There was some chatter in the comments yesterday about the Pittsburgh Maulers, who played in the USFL back in 1984. By happy coincidence, reader Jeff Warner has an interesting story about the Maulers’ uniforms:
When the Maulers came into existence, they were looking for a practice facility that had space for a couple of offices, and my school district had an old junior high school with a decent football field, not too far from downtown Pittsburgh. The agreement worked well for the one year that the team was in existence, but when the team disbanded, they basically left most of the equipment to the school district as part of payment.
It was a convenient coincidence that Baldwin High School wore purple and white while the Maulers were, of course, purple, gray, orange, and white. Thus, we gladly took in the unis and made them our own. For several years — roughly 1985-88 — we had uniforms with the orange highlights, despite not having orange as a school color. The pants and helmets lasted the longest, the jerseys not as long. I’ll have to look to see if I can find some old pics in a yearbook at home and scan and send a couple to you.
The team was pretty bad while wearing these uniforms — kind of like the Maulers. When we won a game midseason in 1988 (my freshman year), it was the first win in something like 27 games, if I remember correctly.
I like this idea of using uniforms as a unit of barter or payment. Hell, in the current economic climate, even a shitty purple jersey is probably worth more than a $100 bill. All you jersey collectors, your moment of triumph has finally come!
It’s gotta be better than buy Citicorp stock: Our friends at Ebbets Field Flannels are looking for investors. Interested in getting in on the ground floor, or the field level, or whatever? Contact EFF prexy Jerry Cohen here.
Uni Watch News Ticker: Monster find by Paul Wiederecht, who found a site loaded with old AFL program covers, many of which are pure gold. Take some time to click through each year’s offerings — tremendous stuff. ”¦ A Cubs exec wants more night games at Wrigley. ”¦ Mattew Algeo‘s living in Rome these days and has noticed something interesting: “Professional street hockey seems to be quite popular here. It’s played in gyms, with a ball (not a puck), field hockey-like sticks, and four-wheel (not in-line) roller skates. The uniforms are the usual ad-covered monstrosities found throughout Europe, but the goalie pads sometimes feature some pretty cool designs.” ”¦ Another Lions leak, and I can confirm that it’s accurate. Helmet and pants are still silver (they look a little bleached in that scan). Is that number typeface a huge mistake or what? ”¦ This story about Sidney Crosby’s visor refuses to die. Look, we all know that if you challenge a guy to a fight and he responds by removing his visor, that’s code for “How about a blowjob after the game?” and “You bet, but only if I can wear your sweat-soaked jersey while we’re doing it!,” so let’s just move on already. ”¦ Turns out Kansas City isn’t the only city that’s all worked up about the AFL throwback uniforms (with thanks to Steve Harbula). ”¦ The Flyers will be wearing orange at home throughout the postseason and next season (with thanks to Kieran Kelly). ”¦ Brazilian soccer coach Roberto Fernandes punishes players who don’t hustle by making them wear a pink dress (as reported by Mark Kaplowitz). ”¦ An Oakland writer has some interesting thoughts about the Raiders’ AFL throwbacks (with thanks to Michael Gawley). ”¦ Hey, remember af2? Right, me neither, but one of their teams has new uniforms (with thanks to Dan Bewley). ”¦ Michael Cline Jr. notes that the Sabres wore their throwback-logo helmets with their non-throwback jerseys last night, which isn’t how it usually works. ”¦ Speaking of the NHL, my Page 2 colleague Thomas Neumann and I attended last night’s Isles/Wild game, where the pregame festivities featured Darryl Strawberry, of all people, wearing an Islanders jersey to accept a check to his charitable foundation. Just about died when I saw that. Unfortunately, I was sitting at the other end of the rink and couldn’t get a good photo, but I’m hoping something will turn up on the wires. ”¦ Doug Keklak sent along a shot of a high school softball pitcher wearing what appears to be a team-insignia headband, plus some cool old shots of then-Civic Arena. ”¦ Also from Kek: “While reading this book, I came across this story. I have an email out to [the author] to see if there’s photographic proof of this, but he’s in Egypt for the next two weeks, so I won’t hear back from him right away.” ”¦ Little Boy Blue? Nah, it’s just Boise State’s softball team (with thanks to Cory Dowling). ”¦ Here’s a rare photo of the Broncos’ brown-logo helmet from 1962. The brown decal was only used for part of that season, because team officials decided it didn’t stand out enough on the orange background, so they changed the decal to white (with thanks to Tom Jacobson). ”¦ The Jets’ 50th-anniversary logo has been unveiled. I’m not usually one to call for more drop shadows or additional colors, but this feels a little flat, no? ”¦
I’d almost call the Nov. 12, 1967 Chargers vs. Dolphins program cover grusome. A dolphin wearing a Dolphins helmet and football in it’s mouth inside of Shamu’s mouth.
What’s up with the Chargers jerseys on the cover of the Aug 13, 1966 program?
the logos for the Lions and Jets are decent,
but this logo is overkill
link
and this logo makes the Met look like a trampoline:
link
As I mentioned yesterday…the Jets logo is a blob…who ever is the Jets graphics designer likes plain/boring images.
A little white to make boundaries with the #’s and the oval would have given it some life…its like when they the did NYXL logo…terrible…(even the 40th ann. patch of SB III was terrible).
The last great patch the Jets did was in 93 for the 25th Ann. of SB III (that was a great patch)
link
I really hope we drop the current NY font (it looks so odd…) I really wish that one day they will do a throwback to the Futuristic Jets logo…
That Oiler article is annoying. It would make no sense for the Texans to wear Oiler throwbacks. That reporter to me does not “get it”. Or am I wrong?
[quote comment=”319538″]That Oiler article is annoying. It would make no sense for the Texans to wear Oiler throwbacks. That reporter to me does not “get it”. Or am I wrong?[/quote]
you’re absolutely right
what the author wants is what the people of cleveland got…(and in the process, the good people of baltimore got doubly screwed)…the indy colts records, like those of every other franchise that ever relocated, rightfully belong in indy (as brutal as that is for baltimorons)…BUT the browns records rightfully belong in baltimore NOW (as happened when the mayflower took the colts records to indy)
instead, baltimore got neither
the team moved…the records should move with the team…just like the dodgers’ and giants’ records belong in california and the records of every other franchise that moved belong with that city…the NEW team those cities got have their own history to build upon…and they DON’T deserve (although it’s cool to see, don’t get me wrong) to wear the uniforms of teams (franchises) that were never a part of the current iteration (think the brewers and braves throwbacks — sorry milwaukee…it’s a cool idea to wear braves throwbacks, but they’re no longer “your” team)
it totally sucks for the fans of those cities, whose blood, sweat, tears and ticket sales helped fuel those teams, and who lived and died with them when they did well and played poorly…but the team moved…it sucks but that’s life…you don’t get to keep the “rights” to anything … and in most cases that city did get a new franchise (sometimes years later, sometimes decades later, sometimes…well…)
im a fan of the lions’ font. it matches better with the more modern style of the jersey. just wish they would change the shade of blue they use. something just doesn’t seem right about it. other than that they have a solid uniform.
The game that is played professionally in Italy, Spain, Portugal, and other southern European countries, is what they call “roller hockey.”
The game that was professionalized in North America as Roller Hockey International is actually called “inline hockey.”
Really wish the Lions would get rid of the black. Late 90’s all us Michiganders wanted black in the uniform because the honolulu blue and silver was looking out dated, but now, the whole “black is cool” thing on uniforms is way out and I think they should try and take the blue, silver and white and make a better jersey out of it.
Not to mention, as Paul stated, the numeral font is terrible.
Hey Li Phil–
In honor of your “Switcheroo” column
link
from a few weeks ago…
I came across this story in the Dallas Morning News:
link
I tracked down a pdf of the play program from the theater’s website, and grabbed a couple of better quality photos of the “switched” jerseys
link
link
Just thought it was pretty cool seeing that shortly after your weekend entry ran.
Now, these:
link
are really bad uniforms. Each one worse than the rest.
Don’t like the slobber lines on the new Lions logo but they could have screwed it up much worse. Why does every team think that adding black as a uni color is a good idea?
Guess I’m the only one here that thinks there is something not right about putting a map of Texas on the side of a Missouri team’s head. Don’t get me wrong, the design is nice (except for the patch littering the front of the jersey), but there seems to be something theoritically wrong with this concept.
[quote comment=”319536″]the logos for the Lions and Jets are decent,
but this logo is overkill
link
and this logo makes the Met look like a trampoline:
link
I like the Padres anniversary logo.
Do the locals refer to the Metrodome as the Met?
[quote comment=”319542″]Really wish the Lions would get rid of the black. Late 90’s all us Michiganders wanted black in the uniform because the honolulu blue and silver was looking out dated, but now, the whole “black is cool” thing on uniforms is way out and I think they should try and take the blue, silver and white and make a better jersey out of it.
Not to mention, as Paul stated, the numeral font is terrible.[/quote]
The uni font isn’t necessarily terrible, but it’s a really close rip-off of the Jaguars numeral font (assuming that font is going to stay on their new jerseys, whatever they end up looking like).
Lions:
link
Jags:
link
[quote comment=”319537″]As I mentioned yesterday…the Jets logo is a blob…who ever is the Jets graphics designer likes plain/boring images.
A little white to make boundaries with the #’s and the oval would have given it some life…its like when they the did NYXL logo…terrible…(even the 40th ann. patch of SB III was terrible).
The last great patch the Jets did was in 93 for the 25th Ann. of SB III (that was a great patch)
link
I really hope we drop the current NY font (it looks so odd…) I really wish that one day they will do a throwback to the Futuristic Jets logo…[/quote]
i love how bad logo’s, or bad designs, or bad sleeve patches seem to ALWAYS be the graphic designers fault. like as if his work IS the “gospel”, and doesn’t have to get approved through a chain of people/executives… the same chain of people/executives that came to him with the idea in the first place.
[quote comment=”319545″]. . .
Guess I’m the only one here that thinks there is something not right about putting a map of Texas on the side of a Missouri team’s head. Don’t get me wrong, the design is nice (except for the patch littering the front of the jersey), but there seems to be something theoritically wrong with this concept.[/quote]
If you are honoring a franchise’s inception with a uniform, not using it’s original logo and colors would be wrong. Otherwise it would be ignoring it’s past so then why bother with the anniversary?
For gosh sakes. To those who are unnerved by this concept take solace that IT’S ONLY FOR TWO GAMES.(Sorry for the caps. But this drives me nuts.)
Thought you might appreciate a “Uniform Final Four” courtesy of the Chicago Tribune.
Purdue (black) over Syracuse (white) in the final. Quite frankly, I agree, Purdue’s black unis are sharp.
link
[quote comment=”319541″]The game that is played professionally in Italy, Spain, Portugal, and other southern European countries, is what they call “roller hockey.”
The game that was professionalized in North America as Roller Hockey International is actually called “inline hockey.”[/quote]
I link last year. It’s ridiculously popular in Spain and Portugal. Italy and Argentina have solid teams, but the Iberian countries really dominate the sport.
[quote comment=”319548″][quote comment=”319537″]As I mentioned yesterday…the Jets logo is a blob…who ever is the Jets graphics designer likes plain/boring images.
A little white to make boundaries with the #’s and the oval would have given it some life…its like when they the did NYXL logo…terrible…(even the 40th ann. patch of SB III was terrible).
The last great patch the Jets did was in 93 for the 25th Ann. of SB III (that was a great patch)
link
I really hope we drop the current NY font (it looks so odd…) I really wish that one day they will do a throwback to the Futuristic Jets logo…[/quote]
i love how bad logo’s, or bad designs, or bad sleeve patches seem to ALWAYS be the graphic designers fault. like as if his work IS the “gospel”, and doesn’t have to get approved through a chain of people/executives… the same chain of people/executives that came to him with the idea in the first place.[/quote]
YES!!!! Preach on!
100 times out of 100 a great design I submit to my superiors gets altered so much by the time it goes to press that it’s almost not my design anymore. Just how it works in corporate design.
[quote comment=”319546″][quote comment=”319536″]the logos for the Lions and Jets are decent,
but this logo is overkill
link
and this logo makes the Met look like a trampoline:
link
I like the Padres anniversary logo.
Do the locals refer to the Metrodome as the Met?[/quote]
No, “The Met”, was, and forever will be, old Metropolitan Stadium.
The Metrodome is referred to simply as “The Dome”.
The horsey on the Broncos’ first orange helmet was royal blue.
They hated the brown and gold and made a HUGE deal out of switching to orange and blue (bonfire and all). Why on God’s green earth would they then put a friggin’ brown logo on the new helmet.
This is a classic example of someone looking at a 30+ year old photo and thinking the Broncos were “honoring” the brown. Oh, right, because they loved it so much.
Apply logic. PLEASE. For that new Bronco uni, the pants striping was royal-orange-royal. And the road jerseys had no orange at all. Royal numbers, royal NOB and three royal sleeve stripes. With that set you would put a BROWN logo on the helmet? Oh, of course.
Until someone produces a game action color photo of that helmet showing the horse was brown, I’ll tell you it was royal blue. Because brown makes absolutely no sense whatosever…and royal totally does.
—Ricko
Screwing with Ricko’s head this morning, Paul?
[quote]Here’s a rare photo of the Broncos’ brown-logo helmet from 1962. The brown decal was only used for part of that season, because team officials decided it didn’t stand out enough on the orange background, so they changed the decal to white (with thanks to Tom Jacobson). [/quote]
T’wasn’t brown. The pony was blue.
And picking up from our Broncos helmet conversation of yesterday, don’t forget the link they had around the white bucker in link.
Ah, Ricko beat me to it. But only because I was looking for those pictures….
[quote comment=”319555″]The horsey on the Broncos’ first orange helmet was royal blue.
They hated the brown and gold and made a HUGE deal out of switching to orange and blue (bonfire and all). Why on God’s green earth would they then put a friggin’ brown logo on the new helmet.
This is a classic example of someone looking at a 30+ year old photo and thinking the Broncos were “honoring” the brown. Oh, right, because they loved it so much.
Apply logic. PLEASE. For that new Bronco uni, the pants striping was royal-orange-royal. And the road jerseys had no orange at all. Royal numbers, royal NOB and three royal sleeve stripes. With that set you would put a BROWN logo on the helmet? Oh, of course.
Until someone produces a game action color photo of that helmet showing the horse was brown, I’ll tell you it was royal blue. Because brown makes absolutely no sense whatosever…and royal totally does.
—Ricko[/quote]
Alright, alright — uncle.
(laughing)
Thanks, Chance.
To quote Charlie Brown (as I often do, he being such a renowned expresser of angst):
ARRRRGH!
–Ricko
I have to admit that Ebbets Field Flannels looking for investors makes me very, very nervous. I’d really hate to see them go under, especially since Jerry wrested control of the company back from Stall & Dean.
Glad to see that Flyers wearing orange at home again next season.
It’s time for the “Black is cool” fad to end.
[quote comment=”319555″]The horsey on the Broncos’ first orange helmet was royal blue.
They hated the brown and gold and made a HUGE deal out of switching to orange and blue (bonfire and all). Why on God’s green earth would they then put a friggin’ brown logo on the new helmet.
This is a classic example of someone looking at a 30+ year old photo and thinking the Broncos were “honoring” the brown. Oh, right, because they loved it so much.
Apply logic. PLEASE. For that new Bronco uni, the pants striping was royal-orange-royal. And the road jerseys had no orange at all. Royal numbers, royal NOB and three royal sleeve stripes. With that set you would put a BROWN logo on the helmet? Oh, of course.
Until someone produces a game action color photo of that helmet showing the horse was brown, I’ll tell you it was royal blue. Because brown makes absolutely no sense whatosever…and royal totally does.
—Ricko[/quote]
i had yer back last night ricko…read #193 and down from there
Hey, the guy who was talking about his high school wearing Maulers uniforms — there was a high school that wore the uniforms, but… the Maulers didn’t wear orange helmets, so I think his memory’s sketchy.
Paul, I understand you’re not the biggest fan of hockey, but you can’t blame the hockey wing for being interested in a unique hockey story (aka: one NOT about RBK).
Also, that article was written seven days ago, so it kind of has died.
[quote comment=”319549″][quote comment=”319545″]. . .
Guess I’m the only one here that thinks there is something not right about putting a map of Texas on the side of a Missouri team’s head. Don’t get me wrong, the design is nice (except for the patch littering the front of the jersey), but there seems to be something theoritically wrong with this concept.[/quote]
If you are honoring a franchise’s inception with a uniform, not using it’s original logo and colors would be wrong. Otherwise it would be ignoring it’s past so then why bother with the anniversary?
For gosh sakes. To those who are unnerved by this concept take solace that IT’S ONLY FOR TWO GAMES.(Sorry for the caps. But this drives me nuts.)[/quote]
Look, there are not that many Chiefs fans left that remember the Texas days and these guys are used to thinking of anything in that state as the enemy. To glorify the enemy’s state map on the side of a helmet WILL cause negative feedback from a large amount of people no matter what the good intentions may be. This SHOULD have been anticipated by the KC brass during the design process and avoided all together.
My beefs with the AFL designs include the littering with the patch, NFL logo, and logo creep. And also, like the Colts, the stripes on the Patriots jerseys being cut off half way down, not continuing under the arms or at least tapering to create that illusion. Looks like someone just cut them off with scissors. I can’t stand watching the Colts today because of this – and their basic design is one of the best.
[quote comment=”319564″]Paul, I understand you’re not the biggest fan of hockey, but you can’t blame the hockey wing for being interested in a unique hockey story (aka: one NOT about RBK).
Also, that article was written seven days ago, so it kind of has died.[/quote]
I can’t speak for Paul, but if he attended the Isles/Wild game, I’d think he has some affection for hockey. There are Isles season ticket holders who don’t attend that many games in a season. LOL
Since when did the Athletics start using an “O” as a logo? Or is this just the Evil Empire creating logo confusion?
link
[quote comment=”319564″]Paul, I understand you’re not the biggest fan of hockey…[/quote]
I love hockey! Who ever said I don’t like hockey?
He said orange highlights, not helmets.
[quote comment=”319568″][quote comment=”319564″]Paul, I understand you’re not the biggest fan of hockey…[/quote]
I love hockey! Who ever said I don’t like hockey?[/quote]
After all, he allowed us a wing in the UW Hall. :o)
Someone mentioned last night about whether the officials would go with the red striped AFL uniforms for those games. I think that would be great.
I bet they won’t do it.
[quote comment=”319544″]Now, these:
link
are really bad uniforms. Each one worse than the rest.[/quote]
WOW! I am so glad to have not lived during that era, especially in Sweden.
[quote comment=”319572″][quote comment=”319544″]Now, these:
link
are really bad uniforms. Each one worse than the rest.[/quote]
WOW! I am so glad to have not lived during that era, especially in Sweden.[/quote]
oh please matt, who are you trying to fool??? we all know you’re DIYing one of those shirts as we speak… haha. kidding
[quote comment=”319553″][quote comment=”319546″][quote comment=”319536″]the logos for the Lions and Jets are decent,
but this logo is overkill
link
and this logo makes the Met look like a trampoline:
link
I like the Padres anniversary logo.
Do the locals refer to the Metrodome as the Met?[/quote]
No, “The Met”, was, and forever will be, old Metropolitan Stadium.
The Metrodome is referred to simply as “The Dome”.[/quote]
I always liked the “Homerdome” name.
[quote]WOW! I am so glad to have not lived during that era, especially in Sweden.[/quote]
the swedes are especially thankful for that
[quote comment=”319568″][quote comment=”319564″]Paul, I understand you’re not the biggest fan of hockey…[/quote]
I love hockey! Who ever said I don’t like hockey?[/quote]
Show me a guy who “doesn’t like hockey,” and I’ll show you a guy who fell asleep to Marv Albert and the Rangers as a kid, and once wanted to go to Cornell just because it was Ken Dryden’s school.
Just throwing that out there.
[quote comment=”319567″]Since when did the Athletics start using an “O” as a logo? Or is this just the Evil Empire creating logo confusion?
link
no… that’s not an “O”… thats just a graphic of a baby elephant being born… it’s all part of nike’s new “birthin’ baseball” series. i personally can’t wait to see the giants!
haha
that hat is horrible!!!!
[quote comment=”319576″][quote comment=”319568″][quote comment=”319564″]Paul, I understand you’re not the biggest fan of hockey…[/quote]
I love hockey! Who ever said I don’t like hockey?[/quote]
Show me a guy who “doesn’t like hockey,” and I’ll show you a guy who fell asleep to Marv Albert and the Rangers as a kid, and once wanted to go to Cornell just because it was Ken Dryden’s school.
Just throwing that out there.[/quote]
Didn’t Phil go to Cornell? LOL
[quote comment=”319573″][quote comment=”319572″][quote comment=”319544″]Now, these:
link
are really bad uniforms. Each one worse than the rest.[/quote]
WOW! I am so glad to have not lived during that era, especially in Sweden.[/quote]
oh please matt, who are you trying to fool??? we all know you’re DIYing one of those shirts as we speak… haha. kidding[/quote]
Hey, link not a bad look.
link however, is.
[quote comment=”319580″]link however, is.[/quote]
You know, because we all wear polyester leisure suits to the hotel swimming pool for recreational purposes. LOL
re: Graphic Design
I also work in graphics/television…and I guess the way print media is handled, it is different from how it is done on my end.
Yes, changes DO get made (and I am speaking from my end), but not to the extent that the original designer’s work is no longer recognizable.
If we request a piece that has to be done out-of-house, and we are not satisfied, we pay for it and simply file it away.
But to end up with a logo that genuinely looks like a felt cut out, the original designer(s)obviously set the template …(and yes, I am more than aware, that the designers also give up all rights…) but at the same time, the bevy of designers/animators I do work with, create truly outstanding signature work that more often than not, we DO NOT request any changes.
I am not slamming EVERY graphic designer, just the ones that work for my favorite football team…and the brass heads that think they know what they are doing.
[quote comment=”319544″]Now, these:
link
are really bad uniforms. Each one worse than the rest.[/quote]
These inspire what I have coined as the “Lawrence Welk Syndrome”-(LWS)-which is defined as:
Anything that one hates with all of their heart and soul, yet can’t tear their eyes away from.
No comments yet on the USA Basketball ring pictured in today’s Wall Street Journal?
I’ll start: Ugly.
[quote comment=”319570″][quote comment=”319568″][quote comment=”319564″]Paul, I understand you’re not the biggest fan of hockey…[/quote]
I love hockey! Who ever said I don’t like hockey?[/quote]
After all, he allowed us a wing in the UW Hall. :o)[/quote]
It’s about time I came out and said this: I hate the way the term “hockey wing” is used around here. It implies that hockey is a second-class citizen on the site and that I don’t care for hockey myself, neither of which is true. I’m not going so far as to ask y’all to stop using the term “hockey wing” — hey, if that’s what some of you wanna call yourselves, that’s ultimately your business. But I do think it’s misleading and sort of a lazy shorthand for something that ain’t necessarily so.
i was checking out the remember the afl site acknowledged in the raiders article and noticed something on the page for the bengals ( link ). isn’t this picture of john stofa the one that Paul ran a few weeks ago, but they changed the jersey color to black?
Hey, all. Random request here. I’m ordering new basketball unis for my school and can use whatever font I want for name and number. Anyone know of a good site that showcases college and pro fonts as used on uniforms? I know, I should google it…I did and was unsatisfied with the results. I’m hoping someone knows of the be-all-end-all of sports font sites and can help. Thanks!
Jason
[quote comment=”319576″][quote comment=”319568″][quote comment=”319564″]Paul, I understand you’re not the biggest fan of hockey…[/quote]
I love hockey! Who ever said I don’t like hockey?[/quote]
Show me a guy who “doesn’t like hockey,” and I’ll show you a guy who fell asleep to Marv Albert and the Rangers as a kid, and once wanted to go to Cornell just because it was Ken Dryden’s school.
Just throwing that out there.[/quote]
And who attended last night’s Isles/Wild game!
Just to clarify: I didn’t fall asleep to Marv and the Rangers because I was bored; I fell asleep cuz I’d be staying up past my bedtime listening to the games on the radio when I was 6 or 7 yrs old and would usually pass out sometime in the third period….
[quote comment=”319539″]it totally sucks for the fans of those cities, whose blood, sweat, tears and ticket sales helped fuel those teams, and who lived and died with them when they did well and played poorly…but the team moved…it sucks but that’s life…you don’t get to keep the “rights” to anything … and in most cases that city did get a new franchise (sometimes years later, sometimes decades later, sometimes…well…)[/quote]
I’m 180 degrees opposite. I think that the teams do belong to the fans. Especially teams like the Colts and Browns.
I think the Browns set the bar for future NFL moves: if you’re selling out the stadium and you still want to move, find a new name as you find a new city. And a new record book.
If Grandpa and Dad want to take a little guy to the stadium on the tickets Grandpa’s had for 35-40 years and tell stories about Jim Brown, etc. then they should be able to do it.
But if you’re not selling out (say, the SuperSonics or whatever the FIRST basketball team in Charolette was) then go ahead and move.
[quote comment=”319574″][quote comment=”319553″][quote comment=”319546″][quote comment=”319536″]the logos for the Lions and Jets are decent,
but this logo is overkill
link
and this logo makes the Met look like a trampoline:
link
I like the Padres anniversary logo.
Do the locals refer to the Metrodome as the Met?[/quote]
No, “The Met”, was, and forever will be, old Metropolitan Stadium.
The Metrodome is referred to simply as “The Dome”.[/quote]
I always liked the “Homerdome” name.[/quote]
I can’t speak for people from ‘Sota… but here in Wisconsin, we call it the “Humpty Dump”.
An old guy can take little Billy to a Ravens game and still talk about Johnny U.
Just sayin.
The Straw in Islanders getup from getty images
link
[quote comment=”319564″]Paul, I understand you’re not the biggest fan of hockey, but you can’t blame the hockey wing for being interested in a unique hockey story (aka: one NOT about RBK).
Also, that article was written seven days ago, so it kind of has died.[/quote]
Well, TSN did talk about it last night, so i guess it hasn’t died just yet.
Oh and if Pittsburgh meets Boston in the playoffs, i guarantee you it will be back. :)
And personnally, records belong to a franchise, not a city.
[quote comment=”319592″]The Straw in Islanders getup from getty images
link
outstanding!
thanks
Regarding Houston, Cleveland, etc — the notion that teams “belong” to fans is a bill of goods sold by the teams’ actual owners to sucker fans into shelling out for merchandise, new stadia, seat licenses, etc.
If you want an ownership claim to a team then buy a share in one of the EPL squads that’s public traded. Or get season tix to the one of the teams whose societies have voting rights (eg the Sounders). IIRC, Packers shares are non-transferable (and confer no rights, anyway) so you’re S.O.L. if you want to “own” an NFL team.
[quote comment=”319585″]
It’s about time I came out and said this: I hate the way the term “hockey wing” is used around here. It implies that hockey is a second-class citizen on the site and that I don’t care for hockey myself, neither of which is true. I’m not going so far as to ask y’all to stop using the term “hockey wing” — hey, if that’s what some of you wanna call yourselves, that’s ultimately your business. But I do think it’s misleading and sort of a lazy shorthand for something that ain’t necessarily so.[/quote]
I’m ok with it, but I get where you’re coming from, Paul. I wouldn’t say we’re second-class citizens at all, but we make up a very small percentage of people on the UW Blog that would rank hockey as their favorite sport ahead of MLB Baseball and NFL Football. Baseball and football have a large following in the USA, and rightfully so as both sports are highly-successful in the Continental 48. I would never fault anyone for their liking of a sport over another sport. That’s who you are, and I’m ok with that.
Our “group” may not be as big, but we’re scrappy. And when push comes to shove, the hockey lovers on this board stand their ground and defend it tenaciously. Otherwise, we seem to blend in quite well for all intents and purposes. :o)
Just because we’re grouped differently doesn’t make us any more or less different. We’re just viewed as those that love hockey first.
I only speak for myself here, and the other members of the hockey-loving UWers may feel differently. But if I’m a second-class citizen to someone because I love hockey, that’s their loss. Not mine. I’m here because I love hockey and the look of the game (in the past. Damn you, Rbk).
And I think that’s why we’re all here when broken down to its empirical form, no?
[quote comment=”319595″][quote comment=”319592″]The Straw in Islanders getup from getty images
link
outstanding!
thanks[/quote]
LOVE that old logo
are the islanders the only NHL team to have the “all rights reserved “R”” on their jersey crest/logo???
(and does it have to be SO HUGE on the logo?!?!)
[quote comment=”319598″][quote comment=”319595″][quote comment=”319592″]The Straw in Islanders getup from getty images
link
outstanding!
thanks[/quote]
LOVE that old logo
are the islanders the only NHL team to have the “all rights reserved “R”” on their jersey crest/logo???
(and does it have to be SO HUGE on the logo?!?!)[/quote]
The Islanders are the only team to have the circle-R contained within their logo. All other NHL logos are still owned by the team, but only the Isles chose to have it within their logo rather than outside the logo.
Anyone else think that these “double combo” cards from Topps are really sweet?
link
And while I am at it… I always thought that jersey cards or game used cards or whatever, were kind of stupid. But now I think they are kind of cool to have a piece of the uni, or bat, or patch on a card? I think it’s sweet. Anyone else agree, or disagree?
[quote comment=”319544″]Now, these:
link
are really bad uniforms. Each one worse than the rest.[/quote]
HOLY CRAP… did people REALLY dress like that?!?
Paul I know you don’t like purple but what about the maulers helmets that deep purple (plumish) color is pretty sweet. Sorta looks like the Amsterdam Admirals colors.
Also what’s up with these helmets: link
[quote comment=”319594″]And personnally, records belong to a franchise, not a city.[/quote]
Yup, so do trademarks, images, logos, etc. Don’t have to like it, but it’s pretty much a legal absolute.
It’s certainly clear it works out better for everyone if it’s done the way the Browns did it, leaving history, et al, behind. And we can argue that, philosophically, that’s the way it should be done.
But legally, there’s no leg to stand on for demanding or expecting it when we’re talking about a privately held corporation.
Besides, history as history. And one of the general agreements here seems to be that bending history just isn’t right. 50 years ago, the Chiefs and Titans began in Texas as the Texans and Oilers, and they were among the new league’s better teams. Those are facts. Can’t argue them. The organizations are entitled to remember those early days of both financial struggle and football success.
—Ricko
[quote comment=”319603″]Yup, so do trademarks, images, logos, etc. Don’t have to like it, but it’s pretty much a legal absolute.
It’s certainly clear it works out better for everyone if it’s done the way the Browns did it, leaving history, et al, behind. And we can argue that, philosophically, that’s the way it should be done.
But legally, there’s no leg to stand on for demanding or expecting it when we’re talking about a privately held corporation.
Besides, history as history. And one of the general agreements here seems to be that bending history just isn’t right. 50 years ago, the Chiefs and Titans began in Texas as the Texans and Oilers, and they were among the new league’s better teams. Those are facts. Can’t argue them. The organizations are entitled to remember those early days of both financial struggle and football success.
—Ricko[/quote]
Sure it’s a legal absolute. Except when your business partners force you to do otherwise. And ESPECIALLY when you and your business partners are hiding behind a Congressionally-mandate anti-trust exemption.
Ye Olde Bears couldn’t just up and change their name to the Velocipides tomorrow. NFL Properites and all sorts of people have a say.
Modell didn’t have to leave the name and record book behind: IIRC, Rozelle made him do it.
[quote comment=”319596″]Regarding Houston, Cleveland, etc — the notion that teams “belong” to fans is a bill of goods sold by the teams’ actual owners to sucker fans into shelling out for merchandise, new stadia, seat licenses, etc.[/quote]
Fans: and the occasional mayor, governor and assorted sponsors. ;-) When you want to return to a market, sometimes your brother owners think it’s a wise idea to not burn your bridges behind you.
[quote comment=”319596″]If you want an ownership claim to a team then buy a share in one of the EPL squads that’s public traded. Or get season tix to the one of the teams whose societies have voting rights (eg the Sounders). IIRC, Packers shares are non-transferable (and confer no rights, anyway) so you’re S.O.L. if you want to “own” an NFL team.[/quote] Original Packers shares are voting shares: and they certainly can be transfered. Step one is for the owner to die. Step two is for someone in his will to recieve the shares.
I’d say that the NFL people who started that “we are this team” marketing campaign need to accept that people believe them. And they make a big stink to their congressmen, and then somebody gets to take a sightseeing trip to Washington, and….well, maybe we better just leave the Browns name in Cleveland and let Baltimore find a new name.
[quote comment=”319538″]That Oiler article is annoying. It would make no sense for the Texans to wear Oiler throwbacks. That reporter to me does not “get it”. Or am I wrong?[/quote]
The “Examiner” is not a real news source. It’s a source for freelance writers of varying levels of skill and intelligence. I wouldn’t count anything you read in any of the various “Examiners” as being indicative of a market’s general attitude.
As for leaving traditions and colors and records behind when you move…yeah, we accept that now. But nobody did it before Cleveland moved to Baltimore, am I right?
Ruh-roh, Reorge. NFL considering sponsorship logos (other than manufacturer) on unis:
link
link
[quote comment=”319565″]To glorify the enemy’s state map on the side of a helmet WILL cause negative feedback from a large amount of people no matter what the good intentions may be.[/quote]
Yeah, sure it will.
Tell you what, Chiefs – had you, at any point in the last 47 years, changed your uniforms, then, fine. You could wear one of those.
The Texas Rangers wore Washington Senators throwbacks. Hell, teams wear Negro League throwbacks, the Dodgers wore Brooklyn throwbacks, the Rays wore St. Pete Pelicans throwbacks and no one in Nashville or Kansas City is going to die if their team wears the colors and logo of another city or state. They just aren’t.
Holy crap, the things people will bitch about.
[quote comment=”319599″][quote comment=”319598″][quote comment=”319595″][quote comment=”319592″]The Straw in Islanders getup from getty images
link
outstanding!
thanks[/quote]
LOVE that old logo
are the islanders the only NHL team to have the “all rights reserved “R”” on their jersey crest/logo???
(and does it have to be SO HUGE on the logo?!?!)[/quote]
The Islanders are the only team to have the circle-R contained within their logo. All other NHL logos are still owned by the team, but only the Isles chose to have it within their logo rather than outside the logo.[/quote]
Like the Cubs and their trademark.
[quote comment=”319597″]
Just because we’re grouped differently doesn’t make us any more or less different. We’re just viewed as those that love hockey first.
I only speak for myself here, and the other members of the hockey-loving UWers may feel differently. But if I’m a second-class citizen to someone because I love hockey, that’s their loss. Not mine. I’m here because I love hockey and the look of the game (in the past. Damn you, Rbk).
[/quote]
teebz, i agree.
Speaking for myself, it’s just the opposite. I actually like the references to the UW Hockey Wing for a couple reasons.
1.) Hockey fans (not casual followers) are a different breed of fan anyway. If you are a fan, you know what I mean. If you are not, but you know a fan, you still know what I mean.
2.) When a regular here reads the words “UW Hockey Wing” they have a pretty good idea of which people here are going to be interested. That tends to make for some pretty fun discussions.
3.) From a uni standpoint, hockey is the only sport discussed regularly at UW that regularly uses full-chest logos and uni-designs. Every sport has colors, trim, wordmarks, sleeve patches etc. But only in hockey does a logo show up in essentially a 1’x1′ (unless you’re Zdeno Chara, and its 3’x3′) area on virtually every version of a team’s uniform top. That adds a dimension to hockey uni-discussion that doesn’t exist anywhere else.
So, Paul, if you don’t mind the words Hockey Wing, i don’t think any of the Hockey Wingers do either.
and by opposite, i mean opposite of what paul was concerned about.
[quote comment=”319594″]And personnally, records belong to a franchise, not a city.[/quote]
Agreed. That said, the bar for moving franchises should be raised. How? I don’t know, but rich owners who bleed taxpayers – and fans – for sweetheart stadium deals should be held more culpable. Robert Ersay: Shit; Art Modell: Double shit; Bud Adams, shit. Walter O’Malley: The guy who started it all.
In the end: Letterman has it right: We just root for the laundry.
[quote comment=”319604″][quote comment=”319603″]Yup, so do trademarks, images, logos, etc. Don’t have to like it, but it’s pretty much a legal absolute.
It’s certainly clear it works out better for everyone if it’s done the way the Browns did it, leaving history, et al, behind. And we can argue that, philosophically, that’s the way it should be done.
But legally, there’s no leg to stand on for demanding or expecting it when we’re talking about a privately held corporation.
Besides, history as history. And one of the general agreements here seems to be that bending history just isn’t right. 50 years ago, the Chiefs and Titans began in Texas as the Texans and Oilers, and they were among the new league’s better teams. Those are facts. Can’t argue them. The organizations are entitled to remember those early days of both financial struggle and football success.
—Ricko[/quote]
Sure it’s a legal absolute. Except when your business partners force you to do otherwise. And ESPECIALLY when you and your business partners are hiding behind a Congressionally-mandate anti-trust exemption.
Ye Olde Bears couldn’t just up and change their name to the Velocipides tomorrow. NFL Properites and all sorts of people have a say.
Modell didn’t have to leave the name and record book behind: IIRC, Rozelle made him do it.[/quote]
Tagliabue. Rozelle was long gone when the Browns moved to Baltimore.
[quote comment=”319601″]Anyone else think that these “double combo” cards from Topps are really sweet?
link
And while I am at it… I always thought that jersey cards or game used cards or whatever, were kind of stupid. But now I think they are kind of cool to have a piece of the uni, or bat, or patch on a card? I think it’s sweet. Anyone else agree, or disagree?[/quote]
I am not a fan of destroying memorabilia that cannot be replaced, such as an old jersey, bat or the like. It makes me sick to think that old Mickey Mantle or Babe Ruth jerseys or bats were destroyed so that they could be stuck into a baseball card.
On the other hand, I do not have a problem with the practice when it comes to current players. The card companies can provide a jersey, bat or whatever to players to use for an inning and then chop it up all they like. The supply is as endless as they want it to be.
[quote comment=”319588″][quote comment=”319576″][quote comment=”319568″][quote comment=”319564″]Paul, I understand you’re not the biggest fan of hockey…[/quote]
I love hockey! Who ever said I don’t like hockey?[/quote]
Show me a guy who “doesn’t like hockey,” and I’ll show you a guy who fell asleep to Marv Albert and the Rangers as a kid, and once wanted to go to Cornell just because it was Ken Dryden’s school.
Just throwing that out there.[/quote]
And who attended last night’s Isles/Wild game!
Just to clarify: I didn’t fall asleep to Marv and the Rangers because I was bored; I fell asleep cuz I’d be staying up past my bedtime listening to the games on the radio when I was 6 or 7 yrs old and would usually pass out sometime in the third period….[/quote]
Sorry Paul, I wasn’t trying to come at your neck. I know you’re a fan of the game, what I meant was you’re just not as big of a fan compared to other sports(correct me if I’m wrong). You give countless more Mets and baseball references than Islander and hockey references, so at times it seems (to me at least) as if you aren’t as interested. Or just maybe no one in hockey does anything interesting involving a uniform.
Either way, I personally found the Crosby visor story one of the most interesting uniform/equipment related stories I had heard in a long time, so I have no issue with it getting a substantial amount of press.
In an interesting note, there was some discussion about a Calgary Flames fan a few weeks back. Someone linked a picture and asked if she should be wearing the home jersey while the Flames were visiting.
TSN has now link. Just goes to show you how astute the UW crowd is. :o)
(Adding to my comments from early this morning:)
On the 1960 AFL throwbacks:
I finally found the photos showing the ‘60 Oilers wore the same numbers on their road uniforms, in a page of thumbnail photos of a game against the Los Angeles Chargers.
link
Also note the block numbers on the Charger helmets.
(I should have added, note the empty seats in the Coliseum. That’s how you really know it’s a 1960 photo in Los Angeles.)
[quote comment=”319612″][quote comment=”319594″]And personnally, records belong to a franchise, not a city.[/quote]
Agreed. That said, the bar for moving franchises should be raised. How? I don’t know, but rich owners who bleed taxpayers – and fans – for sweetheart stadium deals should be held more culpable. Robert Ersay: Shit; Art Modell: Double shit; Bud Adams, shit. Walter O’Malley: The guy who started it all.
In the end: Letterman has it right: We just root for the laundry.[/quote]
SI recently ran excerpts from an upcoming book about the Dodger’s move to the coast and how O’Malley was more a victim of political shennanigans than outright villian.
link
[quote comment=”319548″][quote comment=”319537″]As I mentioned yesterday…the Jets logo is a blob…who ever is the Jets graphics designer likes plain/boring images.
A little white to make boundaries with the #’s and the oval would have given it some life…its like when they the did NYXL logo…terrible…(even the 40th ann. patch of SB III was terrible).
The last great patch the Jets did was in 93 for the 25th Ann. of SB III (that was a great patch)
link
I really hope we drop the current NY font (it looks so odd…) I really wish that one day they will do a throwback to the Futuristic Jets logo…[/quote]
i love how bad logo’s, or bad designs, or bad sleeve patches seem to ALWAYS be the graphic designers fault. like as if his work IS the “gospel”, and doesn’t have to get approved through a chain of people/executives… the same chain of people/executives that came to him with the idea in the first place.[/quote]
Yep, speaking as a professional graphic designer for 20 years it is the bane of my existence. It’s our work but it ain’t our work…worst line ever for a graphic designer is “Can you add somemore color to it, how bout some pink”…egad!
[quote comment=”319616″]In an interesting note, there was some discussion about a Calgary Flames fan a few weeks back. Someone linked a picture and asked if she should be wearing the home jersey while the Flames were visiting.
TSN has now link. Just goes to show you how astute the UW crowd is. :o)[/quote]
yah…teebz…that was me in my “this and that” segment — i asked if 1) it was a dude or a chick and 2) stated s/he was wearing the wrong uni (meaning a flames fan shouldn’t be wearing enemy colors — only half in jest)
Anyone bitch when the Texas Rangers wear Washington Senators gear, as they have at least a couple times? Must be something about football that generates a “nationalistic” feeling.
(I never patted Modell on the head, btw. Or addressed the motivation. Just said it works out better when done in the Browns-Ravens manner. And, yeah, Browns leaving their name and history behind was the first time that was done.
I wish the Colts has left their history in Baltimore. I’m sure the people of Baltimore do, too. I’d much rather still have the Baltimore Colts (meaning the former Browns) and be watching Peyton Manning play for, say, the “Indiana Troopers” or something.
I think it’s fair to say the whole Colts “skulk away in the dark” move was a big part of why the “Browns” were left in Cleveland to be born again.
When Minnesota loses the Vikings to L.A. (and right now I’d call that a better-than-even bet), I hope the name, colors, history and records stay here. Let ’em become the Los Angeles Lasers. Or Stars. Or Oscars. I know, the L.A. Zygis! (worked for the original Browns).
What an ad campaign: “The NFL’s back! Get Zygi With It!”
—Ricko
[quote comment=”319620″][quote comment=”319616″]In an interesting note, there was some discussion about a Calgary Flames fan a few weeks back. Someone linked a picture and asked if she should be wearing the home jersey while the Flames were visiting.
TSN has now link. Just goes to show you how astute the UW crowd is. :o)[/quote]
yah…teebz…that was me in my “this and that” segment — i asked if 1) it was a dude or a chick and 2) stated s/he was wearing the wrong uni (meaning a flames fan shouldn’t be wearing enemy colors — only half in jest)[/quote]
I didn’t want to call you out, Phil. I know you took some heat over that comment. ;o)
[quote comment=”319621″]Anyone bitch when the Texas Rangers wear Washington Senators gear, as they have at least a couple times? Must be something about football that generates a “nationalistic” feeling.[/quote]
I have lived in the area since the Rangers began wearing the old Senators gear for turn-back-the-clock events. Not only has no one ever complained, every person whose comments I have heard has thought that the throwbacks look damn cool.
[quote comment=”319607″]Ruh-roh, Reorge. NFL considering sponsorship logos (other than manufacturer) on unis:
link
link
The Titans already do this:
link
“Anyone bitch when the Texas Rangers wear Washington Senators gear, as they have at least a couple times? Must be something about football that generates a “nationalistic” feeling”.
wait….DC had a professional baseball team fail? twice? NEVER!!…I’d like to see them try a third time to fail!
That’s like saying “Hockey WILL succeed in Atlanta and Phoenix!”
PS: Why no love to the Buffalo Braves (NBA)
And I have a couple of the TBTC Rangers/Senators throwbacks, and they are faves.
[quote comment=”319612″]In the end: Letterman has it right: We just root for the laundry.[/quote]
Wasn’t that one of Jerry Seinfeld’s bits?
And one of the general agreements here seems to be that bending history just isn’t right.
Hear, hear Ricko. If it’s about honoring the 1960 season of the Chiefs’ franchise, then that white outline of Texas should be on the helmet.
Food for thought:
— Up the road in Milwaukee, they have Hank Aaron’s 44 retired and up on the rim of the stadium. I ask you: Is that for the two mediocre seasons he played as a Milwaukee Brewer, or the 12 scintillating seasons he played as a Milwaukee Brave?
— Outside Turner Field, there’s a statue of Warren Spahn. Warren Spahn never played for the Atlanta Braves.
link
I’m all for honoring Spahnie, but …
— I haven’t seen a Ravens media guide in the past few years, but in the early years of this decade, they included a set of “Baltimore Pro Football Records”: Combining the records of the Ravens; Colts 1953-83; and the Colts who played from 1947-49 in the AAFC, then the 1950 NFL season.
Whatever the motivation, I like that last gesture to the Balmer football fans.
Don’t know if it’s been mentioned on here or not, but Miami University has signed a lucrative athletics contract with Adidas covering all sports (replacing mostly Nike). Been told that this is one of the top mid-major contracts in the country. Also, Miami’s new football jerseys will have more of a retro look (my guess is 80s’ to 90s’).
[quote comment=”319624″][quote comment=”319607″]Ruh-roh, Reorge. NFL considering sponsorship logos (other than manufacturer) on unis:
link
link
The Titans already do this:
link
The Adams family donates a lot of money to Baptist Hospital, and Titans players regularly visit the hospital to spend time with patients.
link
[quote comment=”319617″](Adding to my comments from early this morning:)
On the 1960 AFL throwbacks:
I finally found the photos showing the ‘60 Oilers wore the same numbers on their road uniforms, in a page of thumbnail photos of a game against the Los Angeles Chargers.
link
Also note the block numbers on the Charger helmets.
(I should have added, note the empty seats in the Coliseum. That’s how you really know it’s a 1960 photo in Los Angeles.)[/quote]
I’m confused. Did someone say they didn’t wear those arabic numerals on the road?
What’s wrong with the Oilers throwback in yesterday’s lead photo is that the numbers are columbia blue. That’s a jersey that never existed. In 1960 (the only year of the arabic numerals), the road numbers were red edged in columbia blue (as were the 3 stripes on the white socks). You can see that in the photos with that link.
—Ricko
[quote comment=”319630″][quote comment=”319624″][quote comment=”319607″]Ruh-roh, Reorge. NFL considering sponsorship logos (other than manufacturer) on unis:
link
link
The Titans already do this:
link
The Adams family donates a lot of money to Baptist Hospital, and Titans players regularly visit the hospital to spend time with patients.
link
Baptist Sports Medicine is the official healthcare provider of the Tennessee Titans, or some other crap to that effect. I think that’s what’s on the practice jersey logo patch.
Cubs management has been screaming for years it wants more night games, but the neighborhood hates night games. All that extra noise, litter, fans pissing on lawns, more police. If the players can’t handle the day games, then they should stay away from the Cubs, rightfully so. Plus if the Cubs are getting blown out, the fans clear out a lot faster in night games than in day games, something management & concessions should think about.
The Nationals should have rights to the Senators names colors etc., not the Twins(Washington Nationals/Senators v.1) or Rangers (Washington Senators v.2)
[quote comment=”319612″]Agreed. That said, the bar for moving franchises should be raised. How? I don’t know, but rich owners who bleed taxpayers – and fans – for sweetheart stadium deals should be held more culpable. Robert Ersay: Shit; Art Modell: Double shit; Bud Adams, shit. Walter O’Malley: The guy who started it all.[/quote]
Maybe you and I have found a compromise.
“The NFL announced today that Robert Irsay has forfeited the Colts franchise back to the league, and in return he has been awarded an expansion franchise in Indianapolis.”
As noted, its one thing when somebody moves the lightly-attended Charlotte NBA franchise; but its quite another when the Browns and/or Colts moved. And I think that at least the NFL has paid attention to the screwups that ensued when the Browns bolted.
[quote comment=”319634″]The Nationals should have rights to the Senators names colors etc., not the Twins(Washington Nationals/Senators v.1) or Rangers (Washington Senators v.2)[/quote]I might be more inclined to agree with this had Washington supported its baseball franchise in the same manner that Cleveland and Baltimore supported their NFL franchises.
But OTOH, the Minnesota or Texas Senators would be even stupider than the LA Lakers or Utah Jazz, so I don’t think anyone is clamoring for the name to transfer in this case.
[quote comment=”319634″]The Nationals should have rights to the Senators names colors etc., not the Twins(Washington Nationals/Senators v.1) or Rangers (Washington Senators v.2)[/quote]
It took a long time before the Rangers had the courage to wear Washington Senator throwbacks. How long will it take, if ever, for the Nats to wear Montreal Expos throwbacks? I think it would be neat to see these in a turn-back-the-clock game:
link
And all you have to do is wait for the Jays to visit DC for an interleague series. Toronot already has their powder-blue throwbacks.
link
[quote comment=”319634″]The Nationals should have rights to the Senators names colors etc., not the Twins(Washington Nationals/Senators v.1) or Rangers (Washington Senators v.2)[/quote]
what?
[quote comment=”319618″][quote comment=”319612″][quote comment=”319594″]And personnally, records belong to a franchise, not a city.[/quote]
Agreed. That said, the bar for moving franchises should be raised. How? I don’t know, but rich owners who bleed taxpayers – and fans – for sweetheart stadium deals should be held more culpable. Robert Ersay: Shit; Art Modell: Double shit; Bud Adams, shit. Walter O’Malley: The guy who started it all.
In the end: Letterman has it right: We just root for the laundry.[/quote]
SI recently ran excerpts from an upcoming book about the Dodger’s move to the coast and how O’Malley was more a victim of political shennanigans than outright villian.
link
That’s one writer’s opinion.
Frankly, I think there’s plenty of blame to share. But Moses was at least willing to build O’Malley a stadium (even if O’Malley then decided he didn’t want the location aftar all).
[quote comment=\”319638\”][quote comment=\”319634\”]The Nationals should have rights to the Senators names colors etc., not the Twins(Washington Nationals/Senators v.1) or Rangers (Washington Senators v.2)[/quote]
what?[/quote]
Then, by that logic…since the Blue Jays are the only Canadian team…they should have the rights to \”honor\” the first MLB team, the Expos!!
Wasn’t that one of Jerry Seinfeld’s bits?
I thought it was Seinfeld’s, too.
But then, I’d never heard that Denis Leary, whom I love, was accused of stealing from the late, great Bill Hicks.
Meanwhile … I love that there’s a Unitas statue outside the Ravens’ stadium. Amen, brother.
And, returning to the subject of Miller Park, there’s a really nice display honoring the Braves’ Milwaukee years in the Miller Park parking lot. (Can’t seem to find a photo to share.)
[quote comment=”319640″][quote comment=\”319638\”][quote comment=\”319634\”]The Nationals should have rights to the Senators names colors etc., not the Twins(Washington Nationals/Senators v.1) or Rangers (Washington Senators v.2)[/quote]
what?[/quote]
Then, by that logic…since the Blue Jays are the only Canadian team…they should have the rights to \”honor\” the first MLB team, the Expos!![/quote]
There’s only 1 franchise that “honors” the Expos these days:
link
[quote comment=”319633″]Cubs management has been screaming for years it wants more night games, but the neighborhood hates night games. All that extra noise, litter, fans pissing on lawns, more police. If the players can’t handle the day games, then they should stay away from the Cubs, rightfully so. Plus if the Cubs are getting blown out, the fans clear out a lot faster in night games than in day games, something management concessions should think about.[/quote]
Ah, one of the things I wanted to talk about before I got sidetracked with talk of legalities: but it does tie in.
I think the original agreement waaaay back when (okay, 1988) was for no more than 18 night games. And the Cubs management swore up and down that 18 was all they ever wanted, the number would never go up. And much like the temporary rise in the income tax rate for the State of Illinois, the “camel’s nose under the tent” factor came into play. I don’t know for sure but I think today’s limit is 30 plus some other exemptions for concerts. And of course, post-season is totally unlimited.
If the Cubs doled out those 20-30 night games intelligently (instead of trying to get families to take their kids to an April night game when its below freezing) it would be more than enough IMHO. Roughly half of the schedule is in June-August, or about 40 games. Throw out the Sunday dates and the number goes down even further. If the real reason is heat (and hey, if you can’t believe Sammy Sosa then who can you trust?) the Cubs should jam all those night games into the hottest three months of the year.
The reason for more night games simply cannot be attendance. The Cubs have probably played to 95% of capacity on average over the last 5 years. Its highly doubtful they’re missing out on one extra sale with their current schedule.
[quote comment=”319621″]
When Minnesota loses the Vikings to L.A. (and right now I’d call that a better-than-even bet), I hope the name, colors, history and records stay here. Let ’em become the Los Angeles Lasers. Or Stars. Or Oscars. I know, the L.A. Zygis! (worked for the original Browns).
What an ad campaign: “The NFL’s back! Get Zygi With It!”
[/quote]
Not the LA Wilfs? (Should be Wilves, but you know how it is with team names and their strange patterns of speech.)
The only thing keeping the Vikings from moving is the crap economy. Of course, it’s the only thing that’s keeping them from staying, too.
[quote comment=”319637″]It took a long time before the Rangers had the courage to wear Washington Senator throwbacks. How long will it take, if ever, for the Nats to wear Montreal Expos throwbacks? [/quote]
The delay between the Rangers moving to Texas and wearing Senators throwbacks had nothing to do with trepidation or an absence of courage. It was due to turn-back-the-clock nights not having been invented.
My recollection (which is not necessarily accurate) is that they wore Senators throwbacks at their second ever turn-back-the-clock night. For the first one, they wore uniforms that just looked old-timey, with a gothic “T” on the jersey.
[quote comment=”319627″]Wasn’t that one of Jerry Seinfeld’s bits?[/quote]The “Blue Boy” and “Old Yeller” episode? :-)
Does anybody know which branding company redesigned the Lions logo?
[quote comment=”319621″]Anyone bitch when the Texas Rangers wear Washington Senators gear, as they have at least a couple times? Must be something about football that generates a “nationalistic” feeling.
(I never patted Modell on the head, btw. Or addressed the motivation. Just said it works out better when done in the Browns-Ravens manner. And, yeah, Browns leaving their name and history behind was the first time that was done.
I wish the Colts has left their history in Baltimore. I’m sure the people of Baltimore do, too. I’d much rather still have the Baltimore Colts (meaning the former Browns) and be watching Peyton Manning play for, say, the “Indiana Troopers” or something.
I think it’s fair to say the whole Colts “skulk away in the dark” move was a big part of why the “Browns” were left in Cleveland to be born again.
When Minnesota loses the Vikings to L.A. (and right now I’d call that a better-than-even bet), I hope the name, colors, history and records stay here. Let ’em become the Los Angeles Lasers. Or Stars. Or Oscars. I know, the L.A. Zygis! (worked for the original Browns).
What an ad campaign: “The NFL’s back! Get Zygi With It!”
—Ricko[/quote]
I think that for many people here this issue is entangled with the KC Chiefs/Dallas Texans issue of yesterday or the day before. For me, its not.
Frankly, if the NFL and the Chiefs want to go ahead and wear a Texans uniform, then go ahead and do it. Now I think they would be wise to keep their ear to the ground in KC: the Texans throwback isn’t going to sell squat in Dallas nor is it going to go over big in KC-but OTOH, NFL Properties has a battalion of marketing types. They don’t need my expertise.
[quote comment=”319645″]It took a long time before the Rangers had the courage to wear Washington Senator throwbacks. How long will it take, if ever, for the Nats to wear Montreal Expos throwbacks? [/quote]
I have a serious problem with teams insisting they wear throwbacks for a team formerly based in another city.
It’s entirely disrespectful to the fans of the previous city to grandstand in their former franchise’s duds while the new city celebrates their loss.
It’s not a throwback jersey whatsoever. You’re a franchise in a new city. Don’t reopen old wounds. If the Phoenix Coyotes ever wore Winnipeg Jets jerseys, I’d burn the city of Phoenix down. Without hesitation.
[quote comment=”319646″][quote comment=”319627″]Wasn’t that one of Jerry Seinfeld’s bits?[/quote]The “Blue Boy” and “Old Yeller” episode? :-)[/quote]
link and Baby Blue.
Classic UW material without an actual uni.
[quote comment=”319645″][quote comment=”319637″]It took a long time before the Rangers had the courage to wear Washington Senator throwbacks. How long will it take, if ever, for the Nats to wear Montreal Expos throwbacks? [/quote]
The delay between the Rangers moving to Texas and wearing Senators throwbacks had nothing to do with trepidation or an absence of courage. It was due to turn-back-the-clock nights not having been invented.
My recollection (which is not necessarily accurate) is that they wore Senators throwbacks at their second ever turn-back-the-clock night. For the first one, they wore uniforms that just looked old-timey, with a gothic “T” on the jersey.[/quote]
The throwback phenomenon started in the late 90s, more or less. And it was just last year that the Rangers wore a Senators uni.
[quote]It’s entirely disrespectful to the fans of the previous city to grandstand in their former franchise’s duds while the new city celebrates their loss.[/quote]
great point but entirely not germane to the argument
the point is, like it or not (and i never said you have to like it), the jets ARE the yotes, and they have every right to wear that jersey…now…if the yotes want to give up the rights and allow a new franchise to wear jets colors & unis in winnipeg when the NHL returns there…that’s up to the yotes, and not the fans of the peg
/sorry teebz :(
[quote comment=”319632″]Ruh-roh, Reorge. NFL considering sponsorship logos (other than manufacturer) on unis:
link
link
From the ProfootballTalk site:
“The prototype they showed us was no different than the patches they would put on the Pro Bowl jerseys,” Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti said. “The uniforms in NFL Europe, they had a big logo. That’s not what we’re talking about.
“We’re talking about something unobtrusive that when the guys are being interviewed, people can can see the sponsor logo on their jerseys. But it’s no bigger or more obtrusive than the patches worn for the Super Bowl logo.”
In our view, it’s a trial balloon — the first step in what could be an eventual expansion of corporate presence on official NFL game uniforms.
Exactly right. Once the first patch gets on, its a hop skip and a jump to looking like some low-rent European basketball league.
But I would like to see the 50 yard-line design for this game:
…the Rose Bowl presented by Vandelay Industries…
:-)))
[quote comment=”319651″]Golden Boy and Baby Blue.
Classic UW material without an actual uni.[/quote]
Ah, thanks. I had the colors, just not the nicknames. :-)
Teebz:
But you got the Moose to replace your Jets…both high caliber AHL teams!! (I kid…I Kid)
My point being is that the Nationals/Senators were Washington’s team. The Twins and Rangers were both new/expansion teams. If my understanding is correct, both versions of the Nats/Senators were fan supported but the ownership relocated them. “Honoring” doesn’t really apply. If that was the case, The current Nats would wear Expos unis (don’t see that happening)Also, Senators attire is pretty popular here. It’s also my understanding that the Texas Rangers own the rights to the Senators name, unis etc.
“wearing an Islanders jersey to accept a check”
For a second I imagined Darryl Strawberry getting pounded into the boards…
[quote comment=”319603″]…50 years ago, the Chiefs and Titans began in Texas as the Texans and Oilers, and they were among the new league’s better teams. Those are facts. Can’t argue them. The organizations are entitled to remember those early days of both financial struggle and football success.
—Ricko[/quote]
I would just like to point out that (definitely) Lamar Hunt and (probably) Bud Adams really didn’t have that much of a “financial struggle”.
;-)
[quote comment=”319653″][quote]It’s entirely disrespectful to the fans of the previous city to grandstand in their former franchise’s duds while the new city celebrates their loss.[/quote]
great point but entirely not germane to the argument
the point is, like it or not (and i never said you have to like it), the jets ARE the yotes, and they have every right to wear that jersey…now…if the yotes want to give up the rights and allow a new franchise to wear jets colors & unis in winnipeg when the NHL returns there…that’s up to the yotes, and not the fans of the peg
/sorry teebz :([/quote]
No, they are not. If they were the Jets, they’d still be called THE JETS.
If you want to crap on a fanbase by grandstanding as the “Coyotes in Jets colours”, go right ahead. Don’t blame me if you start getting hate mail from fans in Winnipeg, though.
The NFL stipulated that the Browns’ images and history remain in Cleveland. This is similar to the agreement that Hartford has with the NHL. The Ravens and Hurricanes could not legally use those images. I get that.
However, if you want to have throwbacks, try staying in a city for more than a decade. If you want to move and piss off fans because an owner’s mismanagement and futility couldn’t keep them in City A, common sense says that throwbacks of that previous city are a good way to get envelopes of anthrax mailed to you.
If the team moved, say, 60 years ago, chances are that those feelings of resentment and hatred are gone. But when a team only moved within the last decade, the Nationals would be asking for a world of hurt by coming out in Montreal Expos throwbacks.
[quote comment=”319656″]Teebz:
But you got the Moose to replace your Jets…both high caliber AHL teams!! (I kid…I Kid)[/quote]
Hey, we had Khabibulin and Selanne. Sure, they won Cups in other cities, but we had them!
Ok, I’ll admit it: the Jets were the 1990s version of today’s NY Islanders – a few stars, and a pile of AHL players. ;o)
Re: Hubert Horatio Humphrey Metrodome
Usually called The Dome or the Metrodome.
Metrodome works especially well when they’re having a monster truck or motocross event and you have one of those guys with a deep voice saying, “Sunday, Sunday, Sunday at the METRODOME!”
The Homerdome is something of a misnomer. The Metrodome has never* been good at producing homers. (Even if you believe those who say the wind is blowing out when the Twins are at bat.)
They tried to use Thunderdome for a couple of years. You could buy drinks in a plastic cup with a photo of the Metrodome and a lightning bolt behind it.
My attempts to get people to call it the Triple H have never been very successful. (I think some of the folks at the Batgirl blog used that name once or twice.) I guess not many WWE fans go to baseball games.
Obligatory UW content: link
* Possibly before they added air conditioning and the inside of the place was hot and humid.
[quote comment=\”319649\”][quote comment=\”319645\”]It took a long time before the Rangers had the courage to wear Washington Senator throwbacks. How long will it take, if ever, for the Nats to wear Montreal Expos throwbacks? [/quote]
I have a serious problem with teams insisting they wear throwbacks for a team formerly based in another city.
It’s entirely disrespectful to the fans of the previous city to grandstand in their former franchise’s duds while the new city celebrates their loss.
It’s not a throwback jersey whatsoever. You’re a franchise in a new city. Don’t reopen old wounds. If the Phoenix Coyotes ever wore Winnipeg Jets jerseys, I’d burn the city of Phoenix down. Without hesitation.[/quote]
Bring it on Teebz old boy! Why do you think it’s called Phoenix??
On the subject of AFL program covers: “that’s GOLD Jerry! Pure Gold!”
I was going to mention the great artwork for the individualized, localized programs and how much better they were than the generic paintings used over and over again from city to city and year to year: then I saw this…
link
…and I changed my mind.
[quote comment=”319542″]Really wish the Lions would get rid of the black. Late 90’s all us Michiganders wanted black in the uniform because the honolulu blue and silver was looking out dated, but now, the whole “black is cool” thing on uniforms is way out and I think they should try and take the blue, silver and white and make a better jersey out of it.
Not to mention, as Paul stated, the numeral font is terrible.[/quote]
FALSE.
The old Barry Sanders-era uniforms were great. There was never a problem with them. They were among the NFL’s best. The day the Lions unveiled the first uniforms and logo with black trim was a sad one. I remember watching it on the news totally shocked and dismayed.
[quote comment=”319662″]…They tried to use Thunderdome for a couple of years…[/quote]
Hey, didn’t they try to use Rollerdome too?
[quote comment=”319665″]… The day the Lions unveiled the first uniforms and logo with black trim was a sad one. I remember watching it on the news totally shocked and dismayed.[/quote]
Couldn’t agree more, and not just limited to the Lions.
Does UniWatchBlog have an acronym for the gratitious, unnecessary use of black on jerseys, hats, etc??
[quote comment=”319663″]
Bring it on Teebz old boy! Why do you think it’s called Phoenix??[/quote]
Are you telling me you’d rise from the ashes? LOL
I think the gripe in KC has more to do with the logo of the state of Texas on their helmet, not the name of the team. If it was a different logo, I don’t think there would as much fuss. I can see their point when you are trying to root for you home team and they are wearing another state on their uniform, it can be a little weird.
Also, speaking of teams moving, this Saturday, March 28, will be the 25th anniversary of the Mayflower trucks pulling out of Baltimore and heading to Indy in the cover of night.
[quote]I can see their point when you are trying to root for you home team and they are wearing another state on their uniform, it can be a little weird.[/quote]
like jersey fans rooting for the “NY” giants and “NY” jets?
[quote comment=”319666″][quote comment=”319662″]…They tried to use Thunderdome for a couple of years…[/quote]
Hey, didn’t they try to use Rollerdome too?[/quote]
That was Mike Ditka in 1987. Can’t argue with Coach Ditka. Someone sent him some roller skates and the local news showed clips of him trying to skate in the Bears offices.
They used to open up the Dome and you could come and skate around the concourses, so he might have been onto something.
[quote comment=”319614″][quote comment=”319601″]Anyone else think that these “double combo” cards from Topps are really sweet?
link
And while I am at it… I always thought that jersey cards or game used cards or whatever, were kind of stupid. But now I think they are kind of cool to have a piece of the uni, or bat, or patch on a card? I think it’s sweet. Anyone else agree, or disagree?[/quote]
I am not a fan of destroying memorabilia that cannot be replaced, such as an old jersey, bat or the like. It makes me sick to think that old Mickey Mantle or Babe Ruth jerseys or bats were destroyed so that they could be stuck into a baseball card.
On the other hand, I do not have a problem with the practice when it comes to current players. The card companies can provide a jersey, bat or whatever to players to use for an inning and then chop it up all they like. The supply is as endless as they want it to be.[/quote]
I kind of half agree with you. I don’t like the idea a a perfectly good game used Babe Ruth jersey or bat being destroyed. However… I kind of like this idea because it puts relics of great old ball players into the consumer and fans hands. Obviously one can argue that just putting those items in a museum is giving them back to the public, but by putting a relic into a card is literally putting them in their hands.
I guess the bigger question is where does the cutoff begin? Is there a specific year? Is it OK to cut up a modern legend jersey or bat like Cal Ripken Jr., Tony Gwynn, Robin Yount, and Paul Molitor… but not Joltin’ Joe, Jimmy Foxx, or Reggie Jackson?
I guess when it comes down to it I’m split. I like, and don’t like the idea at the same time.
[quote comment=”319652″][quote comment=”319645″][quote comment=”319637″]It took a long time before the Rangers had the courage to wear Washington Senator throwbacks. How long will it take, if ever, for the Nats to wear Montreal Expos throwbacks? [/quote]
The delay between the Rangers moving to Texas and wearing Senators throwbacks had nothing to do with trepidation or an absence of courage. It was due to turn-back-the-clock nights not having been invented.
My recollection (which is not necessarily accurate) is that they wore Senators throwbacks at their second ever turn-back-the-clock night. For the first one, they wore uniforms that just looked old-timey, with a gothic “T” on the jersey.[/quote]
The throwback phenomenon started in the late 90s, more or less. And it was just last year that the Rangers wore a Senators uni.[/quote]
You are wrong on that. The phenomenon started in the early ’90s, and the Rangers wore the Senators uniform when Jose Canseco was still with the team.
If I remember correctly, the St.Louis Rams “Honor” both LA Rams players and St.Louis Cardinals players in their “Ring of Fame” or whatever they call those names wrapping around the field up on the bulkhead in the Jones Dome. I know Dierdorf’s name is up there along with Eric Dickerson’s. What do people in St.Louis care about what Jack Youngblood or Jackie Slater did in LA? Yeah, the Rams have the legal right to do what ever they want but it just seems goofy to pay homage to someone who never played a down for the local home team.
And the Rangers wore a road Senators uniform a few years ago as well. So that is at least twice prior to last season.
Here is a 1994 baseball card of Jose Canseco wearing the Senators throwback. Damn sharp uniform, I might add.
link
[quote comment=”319673″][quote comment=”319652″]The throwback phenomenon started in the late 90s, more or less. And it was just last year that the Rangers wore a Senators uni.[/quote]
You are wrong on that. The phenomenon started in the early ’90s, and the Rangers wore the Senators uniform when Jose Canseco was still with the team.[/quote]
link to be exact.
Mea culpa. The jersey reads “Rangers” on the front. I am so embarrassed. It was only modeled after the Senators.
Here, though, is the 2002 Washington throwback.
link
Rangers also wore the Senators uniforms last season as well. I think there was a column devoted to whether the “w” on the cap was correct.
[quote comment=”319676″]Here is a 1994 baseball card of Jose Canseco wearing the Senators throwback. Damn sharp uniform, I might add.
link
Dude, that jersey clearly says “Rangers.”
I guess we kinda know what the Cowboys will look like if they wear road throwbacks to match the Chiefs’ “Dallas Texans” look:
link
[quote comment=”319601″]Anyone else think that these “double combo” cards from Topps are really sweet?
link
And while I am at it… I always thought that jersey cards or game used cards or whatever, were kind of stupid. But now I think they are kind of cool to have a piece of the uni, or bat, or patch on a card? I think it’s sweet. Anyone else agree, or disagree?[/quote]
I think it’s an abomination. That’s horrible to chop up a piece of history for a gimmick. What sense does it make? It’d be like chopping up the Mona Lisa or the U.S. Constitution into stamp sizes pieces so “a random few public can have a worthless piece”. It’s dumb and it’s stupid. It belongs in a museum to be enjoyed by all. Who ever came up with this idea should be castrated and lynched. It just really pisses me off. We should be preserving history, not chopping it up and destroying it. This is just one of those things in baseball memorabilia that really bothers me.
[quote comment=”319681″][quote comment=”319676″]Here is a 1994 baseball card of Jose Canseco wearing the Senators throwback. Damn sharp uniform, I might add.
link
Dude, that jersey clearly says “Rangers.”[/quote]
Yes, I already acknowledged as much. But I was right that they wore Senators jerseys prior to last year, as the 2002 jersey demonstrates.
And to quote the band Scatterbrain, “Don’t call me dude.”
The Rochester Americans (Panthers AHL affiliate) are doing the pink jersey / pink ice promotion on Friday (interestingly enough, it’s against Lake Erie, who had the dye mess up their ice for their promotion!). Anyway, if you check out the graphic on the link, check out the “Amerks jersey” they use. Seems like they just slapped the logo on to some other team’s jersey, no? :) Albany called, they want their stripe pattern back!
[quote comment=”319674″]If I remember correctly, the St.Louis Rams “Honor” both LA Rams players and St.Louis Cardinals players in their “Ring of Fame” or whatever they call those names wrapping around the field up on the bulkhead in the Jones Dome. I know Dierdorf’s name is up there along with Eric Dickerson’s. What do people in St.Louis care about what Jack Youngblood or Jackie Slater did in LA? Yeah, the Rams have the legal right to do what ever they want but it just seems goofy to pay homage to someone who never played a down for the local home team.[/quote]
They’re corporations. A city does not have some kind of eminent domain over a team’s nicknames, colors, etc. If a corporation moves its home offices to another state it does not, by any of set of circumstances, have an obligation to change its name, logo, etc., and leave the original elements behind for another company in a similar, or identical, business to adopt.
And, if it DOES chose to change those things, it does not mean it is forfeiting its previous identifiers.
We can rant about it all we want, but that won’t change the fact that a business owns its images and its history. They are intellectual property, trademarks, etc., etc., and the proprietary interest of the owner is undeniable. Being a pro franchise doesn’t make them any different from any company in that regard.
Now, as to the Coyotes wearing Jets unis, or the Stars wearing North Stars, etc.,…it’s a matter of good judgement. If there’s bad blood, probably not a good idea. In the case of the state of Texas on a Chiefs helmet, so what? I don’t recall a lot of folks in Dallas flinging themselves under busses when the Texans moved out. Likewise, LA didn’t lament the loss of the Chargers.
As far as Hunt’s and Adams’ “financial struggles”, I wasn’t referring to their personal fortunes*, but rather the viability of one of their businesses…and to the league’s overall struggles in general. Had the Texans been making money, or looking like they’d make money, in Dallas they likely wouldn’t have left. Hard to imagine that Hunt, as a native Texan, really wanted to leave. But it was, plain and simple, a sound business decision to take his team to a place where it would have a market all to itself.
Besides, if KC wanted to, they could look at the state on the helmet as saying to Dallas, “Yeah, the Chiefs suck right now…but you have to put up with Jerry Jones.”
—Ricko
* After the first AFL season, someone told ketchup magnate H.L. Hunt (Lamar’s daddy) that the Texans had lost a million dollars. Old man Hunt said, “At that rate, he can only go on for another 150 years.” So, yeah, I know Lamar wasn’t sweating the electric bill every month. I didn’t come to class late. I’ve been here a while.
1. Ricko — Had no idea the Vikes might move. I think they’ve suffered since they moved into the Dome. Green Bay and Chicago play outside and are much “tougher” for it. Plus they don’t wear clown suits (and the Vikes used to not).
2. Speaking of teams moving — Wasn’t it weird that Warner played for St. Louis in the Super Bowl and then for the (formerly St. Louis) Cardinals?
Uni Watch had a contest recently for a scarve (which I won). Here is an interview with the designer :
link
Regarding the Sabres wearing their 3rd jersey logo stickers on their helmets with their primary jerseys, I’d guess it was just the equipment managers not wanting to change the stickers for one game. They wore the 3rd jerseys on the 20th against the Flyers and will be wearing them again on Friday against Toronto. No point in changing them for last night’s game and then having to change them back again for Friday’s game. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen them wear the 3rd jersey logo with the “slug” jerseys.
Also, how is it that the league is allowing the Flyers to switch to orange as their home primary for next season but they wouldn’t allow the Islanders to switch to their throwback jerseys full-time?
[quote comment=”319678″]Mea culpa. The jersey reads “Rangers” on the front. I am so embarrassed. It was only modeled after the Senators.
Here, though, is the 2002 Washington throwback.
link
Wow, I think, following Teebz line of argument, that wearing a uni with the city name on it is more offensive than wearing a uni with the team name. Last year’s Rangers’ throwbacks had “Senators,” but these older throwbacks are the ’62 road unis and have “Washington” on them. They may own the rights to the Senators, but wearing a uni that has Washington on it is probably a tough pill to swallow for some DC folks who remember the team. I guess throwbacks are the only chance Rangers fans will get to see unis with a nickname on them, now that Texas is all things Texas all the time. Texas!
link
[quote comment=”319683″][quote comment=”319601″]Anyone else think that these “double combo” cards from Topps are really sweet?
link
And while I am at it… I always thought that jersey cards or game used cards or whatever, were kind of stupid. But now I think they are kind of cool to have a piece of the uni, or bat, or patch on a card? I think it’s sweet. Anyone else agree, or disagree?[/quote]
I think it’s an abomination. That’s horrible to chop up a piece of history for a gimmick. What sense does it make? It’d be like chopping up the Mona Lisa or the U.S. Constitution into stamp sizes pieces so “a random few public can have a worthless piece”. It’s dumb and it’s stupid. It belongs in a museum to be enjoyed by all. Who ever came up with this idea should be castrated and lynched. It just really pisses me off. We should be preserving history, not chopping it up and destroying it. This is just one of those things in baseball memorabilia that really bothers me.[/quote]
Agreed.
There are only three known Babe Ruth pinstripe Yankee jerseys in existence. One of which – 33% – was chopped up a couple years ago to be put in cards.
Abomination.
What no one is getting is that the team got to CHOOSE their legacy year.
The other thing no one is getting is that the Chiefs PLAYED IN KC during the AFL years, and went to two super bowls too! Therefore the natural choice for the legacy years should be 1966 or 1969. Why choose a non championship Texans team over a championship Chiefs team.
If lets say we moved to KC in 1981 well after the AFL years in Dallas then having the Texans helmet would make perfect sense.
And to the asshole that said we’re gonna die, and the things people bitch about. Shut up. This is a uniform debate website, and choosing basically the wrong uniform and team to honor fits this website.
HOW IS NO ONE UNDERSTANDING THIS?!? It would be, hypothetically, like in 30 years after the Memphis Grizzlies won a championship or two (in Memphis)…and the league allows the teams to wear a throwback for ANY team in their history, and them choosing the 1999 Vancouver jerseys when the 1999 team went like 5-77. And doubly stupid the team was in Vancouver for such a short part of its history.
I’m almost positive that those blue uniforms doen’t beling to Boise State. Boise wears more of a royal blue than a navy blue and tan is certainly not part of their color scheme. Those unis belong to my beloved BYU Cougars (though not beloved in the non-football uniform rhelm), I think and the uniforms match this picture much better: link
[quote comment=”319687″]* After the first AFL season, someone told ketchup magnate H.L. Hunt (Lamar’s daddy) that the Texans had lost a million dollars. Old man Hunt said, “At that rate, he can only go on for another 150 years.” [/quote]
Old Man Hunt was an Orson Welles fan, eh?
[quote comment=”319535″]I’d almost call the Nov. 12, 1967 Chargers vs. Dolphins program cover grusome. A dolphin wearing a Dolphins helmet and football in it’s mouth inside of Shamu’s mouth.[/quote]
How about Dec 4, 1966? A train about to run into a buffalo?
Although Aug 7, 1966 is the one that has me scared the most…
[quote comment=”319696″][quote comment=”319687″]* After the first AFL season, someone told ketchup magnate H.L. Hunt (Lamar’s daddy) that the Texans had lost a million dollars. Old man Hunt said, “At that rate, he can only go on for another 150 years.” [/quote]
Old Man Hunt was an Orson Welles fan, eh?[/quote]
Wouldn’t surprise me. Just recounting a story I remember reading at the time. Don’t know if Hunt said it, or the writer was just being creative…but that was something I read that stuck with me all these years.
Also, I get that teams had the option to choose a legacy season. I just don’t agree with it. If it’s about a 50th anniversary, that’s what it ought to be about. It’s not about celebating winning seasons, it’s about the beginning 50 years ago.
Kinda like saying, “We’re having a Back to the 50’s Party, but if you wanna wear Zubaz that’s okay.”
—Ricko
[quote comment=”319694″]What no one is getting is that the team got to CHOOSE their legacy year.
The other thing no one is getting is that the Chiefs PLAYED IN KC during the AFL years, and went to two super bowls too! Therefore the natural choice for the legacy years should be 1966 or 1969. Why choose a non championship Texans team over a championship Chiefs team.
If lets say we moved to KC in 1981 well after the AFL years in Dallas then having the Texans helmet would make perfect sense.
And to the asshole that said we’re gonna die, and the things people bitch about. Shut up. This is a uniform debate website, and choosing basically the wrong uniform and team to honor fits this website.
HOW IS NO ONE UNDERSTANDING THIS?!? It would be, hypothetically, like in 30 years after the Memphis Grizzlies won a championship or two (in Memphis)…and the league allows the teams to wear a throwback for ANY team in their history, and them choosing the 1999 Vancouver jerseys when the 1999 team went like 5-77. And doubly stupid the team was in Vancouver for such a short part of its history.[/quote]
I think we all get that they got to CHOOSE the year. What makes no sense is WHY they got to choose the year. This is not a generic “its the 37th anniversary of the AFL” thing, they are specifically honoring 50 years from the beginning of the AFL. Why wouldn’t they use use the original uniforms from 50 years ago if they are honoring a season that WAS 50 years ago.
[quote]And to the asshole that said we’re gonna die, and the things people bitch about. Shut up.[/quote]
that’s enough of that, thanks
keep it civil please
(or what Ricko said lol)
It’s the first time I noticed it last night but it shows in the Sabres picture- the Panthers wordmark on their helmets is unreadable.
let’s build a Spahn statue for Milwaukee and Boston. problem solved.
there’s NO WAY a city should keep the records of a team that played in it’s confines for a period of time.
the idea is silly.
the city doesn’t own the team (it just financially keeps them afloat w/ idiotic loans and such – yes miami, i’m talking to you) some stupid (or very very smart owner – yes miami, i’m talking to you) does.
when the WinniJets moved, they moved. they left. the franchise, it’s history, all of it left. Same for the Boston Braves of Boston Redskins.
should the Patriots wear Redskin throwbacks? it’s silly.
ESPECIALLY for a team that lasted, what, 30 years?
40?
the oilers were in houston for less than 40 years, right? the WinniJets for what, 25 or something?
Let Carolina wear the WHALE!
Speaking of history…
If there’s an NCAA Basketball equivalent of the GGEP (Colts-Giants ’58), it was played 30 years ago today.
NCAA Final: Bird vs. Magic.
—Ricko
[quote comment=”319694″]What no one is getting is that the team got to CHOOSE their legacy year.
The other thing no one is getting is that the Chiefs PLAYED IN KC during the AFL years, and went to two super bowls too! Therefore the natural choice for the legacy years should be 1966 or 1969. Why choose a non championship Texans team over a championship Chiefs team.
If lets say we moved to KC in 1981 well after the AFL years in Dallas then having the Texans helmet would make perfect sense.
And to the asshole that said we’re gonna die, and the things people bitch about. Shut up. This is a uniform debate website, and choosing basically the wrong uniform and team to honor fits this website.
HOW IS NO ONE UNDERSTANDING THIS?!? It would be, hypothetically, like in 30 years after the Memphis Grizzlies won a championship or two (in Memphis)…and the league allows the teams to wear a throwback for ANY team in their history, and them choosing the 1999 Vancouver jerseys when the 1999 team went like 5-77. And doubly stupid the team was in Vancouver for such a short part of its history.[/quote]
well, i think that in this case, the Chiefs uni’s have barely changed since they’ve been in KC. not a whole lot of merchandising options that are new.
however, w/ the TX logo, they can sell to two fan ba$e$.
i think it’s great, personally.
League Preparing To Cross The Sponsorship Rubicon?
Posted by Mike Florio on March 26, 2009, 11:37 a.m.
On the surface, it doesn’t sound like much. A small patch, on a jersey that wouldn’t even be worn during a preseason game.
But the one small step that the league owners might be taking could end up being the push point for a giant leap into an expanded corporate presence in pro football.
According to Jim Corbett of USA Today, the NFL is considering the possibility of adding corporate logos to practice jerseys.
“It would be similar to logos worn on pro soccer jerseys,” said Cowboys executive vice president Stephen Jones, who serves on the league’s business ventures committee.
“The prototype they showed us was no different than the patches they would put on the Pro Bowl jerseys,” Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti said. “The uniforms in NFL Europe, they had a big logo. That’s not what we’re talking about.
“We’re talking about something unobtrusive that when the guys are being interviewed, people can can see the sponsor logo on their jerseys. But it’s no bigger or more obtrusive than the patches worn for the Super Bowl logo.”
In our view, it’s a trial balloon — the first step in what could be an eventual expansion of corporate presence on official NFL game uniforms.
Of course, it’s already occurring. Reebok logos appear on every jersey, since Reebok manufactures them. But if the league wanted to use jerseys that had no direct or indirect marketing characteristics (other than the not-so-attractive “NFL Equipment” patch at the neck), the league easily could do it.
The difference here, of course, is that the league would be moving dramatically beyond the advertising that has become so integral to our sportswear that no one seems to mind the fact that we all fork over good money for the privilege of being walking, talking billboards for Nike, Reebok, and UnderArmour (often in some combination of the three).
A bad economy coupled with the ongoing permeation of corporate sponsorships in the world of sports makes the move a no-brainer, in our view.
And, frankly, we’re not troubled by it.
Or maybe we’re just numb to it.
And that could be the reality here. Thirty years ago, the notion of any corporate intrusion into major pro sports would have prompted an uproar, even as stock cars zoomed around the track covered by more sponsor decals than paint. Today, the gradual blending of sports and advertising, from “official beer sponsorships” to the Rose Bowl presented by Vandelay Industries, and the rise of NASCAR have made the move that the NFL currently is considering seem not shocking but inevitable
Great AFL photo gallery on SI.com. The Raiders pic has one player wearing the silver helmet and one player wearing the solid black helmet.
link
[quote comment=”319705″]Speaking of history…
If there’s an NCAA Basketball equivalent of the GGEP (Colts-Giants ’58), it was played 30 years ago today.
NCAA Final: Bird vs. Magic.
—Ricko[/quote]
So is that when the demise of college basketball began? The 1980s and even early 1990s were great, but somwhere along the line it lost its greatness.
[quote comment=”319708″]Great AFL photo gallery on SI.com. The Raiders pic has one player wearing the silver helmet and one player wearing the solid black helmet.
link
And a very unique font on that guy’s Raiders sweatshirt.
[quote comment=”319693″][quote comment=”319683″][quote comment=”319601″]Anyone else think that these “double combo” cards from Topps are really sweet?
link
And while I am at it… I always thought that jersey cards or game used cards or whatever, were kind of stupid. But now I think they are kind of cool to have a piece of the uni, or bat, or patch on a card? I think it’s sweet. Anyone else agree, or disagree?[/quote]
I think it’s an abomination. That’s horrible to chop up a piece of history for a gimmick. What sense does it make? It’d be like chopping up the Mona Lisa or the U.S. Constitution into stamp sizes pieces so “a random few public can have a worthless piece”. It’s dumb and it’s stupid. It belongs in a museum to be enjoyed by all. Who ever came up with this idea should be castrated and lynched. It just really pisses me off. We should be preserving history, not chopping it up and destroying it. This is just one of those things in baseball memorabilia that really bothers me.[/quote]
Agreed.
There are only three known Babe Ruth pinstripe Yankee jerseys in existence. One of which – 33% – was chopped up a couple years ago to be put in cards.
Abomination.[/quote]
I am very torn about this. But, like I stated before… I guess the bigger question is where does the cutoff begin? Is there a specific year? Why is it OK to cut up a modern legend jersey or bat like Cal Ripken Jr., Tony Gwynn, Robin Yount, and Paul Molitor… but not Joltin’ Joe, Jimmy Foxx, or Reggie Jackson?
I guess when it comes down to it I’m split. I like, and don’t like the idea at the same time.
The day the NFL puts corporate tags (aside from manufacturers’ logos) on its uniforms is the day I stop watching. Or maybe that day is when they play the Super Bowl on Presidents’ Day weekend.
Don’t they make enough damn money?
[quote comment=”319710″][quote comment=”319708″]Great AFL photo gallery on SI.com. The Raiders pic has one player wearing the silver helmet and one player wearing the solid black helmet.
link
And a very unique font on that guy’s Raiders sweatshirt.[/quote]
Training Camp, 1963, I’ll wager. Player on left is wearing helmet with yellow-gold stripe from year before. Player on right wearing new silver helmet. Think player in silver might be Cotton Davidson. Not sure.
Raiders used that font for quite a while. Remember it on a team media guide cover or two.
[quote comment=”319709″]So is that when the demise of college basketball began? The 1980s and even early 1990s were great, but somwhere along the line it lost its greatness.[/quote]
Ultra-early NBA entrants was one factor.
The idea that basketball players are really students was probably never perfectly accurate, but this trend has certainly accelerated (tie that to the early entries if you like).
The fact that Bird left a basketball factory like Indiana for ISU because he was homesick: does anyone think that would happen today?
[quote comment=”319704″]
when the WinniJets moved, they moved. they left. the franchise, it’s history, all of it left.[/quote]
1. They didn’t leave. They were taken. The people in Manitoba fought long and hard to keep the Jets, and they were sold in an 11th hour firesale because Barry Shenkarow didn’t want to own the team any longer.
2. The history – Bobby Hull, Dale Hawerchuk, Teemu Selanne, the Avco Cups – all of it happened IN WINNIPEG. Phoenix has nothing to do with the way we celebrated all of these stars or events. In much the same way that they stole the White-Out and made it lame, Winnipeg’s White-Out was a phenomenon.
3. The Carolina Hurricanes should never wear the Hartford Whalers logo unless they become the Carolina Whalers. If your team changes names because they move to a new city, the new fans don’t bond with the old name.
That’s the band-aid you’re ripping off so callously with this idea of throwbacks from a different city.
“it totally sucks for the fans of those cities, whose blood, sweat, tears and ticket sales helped fuel those teams, and who lived and died with them when they did well and played poorly…but the team moved…it sucks but that’s life…you don’t get to keep the “rights” to anything … ”
What is your cite for this rule?
[quote comment=”319706″]
well, i think that in this case, the Chiefs uni’s have barely changed since they’ve been in KC. not a whole lot of merchandising options that are new.[/quote]
Couldn’t agree more with this-I absolutely LOVE the idea that the you could see a picture of Willie Lanier tackling Mark Van Eeghen and it would look identical to a 2008 game.
[quote comment=”319706″]however, w/ the TX logo, they can sell to two fan ba$e$.[/quote]
But this is where we part ways.
Do you think that anyone in KC is buying anything with a big map of Texas on it?
Do you think anyone in Dallas is buying something that says “Texans” when they have Dallas Cowboys and Houston TEXANS merchandise available all over the state?
JMHO, but I think NFL Properties is in a no-win situation here. I don’t think anything will sell. (So they’re in a no-lose situation also.)
[quote comment=”319621″]Anyone bitch when the Texas Rangers wear Washington Senators gear, as they have at least a couple times? Must be something about football that generates a “nationalistic” feeling.
(I never patted Modell on the head, btw. Or addressed the motivation. Just said it works out better when done in the Browns-Ravens manner. And, yeah, Browns leaving their name and history behind was the first time that was done.
I wish the Colts has left their history in Baltimore. I’m sure the people of Baltimore do, too. I’d much rather still have the Baltimore Colts (meaning the former Browns) and be watching Peyton Manning play for, say, the “Indiana Troopers” or something.
I think it’s fair to say the whole Colts “skulk away in the dark” move was a big part of why the “Browns” were left in Cleveland to be born again.
When Minnesota loses the Vikings to L.A. (and right now I’d call that a better-than-even bet), I hope the name, colors, history and records stay here. Let ’em become the Los Angeles Lasers. Or Stars. Or Oscars. I know, the L.A. Zygis! (worked for the original Browns).
What an ad campaign: “The NFL’s back! Get Zygi With It!”
—Ricko[/quote]
Again, I totally agree. That would be the VERY BEST way to do it.
“they were sold in an 11th hour firesale because Barry Shenkarow didn’t want to own the team any longer.”
Isn’t that his right?
Hey, I know what you mean; Norm Green was here in Minnesota, remember. But it’s their company, their money. And if local support isn’t there–and neither are local buyers–what’s he supposed to do, lose money out of the goodness of his heart?
The city gets to keep its memories. Everything else belongs to them who own the franchise. Lock, stock and barrel. Isn’t pretty, but it’s true.
Wild shouldn’t wear North Star stuff. They don’t have one damn thing to do with the North Stars…other than playing in the same league. Dallas Stars, however, are the same franchise that played here in Minnesota. I just wouldn’t advise them to wear North Star unis. Not for a long, long while yet. Would be a major PR mistake, for the entire league.
—Ricko
[quote comment=”319699″]Wouldn’t surprise me. Just recounting a story I remember reading at the time. Don’t know if Hunt said it, or the writer was just being creative…but that was something I read that stuck with me all these years…
—Ricko[/quote]
That particular quote (give or take a few years) is famous. Like I said-he and Bud weren’t in any danger of starving no matter what happened in the AFL. Barron Hilton could have stuck around for a while too. (I believe the AFL owners called themselves “The Foolish Club”.)
Now that I know how to use the quote function, let me try this again:
[quote comment=”319539″] … the indy colts records, like those of every other franchise that ever relocated, rightfully belong in indy (as brutal as that is for baltimorons)…BUT the browns records rightfully belong in baltimore NOW …
it totally sucks for the fans of those cities, whose blood, sweat, tears and ticket sales helped fuel those teams, and who lived and died with them when they did well and played poorly…but the team moved…it sucks but that’s life…you don’t get to keep the “rights” to anything … and in most cases that city did get a new franchise (sometimes years later, sometimes decades later, sometimes…well…)[/quote]
What is your cite for this rule?
[quote comment=”319688″]1. Ricko — Had no idea the Vikes might move. I think they’ve suffered since they moved into the Dome. Green Bay and Chicago play outside and are much “tougher” for it. Plus they don’t wear clown suits (and the Vikes used to not).[/quote]
I’m a Chicagoan, but the Vikes “moving” might be a bit of a bargaining ploy. Its not as if the LA market suddenly opened up; and the Vikes are angling for their own stadium deal (hey, good luck with that guys!) since the Twins and the UMinn Gophers have gotten stadiums built.
Whoa, better make it clear. I think they SHOULD leave that stuff behind.
Just saying there’s no legal reason for them to, or legal reason that can COMPEL them to…unless there’s a league policy stipulating that such things stay behind (which, as I said, there ought to be, and owners should know that when they buy a team…that if they move it, they lose it…so to speak).
—Ricko
[quote comment=”319719″]”they were sold in an 11th hour firesale because Barry Shenkarow didn’t want to own the team any longer.”
Isn’t that his right?
Hey, I know what you mean; Norm Green was here in Minnesota, remember. But it’s their company, their money. And if local support isn’t there–and neither are local buyers–what’s he supposed to do, lose money out of the goodness of his heart?
The city gets to keep its memories. Everything else belongs to them who own the franchise. Lock, stock and barrel. Isn’t pretty, but it’s true.
Wild shouldn’t wear North Star stuff. They don’t have one damn thing to do with the North Stars…other than playing in the same league. Dallas Stars, however, are the same franchise that played here in Minnesota. I just wouldn’t advise them to wear North Star unis. Not for a long, long while yet. Would be a major PR mistake, for the entire league.
—Ricko[/quote]
It’s certainly his right, Ricko. No denying that. But when you sell shares to the public to raise funds to keep the team in the city, and then sell the team?
Slap in the face to every red-blooded Manitoban who threw down $50/share.
And the owners of the Coyotes could have lost $180 million here just as easily. And with less hassle of moving.
We all know how much everyone hates moving. LOL
[quote comment=”319716″]”it totally sucks for the fans of those cities, whose blood, sweat, tears and ticket sales helped fuel those teams, and who lived and died with them when they did well and played poorly…but the team moved…it sucks but that’s life…you don’t get to keep the “rights” to anything … ”
What is your cite for this rule?[/quote]
im pretty sure that’s been decided in the courts, and special deals need to be made in order for franchises moving to cede their rights to the team colors, name, etc, brought about in a deal reached following this case: City of Cleveland v. Cleveland Browns, et al., Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-95-297833
/but i could be wrong
[quote comment=”319671″]
That was Mike Ditka in 1987. Can’t argue with Coach Ditka. Someone sent him some roller skates and the local news showed clips of him trying to skate in the Bears offices.[/quote]
Yes-as a Chicago native and fan of da Bearz and da Coach, I was tweaking the poster who mentioned Thunderdome. I was having trouble with the antispam word and forgot to copy the :-) which was in my original post.
Final score: Mini-Ditkas 342, Denver negative tree, my friend.
Are the Gophers going to stop playing the Dome? That’d be great. I would ban all college sports from domes. Then again, I would ban all domes.
[quote comment=”319722″][quote comment=”319688″]1. Ricko — Had no idea the Vikes might move. I think they’ve suffered since they moved into the Dome. Green Bay and Chicago play outside and are much “tougher” for it. Plus they don’t wear clown suits (and the Vikes used to not).[/quote]
I’m a Chicagoan, but the Vikes “moving” might be a bit of a bargaining ploy. Its not as if the LA market suddenly opened up; and the Vikes are angling for their own stadium deal (hey, good luck with that guys!) since the Twins and the UMinn Gophers have gotten stadiums built.[/quote]
Vikes lease up after 2011, I believe. In this economy–and with the state facing a huge deficit–it will be really tough to get much public sentiment for significant public funding.
If Vikings will settle for a renovated Metrodome (some have suggested they play outdoors at new U of M stadium during such work, but that’s a long shot at best cuz of liquor sales…and more) they could stay.
The Wilfs, early-on, pointed out that they’ve never sold a business they’ve bought. But LA money might look good if they can’t get a stadium with the revenue streams they need (more and better luxury boxes, etc).
What might keep them here is that the other NFL owners probably don’t want to miss out a fat expansion fee from a new team in L.A. That money isn’t there with a franchise shift.
I’m not saying the Vikings are as good as gone. Just saying I’m not real optimistic.
—Ricko
[quote comment=”319725″][quote comment=”319716″]”it totally sucks for the fans of those cities, whose blood, sweat, tears and ticket sales helped fuel those teams, and who lived and died with them when they did well and played poorly…but the team moved…it sucks but that’s life…you don’t get to keep the “rights” to anything … ”
What is your cite for this rule?[/quote]
im pretty sure that’s been decided in the courts, and special deals need to be made in order for franchises moving to cede their rights to the team colors, name, etc, brought about in a deal reached following this case: City of Cleveland v. Cleveland Browns, et al., Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-95-297833
/but i could be wrong[/quote]
Okay, but Cleveland and Baltimore (or Modell and the NFL) must have made such a deal, no? So why do you think that the Browns’ records rightfully belong in Baltimore?
[quote]BUT the browns records rightfully belong in baltimore NOW [/quote]
[quote comment=”319727″]Are the Gophers going to stop playing the Dome? That’d be great. I would ban all college sports from domes. Then again, I would ban all domes.[/quote]
Gophers have played final game in Dome. TCF Field opens, on campus, this fall.
[quote comment=”319727″]Gophers have played final game in Dome. TCF Field opens, on campus, this fall.[/quote]
Thankee-I knew the Illini wouldn’t play them indoors anymore, but I wasn’t sure of the exact date.
I won’t go so far as to ban domes (and remember, Chicago isn’t exactly a tropical paradise in December/January) but I’m a fan of the concept at Miller Park: AFAIK, their roof is essentially an umbrella. You may get pretty darn cold in there, but you won’t necessarily be cold and wet. That’s something I could get behind.
[quote comment=”319731″][quote comment=”319727″]Gophers have played final game in Dome. TCF Field opens, on campus, this fall.[/quote]
Thankee-I knew the Illini wouldn’t play them indoors anymore, but I wasn’t sure of the exact date.
I won’t go so far as to ban domes (and remember, Chicago isn’t exactly a tropical paradise in December/January) but I’m a fan of the concept at Miller Park: AFAIK, their roof is essentially an umbrella. You may get pretty darn cold in there, but you won’t necessarily be cold and wet. That’s something I could get behind.[/quote]
With Goodell talking about extending the regular season, Soldier Field becomes that much worse to play in.
[quote comment=”319730″][quote comment=”319727″]Are the Gophers going to stop playing the Dome? That’d be great. I would ban all college sports from domes. Then again, I would ban all domes.[/quote]
Gophers have played final game in Dome. TCF Field opens, on campus, this fall.[/quote]
link
Here is the offical logo of my intramural floor hockey team. we wear old lions jerseys as our jerseys. but this is what we were thinking of getting put on tee shirts. let me know what you guys think.
link
if that link doesnt work try this one
link
[quote comment=”319728″]… But LA money might look good if they can’t get a stadium with the revenue streams they need (more and better luxury boxes, etc).[/quote]I guess the way I look at it is this: all that LA money has been there since the Raiders and Rams left, yet Houston got the last franchise: and Jacksonville has been shaky from Day One. Still, LA remains a football ghost town; with apparently very little appetite for the return of the NFL.
[quote comment=”319728″]What might keep them here is that the other NFL owners probably don’t want to miss out a fat expansion fee from a new team in L.A. That money isn’t there with a franchise shift.
—Ricko[/quote]Exactly. Plus a vacant LA market is a lever for franchises to extract a new stadium deal, etc. Hard to use “we just might move to Portland if you don’t give us what we want!” in the same way.
Everyone thought that TV would drive the NFL back to LA. That certainly hasn’t been the case. Fox does their pregame show from a city without a team. ;-)
Just some pics from the Life archives because I think they’re cool: Washington Redskins feather helmets. They aren’t well labeled so I’m not sure of the year.
link
link
link
link
link
[quote comment=”319732″]With Goodell talking about extending the regular season, Soldier Field becomes that much worse to play in.[/quote]And in 2016 the Bears will have to schedule around the Obamalympics (formerly known as the Daleylimpics).
[quote comment=”319585″][quote comment=”319570″][quote comment=”319568″][quote comment=”319564″]Paul, I understand you’re not the biggest fan of hockey…[/quote]
I love hockey! Who ever said I don’t like hockey?[/quote]
After all, he allowed us a wing in the UW Hall. :o)[/quote]
It’s about time I came out and said this: I hate the way the term “hockey wing” is used around here. It implies that hockey is a second-class citizen on the site and that I don’t care for hockey myself, neither of which is true. I’m not going so far as to ask y’all to stop using the term “hockey wing” — hey, if that’s what some of you wanna call yourselves, that’s ultimately your business. But I do think it’s misleading and sort of a lazy shorthand for something that ain’t necessarily so.[/quote]
I dunno Paul. As a member of the UWHW I kind of view it as a badge of distinction. I never viewed the reference as something that signified second class citizenship here.
I’m old enough to have listened to Marv Albert doing the Ranger games and seen Jim Gordon do them on a delayed basis on TV.
[quote comment=”319729″]Okay, but Cleveland and Baltimore (or Modell and the NFL) must have made such a deal, no? So why do you think that the Browns’ records rightfully belong in Baltimore?
[quote]BUT the browns records rightfully belong in baltimore NOW [/quote][/quote]
rightfully and legally are two different things
teams and franchises have been relocating, for better or for worse, for YEARS, and until this court case…which basically forced a deal (and make no mistake, EVERYONE got rich off it or got something [promise of a team, new stadium, new franchise fees, etc.])…to keep a team moving from basically keeping its entire identity — an identity which belongs to a team (and like it or not, its owner), not to a city
cleveland made out — they essentially got PROMISED a team in the near future, one that would get to wear the old uniforms and take the old name of the team who relocated; baltimore made out — they got a “new” team (somewhat easing the wounds from irsay’s midnight mayflower madness); the other OWNERS made out, since whatever team the NFL was going to put in cleveland was going to have to pay out shiny new franchise fees; art modell made out; the only one’s im not sure made out were the cleveland taxpayers, but at least they got a new team and a new stadium
basically the precedent this seemed to me to be setting is: if you want to move, we’d better all get rich of it, which means adding a new franchise to the league to make up for the one the city lost
why do you think there was NO relocation in baseball from 1971 to 2005? yet, MLB added SIX NEW franchises (despite the fact that one of the last owners to relocate was none other than commish bud selig with the brewers in 1970)? no one gets rich when a franchise moves, but they do get rich when the league adds new teams
/sorry for the rant, i feel that if a franchise moves, all the records and whatnot for that franchise should RIGHTFULLY move too — LEGALLY may be an entire matter, and that’s what happened in the browns case (and it may exist elsewhere as well, such as with the whalers)
[quote comment=”319737″]Just some pics from the Life archives because I think they’re cool: Washington Redskins feather helmets. They aren’t well labeled so I’m not sure of the year.
link
link
link
link
link[/quote]
Yikes! Five photos, four of them featuring #0, Johnny Olszewski (“Johnny O”). He was their leading rusher in ’59, so probably photos are from that year.
—Ricko
Does anyone know for sure if the Texas Rangers own the rights to the Senators unis, records etc. I have been told that is the case, but haven’t seen anything definitive.
[quote comment=”319577″][quote comment=”319567″]Since when did the Athletics start using an “O” as a logo? Or is this just the Evil Empire creating logo confusion?
link
no… that’s not an “O”… thats just a graphic of a baby elephant being born… it’s all part of nike’s new “birthin’ baseball” series. i personally can’t wait to see the giants!
haha
that hat is horrible!!!![/quote]
Time to start worrying about the A’s. Or at least we’re documenting Nike inventing logos for teams. I saw that same logo on a dad’s t-shirt (it was a Nike shirt) last night at little league practice. It burned the eyes.
[quote comment=”319744″]Does anyone know for sure if the Texas Rangers own the rights to the Senators unis, records etc. I have been told that is the case, but haven’t seen anything definitive.[/quote]
Don’t know.
The Rangers wear Senators stuff from time to time, but the actual rights might be owned by MLB Properties.
[quote comment=”319745″][quote comment=”319577″][quote comment=”319567″]Since when did the Athletics start using an “O” as a logo? Or is this just the Evil Empire creating logo confusion?
link
no… that’s not an “O”… thats just a graphic of a baby elephant being born… it’s all part of nike’s new “birthin’ baseball” series. i personally can’t wait to see the giants!
haha
that hat is horrible!!!![/quote]
Time to start worrying about the A’s. Or at least we’re documenting Nike inventing logos for teams. I saw that same logo on a dad’s t-shirt (it was a Nike shirt) last night at little league practice. It burned the eyes.[/quote]
Nike’s been making new logos for teams for years. They did a whole NFL range about five years ago, some of which are still used by teams.
[quote comment=”319747″][quote comment=”319745″][quote comment=”319577″][quote comment=”319567″]Since when did the Athletics start using an “O” as a logo? Or is this just the Evil Empire creating logo confusion?
link
no… that’s not an “O”… thats just a graphic of a baby elephant being born… it’s all part of nike’s new “birthin’ baseball” series. i personally can’t wait to see the giants!
haha
that hat is horrible!!!![/quote]
Time to start worrying about the A’s. Or at least we’re documenting Nike inventing logos for teams. I saw that same logo on a dad’s t-shirt (it was a Nike shirt) last night at little league practice. It burned the eyes.[/quote]
Nike’s been making new logos for teams for years. They did a whole NFL range about five years ago, some of which are still used by teams.[/quote]
Speaking of logos…
Anyone else notice that in the NFL throwback photo from yesterday the Oilers softcap feaures the helmet with derrick logo and not the original football guy in the wildcatter helmet? Broncos and Texans have their original cartoon figures, but not the Oilers.
Don’t know if this link will work…
link
—Ricko
[quote comment=”319657″]My point being is that the Nationals/Senators were Washington’s team. The Twins and Rangers were both new/expansion teams. If my understanding is correct, both versions of the Nats/Senators were fan supported but the ownership relocated them. “Honoring” doesn’t really apply. If that was the case, The current Nats would wear Expos unis (don’t see that happening)Also, Senators attire is pretty popular here. It’s also my understanding that the Texas Rangers own the rights to the Senators name, unis etc.[/quote]
I apologize if it’s already been said, but neither the Twins, nor the Rangers were new/expansion teams. Minnesota was granted an expansion team, but the Senators moved from DC to Minnesota and DC got the expansion slot instead. This “new” DC team was again the Senators (v2 or v3 depending on how you look at it) who then moved to Texas. I don’t know about the Rangers, but the Twins celebrate Killebrew, Aillison, Kaat, Zolio (sp?), etc like crazy even though their careers started with the Sens.
I just want to be the first to complain here about the floor at the NCAA’s Boston regional not being the parquet. Even if the NCAA feels the need to use one of their generic courts, they could have patterned the wood appropriately.
[quote comment=”319743″]
Yikes! Five photos, four of them featuring #0, Johnny Olszewski (“Johnny O”). He was their leading rusher in ’59, so probably photos are from that year.
—Ricko[/quote]
They’re from a set that is labeled Pro Football taken by George Silk. I can give a general link to them, but if you’re interested you’ll have to poke around because there are more than one set with the same label. link. (This returns 93 images from three+ sets.)
For those who don’t want to poke:
Pittsburgh – NY: link link link link link
Green Bay – Chicago: link link link link link
[quote comment=”319705″]Speaking of history…
If there’s an NCAA Basketball equivalent of the GGEP (Colts-Giants ’58), it was played 30 years ago today.
NCAA Final: Bird vs. Magic.
—Ricko[/quote]
Duke-Kentucky in the 1992 Regional Final was better.
If anyone has the Angels-Indians game on MLB Network (or SportsTime Ohio), please feel free to send Paul a still screen grab link as we can confirm the umps’ “Polo Blue” shirts with black numbers. Thanks!
I’m a fan of the concept at Miller Park: AFAIK, their roof is essentially an umbrella. You may get pretty darn cold in there, but you won’t necessarily be cold and wet. That’s something I could get behind.
That’s basically it, anotherguy. I live in Racine, about 30 miles south of Milwaukee; I thought I’d heard they can only make it 20 degrees warmer than the outside temperature.
What I can tell you is this: When the Indians and Angels borrowed Miller Park early last season (or was that ’07?), I took the family.
Outside, it was about 38 and windy. Inside? I left my jacket on, but I could’ve taken it off and been comfortable, too. No wind, no rain. The roof was built for night games in April and May, which were generally unpleasant at County Stadium.
For those who don’t want to poke:
Pittsburgh – NY: One Two Three Four Five
Green Bay – Chicago: One Two Three Four Five
Wow! Thanks, Squiddie! They’ve added some more images since the initial Life-meets-Google announcement, it would appear. I haven’t seen some of those, and I spent quite a bit of time there initially, ifyouknowwhatImean.
Green Bay-Chicago One has Rick Casares scoring a TD as Hall of Famer Emlen Tunell brings up the rear. Beautiful.
[quote comment=”319755″]
Wow! Thanks, Squiddie! They’ve added some more images since the initial Life-meets-Google announcement, it would appear. I haven’t seen some of those, and I spent quite a bit of time there initially, ifyouknowwhatImean.
Green Bay-Chicago One has Rick Casares scoring a TD as Hall of Famer Emlen Tunell brings up the rear. Beautiful.[/quote]
Also isn’t #12 Zeke Bartkowski who later played for the Pack?
I think they added the color images recently. They have some beautiful color shots of the 1966 World Cup (ones without Pele) and I don’t remember those at all when I started searching the archives
They also added color versions of B&W images they’ve had up before. There’s the link in color now.
[quote comment=”319711″][quote comment=”319693″][quote comment=”319683″][quote comment=”319601″]Anyone else think that these “double combo” cards from Topps are really sweet?
link
And while I am at it… I always thought that jersey cards or game used cards or whatever, were kind of stupid. But now I think they are kind of cool to have a piece of the uni, or bat, or patch on a card? I think it’s sweet. Anyone else agree, or disagree?[/quote]
I think it’s an abomination. That’s horrible to chop up a piece of history for a gimmick. What sense does it make? It’d be like chopping up the Mona Lisa or the U.S. Constitution into stamp sizes pieces so “a random few public can have a worthless piece”. It’s dumb and it’s stupid. It belongs in a museum to be enjoyed by all. Who ever came up with this idea should be castrated and lynched. It just really pisses me off. We should be preserving history, not chopping it up and destroying it. This is just one of those things in baseball memorabilia that really bothers me.[/quote]
Agreed.
There are only three known Babe Ruth pinstripe Yankee jerseys in existence. One of which – 33% – was chopped up a couple years ago to be put in cards.
Abomination.[/quote]
I am very torn about this. But, like I stated before… I guess the bigger question is where does the cutoff begin? Is there a specific year? Why is it OK to cut up a modern legend jersey or bat like Cal Ripken Jr., Tony Gwynn, Robin Yount, and Paul Molitor… but not Joltin’ Joe, Jimmy Foxx, or Reggie Jackson?
I guess when it comes down to it I’m split. I like, and don’t like the idea at the same time.[/quote]
There shouldn’t be a cut-off date because the whole practice needs to stop. How would baseball fans 80 years from now feel if we started chopping up Cal Ripkin Jr. or Tom Seaver jerseys and there were none left but replications? The whole thing is just a gimmick for the baseball card companies trying to build up the industry they ruined in the early 1990s.
[quote comment=”319752″][quote comment=”319705″]Speaking of history…
If there’s an NCAA Basketball equivalent of the GGEP (Colts-Giants ’58), it was played 30 years ago today.
NCAA Final: Bird vs. Magic.
—Ricko[/quote]
Duke-Kentucky in the 1992 Regional Final was better.[/quote]
Of course there have been better games, as there have been better than the ’58 game. None more important to the NCAA Tourney as we know it today than Bird-Magic ‘79.
Also isn’t #12 Zeke Bartkowski who later played for the Pack?
It is.
There’s the Green Bay Packers Group Shot in color now.
I love that photo. There they were, in ’62, looking to evoke 1892.
[quote comment=”319743″][quote comment=”319737″]Just some pics from the Life archives because I think they’re cool: Washington Redskins feather helmets. They aren’t well labeled so I’m not sure of the year.
link
link
link
link
link[/quote]
Yikes! Five photos, four of them featuring #0, Johnny Olszewski (“Johnny O”). He was their leading rusher in ’59, so probably photos are from that year.
—Ricko[/quote]
I love the Life photos and how they are available now. But man the search feature or whatever sure is odd. Like when you find some and click the more and more.
[quote comment=”319754″]I live in Racine, about 30 miles south of Milwaukee; I thought I’d heard they can only make it 20 degrees warmer than the outside temperature.
What I can tell you is this: When the Indians and Angels borrowed Miller Park early last season (or was that ’07?), I took the family.
Outside, it was about 38 and windy. Inside? I left my jacket on, but I could’ve taken it off and been comfortable, too. No wind, no rain. The roof was built for night games in April and May, which were generally unpleasant at County Stadium.[/quote]
I saw a very cold game up there when the Sox used County Stadium for “home” games after the Braves left but before the Brewers arrived. We froze our little butts off, even though we dressed for the cold and brought in blankets.
It was the Fourth of July weekend.
link
speaking of 0
here is Johnny Clement of the Steelers
[quote comment=”319756″][quote comment=”319755″]
Wow! Thanks, Squiddie! They’ve added some more images since the initial Life-meets-Google announcement, it would appear. I haven’t seen some of those, and I spent quite a bit of time there initially, ifyouknowwhatImean.
Green Bay-Chicago One has Rick Casares scoring a TD as Hall of Famer Emlen Tunell brings up the rear. Beautiful.[/quote]
Also isn’t #12 Zeke Bartkowski who later played for the Pack?
I think they added the color images recently. They have some beautiful color shots of the 1966 World Cup (ones without Pele) and I don’t remember those at all when I started searching the archives
They also added color versions of B&W images they’ve had up before. There’s the link in color now.[/quote]
Yes some of these today posted I had not seen before. Obviously they will release more in time. And I always liked the Redskins feather helmet.
The Packer pose is classic 1890’s
[quote comment=”319751″][quote comment=”319743″]
Yikes! Five photos, four of them featuring #0, Johnny Olszewski (“Johnny O”). He was their leading rusher in ’59, so probably photos are from that year.
—Ricko[/quote]
They’re from a set that is labeled Pro Football taken by George Silk. I can give a general link to them, but if you’re interested you’ll have to poke around because there are more than one set with the same label. link. (This returns 93 images from three+ sets.)
For those who don’t want to poke:
Pittsburgh – NY: link link link link link
Green Bay – Chicago: link link link link link[/quote]
Holy crap! Look out link
[quote comment=”319592″]The Straw in Islanders getup from getty images
link
Where are the 4 shoulder stripes on that jersey? Hmmm…maybe Straw snorted them off.
ya know what’s great about those life photos (besides just their sheer awesomeness)…
some 50 years later…there’s not much difference between this and this…uni-wise
/beautiful then, beautiful now
The Houston Aeros are auctioning off goalie Nolan Schaefer’s special Lyme Disease mask. This is possibly the first goalie mask in history that has a tick on it.
link
[quote comment=”319764″][quote comment=”319751″][quote comment=”319743″]
Yikes! Five photos, four of them featuring #0, Johnny Olszewski (“Johnny O”). He was their leading rusher in ’59, so probably photos are from that year.
—Ricko[/quote]
They’re from a set that is labeled Pro Football taken by George Silk. I can give a general link to them, but if you’re interested you’ll have to poke around because there are more than one set with the same label. link. (This returns 93 images from three+ sets.)
For those who don’t want to poke:
Pittsburgh – NY: link link link link link
Green Bay – Chicago: link link link link link[/quote]
Holy crap! Look out link
That shot’s flopped. Look at the players’ numbers.
[quote comment=”319767″]ya know what’s great about those life photos (besides just their sheer awesomeness)…
some 50 years later…there’s not much difference between link and link…uni-wise
/beautiful then, beautiful now[/quote]
Ain’t dat da troot.
[quote comment=”319758″][quote comment=”319752″][quote comment=”319705″]Speaking of history…
If there’s an NCAA Basketball equivalent of the GGEP (Colts-Giants ’58), it was played 30 years ago today.
NCAA Final: Bird vs. Magic.
—Ricko[/quote]
Duke-Kentucky in the 1992 Regional Final was better.[/quote]
Of course there have been better games, as there have been better than the ’58 game. None more important to the NCAA Tourney as we know it today than Bird-Magic ‘79.[/quote]
THAT’s why I likened it to the GGEP.
[quote comment=”319713″][quote comment=”319710″][quote comment=”319708″]Great AFL photo gallery on SI.com. The Raiders pic has one player wearing the silver helmet and one player wearing the solid black helmet.
link
And a very unique font on that guy’s Raiders sweatshirt.[/quote]
Training Camp, 1963, I’ll wager. Player on left is wearing helmet with yellow-gold stripe from year before. Player on right wearing new silver helmet. Think player in silver might be Cotton Davidson. Not sure.
Raiders used that font for quite a while. Remember it on a team media guide cover or two.[/quote]
They’re still using that font
link
[quote comment=”319772″][quote comment=”319713″][quote comment=”319710″][quote comment=”319708″]Great AFL photo gallery on SI.com. The Raiders pic has one player wearing the silver helmet and one player wearing the solid black helmet.
link
And a very unique font on that guy’s Raiders sweatshirt.[/quote]
Training Camp, 1963, I’ll wager. Player on left is wearing helmet with yellow-gold stripe from year before. Player on right wearing new silver helmet. Think player in silver might be Cotton Davidson. Not sure.
Raiders used that font for quite a while. Remember it on a team media guide cover or two.[/quote]
They’re still using that font
link
Well, see, I KNEW I’d seen it somewhere. LOL
Redskins feather helmets vs Browns
link
Not sure if that Straw pic is from last night. He’d been at Isles games before, and the one published is familiar.
link
SB
[quote comment=”319767″]ya know what’s great about those life photos (besides just their sheer awesomeness)…
some 50 years later…there’s not much difference between link and link…uni-wise
/beautiful then, beautiful now[/quote]
except the friggin’ stripes on Peyton’s jersey (couldn’t resist).
[quote comment=”319771″][quote comment=”319758″][quote comment=”319752″][quote comment=”319705″]Speaking of history…
If there’s an NCAA Basketball equivalent of the GGEP (Colts-Giants ’58), it was played 30 years ago today.
NCAA Final: Bird vs. Magic.
—Ricko[/quote]
Duke-Kentucky in the 1992 Regional Final was better.[/quote]
Of course there have been better games, as there have been better than the ’58 game. None more important to the NCAA Tourney as we know it today than Bird-Magic ‘79.[/quote]
THAT’s why I likened it to the GGEP.[/quote]
Except the NFL didn’t become what IT’S become until Super Bowl III. I’d rather compare the importance of that Super Bowl to the 1979 NCAA championship game.
[quote comment=”319708″]Great AFL photo gallery on SI.com. The Raiders pic has one player wearing the silver helmet and one player wearing the solid black helmet.
link
Forgot that Modell fired Brown. link What a douche.
Has anyone mentioned that the alleged picture of the Browns CB helmet is actually the Broncos wearing the brown bucking bronco helmet in an early 1962 game against the Bills?
Many of us Winnipeggers still miss having the NHL in town. The NHL Jets were rarely good but they were loved.
[quote comment=”319627″][quote comment=”319612″]In the end: Letterman has it right: We just root for the laundry.[/quote]
Wasn’t that one of Jerry Seinfeld’s bits?[/quote]
And I stand corrected. It’s a good line, and the author deserves proper credit.
[quote comment=”319769″][quote comment=”319764″][quote comment=”319751″][quote comment=”319743″]
Yikes! Five photos, four of them featuring #0, Johnny Olszewski (“Johnny O”). He was their leading rusher in ’59, so probably photos are from that year.
—Ricko[/quote]
They’re from a set that is labeled Pro Football taken by George Silk. I can give a general link to them, but if you’re interested you’ll have to poke around because there are more than one set with the same label. link. (This returns 93 images from three+ sets.)
For those who don’t want to poke:
Pittsburgh – NY: link link link link link
Green Bay – Chicago: link link link link link[/quote]
Holy crap! Look out link
That shot’s flopped. Look at the players’ numbers.[/quote]
What is it with the Life archive – I spotted the same thing in a hockey photo a few weeks back (Sawchuk). Did Life put part of their archive on the ‘net backwards, or did they originally print them backwards in the magazine?
[quote comment=”319782″][quote comment=”319769″][quote comment=”319764″][quote comment=”319751″][quote comment=”319743″]
Yikes! Five photos, four of them featuring #0, Johnny Olszewski (“Johnny O”). He was their leading rusher in ’59, so probably photos are from that year.
—Ricko[/quote]
They’re from a set that is labeled Pro Football taken by George Silk. I can give a general link to them, but if you’re interested you’ll have to poke around because there are more than one set with the same label. link. (This returns 93 images from three+ sets.)
For those who don’t want to poke:
Pittsburgh – NY: link link link link link
Green Bay – Chicago: link link link link link[/quote]
Holy crap! Look out link
That shot’s flopped. Look at the players’ numbers.[/quote]
What is it with the Life archive – I spotted the same thing in a hockey photo a few weeks back (Sawchuk). Did Life put part of their archive on the ‘net backwards, or did they originally print them backwards in the magazine?[/quote]
If the NFL really wanted to get serious about throwback attire, it’d try a game or two without face guards. Except for some busted teeth and broken noses, I’d bet it would cut down on injuries.
[quote comment=”319744″]Does anyone know for sure if the Texas Rangers own the rights to the Senators unis, records etc. I have been told that is the case, but haven’t seen anything definitive.[/quote]
I haven’t done the research, but I recall that when they were discussing names for the Nationals, whenever someone would bring up naming them the Senators, the response was always “The Rangers own the rights to the name.”
[quote comment=”319778″][quote comment=”319771″][quote comment=”319758″][quote comment=”319752″][quote comment=”319705″]Speaking of history…
If there’s an NCAA Basketball equivalent of the GGEP (Colts-Giants ’58), it was played 30 years ago today.
NCAA Final: Bird vs. Magic.
—Ricko[/quote]
Duke-Kentucky in the 1992 Regional Final was better.[/quote]
Of course there have been better games, as there have been better than the ’58 game. None more important to the NCAA Tourney as we know it today than Bird-Magic ‘79.[/quote]
THAT’s why I likened it to the GGEP.[/quote]
Except the NFL didn’t become what IT’S become until Super Bowl III. I’d rather compare the importance of that Super Bowl to the 1979 NCAA championship game.[/quote]
Nope. GGEP elevated pro football to a status it had never known. Magic vs. Bird did the same for the NCAA Hoops final and, in doing so, the entire “Big Dance”. Super Bowl III merely elevated the AFL (which, by the way, largely came into being because of the GGEP; how’s THAT for changing the face of the game?). Ask anyone who was around at the time and was paying attention to the effect those games had…including a long list of regulars posters at UW.
Or watch the ESPN special on the GGEP, pay attention to the comments of people who know the game far better than any of us here, and learn how spectacularly signifcant that game really was.
Don’t get me wrong. I loved SBIII, but the GGEP was pro football’s watershed moment. Absolutely so.
—Ricko
[quote]What is it with the Life archive – I spotted the same thing in a hockey photo a few weeks back (Sawchuk). Did Life put part of their archive on the ‘net backwards, or did they originally print them backwards in the magazine?[/quote]
a lot of print negatives are printed backwards, for whatever reason, perhaps to save from negative to positive for posterity (?) — i find this a LOT with old baseball pics…i doubt the actual life mag had the actual photo backwards
ahhh…much better
[quote comment=”319780″]Has anyone mentioned that the alleged picture of the Browns CB helmet is actually the Broncos wearing the brown bucking bronco helmet in an early 1962 game against the Bills?
Many of us Winnipeggers still miss having the NHL in town. The NHL Jets were rarely good but they were loved.[/quote]
There was NO BROWN BUCKING BRONCO on an orange helmet for the Broncos. Ever. It was royal blue. Someone with the logic skills of a pigeon gazed at an old b&w photo and reckoned, “Duh, I bet the horsey is brown cuz they used to wear brown”…and pro football has lived with the error of that particular bit of mental midgetry ever since.
ARRRGH.
[quote comment=”319778″][quote comment=”319771″][quote comment=”319758″][quote comment=”319752″][quote comment=”319705″]Speaking of history…
If there’s an NCAA Basketball equivalent of the GGEP (Colts-Giants ’58), it was played 30 years ago today.
NCAA Final: Bird vs. Magic.
—Ricko[/quote]
Duke-Kentucky in the 1992 Regional Final was better.[/quote]
Of course there have been better games, as there have been better than the ’58 game. None more important to the NCAA Tourney as we know it today than Bird-Magic ‘79.[/quote]
THAT’s why I likened it to the GGEP.[/quote]
Except the NFL didn’t become what IT’S become until Super Bowl III. I’d rather compare the importance of that Super Bowl to the 1979 NCAA championship game.[/quote]
Great, let’s start the “more valuable” shit again.
i love it when ricko does this
/you guys are cruuuuel i tells ya
[quote comment=”319778″][quote comment=”319771″][quote comment=”319758″][quote comment=”319752″][quote comment=”319705″]Speaking of history…
If there’s an NCAA Basketball equivalent of the GGEP (Colts-Giants ’58), it was played 30 years ago today.
NCAA Final: Bird vs. Magic.
—Ricko[/quote]
Duke-Kentucky in the 1992 Regional Final was better.[/quote]
Of course there have been better games, as there have been better than the ’58 game. None more important to the NCAA Tourney as we know it today than Bird-Magic ‘79.[/quote]
THAT’s why I likened it to the GGEP.[/quote]
Except the NFL didn’t become what IT’S become until Super Bowl III. I’d rather compare the importance of that Super Bowl to the 1979 NCAA championship game.[/quote]
There was no need for an AFL until the ’58 Championship catapulted pro football. For every argument, there is a counter argument.
[quote comment=”319785″][quote comment=”319778″][quote comment=”319771″][quote comment=”319758″][quote comment=”319752″][quote comment=”319705″]Speaking of history…
If there’s an NCAA Basketball equivalent of the GGEP (Colts-Giants ’58), it was played 30 years ago today.
NCAA Final: Bird vs. Magic.
—Ricko[/quote]
Duke-Kentucky in the 1992 Regional Final was better.[/quote]
Of course there have been better games, as there have been better than the ’58 game. None more important to the NCAA Tourney as we know it today than Bird-Magic ‘79.[/quote]
THAT’s why I likened it to the GGEP.[/quote]
Except the NFL didn’t become what IT’S become until Super Bowl III. I’d rather compare the importance of that Super Bowl to the 1979 NCAA championship game.[/quote]
Nope. GGEP elevated pro football to a status it had never known. Magic vs. Bird did the same for the NCAA Hoops final and, in doing so, the entire “Big Dance”. Super Bowl III merely elevated the AFL (which, by the way, largely came into being because of the GGEP; how’s THAT for changing the face of the game?). Ask anyone who was around at the time and was paying attention to the effect those games had…including a long list of regulars posters at UW.
Or watch the ESPN special on the GGEP, pay attention to the comments of people who know the game far better than any of us here, and learn how spectacularly signifcant that game really was.
Don’t get me wrong. I loved SBIII, but the GGEP was pro football’s watershed moment. Absolutely so.
—Ricko[/quote]
NCAA watershed moment: 1966, Kentucky and Texas Western.
[quote comment=”319764″][quote comment=”319751″][quote comment=”319743″]
Yikes! Five photos, four of them featuring #0, Johnny Olszewski (“Johnny O”). He was their leading rusher in ’59, so probably photos are from that year.
—Ricko[/quote]
They’re from a set that is labeled Pro Football taken by George Silk. I can give a general link to them, but if you’re interested you’ll have to poke around because there are more than one set with the same label. link. (This returns 93 images from three+ sets.)
For those who don’t want to poke:
Pittsburgh – NY: link link link link link
Green Bay – Chicago: link link link link link[/quote]
Holy crap! Look out link
Get that actual Life edition here: link
[quote comment=”319792″][quote comment=”319785″][quote comment=”319778″][quote comment=”319771″][quote comment=”319758″][quote comment=”319752″][quote comment=”319705″]Speaking of history…
If there’s an NCAA Basketball equivalent of the GGEP (Colts-Giants ’58), it was played 30 years ago today.
NCAA Final: Bird vs. Magic.
—Ricko[/quote]
Duke-Kentucky in the 1992 Regional Final was better.[/quote]
Of course there have been better games, as there have been better than the ’58 game. None more important to the NCAA Tourney as we know it today than Bird-Magic ‘79.[/quote]
THAT’s why I likened it to the GGEP.[/quote]
Except the NFL didn’t become what IT’S become until Super Bowl III. I’d rather compare the importance of that Super Bowl to the 1979 NCAA championship game.[/quote]
Nope. GGEP elevated pro football to a status it had never known. Magic vs. Bird did the same for the NCAA Hoops final and, in doing so, the entire “Big Dance”. Super Bowl III merely elevated the AFL (which, by the way, largely came into being because of the GGEP; how’s THAT for changing the face of the game?). Ask anyone who was around at the time and was paying attention to the effect those games had…including a long list of regulars posters at UW.
Or watch the ESPN special on the GGEP, pay attention to the comments of people who know the game far better than any of us here, and learn how spectacularly signifcant that game really was.
Don’t get me wrong. I loved SBIII, but the GGEP was pro football’s watershed moment. Absolutely so.
—Ricko[/quote]
NCAA watershed moment: 1966, Kentucky and Texas Western.[/quote]
Socially, yes. Absolutely, positively, yes. But we’re talking about the significant TV moments that lift an event or sport to a whole new strata of spectator interest. That’s the context of the comparison.
[quote comment=”319792″][quote comment=”319785″][quote comment=”319778″][quote comment=”319771″][quote comment=”319758″][quote comment=”319752″][quote comment=”319705″]Speaking of history…
If there’s an NCAA Basketball equivalent of the GGEP (Colts-Giants ’58), it was played 30 years ago today.
NCAA Final: Bird vs. Magic.
—Ricko[/quote]
Duke-Kentucky in the 1992 Regional Final was better.[/quote]
Of course there have been better games, as there have been better than the ’58 game. None more important to the NCAA Tourney as we know it today than Bird-Magic ‘79.[/quote]
THAT’s why I likened it to the GGEP.[/quote]
Except the NFL didn’t become what IT’S become until Super Bowl III. I’d rather compare the importance of that Super Bowl to the 1979 NCAA championship game.[/quote]
Nope. GGEP elevated pro football to a status it had never known. Magic vs. Bird did the same for the NCAA Hoops final and, in doing so, the entire “Big Dance”. Super Bowl III merely elevated the AFL (which, by the way, largely came into being because of the GGEP; how’s THAT for changing the face of the game?). Ask anyone who was around at the time and was paying attention to the effect those games had…including a long list of regulars posters at UW.
Or watch the ESPN special on the GGEP, pay attention to the comments of people who know the game far better than any of us here, and learn how spectacularly signifcant that game really was.
Don’t get me wrong. I loved SBIII, but the GGEP was pro football’s watershed moment. Absolutely so.
—Ricko[/quote]
NCAA watershed moment: 1966, Kentucky and Texas Western.[/quote]
Just echoing Ricko’s comment…
No question….but for different reasons and with different end results. The ’79 game was the most watched basketball game in the history of the sport. While the ’66 game was more important for more important reasons, the popularity of the NCAA game was boosted like no other single game ever played.
and just to let you know that ricko knows of what he speaks, check out his knowledge of and first hand recount of the greatest game ever played
/GGEP=NFL as we never knew it before, and how it literally changed the sport
[quote comment=”319539″][quote comment=”319538″]That Oiler article is annoying. It would make no sense for the Texans to wear Oiler throwbacks. That reporter to me does not “get it”. Or am I wrong?[/quote]
you’re absolutely right
what the author wants is what the people of cleveland got…(and in the process, the good people of baltimore got doubly screwed)…the indy colts records, like those of every other franchise that ever relocated, rightfully belong in indy (as brutal as that is for baltimorons)…BUT the browns records rightfully belong in baltimore NOW (as happened when the mayflower took the colts records to indy)
instead, baltimore got neither
the team moved…the records should move with the team…just like the dodgers’ and giants’ records belong in california and the records of every other franchise that moved belong with that city…the NEW team those cities got have their own history to build upon…and they DON’T deserve (although it’s cool to see, don’t get me wrong) to wear the uniforms of teams (franchises) that were never a part of the current iteration (think the brewers and braves throwbacks — sorry milwaukee…it’s a cool idea to wear braves throwbacks, but they’re no longer “your” team)
it totally sucks for the fans of those cities, whose blood, sweat, tears and ticket sales helped fuel those teams, and who lived and died with them when they did well and played poorly…but the team moved…it sucks but that’s life…you don’t get to keep the “rights” to anything … and in most cases that city did get a new franchise (sometimes years later, sometimes decades later, sometimes…well…)[/quote]
Sorry for the late reply but a-fucking-men to that my thoughts exactly
[quote comment=”319795″][quote comment=”319792″][quote comment=”319785″][quote comment=”319778″][quote comment=”319771″][quote comment=”319758″][quote comment=”319752″][quote comment=”319705″]Speaking of history…
If there’s an NCAA Basketball equivalent of the GGEP (Colts-Giants ’58), it was played 30 years ago today.
NCAA Final: Bird vs. Magic.
—Ricko[/quote]
Duke-Kentucky in the 1992 Regional Final was better.[/quote]
Of course there have been better games, as there have been better than the ’58 game. None more important to the NCAA Tourney as we know it today than Bird-Magic ‘79.[/quote]
THAT’s why I likened it to the GGEP.[/quote]
Except the NFL didn’t become what IT’S become until Super Bowl III. I’d rather compare the importance of that Super Bowl to the 1979 NCAA championship game.[/quote]
Nope. GGEP elevated pro football to a status it had never known. Magic vs. Bird did the same for the NCAA Hoops final and, in doing so, the entire “Big Dance”. Super Bowl III merely elevated the AFL (which, by the way, largely came into being because of the GGEP; how’s THAT for changing the face of the game?). Ask anyone who was around at the time and was paying attention to the effect those games had…including a long list of regulars posters at UW.
Or watch the ESPN special on the GGEP, pay attention to the comments of people who know the game far better than any of us here, and learn how spectacularly signifcant that game really was.
Don’t get me wrong. I loved SBIII, but the GGEP was pro football’s watershed moment. Absolutely so.
—Ricko[/quote]
NCAA watershed moment: 1966, Kentucky and Texas Western.[/quote]
Just echoing Ricko’s comment…
No question….but for different reasons and with different end results. The ’79 game was the most watched basketball game in the history of the sport. While the ’66 game was more important for more important reasons, the popularity of the NCAA game was boosted like no other single game ever played.[/quote]
Yes, Magic-Bird was the most watched game, but we forget that the Final Four was a pretty damned big deal even before the ’79 game. I’d say it did more for the NBA than NCAA. The ’79 game was intriguing because Indiana State was undefeated and people wondered exactly how good the Sycamores were.
I remember listening to the ’66 game on the transistor radio at a scout camp. It was a smack-down and a game changer.
[quote comment=”319798″][quote comment=”319795″][quote comment=”319792″][quote comment=”319785″][quote comment=”319778″][quote comment=”319771″][quote comment=”319758″][quote comment=”319752″][quote comment=”319705″]Speaking of history…
If there’s an NCAA Basketball equivalent of the GGEP (Colts-Giants ’58), it was played 30 years ago today.
NCAA Final: Bird vs. Magic.
—Ricko[/quote]
Duke-Kentucky in the 1992 Regional Final was better.[/quote]
Of course there have been better games, as there have been better than the ’58 game. None more important to the NCAA Tourney as we know it today than Bird-Magic ‘79.[/quote]
THAT’s why I likened it to the GGEP.[/quote]
Except the NFL didn’t become what IT’S become until Super Bowl III. I’d rather compare the importance of that Super Bowl to the 1979 NCAA championship game.[/quote]
Nope. GGEP elevated pro football to a status it had never known. Magic vs. Bird did the same for the NCAA Hoops final and, in doing so, the entire “Big Dance”. Super Bowl III merely elevated the AFL (which, by the way, largely came into being because of the GGEP; how’s THAT for changing the face of the game?). Ask anyone who was around at the time and was paying attention to the effect those games had…including a long list of regulars posters at UW.
Or watch the ESPN special on the GGEP, pay attention to the comments of people who know the game far better than any of us here, and learn how spectacularly signifcant that game really was.
Don’t get me wrong. I loved SBIII, but the GGEP was pro football’s watershed moment. Absolutely so.
—Ricko[/quote]
NCAA watershed moment: 1966, Kentucky and Texas Western.[/quote]
Just echoing Ricko’s comment…
No question….but for different reasons and with different end results. The ’79 game was the most watched basketball game in the history of the sport. While the ’66 game was more important for more important reasons, the popularity of the NCAA game was boosted like no other single game ever played.[/quote]
Yes, Magic-Bird was the most watched game, but we forget that the Final Four was a pretty damned big deal even before the ’79 game. I’d say it did more for the NBA than NCAA. The ’79 game was intriguing because Indiana State was undefeated and people wondered exactly how good the Sycamores were.
I remember listening to the ’66 game on the transistor radio at a scout camp. It was a smack-down and a game changer.[/quote]
Most watched contest in the history of the game (and the game itself wasn’t all that great). Gotta be a reason for that.
No one (I think) is trying to diminish the impact and importance of other games, but many are pretty certain of the ’79 game in terms of NCAA basketball today.
This article was the lead on Yahoo just now:
link
Can’t say I disagree too much.
[quote comment=”319783″][quote comment=”319782″][quote comment=”319769″][quote comment=”319764″][quote comment=”319751″][quote comment=”319743″]
Yikes! Five photos, four of them featuring #0, Johnny Olszewski (“Johnny O”). He was their leading rusher in ’59, so probably photos are from that year.
—Ricko[/quote]
They’re from a set that is labeled Pro Football taken by George Silk. I can give a general link to them, but if you’re interested you’ll have to poke around because there are more than one set with the same label. link. (This returns 93 images from three+ sets.)
For those who don’t want to poke:
Pittsburgh – NY: link link link link link
Green Bay – Chicago: link link link link link[/quote]
Holy crap! Look out link
That shot’s flopped. Look at the players’ numbers.[/quote]
What is it with the Life archive – I spotted the same thing in a hockey photo a few weeks back (Sawchuk). Did Life put part of their archive on the ‘net backwards, or did they originally print them backwards in the magazine?[/quote]
If the NFL really wanted to get serious about throwback attire, it’d try a game or two without face guards. Except for some busted teeth and broken noses, I’d bet it would cut down on injuries.[/quote]
And long sleeves, while we’re at it.
[quote comment=”319543″]Hey Li Phil–
In honor of your “Switcheroo” column
link
from a few weeks ago…
I came across this story in the Dallas Morning News:
link
I tracked down a pdf of the play program from the theater’s website, and grabbed a couple of better quality photos of the “switched” jerseys
link
link
Just thought it was pretty cool seeing that shortly after your weekend entry ran.[/quote]
no love
:’-(
[quote comment=”319802″][quote comment=”319543″]Hey Li Phil–
In honor of your “Switcheroo” column
link
from a few weeks ago…
I came across this story in the Dallas Morning News:
link
I tracked down a pdf of the play program from the theater’s website, and grabbed a couple of better quality photos of the “switched” jerseys
link
link
Just thought it was pretty cool seeing that shortly after your weekend entry ran.[/quote]
no love
:’-([/quote]
OH SHIT MAN…
i just saw this
yeah…it was cool
thanks for posting it…sorry i din’t see it till now (how did i miss it?)
/my bad
I figured– no biggie :-D
Crap on a stick, I moved up 124 places in Group I today. Go me. :D
[quote comment=”319722″][quote comment=”319688″]1. Ricko — Had no idea the Vikes might move. I think they’ve suffered since they moved into the Dome. Green Bay and Chicago play outside and are much “tougher” for it. Plus they don’t wear clown suits (and the Vikes used to not).[/quote]
I’m a Chicagoan, but the Vikes “moving” might be a bit of a bargaining ploy. Its not as if the LA market suddenly opened up; and the Vikes are angling for their own stadium deal (hey, good luck with that guys!) since the Twins and the UMinn Gophers have gotten stadiums built.[/quote]
Too bad the new Minn Gophers Stadium couldn’t have been built to also at some point accomodate the Vikes.(room to grow, room for suites, etc.)
That would have maybe been the best of all worlds, as both teams could play outdoors, share costs, and help the Vikes stay the Vikes.
Alhhough I am a HUGE football fan, I question the wisdom of building TWO SEPARATE BRAND NEW STADIUMS five miles apart, each costing tens of millions $$$$$, so that each may separately hold 8-10 events per year and sit idle for no less than 350 days per year.
About the Maulers unis being recycled by Baldwin High School — I remember when the school got the uniforms and exercise equipment from the Maulers and had the best-equipped (but worst) team in the area! I pulled out my ’88 yearbook this morning to find photos of the Maulers jerseys, and it does appear that the JV team is wearing the Maulers jerseys. The pictures aren’t great, so it’s hard to tell for sure.
I am tired of hearing how Baltimore got screwed or double screwed with the Colts. The town didn’t come out to the games for several years prior to the move. The real wrong was in Cleveland with Modell. Sellouts every week and he still moved. Baltimore has stolen both its baseball and football teams from other towns. Give it a rest already. I lived in Baltimore and they never shut up about how they were wronged.
the softball uniforms that are supposedly boise state’s are actually byu’s. if you notice the piping is gold and not orange, plus bsu uses more of a royal blue, while byu is navy. believe you me i see byu’s uniforms enough during the softball season.
Ricko,
Not a guy looking at a ’30 + year old photo’, I have three former players from the 1962 Broncs telling me the logo was brown. The ‘logic’ behind the brown was because the team was making such a drastic uniform change, the brown horse would help maintain a team recognition for the fans. Don’t think it is all that great of a thought process, but there it is.
Could all three of these guys be wrong? Supose so but really doubt it. Feel free to find a color photo to prove all of us wrong. I’d love to see it.
T