing how everyone has lost sight of that simple fact. HE’S the one who’s out of uniform. HE’S the one who fucked up. Not me, not anyone else.
Jeez.
[quote comment=”278333″][quote comment=”278331″][quote comment=”278327″][quote comment=”278303″]”…sports teams are civic entities as well as business ones.”
No, they aren’t. They’re privately held for-profit entertainment corporations. Except the Packers, maybe, and they’re owned by the individiual citizens of Green Bay and Wisconsin, not by any government body.[/quote]
You missed my point. I’m not saying sports teams are owned by local governments in any way, and I fully understand that they are for-profit corporations usually owned by a single person or group. When I say a “civic entity”, I mean that the team also belongs to a city in a civic pride sense- like the Sonics are Seattle’s team, the Broncos are Denver’s team, etc. In that respect, they simply aren’t like other corporations, which is why I felt the CEO analogy was poor.[/quote]
Certainly sports owners are slower to relocate, but that has more to do with everything being done in the spotlight than out of any any sense of public-spiritedness.
Hell, Carl Pohlad, who made, literally, billions by being Minnesota’s banker, was so civic-minded that he was willing to let the Twins be “contracted” (i.e., vanish from the face of the earth) a few years ago…if someone gave him enough money.
Never, repeat NEVER, expect an owner to do anything other than what’s good for him when it comes to the city where his team will play.[/quote]
[/quote]
And Norm Greene STILL sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!
[quote comment=”278373″]I find it a bit ironic that Paul uses the “Don’t Tread on Me” flag/reference with the Nike logo creep. As you may or may not know, Nike has been using a “Don’t Tread on Me” campaign for the US Men’s National Soccer Team for the past couple of years. Here are some photos of the USA Kit:
link
and
link
Actually, I’ve been waiting for someone to point out that the snake looks kinda like a swoosh, esp. if you flip the flag backwards:
link
It’s a conspiracy, I tells ya!
[quote comment=”278377″][quote comment=”278373″]I find it a bit ironic that Paul uses the “Don’t Tread on Me” flag/reference with the Nike logo creep. As you may or may not know, Nike has been using a “Don’t Tread on Me” campaign for the US Men’s National Soccer Team for the past couple of years. Here are some photos of the USA Kit:
link
and
link
Actually, I’ve been waiting for someone to point out that the snake looks kinda like a swoosh, esp. if you flip the flag backwards:
link
It’s a conspiracy, I tells ya![/quote]
I still don’t see why you consider Nike so evil. I don’t find them any more or less offensive than adidas, Puma or Rawlings, etc. I find a copany like Starbucks to be more evil than Nike. There are three Starbucks here in Ridgewood a short walk from one to the other and who really needs a $4 cup of coffee. also McDonalds seems to be a lot more evil to me than Nike and I haven’t heard much about the McDonads logo on the WNBA uniforms.
Last post of the weekend for me: Reader Mike Engle just sent me a photo of Miguel Cabrera with the Phiten logo, of all things, on his socks:
link
I’ll post this photo in Monday’s entry, since almost nobody will see it here. And yes, Kek, I’ll decry it as the utter bullshit that it so obviously is.
[quote comment=”278378″]I find a copany like Starbucks to be more evil than Nike.[/quote]
And as soon as Starbucks starts making sports uniforms, I’ll write about them.
OK, really done now.
[quote comment=”278380″][quote comment=”278378″]I find a copany like Starbucks to be more evil than Nike.[/quote]
And as soon as Starbucks starts making sports uniforms, I’ll write about them.
OK, really done now.[/quote]
but what about the McDonalds logo on WNBA jerseys? Surely that has to be more offensive than Nike or Reebok or adidas, No?
link
[quote comment=”278381″][quote comment=”278380″][quote comment=”278378″]I find a copany like Starbucks to be more evil than Nike.[/quote]
And as soon as Starbucks starts making sports uniforms, I’ll write about them.
OK, really done now.[/quote]
but what about the McDonalds logo on WNBA jerseys? Surely that has to be more offensive than Nike or Reebok or adidas, No?[/quote]
It is.
I don’t have a problem with a uni maker putting a small logo on their product. What are they gonna do, leave it plain? Would Ford leave the oval off the grill? Would Pepsi just make it a red/white/blue can? Brand identity. What I don’t particularly care for is when there are a dozen of them on one guy.
Look how clean Federer is. One on the shirt, one on the shorts, and then the socks. His RF monogram on the shirt placket is so discreet you can barely notice it.
Here is a post in an Argentinean blog, about African NT soccer jerseys
link
Paul,
Your timing of this particular topic is impeccable.
I was in Sports Authority today, to buy a new pair of baseball socks (I’m admittedly not a stirrup guy) to use as backups if my current ones turn into “quitters.”
I can’t tell you how aggravated I was getting while searching for them…with adidas, UnderArmour, and Nike logos all displayed on the shins. I couldn’t find a pair of plain, navy blue socks!
I finally settled on a pair of Easton socks, which actually has the word “Easton” embroidered into the fabric, but thankfully it’s hidden/blended by being done in the same color.
I agree wholeheartedly that baseball socks should remain logo-free…because it stands out way too much otherwise.
This has probably been brought up before but the Twins actually wore batting practice jerseys for a game per Carlos Silva’s request.
Here’s the link with a picture
link
I totally forgot that I was going to post this stuff about the different pillbox shades the other day. Here’s a shot from my collection: link
The Parker bobblehead in the middle shows the 1976 version (more mustard), the figurine on the right shows the brighter yellow and as you can see, my cap is a shade in between.
Unrelated, I saw this Yanks cap last Saturday at the Pirates/Rays game: link
I know the fashion caps aren’t everyone’s cup of tea, but I thought this one, with the top hat attached to the NY logo was pretty cool.
Last but not least, I don’t recall anyone posting this, so if it was already I’m sorry, but the 2009 ECHL all star game will be in Reading PA and here is the logo: link
I like how they incorporated the keystone within the logo.
[quote comment=”278277″][quote comment=”278275″][quote] that red label, Red “R” and Rawlings script are just as recognizable as said mark of the beast.[/quote]
of course, dougie, but they’re not nike
therefore, they’re not evil[/quote]
Well, they don’t have a carpet-bombing/scorched-earth approach to branding like Nike does. So yeah, they’re not as evil. But I assure you I was just as upset about those Rawlings logos on the socks in 2005 as I am about Belliard’s now. And I’ve criticized Reebok (for the “Ree-Box” on NHL jerseys, e.g.), Adidas (for adding three stripes to NBA refs’ jerseys), Majestic (for their MLB marks), etc.
So I’d say I’m pretty equal-opportunity when it comes to critiquing logo creep. But when it comes to the overall “Let’s brand every fucking thing in sight” approach, nobody can compare to Nike, and you know it. So, yes, I reserve my greatest venom for them.[/quote]
Yeah, but Nike’s not being evil, they’re just trying to expand the biggest return on investment in human history, having paid $35 for the Swoosh design.
[quote comment=”278196″][quote comment=”278193″]Something else interesting about the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…”
In the recorded history of mankind, that was the first time a government ever wrote that down.[/quote]
those exact words…yes
however, james monroe borrowed a large portion of the DI from another famous document written 561 years earlier on the plains of runnymede[/quote]
I’m sorry…JAMES MONROE? Monroe wrote the Declaration? On what planet?
[quote comment=”278201″][quote comment=”278188″]link[/quote]
you beat me too it. I wish the Astros would wear those throwbacks…including the star stirrups…[/quote]
I agree, that road jersey is sweet!
[quote comment=”278359″]Here is something that I found to be interesting. With the new OKC NBA franchise looking for a name and colors, people have been throwing out ideas all day. This is probably my favorite and very classic looking. Any thoughts:
link
How about…Oklahoma City Bombers? What? Too soon?
I must say, and I guess I’m in the minority, but I don’t care about small logos on jerseys. The Reebok logos on NFL Jerseys are the perfect examples.
Barons… now that’s a cool name and I like the mock prototypes
I don’t have a problem with a uni maker putting a small logo on their product. What are they gonna do, leave it plain?
That’s exactly what they did for decades, and the sporting goods industry survived. Nobody outside the clubhouse cared about which manufacturer supplied which team.
Or, to put it another way, is your enjoyment of NBA games lessened because there’s no adidas logo on the uni (as opposed to the warmups)?
Why does everyone why about the logo’s, IMO the swoosh socks look really good, so do the uncuffed pants.
Not the geek/gay tight pants with too high pants and god awfull stirrups.
The prototype OKC jerseys aren’t bad. I just don’t like how there is piping/color down one side of the jersey but not the other. I feel it should be even. But I think black and maroon, to keep the OSU and OU fans happy. Personally, I think black and gold would look sharp, with gold unis as their home unis, but that’s just me.
Brooks, you’re free to wear all the Nike you want.
And you’re also free not to give even a passing thought to the workers in their Third World “contract” factories. Wonder how free they are?
How about the “Oklahoma Robber barons”, because they stole the Sonics from Seattle?
Late to the party, that’s me. But here’s this for those really (and unnecessarily) concerned about Paul v. Nike: When we were putting together the NCAA basketball uni bracket, he said something positive about the System of Dress. He said he liked most of the designs, though the shorts were obviously completely ridiculous.
I’m still reeling from the revelation. I’m guessing another beer will help.
[quote comment=”278394″]
Or, to put it another way, is your enjoyment of NBA games lessened because there’s no adidas logo on the uni (as opposed to the warmups)?[/quote]
On the other hand, the logo being there doesn’t lessen my enjoyment either.
On the other hand, the logo being there doesn’t lessen my enjoyment either.
When I see the Reebok (or, in the past, anyone else’s) logo on NFL sleeves, it bothers me.
Yanks didn’t wear the Stars and Stripes cap.
Expect a letter from the Interim Commissioner for Life, “This Bud’s For You” Selig for a few million to a veterans organization.
[quote comment=”278402″]Yanks didn’t wear the Stars and Stripes cap.
Expect a letter from the Interim Commissioner for Life, “This Bud’s For You” Selig for a few million to a veterans organization.[/quote]
Uh, yes they did.
link
[quote comment=”278402″]Yanks didn’t wear the Stars and Stripes cap.
Expect a letter from the Interim Commissioner for Life, “This Bud’s For You” Selig for a few million to a veterans organization.[/quote]
Um, they did, genius……
Next, you’ll say that the Red Sox didn’t wear one either, or Varitek didn’t have stars and stripes on his entire catching equipment, or that the umpires didn’t have red/white/blue MLB logo flag hats either…….
[quote comment=”278391″][quote comment=”278359″]Here is something that I found to be interesting. With the new OKC NBA franchise looking for a name and colors, people have been throwing out ideas all day. This is probably my favorite and very classic looking. Any thoughts:
link
How about…Oklahoma City Bombers? What? Too soon?[/quote]
As an OKC native and knowing several people in the bombing and seeing the aftermath first hand, that is a very tasteless comment. It is equivalent to going to someone from NYC and making a comment about 9/11. Remember, until 9/11, this was the worst terrorist attack on American soil. Just not cool.
Anyways, getting back off of my rant, the black and gold looks great INHO. I think they want to stay away from OU/OSU colors and I was not a big Barons fan until I saw that jersey. To me, that is the best I have seen so far. Also, OKC didn’t steal the team. Seattle didn’t want them.