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

Dressed for Success Mindless Corporate Conformity

2532197613_dac24eff14_b.jpg

Got a note the other day from reader Casey Lute, as follows:

I was leaving the Oregon State men’s basketball game this evening when I walked by their sports workout facility, only to see this sign that I snapped a photo of. In case you can’t make out the words, it says, “Official Apparel Must Be Worn at All Times,” followed by Nike, Diadora, and Asics logos. I’m sure this is probably commonplace among sports teams and colleges, but I’d never seen such a sign before and thought I’d pass it along.

That was particularly interesting in light of a note I’d recently received from another reader, who wishes to remain nameless:

I worked for Adidas over the summer, teaching at a sponsored sports camp, and one of my co-workers was a Notre Dame athlete. Most large universities have exclusive workout facilities for their varsity athletes that are not accessible to the general public or the general student population, and Notre Dame is no exception. He and another of my colleagues, who was an athlete at Minnesota, were having a discussion about the dress codes in theese private athlete weight rooms.

Apparently at Minnesota, each article of clothing being worn in the varsity weight room must bear either an approved school logo OR a Nike swoosh. This includes shirts, shorts, shoes and socks, plus any wristbands, headbands, etc. A fairly ridiculous policy for a facility that’s off-limits to the public. Now apparently, at Notre Dame, each article of clothing must display both a Notre Dame logo AND an Adidas logo, with the exception of shoes and socks, which do not require an ND logo. My co-worker was telling me that he has actually been asked to leave the varsity lockerroom and change because he was wearing a Notre Dame shirt (in the Notre Dame varsity weight room, as a Notre Dame athlete) that did not have an Adidas logo on it.

Again, this commitment to branding came in an environment that was completely closed off to the public, and where Adidas therefore derives almost literally zero advertising benefit, since anyone allowed in would already be a Notre Dame employee or a Notre Dame athlete (and thus would already be the beneficiary of hundreds and hundreds of dollars’ worth of free Adidas gear).

I could go on a long rant here about precisely what degree of corporate bullshit this all represents, but let’s just cut to the chase, shall we?

Oh, and it’s good to see that Notre Dame’s devotion to Adidas even extends to mascot hosiery. Whoo-hoo, great branding job, big Christmas bonuses for everyone, wheeeee!

Uni Watch News Ticker: Interesting Wikipedia note on the Bills’ uniforms: “[I]n 2002, the Bills’ white uniforms went through a radical change. The white uniforms include a red stripe on the sides and are dark blue along the shoulders of the uniforms, likely to mimic CFL uniforms designed in a similar manner due to the team’s large fan base in Canada as a result of Buffalo’s proximity to Canada.” As Austin Gillis notes, unattributed Wikipedia quotes are suspect by definition, but the CFL connection at least sounds plausible, no? … Japan’s uniforms in the World Baseball Classic will look like this (with thanks to, of course, Jeremy Brahm). … Now that’s a basketball uniform. Mike Burke found that photo while skimming through the L.A. Library photo archive. … According to a small item buried in the dot-dot-dot section of this article, LeBron James “was called for delay of game [on Saturday] because he was wearing three undershirts that he had to take off when checking into the game” (thanks, Vince). … Is Nike making slingshot attire now? Nope — that’s a protester from the recent riots in Greece. Full gallery here (with thanks to Harold Mellor). … Here’s something you don’t often see: a Cincinnati Swords sighting (with thanks to Adam Pratt). … The football team at Escondido High School in California wears black helmets — except for a designated “team leader,” who gets to wear an orange helmet. Details here (with thanks to Mike Hersh). … Pretty damn thorough video treatment of Orioles jersey history here, with the team’s cap history covered here (big thanks to Jack Krabbe). … Good spot by Doug Keklak, who notes that Petr Sykora apparently wears his wedding ring under his glove. Is this common among hockey players? … Tons of great vintage print ads on display here (with thanks to Carrie Klein). … Reprinted from yesterday’s comments: The “A” designation on the Flyers’ third jersey has changed typefaces. … Someone needs a sports bra. … Reprinted from last night’s comments: Instead of color-on-color, how about gray vs. white? That’s O’Connell and Bishop Ireton in DC high school basketball action.

 

207 comments to Dressed for Success Mindless Corporate Conformity

  • Jim MI | December 16, 2008 at 7:35 am |

    Uhhhh…. they must feel like crap then…

    http://pzrservices.t...

  • Belgium Endive | December 16, 2008 at 7:37 am |

    The Buffalo Bills/CFL link is interesting. I always thought the white uniform is a rip-off (probably unintential) of the Montreal Alouettes white uniform. A few differences here and there, but very similar overall.

    In my opinion – most CFL uniforms today – have a bad case of “the clutters” – and a simplification is overdue.

    i.e. If the NFL was to ever copy a CFL uniform – the current batch is pretty poor. CFL uniforms in general have not been that inspiring. In hindsight I did like the Ottawa Rough Riders (1970’s) vintage. They had this great big capital R as their helmut logo, which seemed very simple, but it just looked tough and strong – as a football logo should.

    Montreal in the 1960’s was interesting – a red version of the Philadelphia Eagles of that era.

  • Jim MI | December 16, 2008 at 7:39 am |

    As for wedding bands for hockey players, my exposure to this in my leagues (FAR from NHL levels) is that guys take them off for fear of the sweat making them slip off and then losing them.

    As for NHL players, I imagine fighters take them off because it’d be like having a mini set of brass knuckles on. Seeing Petr Sykora is not a rough player and rarely ever (I’ve never seen him) takes his gloves off in play, I can see why he’d leave it on. Thing is, you would only know if someone is wearing a ring when they take their gloves off in play, and the only ones who do this would be fighters and they would take the ring off in respect for the face they are about the bash in :)

  • BigMatt | December 16, 2008 at 7:41 am |

    Down with Adidas!

  • Jim MI | December 16, 2008 at 7:46 am |

    At my college they didn’t have restrictions on sponsered gear in the weight room, but they did have a restriction where you couldn’t wear other colleges gear. They said it was unfair to the athletes training to workout while seeing students wearing their competitor’s name / logo.

  • Ed Hughes | December 16, 2008 at 8:07 am |

    On the topic of wedding rings and hockey, as a goalie I used to switch my wedding ring to my right (stick) hand so that a slapshot wouldn’t get smashed permanently onto my left (catching) hand during a game! Now I just leave it at home when I go to the rink.

    I’m surprised that any NHL player gets away with wearing anything on his hands under his gloves–other than goalies, who sometimes wear golf gloves on their catching hands. Reminds me of the Hansons “puttin’ on the foil” before a game in “Slapshot.”

  • Ed Hughes | December 16, 2008 at 8:09 am |

    Correction: “so that a slapshot wouldn’t smash it permanently onto my left hand.”

  • Ricko | December 16, 2008 at 8:09 am |

    [quote comment=”305775″]The Buffalo Bills/CFL link is interesting. I always thought the white uniform is a rip-off (probably unintential) of the Montreal Alouettes white uniform. A few differences here and there, but very similar overall.

    In my opinion – most CFL uniforms today – have a bad case of “the clutters” – and a simplification is overdue.

    i.e. If the NFL was to ever copy a CFL uniform – the current batch is pretty poor. CFL uniforms in general have not been that inspiring. In hindsight I did like the Ottawa Rough Riders (1970’s) vintage. They had this great big capital R as their helmut logo, which seemed very simple, but it just looked tough and strong – as a football logo should.

    Montreal in the 1960’s was interesting – a red version of the Philadelphia Eagles of that era.[/quote]

    Always liked those Hamilton Tiger-Cats striped sleeves of 60s-80s, and the royal-gold Blue Bombers of that era, too (Dieter Brock n’them).

    Hard to believe the Bills marketing staff said, “Let’s look like the CFL.” That’s a pretty huge piece of guesswork on the part of Wikipedia “expert”, I think, attempting to find some reason for the “why” of a team’s god-awful uniforms. The CFL is no threat to the NFL; no reason to emulate it or engineer anything down to its level. Much more likely, the NFL is quite rightly thinking that its players and product are enough to make it popular in Canada.

    The uniforms are almost certainly simply the result of someone with zip taste. Nothing more than that.

    Such things happen. Just look at most of Cincinnati’s combinations or Houston’s battle red popsicles for indisputable visual evidence.

    —Ricko

  • Podunk Texas | December 16, 2008 at 8:10 am |

    … Someone needs a sports bra.

    I think he needs a sports BRO… or is it a mansierre? i forget

  • josh's twin | December 16, 2008 at 8:17 am |

    I am noticing more instances of white jerseys being worn at home in NHL games. Is the plan to just ooze back to white at home? Forgive me if this has been discussed already, I’ve been away for a while.

  • Belgium Endive | December 16, 2008 at 8:19 am |

    Was Peter King serious when he wrote in yesterday’s column that the Texans should adopt those red uniforms sll the time. If so, Peter’s taste is well awful. I don’t mind the red uniform with white pants, but the all red is horrible.

  • Hott Rodd | December 16, 2008 at 8:41 am |

    [quote comment=”305784″]Was Peter King serious when he wrote in yesterday’s column that the Texans should adopt those red uniforms sll the time. If so, Peter’s taste is well awful. I don’t mind the red uniform with white pants, but the all red is horrible.[/quote]

    I’m just hoping someone wrote to tell him that they are not “new” uniforms.. Battle Red began last season.

  • andre | December 16, 2008 at 8:42 am |

    The thing that got my about the Petr Sykora photo wasn’t the ring but his nails. They are quite long, no? (Although they do look quite nice. Do hockey players get manicures?)

  • floormaster squeeze | December 16, 2008 at 8:51 am |

    The whole gear thing has gotten out of control. When I competed in running I was always proud of beating people with more expensive gear (and it was a relatively minor differential in running compared to other sports). Take cycling for example, I think the reason so many douchebags love Lance (besides the fact that he would corporate shill for kitten torture) is that he epitomizes the technolust that a large segment of the cycling population aspire to (where no large amount of money is ridiculous to change your position less than a millimeter). Anyway, I had a friend who was a bike mechanic and a great athlete. It was very entertaining to see him (“Breaking Away” style) roll past some decked out cyclist in $5-$6 in gear on a 20 year Schwinn while where tennis shoes.

    Your not gonna bench more or run the trend mill any faster with a logo on.

  • JTH | December 16, 2008 at 8:51 am |

    [quote comment=”305786″]The thing that got my about the Petr Sykora photo wasn’t the ring but his nails. They are quite long, no? (Although they do look quite nice. Do hockey players get manicures?)[/quote]
    The one on his pinkie looks especially long. Coke nail?

  • Denis | December 16, 2008 at 9:02 am |

    Most hockey players take off their wedding rings because if they do get into a fight and they throw a punch with that hand, they can receive a gross miscounduct penalty. You cannot have anything on your hands, tape on your wrist is the only acceptable hand garb allowed.
    If Sykora would get into a fight, he would have to drop his gloves, take off his ring, and then begin the ultimate act of male bonding.

  • JF in DC | December 16, 2008 at 9:05 am |

    Anyone see “How I Met Your Mother” last night…a regular uniwatch orgy…the Jim Marshall Vikes jersey was classic…

  • Tom | December 16, 2008 at 9:07 am |

    “That was particularly interesting in light of a note I’d recently received from another reader, who wishes to remain nameless:”

    Does the person really want to remain nameless, or does he simply not want his name published here?

  • Joe Hilseberg | December 16, 2008 at 9:12 am |

    “Again, this commitment to branding came in an environment that was completely closed off to the public, and where Adidas therefore derives almost literally zero advertising benefit”

    Working in a marketing and communications dept. myself I have to disagree with this. The advertising benefit that they are getting is that they are creating brand loyalty at the base level. They are hoping that it becomes second nature to these guys to want to throw on Adidas gear when they are about to do something athletic. A couple of years later when these guys are either playing/coaching or running camps they will be more inclined to stay with Adidas.

    It happens in corporate America all of the time. Almost all medical companies supply product to colleges for their teachers to use…why…to create brand loyalty with the students. It’s the same thing.

    It may seem a bit much to post the signs around the gym, but the concept Adidas is using is nothing out of the ordinary.

  • jasongomez | December 16, 2008 at 9:14 am |

    Ok…this is in regards to worst uni matchup…I will give you a couple.
    – Buffalo Bills vs. Cincinnati Bengals
    – Vikings vs. Seahawks
    – Falcons vs. Cardinals

    Best uni matchup… CHIEFS vs RAIDERS

  • Ricko | December 16, 2008 at 9:14 am |

    [quote comment=”305790″]Anyone see “How I Met Your Mother” last night…a regular uniwatch orgy…the Jim Marshall Vikes jersey was classic…[/quote]

    Yup. Good ol’ Rashad Tarkenton.

  • jasongomez | December 16, 2008 at 9:17 am |

    I know I will be ridiculed so I will add more.

    Giants vs Redskins

    Redskins vs Cowboys

    Steelers vs Colts

    Jets vs Giants

    Jets vs Dolphins

    I dont like NE unis, or Broncos (well as a Chiefs fan I just flat out hate the Broncos)

  • =bg= | December 16, 2008 at 9:21 am |

    All I know is, I wish I had that Swords jersey. The 72-73 Swords didn’t just beat every opponent..they FLATTENED them.

  • Dane | December 16, 2008 at 9:31 am |

    Can the Steelers win another championship with the help of borderline calls going our way?

    https://www.compress...

  • Ricko | December 16, 2008 at 9:32 am |

    [quote comment=”305792″]”Again, this commitment to branding came in an environment that was completely closed off to the public, and where Adidas therefore derives almost literally zero advertising benefit”

    Working in a marketing and communications dept. myself I have to disagree with this. The advertising benefit that they are getting is that they are creating brand loyalty at the base level. They are hoping that it becomes second nature to these guys to want to throw on Adidas gear when they are about to do something athletic. A couple of years later when these guys are either playing/coaching or running camps they will be more inclined to stay with Adidas.

    It happens in corporate America all of the time. Almost all medical companies supply product to colleges for their teachers to use…why…to create brand loyalty with the students. It’s the same thing.

    It may seem a bit much to post the signs around the gym, but the concept Adidas is using is nothing out of the ordinary.[/quote]

    Other aspects of unis in the coporate world (beyond branding and a sense of community) include some practial elelments:

    1. Many employees, unfortunately many of the younger ones, are clueless about how to dress for the workplace (“Why I gotta tuck in my shirt?”). Unis eliminate superiors appearing to pick on certain individuals, creating the desired atmosphere without carping or nitpicking. Not to mention that work ceases to be a “dressing contest”.

    2. It’s like giving employees a raise. No more spending for “work wardrobe”. They need their basics and they’re set. Park Nicollet Medical Centers here went to (sorry, Paul) purple golf shirts, jackets and sweaters with khaki slacks as standard attire several years ago. Whenever I’m there, I always ask the employees I’m dealing with how they like it. I have yet to get a negative response. They love it. Makes getting ready for work easier and saves them money.

    I know a printing firm with a couple hundred employees who moved to the same thing last suumer, supplying everyone a couple burgundy shirts and a $20 Target Gift Card (toward khaki slacks) for starters. They now have a small “line” of corporate apparel employees can buy at cost (including windbreakers and mongrammed blue denin shirts). You can’t believe how much more “cleaned up” the atmosphere around the place is. Looks, and is, far more professional than before. Owner says morale is WAY up, too, despite the sagging economy.

    —Ricko

  • BDiamond | December 16, 2008 at 9:32 am |

    I don’t really have an issue with them stipulating what you can and cannot wear in the varsity athletic facilities. To me it’s the same idea as working in a corporate office and them telling you what the dress code is, whether it be business attire, or making you wear a company uniform.

  • Jim MI | December 16, 2008 at 9:33 am |

    [quote comment=”305796″]All I know is, I wish I had that Swords jersey. The 72-73 Swords didn’t just beat every opponent..they FLATTENED them.[/quote]

    HEY! 72-73 Swords had the privilage of being Gary Bromley’s minor league team! Launched the career of the goaltender with the best goalie mask in history (in my opinion)!

    http://www.zonalibre...

  • MG12 | December 16, 2008 at 9:35 am |

    It looks as though the team playing against Escondido High has ripped off the Houston Texans logo for use on their helmets.

    http://farm4.static....

  • War Damn Eagle | December 16, 2008 at 9:38 am |

    Welcome back Fookie! It will be nice to see this again in 2009.

    http://i.cdn.turner....

  • Johnny F. | December 16, 2008 at 9:41 am |

    I used to work for Nike (Shipping and receiving) while I was in school. Toolbags all over that company. My regional boss (since laid off), had a HUGE Nike swoosh tattoo on his ankle/leg. Douchebag!

    Anyway, I left, when I decided I didn’t want to sell my soul to the devil anymore (and when my “free sneaker” quote was spent on the newest Jordans).

    Here’s how I feel about it:

    http://www.proof7.co...

  • John | December 16, 2008 at 9:41 am |

    Gray VS. White unusual? Doesn’t Georgetown do that virtually every game?

  • Mike V. | December 16, 2008 at 9:41 am |

    [quote comment=”305792″]”Again, this commitment to branding came in an environment that was completely closed off to the public, and where Adidas therefore derives almost literally zero advertising benefit”

    Working in a marketing and communications dept. myself I have to disagree with this. The advertising benefit that they are getting is that they are creating brand loyalty at the base level. They are hoping that it becomes second nature to these guys to want to throw on Adidas gear when they are about to do something athletic. A couple of years later when these guys are either playing/coaching or running camps they will be more inclined to stay with Adidas.

    It happens in corporate America all of the time. Almost all medical companies supply product to colleges for their teachers to use…why…to create brand loyalty with the students. It’s the same thing.

    It may seem a bit much to post the signs around the gym, but the concept Adidas is using is nothing out of the ordinary.[/quote]

    I work in marketing as well and i have to agree with the above statement. It is exactly consistent with everything i learned both in school and on the job, and it is part of what a marketing professional’s job is. Still, i have to admit there is a sense of “this is taking it too far” and it does seem a little over the top.

    Maybe I feel this way because the industry i am in we don’t/can’t really need to go to this extent of marketing/branding (we are in a more of a niche market that serves institutions, not individuals or the general public). I also think my uni-purist also has an affect on this as well.

    My question is who was the guy at Notre Dame that made the athlete change? Was it a team official or a rep from Adidas? Either way, that is pretty intense and over bearing. On the other hand, if i was employed by Adidas as a marketer and getting paid good money, i would stand in that locker room with a cattle prod zapping anyone not following regulation dress.

  • Johnny F. | December 16, 2008 at 9:43 am |

    Typo alert! I meant “free sneaker *quota*”.

  • Mike Engle | December 16, 2008 at 9:43 am |

    [quote comment=”305781″][quote comment=”305775″]The Buffalo Bills/CFL link is interesting. I always thought the white uniform is a rip-off (probably unintential) of the Montreal Alouettes white uniform. A few differences here and there, but very similar overall.

    In my opinion – most CFL uniforms today – have a bad case of “the clutters” – and a simplification is overdue.

    i.e. If the NFL was to ever copy a CFL uniform – the current batch is pretty poor. CFL uniforms in general have not been that inspiring. In hindsight I did like the Ottawa Rough Riders (1970’s) vintage. They had this great big capital R as their helmut logo, which seemed very simple, but it just looked tough and strong – as a football logo should.

    Montreal in the 1960’s was interesting – a red version of the Philadelphia Eagles of that era.[/quote]

    Always liked those Hamilton Tiger-Cats striped sleeves of 60s-80s, and the royal-gold Blue Bombers of that era, too (Dieter Brock n’them).

    Hard to believe the Bills marketing staff said, “Let’s look like the CFL.” That’s a pretty huge piece of guesswork on the part of Wikipedia “expert”, I think, attempting to find some reason for the “why” of a team’s god-awful uniforms. The CFL is no threat to the NFL; no reason to emulate it or engineer anything down to its level. Much more likely, the NFL is quite rightly thinking that its players and product are enough to make it popular in Canada.

    The uniforms are almost certainly simply the result of someone with zip taste. Nothing more than that.

    Such things happen. Just look at most of Cincinnati’s combinations or Houston’s battle red popsicles for indisputable visual evidence.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    I’ll believe it. Especially because at the same time of the Buffalo Bills’ switch, the Seattle Seahawks (remember, Seattle is close to Vancouver) adopted their all blues. Their white jerseys also look like a CFL team, the way they have dark blue sleeves (not just undersleeves) on them.

  • jasongomez | December 16, 2008 at 9:49 am |

    Fuck Adidas…they suck, rip off Nike designs ie, the bounce is derived from the shox technology.

    [quote comment=”305805″][quote comment=”305792″]”Again, this commitment to branding came in an environment that was completely closed off to the public, and where Adidas therefore derives almost literally zero advertising benefit”

    Working in a marketing and communications dept. myself I have to disagree with this. The advertising benefit that they are getting is that they are creating brand loyalty at the base level. They are hoping that it becomes second nature to these guys to want to throw on Adidas gear when they are about to do something athletic. A couple of years later when these guys are either playing/coaching or running camps they will be more inclined to stay with Adidas.

    It happens in corporate America all of the time. Almost all medical companies supply product to colleges for their teachers to use…why…to create brand loyalty with the students. It’s the same thing.

    It may seem a bit much to post the signs around the gym, but the concept Adidas is using is nothing out of the ordinary.[/quote]

    I work in marketing as well and i have to agree with the above statement. It is exactly consistent with everything i learned both in school and on the job, and it is part of what a marketing professional’s job is. Still, i have to admit there is a sense of “this is taking it too far” and it does seem a little over the top.

    Maybe I feel this way because the industry i am in we don’t/can’t really need to go to this extent of marketing/branding (we are in a more of a niche market that serves institutions, not individuals or the general public). I also think my uni-purist also has an affect on this as well.

    My question is who was the guy at Notre Dame that made the athlete change? Was it a team official or a rep from Adidas? Either way, that is pretty intense and over bearing. On the other hand, if i was employed by Adidas as a marketer and getting paid good money, i would stand in that locker room with a cattle prod zapping anyone not following regulation dress.[/quote]
    [quote comment=”305803″]I used to work for Nike (Shipping and receiving) while I was in school. Toolbags all over that company. My regional boss (since laid off), had a HUGE Nike swoosh tattoo on his ankle/leg. Douchebag!

    Anyway, I left, when I decided I didn’t want to sell my soul to the devil anymore (and when my “free sneaker” quote was spent on the newest Jordans).

    Here’s how I feel about it:

    http://www.proof7.co...

  • Juan Grande | December 16, 2008 at 9:50 am |

    [quote comment=”305778″]At my college they didn’t have restrictions on sponsered gear in the weight room, but they did have a restriction where you couldn’t wear other colleges gear. They said it was unfair to the athletes training to workout while seeing students wearing their competitor’s name / logo.[/quote]

    I played for a NAIA school. They could pretty much care less what we wore into the gym. We were asked to wear the school colors (burgandy and gold) or gear but nobody ever enforced it unless we lost. If we lost, Coach made us wear all school logoed gear until we won.

  • ScottyJ in WV | December 16, 2008 at 9:53 am |

    Today’s marketing is proof positive of how a good idea or product can be taken way past the point of where it should have ever gone.

    As far as I’m concerned, that’s typical of our entire society of the past 10-15 years or so…..taking something and runnin’ it into the ground until you can’t stomach it ever again.

  • Paul Lukas | December 16, 2008 at 9:53 am |

    [quote comment=”305805″][quote comment=”305792″]”Again, this commitment to branding came in an environment that was completely closed off to the public, and where Adidas therefore derives almost literally zero advertising benefit”

    Working in a marketing and communications dept. myself I have to disagree with this. The advertising benefit that they are getting is that they are creating brand loyalty at the base level. They are hoping that it becomes second nature to these guys to want to throw on Adidas gear when they are about to do something athletic. A couple of years later when these guys are either playing/coaching or running camps they will be more inclined to stay with Adidas.

    It happens in corporate America all of the time. Almost all medical companies supply product to colleges for their teachers to use…why…to create brand loyalty with the students. It’s the same thing.

    It may seem a bit much to post the signs around the gym, but the concept Adidas is using is nothing out of the ordinary.[/quote]

    I work in marketing as well and i have to agree with the above statement. It is exactly consistent with everything i learned both in school and on the job, and it is part of what a marketing professional’s job is.[/quote]

    The question is not whether you were taught this in school or whether it constitutes standard marketing procedure. Lots of standard-procedure things are wrong and inappropriate. This is one of them.

  • Beno | December 16, 2008 at 9:59 am |

    I’d bet the real reason that the athletes are expected to wear the branded gear in those exclusive workout rooms is that it’s probably in the contract between the school and the company. Since the company is sponsoring the school and giving them money and gear, they want those athletes wearing their brand. And I’m sure if someone from one of those sponsoring companies visited and saw that the athlete wasn’t wearing their brand, the school would lose the contract. At my school, we are sponsored by pepsi, so of course it can’t sell any coke products. In return they just gave us some new scoreboards for our sports teams a couple years back. If the school were to end the scholarship, the scoreboards would be taken back. Ironically, the scoreboards are pretty much coca-cola red (our school colors are red and white).

  • Kek | December 16, 2008 at 10:02 am |

    [quote comment=”305797″]Can the Steelers win another championship with the help of borderline calls going our way?

    https://www.compress...
    Great shirt, and a better story behind it:

    http://www.postgazet...

    “She came up with the idea for the shirt about three weeks ago as a personal fundraiser, of sorts. She needed money to try to resurrect her Dog & Pony Show Theater Company and for the Goodman Furnace Pressure Valve Memorial Fund. (Yes, she needed a new $650 valve for her furnace.)”

  • Kek | December 16, 2008 at 10:05 am |

    [quote comment=”305784″]Was Peter King serious when he wrote in yesterday’s column that the Texans should adopt those red uniforms sll the time. If so, Peter’s taste is well awful. I don’t mind the red uniform with white pants, but the all red is horrible.[/quote]
    The thing is, that’s the least of the issues in that MMQB column yesterday. King is an absolute hack. He must get paid by the amount of characters he types.

    That PK has an opinion on the all-red, I don’t mind (truth be told, I don’t mind the look that much).

    However, I gives a shit about the line at Starbucks or what shampoo the hotels he stays in stock.

    I can’t figure what’s that “column” is supposed to be. It’s like a hodgepodge of a print column, a blog and twitter posts.

  • Mike V. | December 16, 2008 at 10:05 am |

    [quote comment=”305812″][quote comment=”305805″][quote comment=”305792″]”Again, this commitment to branding came in an environment that was completely closed off to the public, and where Adidas therefore derives almost literally zero advertising benefit”

    Working in a marketing and communications dept. myself I have to disagree with this. The advertising benefit that they are getting is that they are creating brand loyalty at the base level. They are hoping that it becomes second nature to these guys to want to throw on Adidas gear when they are about to do something athletic. A couple of years later when these guys are either playing/coaching or running camps they will be more inclined to stay with Adidas.

    It happens in corporate America all of the time. Almost all medical companies supply product to colleges for their teachers to use…why…to create brand loyalty with the students. It’s the same thing.

    It may seem a bit much to post the signs around the gym, but the concept Adidas is using is nothing out of the ordinary.[/quote]

    I work in marketing as well and i have to agree with the above statement. It is exactly consistent with everything i learned both in school and on the job, and it is part of what a marketing professional’s job is.[/quote]

    The question is not whether you were taught this in school or whether it constitutes standard marketing procedure. Lots of standard-procedure things are wrong and inappropriate. This is one of them.[/quote]

    I agree 100 percent. I think another question is who is at fault. Is it the company that is leaning on the school to do it or is it the school’s fault for letting it happen and just looking at the dollars coming in. I would like to get an athletes perspective on it, seeing if they would mind or if they really don’t and just like all the free gear and facilities (I assume it is company dollars that built that weight room).

  • Leo | December 16, 2008 at 10:06 am |

    [quote comment=”305812″][quote comment=”305805″][quote comment=”305792″]”Again, this commitment to branding came in an environment that was completely closed off to the public, and where Adidas therefore derives almost literally zero advertising benefit”

    Working in a marketing and communications dept. myself I have to disagree with this. The advertising benefit that they are getting is that they are creating brand loyalty at the base level. They are hoping that it becomes second nature to these guys to want to throw on Adidas gear when they are about to do something athletic. A couple of years later when these guys are either playing/coaching or running camps they will be more inclined to stay with Adidas.

    It happens in corporate America all of the time. Almost all medical companies supply product to colleges for their teachers to use…why…to create brand loyalty with the students. It’s the same thing.

    It may seem a bit much to post the signs around the gym, but the concept Adidas is using is nothing out of the ordinary.[/quote]

    I work in marketing as well and i have to agree with the above statement. It is exactly consistent with everything i learned both in school and on the job, and it is part of what a marketing professional’s job is.[/quote]

    The question is not whether you were taught this in school or whether it constitutes standard marketing procedure. Lots of standard-procedure things are wrong and inappropriate. This is one of them.[/quote]

    Paul has it exactly right here. To summarize the argument:

    “It’s ok for us to be douche bags because everyone is is being a douche bag.”

  • Mike V. | December 16, 2008 at 10:10 am |

    [quote comment=”305816″][quote comment=”305812″][quote comment=”305805″][quote comment=”305792″]”Again, this commitment to branding came in an environment that was completely closed off to the public, and where Adidas therefore derives almost literally zero advertising benefit”

    Working in a marketing and communications dept. myself I have to disagree with this. The advertising benefit that they are getting is that they are creating brand loyalty at the base level. They are hoping that it becomes second nature to these guys to want to throw on Adidas gear when they are about to do something athletic. A couple of years later when these guys are either playing/coaching or running camps they will be more inclined to stay with Adidas.

    It happens in corporate America all of the time. Almost all medical companies supply product to colleges for their teachers to use…why…to create brand loyalty with the students. It’s the same thing.

    It may seem a bit much to post the signs around the gym, but the concept Adidas is using is nothing out of the ordinary.[/quote]

    I work in marketing as well and i have to agree with the above statement. It is exactly consistent with everything i learned both in school and on the job, and it is part of what a marketing professional’s job is.[/quote]

    The question is not whether you were taught this in school or whether it constitutes standard marketing procedure. Lots of standard-procedure things are wrong and inappropriate. This is one of them.[/quote]

    I agree 100 percent. I think another question is who is at fault. Is it the company that is leaning on the school to do it or is it the school’s fault for letting it happen and just looking at the dollars coming in. I would like to get an athletes perspective on it, seeing if they would mind or if they really don’t and just like all the free gear and facilities (I assume it is company dollars that built that weight room).[/quote]

    The sad part is that the two parties involved (the school & Adidas) are fine with it and probably sleep very well at night, meanwhile we are the ones discussing the points that never entered into their minds. Like all things in corporate America / business, it just comes down to the money.

  • Dustin | December 16, 2008 at 10:16 am |

    So, are the Flyers trying to say that these are third jerseys or retro? If they were truly retro, they’d keep the sans serif A.

  • Mike | December 16, 2008 at 10:21 am |

    Does anyone have a list of the MLB teams who have and WILL STILL be announcing new uniforms/hats or just tweaks?

  • David | December 16, 2008 at 10:22 am |

    I wonder if that kid in the orange helmet takes more of a beating in an average football game than other people on his team.

  • Happy Joe | December 16, 2008 at 10:24 am |

    [quote comment=”305815″][quote comment=”305784″]Was Peter King serious when he wrote in yesterday’s column that the Texans should adopt those red uniforms sll the time. If so, Peter’s taste is well awful. I don’t mind the red uniform with white pants, but the all red is horrible.[/quote]
    The thing is, that’s the least of the issues in that MMQB column yesterday. King is an absolute hack. He must get paid by the amount of characters he types.

    That PK has an opinion on the all-red, I don’t mind (truth be told, I don’t mind the look that much).

    However, I gives a shit about the line at Starbucks or what shampoo the hotels he stays in stock.

    I can’t figure what’s that “column” is supposed to be. It’s like a hodgepodge of a print column, a blog and twitter posts.[/quote]

    I disagree. Almost any column writer will inject a bit of their personal lives into their writing. King’s column almost always has good information, quotes, and analysis. He thoughtfully segregates his travel stories, etc. from the football stuff so it is easy to skip the parts one doesn’t want to read.

    Just my opinion. Also, in my opinion, the battle reds are awful. Red tops with white pants or blue tops with white pants look much better.

  • WVU Tom | December 16, 2008 at 10:31 am |

    Interesting uni-related article over on Puck Daddy…

    http://sports.yahoo....

  • Kek | December 16, 2008 at 10:35 am |

    [quote comment=”305822″][quote comment=”305815″][quote comment=”305784″]Was Peter King serious when he wrote in yesterday’s column that the Texans should adopt those red uniforms sll the time. If so, Peter’s taste is well awful. I don’t mind the red uniform with white pants, but the all red is horrible.[/quote]
    The thing is, that’s the least of the issues in that MMQB column yesterday. King is an absolute hack. He must get paid by the amount of characters he types.

    That PK has an opinion on the all-red, I don’t mind (truth be told, I don’t mind the look that much).

    However, I gives a shit about the line at Starbucks or what shampoo the hotels he stays in stock.

    I can’t figure what’s that “column” is supposed to be. It’s like a hodgepodge of a print column, a blog and twitter posts.[/quote]

    I disagree. Almost any column writer will inject a bit of their personal lives into their writing. King’s column almost always has good information, quotes, and analysis. He thoughtfully segregates his travel stories, etc. from the football stuff so it is easy to skip the parts one doesn’t want to read.

    Just my opinion. Also, in my opinion, the battle reds are awful. Red tops with white pants or blue tops with white pants look much better.[/quote]
    I don’t know, I guess it’s a fine line between a column (print or electronic) and a blog.

    For instance, I think Paul is more informal on UW than on a Page 2 column.

    I dislike King and my opinion of his stuff wouldn’t change, but I think SI would do better giving him a blog where he could post daily tidbits. Even though I dislike him, I would find it interesting to see what he’s up to during the week. Both football and non-football related.

    MMQB could be relegated to analysis/quotes of the week, rankings, awards and the normal football stuff. Then the column could be less than seven webpages!

    Question: does MMQB appear in print in SI or only online?

  • Jim Bullard | December 16, 2008 at 10:36 am |

    Sorry Paul, I must disagree, this goes far beyond the bounds of mere douchebaggery and into the realm of “the end of the world is coming.”

    I believe Peter Gibbons from Office Space said it best:

    “You know, the Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear.”

  • LI Phil | December 16, 2008 at 10:36 am |

    [quote]let’s just cut to the chase, shall we?[/quote]

    i think the above and this should be the go to pics for adidas and rbk respectively (suggestions being accepted for swoosh & UA)

  • skott daltonic | December 16, 2008 at 10:42 am |

    i remember when the Bills switched to the new uniforms that Chris Berman was repeatedly talking about how similar they were to Montreal’s CFL uniforms…

    my favorite current uniforms, by major US sport:

    hockey.

    montreal.
    boston.
    detroit.
    chicago.
    minnesota.

    football. (whole uni’s, not just helmets)

    raiders.
    dolphins.
    new york.
    new york.
    san francisco.

    basketball.

    celtics.
    lakers.
    clippers.
    76ers.
    san antonio.

    baseball.

    red sox.
    royals.
    cardinals.
    athletics.
    orioles.

  • Kek | December 16, 2008 at 10:43 am |

    [quote comment=”305823″]Interesting uni-related article over on Puck Daddy…

    http://sports.yahoo....
    I know Seth, the guy that runs Empty Netters. I think that a lot of our Hockey Wingers (of which I aspire to be a member of some day!) would enjoy. There is a lot of crossover with jersey stuff. He gets photos of oddball jerseys (I’ve forwarded some to him) and posts them. It’s also an excellent hockey blog, not just Pens but definitely biased towards the Pens.

    One thing I pointed out to him and I’m hoping to get some shots of next game I’m at is a guy that sits near me and apparently wears five jerseys to every game and his rotation is different each game (at least the ones I’ve been to). I was at a shootout when they wore the third jersey and he had a jersey for the OT and the shootout. In between periods he peels one off and puts it in a bag under his seat. Dude must spend every spare dollar on jerseys. And he doesn’t just have the easy ones like Crosby, Malkin, Fleury, etc. He had Sabourin, Satan and Pessonen (a guy that’s been up and down between Pgh and Scranton all season) in the light blue.

  • Taha | December 16, 2008 at 10:45 am |

    [quote comment=”305782″]… Someone needs a sports bra.

    I think he needs a sports BRO… or is it a mansierre? i forget[/quote]
    it’s the Man-siere…the Bro is “too ethnic”

  • Jim BC | December 16, 2008 at 10:47 am |

    [quote comment=”305776″]As for wedding bands for hockey players, my exposure to this in my leagues (FAR from NHL levels) is that guys take them off for fear of the sweat making them slip off and then losing them.

    As for NHL players, I imagine fighters take them off because it’d be like having a mini set of brass knuckles on. Seeing Petr Sykora is not a rough player and rarely ever (I’ve never seen him) takes his gloves off in play, I can see why he’d leave it on. Thing is, you would only know if someone is wearing a ring when they take their gloves off in play, and the only ones who do this would be fighters and they would take the ring off in respect for the face they are about the bash in :)[/quote]
    Here’s my take on the wearing of rings:
    1. Rings are not to be worn because of the chance you may be in a fight.
    2. Even in rec leagues (where there shouldn’t be fighting) no rings – I had a teammate who was slashed in the hand and his finger swelled so much that we had to cut his ring off.

  • Namhob | December 16, 2008 at 10:48 am |

    [quote comment=”305821″]I wonder if that kid in the orange helmet takes more of a beating in an average football game than other people on his team.[/quote]
    I would imagine that the reason he has the orange helmet would mean he is quite prepared to handle any additional attention wearing it may bring.

  • Jim Bullard | December 16, 2008 at 10:53 am |

    Also, what if you’re a student who can’t afford to buy a pair of ADIDAS shoes or a $30 t-shirt with an ADIDAS logo on it, you don’t get to work out on campus?

    Or does this only apply to athletes?

    Either way this is the worst logo creep related story I’ve ever read.

  • Teebz | December 16, 2008 at 10:57 am |

    [quote comment=”305819″]So, are the Flyers trying to say that these are third jerseys or retro? If they were truly retro, they’d keep the sans serif A.[/quote]

    Alternate only. It’s not supposed to be a complete replication of the 1970s versions.

    I’d like to see the retro idea kept, but it’s their idea, and every stitch costs extra when customizing.

  • odessa steps magazine | December 16, 2008 at 11:03 am |

    [quote comment=”305828″][quote comment=”305823″]Interesting uni-related article over on Puck Daddy…

    http://sports.yahoo....
    I know Seth, the guy that runs Empty Netters. I think that a lot of our Hockey Wingers (of which I aspire to be a member of some day!) would enjoy. There is a lot of crossover with jersey stuff. He gets photos of oddball jerseys (I’ve forwarded some to him) and posts them. It’s also an excellent hockey blog, not just Pens but definitely biased towards the Pens.

    One thing I pointed out to him and I’m hoping to get some shots of next game I’m at is a guy that sits near me and apparently wears five jerseys to every game and his rotation is different each game (at least the ones I’ve been to). I was at a shootout when they wore the third jersey and he had a jersey for the OT and the shootout. In between periods he peels one off and puts it in a bag under his seat. Dude must spend every spare dollar on jerseys. And he doesn’t just have the easy ones like Crosby, Malkin, Fleury, etc. He had Sabourin, Satan and Pessonen (a guy that’s been up and down between Pgh and Scranton all season) in the light blue.[/quote]

    That’s very silly. Is he there to watch the game or have people notice him? (This admittedly said as someone who doesn’t wear home sweater when at games.)

  • Kek | December 16, 2008 at 11:09 am |

    [quote comment=”305834″][quote comment=”305828″][quote comment=”305823″]Interesting uni-related article over on Puck Daddy…

    http://sports.yahoo....
    I know Seth, the guy that runs Empty Netters. I think that a lot of our Hockey Wingers (of which I aspire to be a member of some day!) would enjoy. There is a lot of crossover with jersey stuff. He gets photos of oddball jerseys (I’ve forwarded some to him) and posts them. It’s also an excellent hockey blog, not just Pens but definitely biased towards the Pens.

    One thing I pointed out to him and I’m hoping to get some shots of next game I’m at is a guy that sits near me and apparently wears five jerseys to every game and his rotation is different each game (at least the ones I’ve been to). I was at a shootout when they wore the third jersey and he had a jersey for the OT and the shootout. In between periods he peels one off and puts it in a bag under his seat. Dude must spend every spare dollar on jerseys. And he doesn’t just have the easy ones like Crosby, Malkin, Fleury, etc. He had Sabourin, Satan and Pessonen (a guy that’s been up and down between Pgh and Scranton all season) in the light blue.[/quote]

    That’s very silly. Is he there to watch the game or have people notice him? (This admittedly said as someone who doesn’t wear home sweater when at games.)[/quote]
    I do feel there is something to that as far as getting noticed. In between periods the guy stands and has his back to the ice and has a real “look at me” vibe to him.

    But that’s in between periods, dude’s in his seat watching the game when play is on. I’m assuming he’s a season ticket holder because he’s in great seats and he’s been to every game I’ve been at (I’m a 1/3 season ticket holder).

    When I passed on the info to Seth I was skeptical, thinking this may be playing into the guy and the attention he might want, but still, it’s unique.

  • Ricko | December 16, 2008 at 11:10 am |

    So the contention is that this whole “dark pants-monochrome, etc.” thing (Jets, Bengals, Dolphins and others all changed at roughly the same time as Seahawks and Bills) is because the NFL looked to the CFL for ways to improve its on-the-field image?

    I suppose its possible. After all, far too many major college football programs apparently are going for the “high school” look. Great, let’s make the lowest common denominator the ideal. Why set a standard when we can lower it.

    And, just a guess here, but I don’t think Berman necessarily meant that as a compliment to the Bills unis.

    —Ricko

  • Johnny | December 16, 2008 at 11:12 am |

    The adidas and Notre Dame thing is also the standard at Tennessee. My roommate was a manager on the basketball team there. He told me about his first practice. He walked into the gym wearing some plain black shorts a tshirt and some New Balances. As soon as he stepped out from the locker room to head out to the court he was told to go to the “cage”(i.e. the Adidas room in the facility) and get a shirt, some shorts and some socks/shoes. After practice he was informed of the “when in the facility you must always be wearing Adidas gear” rule.

  • Johnny F. | December 16, 2008 at 11:12 am |

    [quote comment=”305826″][quote]let’s just cut to the chase, shall we?[/quote]

    i think the above and this should be the go to pics for adidas and rbk respectively (suggestions being accepted for swoosh & UA)[/quote]

    Nike:

    http://www.proof7.co...

    How I felt, working for Nike:

    http://www.t-shirthu...

  • chance | December 16, 2008 at 11:14 am |

    [quote comment=”305832″]Also, what if you’re a student who can’t afford to buy a pair of ADIDAS shoes or a $30 t-shirt with an ADIDAS logo on it, you don’t get to work out on campus?

    Or does this only apply to athletes?

    Either way this is the worst logo creep related story I’ve ever read.[/quote]
    I think it only applies to athletes who have the “official wear” supplied to them by Adidas.

  • MPowers1634 | December 16, 2008 at 11:16 am |

    [quote comment=”305798″][quote comment=”305792″]”Again, this commitment to branding came in an environment that was completely closed off to the public, and where Adidas therefore derives almost literally zero advertising benefit”

    Working in a marketing and communications dept. myself I have to disagree with this. The advertising benefit that they are getting is that they are creating brand loyalty at the base level. They are hoping that it becomes second nature to these guys to want to throw on Adidas gear when they are about to do something athletic. A couple of years later when these guys are either playing/coaching or running camps they will be more inclined to stay with Adidas.

    It happens in corporate America all of the time. Almost all medical companies supply product to colleges for their teachers to use…why…to create brand loyalty with the students. It’s the same thing.

    It may seem a bit much to post the signs around the gym, but the concept Adidas is using is nothing out of the ordinary.[/quote]

    Other aspects of unis in the coporate world (beyond branding and a sense of community) include some practial elelments:

    1. Many employees, unfortunately many of the younger ones, are clueless about how to dress for the workplace (“Why I gotta tuck in my shirt?”). Unis eliminate superiors appearing to pick on certain individuals, creating the desired atmosphere without carping or nitpicking. Not to mention that work ceases to be a “dressing contest”.

    2. It’s like giving employees a raise. No more spending for “work wardrobe”. They need their basics and they’re set. Park Nicollet Medical Centers here went to (sorry, Paul) purple golf shirts, jackets and sweaters with khaki slacks as standard attire several years ago. Whenever I’m there, I always ask the employees I’m dealing with how they like it. I have yet to get a negative response. They love it. Makes getting ready for work easier and saves them money.

    I know a printing firm with a couple hundred employees who moved to the same thing last suumer, supplying everyone a couple burgundy shirts and a $20 Target Gift Card (toward khaki slacks) for starters. They now have a small “line” of corporate apparel employees can buy at cost (including windbreakers and mongrammed blue denin shirts). You can’t believe how much more “cleaned up” the atmosphere around the place is. Looks, and is, far more professional than before. Owner says morale is WAY up, too, despite the sagging economy.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Or they could just hire Terry Tate!

  • Johnny F. | December 16, 2008 at 11:19 am |

    [quote comment=”305833″][quote comment=”305819″]So, are the Flyers trying to say that these are third jerseys or retro? If they were truly retro, they’d keep the sans serif A.[/quote]

    Alternate only. It’s not supposed to be a complete replication of the 1970s versions.

    I’d like to see the retro idea kept, but it’s their idea, and every stitch costs extra when customizing.[/quote]

    I’m with you, Teebz. I was thinking that the Flyers 3rd jersey is getting it 90% right. It was obviously a retro-idea, but to stop just short of the accurate retro font, just doesn’t feel right. To go as far as having the white nameplate, but to stop at the font…that doesn’t make sense. Maybe convenience? Maybe cost? Maybe somebody in the organization doesn’t like the retro font?

  • mike 2 | December 16, 2008 at 11:25 am |

    The only problem with the Bills-CFL theory is that the timing doesn’t work.

    As mentioned, the Bills changed their uniforms in 2002. Reebok didn’t rebrand the CFL until the 2005 season.

    The current CFL look (piping and patches everywhere) was new in 2005. Prior to that most teams had pretty conventional looking uniforms.

  • KW | December 16, 2008 at 11:40 am |

    Schutt Responds to Patent Infringement Allegations

    “One has to question why an Illinois corporation, residing in California, and reconditioning in Mexico, would file a patent lawsuit in Madison, Wisconsin,” says Robert Erb, President and CEO of Schutt Sports, Inc., in response to a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Riddell, Inc. against Schutt earlier this week. The lawsuit, court case #3:08-cv-00711, was filed in Wisconsin’s Western District Court.

    “This suit hardly passes the sniff test. After competing in the marketplace for five years it suddenly occurs to Riddell that Schutt might be violating their patent rights?” questions Erb. “Doubtful. This seems like a desperate and pathetic attempt to take the focus off of what is really happening to them in the market. They have had access to our helmets for years without comment or complaint. In my experience, legitimate intellectual property holders tend to move a lot quicker by notifying the alleged infringer immediately with the demand that they cease the offending activity, rather than waiting several years and then issuing a press release about a civil complaint yet to be served.”

    Erb suggests that there may be other factors at play. “Riddell is losing significant market share in football. Schutt is the fastest growing helmet in the NFL®, Collegiate and Varsity ranks.”

    Erb also believes this lawsuit is a hedge against future problems in the market place. “Riddell’s exclusive license agreement with the NFL® is up for renewal in the upcoming year. The NFL® teams and players are electing to purchase Schutt equipment rather than wear the equipment provided by Riddell free of charge. The VSR-4 and Revolution® helmets are demonstrably less protective than DNA™, ION4D™ or AIR XP™ helmets made by Schutt.”

    In addition, Erb says, Schutt is hurting Riddell where it hurts most – in sales.

    “Schutt is taking market share from Riddell with the introduction of a new shoulder pad line that is also rapidly gaining ground in the NFL® and collegiate ranks,” Erb explains. “Riddell’s reconditioning and cloth businesses are struggling; losing share and profitability. And, Riddell’s parent company, Easton-Bell, has consistently lost ground to Bauer, in hockey, and Mizuno and Rawlings, in baseball. In addition, their ski and bike businesses are falling behind the competition, which may explain in part why Easton-Bell failed to find support for a public offering this past year.”

    “No doubt the prospects of a courtroom look inviting to Riddell and their parent right now,” says Erb. “Given the hammering they continue to take on the field and in the market place.”

    Schutt will answer the complaint with a strong denial of all claims. “Schutt Sports would never dream of infringing the Riddell Revolution® patents,” Erb says emphatically. “We have every reason to believe that the Revolution® product design is fatally flawed and potentially dangerous, as evidenced by the number of helmets flying off the heads of athletes in game situations over the past few years. And since foam deteriorates over time, becomes less protective in extreme temperatures, and is less sanitary than TPU, we have opted to go in an entirely different direction than Riddell with our premium football helmets.”

    Schutt intends not only to aggressively defend itself in the present action, but will bring several counterclaims.

    “We are confident that we will be able to convince a court that Schutt has no liability whatsoever,” says Erb. “In addition, we intend to challenge the validity of the Riddell patents they have placed at issue and request injunctive relief from Riddell’s continued unfair business practices and damages under relevant State and Federal statutes.”

    “Not only do we question Mr. Arment’s claim that Riddell makes ‘pioneering products’ that offer greater injury protection,” says Erb, “but he is now going to have to prove that they have made patentable advancements in the art under the scrutiny of a judge and in a public forum. We suggest Mr. Arment put on a Schutt ION4D™ helmet because the drubbing he is about to take is going to demand the very best in head protection.”

  • seattle matt | December 16, 2008 at 11:42 am |

    the buffalo bills wikipedia entry was not properly cited, as previously noted, so i deleted that part. this site is a great place for discussing whether or not the bills (and maybe seahawks) unis look like CFL unis, and also for guessing if there was a reason for that. but until there is a legit source, it isn’t appropriate to have it on wikipedia. if you do find a source, post it here or pop in into wikipedia.

  • LI Phil | December 16, 2008 at 11:45 am |

    [quote]“One has to question why an Illinois corporation, residing in California, and reconditioning in Mexico, would file a patent lawsuit in Madison, Wisconsin,”[/quote]

    wonder if a certain university based in wisconsin, who have some experience with patent infringement, may have something to do with it?

    /any lawyers out there know if this state looks more kindly upon suits of this type?

     

    EDIT: not implying that UW (the University of Wisconsin, not uni watch) has anything to do with it…only that wisconsin courts may be the best spot in the nation in which to file a patent infringement suit

  • Tom G | December 16, 2008 at 11:50 am |

    So to go off topic from your flamewar and back to How I Met Your Mother. Being from MN I got amusement out of being made fun of on national TV. All the Vikes jersey’s were quite sharp. However I have one huge beef.

    THE VIKINGS DIDN’T LOSE THE 1999 NFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME TO ATLANTA, IT WAS 1998!

    Can anyone explain how a major network, that televises NFL games, could screw that fact up? They said “1999 NFC vs the Falcons” like 100 times in the episode too (obviously making fun of our obsession over that loss, which is accurate). It pissed my wife and I off to no end.

    //end rant

  • LI Phil | December 16, 2008 at 11:54 am |

    [quote comment=”305846″]So to go off topic from your flamewar and back to How I Met Your Mother. Being from MN I got amusement out of being made fun of on national TV. All the Vikes jersey’s were quite sharp. However I have one huge beef.

    THE VIKINGS DIDN’T LOSE THE 1999 NFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME TO ATLANTA, IT WAS 1998!

    Can anyone explain how a major network, that televises NFL games, could screw that fact up? They said “1999 NFC vs the Falcons” like 100 times in the episode too (obviously making fun of our obsession over that loss, which is accurate). It pissed my wife and I off to no end.

    //end rant[/quote]

    was following the 1998 season, but the game took place in 1999

    maybe that’s where the confusion comes in?

  • Ricko | December 16, 2008 at 11:54 am |

    [quote comment=”305844″]the buffalo bills wikipedia entry was not properly cited, as previously noted, so i deleted that part. this site is a great place for discussing whether or not the bills (and maybe seahawks) unis look like CFL unis, and also for guessing if there was a reason for that. but until there is a legit source, it isn’t appropriate to have it on wikipedia. if you do find a source, post it here or pop in into wikipedia.[/quote]

    Honestly I think it’s all due to designers/suppliers having more input than ever before. Typically it was head coaches, GM’s and equipment guys (maybe a PR guy once in a while) who provided the input, and they were far more likely to stay with traditional—and often more economical—choices.

    But with the big money being thrown around, and the high visibility, and the emphasis on merchandising…that’s changed.

    I wonder how many NFL head coaches, off the record, would tell you they HATE the crap their team is wearing.

  • Johnny F. | December 16, 2008 at 11:56 am |

    [quote comment=”305846″]So to go off topic from your flamewar and back to How I Met Your Mother. Being from MN I got amusement out of being made fun of on national TV. All the Vikes jersey’s were quite sharp. However I have one huge beef.

    THE VIKINGS DIDN’T LOSE THE 1999 NFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME TO ATLANTA, IT WAS 1998!

    Can anyone explain how a major network, that televises NFL games, could screw that fact up? They said “1999 NFC vs the Falcons” like 100 times in the episode too (obviously making fun of our obsession over that loss, which is accurate). It pissed my wife and I off to no end.

    //end rant[/quote]

    The game was in January ’99…and Minny fans need to get over it. They would have gotten crushed in that Super Bowl anyway.

  • chance | December 16, 2008 at 11:59 am |

    [quote comment=”305846″]So to go off topic from your flamewar and back to How I Met Your Mother. Being from MN I got amusement out of being made fun of on national TV. All the Vikes jersey’s were quite sharp. However I have one huge beef.

    THE VIKINGS DIDN’T LOSE THE 1999 NFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME TO ATLANTA, IT WAS 1998!

    Can anyone explain how a major network, that televises NFL games, could screw that fact up? They said “1999 NFC vs the Falcons” like 100 times in the episode too (obviously making fun of our obsession over that loss, which is accurate). It pissed my wife and I off to no end.

    //end rant[/quote]

    1998 season, playoff games played in 1999.

    Too many people don’t understand the distinction – Wikipedia is full of playoff pages dated “1998-1999” as though the NFL was hockey.

  • Tom G | December 16, 2008 at 12:05 pm |

    True, honestly that never crossed my mind. To everyone here it’s the 1998 NFC Championship because it was the 1998 season we were so good, and then it spills 3 weeks into 1999. Since your reply I did a quick search and have seen it called both the 1998 and 1999 games from a variety of sources. There ever been confusion like this before? Or am I just a drunk Minnesotan in need of some mini burgers?

  • Ricko | December 16, 2008 at 12:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”305849″][quote comment=”305846″]So to go off topic from your flamewar and back to How I Met Your Mother. Being from MN I got amusement out of being made fun of on national TV. All the Vikes jersey’s were quite sharp. However I have one huge beef.

    THE VIKINGS DIDN’T LOSE THE 1999 NFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME TO ATLANTA, IT WAS 1998!

    Can anyone explain how a major network, that televises NFL games, could screw that fact up? They said “1999 NFC vs the Falcons” like 100 times in the episode too (obviously making fun of our obsession over that loss, which is accurate). It pissed my wife and I off to no end.

    //end rant[/quote]

    The game was in January ’99…and Minny fans need to get over it. They would have gotten crushed in that Super Bowl anyway.[/quote]

    Oh, now, Johnny F, every team has those moments that won’t go away. “Wide right,” for instance (even “Losman rolls right…” from two days ago). Or how ’bout that fumble, y’know, when Joe Pisarcik… And Herman Edwards…

    (just givin’ you shit).

  • LI Phil | December 16, 2008 at 12:11 pm |

    scott norwood was the football gods’ way of evening things after the “real” fumble (joe pisarcik)

  • Clevo | December 16, 2008 at 12:14 pm |

    I don’t have a problem with athletes having to wear specified clothing in the gym, mainly because they are given all of their sports apparel for free. If they are supplied with gym clothes, they can wear those. Its not like they have to buy certain items to wear.

    re: the Bills unis. I actually liek the current Bills white unis. They aren’t over the top nor ate they too modern. Are they as nice as the throwback unis? No, but there are way worse unis in the NFL.

  • chance | December 16, 2008 at 12:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”305851″]True, honestly that never crossed my mind. To everyone here it’s the 1998 NFC Championship because it was the 1998 season we were so good, and then it spills 3 weeks into 1999. Since your reply I did a quick search and have seen it called both the 1998 and 1999 games from a variety of sources. There ever been confusion like this before? Or am I just a drunk Minnesotan in need of some mini burgers?[/quote]

    I think Wikipedia is compounding the problem (or maybe even started it). They use both dates out of some silly “compromise” between die-hards who use the real date (you know, the one the NFL uses) and the casual fans, who don’t understand.

    Not the first time Wikipedia has put its official stamp on inaccurate information, and it won’t be the last. This is the essential problem – facts really ought not be decided by consensus.

  • mike 2 | December 16, 2008 at 12:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”305845″][quote]“One has to question why an Illinois corporation, residing in California, and reconditioning in Mexico, would file a patent lawsuit in Madison, Wisconsin,”[/quote]

    wonder if a certain university based in wisconsin, who have some experience with patent infringement, may have something to do with it?

    /any lawyers out there know if this state looks more kindly upon suits of this type?

     

    EDIT: not implying that UW (the University of Wisconsin, not uni watch) has anything to do with it…only that wisconsin courts may be the best spot in the nation in which to file a patent infringement suit[/quote]

    I’m a lawyer (Canadian, not US) but I have been involved in some IP litigation there

    Wisconsin federal court has a reputation for a “rocket docket”, a great place for plaintiffs to file and get matters heard quickly. Speed is usually of the essence in IP litigation.

    http://wistechnology...

  • Johnny F. | December 16, 2008 at 12:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”305852″][quote comment=”305849″][quote comment=”305846″]So to go off topic from your flamewar and back to How I Met Your Mother. Being from MN I got amusement out of being made fun of on national TV. All the Vikes jersey’s were quite sharp. However I have one huge beef.

    THE VIKINGS DIDN’T LOSE THE 1999 NFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME TO ATLANTA, IT WAS 1998!

    Can anyone explain how a major network, that televises NFL games, could screw that fact up? They said “1999 NFC vs the Falcons” like 100 times in the episode too (obviously making fun of our obsession over that loss, which is accurate). It pissed my wife and I off to no end.

    //end rant[/quote]

    The game was in January ’99…and Minny fans need to get over it. They would have gotten crushed in that Super Bowl anyway.[/quote]

    Oh, now, Johnny F, every team has those moments that won’t go away. “Wide right,” for instance (even “Losman rolls right…” from two days ago). Or how ’bout that fumble, y’know, when Joe Pisarcik… And Herman Edwards…

    (just givin’ you shit).[/quote]

    Damn it Ricko. Hahahaha. Just giving the Minny guy some N.Y. treatment. I should remind Mr. Viking that my beloved NY Giants handed him a playoff game in 1997. Friggin’ sure-handed Chris Calloway dropping that onside kick!

    And let’s be realistic, that Broncos team would have crushed the Vikings. Lord knows the Vikings history in Super Bowls isn’t something to get excited about.

    Maybe I should lay off… I mean, Minnesota fans don’t exactly have much to be excited about.

  • Johnny F. | December 16, 2008 at 12:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”305853″]scott norwood was the football gods’ way of evening things after the “real” fumble (joe pisarcik)[/quote]

    Bingo.

  • JF in DC | December 16, 2008 at 12:20 pm |

    As a Bills fan (yeah, I know…sigh)Buffalo was originally slated to wear the blue jerseys with white pants at home and white with blue pants on the road.

    Well, in 2002, for the first three games, this was the case, but Peerless Price, who was on his first tour with the Bills at the time, convinced the team to wear the all-blues at home in game four vs. the Bears. Well, the Bills won that game in OT and the blue-on-blue as been mostly the staple ever since (save for a couple of warm weather road games in Florida, where the team wore the white pants with the blue jerseys).

    Most Bills fans want the team to go with the current throwbacks permanately (but the team has lost more games than they’ve won in them). My personal preference would be to go back the 1973 uniforms, with the blue pants on the road.

    As far as the Bills wanting to look like a CFL team, well, this is the first I’m hearing that theory. Not to say it isn’t true, but if it was, why has it taken six years to surface?

  • mrachmiel | December 16, 2008 at 12:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”305852″][quote comment=”305849″][quote comment=”305846″]So to go off topic from your flamewar and back to How I Met Your Mother. Being from MN I got amusement out of being made fun of on national TV. All the Vikes jersey’s were quite sharp. However I have one huge beef.

    THE VIKINGS DIDN’T LOSE THE 1999 NFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME TO ATLANTA, IT WAS 1998!

    Can anyone explain how a major network, that televises NFL games, could screw that fact up? They said “1999 NFC vs the Falcons” like 100 times in the episode too (obviously making fun of our obsession over that loss, which is accurate). It pissed my wife and I off to no end.

    //end rant[/quote]

    The game was in January ’99…and Minny fans need to get over it. They would have gotten crushed in that Super Bowl anyway.[/quote]

    Oh, now, Johnny F, every team has those moments that won’t go away. “Wide right,” for instance (even “Losman rolls right…” from two days ago). Or how ’bout that fumble, y’know, when Joe Pisarcik… And Herman Edwards…

    (just givin’ you shit).[/quote]

    Getting back to the epsiode, one of the extras was wearing a Vikings’ jersey with the name “Smulders” on the back. Of course, that’s the last name of the actress who plays Robin! Clever touch!

  • Casey | December 16, 2008 at 12:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”305832″]Also, what if you’re a student who can’t afford to buy a pair of ADIDAS shoes or a $30 t-shirt with an ADIDAS logo on it, you don’t get to work out on campus?

    Or does this only apply to athletes?

    Either way this is the worst logo creep related story I’ve ever read.[/quote]

    I took the picture at the OSU facility, and it is (I believe) an athletes-only facility located near the football and basketball stadiums. There is another workout center elsewhere on campus that the general student population can use. I don’t think there are any clothing restrictions in that one.

  • Dan King | December 16, 2008 at 12:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”305839″][quote comment=”305832″]Also, what if you’re a student who can’t afford to buy a pair of ADIDAS shoes or a $30 t-shirt with an ADIDAS logo on it, you don’t get to work out on campus?

    Or does this only apply to athletes?

    Either way this is the worst logo creep related story I’ve ever read.[/quote]
    I think it only applies to athletes who have the “official wear” supplied to them by Adidas.[/quote]
    i think its a stupid rule, but considering all the stuff D1 athletes get free, they probably still wouldn’t have to do laundry for a month. remember the catalog Paul posted a while ago from Mizzou showing all the clothes the football players could get for free? if i was the company giving away all this free stuff(i know it doesn’t hurt their bottom line) i’d want to make sure its being worn. and i’m sure most of the athletes don’t complain b/c after a year on campus those are probably the only clothes they own. hell, after playing high school sports pretty much all my shirts had my school name on it, i don’t see it as much different than that.

  • LI Phil | December 16, 2008 at 12:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”305856″][quote comment=”305845″][quote]“One has to question why an Illinois corporation, residing in California, and reconditioning in Mexico, would file a patent lawsuit in Madison, Wisconsin,”[/quote]

    wonder if a certain university based in wisconsin, who have some experience with patent infringement, may have something to do with it?

    /any lawyers out there know if this state looks more kindly upon suits of this type?

     

    EDIT: not implying that UW (the University of Wisconsin, not uni watch) has anything to do with it…only that wisconsin courts may be the best spot in the nation in which to file a patent infringement suit[/quote]

    I’m a lawyer (Canadian, not US) but I have been involved in some IP litigation there

    Wisconsin federal court has a reputation for a “rocket docket”, a great place for plaintiffs to file and get matters heard quickly. Speed is usually of the essence in IP litigation.

    http://wistechnology...

    thanks for that mike 2!

    so…maybe i was right about the location for the lawsuit then?

  • RaoulDuke | December 16, 2008 at 12:44 pm |

    I think that silly marketing shit like this just adds to the white noise of logos. Theyre everywhere on everything, I barely even notice them anymore.

    Also stories like this make me not want to purchase the company in questions product, they do the reverse and make me not only, not want to buy their shit, but actively make me hate said company.

    Irrational? Sure…but so is this crap.

  • Johnny O | December 16, 2008 at 12:46 pm |

    That link to all those old ads is amazing! Does anyone know of other sites that have a lot of old print ads? Any print ads from old LIFE magazines would be awesome!

  • Ricko | December 16, 2008 at 12:47 pm |

    [quote comment=”305857″][quote comment=”305852″][quote comment=”305849″][quote comment=”305846″]So to go off topic from your flamewar and back to How I Met Your Mother. Being from MN I got amusement out of being made fun of on national TV. All the Vikes jersey’s were quite sharp. However I have one huge beef.

    THE VIKINGS DIDN’T LOSE THE 1999 NFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME TO ATLANTA, IT WAS 1998!

    Can anyone explain how a major network, that televises NFL games, could screw that fact up? They said “1999 NFC vs the Falcons” like 100 times in the episode too (obviously making fun of our obsession over that loss, which is accurate). It pissed my wife and I off to no end.

    //end rant[/quote]

    The game was in January ’99…and Minny fans need to get over it. They would have gotten crushed in that Super Bowl anyway.[/quote]

    Oh, now, Johnny F, every team has those moments that won’t go away. “Wide right,” for instance (even “Losman rolls right…” from two days ago). Or how ’bout that fumble, y’know, when Joe Pisarcik… And Herman Edwards…

    (just givin’ you shit).[/quote]

    Damn it Ricko. Hahahaha. Just giving the Minny guy some N.Y. treatment. I should remind Mr. Viking that my beloved NY Giants handed him a playoff game in 1997. Friggin’ sure-handed Chris Calloway dropping that onside kick!

    And let’s be realistic, that Broncos team would have crushed the Vikings. Lord knows the Vikings history in Super Bowls isn’t something to get excited about.

    Maybe I should lay off… I mean, Minnesota fans don’t exactly have much to be excited about.[/quote]

    Baseball has given Minnesotans a couple nice moments.

    And I always figured you gotta GET to four Super Bowls in order to lose them. So by that yardstick we’ve had a lot more fun than, say, Seattle or Cleveland or Detroit or New Orleans or…well, it’s a pretty long list, actually.

    As to Denver crushing Vikings…who can say. Just know that Viking team was exciting to watch, and it would have been nice if the Air Show had run a little longer.

  • Rick MD | December 16, 2008 at 12:51 pm |

    Peter King about Singletary’s cross:

    RELIGION AND FOOTBALL. From Steve, of Hopkinton, Mass.: “Watching the Miami-San Francisco game Sunday, I was surprised to see Mike Singletary’s attire. I know sweatshirts are approved (as long as they are made by Reebok) but the huge cross around his neck? I know this is a man expressing his deep beliefs but is this the acceptable standard? What is someone wants to display some other item reflecting his personal beliefs?”

    Good question. The league tells me Singletary’s personal jewelry is not an issue (he’s been wearing the cross throughout his coaching career) and I’d be surprised if they told him to tone it down. I think the only way they’d meddle with religious crosses is if they obscured the logos on the sideline clothing. Don’t laugh.

  • Hott Rodd | December 16, 2008 at 12:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”305868″]Peter King about Singletary’s cross:

    RELIGION AND FOOTBALL. From Steve, of Hopkinton, Mass.: “Watching the Miami-San Francisco game Sunday, I was surprised to see Mike Singletary’s attire. I know sweatshirts are approved (as long as they are made by Reebok) but the huge cross around his neck? I know this is a man expressing his deep beliefs but is this the acceptable standard? What is someone wants to display some other item reflecting his personal beliefs?”

    Good question. The league tells me Singletary’s personal jewelry is not an issue (he’s been wearing the cross throughout his coaching career) and I’d be surprised if they told him to tone it down. I think the only way they’d meddle with religious crosses is if they obscured the logos on the sideline clothing. Don’t laugh.[/quote]

    ha ha.. I just came here to post that! glad I refreshed first.

  • Rick MD | December 16, 2008 at 12:54 pm |

    From TBOBlogs.com’s Bucs Report:

    Tampa Bay’s second-year DE Greg White has officially changed his name. On Monday, a Hillsborough County Circuit Court granted White’s request to change his name from Gregory Alphonso White Jr. to Stylez G. White.

    Circuit Judge Steve Scott Stephens signed off on White’s petition and as White walked through the Bucs locker room Monday, he gleefully distributed copies of the final judgment.

    White said he picked his new name from a character in the 1985 movie “Teen Wolf,’’ starring Michael J. Fox.

    “That was his best friend’s name,’’ White said. “I always liked that name. It’s not that I don’t like Greg White.’’

  • RaoulDuke | December 16, 2008 at 12:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”305868″]Peter King about Singletary’s cross:

    RELIGION AND FOOTBALL. From Steve, of Hopkinton, Mass.: “Watching the Miami-San Francisco game Sunday, I was surprised to see Mike Singletary’s attire. I know sweatshirts are approved (as long as they are made by Reebok) but the huge cross around his neck? I know this is a man expressing his deep beliefs but is this the acceptable standard? What is someone wants to display some other item reflecting his personal beliefs?”

    Good question. The league tells me Singletary’s personal jewelry is not an issue (he’s been wearing the cross throughout his coaching career) and I’d be surprised if they told him to tone it down. I think the only way they’d meddle with religious crosses is if they obscured the logos on the sideline clothing. Don’t laugh.[/quote]

    Slap a fuckin reebok logo on that thing. They could have swoosh yarmuckles and under armor prayer mats.

    Its an untapped market.

  • LI Phil | December 16, 2008 at 12:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”305871″][quote comment=”305868″]Peter King about Singletary’s cross:

    RELIGION AND FOOTBALL. From Steve, of Hopkinton, Mass.: “Watching the Miami-San Francisco game Sunday, I was surprised to see Mike Singletary’s attire. I know sweatshirts are approved (as long as they are made by Reebok) but the huge cross around his neck? I know this is a man expressing his deep beliefs but is this the acceptable standard? What is someone wants to display some other item reflecting his personal beliefs?”

    Good question. The league tells me Singletary’s personal jewelry is not an issue (he’s been wearing the cross throughout his coaching career) and I’d be surprised if they told him to tone it down. I think the only way they’d meddle with religious crosses is if they obscured the logos on the sideline clothing. Don’t laugh.[/quote]

    Slap a fuckin reebok logo on that thing. They could have swoosh yarmuckles and under armor prayer mats.

    Its an untapped market.[/quote]

    broncos?

  • Hott Rodd | December 16, 2008 at 12:58 pm |

    Could you imagine if Goodell (or whoever) were to tell Singletary that only reebok branded crosses were allowed? I’d do that for a dollar.

  • RaoulDuke | December 16, 2008 at 1:00 pm |

    Ive even come up with some slogans like “Just Jew It!” and “This Is Our House…Of Worship”.

    If any sneaker companies wish to contact me about my ideas you can reach me in Phil Knights mothers room.

  • Valjean | December 16, 2008 at 1:01 pm |

    The question is not whether you were taught this in school or whether it constitutes standard marketing procedure. Lots of standard-procedure things are wrong and inappropriate. This is one of them.

    No argument, and Adidas completely earns D-Bag honors, but don’t let Notre Dame (or whoever) off the hook. Regardless of marketing or whatever, this is a business arrangement and the school has a clear choice about dancing with the devil. Adidas hardly has a gun to their head; the school simply wants the dough. Larger question might be why they think they need it — and why that need extends to propagandizing their players and coaches.

  • RaoulDuke | December 16, 2008 at 1:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”305875″]The question is not whether you were taught this in school or whether it constitutes standard marketing procedure. Lots of standard-procedure things are wrong and inappropriate. This is one of them.

    No argument, and Adidas completely earns D-Bag honors, but don’t let Notre Dame (or whoever) off the hook. Regardless of marketing or whatever, this is a business arrangement and the school has a clear choice about dancing with the devil. Adidas hardly has a gun to their head; the school simply wants the dough. Larger question might be why they think they need it — and why that need extends to propagandizing their players and coaches.[/quote]

    What do you expect from a team that has co-opted jesus for football purposes. They have no shame, decency or decorum.

  • Kek | December 16, 2008 at 1:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”305873″]Could you imagine if Goodell (or whoever) were to tell Singletary that only reebok branded crosses were allowed? I’d do that for a dollar.[/quote]
    Hasn’t the league already done this, sort of. Jon Kitna got fined for wearing a cap with a religious slogan on it and Big Ben was fined or told to stop writing “PFJ” (play for Jesus) on his cleats.

    Not exactly apples and oranges but there is precendent for the league to at least say “thumbs down” to religious expression.

  • Valjean | December 16, 2008 at 1:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”305876″][quote comment=”305875″]The question is not whether you were taught this in school or whether it constitutes standard marketing procedure. Lots of standard-procedure things are wrong and inappropriate. This is one of them.

    No argument, and Adidas completely earns D-Bag honors, but don’t let Notre Dame (or whoever) off the hook. Regardless of marketing or whatever, this is a business arrangement and the school has a clear choice about dancing with the devil. Adidas hardly has a gun to their head; the school simply wants the dough. Larger question might be why they think they need it — and why that need extends to propagandizing their players and coaches.[/quote]

    What do you expect from a team that has co-opted jesus for football purposes. They have no shame, decency or decorum.[/quote]

    Amen!

  • JTH | December 16, 2008 at 1:22 pm |

    [quote comment=”305870″]
    White said he picked his new name from a character in the 1985 movie “Teen Wolf,’’ starring Michael J. Fox.[/quote]
    That’s the best inspiration for a name change since Homer Simpson changed his name to Max Power.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I actually paid to see that movie in a theater when it came out. I swear that the only time I laughed was when my friend tapped me on the shoulder to show me the joint he had just rolled.

  • skott daltonic | December 16, 2008 at 1:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”305836″]So the contention is that this whole “dark pants-monochrome, etc.” thing (Jets, Bengals, Dolphins and others all changed at roughly the same time as Seahawks and Bills) is because the NFL looked to the CFL for ways to improve its on-the-field image?

    I suppose its possible. After all, far too many major college football programs apparently are going for the “high school” look. Great, let’s make the lowest common denominator the ideal. Why set a standard when we can lower it.

    And, just a guess here, but I don’t think Berman necessarily meant that as a compliment to the Bills unis.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    i agree. i don’t think Berman was saying it in a positive way at all.

  • diz | December 16, 2008 at 1:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”305872″][quote comment=”305871″][quote comment=”305868″]Peter King about Singletary’s cross:

    RELIGION AND FOOTBALL. From Steve, of Hopkinton, Mass.: “Watching the Miami-San Francisco game Sunday, I was surprised to see Mike Singletary’s attire. I know sweatshirts are approved (as long as they are made by Reebok) but the huge cross around his neck? I know this is a man expressing his deep beliefs but is this the acceptable standard? What is someone wants to display some other item reflecting his personal beliefs?”

    Good question. The league tells me Singletary’s personal jewelry is not an issue (he’s been wearing the cross throughout his coaching career) and I’d be surprised if they told him to tone it down. I think the only way they’d meddle with religious crosses is if they obscured the logos on the sideline clothing. Don’t laugh.[/quote]

    Slap a fuckin reebok logo on that thing. They could have swoosh yarmuckles and under armor prayer mats.

    Its an untapped market.[/quote]

    broncos?[/quote]

    and a fucking MASSIVE swoosh on a pole to indicate Qibla ofc

  • jon | December 16, 2008 at 1:33 pm |

    the whole argument over the atheltes only being allowed to wear the official gear in a restricted gym is just stupid. the company gives the players the gear for free, it gives the school money and gear, and it does these things on condition that it gets special treatment over other apparel providers. if you think the athletes would trade getting a lot of free gear and access to a restricted gym for not “selling their souls” to an apparel company youre out of your mind.
    speaking as a student at an adidas school, most of the athletes only ever wear their free gear to class. they do this not because theyre required to but because it is comfortable, it is free, and they have a shit ton of it. no one at the colleges cares, and im sorry but i feel like the schools should worry about what their student-athletes think over whether or not it may be a gimick of corporate advertising.

  • RaoulDuke | December 16, 2008 at 1:36 pm |

    [quote comment=”305882″]the whole argument over the atheltes only being allowed to wear the official gear in a restricted gym is just stupid. the company gives the players the gear for free, it gives the school money and gear, and it does these things on condition that it gets special treatment over other apparel providers. if you think the athletes would trade getting a lot of free gear and access to a restricted gym for not “selling their souls” to an apparel company youre out of your mind.
    speaking as a student at an adidas school, most of the athletes only ever wear their free gear to class. they do this not because theyre required to but because it is comfortable, it is free, and they have a shit ton of it. no one at the colleges cares, and im sorry but i feel like the schools should worry about what their student-athletes think over whether or not it may be a gimick of corporate advertising.[/quote]

    Gotta cultivate the next crop of consumers somehow.

  • Roger | December 16, 2008 at 1:37 pm |

    Sweet M&N gamer here. Check out that 4!

  • SQL | December 16, 2008 at 1:49 pm |

    weirdest all star uni ever
    An I’m talking about the two guys in the middle.

  • MPowers1634 | December 16, 2008 at 1:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”305884″]Sweet M&N gamer here. Check out that 4![/quote]

    That is a DIY possibility right there.

  • jon | December 16, 2008 at 2:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”305883″][quote comment=”305882″]the whole argument over the atheltes only being allowed to wear the official gear in a restricted gym is just stupid. the company gives the players the gear for free, it gives the school money and gear, and it does these things on condition that it gets special treatment over other apparel providers. if you think the athletes would trade getting a lot of free gear and access to a restricted gym for not “selling their souls” to an apparel company youre out of your mind.
    speaking as a student at an adidas school, most of the athletes only ever wear their free gear to class. they do this not because theyre required to but because it is comfortable, it is free, and they have a shit ton of it. no one at the colleges cares, and im sorry but i feel like the schools should worry about what their student-athletes think over whether or not it may be a gimick of corporate advertising.[/quote]

    Gotta cultivate the next crop of consumers somehow.[/quote]

    hey if i went to maryland and they were giving me all kinds of under armour gear for free i wouldnt complain if they made me wear it all day every day. that stuff is comfy and wayyyyyyyy out of a a college-kid’s budget.

  • chance | December 16, 2008 at 2:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”305884″]Sweet M&N gamer here. Check out that 4![/quote]
    That looks a lot like my favorite Packers numbers.

  • Ian | December 16, 2008 at 2:07 pm |

    Very interesting find at the beginning of todays entry, as it spurs me to mention a conversation I had recently…

    A few weeks back, prior to the Oregon State/University of Oregon Civil War game, I spoke with Todd Jacob who is the equipment manager for the baseball team. Among other questions, I asked him why the team continued to wear the Wilson manufactured unis after the introduction of the current OS logo and the new unis that went with it. Todd informed me that it’s the choice of Pat Casey — the baseball team’s head coach. Pat makes the decision on what the team wears each season, which is why we saw a mix and match of Wilson and Nike gear the past few years.

    Which leads me to another point that Todd confirmend for me. Even though we rant and rave scream and puke at the ugly unis we see more and more (*cough* Ducks *cough*), the head coach has more say in it than you might think. If you hate those mechanical wings on the shoulders, blame the only NCAA head football coach with a font named after him.

    So, back to the authorized gear topic, even though the entire athletic dept adopted the new OS identity (and all of the Nike adorned gear) the baseball team and the volleyball team retained their seperate contracts with Wilson and Asics, respectfully. As for Diadora, I’m guessing thats the soccer squad? Todd and I never discussed that…

  • RaoulDuke | December 16, 2008 at 2:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”305887″][quote comment=”305883″][quote comment=”305882″]the whole argument over the atheltes only being allowed to wear the official gear in a restricted gym is just stupid. the company gives the players the gear for free, it gives the school money and gear, and it does these things on condition that it gets special treatment over other apparel providers. if you think the athletes would trade getting a lot of free gear and access to a restricted gym for not “selling their souls” to an apparel company youre out of your mind.
    speaking as a student at an adidas school, most of the athletes only ever wear their free gear to class. they do this not because theyre required to but because it is comfortable, it is free, and they have a shit ton of it. no one at the colleges cares, and im sorry but i feel like the schools should worry about what their student-athletes think over whether or not it may be a gimick of corporate advertising.[/quote]

    Gotta cultivate the next crop of consumers somehow.[/quote]

    hey if i went to maryland and they were giving me all kinds of under armour gear for free i wouldnt complain if they made me wear it all day every day. that stuff is comfy and wayyyyyyyy out of a a college-kid’s budget.[/quote]

    How will they know which brand to love if they arent told. Your choice of apparel defines who you are.

  • Juan Grande | December 16, 2008 at 2:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”305885″]weirdest all star uni ever
    An I’m talking about the two guys in the middle.[/quote]

    Seriously, what the hell is wrong with Japan?

  • Teebz | December 16, 2008 at 2:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”305890″]
    How will they know which brand to love if they arent told. Your choice of apparel defines who you are.[/quote]

    Isn’t that Nike’s motto? LOL

  • LI Phil | December 16, 2008 at 2:23 pm |

    [quote]I used to work for Nike (Shipping and receiving) while I was in school. Toolbags all over that company. My regional boss (since laid off), had a HUGE Nike swoosh tattoo on his ankle/leg. Douchebag![/quote]

    ekin right of passage

  • Ricko | December 16, 2008 at 2:25 pm |

    I don’t see much wrong with a university saying, “All athletic department athletes and personnel must use only athletic department issued clothing and equipment while in the locker rooms and training facilities.”

    Done that way, any logos, trademarks, et al, would simply come along for the ride.

    And, hey, be honest, if you’re a coach or AD at U of Minnesota, say, trying to build tradition and camaraderie, etc., do you really wanna walk into your weight room and see one of your players in kelly green shorts, another in an orange tanktop and a third wearing a powder blue headband?

    I would think they’d make such “attire” demands even in the absence of any corporate merchandising connections.

    —Ricko

  • Manzell B | December 16, 2008 at 2:26 pm |

    Ah, Nike is expanding into a new sport. Explanation here (scroll down)

  • Mike Engle | December 16, 2008 at 2:29 pm |

    All this talk begs the following question…
    I’ve heard of coaches, after an embarrassing loss, revoke the players’ privilege of wearing the school’s logo. “You want to represent the school again and wear the logo? Got to earn it back.” (IIRC, Billy Donovan did that once.) Then what are you supposed to do? Looks like Catch-22 time. Must wear logo to work out, but Coach says you’re not worthy of the logo at the moment…

  • Andy11 | December 16, 2008 at 2:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”305812″]
    The question is not whether you were taught this in school or whether it constitutes standard marketing procedure. Lots of standard-procedure things are wrong and inappropriate. This is one of them.[/quote]

    Most of the time the complaints/arguments seem to be focused on corporate logos invading “public space” (uniforms, courts, fields, anyplace in the public eye). There are plenty of good points to back up this view.
    …but now it looks like we’re complaining about logos invading private spaces where pretty much no one will see them? I don’t see the point in complaining about this, unless you’re one of the people being forced to wear the stuff. If the student-athletes aren’t complaining, and they’re the only ones affected…then who cares.

  • RaoulDuke | December 16, 2008 at 2:36 pm |

    [quote comment=”305894″]I don’t see much wrong with a university saying, “All athletic department athletes and personnel must use only athletic department issued clothing and equipment while in the locker rooms and training facilities.”

    Done that way, any logos, trademarks, et al, would simply come along for the ride.

    And, hey, be honest, if you’re a coach or AD at U of Minnesota, say, trying to build tradition and camaraderie, etc., do you really wanna walk into your weight room and see one of your players in kelly green shorts, another in an orange tanktop and a third wearing a powder blue headband?

    I would think they’d make such “attire” demands even in the absence of any corporate merchandising connections.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    It just seems heavy handed. Sure theyre giving stuff out for free, but at what cost?

    If a guy in green shorts ruins your workout, you probably arent that good to begin with.

  • Namhob | December 16, 2008 at 2:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”305873″]Not exactly apples and oranges but there is precendent for the league to at least say “thumbs down” to religious expression.[/quote]
    I’m going to have to disagree. The league fined those players not because of RELIGIOUS expression, but EXPRESSION itself. Kitna was supposed to be wearing a licensed hat and as far as Big Ben, players get fined all the time for putting their own messages on their uniforms.

    Kita would have been fined had he been wearing an MLB hat as well because it’s not licensed by the NFL.

  • Kek | December 16, 2008 at 2:43 pm |

    [quote comment=”305899″][quote comment=”305873″]Not exactly apples and oranges but there is precendent for the league to at least say “thumbs down” to religious expression.[/quote]
    I’m going to have to disagree. The league fined those players not because of RELIGIOUS expression, but EXPRESSION itself. Kitna was supposed to be wearing a licensed hat and as far as Big Ben, players get fined all the time for putting their own messages on their uniforms.

    Kita would have been fined had he been wearing an MLB hat as well because it’s not licensed by the NFL.[/quote]
    my comment should probably have said “apples and apples”

    and you’re right, but the league could use brevity. It’s not like most of the Broncos that one Super Bowl season striking their side deal with EAS and wearing those caps everywhere. The expression Kitna displayed was in a positive mode and not for personal, monetary gain.

    My overall point is the NFL has a heavy hand rather than case-by-case. I guess it makes enforcing their rules easier but still, a bit much.

  • chance | December 16, 2008 at 2:47 pm |

    [quote comment=”305899″][quote comment=”305873″]Not exactly apples and oranges but there is precendent for the league to at least say “thumbs down” to religious expression.[/quote]
    I’m going to have to disagree. The league fined those players not because of RELIGIOUS expression, but EXPRESSION itself. Kitna was supposed to be wearing a licensed hat and as far as Big Ben, players get fined all the time for putting their own messages on their uniforms.

    Kita would have been fined had he been wearing an MLB hat as well because it’s not licensed by the NFL.[/quote]
    His cross-wearing is a personal statement, not much different than a player writing something on his shoes.

  • cheechoo | December 16, 2008 at 2:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”305859″]As a Bills fan (yeah, I know…sigh)Buffalo was originally slated to wear the blue jerseys with white pants at home and white with blue pants on the road.

    Well, in 2002, for the first three games, this was the case, but Peerless Price, who was on his first tour with the Bills at the time, convinced the team to wear the all-blues at home in game four vs. the Bears. Well, the Bills won that game in OT and the blue-on-blue as been mostly the staple ever since (save for a couple of warm weather road games in Florida, where the team wore the white pants with the blue jerseys).

    Most Bills fans want the team to go with the current throwbacks permanately (but the team has lost more games than they’ve won in them). My personal preference would be to go back the 1973 uniforms, with the blue pants on the road.

    As far as the Bills wanting to look like a CFL team, well, this is the first I’m hearing that theory. Not to say it isn’t true, but if it was, why has it taken six years to surface?[/quote]

    Unfortunately I am a Bills fan too, as much as I dislike the current unis, the blue jersey with the white pants is a much better look than the monochrome blues. And to wear all navy blue for road games at Miami?? The white jersey with the navy pants looks even better, IMO. I can barely remember the last time they wore that combo.

  • Ricko | December 16, 2008 at 2:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”305898″][quote comment=”305894″]I don’t see much wrong with a university saying, “All athletic department athletes and personnel must use only athletic department issued clothing and equipment while in the locker rooms and training facilities.”

    Done that way, any logos, trademarks, et al, would simply come along for the ride.

    And, hey, be honest, if you’re a coach or AD at U of Minnesota, say, trying to build tradition and camaraderie, etc., do you really wanna walk into your weight room and see one of your players in kelly green shorts, another in an orange tanktop and a third wearing a powder blue headband?

    I would think they’d make such “attire” demands even in the absence of any corporate merchandising connections.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    It just seems heavy handed. Sure theyre giving stuff out for free, but at what cost?

    If a guy in green shorts ruins your workout, you probably arent that good to begin with.[/quote]

    What you mean, “What cost?” You think the athletes are so impressionable they’ll be scarred by being exposed to marketing concepts they’ve understood since they were 11 years old?

    My point was that requiring athletes to wear athletic department issued gear isn’t unreasonable. Theoretically, if your program has the positive vibe you’re after they should WANT to wear it, anyway.

    And, as I said, by requiring the gear, you don’t ever have to mention logos, etc. If it’s issued gear, those marks should be wherever they’re supposed to be, and you’ve just made the commercial aspect a non-issue.

    Hello? Players get how it works.

  • Kek | December 16, 2008 at 2:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”305903″][quote comment=”305898″][quote comment=”305894″]I don’t see much wrong with a university saying, “All athletic department athletes and personnel must use only athletic department issued clothing and equipment while in the locker rooms and training facilities.”

    Done that way, any logos, trademarks, et al, would simply come along for the ride.

    And, hey, be honest, if you’re a coach or AD at U of Minnesota, say, trying to build tradition and camaraderie, etc., do you really wanna walk into your weight room and see one of your players in kelly green shorts, another in an orange tanktop and a third wearing a powder blue headband?

    I would think they’d make such “attire” demands even in the absence of any corporate merchandising connections.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    It just seems heavy handed. Sure theyre giving stuff out for free, but at what cost?

    If a guy in green shorts ruins your workout, you probably arent that good to begin with.[/quote]

    What you mean, “What cost?” You think the athletes are so impressionable they’ll be scarred by being exposed to marketing concepts they’ve understood since they were 11 years old?

    My point was that requiring athletes to wear athletic department issued gear isn’t unreasonable. Theoretically, if your program has the positive vibe you’re after they should WANT to wear it, anyway.

    And, as I said, by requiring the gear, you don’t ever have to mention logos, etc. If it’s issued gear, those marks should be wherever they’re supposed to be, and you’ve just made the commercial aspect a non-issue.

    Hello? Players get how it works.[/quote]
    Great point. Take away the talk of logos (maker’s logo), you’re simply asking your players to be in uniform.

    Why is it that we make these general blanket assumptions about college aged kids being so damned impressionable? Isn’t it well documented that MJ wore Converse at UNC but really liked Adidas until Nike stepped in (Powers, other sneakerheads back me up?) It is possible that kids/young adults can make their own decisions.

    It’s not as if you go to a Nike/Adidas/UA school and the logo is branded into their skin!

    It’s an athletic brand, not like they’re joining the Stonecutters.

    anybody?

    Who controls the British Crown?
    Who keeps the metric system down?
    We do, we do.

  • RaoulDuke | December 16, 2008 at 3:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”305903″][quote comment=”305898″][quote comment=”305894″]I don’t see much wrong with a university saying, “All athletic department athletes and personnel must use only athletic department issued clothing and equipment while in the locker rooms and training facilities.”

    Done that way, any logos, trademarks, et al, would simply come along for the ride.

    And, hey, be honest, if you’re a coach or AD at U of Minnesota, say, trying to build tradition and camaraderie, etc., do you really wanna walk into your weight room and see one of your players in kelly green shorts, another in an orange tanktop and a third wearing a powder blue headband?

    I would think they’d make such “attire” demands even in the absence of any corporate merchandising connections.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    It just seems heavy handed. Sure theyre giving stuff out for free, but at what cost?

    If a guy in green shorts ruins your workout, you probably arent that good to begin with.[/quote]

    What you mean, “What cost?” You think the athletes are so impressionable they’ll be scarred by being exposed to marketing concepts they’ve understood since they were 11 years old?

    My point was that requiring athletes to wear athletic department issued gear isn’t unreasonable. Theoretically, if your program has the positive vibe you’re after they should WANT to wear it, anyway.

    And, as I said, by requiring the gear, you don’t ever have to mention logos, etc. If it’s issued gear, those marks should be wherever they’re supposed to be, and you’ve just made the commercial aspect a non-issue.

    Hello? Players get how it works.[/quote]

    These players are given a free education in return for them being walking billboards and moneymakers for the school.

    The NCAA says it is unethical if student atheltes draw a salary, because theyre supposed to be amateurs playing for the love of the game. Then out of the opposite sides of their mouth they tell them to wear some conglomerations corporate mark, because theyre making a lot of money by doing so.

    They want it both ways.

    Fuck them all!

  • Beardface | December 16, 2008 at 3:02 pm |

    As far as being the official outfitter of a universities’ athletics, part of what you pay for is helping to renovate, supply, and upkeep their facilities. With that in mind, you have full right to demand the athletes only wear their apparel in the workout rooms and such. I mean, you’re giving the school and players a shitload of garments, they don’t need to go shopping for other shit. Of course you’re going to demand they not give money to another company you’re competing with, only makes sense. Plus, Nike, Reebok, UA, and Adidas all make shit thats practically interchangeable nowadays, so whatever you want, you’re likely to get for free.

    And when I say they get a shitload of stuff, they get a shitload. Workout gear, lounging gear, dressy gear, practice gear. Enough per year for you to not have to get anything else, and you get new top of the line stuff every year. And if you’re at a big school and go to a bowl, you get all the stuff again, but with the bowl logo on it. You’re saturated with your own school’s gear, no need to go out and buy other stuff.

  • Beardface | December 16, 2008 at 3:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”305905″]These players are given a free education in return for them being walking billboards and moneymakers for the school.

    The NCAA says it is unethical if student atheltes draw a salary, because theyre supposed to be amateurs playing for the love of the game. Then out of the opposite sides of their mouth they tell them to wear some conglomerations corporate mark, because theyre making a lot of money by doing so.

    They want it both ways.

    Fuck them all![/quote]
    Ahh yes, the pay athletes argument…

    They get free room and board at a school that’ll cost a regular student ~$5K(in state, public) to ~$30K(Duke) per semester to attend. They get daily spending allowances. They get free merchandise, free travel, and a free education. They graduate debt-free.

    Yea, they are paid. They are paid in the form of a scholarship that puts them in a significantly better opportunity long-term than the average student. They might not receive the money directly, but they receive the money.

  • dp | December 16, 2008 at 3:10 pm |

    I’m curious if this school/sponsor logo rule applies to all sports in the weightroom, (I would think it must).
    Sure, it’s easy to justify the football or basketball players getting loads of free clothing to wear, but I know from experience that the smaller sports (ie the non-revenue generating ones) at these universities do not get near the amount of swag. I would’ve been doing laundry twice a week to even go to these workouts with my official apparel!

  • RaoulDuke | December 16, 2008 at 3:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”305907″][quote comment=”305905″]These players are given a free education in return for them being walking billboards and moneymakers for the school.

    The NCAA says it is unethical if student atheltes draw a salary, because theyre supposed to be amateurs playing for the love of the game. Then out of the opposite sides of their mouth they tell them to wear some conglomerations corporate mark, because theyre making a lot of money by doing so.

    They want it both ways.

    Fuck them all![/quote]
    Ahh yes, the pay athletes argument…

    They get free room and board at a school that’ll cost a regular student ~$5K(in state, public) to ~$30K(Duke) per semester to attend. They get daily spending allowances. They get free merchandise, free travel, and a free education. They graduate debt-free.

    Yea, they are paid. They are paid in the form of a scholarship that puts them in a significantly better opportunity long-term than the average student. They might not receive the money directly, but they receive the money.[/quote]

    Thou shalt not disregard thine marketing agreement, no matter how much of an asshole it makes you look like.

  • Bryant | December 16, 2008 at 3:16 pm |

    The Buffalo Bisons have updated their webpage with their new Mets-color scheme. The logo will officially be unveiled tonight.

    http://buffalo.bison...

    I think this logo and color scheme is an improvement over the previous. Green, red, black, and gold were a terrible change for a team that looked classy in navy and red. The smiling Buster Bison was awful. The charger bison is much better. I will wait to pass judgment on the uniforms until I see them.

  • Ricko | December 16, 2008 at 3:16 pm |

    a) Coaches have been demanding “issue-only” gear since long before logo-ed endorsements. It’s just saying, “Wear team gear around the training facilities.” This, by virtually no measure, is harmful to the athletes.

    b) Better to ponder this: If everyone is so worried about the tender psyches of these athletes, why do we put them in position to have millions watch them screw up? How do you think the Texas DB who booted that easy interception against Texas Tech is feeling these days? My guess: He’ll wake up dreaming about that sumbitch for the rest of his life. And I’ll bet there’ve been more than a couple times since that Saturday night that he’s wanted to just walk out in front of freeway traffic.

    But, y’know, let’s just hope that seeing Nike logos in the weight room doesn’t stick with him.

  • LI Phil | December 16, 2008 at 3:18 pm |

    best argument for not wearing “school” gear in the gym:

    hamburger u

  • Jay | December 16, 2008 at 3:18 pm |

    [quote comment=\”305910\”]The Buffalo Bisons have updated their webpage with their new Mets-color scheme. The logo will officially be unveiled tonight.

    http://buffalo.bison...

    I think this logo and color scheme is an improvement over the previous. Green, red, black, and gold were a terrible change for a team that looked classy in navy and red. The smiling Buster Bison was awful. The charger bison is much better. I will wait to pass judgment on the uniforms until I see them.[/quote]

    Heavy on the black, of course….

  • LI Phil | December 16, 2008 at 3:20 pm |

    [quote]How do you think the Texas DB who booted that easy interception against Texas Tech is feeling these days? My guess: He’ll wake up dreaming about that sumbitch for the rest of his life. And I’ll bet there’ve been more than a couple times since that Saturday night that he’s wanted to just walk out in front of freeway traffic.[/quote]

    on that one play he went from “playing on sundays” to “working on sundays” (at foot locker)

  • RaoulDuke | December 16, 2008 at 3:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”305911″]a) Coaches have been demanding “issue-only” gear since long before logo-ed endorsements. It’s just saying, “Wear team gear around the training facilities.” This, by virtually no measure, is harmful to the athletes.

    b) Better to ponder this: If everyone is so worried about the tender psyches of these athletes, why do we put them in position to have millions watch them screw up? How do you think the Texas DB who booted that easy interception against Texas Tech is feeling these days? My guess: He’ll wake up dreaming about that sumbitch for the rest of his life. And I’ll bet there’ve been more than a couple times since that Saturday night that he’s wanted to just walk out in front of freeway traffic.

    But, y’know, let’s just hope that seeing Nike logos in the weight room doesn’t stick with him.[/quote]

    Its not about scarring the athletes. Its about cultivating corporate apologists like you that suck the soul from everything they touch.

  • Ricko | December 16, 2008 at 3:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”305914″][quote]How do you think the Texas DB who booted that easy interception against Texas Tech is feeling these days? My guess: He’ll wake up dreaming about that sumbitch for the rest of his life. And I’ll bet there’ve been more than a couple times since that Saturday night that he’s wanted to just walk out in front of freeway traffic.[/quote]

    on that one play he went from “playing on sundays” to “working on sundays” (at foot locker)[/quote]

    Well, good, he’ll be okay then, having been subconsciously conditioned to think, “Must…sell…Nike”.

  • Ricko | December 16, 2008 at 3:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”305915″][quote comment=”305911″]a) Coaches have been demanding “issue-only” gear since long before logo-ed endorsements. It’s just saying, “Wear team gear around the training facilities.” This, by virtually no measure, is harmful to the athletes.

    b) Better to ponder this: If everyone is so worried about the tender psyches of these athletes, why do we put them in position to have millions watch them screw up? How do you think the Texas DB who booted that easy interception against Texas Tech is feeling these days? My guess: He’ll wake up dreaming about that sumbitch for the rest of his life. And I’ll bet there’ve been more than a couple times since that Saturday night that he’s wanted to just walk out in front of freeway traffic.

    But, y’know, let’s just hope that seeing Nike logos in the weight room doesn’t stick with him.[/quote]

    Its not about scarring the athletes. Its about cultivating corporate apologists like you that suck the soul from everything they touch.[/quote]

    Just reality. Tell me, what color is the sky in your world?

  • RaoulDuke | December 16, 2008 at 3:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”305917″][quote comment=”305915″][quote comment=”305911″]a) Coaches have been demanding “issue-only” gear since long before logo-ed endorsements. It’s just saying, “Wear team gear around the training facilities.” This, by virtually no measure, is harmful to the athletes.

    b) Better to ponder this: If everyone is so worried about the tender psyches of these athletes, why do we put them in position to have millions watch them screw up? How do you think the Texas DB who booted that easy interception against Texas Tech is feeling these days? My guess: He’ll wake up dreaming about that sumbitch for the rest of his life. And I’ll bet there’ve been more than a couple times since that Saturday night that he’s wanted to just walk out in front of freeway traffic.

    But, y’know, let’s just hope that seeing Nike logos in the weight room doesn’t stick with him.[/quote]

    Its not about scarring the athletes. Its about cultivating corporate apologists like you that suck the soul from everything they touch.[/quote]

    Just reality. Tell me, what color is the sky in your world?[/quote]

    Seafoam green with a nike swoosh.

  • dp | December 16, 2008 at 3:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”305909″][quote comment=”305907″][quote comment=”305905″]These players are given a free education in return for them being walking billboards and moneymakers for the school.

    The NCAA says it is unethical if student atheltes draw a salary, because theyre supposed to be amateurs playing for the love of the game. Then out of the opposite sides of their mouth they tell them to wear some conglomerations corporate mark, because theyre making a lot of money by doing so.

    They want it both ways.

    Fuck them all![/quote]
    Ahh yes, the pay athletes argument…

    They get free room and board at a school that’ll cost a regular student ~$5K(in state, public) to ~$30K(Duke) per semester to attend. They get daily spending allowances. They get free merchandise, free travel, and a free education. They graduate debt-free.

    Yea, they are paid. They are paid in the form of a scholarship that puts them in a significantly better opportunity long-term than the average student. They might not receive the money directly, but they receive the money.[/quote]

    Thou shalt not disregard thine marketing agreement, no matter how much of an asshole it makes you look like.[/quote]

    Just FYI, the majority of student athletes aren’t on a full ride. A quick internet search gives total number of NCAA athletes as over 400,000 students in 2006-2007 and 126,000 who receive scholarship (which include partial scholarships, which are probably more common than full rides).

  • Ricko | December 16, 2008 at 3:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”305915″][quote comment=”305911″]a) Coaches have been demanding “issue-only” gear since long before logo-ed endorsements. It’s just saying, “Wear team gear around the training facilities.” This, by virtually no measure, is harmful to the athletes.

    b) Better to ponder this: If everyone is so worried about the tender psyches of these athletes, why do we put them in position to have millions watch them screw up? How do you think the Texas DB who booted that easy interception against Texas Tech is feeling these days? My guess: He’ll wake up dreaming about that sumbitch for the rest of his life. And I’ll bet there’ve been more than a couple times since that Saturday night that he’s wanted to just walk out in front of freeway traffic.

    But, y’know, let’s just hope that seeing Nike logos in the weight room doesn’t stick with him.[/quote]

    Its not about scarring the athletes. Its about cultivating corporate apologists like you that suck the soul from everything they touch.[/quote]

    So forty years ago when coaches said to wear team-issued stuff in training room that was okay. But now, because that gear has a manufacturer logo, it’s wrong?

  • Vagabond Ben | December 16, 2008 at 3:29 pm |

    Matt Powers — I’ve been negotiating an agreement this week with a company called mPower Software Services, so I’ve been getting a lot of e-mails with “mPower” as the subject line. I have to admit that each time I open one, I think of you and wonder if it is going to be about helmets and sneakers. The little things that get us throught the day . . .

  • Manzell B | December 16, 2008 at 3:33 pm |

    Wow I suck. That is what I get for not reading the full ticker.

  • Happy Joe | December 16, 2008 at 3:36 pm |

    [quote comment=”305824″][quote comment=”305822″][quote comment=”305815″][quote comment=”305784″]Was Peter King serious when he wrote in yesterday’s column that the Texans should adopt those red uniforms sll the time. If so, Peter’s taste is well awful. I don’t mind the red uniform with white pants, but the all red is horrible.[/quote]
    The thing is, that’s the least of the issues in that MMQB column yesterday. King is an absolute hack. He must get paid by the amount of characters he types.

    That PK has an opinion on the all-red, I don’t mind (truth be told, I don’t mind the look that much).

    However, I gives a shit about the line at Starbucks or what shampoo the hotels he stays in stock.

    I can’t figure what’s that “column” is supposed to be. It’s like a hodgepodge of a print column, a blog and twitter posts.[/quote]

    I disagree. Almost any column writer will inject a bit of their personal lives into their writing. King’s column almost always has good information, quotes, and analysis. He thoughtfully segregates his travel stories, etc. from the football stuff so it is easy to skip the parts one doesn’t want to read.

    Just my opinion. Also, in my opinion, the battle reds are awful. Red tops with white pants or blue tops with white pants look much better.[/quote]
    I don’t know, I guess it’s a fine line between a column (print or electronic) and a blog.

    For instance, I think Paul is more informal on UW than on a Page 2 column.

    I dislike King and my opinion of his stuff wouldn’t change, but I think SI would do better giving him a blog where he could post daily tidbits. Even though I dislike him, I would find it interesting to see what he’s up to during the week. Both football and non-football related.

    MMQB could be relegated to analysis/quotes of the week, rankings, awards and the normal football stuff. Then the column could be less than seven webpages!

    Question: does MMQB appear in print in SI or only online?[/quote]
    Agree, Kek, that a blog format would be easier to read.

  • Ricko | December 16, 2008 at 3:38 pm |

    ” Seafoam green with a nike swoosh.”

    I like it. Nice use of vintage A’s element.

    Hey, no harm not foul? Just trying to get at the core issue. Which, to me, was “if you put the logo on the gear you shouldn’t have to tell people to wear the damn logo…it would just BE there.”

    And that overstated logo specificity IS frickin’ annoying, and pompous. But having to wear team gear? No big deal.

  • Beardface | December 16, 2008 at 3:40 pm |

    [quote comment=”305919″][quote comment=”305909″][quote comment=”305907″][quote comment=”305905″]These players are given a free education in return for them being walking billboards and moneymakers for the school.

    The NCAA says it is unethical if student atheltes draw a salary, because theyre supposed to be amateurs playing for the love of the game. Then out of the opposite sides of their mouth they tell them to wear some conglomerations corporate mark, because theyre making a lot of money by doing so.

    They want it both ways.

    Fuck them all![/quote]
    Ahh yes, the pay athletes argument…

    They get free room and board at a school that’ll cost a regular student ~$5K(in state, public) to ~$30K(Duke) per semester to attend. They get daily spending allowances. They get free merchandise, free travel, and a free education. They graduate debt-free.

    Yea, they are paid. They are paid in the form of a scholarship that puts them in a significantly better opportunity long-term than the average student. They might not receive the money directly, but they receive the money.[/quote]

    Thou shalt not disregard thine marketing agreement, no matter how much of an asshole it makes you look like.[/quote]

    Just FYI, the majority of student athletes aren’t on a full ride. A quick internet search gives total number of NCAA athletes as over 400,000 students in 2006-2007 and 126,000 who receive scholarship (which include partial scholarships, which are probably more common than full rides).[/quote]
    Even a partial scholly can be quite significant for a college student, especially when you add up how much the compensation is.

    I mean, even a kid on a partial baseball scholarship at Duke, or out of state to UNC, Virginia, Michigan, etc is likely being compensated more overall than a player of equal skill playing A or AA baseball in the minors…

    Just because they aren’t receiving a paycheck doesn’t mean they aren’t getting paid (i.e. compensated for their services)

  • chance | December 16, 2008 at 3:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”305888″][quote comment=”305884″]Sweet M&N gamer here. Check out that 4![/quote]
    That looks a lot like my favorite Packers numbers.[/quote]
    Better picture here (far left)

  • RaoulDuke | December 16, 2008 at 3:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”305920″][quote comment=”305915″][quote comment=”305911″]a) Coaches have been demanding “issue-only” gear since long before logo-ed endorsements. It’s just saying, “Wear team gear around the training facilities.” This, by virtually no measure, is harmful to the athletes.

    b) Better to ponder this: If everyone is so worried about the tender psyches of these athletes, why do we put them in position to have millions watch them screw up? How do you think the Texas DB who booted that easy interception against Texas Tech is feeling these days? My guess: He’ll wake up dreaming about that sumbitch for the rest of his life. And I’ll bet there’ve been more than a couple times since that Saturday night that he’s wanted to just walk out in front of freeway traffic.

    But, y’know, let’s just hope that seeing Nike logos in the weight room doesn’t stick with him.[/quote]

    Its not about scarring the athletes. Its about cultivating corporate apologists like you that suck the soul from everything they touch.[/quote]

    So forty years ago when coaches said to wear team-issued stuff in training room that was okay. But now, because that gear has a manufacturer logo, it’s wrong?[/quote]

    I have no problem telling them you play for the Blues wear Blues stuff. Its when you have somebody in beaverton telling a kid on the podunk U football team wear this branded piece of sneaker company x’s apparel, or you cant use the gym of the school youre making money for.

    Perhaps it wasnt as big of a deal 40 years ago because you drove your car to the stadium.

    Today you drive your Eddie Bauer outfitted Cadilac SUV to corporate fuckhole field, to root for your high dollar coach who defected from another school with another marketing agreement, for a shot at the doritos-at&love- billywitchdoctor.com bowl. But you cant get in unless you turn your nike shirt inside out because were an addidas school.

    Like I said…sucking the soul out.

  • RaoulDuke | December 16, 2008 at 3:44 pm |

    [quote comment=”305924″]” Seafoam green with a nike swoosh.”

    I like it. Nice use of vintage A’s element.

    Hey, no harm not foul? Just trying to get at the core issue. Which, to me, was “if you put the logo on the gear you shouldn’t have to tell people to wear the damn logo…it would just BE there.”

    And that overstated logo specificity IS frickin’ annoying, and pompous. But having to wear team gear? No big deal.[/quote]

    Agreed*.

    *didnt mean anything personal with the apologist remark.

  • Beardface | December 16, 2008 at 3:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”305927″]I have no problem telling them you play for the Blues wear Blues stuff. Its when you have somebody in beaverton telling a kid on the podunk U football team wear this branded piece of sneaker company x’s apparel, or you cant use the gym of the school youre making money for.
    [/quote]
    No, thats not the point

    The point is that they’re telling them that if they don’t wear the logo’d sportswear, they can’t workout in that gym, the one that sponsor helps pay for. Thats perfectly fine. Why? Because thats the athlete’s only gym. Its not like they’re being disallowed from working out at school, they can use the one for the general student population, but if they want the priviledge of short lines, personalized staff, and facilities made just for you and your sport, then obide by the rules.

    I don’t see where the problem is with that.

  • Glenn | December 16, 2008 at 3:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”305876″]quote]

    What do you expect from a team that has co-opted jesus for football purposes. They have no shame, decency or decorum.[/quote]

    Just needs a little more color to get into Dana Jacobsen territory :)

  • Ricko | December 16, 2008 at 3:54 pm |

    And, hey, I’m not saying we aren’t over-branded and over-retailed out (heard about Best Buy today?).

    But, yeah, if coach says gotta wear team stuff, wear team stuff.
    These days its gonna have a logo on it.

  • LI Phil | December 16, 2008 at 3:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”305930″][quote comment=”305876″]quote]

    What do you expect from a team that has co-opted jesus for football purposes. They have no shame, decency or decorum.[/quote]

    Just needs a little more color to get into Dana Jacobsen territory :)[/quote]

    oh belvedere

  • RaoulDuke | December 16, 2008 at 3:58 pm |

    [quote comment=”305929″][quote comment=”305927″]I have no problem telling them you play for the Blues wear Blues stuff. Its when you have somebody in beaverton telling a kid on the podunk U football team wear this branded piece of sneaker company x’s apparel, or you cant use the gym of the school youre making money for.
    [/quote]
    No, thats not the point

    The point is that they’re telling them that if they don’t wear the logo’d sportswear, they can’t workout in that gym, the one that sponsor helps pay for. Thats perfectly fine. Why? Because thats the athlete’s only gym. Its not like they’re being disallowed from working out at school, they can use the one for the general student population, but if they want the priviledge of short lines, personalized staff, and facilities made just for you and your sport, then obide by the rules.

    I don’t see where the problem is with that.[/quote]

    The shoe company gets recognition from the attention paid to the all to often atrocious jerseys and gear the players wear.

    Why do they feel the need to dictate what brand you get to work out in.

    Can a company be insecure? Do nike and addidas have tiny penises?

  • dp | December 16, 2008 at 4:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”305925″][quote comment=”305919″][quote comment=”305909″][quote comment=”305907″][quote comment=”305905″]These players are given a free education in return for them being walking billboards and moneymakers for the school.

    The NCAA says it is unethical if student atheltes draw a salary, because theyre supposed to be amateurs playing for the love of the game. Then out of the opposite sides of their mouth they tell them to wear some conglomerations corporate mark, because theyre making a lot of money by doing so.

    They want it both ways.

    Fuck them all![/quote]
    Ahh yes, the pay athletes argument…

    They get free room and board at a school that’ll cost a regular student ~$5K(in state, public) to ~$30K(Duke) per semester to attend. They get daily spending allowances. They get free merchandise, free travel, and a free education. They graduate debt-free.

    Yea, they are paid. They are paid in the form of a scholarship that puts them in a significantly better opportunity long-term than the average student. They might not receive the money directly, but they receive the money.[/quote]

    Thou shalt not disregard thine marketing agreement, no matter how much of an asshole it makes you look like.[/quote]

    Just FYI, the majority of student athletes aren’t on a full ride. A quick internet search gives total number of NCAA athletes as over 400,000 students in 2006-2007 and 126,000 who receive scholarship (which include partial scholarships, which are probably more common than full rides).[/quote]
    Even a partial scholly can be quite significant for a college student, especially when you add up how much the compensation is.

    I mean, even a kid on a partial baseball scholarship at Duke, or out of state to UNC, Virginia, Michigan, etc is likely being compensated more overall than a player of equal skill playing A or AA baseball in the minors…

    Just because they aren’t receiving a paycheck doesn’t mean they aren’t getting paid (i.e. compensated for their services)[/quote]

    I’m not arguing that they aren’t getting ‘paid’ for their athletic services, I’m just pointing out that only a quarter of these athletes are seeing even a partial scholarship, even fewer who get full rides. Excluding non-athletic financial aid, majority of student-athletes are paying full freight just like everyone else. Just trying to give clarity to the blanket statement that all these kids are getting free stuff and going to school on full rides. I recall the NCAA commercial that ran the last couple years saying “most of us are going pro in something other than sports”..

  • Belgium Endive | December 16, 2008 at 4:06 pm |

    I could be wrong, but does anybody else think that not only the “A” may be different on the Philadelphia Flyers 3rd (retro) jersey, but the shade of orange , may be different as well, a tad more……well……orange, as opposed to an orangey red.

  • Johnny F. | December 16, 2008 at 4:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”305932″][quote comment=”305930″][quote comment=”305876″]quote]

    What do you expect from a team that has co-opted jesus for football purposes. They have no shame, decency or decorum.[/quote]

    Just needs a little more color to get into Dana Jacobsen territory :)[/quote]

    There’s something about Dana that draws me to her. I have no idea what it is. Anyone else? Anybody have any idea what it might be?

    oh belvedere[/quote]

  • Jim Walaitis | December 16, 2008 at 4:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”305910″]The Buffalo Bisons have updated their webpage with their new Mets-color scheme. The logo will officially be unveiled tonight.

    http://buffalo.bison...

    I think this logo and color scheme is an improvement over the previous. Green, red, black, and gold were a terrible change for a team that looked classy in navy and red. The smiling Buster Bison was awful. The charger bison is much better. I will wait to pass judgment on the uniforms until I see them.[/quote]

    However … As a proud former Cross Country/Track member of the “Buffalo Grove Bison”, I must respectfully dispute the plural use of the team name. Now I’m going to go buy tickets for my favorite group, Phishes.

  • joe | December 16, 2008 at 4:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”305919″][quote comment=”305909″][quote comment=”305907″][quote comment=”305905″]These players are given a free education in return for them being walking billboards and moneymakers for the school.

    The NCAA says it is unethical if student atheltes draw a salary, because theyre supposed to be amateurs playing for the love of the game. Then out of the opposite sides of their mouth they tell them to wear some conglomerations corporate mark, because theyre making a lot of money by doing so.

    They want it both ways.

    Fuck them all![/quote]
    Ahh yes, the pay athletes argument…

    They get free room and board at a school that’ll cost a regular student ~$5K(in state, public) to ~$30K(Duke) per semester to attend. They get daily spending allowances. They get free merchandise, free travel, and a free education. They graduate debt-free.

    Yea, they are paid. They are paid in the form of a scholarship that puts them in a significantly better opportunity long-term than the average student. They might not receive the money directly, but they receive the money.[/quote]

    Thou shalt not disregard thine marketing agreement, no matter how much of an asshole it makes you look like.[/quote]

    Just FYI, the majority of student athletes aren’t on a full ride. A quick internet search gives total number of NCAA athletes as over 400,000 students in 2006-2007 and 126,000 who receive scholarship (which include partial scholarships, which are probably more common than full rides).[/quote]
    thats also looking at all NCAA, including DII and DIII. That is a bunch of people and they are not allowed to have scholarships. They also are unlikely be beholden to Nike or Adidas in the weight room.

  • JTH | December 16, 2008 at 4:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”305937″]
    However … As a proud former Cross Country/Track member of the “Buffalo Grove Bison”, I must respectfully dispute the plural use of the team name. Now I’m going to go buy tickets for my favorite group, Phishes.[/quote]
    Regardless of where you went to high school, “Bisons” is flat-out stupid. “Bison” is the correct plural form. It’s just like “deer” vs. “deers.”

    Incidentally, I went to Fremd. So, hi, former sorta-neighbor.

  • Jim Walaitis | December 16, 2008 at 5:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”305939″][quote comment=”305937″]
    However … As a proud former Cross Country/Track member of the “Buffalo Grove Bison”, I must respectfully dispute the plural use of the team name. Now I’m going to go buy tickets for my favorite group, Phishes.[/quote]
    Regardless of where you went to high school, “Bisons” is flat-out stupid. “Bison” is the correct plural form. It’s just like “deer” vs. “deers.”

    Incidentally, I went to Fremd. So, hi, former sorta-neighbor.[/quote]

    Did you play for the Viking? :)

  • GH | December 16, 2008 at 5:01 pm |

    Here is an image of the orioles “looks like a duck” cap from the 1998 season. the video was awesome, but they said they couldn’t find a cap from 1998. I googled and got this image. does resemble a duck in the breast area.

    http://www.baltimore...

  • JTH | December 16, 2008 at 5:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”305940″]
    Did you play for the Viking? :)[/quote]
    Proud member of the freshman-B football squad.

  • bob | December 16, 2008 at 5:05 pm |

    I think Wikipedia is compounding the problem (or maybe even started it). They use both dates out of some silly “compromise” between die-hards who use the real date (you know, the one the NFL uses) and the casual fans, who don’t understand.

    Not the first time Wikipedia has put its official stamp on inaccurate information, and it won’t be the last. This is the essential problem – facts really ought not be decided by consensus.[/quote]

    Dead on. Facts should be decided by a single person, preferably a Republican or old white British men.

    http://news.cnet.com...

    If only we could get rid of that pesky free press now…

  • S. Bennett | December 16, 2008 at 5:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”305830″][quote comment=”305776″]As for wedding bands for hockey players, my exposure to this in my leagues (FAR from NHL levels) is that guys take them off for fear of the sweat making them slip off and then losing them.

    As for NHL players, I imagine fighters take them off because it’d be like having a mini set of brass knuckles on. Seeing Petr Sykora is not a rough player and rarely ever (I’ve never seen him) takes his gloves off in play, I can see why he’d leave it on. Thing is, you would only know if someone is wearing a ring when they take their gloves off in play, and the only ones who do this would be fighters and they would take the ring off in respect for the face they are about the bash in :)[/quote]
    Here’s my take on the wearing of rings:
    1. Rings are not to be worn because of the chance you may be in a fight.
    2. Even in rec leagues (where there shouldn’t be fighting) no rings – I had a teammate who was slashed in the hand and his finger swelled so much that we had to cut his ring off.[/quote]

    Exactly. Sykora’s unlikely of getting in a fight, but if he were to get slashed, his ring could cut off circulation on a swollen finger and cause serious trouble.

    Additionally, I had a pal who wore a ring while playing and, over the course of the year, his ring got pretty beat up from holding his stick. I bent pretty much flat on the inside of his hand and caused all sorts of trouble trying to get it off.

    SB

  • shadoquad | December 16, 2008 at 5:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”305941″]Here is an image of the orioles “looks like a duck” cap from the 1998 season. the video was awesome, but they said they couldn’t find a cap from 1998. I googled and got this image. does resemble a duck in the breast area.

    http://www.baltimore...

    Does my heart good to see Elrod Hendricks. He was a pretty awesome person. Even if he is in a duck hat. :)

  • dp | December 16, 2008 at 5:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”305938″][quote comment=”305919″][quote comment=”305909″][quote comment=”305907″][quote comment=”305905″]These players are given a free education in return for them being walking billboards and moneymakers for the school.

    The NCAA says it is unethical if student atheltes draw a salary, because theyre supposed to be amateurs playing for the love of the game. Then out of the opposite sides of their mouth they tell them to wear some conglomerations corporate mark, because theyre making a lot of money by doing so.

    They want it both ways.

    Fuck them all![/quote]
    Ahh yes, the pay athletes argument…

    They get free room and board at a school that’ll cost a regular student ~$5K(in state, public) to ~$30K(Duke) per semester to attend. They get daily spending allowances. They get free merchandise, free travel, and a free education. They graduate debt-free.

    Yea, they are paid. They are paid in the form of a scholarship that puts them in a significantly better opportunity long-term than the average student. They might not receive the money directly, but they receive the money.[/quote]

    Thou shalt not disregard thine marketing agreement, no matter how much of an asshole it makes you look like.[/quote]

    Just FYI, the majority of student athletes aren’t on a full ride. A quick internet search gives total number of NCAA athletes as over 400,000 students in 2006-2007 and 126,000 who receive scholarship (which include partial scholarships, which are probably more common than full rides).[/quote]
    thats also looking at all NCAA, including DII and DIII. That is a bunch of people and they are not allowed to have scholarships. They also are unlikely be beholden to Nike or Adidas in the weight room.[/quote]

    DII gives scholarships, DIII does not. And you’d be surprised, even DIII schools have been plastering logos all over the facilities and their students — I worked at a DIII university and we had to put up all kinds of adidas signage all over the fields, courts, walls, etc. Certainly not to the extent of Notre Dame’s policy for the weight room, but definitely more than you would expect.

  • silentfrank | December 16, 2008 at 5:40 pm |

    Nothing really to add. Just wow, my old high school (Bishop Ireton) got mentioned. Considering they aren’t exactly a sports powerhouse and fairly small student pop. wise, I can now say it is a small world after all.

  • jon | December 16, 2008 at 6:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”305920″][quote comment=”305915″][quote comment=”305911″]a) Coaches have been demanding “issue-only” gear since long before logo-ed endorsements. It’s just saying, “Wear team gear around the training facilities.” This, by virtually no measure, is harmful to the athletes.

    b) Better to ponder this: If everyone is so worried about the tender psyches of these athletes, why do we put them in position to have millions watch them screw up? How do you think the Texas DB who booted that easy interception against Texas Tech is feeling these days? My guess: He’ll wake up dreaming about that sumbitch for the rest of his life. And I’ll bet there’ve been more than a couple times since that Saturday night that he’s wanted to just walk out in front of freeway traffic.

    But, y’know, let’s just hope that seeing Nike logos in the weight room doesn’t stick with him.[/quote]

    Its not about scarring the athletes. Its about cultivating corporate apologists like you that suck the soul from everything they touch.[/quote]

    So forty years ago when coaches said to wear team-issued stuff in training room that was okay. But now, because that gear has a manufacturer logo, it’s wrong?[/quote]

    AMEN!!!!

    this is why this whole argument is so dumb. we’re so quick to point out any kind of corporate influence on anything having to do with sports and condemn it here. its called an evil influence and a mark of the apocalypse. dear christ, its a little logo on a uniform or, in this case, a t-shirt and some shorts (both of which the athlete and school get for free). its nothing to get all up in arms about.

  • Beantown | December 16, 2008 at 6:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”305830″][quote comment=”305776″]As for wedding bands for hockey players, my exposure to this in my leagues (FAR from NHL levels) is that guys take them off for fear of the sweat making them slip off and then losing them.

    As for NHL players, I imagine fighters take them off because it’d be like having a mini set of brass knuckles on. Seeing Petr Sykora is not a rough player and rarely ever (I’ve never seen him) takes his gloves off in play, I can see why he’d leave it on. Thing is, you would only know if someone is wearing a ring when they take their gloves off in play, and the only ones who do this would be fighters and they would take the ring off in respect for the face they are about the bash in :)[/quote]
    Here’s my take on the wearing of rings:
    1. Rings are not to be worn because of the chance you may be in a fight.
    2. Even in rec leagues (where there shouldn’t be fighting) no rings – I had a teammate who was slashed in the hand and his finger swelled so much that we had to cut his ring off.[/quote]

    I played in the ECHL a few years ago, and a teammate of mine got his forehead split open in a fight because of a guy’s wedding ring. The guy couldn’t put his helmet on for a week.

  • The Fonz | December 16, 2008 at 6:29 pm |

    mets are having their KRod Press conference tomorrow. Do you think when they present him with his jersey it will include the Inagural citi patch? I mean, Johan had the Shea patch on his press conference.

  • Husul | December 16, 2008 at 6:34 pm |

    “[I]n 2002, the Bills’ white uniforms went through a radical change. The white uniforms include a red stripe on the sides and are dark blue along the shoulders of the uniforms, likely to mimic CFL uniforms designed in a similar manner due to the team’s large fan base in Canada as a result of Buffalo’s proximity to Canada.”

    First, the grammar tells me this is just opinion and has no factual basis.
    Second, the same company made the uni’s.
    Third, why would they try and mimic the competition that no one goes to see?
    Fourth, Yes the Bills look a lot like Montreal…But why aren’t the Lions/Browns/Seahawks designed similarly ?

  • Eric B in KC | December 16, 2008 at 7:04 pm |

    the NFL doesn’t award some sort of All-American status to college players, does it? i ran into Mizzou TE Chase Coffman at dinner sunday night and he was wearing an NFL Equipment logo’d shirt with the words “2008 All-America Team” printed under the logo. anyone know anything about this?

  • Tony In Erie (at work) | December 16, 2008 at 7:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”305954″]the NFL doesn’t award some sort of All-American status to college players, does it? i ran into Mizzou TE Chase Coffman at dinner sunday night and he was wearing an NFL Equipment logo’d shirt with the words “2008 All-America Team” printed under the logo. anyone know anything about this?[/quote]

    All the corporate dollars the team lost by choking the season away probably forced the college to print the all american shirts on blank nfl shirts :)

  • Carl | December 16, 2008 at 7:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”305918″][quote comment=”305917″]
    Just reality. Tell me, what color is the sky in your world?[/quote]

    Seafoam green with a nike swoosh.[/quote]

    Stuff like this reminds me why I love this site.

    All this adidas locker room mandate, screw nike, awful, horrible no-good very bad Bills jersey and hockey ring chatter is going to give me an aneurysm. Gotta find something to calm me down. Aaaaah.

  • Tony In Erie (at work) | December 16, 2008 at 7:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”305950″][quote comment=”305830″][quote comment=”305776″]As for wedding bands for hockey players, my exposure to this in my leagues (FAR from NHL levels) is that guys take them off for fear of the sweat making them slip off and then losing them.

    As for NHL players, I imagine fighters take them off because it’d be like having a mini set of brass knuckles on. Seeing Petr Sykora is not a rough player and rarely ever (I’ve never seen him) takes his gloves off in play, I can see why he’d leave it on. Thing is, you would only know if someone is wearing a ring when they take their gloves off in play, and the only ones who do this would be fighters and they would take the ring off in respect for the face they are about the bash in :)[/quote]
    Here’s my take on the wearing of rings:
    1. Rings are not to be worn because of the chance you may be in a fight.
    2. Even in rec leagues (where there shouldn’t be fighting) no rings – I had a teammate who was slashed in the hand and his finger swelled so much that we had to cut his ring off.[/quote]

    I played in the ECHL a few years ago, and a teammate of mine got his forehead split open in a fight because of a guy’s wedding ring. The guy couldn’t put his helmet on for a week.[/quote]

    I say, good for him…keep the rings on! Fighting still doesn’t put the puck in the net, so if you get clobbered by a ring because you’re too frustrated that you haven’t scored a goal since the turn of the century, you deserve it!

  • Tony In Erie (at work) | December 16, 2008 at 7:52 pm |

    Aaaaah.

    Awesome. Where can you buy that?

  • scott | December 16, 2008 at 8:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”305910″]The Buffalo Bisons have updated their webpage with their new Mets-color scheme. The logo will officially be unveiled tonight.

    http://buffalo.bison...

    I think this logo and color scheme is an improvement over the previous. Green, red, black, and gold were a terrible change for a team that looked classy in navy and red. The smiling Buster Bison was awful. The charger bison is much better. I will wait to pass judgment on the uniforms until I see them.[/quote]

    I like the new logo. And the article says the new uniforms will tie in to the Mets’ primary colors – blue and orange.

  • Jason | December 16, 2008 at 9:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”305790″]Anyone see “How I Met Your Mother” last night…a regular uniwatch orgy…the Jim Marshall Vikes jersey was classic…[/quote]

    yes, but did you notice that all the “canadians” were wearing brand new rbk jerseys. no vintage or retro there

  • Johnny F. | December 16, 2008 at 9:55 pm |

    Any buzz about a Mets uni change? On some of the Mets forums, there are a few topics devoted to some buzz/rumors that there could be some major Mets uni changes. Some speculate a ditching of the black, others speculate the bringing back of the 1986-era look.

  • Johnny F. | December 16, 2008 at 10:03 pm |

    How about the devils player, named Johnny Oduya…. pronounced “Oh do ya”. Sounds funny during play-by-play. “Turnover at mid-ice… Gomez skates in, passes to Zherdev….Zherdev thinks about a shot…OH DO YA?! steals the puck!”

  • LI Phil | December 16, 2008 at 10:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”305959″]…the article says the new uniforms will tie in to the Mets’ primary colorsblue and orange black.[/quote]

    (fixed)

  • Phil | December 16, 2008 at 10:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”305937″][quote comment=”305910″]The Buffalo Bisons have updated their webpage with their new Mets-color scheme. The logo will officially be unveiled tonight.

    http://buffalo.bison...

    I think this logo and color scheme is an improvement over the previous. Green, red, black, and gold were a terrible change for a team that looked classy in navy and red. The smiling Buster Bison was awful. The charger bison is much better. I will wait to pass judgment on the uniforms until I see them.[/quote]

    However … As a proud former Cross Country/Track member of the “Buffalo Grove Bison”, I must respectfully dispute the plural use of the team name. Now I’m going to go buy tickets for my favorite group, Phishes.[/quote]

    Article regarding new logo/colors is up for anyone interested if it hasn’t been posted yet

    http://buffalo.bison...

  • The Fonz | December 16, 2008 at 10:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”305961″]Any buzz about a Mets uni change? On some of the Mets forums, there are a few topics devoted to some buzz/rumors that there could be some major Mets uni changes. Some speculate a ditching of the black, others speculate the bringing back of the 1986-era look.[/quote]

    I was hoping a uni-change, but Im doubting it now..i figure they would do it before the holidays. But oh well, maybe next year…

  • mtjaws | December 16, 2008 at 10:55 pm |

    Does anyone know what patch #33 Williams of Tennessee hoops is wearing tonight? It’s on his right chest, but I don’t see anyone else wearing it.

  • dave | December 16, 2008 at 10:56 pm |

    The CFL uniforms were all redesigned for the 2005 season – and at that time three teams (Calgary, BC, Hamilton) adopted contrast color or outlined shoulder patterns. (http://www.tsn.ca/cf...). Prior to that, no team had Buffalo styled shoulders.

    The Bills adopted those shoulders in 2002.

    Thankfully, the wikipedia entry has been corrected.

  • mtjaws | December 16, 2008 at 10:59 pm |

    In answering my own question about Tennessee’s players, I see in an older thread that it is some academic achievement recognition. I noticed that he was the only player with it tonight, and posted before I went looking for previous posts on it.

    Thanks Uniwatch!

  • TheStoicPaisano | December 16, 2008 at 11:03 pm |

    [quote comment=”305954″]the NFL doesn’t award some sort of All-American status to college players, does it? i ran into Mizzou TE Chase Coffman at dinner sunday night and he was wearing an NFL Equipment logo’d shirt with the words “2008 All-America Team” printed under the logo. anyone know anything about this?[/quote]

    Reebok makes the NFL Equipment stuff and hands it out at plenty of events. Players at the U.S. Army All-American Bowl get the same gear, just unbranded. Coffman’s shirt may have been from Playboy, Santonio Holmes would wear his in warmups back in 2005 at OSU (hmm, Reebok gear at one of Nike’s flagship schools).

  • JTH | December 16, 2008 at 11:21 pm |

    I just caught some great “uni-related” blowout banter from tonight’s Blackhawks-Oilers game.

    Steve Konroyd (Not sure why he’s doing the color and Eddie Olczyk’s in the studio tonight): “Do you know who Brendan Fraser is?”
    Pat Foley: “No.”
    SK: “George of the Jungle — He’s been in a few movies. I think he’s a Canadian guy. I think Brent Seabrook looks *just like* Brendan Fraser.”
    PF: “Wh– are you asking him to get into a loincloth or something?”

  • Greg B. | December 16, 2008 at 11:33 pm |

    Color-on-color alert at the Staples Center tonight. Knicks wearing blue, Lakers in yellow. Pretty good looking matchup.

  • Greg B. | December 16, 2008 at 11:41 pm |

    Nevermind on my previous comment. Guess that happens a lot when the Lakers play at home.

  • JTH | December 16, 2008 at 11:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”305972″]Nevermind on my previous comment. Guess that happens a lot when the Lakers play at home.[/quote]
    Is that something they just started doing recently?

  • Greg B. | December 16, 2008 at 11:52 pm |

    Heh. Yeah. My bad.

  • JTH | December 16, 2008 at 11:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”305974″]Heh. Yeah. My bad.[/quote]
    Just fuckin’ witcha.

    Actually, I happened to be looking for old Bulls photos because I was trying to figure out if they always looked like crap or if they actually used to look good.

    So what the hell is it about the Bulls’ current uniforms? What they’re wearing now is essentially unchanged over the last 20+ years except for the fabric. But this (even with that goofball on the left) really does look much better than this.

  • Carl | December 16, 2008 at 11:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”305958″]Aaaaah.

    Awesome. Where can you buy that?[/quote]

    You know, not quite sure. I’ve seen it around in poster size (this is in St. Paul/Minneapolis), but you’re a Habs fan you’re gonna love this. I do.

  • Kevin Z. | December 17, 2008 at 12:19 am |

    I went to O’Connell. Pretty cool to see them featured on Uni Watch – but it should really be DC area basketball since both schools are in nothern virginia suburbs of the nation’s capital. Also, O’Connell has been wearing gray jerseys since at least 2000-2001 season (I am pretty sure that was the first year). I wonder if the person who sent those pics is from DJO or Ireton?

  • K.G. | December 17, 2008 at 12:44 am |

    UTEP women’s hoops team has some overly side panels on their away jerseys (pick axes). Pics 2 and 4 show them best.

  • K.G. | December 17, 2008 at 12:45 am |

    Forgot the link

    http://golobos.cstv....

  • Belgium Endive | December 17, 2008 at 1:06 am |

    [quote comment=”305967″]The CFL uniforms were all redesigned for the 2005 season – and at that time three teams (Calgary, BC, Hamilton) adopted contrast color or outlined shoulder patterns. (http://www.tsn.ca/cf...). Prior to that, no team had Buffalo styled shoulders.

    The Bills adopted those shoulders in 2002.

    Thankfully, the wikipedia entry has been corrected.[/quote]

    Dave when the CFL made that change, Montreal was more or less remained unchanged. Their design pre-dates the Bills. Saying that, I don’t think anybody really thinks the NFL would copy a CFL uniform.

  • chance | December 17, 2008 at 10:01 am |

    [quote comment=”305943″][quote]I think Wikipedia is compounding the problem (or maybe even started it). They use both dates out of some silly “compromise” between die-hards who use the real date (you know, the one the NFL uses) and the casual fans, who don’t understand.

    Not the first time Wikipedia has put its official stamp on inaccurate information, and it won’t be the last. This is the essential problem – facts really ought not be decided by consensus.[/quote]

    Dead on. Facts should be decided by a single person, preferably a Republican or old white British men.

    http://news.cnet.com...

    If only we could get rid of that pesky free press now…[/quote]

    Adopting the standards of a free press would actually improve Wikipedia.

    Don’t get me wrong – I use it frequently, but only as a source for links to real information. It has zero credibility on its own, aside from what it can borrow from other sources.

  • Nate | December 17, 2008 at 2:50 pm |

    I’ve noticed several similarities between Reebok CFL and NFL jerseys. The Blue BOmbers and Rams, Bills and Alouettes, and Falcons and Stampeders seem to have similar templates and colors.

  • mattm | December 17, 2008 at 9:21 pm |

    New UW football coach Steve Sarkisian is talking about changing the unis for next year.

  • MelloYelloMD | December 18, 2008 at 1:36 pm |

    Thanks for the WCAC (DC) high school uni mention. O’Connell and Ireton are okay but they will never be DeMatha. They will never have the real Wootten