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

Uni Watch Book Club: Gameface

Picture 1.png

Sorry for the back-to-back Book Club posts, but I’ve got a backlog of them, so bear with me. Today’s installment: At a reader’s suggestion, I recently picked up a copy of Gameface, a photo book with an unusual slant: It consists exclusively of Kansas City Chiefs pics, because Young was their team photographer for more than three decades. Even if you’re not a Chiefs fan per se, there’s lots of worthwhile uni-related imagery here, including the following:

• The Chiefs have had a lot of jersey patches over the years, as seen in these shots from 1984 (here’s another view), 1994, and 1999 (additional view here). I confess that I can’t recall who this 1992 memorial patch was for — little help?

• Check out these thermal boots. That’s Billy Jackson from 1983. Must’ve been a very cold day for him to have resorted to those things.

• There’s some better cold-wear gear on display in this shot of Buck Buchanan, circa 1975. Love that ski cap!

• Here’s an odd one: I remember several teams wearing the Wilson “W” logo on their sleeves in the 1990s, like in this 1993 photo, but I don’t recall having seen this “W/S” logo before. That shot is from 1995. Anyone know more?

• Speaking of mystery logos, what’s the deal with the mark on Mark Collins’s collar? It’s from 1996, if that helps.

• Totally digging Emmitt Thomas’s white leather belt, from 1977 (all the players wore them, not just him). Also, note that the pants have a zipper fly and grommets for a lace-up closure.

• Kinda surprising more Chiefs players haven’t done this. That’s Don Parrish, 1980.

• Never liked it when coaches wore their stadium passes on their belt loops. Madden pioneered that style in the 1970s, and for a while it caught on with other coaches, including KC’s Rick Abernathy.

And so on. The printing is gorgeous, and there are small but well-worded bits of text (“I’ve always thought most coaches were like generals; some are there for the troops, but most are there for the war”). Want your own copy? Look here.

buettner.png

Membership Drive Update: Nine people signed up for the membership programyesterday (my thanks to all of them), so we’re almost halfway to the goal of getting 20 new members by the end of next week. If we hit that mark, I’ll raffle off the three College Vault books that I wrote about yesterday; if not, I’ll offer them for sale at a discounted price.

Research Project: As should be obvious to anyone who’s been following the Ticker lately, I’ve been doing a lot of Shea Stadium research. Yesterday something came up that I hadn’t been aware of: Jon Springer (who runs the awesome Mets by the Numbers site) informed me that the book Green Cathedrals includes the following tidbit about Shea: “On Opening Day of 1967, on April 11, the outfield [wall was] painted an olive shade of white, with dark green distance numbers. By May 2, after only seven games with that ugly paint scheme, [it was] repainted with the familiar green [and white distance numbers].”

I’d never heard or seen anything about Shea’s wall being “an olive shade of white” (a confusing description at best), and the book doesn’t offer any visual evidence. So I e-mailed Mets radio broadcaster Howie Rose, a walking encyclopedia of Shea lore. He confirmed the general outlines of the story, although he described the early-season paint job as “black numerals on [a] light-green outfield fence.”

“Light green” or “an olive shade of white” — either way, it’s something I need to see. The problem, of course, is that it only lasted for seven home games, so visual documentation is gonna be tough to find. Still, if anyone has a ’68 yearbook that they’d be willing to look through, or any other resources, you know what to do.

Uni Watch News Ticker: According to the first item on this Q&A page, the Bears will wear their orange jerseys on October 19th (with thanks to James Huening). … Fake, but funny (with thanks to Brendon Yarian). … The Bruins have unveiled their alts (which, as John Muir points out, are slightly different than the gold-hemmed versions originally shown here). … Check out this gorgeous 1950s Las Vegas Wranglers jersey (courtesy of Jared Wheeler). … Vanderbilt is switching to the System of Dress (with thanks to Ernie Goens). … Reprinted from yesterday’s comments: There’s a brilliantly obsessive critique of the Thunder’s new logo here. … Also from yesterday: Wow. … Marc Swanson sent along a few old football photos. “This one is a team photo of the 1934 Pittsburgh Pirates, this one shows Ernie Nevers in a Duluth Eskimos uniform, ca. 1925.” … New uniforms for the TSA (with thanks to Michael Alper). … Check out this rare shot of George H. W. Bush — then the American U.N. ambassador — throwing out the first ball at Shea Stadium in 1971. Combination of his trenchcoat and the Mets dugout jacket makes in look like he’s wearing a skirt. … And here’s a shot of celebratory Mets after the 1986 division clincher. Note the missing teeth on the rake — couldn’t they even afford to keep those in good repair? … If you go to this page and click on the embedded video, at around the 23-second mark you’ll see David Ortiz wearing what appears to be a red Sox robe (good spot by Karl G. Anderson). … Yesterday’s query regarding the first player to have worn a tilde on his NOB prompted this from John Moore: “I believe Cesar Cedeño asked for the tilde after his breakout 1972 season. Of course, back then he was called a Latino prima donna for asking. Pretty sure it was around the same time Kareem asked for Milwaukee to change the NOB from ‘Jabbar’ to Abdul-Jabbar.'” No visual evidence, though. Anyone got any Cedeño pics from that era? … With the Habs slated to retire Patrick Roy’s number on November 22nd, they primed the pump yesterday with a press event featuring Roy in era-appropriate attire. Here’s photo gallery of his Montreal days (with thanks to John Muir). … While looking for something else, I found great old gumball helmet ad in a 1967 issue of The Sporting News. Dig that goalpost display! … Here’s something pretty cool: Broadway Joe wearing a “Staff” jacket while warming up in 1971. … JC Helf, who runs the always-awesome Fleer Sticker Project, informs me that the folks at Topps are auctioning off a bunch of old football color negatives, including this great Rams shot and some WFL images. Check out the pics scrolling by on the auction pages to see what else they have for sale. … Great archival shot here of Tiger Stadium being prepared for football use. … Kody Staples notes that Packers lineman Mark Tauscher’s left sleeve striping was AWOL on Monday night. … Yesterday I linked to this page, which includes the following statement: “In 1962, the [Wisconsin football] team introduced a white plastic helmet with a red W on the front and the player’s number on the side.” But Jim Parker quickly pointed out that this helmet design was actually introduced in 1957 (note the fallen player on the ground), not ’62. … I’m not a fan of these caps to begin with, but the A’s really went out of their way to make them look like shit. … Laundry tag alert for Zach Jackson’s socks. … Here’s a weird one: Ed Ra bought this cap, which of course has the NFL logo on the back. But look, it’s a hybrid logo — the new version on top, the old lettering on the bottom. Bizarre! “It looks like this mistake was made on this style of cap for all teams, but I haven’t seen it on any other merchandise,” says Ed. … More info on the Sabres’ new alts here. … UNC wore navy pants last night. A sharp look, sez I, but still so weird for that particular school.

 

218 comments to Uni Watch Book Club: Gameface

  • Chip | September 12, 2008 at 9:16 am |

    According to sportslogos.net, the 1992 Chiefs patch was a tribute for Director of Player Personnel Whitey Dovell.

  • Jonathan Sluss | September 12, 2008 at 9:18 am |

    somewhere I still have my brother’s goal post display stand

  • Tom Hedrick | September 12, 2008 at 9:20 am |

    UNC link needs fixed

  • MPowers1634 | September 12, 2008 at 9:22 am |

    Here’s the link to the UNC/Rutgers photo gallery:
    http://tarheelblue.c...

    They did look a bit off, however they didn’t go half-assed about it…Check out their Navy accented cleats!

    Here’s what I think is an interesting question:

    With USC playing TOSU tomorrow evening, we are in store for both a classic battle between two great football teams both athletically and aesthetically.

    Simple yet elegant…about the only people who wouldn’t like those two are Marty Met and Mike Belotti.

    As we saw with UNC and their “alternate” third color pants last night, there are precious few teams who still wear one pair of pants for both home and road games, USC and TOSU being two of them.

    Question #1: How many schools still use only one pair of pants?

    Question #2: Of these schools, like Michigan or USC, have they, at any time, worn different colored pants, for example…Michigan in Blue?

  • Dave Rakowski | September 12, 2008 at 9:22 am |

    the logo on Mark Collins collor is from Max It, part of the NFL Pro Line apparel from the mid-90’s. Most of the cold weather (turtlenecks, etc.)had that logo.

  • LI Phil | September 12, 2008 at 9:24 am |
  • ScottyJ in WV | September 12, 2008 at 9:26 am |

    The navy pants for UNC looked good but felt…..wrong.

    Rutgers in the all red get-up looked awful. When will the monchromatic football uniform trend run its course??

  • Howard Sheltraw | September 12, 2008 at 9:27 am |

    Michigan did wear white pants on the road for one season in the 70’s. They had a blue-maize-blue stripe down the side.

  • Howard Sheltraw | September 12, 2008 at 9:32 am |

    Here’s a link to a photo of Michigan’s white pants:
    http://mtunnel.blogs...

  • Billy | September 12, 2008 at 9:34 am |

    [quote comment=”289172″]
    Question #1: How many schools still use only one pair of pants?
    [/quote]

    Navy wears gold pants home and road:

    http://navysports.cs...;

  • Elena | September 12, 2008 at 9:35 am |

    I don’t pay attention to football, but UNC’s baseball team has worn a navy jersey, usually an away uni, and has worn navy undershirts with their vest jerseys for years, so it’s nothing new as a UNC alt color.

  • Boston Nick | September 12, 2008 at 9:36 am |

    I still love the Bruins bear logo, but they should’ve made that a gold jersey. Having an alternate that is the same color as the home jersey is really just incredibly boring.

  • Paul Lukas | September 12, 2008 at 9:38 am |

    [quote comment=”289171″]UNC link needs fixed[/quote]

    Done. Thanks.

  • Michael | September 12, 2008 at 9:39 am |

    The W/S logo is another version of a Wilson logo, I think it stood for “Wilson Sports” I remember seeing it on several different teams

    You can see it on Marino’s jersey in this photo
    http://www.sjgonline...

  • JTH | September 12, 2008 at 9:42 am |

    W/S is actually Wilson Staff.

    http://i11.ebayimg.c...

  • Michael | September 12, 2008 at 9:45 am |

    http://www.kevinbrit...

    Wilson Staff, I just found the same thing. Wilson Staff, You beat me to it

  • Flip | September 12, 2008 at 9:46 am |

    Chiefs photos provided a trip down memory lane. In the ’70s and ’80s, a totally cool team. There was a flleting moment when I thought the Chiefs were overdressed http://vault.sportsi...
    but I quickly snapped out of it. The uniform truly is one of the classics. Instantly recognizable, understated (KC never did succumb to the ’80s wide pant stripe trend) and they’ve kept the striped socks. Terrific. Thanks, Paul.

  • Ricko | September 12, 2008 at 9:46 am |

    [quote comment=”289176″]Michigan did wear white pants on the road for one season in the 70’s. They had a blue-maize-blue stripe down the side.[/quote]

    Was just looking at photos of those white Michigan pants the other night and thinking about scanning and sending to Paul. Around ’73, maybe?

    —Ricko

  • Stuby | September 12, 2008 at 9:48 am |

    [quote comment=”289179″]I don’t pay attention to football, but UNC’s baseball team has worn a navy jersey, usually an away uni, and has worn navy undershirts with their vest jerseys for years, so it’s nothing new as a UNC alt color.[/quote]
    Nike outfits its baseball schools in every combination of uniform imaginable and they usually take any accent color and promote it to primary color. See Miami with both orange and dark green jerseys and Florida St. with their all gold get-up.

    My God, how many different uni combinations are there between Miami, FSU and Carolina – like 857?

  • Filthy McNasty | September 12, 2008 at 10:00 am |

    The hybrid NFL logo cap is tres amusant.

    At least they’ve updated some of it, I considered buying a 72 Long Rams jersey but all that I’ve seen have the old NFL logo on the v-neck Equipment patch. Maybe Reebok want some money from Chad Johnson before they’ll change them.

  • DJK | September 12, 2008 at 10:01 am |

    From a purely nice looking standpoint, UNC looked cool in the navy pants. But, even as a UNC hater, I have to admit “Carolina Blue” is a CLASSIC color for that school, and the navy pants just don’t cut it from that point of view. Why not carolina Blue pants with a navy accent? MUCH better IMO.

    Is it just me, or did Rutgers look like 11 Elmo’s out there?

  • DawgFan | September 12, 2008 at 10:02 am |

    [quote comment=”289172″]Here’s the link to the UNC/Rutgers photo gallery:
    http://tarheelblue.c...

    They did look a bit off, however they didn’t go half-assed about it…Check out their Navy accented cleats!

    Here’s what I think is an interesting question:

    With USC playing TOSU tomorrow evening, we are in store for both a classic battle between two great football teams both athletically and aesthetically.

    Simple yet elegant…about the only people who wouldn’t like those two are Marty Met and Mike Belotti.

    As we saw with UNC and their “alternate” third color pants last night, there are precious few teams who still wear one pair of pants for both home and road games, USC and TOSU being two of them.

    Question #1: How many schools still use only one pair of pants?

    Question #2: Of these schools, like Michigan or USC, have they, at any time, worn different colored pants, for example…Michigan in Blue?[/quote]

    I’m sure there ar many teams that still wear one pair of pants. One is Louisiana Tech.
    Home:
    http://bearsnecessit...

    Road:
    http://farm2.static....

    And they used to wear blue pants:
    http://media.college...

    Tech actually has quite a long running tradition with the current helmet logo and striped jerseys, they go back to the Bradshaw days and before:
    http://i.cdn.turner....

    Other schools with one pair of pants off the top of my head:
    Texas
    Oklahoma
    LSU
    Auburn
    Alabama
    Georgia
    Kansas
    Kansas St
    Army
    Navy
    Mississippi St (?)
    Ole Miss

  • Stuby | September 12, 2008 at 10:06 am |

    [quote comment=”289189″]From a purely nice looking standpoint, UNC looked cool in the navy pants. But, even as a UNC hater, I have to admit “Carolina Blue” is a CLASSIC color for that school, and the navy pants just don’t cut it from that point of view. Why not carolina Blue pants with a navy accent? MUCH better IMO.

    Is it just me, or did Rutgers look like 11 Elmo’s out there?[/quote]
    I don’t have a problem with the monochrome red. It’s better than the 11 Grimaces that East Carolina ran out there against WVU.

  • Kevin M. | September 12, 2008 at 10:08 am |

    [quote comment=”289190″][quote comment=”289172″]Here’s the link to the UNC/Rutgers photo gallery:
    http://tarheelblue.c...

    They did look a bit off, however they didn’t go half-assed about it…Check out their Navy accented cleats!

    Here’s what I think is an interesting question:

    With USC playing TOSU tomorrow evening, we are in store for both a classic battle between two great football teams both athletically and aesthetically.

    Simple yet elegant…about the only people who wouldn’t like those two are Marty Met and Mike Belotti.

    As we saw with UNC and their “alternate” third color pants last night, there are precious few teams who still wear one pair of pants for both home and road games, USC and TOSU being two of them.

    Question #1: How many schools still use only one pair of pants?

    Question #2: Of these schools, like Michigan or USC, have they, at any time, worn different colored pants, for example…Michigan in Blue?[/quote]

    I’m sure there ar many teams that still wear one pair of pants. One is Louisiana Tech.
    Home:
    http://bearsnecessit...

    Road:
    http://farm2.static....

    And they used to wear blue pants:
    http://media.college...

    Tech actually has quite a long running tradition with the current helmet logo and striped jerseys, they go back to the Bradshaw days and before:
    http://i.cdn.turner....

    Other schools with one pair of pants off the top of my head:
    Texas
    Oklahoma
    LSU
    Auburn
    Alabama
    Georgia
    Kansas
    Kansas St
    Army
    Navy
    Mississippi St (?)
    Ole Miss[/quote]

    I think Mississippi St has a pair of Maroon pants that they wear from time to time and go monochrome with their Maroon jersey. I want to say they wore them last year with their game vs Ole Miss.

  • MPowers1634 | September 12, 2008 at 10:08 am |

    Methinks Ocho “Mucho Drinko” has finally had a stroke of brilliance! By putting Henry up to this, he circumvents the whole problem with Reebok!

    http://www.derfmagaz...

  • The Ghost of Ross Gload | September 12, 2008 at 10:10 am |

    Kansas currently wears gray pants with their blue, white, and red jerseys.

    But they’ve worn pants in white, gray, silver, and about four different shades of blue over the last 30 years.

    The “beauty” of being so bad for so long is that no one notices when every new coach screws around with the uniforms.

  • Ricko | September 12, 2008 at 10:11 am |

    a few more…

    Iowa
    Penn State
    Notre Dame
    Northwestern (don’t think have purple currently)
    Stanford (or do they still have the cardinal set?)
    Central Florida?
    Florida Atlantic

  • Ray | September 12, 2008 at 10:11 am |

    As a lifelong Oakland A’s fan, can I just say how much I HATE those black jerseys? I guess I just did.

    They are flat-out awful.

  • Taha | September 12, 2008 at 10:11 am |

    The picture of Papa Bush shows the olive shade of white of the wall at Shea, although not the outfield.

    The other thing about Papa Bush’s attire in the photo, it looks more to me like he is wearing a Pakistani Shalwar kameez rather than a skirt, but that may be because I am Pakistani!

  • Wade Harder | September 12, 2008 at 10:12 am |

    [quote comment=”289190″][quote comment=”289172″]Here’s the link to the UNC/Rutgers photo gallery:
    http://tarheelblue.c...

    They did look a bit off, however they didn’t go half-assed about it…Check out their Navy accented cleats!

    Here’s what I think is an interesting question:

    With USC playing TOSU tomorrow evening, we are in store for both a classic battle between two great football teams both athletically and aesthetically.

    Simple yet elegant…about the only people who wouldn’t like those two are Marty Met and Mike Belotti.

    As we saw with UNC and their “alternate” third color pants last night, there are precious few teams who still wear one pair of pants for both home and road games, USC and TOSU being two of them.

    Question #1: How many schools still use only one pair of pants?

    Question #2: Of these schools, like Michigan or USC, have they, at any time, worn different colored pants, for example…Michigan in Blue?[/quote]

    I’m sure there ar many teams that still wear one pair of pants. One is Louisiana Tech.
    Home:
    http://bearsnecessit...

    Road:
    http://farm2.static....

    And they used to wear blue pants:
    http://media.college...

    Tech actually has quite a long running tradition with the current helmet logo and striped jerseys, they go back to the Bradshaw days and before:
    http://i.cdn.turner....

    Other schools with one pair of pants off the top of my head:
    Texas
    Oklahoma
    LSU
    Auburn
    Alabama
    Georgia
    Kansas
    Kansas St
    Army
    Navy
    Mississippi St (?)
    Ole Miss[/quote]

    Mississippi State uses white and maroon as seen below:

    http://media.2theadv...

    http://i.usatoday.ne...

    And unfortunately they put the maroon jersey and pants together on occasion:

    http://media.college...

  • LI Phil | September 12, 2008 at 10:13 am |

    [quote comment=”289191″][quote comment=”289189″]From a purely nice looking standpoint, UNC looked cool in the navy pants. But, even as a UNC hater, I have to admit “Carolina Blue” is a CLASSIC color for that school, and the navy pants just don’t cut it from that point of view. Why not carolina Blue pants with a navy accent? MUCH better IMO.

    Is it just me, or did Rutgers look like 11 Elmo’s out there?[/quote]
    I don’t have a problem with the monochrome red. It’s better than the 11 Grimaces that East Carolina ran out there against WVU.[/quote]

    well yeah…but…that ‘scarlet’ red is just…i donno…not quite right…

    im sure i’ll get creamed, but i really liked this monochrome red…PROVIDED they only wear it once a season…any more than that and they get a F-

  • Stuby | September 12, 2008 at 10:15 am |

    [quote comment=”289190″][quote comment=”289172″]Here’s the link to the UNC/Rutgers photo gallery:
    http://tarheelblue.c...

    They did look a bit off, however they didn’t go half-assed about it…Check out their Navy accented cleats!

    Here’s what I think is an interesting question:

    With USC playing TOSU tomorrow evening, we are in store for both a classic battle between two great football teams both athletically and aesthetically.

    Simple yet elegant…about the only people who wouldn’t like those two are Marty Met and Mike Belotti.

    As we saw with UNC and their “alternate” third color pants last night, there are precious few teams who still wear one pair of pants for both home and road games, USC and TOSU being two of them.

    Question #1: How many schools still use only one pair of pants?

    Question #2: Of these schools, like Michigan or USC, have they, at any time, worn different colored pants, for example…Michigan in Blue?[/quote]

    I’m sure there ar many teams that still wear one pair of pants. One is Louisiana Tech.
    Home:
    http://bearsnecessit...

    Road:
    http://farm2.static....

    And they used to wear blue pants:
    http://media.college...

    Tech actually has quite a long running tradition with the current helmet logo and striped jerseys, they go back to the Bradshaw days and before:
    http://i.cdn.turner....

    Other schools with one pair of pants off the top of my head:
    Texas
    Oklahoma
    LSU
    Auburn
    Alabama
    Georgia
    Kansas
    Kansas St
    Army
    Navy
    Mississippi St (?)
    Ole Miss[/quote]
    UCLA
    Notre Dame
    Penn State
    Iowa (I think)

  • LI Phil | September 12, 2008 at 10:15 am |

    [quote comment=”289197″]The picture of Papa Bush shows the olive shade of white of the wall at Shea, although not the outfield.

    The other thing about Papa Bush’s attire in the photo, it looks more to me like he is wearing a Pakistani Shalwar kameez rather than a skirt, but that may be because I am Pakistani![/quote]

    looks like someone gave him a mets jacket for the photo op, because he’s wearing a trenchcoat underneat

  • MPowers1634 | September 12, 2008 at 10:16 am |

    1. I seem to remember Georgia, during the Herschel Walker years wearing either black or red pants.

    http://images.dawgsp...

    http://docgoku.com/f...

    http://www2.jsonline...

    2. Along with their marron pants and jerseys, Miss. State, under that bull-castrating hombre, Jackie Sherrill, wore a second helmet as well!

  • Stuby | September 12, 2008 at 10:18 am |

    [quote comment=”289195″]a few more…

    Iowa
    Penn State
    Notre Dame
    Northwestern (don’t think have purple currently)
    Stanford (or do they still have the cardinal set?)
    Central Florida?
    Florida Atlantic[/quote]
    Wow, Ricko, a Florida Atlantic reference. Isn’t that Schnellenberger? I’m impressed.

  • chance | September 12, 2008 at 10:18 am |

    RE: the Wisconsin helmet history, I suspect that they might have picked up the 1962 date from the Helmet Hut, which offers reproductions of the 1962 helmet for sale.

    Wisconsin’s first plastic shell was actually white with a single cardinal stripe, as seen in this photo of Alan Ameche carrying the ball vs. Marquette(!), October 3rd 1953. They appear to have used a cardinal shell with white stripe intermittently with it.

    Helmet Hut has a great visual history of Wisconsin’s helmets. They sell them all, although the page seems to be down, but you can get them (and see pics of each style) from this great company.

    But darn, do I wish the Badgers would bring back a version of these helmets. The perfect marriage to satisfy the old schoolers and the “set yourself apart” crowd.

  • Kevin M. | September 12, 2008 at 10:20 am |

    [quote comment=”289202″]1. I seem to remember Georgia, during the Herschel Walker years wearing either black or red pants.

    http://images.dawgsp...

    http://docgoku.com/f...

    http://www2.jsonline...

    2. Along with their marron pants and jerseys, Miss. State, under that bull-castrating hombre, Jackie Sherrill, wore a second helmet as well![/quote]

    That second picture is a photoshop of DJ Shockley in red pants but yes the Dawgs did wear red pants a few times and the black pants twice I believe last time being the 98 bowl game.

  • MPowers1634 | September 12, 2008 at 10:23 am |

    [quote comment=”289199″][quote comment=”289191″][quote comment=”289189″]From a purely nice looking standpoint, UNC looked cool in the navy pants. But, even as a UNC hater, I have to admit “Carolina Blue” is a CLASSIC color for that school, and the navy pants just don’t cut it from that point of view. Why not carolina Blue pants with a navy accent? MUCH better IMO.

    Is it just me, or did Rutgers look like 11 Elmo’s out there?[/quote]
    I don’t have a problem with the monochrome red. It’s better than the 11 Grimaces that East Carolina ran out there against WVU.[/quote]

    well yeah…but…that ‘scarlet’ red is just…i donno…not quite right…

    im sure i’ll get creamed, but i really liked this monochrome red…PROVIDED they only wear it once a season…any more than that and they get a F-[/quote]

    I’m with you, Phil…I liked that red-out very much so.

    I don’t think it’s as nice as this alt though:
    http://static.nfl.co...

    Romo: Ha, those look almost as bad as Yoko’s pink cowboy!

    Pierce: What???I only gotta wear this POS once a year to make that skiba dude happy!

    And lookie what I found, Mr. Skiba’s crowning achievement:
    http://farm3.static....

  • Chad | September 12, 2008 at 10:24 am |

    i remember the WS logo on my bears rashaan salaam jersey. that was a wise purchase. but i remember that i got the jersey before he was signed by the team. someone told me that the players jersey couldn’t be sold until he signed, therefore mine was “illegal” anyone know anything about this?

  • Stuby | September 12, 2008 at 10:26 am |

    In the NFL we still have the 49ers, Colts, Steelers, Raiders, Lions and Packers as the only NFL teams that use 1 set of pants. Do the Chiefs still use red pants occasionally?

    Cowboys and Giants, as we know, are special cases with different versions of essentially the same colored pants.

  • Mark in Cincy | September 12, 2008 at 10:28 am |

    As for the UNC unis last night, I am sure most of you saw this, but there is an extension of the helmet stripe onto the team’s collar in the back. Subtle, but I thought it was pretty cool. I can’t find a pic right off the bat, as there are no good shots of the back of a UNC player in the CSTV gallery.

  • Stuby | September 12, 2008 at 10:31 am |

    [quote comment=”289210″]As for the UNC unis last night, I am sure most of you saw this, but there is an extension of the helmet stripe onto the team’s collar in the back. Subtle, but I thought it was pretty cool. I can’t find a pic right off the bat, as there are no good shots of the back of a UNC player in the CSTV gallery.[/quote]
    I wanna say K-State has that effect also. Or maybe it was on their sleeves.

  • MPowers1634 | September 12, 2008 at 10:32 am |

    [quote comment=”289210″]As for the UNC unis last night, I am sure most of you saw this, but there is an extension of the helmet stripe onto the team’s collar in the back. Subtle, but I thought it was pretty cool. I can’t find a pic right off the bat, as there are no good shots of the back of a UNC player in the CSTV gallery.[/quote]

    There are a bunch, here:
    http://www.nj.com/ru...

  • Boston Nick | September 12, 2008 at 10:33 am |

    Northwestern went purple on purple and white on purple for a couple years, but they definitely have white pants in the rotation now.

  • MPowers1634 | September 12, 2008 at 10:36 am |

    [quote comment=”289208″]i remember the WS logo on my bears rashaan salaam jersey. that was a wise purchase. but i remember that i got the jersey before he was signed by the team. someone told me that the players jersey couldn’t be sold until he signed, therefore mine was “illegal” anyone know anything about this?[/quote]

    Sounds like a perfect candidate for this site:
    http://straightcashh...

  • MPowers1634 | September 12, 2008 at 10:42 am |

    [quote comment=”289205″]RE: the Wisconsin helmet history, I suspect that they might have picked up the 1962 date from the Helmet Hut, which offers reproductions of the 1962 helmet for sale.

    Wisconsin’s first plastic shell was actually white with a single cardinal stripe, as seen in this photo of Alan Ameche carrying the ball vs. Marquette(!), October 3rd 1953. They appear to have used a cardinal shell with white stripe intermittently with it.

    Helmet Hut has a great visual history of Wisconsin’s helmets. They sell them all, although the page seems to be down, but you can get them (and see pics of each style) from this great company.

    But darn, do I wish the Badgers would bring back a version of these helmets. The perfect marriage to satisfy the old schoolers and the “set yourself apart” crowd.[/quote]

    September 3, 2005 vs. Bowling Green:
    http://www.jsonline....

  • Craig | September 12, 2008 at 10:44 am |

    Didn’t LSU wear white pants with that white helmet a year ago? And, I seriously think Nike does these incomplete stripes just to piss us off! Grrrr, I hated those halfsies on UNC!

  • Phil | September 12, 2008 at 10:45 am |

    From the KC Chiefs uniform history:

    1992
    The club wears a black panel with the white initials “WWD” on the upper left chest of its jersey in memory of Director of Player Personnel Whitey Dovell, who passed away on May 11, 1992. The team also paints the number “86” on the field at Arrowhead Stadium to honor the memory of Hall of Fame DT Buck Buchanan, who passed away on July 16, 1992.

  • chance | September 12, 2008 at 10:54 am |

    [quote comment=”289215″][quote comment=”289205″]RE: the Wisconsin helmet history, I suspect that they might have picked up the 1962 date from the Helmet Hut, which offers reproductions of the 1962 helmet for sale.

    Wisconsin’s first plastic shell was actually white with a single cardinal stripe, as seen in this photo of Alan Ameche carrying the ball vs. Marquette(!), October 3rd 1953. They appear to have used a cardinal shell with white stripe intermittently with it.

    Helmet Hut has a great visual history of Wisconsin’s helmets. They sell them all, although the page seems to be down, but you can get them (and see pics of each style) from this great company.

    But darn, do I wish the Badgers would bring back a version of these helmets. The perfect marriage to satisfy the old schoolers and the “set yourself apart” crowd.[/quote]

    September 3, 2005 vs. Bowling Green:
    http://www.jsonline....

    I bought a game-worn complete uniform from the University’s auction after that game. Even the socks (with little red “W”s on them) that so few players actually wore. The Badgers looked great.

    I should say that even though the Wisconsin Alumni Association was a little off on their helmet history, selling t-shirts with this outstanding Bucky logo more than makes up for it.

  • MPowers1634 | September 12, 2008 at 10:57 am |

    [quote comment=”289211″][quote comment=”289210″]As for the UNC unis last night, I am sure most of you saw this, but there is an extension of the helmet stripe onto the team’s collar in the back. Subtle, but I thought it was pretty cool. I can’t find a pic right off the bat, as there are no good shots of the back of a UNC player in the CSTV gallery.[/quote]
    I wanna say K-State has that effect also. Or maybe it was on their sleeves.[/quote]

    http://www.kstatespo...

  • Flip | September 12, 2008 at 11:01 am |

    Somebody say K-State? The Cats changed their sleeve stripe last year. The TV numbers were moved from the shoulders to the sleeve and the helmet stripe was replicated on the sleeve ribbing. (It’s also on the back collar.) This is not a good shot, but close.
    http://vmedia.rivals...
    UNC adopted the sleeve look this year. BTW, the navy pants didn’t bother me as much as I thought. They would have looked better with a Carolina blue/white/Carolina blue stripe rather than that blob, though.
    Regarding different home and road NCAA pants: Having two pair, I think is the exception than the rule, although there are a bunch with separate looks.

  • MPowers1634 | September 12, 2008 at 11:02 am |

    [quote comment=”289216″]Didn’t LSU wear white pants with that white helmet a year ago? And, I seriously think Nike does these incomplete stripes just to piss us off! Grrrr, I hated those halfsies on UNC![/quote]

    September 29, 2007 LSU vs. Tulane Hurricane Katrina Relief Game:

    http://sportswrap.be...
    http://members.cox.n...
    http://media.2theadv...

  • chance | September 12, 2008 at 11:03 am |

    And as cool as the socks the football Badgers wore in 2005, they don’t come close to these beauties, part of the basketball Badgers’ 1941 throwbacks last year.

  • Mark Deoscher | September 12, 2008 at 11:03 am |

    Interesting banter about the Oklahoma City Thunder uniforms…….

    http://www.newsok.tv...

  • Ricko | September 12, 2008 at 11:09 am |

    Loved loved loved those Wisconsin “W” helmets at the time. Still do today. Wish they’d go back to them.

    Oh, that’s right, I forgot. Wouldn’t be cool. Wouldn’t have any black on them.

  • Leo | September 12, 2008 at 11:14 am |

    [quote comment=”289214″][quote comment=”289208″]i remember the WS logo on my bears rashaan salaam jersey. that was a wise purchase. but i remember that i got the jersey before he was signed by the team. someone told me that the players jersey couldn’t be sold until he signed, therefore mine was “illegal” anyone know anything about this?[/quote]

    Sounds like a perfect candidate for this site:
    http://straightcashh...

    All this talk makes me want to throw on (or out) my most ill-advised purchase.

    http://www.canoe.ca/...

    At least he kept up the trend for great Michigan running backs in the pros…

  • LI Phil | September 12, 2008 at 11:18 am |

    [quote comment=”289222″]And as cool as the socks the football Badgers wore in 2005, they don’t come close to these beauties, part of the basketball Badgers’ 1941 throwbacks last year.[/quote]

    great stuff today, chance, and thanks for all the “W” pics

    i LOVE LOVE LOVE those socks, only the whole look is ruined by the footwear

    you’d think, in this day and age, that the sneaker manufacturers would come up with a one-off, retro-looking type sneaker which could be worn only with the throwbacks…surely this would be a financial windfall as all the kids would want a pair…they wouldn’t even need to make it unique to each school…just design a pair that looks and feels ‘old school’ and dole them out to all the participating u’s…

    i guess im wishing for too much…

    but ya’ll gotta agree…those kicks paired with those socks…looks like shit

  • War Damn Eagle | September 12, 2008 at 11:20 am |

    [quote comment=”289190″][quote comment=”289172″]Here’s the link to the UNC/Rutgers photo gallery:
    http://tarheelblue.c...

    They did look a bit off, however they didn’t go half-assed about it…Check out their Navy accented cleats!

    Here’s what I think is an interesting question:

    With USC playing TOSU tomorrow evening, we are in store for both a classic battle between two great football teams both athletically and aesthetically.

    Simple yet elegant…about the only people who wouldn’t like those two are Marty Met and Mike Belotti.

    As we saw with UNC and their “alternate” third color pants last night, there are precious few teams who still wear one pair of pants for both home and road games, USC and TOSU being two of them.

    Question #1: How many schools still use only one pair of pants?

    Question #2: Of these schools, like Michigan or USC, have they, at any time, worn different colored pants, for example…Michigan in Blue?[/quote]

    I’m sure there ar many teams that still wear one pair of pants. One is Louisiana Tech.
    Home:
    http://bearsnecessit...

    Road:
    http://farm2.static....

    And they used to wear blue pants:
    http://media.college...

    Tech actually has quite a long running tradition with the current helmet logo and striped jerseys, they go back to the Bradshaw days and before:
    http://i.cdn.turner....

    Other schools with one pair of pants off the top of my head:
    Texas
    Oklahoma
    LSU
    Auburn
    Alabama
    Georgia
    Kansas
    Kansas St
    Army
    Navy
    Mississippi St (?)
    Ole Miss[/quote]

    Miss. State has white and red pants (which are cool, b/c they wear striped white socks with the dark pants – that’s rare in college)

    white pants:
    http://media.2theadv...

    red pants:
    http://cache.daylife...

  • MPowers1634 | September 12, 2008 at 11:21 am |

    [quote comment=”289224″]Loved loved loved those Wisconsin “W” helmets at the time. Still do today. Wish they’d go back to them.

    Oh, that’s right, I forgot. Wouldn’t be cool. Wouldn’t have any black on them.[/quote]
    [quote comment=”289219″][quote comment=”289211″][quote comment=”289210″]As for the UNC unis last night, I am sure most of you saw this, but there is an extension of the helmet stripe onto the team’s collar in the back. Subtle, but I thought it was pretty cool. I can’t find a pic right off the bat, as there are no good shots of the back of a UNC player in the CSTV gallery.[/quote]
    I wanna say K-State has that effect also. Or maybe it was on their sleeves.[/quote]

    http://www.kstatespo...

    1. Is that a map of Kansas with Manhattan, location of KSU, on the back of the helmet?

    2. Ricko, they wouldn’t go back to that old W, because suing other schools who use the motion W is too lucrative!

  • Chris A. | September 12, 2008 at 11:21 am |

    9/11 memorial patches last night in MLS.

    The New England Revolution and Chivas USA of MLS both wore 9/11 memorial patches on their left sleeves in last night’s game.
    http://sports.yahoo....

    The Revs (and perhaps other MLS clubs) wore patches of the same design on their RIGHT sleeves back in 2002 (and possibly the remainder of the 2001 season as well.) You can BARELY see the patch in this photo, but it’s the best I could find.
    http://www.ilenesmac...
    Another difference between last night and 2002 is the material of the patch itself. The 2002 patch was a sewn-on patch – I know this because I own a 2002 shirt with this patch on it, I just don’t have a pic of it up on the web to show you right now. Last night’s patch, based on the close up view of the auction item, based on its glossiness, appears to be a heat-pressed type of addition to the shirts.

    The Revs’ game-worn shirts from last night’s game are being auctioned off for charity. http://www.cmarket.c...
    If I had the money, I’d buy the Shalrie Joseph and Matt Reis shirts.

    -Chris A.

  • War Damn Eagle | September 12, 2008 at 11:25 am |

    they have worn the white striped socks with the white pants at least once, too:

    http://www.secsports...

  • KButler | September 12, 2008 at 11:27 am |

    I know somebody will know the answer to this question…

    Wear can I find some killer green stripped stirrups for our intramural softball team at mississippi state university? Team name is OFF A GOAT. so if some team actually does beat the best dressed team in the league, they’ll have to tell their friends they beat OFF A GOAT…

  • Billy | September 12, 2008 at 11:30 am |

    Had to post this, from Yahoo today:

    http://sports.yahoo....

  • Billy | September 12, 2008 at 11:31 am |

    Just noticed the article is from yesterday and is in yesterdays comments, sorry!

  • Stuby | September 12, 2008 at 11:32 am |

    [quote comment=”289226″][quote comment=”289222″]And as cool as the socks the football Badgers wore in 2005, they don’t come close to these beauties, part of the basketball Badgers’ 1941 throwbacks last year.[/quote]

    great stuff today, chance, and thanks for all the “W” pics

    i LOVE LOVE LOVE those socks, only the whole look is ruined by the footwear

    you’d think, in this day and age, that the sneaker manufacturers would come up with a one-off, retro-looking type sneaker which could be worn only with the throwbacks…surely this would be a financial windfall as all the kids would want a pair…they wouldn’t even need to make it unique to each school…just design a pair that looks and feels ‘old school’ and dole them out to all the participating u’s…

    i guess im wishing for too much…

    but ya’ll gotta agree…those kicks paired with those socks…looks like shit[/quote]
    You’re right Phil, they shoulda worn Chucks.

  • The Ghost of Ross Gload | September 12, 2008 at 11:34 am |

    “1. Is that a map of Kansas with Manhattan, location of KSU, on the back of the helmet?”

    Heh. KSU = wannabe Texans. They even came up with a hand sign.

  • Ricko | September 12, 2008 at 11:35 am |

    [quote comment=”289231″]I know somebody will know the answer to this question…

    Wear can I find some killer green stripped stirrups for our intramural softball team at mississippi state university? Team name is OFF A GOAT. so if some team actually does beat the best dressed team in the league, they’ll have to tell their friends they beat OFF A GOAT…[/quote]

    Hey, Matt…still got that link I found a while back? Probably just what he’s looking for.

  • Ronnie Poore | September 12, 2008 at 11:36 am |

    i didn’t mind the color of the UNC pants last night, just the “X-ACTO blade” accent. woulda looked lots better as a full length, skinnier stripe.

  • War Damn Eagle | September 12, 2008 at 11:41 am |

    [quote comment=”289231″]I know somebody will know the answer to this question…

    Wear can I find some killer green stripped stirrups for our intramural softball team at mississippi state university? Team name is OFF A GOAT. so if some team actually does beat the best dressed team in the league, they’ll have to tell their friends they beat OFF A GOAT…[/quote]

    solid stirrups:
    http://www.baseballs...

    green with gold striped stirrups:
    http://www.amazon.co...

  • DJK | September 12, 2008 at 11:43 am |

    I can’t believe people like the red out Texans unis. It’s like Santa in a Titans helmet.

    NFL teams that only wear one color pants off the top of my head:

    Raiders
    Packers
    Steelers
    Giants
    Colts
    49ers
    Lions

    IMO, the Colts would look better with Blue pants on the road, and maybe the Steelers with black on the road, but for the most part the rest are good.

  • John T | September 12, 2008 at 11:43 am |

    I know off topic, but on the shea stadium stuff, good picture from 1964
    http://www.nycgovpar...

    The interesting bit is the top of the scoreboard, if I remember right it was originally designed to be a projector of sorts that would show a picture of the batter.

    This is one of the only pics that I have seen that looks like they were going to attempt it one day. Now it is not even seen

    http://www.sosproduc...

    In 1964, it was a big deal, not so much now…..

  • MPowers1634 | September 12, 2008 at 11:44 am |

    [quote comment=”289238″][quote comment=”289231″]I know somebody will know the answer to this question…

    Wear can I find some killer green stripped stirrups for our intramural softball team at mississippi state university? Team name is OFF A GOAT. so if some team actually does beat the best dressed team in the league, they’ll have to tell their friends they beat OFF A GOAT…[/quote]

    Hey, Matt…still got that link I found a while back? Probably just what he’s looking for.[/quote]

    Here ya’ go:
    http://www.tcksocks....

    http://www.amazingso...

    http://www.baseballe...

  • Stu | September 12, 2008 at 11:49 am |

    Hey everyone,
    Does anyone know the link that Paul posted awhile back about graphic designer awful uniform concepts for Tennessee and Northwestern? I was ooking through previous entries ad I couldn’t spot it, Thanks!

    -Stu

  • marc | September 12, 2008 at 11:57 am |

    [quote comment=”289209″]In the NFL we still have the 49ers, Colts, Steelers, Raiders, Lions and Packers as the only NFL teams that use 1 set of pants. Do the Chiefs still use red pants occasionally?

    Cowboys and Giants, as we know, are special cases with different versions of essentially the same colored pants.[/quote]

    despite a few recent appearances, the browns’ orange pants haven’t been a part of their regular uniform since the early 80s.

    did the chiefs really have red pants? hope they didn’t go with monochrome or else they might look like this.

  • =bg= | September 12, 2008 at 11:59 am |

    The logo on the Chiefs turtleneck is from “Maxit.”
    http://www.maxit-inc...

  • =bg= | September 12, 2008 at 12:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”289245″][quote comment=”289209″]In the NFL we still have the 49ers, Colts, Steelers, Raiders, Lions and Packers as the only NFL teams that use 1 set of pants. Do the Chiefs still use red pants occasionally?

    Cowboys and Giants, as we know, are special cases with different versions of essentially the same colored pants.[/quote]

    despite a few recent appearances, the browns’ orange pants haven’t been a part of their regular uniform since the early 80s.

    did the chiefs really have red pants? hope they didn’t go with monochrome or else they might look like this.[/quote]

    The Chiefs DO have red pants. They look great. The Chiefs look is unchanged for decades.

  • Stuby | September 12, 2008 at 12:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”289245″][quote comment=”289209″]In the NFL we still have the 49ers, Colts, Steelers, Raiders, Lions and Packers as the only NFL teams that use 1 set of pants. Do the Chiefs still use red pants occasionally?

    Cowboys and Giants, as we know, are special cases with different versions of essentially the same colored pants.[/quote]

    despite a few recent appearances, the browns’ orange pants haven’t been a part of their regular uniform since the early 80s.

    did the chiefs really have red pants? hope they didn’t go with monochrome or else they might look like this.[/quote]
    I didn’t count the Browns becuase of those brown britches they wore in the pre-season. They could still break ’em out during the regular season as a slump-buster or something.

  • Ricko | September 12, 2008 at 12:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”289245″][quote comment=”289209″]In the NFL we still have the 49ers, Colts, Steelers, Raiders, Lions and Packers as the only NFL teams that use 1 set of pants. Do the Chiefs still use red pants occasionally?

    Cowboys and Giants, as we know, are special cases with different versions of essentially the same colored pants.[/quote]

    despite a few recent appearances, the browns’ orange pants haven’t been a part of their regular uniform since the early 80s.

    did the chiefs really have red pants? hope they didn’t go with monochrome or else they might look like this.[/quote]

    Yup, from late 60’s til, what, the early 90s(?) the Chiefs always–I mean always–wore red pants with their white jerseys. It WAS their road uniform.

    http://redsoxandnasc...

  • marc | September 12, 2008 at 12:04 pm |

    [quote comment=\”289245\”][quote comment=\”289209\”]In the NFL we still have the 49ers, Colts, Steelers, Raiders, Lions and Packers as the only NFL teams that use 1 set of pants. Do the Chiefs still use red pants occasionally?

    Cowboys and Giants, as we know, are special cases with different versions of essentially the same colored pants.[/quote]

    despite a few recent appearances, the browns’ orange pants haven’t been a part of their regular uniform since the early 80s.

    did the chiefs really have red pants? hope they didn’t go with monochrome or else they might look like this.[/quote]

    oh geez… i can’t believe i forgot about this.

  • marc | September 12, 2008 at 12:05 pm |

    [quote]oh geez… i can’t believe i forgot about this.[/quote]

    sorry… this.

  • Shane | September 12, 2008 at 12:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”289180″]I still love the Bruins bear logo, but they should’ve made that a gold jersey. Having an alternate that is the same color as the home jersey is really just incredibly boring.[/quote]

    Remember the last time we went with a gold jersey? No thanks.

  • Teebz | September 12, 2008 at 12:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”289180″]I still love the Bruins bear logo, but they should’ve made that a gold jersey. Having an alternate that is the same color as the home jersey is really just incredibly boring.[/quote]

    Agreed, and the complete lack of creativity going into these alternate jerseys makes me wonder if this half-assed effort by both the NHL and Rbk is even worth it.

    I’m almost at the point where I’m giving up my allegiance to hockey. This is effing embarrassing.

    Buffalo’s alternate is a Home Economics project.

    Boston makes me wish they would wear their regular dark uniforms all the time.

    Carolina fears colour, and prefers to see the world in white, grey, and black.

    What a joke.

  • Jase R | September 12, 2008 at 12:07 pm |

    I think the navy UNC pants are pretty snazzy. Although a thinner stripe that went all the way down the leg would be preferred.

    And to Ray: I’m also a fan and don’t think the black A’s alts aren’t that bad. Team name in forest outlined white is horrible, but white with black/gold double outline looks pretty cool:

    http://media.scout.c...

  • marc | September 12, 2008 at 12:08 pm |

    [quote/]I didn’t count the Browns becuase of those brown britches they wore in the pre-season. They could still break ’em out during the regular season as a slump-buster or something.[/quote]

    you beat me to it, Stuby. those brown pants are an abomination. who’s the ad wizard who came up with that one?

  • Coach | September 12, 2008 at 12:09 pm |

    my nomination for worst jersey in the history of sports:

    http://www.pbase.com...

  • LI Phil | September 12, 2008 at 12:09 pm |

    [quote]despite a few recent appearances, the browns’ orange pants haven’t been a part of their regular uniform since the early 80s.[/quote]

    true…but the brown pants are part of the official uni scheme…and of course we did see them against the g-men a few weeks ago (and i bet we see them again, against the g-men at home in october, for a MNF rematch)

    ———–

    as a followup to last night’s uw comments, here is another picture of the vikes in purple pants (but with white jerseys)

  • marc | September 12, 2008 at 12:12 pm |

    [quote/]The Chiefs DO have red pants. They look great. The Chiefs look is unchanged for decades.[/quote]

    Oh yeah! I recall them now. Very nice. Wow… the ol’ brain’s not working today.

  • Teebz | September 12, 2008 at 12:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”289256″]my nomination for worst jersey in the history of sports:

    http://www.pbase.com...

    That jersey was worn for some special holiday celebration as a promotional jersey.

    There have been a ton of ice hockey teams who wear tuxedo-styled jerseys on New Year’s Eve as a promotion.

  • Teebz | September 12, 2008 at 12:17 pm |

    For whomever asked about hockey standings yesterday (sorry, I forgot to quote you and didn’t grab the name)…

    Wins – Losses – OT Losses – Shootout Wins

    Both teams get a point for making it to the shootout, and the additional point comes from winning the shootout.

    And it’s not attendance, LW! >:o| (LOL… I nearly bust a gut laughing at that comment). ;o)

  • Teebz | September 12, 2008 at 12:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”289260″]For whomever asked about hockey standings yesterday (sorry, I forgot to quote you and didn’t grab the name)…

    Wins – Losses – OT Wins – Shootout Wins

    Both teams get a point for making it to the shootout, and the additional point comes from winning the shootout.

    And it’s not attendance, LW! >:o| (LOL… I nearly bust a gut laughing at that comment). ;o)[/quote]

    It helps if I actually think about what I am writing. By the way, SO wins only really matter for goalies.

    Otherwise, it’s W-L-OT/SO wins.

  • LI Phil | September 12, 2008 at 12:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”289261″][quote comment=”289260″]For whomever asked about hockey standings yesterday (sorry, I forgot to quote you and didn’t grab the name)…

    Wins – Losses – OT Wins – Shootout Wins

    Both teams get a point for making it to the shootout, and the additional point comes from winning the shootout.

    And it’s not attendance, LW! >:o| (LOL… I nearly bust a gut laughing at that comment). ;o)[/quote]

    It helps if I actually think about what I am writing. By the way, SO wins only really matter for goalies.

    Otherwise, it’s W-L-OT/SO wins.[/quote]

    you had it right the first time, teebz…the 3rd number is OT LOSSES (for which your get a point)…since an overtime WIN is counted as 2 points, yes?

    (at least im pretty sure about that…see here)

  • JTH | September 12, 2008 at 12:29 pm |

    OK, this has nothing do do with athletic aesthetics, this logo is terrific.

    http://www.barackoba...

  • Kevin M. | September 12, 2008 at 12:31 pm |

    [quote comment=”289262″][quote comment=”289261″][quote comment=”289260″]For whomever asked about hockey standings yesterday (sorry, I forgot to quote you and didn’t grab the name)…

    Wins – Losses – OT Wins – Shootout Wins

    Both teams get a point for making it to the shootout, and the additional point comes from winning the shootout.

    And it’s not attendance, LW! >:o| (LOL… I nearly bust a gut laughing at that comment). ;o)[/quote]

    It helps if I actually think about what I am writing. By the way, SO wins only really matter for goalies.

    Otherwise, it’s W-L-OT/SO wins.[/quote]

    you had it right the first time, teebz…the 3rd number is OT LOSSES (for which your get a point)…since an overtime WIN is counted as 2 points, yes?

    (at least im pretty sure about that…see here)[/quote]

    Which brings up the point that if games that go to OT are worth 3 points (2 for the win, 1 for the loss), then why don’t they award a team 3 points for an out right win?

  • AVP | September 12, 2008 at 12:33 pm |

    Sorry if this has been posted, but I have not seen it yet. Story about authenticating an 1930s Lou Gehrig jacket. On ESPN.com no less…page 2

    http://sports.espn.g...

  • LI Phil | September 12, 2008 at 12:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”289264″]Which brings up the point that if games that go to OT are worth 3 points (2 for the win, 1 for the loss), then why don’t they award a team 3 points for an out right win?[/quote]

    i’ve often thought that too…but that would totally screw up the point system that’s been in effect forever…but i agree (with the concept)…

    W=3 points
    OT W=2 points
    OT L=1 point
    L=0 points

    makes it worthwhile to win in regulation, no?

  • Wade Harder | September 12, 2008 at 12:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”289227″][quote comment=”289190″][quote comment=”289172″]Here’s the link to the UNC/Rutgers photo gallery:
    http://tarheelblue.c...

    They did look a bit off, however they didn’t go half-assed about it…Check out their Navy accented cleats!

    Here’s what I think is an interesting question:

    With USC playing TOSU tomorrow evening, we are in store for both a classic battle between two great football teams both athletically and aesthetically.

    Simple yet elegant…about the only people who wouldn’t like those two are Marty Met and Mike Belotti.

    As we saw with UNC and their “alternate” third color pants last night, there are precious few teams who still wear one pair of pants for both home and road games, USC and TOSU being two of them.

    Question #1: How many schools still use only one pair of pants?

    Question #2: Of these schools, like Michigan or USC, have they, at any time, worn different colored pants, for example…Michigan in Blue?[/quote]

    I’m sure there ar many teams that still wear one pair of pants. One is Louisiana Tech.
    Home:
    http://bearsnecessit...

    Road:
    http://farm2.static....

    And they used to wear blue pants:
    http://media.college...

    Tech actually has quite a long running tradition with the current helmet logo and striped jerseys, they go back to the Bradshaw days and before:
    http://i.cdn.turner....

    Other schools with one pair of pants off the top of my head:
    Texas
    Oklahoma
    LSU
    Auburn
    Alabama
    Georgia
    Kansas
    Kansas St
    Army
    Navy
    Mississippi St (?)
    Ole Miss[/quote]

    Miss. State has white and red pants (which are cool, b/c they wear striped white socks with the dark pants – that’s rare in college)

    white pants:
    http://media.2theadv...

    red pants:
    http://cache.daylife...

    Dude, seriously, red?

  • Ricko | September 12, 2008 at 12:40 pm |

    [quote comment=”289256″]my nomination for worst jersey in the history of sports:

    http://www.pbase.com...

    Well, of COURSE it is. You don’t wear a WHITE dinner-jacket-hockey-jersey in WINTERTIME. What, nobody in Canada ever read a James Bond novel?

    Let us all lift our noses at such a declasse sartorical selection.

    (Teebz, get that pinky up higher when you sip your tea. Yes, there. Ah, much better.)

    —Ricko

  • Teebz | September 12, 2008 at 12:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”289268″][quote comment=”289256″]my nomination for worst jersey in the history of sports:

    http://www.pbase.com...

    Well, of COURSE it is. You don’t wear a WHITE dinner-jacket-hockey-jersey in WINTERTIME. What, nobody in Canada ever read a James Bond novel?

    Let us all lift our noses at such a declasse sartorical selection.

    (Teebz, get that pinky up higher when you sip your tea. Yes, there. Ah, much better.)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Except that roller hockey is played in the summer, Ricko. I know inline skating is new-age to your generation and all, but… ;o)

  • Teebz | September 12, 2008 at 12:46 pm |

    [quote comment=”289262″][quote comment=”289261″][quote comment=”289260″]For whomever asked about hockey standings yesterday (sorry, I forgot to quote you and didn’t grab the name)…

    Wins – Losses – OT Wins – Shootout Wins

    Both teams get a point for making it to the shootout, and the additional point comes from winning the shootout.

    And it’s not attendance, LW! >:o| (LOL… I nearly bust a gut laughing at that comment). ;o)[/quote]

    It helps if I actually think about what I am writing. By the way, SO wins only really matter for goalies.

    Otherwise, it’s W-L-OT/SO wins.[/quote]

    you had it right the first time, teebz…the 3rd number is OT LOSSES (for which your get a point)…since an overtime WIN is counted as 2 points, yes?

    (at least im pretty sure about that…see here)[/quote]

    Eff it all. Work has been in the crapper today, and I’m pissed about the alternate jerseys. I need a coffee. Or a beer. Or both.

  • Kenny | September 12, 2008 at 12:47 pm |

    [quote comment=”289190″][quote comment=”289172″]Here’s the link to the UNC/Rutgers photo gallery:
    http://tarheelblue.c...

    They did look a bit off, however they didn’t go half-assed about it…Check out their Navy accented cleats!

    Here’s what I think is an interesting question:

    With USC playing TOSU tomorrow evening, we are in store for both a classic battle between two great football teams both athletically and aesthetically.

    Simple yet elegant…about the only people who wouldn’t like those two are Marty Met and Mike Belotti.

    As we saw with UNC and their “alternate” third color pants last night, there are precious few teams who still wear one pair of pants for both home and road games, USC and TOSU being two of them.

    Question #1: How many schools still use only one pair of pants?

    Question #2: Of these schools, like Michigan or USC, have they, at any time, worn different colored pants, for example…Michigan in Blue?[/quote]

    I’m sure there ar many teams that still wear one pair of pants. One is Louisiana Tech.
    Home:
    http://bearsnecessit...

    Road:
    http://farm2.static....

    And they used to wear blue pants:
    http://media.college...

    Tech actually has quite a long running tradition with the current helmet logo and striped jerseys, they go back to the Bradshaw days and before:
    http://i.cdn.turner....

    Other schools with one pair of pants off the top of my head:
    Texas
    Oklahoma
    LSU
    Auburn
    Alabama
    Georgia
    Kansas
    Kansas St
    Army
    Navy
    Mississippi St (?)
    Ole Miss[/quote]

    Notre Dame only wears gold pants

  • Kenny | September 12, 2008 at 12:48 pm |

    damn i should read all the comments first

  • joe | September 12, 2008 at 12:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”289266″][quote comment=”289264″]Which brings up the point that if games that go to OT are worth 3 points (2 for the win, 1 for the loss), then why don’t they award a team 3 points for an out right win?[/quote]

    i’ve often thought that too…but that would totally screw up the point system that’s been in effect forever…but i agree (with the concept)…

    W=3 points
    OT W=2 points
    OT L=1 point
    L=0 points

    makes it worthwhile to win in regulation, no?[/quote]
    No, I have a great idea for the NHL. 2 for a win, 0 for a loss, and 1 for a tie. They can also call the conferences the Campbell and Prince of Wales, the divisions could be the Norris, Adams, Patrick, and Smythe, one last thing the commissioner could be called anything but Gary Bettman.

  • Ricko | September 12, 2008 at 12:56 pm |

    Except that roller hockey is played in the summer, Ricko. I know inline skating is new-age to your generation and all, but… ;o)

    My bad. Saw the jersey and thought “White tux? In winter?!?!” and because I’d lifted back of hand to forehead in anquish over such a fashion faux pas—and could no longer look upon such a thing—I failed to notice the wheeled footwear.

    (Although I do remember thinking the lighting was pretty damn bright for an ice arena).

    So, I must humbly–and with much chagrin– withdraw my concurrance that it is the worst jersey of all tiime. Actually, it’s kinda fun.

    (Still need to keep your pinky up higher, though; U-W is a class joint)

  • Teebz | September 12, 2008 at 12:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”289273″][quote comment=”289266″][quote comment=”289264″]Which brings up the point that if games that go to OT are worth 3 points (2 for the win, 1 for the loss), then why don’t they award a team 3 points for an out right win?[/quote]

    i’ve often thought that too…but that would totally screw up the point system that’s been in effect forever…but i agree (with the concept)…

    W=3 points
    OT W=2 points
    OT L=1 point
    L=0 points

    makes it worthwhile to win in regulation, no?[/quote]
    No, I have a great idea for the NHL. 2 for a win, 0 for a loss, and 1 for a tie. They can also call the conferences the Campbell and Prince of Wales, the divisions could be the Norris, Adams, Patrick, and Smythe, one last thing the commissioner could be called anything but Gary Bettman.[/quote]

    The point system will never change now. The shootout is too popular, and it keeps fans in their seats (and buying concessions) for much longer.

    I actually devised a system in which the NHL could return to its original conference and divisional setups without losing a lot of bang for their buck. If you want to read it, it’s here – my five ways I’d change the NHL. I can actually solve four problems simply by changing the divisional alignment back to four divisions.

  • Teebz | September 12, 2008 at 12:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”289274″]
    (Still need to keep your pinky up higher, though; U-W is a class joint)[/quote]

    Done and done. I’ll be attending High Snobbery 101 in the next semester. LOL

  • Chris A. | September 12, 2008 at 1:04 pm |

    [quote comment=\”289273\”][quote comment=\”289266\”][quote comment=\”289264\”]Which brings up the point that if games that go to OT are worth 3 points (2 for the win, 1 for the loss), then why don\’t they award a team 3 points for an out right win?[/quote]

    i\’ve often thought that too…but that would totally screw up the point system that\’s been in effect forever…but i agree (with the concept)…

    W=3 points
    OT W=2 points
    OT L=1 point
    L=0 points

    makes it worthwhile to win in regulation, no?[/quote]
    No, I have a great idea for the NHL. 2 for a win, 0 for a loss, and 1 for a tie. They can also call the conferences the Campbell and Prince of Wales, the divisions could be the Norris, Adams, Patrick, and Smythe, one last thing the commissioner could be called anything but Gary Bettman.[/quote]

    Why not go the soccer route and award 3 points for a win and one for a tie. No silly overtime shoot-out thing, you play for 60 minutes and that\’s it. This makes attacking play so much more valuable than playing defensively, possibly resulting in more fan interest/excitement. Yes, soccer still has LOTS of draws, but hockey is higher scoring with fewer draws, so why not reward winning a bit more?

  • Bart | September 12, 2008 at 1:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”289241″]I can’t believe people like the red out Texans unis. It’s like Santa in a Titans helmet.[/quote]

    Why not? Just because you don’t like it everyone else is supposed to abhor it as well?

    [quote comment=”289241″]NFL teams that only wear one color pants off the top of my head:

    Raiders
    Packers
    Steelers
    Giants
    Colts
    49ers
    Lions[/quote]

    G-Men wear two different striped pants for home and road.

  • Teebz | September 12, 2008 at 1:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”289277″][quote comment=\”289273\”][quote comment=\”289266\”][quote comment=\”289264\”]Which brings up the point that if games that go to OT are worth 3 points (2 for the win, 1 for the loss), then why don\’t they award a team 3 points for an out right win?[/quote]

    i\’ve often thought that too…but that would totally screw up the point system that\’s been in effect forever…but i agree (with the concept)…

    W=3 points
    OT W=2 points
    OT L=1 point
    L=0 points

    makes it worthwhile to win in regulation, no?[/quote]
    No, I have a great idea for the NHL. 2 for a win, 0 for a loss, and 1 for a tie. They can also call the conferences the Campbell and Prince of Wales, the divisions could be the Norris, Adams, Patrick, and Smythe, one last thing the commissioner could be called anything but Gary Bettman.[/quote]

    Why not go the soccer route and award 3 points for a win and one for a tie. No silly overtime shoot-out thing, you play for 60 minutes and that\’s it. This makes attacking play so much more valuable than playing defensively, possibly resulting in more fan interest/excitement. Yes, soccer still has LOTS of draws, but hockey is higher scoring with fewer draws, so why not reward winning a bit more?[/quote]

    Because the disparity for teams trying to make up points would be impossible to make up. One injury can ruin an entire season if a star player or goalie goes down. New Jersey, Vancouver, and San Jose would be screwed.

  • timmy b | September 12, 2008 at 1:12 pm |

    …Marc Swanson sent along a few old football photos. “This one is a team photo of the 1934 Pittsburgh Pirates,…

    While this is one of the greatest team photos in history and while this shot may have been taken in 1934 (training camp?), this uni was NOT worn in 1934. It was actually game worn in the second half of the 1933 season, the Pirates/Steelers’ first season. The Pirates wore a plain yellow (primary) or black (secondary) jersey in 1934. The first half of ’33, the Pirates wore the “city seal” jersey.

    Source: Microfilm of the Pgh Sun-Telegraph and Pgh Post-Gazette.

  • LI Phil | September 12, 2008 at 1:13 pm |

    [quote]New Jersey, Vancouver, and San Jose would be screwed.[/quote]

    and that’s a problem because…?

  • Jim MI | September 12, 2008 at 1:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”289275″][quote comment=”289273″][quote comment=”289266″][quote comment=”289264″]Which brings up the point that if games that go to OT are worth 3 points (2 for the win, 1 for the loss), then why don’t they award a team 3 points for an out right win?[/quote]

    i’ve often thought that too…but that would totally screw up the point system that’s been in effect forever…but i agree (with the concept)…

    W=3 points
    OT W=2 points
    OT L=1 point
    L=0 points

    makes it worthwhile to win in regulation, no?[/quote]
    No, I have a great idea for the NHL. 2 for a win, 0 for a loss, and 1 for a tie. They can also call the conferences the Campbell and Prince of Wales, the divisions could be the Norris, Adams, Patrick, and Smythe, one last thing the commissioner could be called anything but Gary Bettman.[/quote]

    The point system will never change now. The shootout is too popular, and it keeps fans in their seats (and buying concessions) for much longer.

    I actually devised a system in which the NHL could return to its original conference and divisional setups without losing a lot of bang for their buck. If you want to read it, it’s here – my five ways I’d change the NHL. I can actually solve four problems simply by changing the divisional alignment back to four divisions.[/quote]

    I wish there were no shootouts, but that’s never going to happan, so here is my point system.

    Should be 2 points for a win (regulation, overtime regardless, a win is a win)

    0 points for a loss (do not reward losing)

    1 point for shootout win (you should have won in the 65 minutes of ACTUAL HOCKEY earlier. Not in a BREAKAWAY contest. Stupidest way to award a winner.)

    Also would love to see the teams and divisons named after hockey history, more tradition the better.

  • Chad | September 12, 2008 at 1:16 pm |

    [quote comment=\”289214\”][quote comment=\”289208\”]i remember the WS logo on my bears rashaan salaam jersey. that was a wise purchase. but i remember that i got the jersey before he was signed by the team. someone told me that the players jersey couldn\’t be sold until he signed, therefore mine was \”illegal\” anyone know anything about this?[/quote]

    Sounds like a perfect candidate for this site:
    http://straightcashh...

    that jersey was gone by his 2nd season. i think a salaam xfl jersey would be better for straightcashhomey

  • Teebz | September 12, 2008 at 1:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”289281″][quote]New Jersey, Vancouver, and San Jose would be screwed.[/quote]

    and that’s a problem because…?[/quote]

    Because, as commish, you’re responsible for making 30 teams happy. Especially one run by Lou Lamoriello. ;o)

  • JR Boucicaut | September 12, 2008 at 1:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”289259″][quote comment=”289256″]my nomination for worst jersey in the history of sports:

    http://www.pbase.com...

    That jersey was worn for some special holiday celebration as a promotional jersey.

    There have been a ton of ice hockey teams who wear tuxedo-styled jerseys on New Year’s Eve as a promotion.[/quote]

    Actually, that is Mission Hockey’s (hockey equipment manufacturer) factory inline team. The goalie is a personal friend of mine and a former employee of Mission.

  • My Name is Not Earl | September 12, 2008 at 1:22 pm |

    [quote comment=”289271″][quote comment=”289190″][quote comment=”289172″]Here’s the link to the UNC/Rutgers photo gallery:
    http://tarheelblue.c...

    They did look a bit off, however they didn’t go half-assed about it…Check out their Navy accented cleats!

    Here’s what I think is an interesting question:

    With USC playing TOSU tomorrow evening, we are in store for both a classic battle between two great football teams both athletically and aesthetically.

    Simple yet elegant…about the only people who wouldn’t like those two are Marty Met and Mike Belotti.

    As we saw with UNC and their “alternate” third color pants last night, there are precious few teams who still wear one pair of pants for both home and road games, USC and TOSU being two of them.

    Question #1: How many schools still use only one pair of pants?

    Question #2: Of these schools, like Michigan or USC, have they, at any time, worn different colored pants, for example…Michigan in Blue?[/quote]

    I’m sure there ar many teams that still wear one pair of pants. One is Louisiana Tech.
    Home:
    http://bearsnecessit...

    Road:
    http://farm2.static....

    And they used to wear blue pants:
    http://media.college...

    Tech actually has quite a long running tradition with the current helmet logo and striped jerseys, they go back to the Bradshaw days and before:
    http://i.cdn.turner....

    Other schools with one pair of pants off the top of my head:
    Texas
    Oklahoma
    LSU
    Auburn
    Alabama
    Georgia
    Kansas
    Kansas St
    Army
    Navy
    Mississippi St (?)
    Ole Miss[/quote]

    Notre Dame only wears gold pants[/quote]

    Georgia actually wore white pants between 1964 and 1979. Vince Dooley switched from the Silver Britches (which had been in place since the late 1930s) to white pants when he showed up. The year he switched back, 1980, the Dawgs won it all.

    LSU wore purple pants at Kentucky one year (’95, I think). They lost, so those pants haven’t seen the light of day since that one game.

  • Teebz | September 12, 2008 at 1:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”289282″]
    1 point for shootout win (you should have won in the 65 minutes of ACTUAL HOCKEY earlier. Not in a BREAKAWAY contest. Stupidest way to award a winner.)

    Also would love to see the teams and divisons named after hockey history, more tradition the better.[/quote]

    The shootout will not go away. It provides the finality of a winner in a deadlocked regular season game, as well as bringing fans a spectacle that keeps them in the building. Besides, who’da thunk that Marik Malik had moves like this? It’s exciting for fans. Awarding an extra point is no big deal. If they ever try to do it in the playoffs, though, I’ll burn the NHL offices down myself.

    Besides, if soccer can do it to decide the World Cup and international hockey can do it to decide Olympic and Wold Championship outcomes, why can’t the NHL do it for the regular season?

  • Teebz | September 12, 2008 at 1:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”289285″][quote comment=”289259″][quote comment=”289256″]my nomination for worst jersey in the history of sports:

    http://www.pbase.com...

    That jersey was worn for some special holiday celebration as a promotional jersey.

    There have been a ton of ice hockey teams who wear tuxedo-styled jerseys on New Year’s Eve as a promotion.[/quote]

    Actually, that is Mission Hockey’s (hockey equipment manufacturer) factory inline team. The goalie is a personal friend of mine and a former employee of Mission.[/quote]

    No way! I’d kill for one of those jerseys. Any chance they’re still making them?

  • LI Phil | September 12, 2008 at 1:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”289287″][quote comment=”289282″]
    1 point for shootout win (you should have won in the 65 minutes of ACTUAL HOCKEY earlier. Not in a BREAKAWAY contest. Stupidest way to award a winner.)

    Also would love to see the teams and divisons named after hockey history, more tradition the better.[/quote]

    The shootout will not go away. It provides the finality of a winner in a deadlocked regular season game, as well as bringing fans a spectacle that keeps them in the building. Besides, who’da thunk that Marik Malik had moves like this? It’s exciting for fans. Awarding an extra point is no big deal. If they ever try to do it in the playoffs, though, I’ll burn the NHL offices down myself.

    Besides, if soccer can do it to decide the World Cup and international hockey can do it to decide Olympic and Wold Championship outcomes, why can’t the NHL do it for the regular season?[/quote]

    so…what’s wrong with the 3 points for a REAL win, 2 points for an OT/SO win, 1 point for a OT/SO loss, and no points for getting your ass whupped in 60 min?

    keeps the “excitement” (rolls eyes) of the shootout or just 5 min extra time, and still awards points, just not so many as winning it in regulation

  • JR Boucicaut | September 12, 2008 at 1:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”289288″][quote comment=”289285″][quote comment=”289259″][quote comment=”289256″]my nomination for worst jersey in the history of sports:

    http://www.pbase.com...

    That jersey was worn for some special holiday celebration as a promotional jersey.

    There have been a ton of ice hockey teams who wear tuxedo-styled jerseys on New Year’s Eve as a promotion.[/quote]

    Actually, that is Mission Hockey’s (hockey equipment manufacturer) factory inline team. The goalie is a personal friend of mine and a former employee of Mission.[/quote]

    No way! I’d kill for one of those jerseys. Any chance they’re still making them?[/quote]

    They were made by ProJoy Sportswear.

    The Mission ones were never released (have their logo and is all white) but the Tuxedo jersey is available on ProJoy’s website.

  • War Damn Eagle | September 12, 2008 at 1:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”289267″][quote comment=”289227″][quote comment=”289190″][quote comment=”289172″]Here’s the link to the UNC/Rutgers photo gallery:
    http://tarheelblue.c...

    They did look a bit off, however they didn’t go half-assed about it…Check out their Navy accented cleats!

    Here’s what I think is an interesting question:

    With USC playing TOSU tomorrow evening, we are in store for both a classic battle between two great football teams both athletically and aesthetically.

    Simple yet elegant…about the only people who wouldn’t like those two are Marty Met and Mike Belotti.

    As we saw with UNC and their “alternate” third color pants last night, there are precious few teams who still wear one pair of pants for both home and road games, USC and TOSU being two of them.

    Question #1: How many schools still use only one pair of pants?

    Question #2: Of these schools, like Michigan or USC, have they, at any time, worn different colored pants, for example…Michigan in Blue?[/quote]

    I’m sure there ar many teams that still wear one pair of pants. One is Louisiana Tech.
    Home:
    http://bearsnecessit...

    Road:
    http://farm2.static....

    And they used to wear blue pants:
    http://media.college...

    Tech actually has quite a long running tradition with the current helmet logo and striped jerseys, they go back to the Bradshaw days and before:
    http://i.cdn.turner....

    Other schools with one pair of pants off the top of my head:
    Texas
    Oklahoma
    LSU
    Auburn
    Alabama
    Georgia
    Kansas
    Kansas St
    Army
    Navy
    Mississippi St (?)
    Ole Miss[/quote]

    Miss. State has white and red pants (which are cool, b/c they wear striped white socks with the dark pants – that’s rare in college)

    white pants:
    http://media.2theadv...

    red pants:
    http://cache.daylife...

    Dude, seriously, red?[/quote]

    Dude, seriously, who cares what effin color I call it?

  • Ricko | September 12, 2008 at 1:37 pm |

    “the Tuxedo jersey is available on ProJoy’s website.”

    Well, thank goodness, they make one with a black jacket.

  • Ricko | September 12, 2008 at 1:46 pm |

    Speaking of hockey and excitement generated thereby…

    When the WHA was being formed we were sitting in a league meeting looking at prototypes for a DayGlo orange puck and a navy blue puck. Steve Arnold, the league’s Player Recruitment Director and my best friend in pro sports and later owner of the WFL Houston Texans, leaned forward and said, “Why don’t we go to a SQUARE puck?”

    A room full of millionaires turned to him with a collective look of, “Mr. Arnold, this is NO time for levity.”

    I, meanwhile, was doing everyting possible to keep Diet Coke from shooting out my nose.

    The point? Pro sports owners, generally speaking, have NO sense of humor.

    —Ricko

  • Jim MI | September 12, 2008 at 1:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”289287″][quote comment=”289282″]
    1 point for shootout win (you should have won in the 65 minutes of ACTUAL HOCKEY earlier. Not in a BREAKAWAY contest. Stupidest way to award a winner.)

    Also would love to see the teams and divisons named after hockey history, more tradition the better.[/quote]

    The shootout will not go away. It provides the finality of a winner in a deadlocked regular season game, as well as bringing fans a spectacle that keeps them in the building. Besides, who’da thunk that Marik Malik had moves like this? It’s exciting for fans. Awarding an extra point is no big deal. If they ever try to do it in the playoffs, though, I’ll burn the NHL offices down myself.

    Besides, if soccer can do it to decide the World Cup and international hockey can do it to decide Olympic and Wold Championship outcomes, why can’t the NHL do it for the regular season?[/quote]

    Just because another league does it doesn’t make it ok. One of the reasons I hate the shootout is because I feel it’s only a matter of time before the commish tries to put in the playoffs.

    Deciding the outcome of a game which includes offense, defense, goaltending, PP, SH, hitting, etc, and settle it by ignoring all but two of those aspects (offense and goaltending) is ludicrus.

    As one of the biggest fans of the NHL that I know, my biggest fears for the future of my favorite sports league is shootout in the playoffs and bigger nets.

  • MPowers1634 | September 12, 2008 at 1:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”289286″][quote comment=”289271″][quote comment=”289190″][quote comment=”289172″]Here’s the link to the UNC/Rutgers photo gallery:
    http://tarheelblue.c...

    They did look a bit off, however they didn’t go half-assed about it…Check out their Navy accented cleats!

    Here’s what I think is an interesting question:

    With USC playing TOSU tomorrow evening, we are in store for both a classic battle between two great football teams both athletically and aesthetically.

    Simple yet elegant…about the only people who wouldn’t like those two are Marty Met and Mike Belotti.

    As we saw with UNC and their “alternate” third color pants last night, there are precious few teams who still wear one pair of pants for both home and road games, USC and TOSU being two of them.

    Question #1: How many schools still use only one pair of pants?

    Question #2: Of these schools, like Michigan or USC, have they, at any time, worn different colored pants, for example…Michigan in Blue?[/quote]

    I’m sure there ar many teams that still wear one pair of pants. One is Louisiana Tech.
    Home:
    http://bearsnecessit...

    Road:
    http://farm2.static....

    And they used to wear blue pants:
    http://media.college...

    Tech actually has quite a long running tradition with the current helmet logo and striped jerseys, they go back to the Bradshaw days and before:
    http://i.cdn.turner....

    Other schools with one pair of pants off the top of my head:
    Texas
    Oklahoma
    LSU
    Auburn
    Alabama
    Georgia
    Kansas
    Kansas St
    Army
    Navy
    Mississippi St (?)
    Ole Miss[/quote]

    Notre Dame only wears gold pants[/quote]

    Georgia actually wore white pants between 1964 and 1979. Vince Dooley switched from the Silver Britches (which had been in place since the late 1930s) to white pants when he showed up. The year he switched back, 1980, the Dawgs won it all.

    LSU wore purple pants at Kentucky one year (’95, I think). They lost, so those pants haven’t seen the light of day since that one game.[/quote]

    http://www.kernel.uk...

  • Teebz | September 12, 2008 at 1:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”289293″]Speaking of hockey and excitement generated thereby…

    When the WHA was being formed we were sitting in a league meeting looking at prototypes for a DayGlo orange puck and a navy blue puck. Steve Arnold, the league’s Player Recruitment Director and my best friend in pro sports and later owner of the WFL Houston Texans, leaned forward and said, “Why don’t we go to a SQUARE puck?”

    A room full of millionaires turned to him with a collective look of, “Mr. Arnold, this is NO time for levity.”

    I, meanwhile, was doing everyting possible to keep Diet Coke from shooting out my nose.

    The point? Pro sports owners, generally speaking, have NO sense of humor.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Ricko, did you know that the Quebec Nordiques used a blue puck that matched the colour of their jerseys for the first season they played in WHA?

    They are extremely rare to find on Ebay, but I have seen a few.

  • LI Phil | September 12, 2008 at 1:52 pm |

    would you ever pay to see someone fight over a pens sweater?

    i might

  • Ricko | September 12, 2008 at 1:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”289296″][quote comment=”289293″]Speaking of hockey and excitement generated thereby…

    When the WHA was being formed we were sitting in a league meeting looking at prototypes for a DayGlo orange puck and a navy blue puck. Steve Arnold, the league’s Player Recruitment Director and my best friend in pro sports and later owner of the WFL Houston Texans, leaned forward and said, “Why don’t we go to a SQUARE puck?”

    A room full of millionaires turned to him with a collective look of, “Mr. Arnold, this is NO time for levity.”

    I, meanwhile, was doing everyting possible to keep Diet Coke from shooting out my nose.

    The point? Pro sports owners, generally speaking, have NO sense of humor.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Ricko, did you know that the Quebec Nordiques used a blue puck that matched the colour of their jerseys for the first season they played in WHA?

    They are extremely rare to find on Ebay, but I have seen a few.[/quote]

    Have a dark blue one with a WHA decal in a box somewhere. That the one? Also have a puck from first WHA All-Star Game in Quebec. Probably in the same box. Might be one they gave to media reps during first Russia-NHL series in there, too.

  • DJK | September 12, 2008 at 1:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”289278″][quote comment=”289241″]I can’t believe people like the red out Texans unis. It’s like Santa in a Titans helmet.[/quote]

    Why not?

    Just because you don’t like it everyone else is supposed to abhor it as well?

    [/quote]

    Of course, isn’t that what everyone else here always thinks??? ;)

    OK, I will retract my statement and say I find it surprising. Better?

  • Teebz | September 12, 2008 at 1:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”289294″]
    Just because another league does it doesn’t make it ok. One of the reasons I hate the shootout is because I feel it’s only a matter of time before the commish tries to put in the playoffs.

    Deciding the outcome of a game which includes offense, defense, goaltending, PP, SH, hitting, etc, and settle it by ignoring all but two of those aspects (offense and goaltending) is ludicrus.

    As one of the biggest fans of the NHL that I know, my biggest fears for the future of my favorite sports league is shootout in the playoffs and bigger nets.[/quote]

    If you’re an NHL owner, do you care more about making money or splitting two points? Money is the only thing that matters. Over the course of the season, I guarantee you that Edmonton and Dallas (shootout kings last season) made a ton of money in the extra time because they went to the shootout so often.

    Again, if Bettman tries to put it in the playoffs, I’ll burn the NHL offices down. It’s that simple.

    And as ludicrous as it seems, the World Cup – the biggest sporting event in the world next to the Olympics – has been decided by penalty kicks. They require no tactics or defensive ability whatsoever.

    Canada lost to the Czech Republic in the hockey semi-finals of the 1998 Nagano Olympics on a shootout.

    Team Sweden, on a famous Forsberg goal, defeated Team Canada in a shootout for World Championship gold.

    It’s a regular season NHL game. They are nowhere close to being as important as those three events. The fans like it, and keeps them in the seats. As an owner, that’s the entire idea, isn’t it?

  • lwiedy | September 12, 2008 at 1:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”289287″][quote comment=”289282″]
    1 point for shootout win (you should have won in the 65 minutes of ACTUAL HOCKEY earlier. Not in a BREAKAWAY contest. Stupidest way to award a winner.)

    Also would love to see the teams and divisons named after hockey history, more tradition the better.[/quote]

    The shootout will not go away. It provides the finality of a winner in a deadlocked regular season game, as well as bringing fans a spectacle that keeps them in the building. Besides, who’da thunk that Marik Malik had moves like this? It’s exciting for fans. Awarding an extra point is no big deal. If they ever try to do it in the playoffs, though, I’ll burn the NHL offices down myself.

    Besides, if soccer can do it to decide the World Cup and international hockey can do it to decide Olympic and Wold Championship outcomes, why can’t the NHL do it for the regular season?[/quote]

    Teebz, thanks for not getting bent over my joke last night. It’s not my favorite, but I do love hockey, perhaps more if my team hadn’t been a joke since 1994. That’s too long to “hang with ’em”.

    Come to think of it my baseball & hockey teams became irrelevant at the same time, and you (LI Phil) could make the case my football team has been pretty much that way since the end of King Gibbs I reign.

    I digress, Teebz, you have mentioned several times of the popularity of the overtime system, but I don’t know if that reflects your personal feeling, does it?

  • Ricko | September 12, 2008 at 1:57 pm |

    Not sure, but I think those are all the pucks the league tested and decided against using. The Noridques took them all to use as long as they lasted.

    Have a vague recollection that that is what happened to those blue pucks we had for some preseason games. Just haven’t thought about it in years.

  • Teebz | September 12, 2008 at 1:58 pm |

    [quote comment=”289298″]
    Have a dark blue one with a WHA decal in a box somewhere. That the one? Also have a puck from first WHA All-Star Game in Quebec. Probably in the same box. Might be one they gave to media reps during first Russia-NHL series in there, too.[/quote]

    Those would most likely be them. They did use them in games, so they might be the innovators. :o)

  • DJK | September 12, 2008 at 1:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”289257″]
    as a followup to last night’s uw comments, here is another picture of the vikes in purple pants (but with white jerseys) [/quote]

    Man, those are super sweet. As a die hard Vikes fan, I would love a return to those unis!

    I actually don’t hate the current jerseys at all, but the current pants are hideous. Especially when they wear the white jerseys and white pants.

  • lwiedy | September 12, 2008 at 2:03 pm |

    Paul’s piece mentioned the sideline press pass issue and, of course, linked it to Madden. I swear I remember hearing (or reading) from Madden himself that it was almost a running gag that when he was named head coach there was a guy (or guys) that would say “You’re not the coach, he is (pointing to Mr. Davis)” so Madden brought proof. Maybe I dreamt this, but I hope I never dreamt about the Raiders!

  • Ricko | September 12, 2008 at 2:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”289303″][quote comment=”289298″]
    Have a dark blue one with a WHA decal in a box somewhere. That the one? Also have a puck from first WHA All-Star Game in Quebec. Probably in the same box. Might be one they gave to media reps during first Russia-NHL series in there, too.[/quote]

    Those would most likely be them. They did use them in games, so they might be the innovators. :o)[/quote]

    That’s three different pucks I was talking about. But, yeah, the first one of those blue babies.

  • Teebz | September 12, 2008 at 2:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”289301″]
    I digress, Teebz, you have mentioned several times of the popularity of the overtime system, but I don’t know if that reflects your personal feeling, does it?[/quote]

    I don’t mind the shootout. It provides players a chance to show off some moves that are generally impossible to pull off in a real game. Personally, I don’t care if they keep it or kill it. It’s for the fans, and that’s what matters when we’re talking about 82 regular season games.

    Again, we’re talking the Malik goal I posted earlier. Malik had zero goals that season, and he pulls that out? Phenomenal. And Pavel Datsyuk’s sick moves… seriously, Vokoun is still looking for the puck.

    For the playoffs, however, I want quadruple OT and games that go until 3am. I want the excitement of sudden death when playoff games mean living to play another day or dying on the next shot.

    That’s excitement. That’s playoff hockey.

  • Wade Harder | September 12, 2008 at 2:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”289291″][quote comment=”289267″][quote comment=”289227″][quote comment=”289190″][quote comment=”289172″]Here’s the link to the UNC/Rutgers photo gallery:
    http://tarheelblue.c...

    They did look a bit off, however they didn’t go half-assed about it…Check out their Navy accented cleats!

    Here’s what I think is an interesting question:

    With USC playing TOSU tomorrow evening, we are in store for both a classic battle between two great football teams both athletically and aesthetically.

    Simple yet elegant…about the only people who wouldn’t like those two are Marty Met and Mike Belotti.

    As we saw with UNC and their “alternate” third color pants last night, there are precious few teams who still wear one pair of pants for both home and road games, USC and TOSU being two of them.

    Question #1: How many schools still use only one pair of pants?

    Question #2: Of these schools, like Michigan or USC, have they, at any time, worn different colored pants, for example…Michigan in Blue?[/quote]

    I’m sure there ar many teams that still wear one pair of pants. One is Louisiana Tech.
    Home:
    http://bearsnecessit...

    Road:
    http://farm2.static....

    And they used to wear blue pants:
    http://media.college...

    Tech actually has quite a long running tradition with the current helmet logo and striped jerseys, they go back to the Bradshaw days and before:
    http://i.cdn.turner....

    Other schools with one pair of pants off the top of my head:
    Texas
    Oklahoma
    LSU
    Auburn
    Alabama
    Georgia
    Kansas
    Kansas St
    Army
    Navy
    Mississippi St (?)
    Ole Miss[/quote]

    Miss. State has white and red pants (which are cool, b/c they wear striped white socks with the dark pants – that’s rare in college)

    white pants:
    http://media.2theadv...

    red pants:
    http://cache.daylife...

    Dude, seriously, red?[/quote]

    Dude, seriously, who cares what effin color I call it?[/quote]

    I do, for one. And since you’re obviously an Auburn fan, you should know the colors of another school in the same conference. It would be one thing to call Alabama’s color red, but Mississippi State’s is closer to purple than red if you’re not gonna call it the correct color.

  • MPowers1634 | September 12, 2008 at 2:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”289297″]would you ever pay to see someone fight over a pens sweater?

    i might[/quote]

    WHERE’S THE NFSW TAG?????????
    Dammit Phil!

  • lwiedy | September 12, 2008 at 2:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”289307″][quote comment=”289301″]
    I digress, Teebz, you have mentioned several times of the popularity of the overtime system, but I don’t know if that reflects your personal feeling, does it?[/quote]

    I don’t mind the shootout. It provides players a chance to show off some moves that are generally impossible to pull off in a real game. Personally, I don’t care if they keep it or kill it. It’s for the fans, and that’s what matters when we’re talking about 82 regular season games.

    Again, we’re talking the Malik goal I posted earlier. Malik had zero goals that season, and he pulls that out? Phenomenal. And Pavel Datsyuk’s sick moves… seriously, Vokoun is still looking for the puck.

    For the playoffs, however, I want quadruple OT and games that go until 3am. I want the excitement of sudden death when playoff games mean living to play another day or dying on the next shot.

    That’s excitement. That’s playoff hockey.[/quote]

    Funny, that’s sense of ambivalence was in there, I didn’t just imagine it. You are correct about playoff overtime, absolutely nothing in sport compares.

  • Marty | September 12, 2008 at 2:18 pm |

    I was not offended by the fact that UNC’s pants were navy, but that half stripe is unacceptable. That stripe and The monoKnights made the game unwatchable. Bourbon and a little “Pink Flag” (Wire) was a better option.

  • Nick | September 12, 2008 at 2:18 pm |

    Just heard my Red Sox are interested in the Japanese pitcher Tazawa. I don’t know about
    him but I love his socks: http://www.youtube.c... . (Plus they’re at least somewhat similar to the Yaz era socks:
    http://www.geocities...).

  • LI Phil | September 12, 2008 at 2:19 pm |

    [quote]For the playoffs, however, I want quadruple OT and games that go until 3am. [/quote]

    you and the 3 others watching >;o)

  • LI Phil | September 12, 2008 at 2:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”289309″][quote comment=”289297″]would you ever pay to see someone fight over a pens sweater?

    i might[/quote]

    WHERE’S THE NFSW TAG?????????
    Dammit Phil![/quote]

    how is that NSFW? (as opposed to “NFSW”)…where do you work, a nunnery?

  • Teebz | September 12, 2008 at 2:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”289310″]
    Funny, that’s sense of ambivalence was in there, I didn’t just imagine it. You are correct about playoff overtime, absolutely nothing in sport compares.[/quote]

    As long as the fans keep turning into see it – in particular, American fans – it’s good for the game. That matters to me. 9 times out of 10, the shootout has no “wow” factor, but that 1 time that it does, everyone talks about it.

    And that’s good for the game. It generates the buzz that the NHL needs in order to bring back fans and attract new ones.

  • joe | September 12, 2008 at 2:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”289300″]

    If you’re an NHL owner, do you care more about making money or splitting two points? Money is the only thing that matters. Over the course of the season, I guarantee you that Edmonton and Dallas (shootout kings last season) made a ton of money in the extra time because they went to the shootout so often.

    And as ludicrous as it seems, the World Cup – the biggest sporting event in the world next to the Olympics – has been decided by penalty kicks. They require no tactics or defensive ability whatsoever.

    [/quote]
    I doubt they made much extra money on shootout, no one is going to the concession stands during them. Play 20 minutes of OT then its a tie, you get 20 minutes of sudden death hockey and people will still go to the concessions. Plus once they hit the 3rd period they stop selling bee so that a major limit on concession sales. in OT/SO’s

    As for the world cup even soccer fans hate when its decided on a SO

  • Teebz | September 12, 2008 at 2:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”289313″][quote]For the playoffs, however, I want quadruple OT and games that go until 3am. [/quote]

    you and the 3 others watching >;o)[/quote]

    Phil, just because your mom tucks you in at 9pm doesn’t mean we all live by that itinerary. ;oP

  • Teebz | September 12, 2008 at 2:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”289316″][quote comment=”289300″]

    If you’re an NHL owner, do you care more about making money or splitting two points? Money is the only thing that matters. Over the course of the season, I guarantee you that Edmonton and Dallas (shootout kings last season) made a ton of money in the extra time because they went to the shootout so often.

    And as ludicrous as it seems, the World Cup – the biggest sporting event in the world next to the Olympics – has been decided by penalty kicks. They require no tactics or defensive ability whatsoever.

    [/quote]
    I doubt they made much extra money on shootout, no one is going to the concession stands during them. Play 20 minutes of OT then its a tie, you get 20 minutes of sudden death hockey and people will still go to the concessions. Plus once they hit the 3rd period they stop selling bee so that a major limit on concession sales. in OT/SO’s

    As for the world cup even soccer fans hate when its decided on a SO[/quote]

    I agree with you on the merits of why it should be discontinued, especially in other sports, but for a sport trying to find any niche that it can to keep people coming back, the shootout has done that.

    And Edmonton fans loved it last year. Mathieu Garon was a cult hero in Oiltown.

  • Ricko | September 12, 2008 at 2:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”289314″][quote comment=”289309″][quote comment=”289297″]would you ever pay to see someone fight over a pens sweater?

    i might[/quote]

    WHERE’S THE NFSW TAG?????????
    Dammit Phil![/quote]

    how is that NSFW? (as opposed to “NFSW”)…where do you work, a nunnery?[/quote]

    Hey, I glanced up and thought “pens” had a letter missing. Had this quick flash on a little knit…

    Ohnevermind.

  • MPowers1634 | September 12, 2008 at 2:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”289314″][quote comment=”289309″][quote comment=”289297″]would you ever pay to see someone fight over a pens sweater?

    i might[/quote]

    WHERE’S THE NFSW TAG?????????
    Dammit Phil![/quote]

    how is that NSFW? (as opposed to “NFSW”)…where do you work, a nunnery?[/quote]

    You already know the answer to that, Phil!!!
    I’m just looking out for the UW public, and a ‘lil
    bit o’ CYA!

  • LI Phil | September 12, 2008 at 2:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”289317″][quote comment=”289313″][quote]For the playoffs, however, I want quadruple OT and games that go until 3am. [/quote]

    you and the 3 others watching >;o)[/quote]

    Phil, just because your mom tucks you in at 9pm doesn’t mean we all live by that itinerary. ;oP[/quote]

    that’s YOUR mom who tucks me in ;)

    /done with this

  • Jim MI | September 12, 2008 at 2:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”289300″][quote comment=”289294″]
    Just because another league does it doesn’t make it ok. One of the reasons I hate the shootout is because I feel it’s only a matter of time before the commish tries to put in the playoffs.

    Deciding the outcome of a game which includes offense, defense, goaltending, PP, SH, hitting, etc, and settle it by ignoring all but two of those aspects (offense and goaltending) is ludicrus.

    As one of the biggest fans of the NHL that I know, my biggest fears for the future of my favorite sports league is shootout in the playoffs and bigger nets.[/quote]

    If you’re an NHL owner, do you care more about making money or splitting two points? Money is the only thing that matters. Over the course of the season, I guarantee you that Edmonton and Dallas (shootout kings last season) made a ton of money in the extra time because they went to the shootout so often.

    Again, if Bettman tries to put it in the playoffs, I’ll burn the NHL offices down. It’s that simple.

    And as ludicrous as it seems, the World Cup – the biggest sporting event in the world next to the Olympics – has been decided by penalty kicks. They require no tactics or defensive ability whatsoever.

    Canada lost to the Czech Republic in the hockey semi-finals of the 1998 Nagano Olympics on a shootout.

    Team Sweden, on a famous Forsberg goal, defeated Team Canada in a shootout for World Championship gold.

    It’s a regular season NHL game. They are nowhere close to being as important as those three events. The fans like it, and keeps them in the seats. As an owner, that’s the entire idea, isn’t it?[/quote]

    Teebz, don’t get me wrong, don’t want this to come off as argument. I think you and I are two of the biggest hockey fans on this site, us hockey folk have to stick togehter!! lol

    BTW, if shootouts go into the playoffs, you hold the torch, I’ll light it, ok? :)

    As for shootouts, I understand the owners perspective, money money money money money. But I am not an owner (I wish I was), I am a fan, and as a fan it’s just that in my opinion (which may be different than yours) a shootout is no way to decide a game, no matter how important (reg season or olypmics). Don’t get me wrong they are exciting (i was actually at the game when Malik scored that goal in NY vs WAS, place went nuts. NHL record for shootout rounds BTW), but I was dissapointed to see a gold medal rewarded in a shootout. Makes the perviously played hockey almost seem meaningless.

  • MPowers1634 | September 12, 2008 at 2:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”289321″][quote comment=”289317″][quote comment=”289313″][quote]For the playoffs, however, I want quadruple OT and games that go until 3am. [/quote]

    you and the 3 others watching >;o)[/quote]

    Phil, just because your mom tucks you in at 9pm doesn’t mean we all live by that itinerary. ;oP[/quote]

    that’s YOUR mom who tucks me in ;)

    /done with this[/quote]

    I KNEW that was in our near future!

  • Ricko | September 12, 2008 at 2:40 pm |

    As we head into another NFL weekend, let me just say this about dark-over-dark:

    If the Redskins ever come out in all burgundy (and I imagine they will someday), I sure hope they’re wearing their white socks with the two-color stripes. That might be an exceptionally fine-looking monochomatic.

    However, if they wear the burgundy socks for the unitard look with them then, no, not so much.

    —Ricko

  • Chris | September 12, 2008 at 2:47 pm |

    The Bruins should have had the same striping at the hem of the sweater as on the arms and put lacing at the neck.

  • MPowers1634 | September 12, 2008 at 2:54 pm |

    After this, I’m done…I’ve met my quota for the month…TODAY!

    I found some Orlando Magic PS type pics:
    http://i33.tinypic.c...

  • Pete | September 12, 2008 at 2:55 pm |

    Ah, the glory of the gumball helmet!

    The goal post display actually reminds me of a set Sears sold out of the old Wishbook back in the mid-1970s. I believe they had a set for the NFC and one for the AFC. My parents got it for me for Christmas…one of my favorite all-time gifts. I still have it stashed away somewhere.

    Even though you can get the Riddell micro-helmets, which are technically superior, today, there’s something about the helmet with the stickers and the snap-on facemask.

  • lwiedy | September 12, 2008 at 3:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”289324″]As we head into another NFL weekend, let me just say this about dark-over-dark:

    If the Redskins ever come out in all burgundy (and I imagine they will someday), I sure hope they’re wearing their white socks with the two-color stripes. That might be an exceptionally fine-looking monochomatic.

    However, if they wear the burgundy socks for the unitard look with them then, no, not so much.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Don’t count on the white socks. The reason they disappear from time-to-time is player influence (Portis & S. Taylor) and at least I don’t think Portis is going anywhere. It’s obviously a popular thing with players these days. With Gibbs gone, persevering any semblance of tradition is up to a coach who described the team’s colors as “maroon & black”.

    In 2005, Portis & Taylor wanted to wear some goofy socks and the compromise was the white jersey/white pants combo which allowed them to wear the burgundy over white socks.

    Although you wouldn’t call the 1979 to 2000’s unis “classic”, they are clearly associated with their sustained glory and monochrome would be just another erosion of that.

    I’m not against change, however. If they had to change, here’s close to what I like to see them do:
    http://i256.photobuc...
    More “hip” color shades, although as a uniform it most closely resembles the Otto Graham era, which was by no means successful.

  • Mark K | September 12, 2008 at 3:27 pm |

    A couple years ago I made up a spreadsheet to see what it would do if the NHL changed the amount of points for regulation wins vs shootout or overtime wins, etc, etc.

    It made surprisingly little difference. I think it flipped one playoff seed and that was it.

  • Nathan Gemignani | September 12, 2008 at 3:27 pm |

    The man who invented Cooperalls has passed away

    http://www.canada.co...

  • chance | September 12, 2008 at 3:30 pm |

    Personally, I’d like to see Washington back in something like these. Great, visually unique numbers.

  • LI Phil | September 12, 2008 at 3:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”289328″][Don’t count on the white socks. The reason they disappear from time-to-time is player influence (Portis & S. Taylor) and at least I don’t think Portis is going anywhere. It’s obviously a popular thing with players these days. With Gibbs gone, persevering any semblance of tradition is up to a coach who described the team’s colors as “maroon & black”.

    In 2005, Portis & Taylor wanted to wear some goofy socks and the compromise was the white jersey/white pants combo which allowed them to wear the burgundy over white socks.[/quote]

    they didn’t need white pants in order to wear goofy socks

    …or just act goofy

    these socks always gave a clean look

    and i kinda liked the lombardi throwback…yup

    surprisingly, i never liked the maroon shirts & gold pants combos…just not a fan

    and for anyone who thinks the monochrome might look good…be careful what you wish for

  • Chuck | September 12, 2008 at 3:38 pm |

    yesterdays ticker stated thet the Chicago Bears were lobbying coach Smith to let them wear white on white on the road this season. Does the head coach have the final say on this?

  • Teebz | September 12, 2008 at 3:40 pm |

    [quote comment=”289322″]
    Teebz, don’t get me wrong, don’t want this to come off as argument. I think you and I are two of the biggest hockey fans on this site, us hockey folk have to stick togehter!! lol[/quote]

    Absolutely! The hockey wing of Uni Watch isn’t visited by many, but us die-hards love it. ;o)

    [quote comment=”289322″]BTW, if shootouts go into the playoffs, you hold the torch, I’ll light it, ok? :)[/quote]

    I’ll meet you there with the gasoline, Jim. LOL

    [quote comment=”289322″]As for shootouts, I understand the owners perspective, money money money money money. But I am not an owner (I wish I was), I am a fan, and as a fan it’s just that in my opinion (which may be different than yours) a shootout is no way to decide a game, no matter how important (reg season or olypmics). Don’t get me wrong they are exciting (i was actually at the game when Malik scored that goal in NY vs WAS, place went nuts. NHL record for shootout rounds BTW), but I was dissapointed to see a gold medal rewarded in a shootout. Makes the perviously played hockey almost seem meaningless.[/quote]

    Totally agree. I think for major events, it should come down to team-vs-team for playoffs, gold medals, etc. Awarding a gold medal for having three players shoot at your goalie isn’t very teamlike.

    But in 82 regular season games, you gotta give fans something to look forward to besides a tie. The shootout is that thing. Lots of people hate it, and I respect that. For me, it makes no difference which way it goes. I grew up with ties, so no big deal. But for attracting and keeping new fans, this is all they know. And they seem to like it. :o)

  • Kevin | September 12, 2008 at 3:52 pm |

    [quote comment=”289332″][quote comment=”289328″][Don’t count on the white socks. The reason they disappear from time-to-time is player influence (Portis & S. Taylor) and at least I don’t think Portis is going anywhere. It’s obviously a popular thing with players these days. With Gibbs gone, persevering any semblance of tradition is up to a coach who described the team’s colors as “maroon & black”.

    In 2005, Portis & Taylor wanted to wear some goofy socks and the compromise was the white jersey/white pants combo which allowed them to wear the burgundy over white socks.[/quote]

    they didn’t need white pants in order to wear goofy socks

    …or just act goofy

    these socks always gave a clean look

    and i kinda liked the lombardi throwback…yup

    surprisingly, i never liked the maroon shirts & gold pants combos…just not a fan

    and for anyone who thinks the monochrome might look good…be careful what you wish for[/quote]

    My favorite ‘skins jersey by far.

  • Stuby | September 12, 2008 at 3:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”289332″][quote comment=”289328″][Don’t count on the white socks. The reason they disappear from time-to-time is player influence (Portis & S. Taylor) and at least I don’t think Portis is going anywhere. It’s obviously a popular thing with players these days. With Gibbs gone, persevering any semblance of tradition is up to a coach who described the team’s colors as “maroon & black”.

    In 2005, Portis & Taylor wanted to wear some goofy socks and the compromise was the white jersey/white pants combo which allowed them to wear the burgundy over white socks.[/quote]

    they didn’t need white pants in order to wear goofy socks

    …or just act goofy

    these socks always gave a clean look

    and i kinda liked the lombardi throwback…yup

    surprisingly, i never liked the maroon shirts & gold pants combos…just not a fan

    and for anyone who thinks the monochrome might look good…be careful what you wish for[/quote]
    Thought for sure the ‘Act goofy’ link was going to be this or something like it…
    http://sportfiends.c...

  • Michael | September 12, 2008 at 3:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”289286″][quote comment=”289271″][quote comment=”289190″][quote comment=”289172″]Here’s the link to the UNC/Rutgers photo gallery:
    http://tarheelblue.c...

    They did look a bit off, however they didn’t go half-assed about it…Check out their Navy accented cleats!

    Here’s what I think is an interesting question:

    With USC playing TOSU tomorrow evening, we are in store for both a classic battle between two great football teams both athletically and aesthetically.

    Simple yet elegant…about the only people who wouldn’t like those two are Marty Met and Mike Belotti.

    As we saw with UNC and their “alternate” third color pants last night, there are precious few teams who still wear one pair of pants for both home and road games, USC and TOSU being two of them.

    Question #1: How many schools still use only one pair of pants?

    Question #2: Of these schools, like Michigan or USC, have they, at any time, worn different colored pants, for example…Michigan in Blue?[/quote]

    I’m sure there ar many teams that still wear one pair of pants. One is Louisiana Tech.
    Home:
    http://bearsnecessit...

    Road:
    http://farm2.static....

    And they used to wear blue pants:
    http://media.college...

    Tech actually has quite a long running tradition with the current helmet logo and striped jerseys, they go back to the Bradshaw days and before:
    http://i.cdn.turner....

    Other schools with one pair of pants off the top of my head:
    Texas
    Oklahoma
    LSU
    Auburn
    Alabama
    Georgia
    Kansas
    Kansas St
    Army
    Navy
    Mississippi St (?)
    Ole Miss[/quote]

    Notre Dame only wears gold pants[/quote]

    Georgia actually wore white pants between 1964 and 1979. Vince Dooley switched from the Silver Britches (which had been in place since the late 1930s) to white pants when he showed up. The year he switched back, 1980, the Dawgs won it all.

    LSU wore purple pants at Kentucky one year (’95, I think). They lost, so those pants haven’t seen the light of day since that one game.[/quote]

    Under Jim Donnan UGA in addition to the black pants they also wore white pants with no stripes during a couple of games in 90’s. They wore the white ones at least twice once at home vs. LSU & once on the road vs. Tennessee. Being a Dawg fan I’d like to see them bring back the red pants (with stripes) for late season road games. Since there going to ASU next week I think they should come out in Dooley era white pants (with stripes). Of course I loved the blackout game last year & hope the black jerseys become a tradition. The rumor is that the players want to go all black next time with black helmets, jerseys, & pants with no stripes. I don’t see Mark Richt going for that while it might look cool I’d prefer to just see black jerseys for another blackout game.

  • lwiedy | September 12, 2008 at 4:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”289335″][quote comment=”289332″][quote comment=”289328″][Don’t count on the white socks. The reason they disappear from time-to-time is player influence (Portis & S. Taylor) and at least I don’t think Portis is going anywhere. It’s obviously a popular thing with players these days. With Gibbs gone, persevering any semblance of tradition is up to a coach who described the team’s colors as “maroon & black”.

    In 2005, Portis & Taylor wanted to wear some goofy socks and the compromise was the white jersey/white pants combo which allowed them to wear the burgundy over white socks.[/quote]

    they didn’t need white pants in order to wear goofy socks

    …or just act goofy

    these socks always gave a clean look

    and i kinda liked the lombardi throwback…yup

    surprisingly, i never liked the maroon shirts & gold pants combos…just not a fan

    and for anyone who thinks the monochrome might look good…be careful what you wish for[/quote]

    My favorite ‘skins jersey by far.[/quote]

    No huge arguement here.

    For Chance & Phil, yes the unique styled numbers would be great, I do like the colored numbers out lined in white though.

    It was cool to see the 70-71 throwbacks last year but, TOO MUCH YELLOW (notice I didn’t say gold). Especially with the shiny pants, you’ve practically eliminated the team’s primary color.

    Phil, nice Reggie Branch (1989 at NYG) photo you found. To show you how nutty I am about this stuff, that photo is from one of the two greatest years in that uniforms history.

    Since ’79 when the “mod” look was introduced the unis were made by Russell. They look (to the untrained eye) pretty much the same. There were variations, the introduction of open mesh in 1982, vinyl press-on number on the mesh in the mid-eighties. But in 1988 & 1989 they ditched the mesh for a really smart nylon(?). No more dropped necklines, really nice bold numbers, they are by far the best looking sets they ever had. It was also the introduction of cuffed sleeves for linemen, but it was not overdone, looked great.

    An oddity was the last game of the 1989 season in Seattle. The entire team wore Sand-Knit jersey which were worn for the entire 1990 season. They were so much different from the Russell’s, different shoulder fabric, super narrow lettering for NOB. Not bad, but not like the 88-89’s.

  • JR Boucicaut | September 12, 2008 at 4:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”289330″]The man who invented Cooperalls has passed away

    http://www.canada.co...

    Yeah, Mr. Heaton was a great guy. Certainly innovated in the goaltender equipment field all the while never being a goaltender himself.

  • lwiedy | September 12, 2008 at 4:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”289338″][quote comment=”289335″][quote comment=”289332″][quote comment=”289328″][Don’t count on the white socks. The reason they disappear from time-to-time is player influence (Portis & S. Taylor) and at least I don’t think Portis is going anywhere. It’s obviously a popular thing with players these days. With Gibbs gone, persevering any semblance of tradition is up to a coach who described the team’s colors as “maroon & black”.

    In 2005, Portis & Taylor wanted to wear some goofy socks and the compromise was the white jersey/white pants combo which allowed them to wear the burgundy over white socks.[/quote]

    they didn’t need white pants in order to wear goofy socks

    …or just act goofy

    these socks always gave a clean look

    and i kinda liked the lombardi throwback…yup

    surprisingly, i never liked the maroon shirts & gold pants combos…just not a fan

    and for anyone who thinks the monochrome might look good…be careful what you wish for[/quote]

    My favorite ‘skins jersey by far.[/quote]

    No huge arguement here.

    For Chance & Phil, yes the unique styled numbers would be great, I do like the colored numbers out lined in white though.

    It was cool to see the 70-71 throwbacks last year but, TOO MUCH YELLOW (notice I didn’t say gold). Especially with the shiny pants, you’ve practically eliminated the team’s primary color.

    Phil, nice Reggie Branch (1989 at NYG) photo you found. To show you how nutty I am about this stuff, that photo is from one of the two greatest years in that uniforms history.

    Since ’79 when the “mod” look was introduced the unis were made by Russell. They look (to the untrained eye) pretty much the same. There were variations, the introduction of open mesh in 1982, vinyl press-on number on the mesh in the mid-eighties. But in 1988 & 1989 they ditched the mesh for a really smart nylon(?). No more dropped necklines, really nice bold numbers, they are by far the best looking sets they ever had.

    It was also the introduction of cuffed sleeves for linemen, but it was not overdone, looked great.

    An oddity was the last game of the 1989 season in Seattle. The entire team wore Sand-Knit jersey which were worn for the entire 1990 season. They were so much different from the Russell’s, different shoulder fabric, super narrow lettering for NOB. Not bad, but not like the 88-89’s.[/quote]

    1987: http://i.cdn.turner.... (Doug’s # screened, Jacoby’s vinyl)
    1989: http://www.higdonfam...

  • Roger Faso | September 12, 2008 at 4:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”289196″]As a lifelong Oakland A’s fan, can I just say how much I HATE those black jerseys? I guess I just did.

    They are flat-out awful.[/quote]

    I couldn’t agree more. They’re just stupid. It’s like when someone shows up at the office wearing birkenstocks and a hawaiin shirt. You just wanna say, “There. That. That right there is the reason your wife won’t sleep with you.”

    The A’s are so due for a major overhaul. They haven’t had one since 1986.

  • Ricko | September 12, 2008 at 4:16 pm |

    “The rumor is that the players want to go all black next time with black helmets, jerseys, & pants with no stripes.”

    Of course they do. They think football should be like a frickin’ video game.

    Said this yesterday…when reality, to be more appealing, needs to be more like Virtual Reality, something seriously strange is going on with the way we look at life.

    —Ricko

  • Flip | September 12, 2008 at 4:21 pm |

    Steelers with yellow yoke
    http://www.perrysspo...

  • lwiedy | September 12, 2008 at 4:22 pm |

    [quote comment=”289340″][quote comment=”289338″][quote comment=”289335″][quote comment=”289332″][quote comment=”289328″][Don’t count on the white socks. The reason they disappear from time-to-time is player influence (Portis & S. Taylor) and at least I don’t think Portis is going anywhere. It’s obviously a popular thing with players these days. With Gibbs gone, persevering any semblance of tradition is up to a coach who described the team’s colors as “maroon & black”.

    In 2005, Portis & Taylor wanted to wear some goofy socks and the compromise was the white jersey/white pants combo which allowed them to wear the burgundy over white socks.[/quote]

    they didn’t need white pants in order to wear goofy socks

    …or just act goofy

    these socks always gave a clean look

    and i kinda liked the lombardi throwback…yup

    surprisingly, i never liked the maroon shirts & gold pants combos…just not a fan

    and for anyone who thinks the monochrome might look good…be careful what you wish for[/quote]

    My favorite ‘skins jersey by far.[/quote]

    No huge arguement here.

    For Chance & Phil, yes the unique styled numbers would be great, I do like the colored numbers out lined in white though.

    It was cool to see the 70-71 throwbacks last year but, TOO MUCH YELLOW (notice I didn’t say gold). Especially with the shiny pants, you’ve practically eliminated the team’s primary color.

    Phil, nice Reggie Branch (1989 at NYG) photo you found. To show you how nutty I am about this stuff, that photo is from one of the two greatest years in that uniforms history.

    Since ’79 when the “mod” look was introduced the unis were made by Russell. They look (to the untrained eye) pretty much the same. There were variations, the introduction of open mesh in 1982, vinyl press-on number on the mesh in the mid-eighties. But in 1988 & 1989 they ditched the mesh for a really smart nylon(?). No more dropped necklines, really nice bold numbers, they are by far the best looking sets they ever had.

    It was also the introduction of cuffed sleeves for linemen, but it was not overdone, looked great.

    An oddity was the last game of the 1989 season in Seattle. The entire team wore Sand-Knit jersey which were worn for the entire 1990 season. They were so much different from the Russell’s, different shoulder fabric, super narrow lettering for NOB. Not bad, but not like the 88-89’s.[/quote]

    1987: http://i.cdn.turner.... (Doug’s # screened, Jacoby’s vinyl)
    1989: http://www.higdonfam...
    Let’s try again
    1989: http://www.higdonfam...
    Also the compromise of 2005:
    http://www.quotation...

  • lwiedy | September 12, 2008 at 4:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”289344″][quote comment=”289340″][quote comment=”289338″][quote comment=”289335″][quote comment=”289332″][quote comment=”289328″][Don’t count on the white socks. The reason they disappear from time-to-time is player influence (Portis & S. Taylor) and at least I don’t think Portis is going anywhere. It’s obviously a popular thing with players these days. With Gibbs gone, persevering any semblance of tradition is up to a coach who described the team’s colors as “maroon & black”.

    In 2005, Portis & Taylor wanted to wear some goofy socks and the compromise was the white jersey/white pants combo which allowed them to wear the burgundy over white socks.[/quote]

    they didn’t need white pants in order to wear goofy socks

    …or just act goofy

    these socks always gave a clean look

    and i kinda liked the lombardi throwback…yup

    surprisingly, i never liked the maroon shirts & gold pants combos…just not a fan

    and for anyone who thinks the monochrome might look good…be careful what you wish for[/quote]

    My favorite ‘skins jersey by far.[/quote]

    No huge arguement here.

    For Chance & Phil, yes the unique styled numbers would be great, I do like the colored numbers out lined in white though.

    It was cool to see the 70-71 throwbacks last year but, TOO MUCH YELLOW (notice I didn’t say gold). Especially with the shiny pants, you’ve practically eliminated the team’s primary color.

    Phil, nice Reggie Branch (1989 at NYG) photo you found. To show you how nutty I am about this stuff, that photo is from one of the two greatest years in that uniforms history.

    Since ’79 when the “mod” look was introduced the unis were made by Russell. They look (to the untrained eye) pretty much the same. There were variations, the introduction of open mesh in 1982, vinyl press-on number on the mesh in the mid-eighties. But in 1988 & 1989 they ditched the mesh for a really smart nylon(?). No more dropped necklines, really nice bold numbers, they are by far the best looking sets they ever had.

    It was also the introduction of cuffed sleeves for linemen, but it was not overdone, looked great.

    An oddity was the last game of the 1989 season in Seattle. The entire team wore Sand-Knit jersey which were worn for the entire 1990 season. They were so much different from the Russell’s, different shoulder fabric, super narrow lettering for NOB. Not bad, but not like the 88-89’s.[/quote]

    1987: http://i.cdn.turner.... (Doug’s # screened, Jacoby’s vinyl)
    1989: http://www.higdonfam...
    Let’s try again
    1989: http://www.higdonfam...
    Also the compromise of 2005:
    http://www.quotation...

    Alright, asshole, you think I’m not going to use your picture?
    1989: http://i256.photobuc...

  • Flip | September 12, 2008 at 4:31 pm |

    I was looking for Tarkenton in purple pants and came up with this, which I’ve never seen before.
    http://www.mmbolding...

  • lwiedy | September 12, 2008 at 4:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”289343″]Steelers with yellow yoke
    http://www.perrysspo...

    I guess I’ve never seen anything BUT yellow yoke out side a Dr. Seuss book.
    But seriously, is that what the shoulder material is called?

  • Ricko | September 12, 2008 at 4:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”289346″]I was looking for Tarkenton in purple pants and came up with this, which I’ve never seen before.
    http://www.mmbolding...

    There’s a painting of Tarkenton in purple pants in the SI cover vault. By Bob Peak, I think.

  • Ricko | September 12, 2008 at 4:37 pm |

    How ’bout these. Not very big, but something.

    http://cgi.ebay.com/...

    http://cgi.ebay.com/...

    http://cgi.ebay.com/...

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | September 12, 2008 at 4:41 pm |

    See if this works…

    http://www.auctiva.c...

  • Flip | September 12, 2008 at 4:44 pm |

    [quote comment=”289349″]How ’bout these. Not very big, but something.

    http://cgi.ebay.com/...

    http://cgi.ebay.com/...

    http://cgi.ebay.com/...

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Terrific, the scramblin’ wreck from Georgia Tech, one of my favorites.

  • lwiedy | September 12, 2008 at 4:44 pm |

    I get the sad Mr. Met on a rain check, but who puts him on a window?
    http://cgi.ebay.com/...

  • hofflalu | September 12, 2008 at 4:44 pm |

    That 1983 photo may well have been taken during a super-cold game. I know the Packers-Bears game played on December 18th was in VERY cold weather, and that there were a bunch of record lows set across the country in late December of that year. I see the Chiefs were hosting the Broncos on December 18th, but I’d imagine if it was super-cold in Chicago, it probably was in Kansas City.

    The only problem is the the player is wearing white, but weren’t the Chiefs wearing white at home back then? That might answer the question once and for all.

  • Ricko | September 12, 2008 at 4:46 pm |

    I will tell you this…having seen those white jerseys and purple pants from the stands at Met Stadium many, many, many times…especially on a bright sunny afternoon, they looked absolutely GREAT.

    I know, I know, they’re purple. But I cannot lie.

    —Ricko

  • =bg= | September 12, 2008 at 4:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”289263″]OK, this has nothing do do with athletic aesthetics, this logo is terrific.

    http://www.barackoba...

    I’d like to see a logo column here on McCain (looks poorly done) vs. Obama’s (looks sleek) logos. No political bias implied with those comments, either.

  • DJK | September 12, 2008 at 5:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”289354″]I will tell you this…having seen those white jerseys and purple pants from the stands at Met Stadium many, many, many times…especially on a bright sunny afternoon, they looked absolutely GREAT.

    I know, I know, they’re purple. But I cannot lie.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    The one saving grace of the new Vikings unis was the return to purple pants with the white jersey. Too bad they never wear them anymore. :( I hate the white/white look of the new unis worse than when they went all purple last year.

    I would like them to return fully to the unis of the 60’s.

  • DJK | September 12, 2008 at 5:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”289335″]

    My favorite ‘skins jersey by far.[/quote]

    One of my top 3 to 5 favorite NFL looks of all time. Man, i thought those unis were sweet. Love that color of burgandy, looked great with the gold.

  • lwiedy | September 12, 2008 at 5:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”289355″][quote comment=”289263″]OK, this has nothing do do with athletic aesthetics, this logo is terrific.

    http://www.barackoba...

    I’d like to see a logo column here on McCain (looks poorly done) vs. Obama’s (looks sleek) logos. No political bias implied with those comments, either.[/quote]

    Great, I think you covered the topic just fine so let’s keep UW in the “Arena” arena.

  • LI Phil | September 12, 2008 at 5:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”289355″][quote comment=”289263″]OK, this has nothing do do with athletic aesthetics, this logo is terrific.

    http://www.barackoba...

    I’d like to see a logo column here on McCain (looks poorly done) vs. Obama’s (looks sleek) logos. No political bias implied with those comments, either.[/quote]

    i don’t think we want to go anywhere near there

    /just sayin

  • Ricko | September 12, 2008 at 5:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”289357″][quote comment=”289335″]

    My favorite ‘skins jersey by far.[/quote]

    One of my top 3 to 5 favorite NFL looks of all time. Man, i thought those unis were sweet. Love that color of burgandy, looked great with the gold.[/quote]

    Trouble is, that’s a “throwback” to a uni that never existed. No such logo even on sleeve stripes. Sleeve stripes should be pattern shown on socks. Pants striping wrong; the three stipes were of equal width. Wasn’t even a long-time look; wore the spear helmets with that “Packer” look for only one season. And it’s the wrong color. The Lombardi-era uni it supposedly recreates was most definitely burgundy, almost flirting with cardinal. This error-laden “throwback” was maroon, wayyyyyy too dark.

    Not saying it’s bad looking. But it IS fictional…as far as it being of any historical veracity. It was, quite simply, a one-year promotional jersey/uni.

    —Ricko

  • LI Phil | September 12, 2008 at 5:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”289360″][quote comment=”289357″][quote comment=”289335″]

    My favorite ‘skins jersey by far.[/quote]

    One of my top 3 to 5 favorite NFL looks of all time. Man, i thought those unis were sweet. Love that color of burgandy, looked great with the gold.[/quote]

    Trouble is, that’s a “throwback” to a uni that never existed. No such logo even on sleeve stripes. Sleeve stripes should be pattern shown on socks. Pants striping wrong; the three stipes were of equal width. Wasn’t even a long-time look; wore the spear helmets with that “Packer” look for only one season. And it’s the wrong color. The Lombardi-era uni it supposedly recreates was most definitely burgundy, almost flirting with cardinal. This error-laden “throwback” was maroon, wayyyyyy too dark.

    Not saying it’s bad looking. But it IS fictional…as far as it being of any historical veracity. It was, quite simply, a one-year promotional jersey/uni.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    plus…real QB’s don’t wear gloves on their throwing hand

  • lwiedy | September 12, 2008 at 5:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”289360″][quote comment=”289357″][quote comment=”289335″]

    My favorite ‘skins jersey by far.[/quote]

    One of my top 3 to 5 favorite NFL looks of all time. Man, i thought those unis were sweet. Love that color of burgandy, looked great with the gold.[/quote]

    Trouble is, that’s a “throwback” to a uni that never existed. No such logo even on sleeve stripes. Sleeve stripes should be pattern shown on socks. Pants striping wrong; the three stipes were of equal width. Wasn’t even a long-time look; wore the spear helmets with that “Packer” look for only one season. And it’s the wrong color. The Lombardi-era uni it supposedly recreates was most definitely burgundy, almost flirting with cardinal. This error-laden “throwback” was maroon, wayyyyyy too dark.

    Not saying it’s bad looking. But it IS fictional…as far as it being of any historical veracity. It was, quite simply, a one-year promotional jersey/uni.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Was never meant to be a throwback. It was a special edition for thier 70th Ann. season.

  • Eric B in KC | September 12, 2008 at 5:40 pm |

    new enzones at FSU use the fonts nike developed.

    http://vmedia.rivals...

  • Ricko | September 12, 2008 at 5:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”289362″][quote comment=”289360″][quote comment=”289357″][quote comment=”289335″]

    My favorite ‘skins jersey by far.[/quote]

    One of my top 3 to 5 favorite NFL looks of all time. Man, i thought those unis were sweet. Love that color of burgandy, looked great with the gold.[/quote]

    Trouble is, that’s a “throwback” to a uni that never existed. No such logo even on sleeve stripes. Sleeve stripes should be pattern shown on socks. Pants striping wrong; the three stipes were of equal width. Wasn’t even a long-time look; wore the spear helmets with that “Packer” look for only one season. And it’s the wrong color. The Lombardi-era uni it supposedly recreates was most definitely burgundy, almost flirting with cardinal. This error-laden “throwback” was maroon, wayyyyyy too dark.

    Not saying it’s bad looking. But it IS fictional…as far as it being of any historical veracity. It was, quite simply, a one-year promotional jersey/uni.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Was never meant to be a throwback. It was a special edition for thier 70th Ann. season.[/quote]

    I know. And I never could figure out their thinking. If it’s commemorating something shouldn’t it have some historical aspect? It was like, “Hey, it’s our 70th anniversary; let’s make up a uniform we’ve never worn.” How is that commemorative? They use a color the team has never worn (maroon) to celebrate its past? How is that anything but fuzzy thinking?

    Again, not saying it’s bad looking. But it’s a lousy job of celebrating a team’s traditons. The only thing even close to historically accurate is the helmet. Socks are close, but the wrong color.

    Almost like if the Yankees’ had commemorated the last season in Yankee Stadium this year by wearing Royal Blue instead of Navy, and going without pinstripes. It just wouldn’t have made any sense.

  • lwiedy | September 12, 2008 at 6:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”289364″][quote comment=”289362″][quote comment=”289360″][quote comment=”289357″][quote comment=”289335″]

    My favorite ‘skins jersey by far.[/quote]

    One of my top 3 to 5 favorite NFL looks of all time. Man, i thought those unis were sweet. Love that color of burgandy, looked great with the gold.[/quote]

    Trouble is, that’s a “throwback” to a uni that never existed. No such logo even on sleeve stripes. Sleeve stripes should be pattern shown on socks. Pants striping wrong; the three stipes were of equal width. Wasn’t even a long-time look; wore the spear helmets with that “Packer” look for only one season. And it’s the wrong color. The Lombardi-era uni it supposedly recreates was most definitely burgundy, almost flirting with cardinal. This error-laden “throwback” was maroon, wayyyyyy too dark.

    Not saying it’s bad looking. But it IS fictional…as far as it being of any historical veracity. It was, quite simply, a one-year promotional jersey/uni.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Was never meant to be a throwback. It was a special edition for thier 70th Ann. season.[/quote]

    I know. And I never could figure out their thinking. If it’s commemorating something shouldn’t it have some historical aspect? It was like, “Hey, it’s our 70th anniversary; let’s make up a uniform we’ve never worn.” How is that commemorative? They use a color the team has never worn (maroon) to celebrate its past? How is that anything but fuzzy thinking?

    Again, not saying it’s bad looking. But it’s a lousy job of celebrating a team’s traditons. The only thing even close to historically accurate is the helmet. Socks are close, but the wrong color.

    Almost like if the Yankees’ had commemorated the last season in Yankee Stadium this year by wearing Royal Blue instead of Navy, and going without pinstripes. It just wouldn’t have made any sense.[/quote]

    Well, isn’t like what the Phils are doing now? As for never wearing maroon, it may look maroon but it’s no darker than the M&N chance referenced earlier so without getting into a big debate whether or not it matches the exact shade of the 1945 jersey, this uni encompasses several elements of the past. Oddly, when they introduced them in a pre-season presser, the sleeves were different than those that made the field. More like the 69-78 jersey.

  • lwiedy | September 12, 2008 at 6:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”289365″][quote comment=”289364″][quote comment=”289362″][quote comment=”289360″][quote comment=”289357″][quote comment=”289335″]

    My favorite ‘skins jersey by far.[/quote]

    One of my top 3 to 5 favorite NFL looks of all time. Man, i thought those unis were sweet. Love that color of burgandy, looked great with the gold.[/quote]

    Trouble is, that’s a “throwback” to a uni that never existed. No such logo even on sleeve stripes. Sleeve stripes should be pattern shown on socks. Pants striping wrong; the three stipes were of equal width. Wasn’t even a long-time look; wore the spear helmets with that “Packer” look for only one season. And it’s the wrong color. The Lombardi-era uni it supposedly recreates was most definitely burgundy, almost flirting with cardinal. This error-laden “throwback” was maroon, wayyyyyy too dark.

    Not saying it’s bad looking. But it IS fictional…as far as it being of any historical veracity. It was, quite simply, a one-year promotional jersey/uni.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Was never meant to be a throwback. It was a special edition for thier 70th Ann. season.[/quote]

    I know. And I never could figure out their thinking. If it’s commemorating something shouldn’t it have some historical aspect? It was like, “Hey, it’s our 70th anniversary; let’s make up a uniform we’ve never worn.” How is that commemorative? They use a color the team has never worn (maroon) to celebrate its past? How is that anything but fuzzy thinking?

    Again, not saying it’s bad looking. But it’s a lousy job of celebrating a team’s traditons. The only thing even close to historically accurate is the helmet. Socks are close, but the wrong color.

    Almost like if the Yankees’ had commemorated the last season in Yankee Stadium this year by wearing Royal Blue instead of Navy, and going without pinstripes. It just wouldn’t have made any sense.[/quote]

    Well, isn’t like what the Phils are doing now? As for never wearing maroon, it may look maroon but it’s no darker than the M&N chance referenced earlier so without getting into a big debate whether or not it matches the exact shade of the 1945 jersey, this uni encompasses several elements of the past. Oddly, when they introduced them in a pre-season presser, the sleeves were different than those that made the field. More like the 69-78 jersey.[/quote]

    This jersey http://i1.sell.com/4... is every bit as dark as this http://sportsillustr... so assuming that M&N got it right, it really wouldn’t be like the Yanks wearing Royal.

  • MPowers1634 | September 12, 2008 at 6:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”289365″][quote comment=”289364″][quote comment=”289362″][quote comment=”289360″][quote comment=”289357″][quote comment=”289335″]

    My favorite ‘skins jersey by far.[/quote]

    One of my top 3 to 5 favorite NFL looks of all time. Man, i thought those unis were sweet. Love that color of burgandy, looked great with the gold.[/quote]

    Trouble is, that’s a “throwback” to a uni that never existed. No such logo even on sleeve stripes. Sleeve stripes should be pattern shown on socks. Pants striping wrong; the three stipes were of equal width. Wasn’t even a long-time look; wore the spear helmets with that “Packer” look for only one season. And it’s the wrong color. The Lombardi-era uni it supposedly recreates was most definitely burgundy, almost flirting with cardinal. This error-laden “throwback” was maroon, wayyyyyy too dark.

    Not saying it’s bad looking. But it IS fictional…as far as it being of any historical veracity. It was, quite simply, a one-year promotional jersey/uni.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Was never meant to be a throwback. It was a special edition for thier 70th Ann. season.[/quote]

    I know. And I never could figure out their thinking. If it’s commemorating something shouldn’t it have some historical aspect? It was like, “Hey, it’s our 70th anniversary; let’s make up a uniform we’ve never worn.” How is that commemorative? They use a color the team has never worn (maroon) to celebrate its past? How is that anything but fuzzy thinking?

    Again, not saying it’s bad looking. But it’s a lousy job of celebrating a team’s traditons. The only thing even close to historically accurate is the helmet. Socks are close, but the wrong color.

    Almost like if the Yankees’ had commemorated the last season in Yankee Stadium this year by wearing Royal Blue instead of Navy, and going without pinstripes. It just wouldn’t have made any sense.[/quote]

    Well, isn’t like what the Phils are doing now? As for never wearing maroon, it may look maroon but it’s no darker than the M&N chance referenced earlier so without getting into a big debate whether or not it matches the exact shade of the 1945 jersey, this uni encompasses several elements of the past. Oddly, when they introduced them in a pre-season presser, the sleeves were different than those that made the field. More like the 69-78 jersey.[/quote]

    I absolutely adored these:
    http://jloft.com/blo...

  • lwiedy | September 12, 2008 at 6:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”289367″][quote comment=”289365″][quote comment=”289364″][quote comment=”289362″][quote comment=”289360″][quote comment=”289357″][quote comment=”289335″]

    My favorite ‘skins jersey by far.[/quote]

    One of my top 3 to 5 favorite NFL looks of all time. Man, i thought those unis were sweet. Love that color of burgandy, looked great with the gold.[/quote]

    Trouble is, that’s a “throwback” to a uni that never existed. No such logo even on sleeve stripes. Sleeve stripes should be pattern shown on socks. Pants striping wrong; the three stipes were of equal width. Wasn’t even a long-time look; wore the spear helmets with that “Packer” look for only one season. And it’s the wrong color. The Lombardi-era uni it supposedly recreates was most definitely burgundy, almost flirting with cardinal. This error-laden “throwback” was maroon, wayyyyyy too dark.

    Not saying it’s bad looking. But it IS fictional…as far as it being of any historical veracity. It was, quite simply, a one-year promotional jersey/uni.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Was never meant to be a throwback. It was a special edition for thier 70th Ann. season.[/quote]

    I know. And I never could figure out their thinking. If it’s commemorating something shouldn’t it have some historical aspect? It was like, “Hey, it’s our 70th anniversary; let’s make up a uniform we’ve never worn.” How is that commemorative? They use a color the team has never worn (maroon) to celebrate its past? How is that anything but fuzzy thinking?

    Again, not saying it’s bad looking. But it’s a lousy job of celebrating a team’s traditons. The only thing even close to historically accurate is the helmet. Socks are close, but the wrong color.

    Almost like if the Yankees’ had commemorated the last season in Yankee Stadium this year by wearing Royal Blue instead of Navy, and going without pinstripes. It just wouldn’t have made any sense.[/quote]

    Well, isn’t like what the Phils are doing now? As for never wearing maroon, it may look maroon but it’s no darker than the M&N chance referenced earlier so without getting into a big debate whether or not it matches the exact shade of the 1945 jersey, this uni encompasses several elements of the past. Oddly, when they introduced them in a pre-season presser, the sleeves were different than those that made the field. More like the 69-78 jersey.[/quote]

    I absolutely adored these:
    http://jloft.com/blo...

    Not too much yellow, not enough burgundy?

    I would be with you as a “stand alone” design, but I need more burgundy.

  • LI Phil | September 12, 2008 at 6:39 pm |

    [quote comment=”289367″]I absolutely adored these:
    http://jloft.com/blo...

    yeah…but the g-men have been wearing that since like 2000

    …oh wait

  • LI Phil | September 12, 2008 at 6:58 pm |

    [quote]I need more burgundy.[/quote]

    don’t we all, larry…don’t we all

  • Ricko | September 12, 2008 at 7:35 pm |

    This jersey http://i1.sell.com/4… is every bit as dark as this http://sportsillustr… so assuming that M&N got it right, it really wouldn’t be like the Yanks wearing Royal.

    Yeah, I was exaggerating about the Royal Blue to make a point. But those Baugh-era jerseys, while darker than the ‘Skins burgundy of the past 50 years, still were not maroon. Because of the difference in fabric between then and now, they photograph far darker than they actually look in person. While I was working on that Redskins Report tabloid I saw one of those Baugh-era jerseys with the scalloped numbers. I was amazed at how much lighter it was than they had appeared in photos from back then. Remember thinking, “Damn, they HAVE stuck more to burgundy over the years than I thought.”

    (Also saw Vince Promuto’s actual jersey from the early to mid-60’s mounted and framed on the wall behind his office desk. That thing was almost magenta. Couldn’t believe how bright it was…yet how dark they too had somehow looked in the photos from when I was a kid).

    Those specific observations aside, my point is, if you’re going to approximate a uniform from your past—in this case 1970—at least get the colors right…of that specfic uniform.

    What they ended up with is a uniform that looked more like the Central Michigan Chippewa than the Washington Redskins.

    Pick something specific…first title, first…something, and replicate that uni. An anniversary is supposed to be about history, not just an excuse to create a new alternate uni.

    I had thought about the current Phillies and Indians “harkbacks” in this context, and the comparison didn’t quite hold up. They aren’t commemorating any specific anniversary or anything, just creating a vintage-inspired alternate. And that is great idea, in that non-specific kind of concept.

    Again, it’s a great-looking uni. I just think for an “anniversary” special it should have had more historic validity and, therefore, more signficance.

    —Ricko

  • Stuby | September 12, 2008 at 7:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”289351″][quote comment=”289349″]How ’bout these. Not very big, but something.

    http://cgi.ebay.com/...

    http://cgi.ebay.com/...

    http://cgi.ebay.com/...

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Terrific, the scramblin’ wreck from Georgia Tech, one of my favorites.[/quote]
    Hey, great nickname. Too bad Tarkenton went to Georgia.

  • Ricko | September 12, 2008 at 7:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”289372″][quote comment=”289351″][quote comment=”289349″]How ’bout these. Not very big, but something.

    http://cgi.ebay.com/...

    http://cgi.ebay.com/...

    http://cgi.ebay.com/...

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Terrific, the scramblin’ wreck from Georgia Tech, one of my favorites.[/quote]
    Hey, great nickname. Too bad Tarkenton went to Georgia.[/quote]

    Know one thing I remember about those purple pants? The difference in fabric from front to back. The front was all satin and shiny, and the back was flat, opaque stretch fabric. They almost looked two-tone. A lot of team’s pants were like that, but it was really apparent on the Vikings because of the color.

    —Ricko

  • Flip | September 12, 2008 at 8:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”289372″][quote comment=”289351″][quote comment=”289349″]How ’bout these. Not very big, but something.

    http://cgi.ebay.com/...

    http://cgi.ebay.com/...

    http://cgi.ebay.com/...

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Terrific, the scramblin’ wreck from Georgia Tech, one of my favorites.[/quote]
    Hey, great nickname. Too bad Tarkenton went to Georgia.[/quote]

    My bad. I’ll slink away.

  • Stuby | September 12, 2008 at 8:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”289374″][quote comment=”289372″][quote comment=”289351″][quote comment=”289349″]How ’bout these. Not very big, but something.

    http://cgi.ebay.com/...

    http://cgi.ebay.com/...

    http://cgi.ebay.com/...

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Terrific, the scramblin’ wreck from Georgia Tech, one of my favorites.[/quote]
    Hey, great nickname. Too bad Tarkenton went to Georgia.[/quote]

    My bad. I’ll slink away.[/quote]
    No need, Flip.

    BTW, those KU uniforms are really growing on me. They really look good with the black cleats and short white socks. I’m hoping they don’t bust out those hideous red jerseys from last year.

  • lwiedy | September 12, 2008 at 8:49 pm |

    Hanley Ramirez is STILL wearing his All-Star sticker on his helmet.

  • mike 2 | September 12, 2008 at 9:03 pm |

    Argos and Blue Bombers are wearing retro 1950’s gear tonight – I’ll post some pictures when they show up on the internet.

    They mentioned it was 1950s retro week in the CFL so I don’t know if any of the other games this weekend will also feature retro gear. Alouettes at Stampeders tonight in pouring rain.

  • Giancarlo | September 12, 2008 at 9:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”289373″]
    Know one thing I remember about those purple pants? The difference in fabric from front to back. The front was all satin and shiny, and the back was flat, opaque stretch fabric. They almost looked two-tone. A lot of team’s pants were like that, but it was really apparent on the Vikings because of the color.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I’ve noticed that about ’60s-era unis. Do you know what the purpose of that was? My recollection is the LA Rams wore two-fabric pants into the ’80s. Was that for the same reason?

  • Ricko | September 12, 2008 at 9:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”289378″][quote comment=”289373″]
    Know one thing I remember about those purple pants? The difference in fabric from front to back. The front was all satin and shiny, and the back was flat, opaque stretch fabric. They almost looked two-tone. A lot of team’s pants were like that, but it was really apparent on the Vikings because of the color.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I’ve noticed that about ’60s-era unis. Do you know what the purpose of that was? My recollection is the LA Rams wore two-fabric pants into the ’80s. Was that for the same reason?[/quote]

    I think it was because they wanted the satin finish, but that fabric didn’t stetch. That meant the back half of the pants absolutely HAD to stretch or they’d be useless.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | September 12, 2008 at 9:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”289379″][quote comment=”289378″][quote comment=”289373″]
    Know one thing I remember about those purple pants? The difference in fabric from front to back. The front was all satin and shiny, and the back was flat, opaque stretch fabric. They almost looked two-tone. A lot of team’s pants were like that, but it was really apparent on the Vikings because of the color.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I’ve noticed that about ’60s-era unis. Do you know what the purpose of that was? My recollection is the LA Rams wore two-fabric pants into the ’80s. Was that for the same reason?[/quote]

    I think it was because they wanted the satin finish, but that fabric didn’t stetch. That meant the back half of the pants absolutely HAD to stretch or they’d be useless.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    That’s also from my recollections of wearing pants like that: satin front, stretchy back.

    (For football, LI Phil, not for disco. Or American Bandstand, either.)

  • lwiedy | September 12, 2008 at 9:46 pm |

    [quote comment=”289378″][quote comment=”289373″]
    Know one thing I remember about those purple pants? The difference in fabric from front to back. The front was all satin and shiny, and the back was flat, opaque stretch fabric. They almost looked two-tone. A lot of team’s pants were like that, but it was really apparent on the Vikings because of the color.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I’ve noticed that about ’60s-era unis. Do you know what the purpose of that was? My recollection is the LA Rams wore two-fabric pants into the ’80s. Was that for the same reason?[/quote]

    Please allow me to use your shiny pants observations for a segue to a little more ‘Skins stuff:

    In 1982, there was a breakout of shiny pants that at best didn’t make it 1983. http://i256.photobuc... They really showed up during games after dark.

    Also, it’s often been mentioned about Lombardi importing the GB uniform scheme in 1969. Vince didn’t get his unis right away. http://i256.photobuc... The road jerseys were not ready for opening day in New Orleans. http://i256.photobuc...

    Here is the 2002 Skins “special edition” unis that never made the field. http://i256.photobuc...

  • lwiedy | September 12, 2008 at 9:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”289380″][quote comment=”289379″][quote comment=”289378″][quote comment=”289373″]
    Know one thing I remember about those purple pants? The difference in fabric from front to back. The front was all satin and shiny, and the back was flat, opaque stretch fabric. They almost looked two-tone. A lot of team’s pants were like that, but it was really apparent on the Vikings because of the color.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I’ve noticed that about ’60s-era unis. Do you know what the purpose of that was? My recollection is the LA Rams wore two-fabric pants into the ’80s. Was that for the same reason?[/quote]

    I think it was because they wanted the satin finish, but that fabric didn’t stetch. That meant the back half of the pants absolutely HAD to stretch or they’d be useless.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    That’s also from my recollections of wearing pants like that: satin front, stretchy back.

    (For football, LI Phil, not for disco. Or American Bandstand, either.)[/quote]

    Phil’s deal was Soooooooul Train!

  • LarenR | September 12, 2008 at 10:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”289381″][quote comment=”289378″][quote comment=”289373″]
    Know one thing I remember about those purple pants? The difference in fabric from front to back. The front was all satin and shiny, and the back was flat, opaque stretch fabric. They almost looked two-tone. A lot of team’s pants were like that, but it was really apparent on the Vikings because of the color.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I’ve noticed that about ’60s-era unis. Do you know what the purpose of that was? My recollection is the LA Rams wore two-fabric pants into the ’80s. Was that for the same reason?[/quote]

    Please allow me to use your shiny pants observations for a segue to a little more ‘Skins stuff:

    In 1982, there was a breakout of shiny pants that at best didn’t make it 1983. http://i256.photobuc...

    They really showed up during games after dark.

    Also, it’s often been mentioned about Lombardi importing the GB uniform scheme in 1969. Vince didn’t get his unis right away. http://i256.photobuc...

    The road jerseys were not ready for opening day in New Orleans. http://i256.photobuc...

    Here is the 2002 Skins “special edition” unis that never made the field. http://i256.photobuc...
    No matter how great one may think those unis look, there’s one inescapable problem: in order to see them, you have to watch a Redskins game! ;-)

    When I lived in DC, the local media was so ‘Skins obsessed that my wife and I couldn’t wait until their season ended, just so George Michael would shut up. Of course, in my case, growing up as a ‘Niners fan in the 80’s, I had no love for the ‘Skins to begin with.

    /rant

    On the plus side, historical or not, I loved the look of those faux-backs.

  • Scott | September 12, 2008 at 10:46 pm |

    There is no dark blue in the official UNC-CH color schmeme. It’s a shame the football program thinks it’s okay.

    Also, more SCATHING reviews of the OKC clipart logo … from people who actually know what they’re talking about (Designers).

    http://www.undercons...

  • chance | September 12, 2008 at 10:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”289383″]
    On the plus side, historical or not, I loved the look of those faux-backs.[/quote]

    As did I.

    I’d go so far as to say that they’re the best uniforms Washington ever wore. And I’m usually a stickler for historical accuracy.

  • Flip | September 12, 2008 at 11:20 pm |

    Did USF add little horns to the collar of its football uniforms?

  • Eric B in KC | September 13, 2008 at 12:31 am |

    [quote comment=”289328″]I’m not against change, however. If they had to change, here’s close to what I like to see them do:
    http://i256.photobuc...
    More “hip” color shades, although as a uniform it most closely resembles the Otto Graham era, which was by no means successful.[/quote]

    as much love as the chiefs’ unis get around here, i’d still rather see them wear something more like that. those redskins unis were my favorites in the anniversary season. i thought those were pretty much perfect.

  • Mike | September 13, 2008 at 12:45 am |

    Since I know how much you all love pink. I’ll take lots of pics of the a’s game tomorrow.
    A’s are really getting in to it this year. They changed their whole website to pink.
    http://oakland.athle...

  • JP | September 13, 2008 at 3:07 am |

    Throwbacks from tonight’s CFL game between Winnipeg and Toronto. Not sure what era the Bombers’ jerseys are, but going by Helmet Project, it looks like the Argos had 1964 unis going. Not a good selection of pictures, but one in this recap:
    http://www.canada.co...