Natinal Joke

photo1.jpg

Paul here. Phil had something special planned for today, but it’ll have to wait, because there was a uni snafu for the ages last night in DC.

Actually, it was two snafus, because two Nats players — Adam Dunn and Ryan Zimmerman — both had “Natinals” (note the missing “o”) on their jerseys.

Now, jersey typos are nothing new (I chronicled lots of them in an ESPN column a while back). But to my knowledge, this is the first time two players on the same team have sported typos in the same game, which surely qualifies as an unprecedented level of uni-ineptitude.

For those keeping score at home, the Nats are clearly leading the league in uniform miscues. On Monday, they sent Wilfredo Ledezma out on the field with an upside-down “N”; on Friday, they wore those blue clown suits with red helmets and sleeves; and now this. Good thing the team in our nation’s natin’s capital plays such solid ball on the field to make up for — uh, wait, never mind.

Both players switched to properly spelled jerseys during the game, but by then it was too late. The TV guys talked about it, two different Washington Post writers blogged about it, and it was even mentioned in wire service photo captions. Anyone know if it got the SportsCenter treatment?

I’ve already heard people saying things like, “Their seamstress should be fired.” But a team’s local stitcher doesn’t put the team insignia on the jersey — that’s Majestic’s job. Yo, Majestic people, I know a bunch of you read this site. So once you all stop shitting bricks and back-dating the paperwork to make it look like you didn’t work on the Nats’ jerseys, could someone please let me know how this could have happened? (Update: There’s a semi-explanation in the last three grafs of this item, but it still doesn’t explain how these jerseys got through Majestic’s quality-control process, or how the entire Nats team — including the clubhouse staff and Dunn and Zimmerman themselves — didn’t spot the problem.)

The best explanation comes from reader Cary O’Reilly, who writes: “When you consider that so many of Washington’s players and team personnel used to be with the Cincinnati Reds, it makes perfect sense — they’re the ’Nati-nals!”

The saddest part about this fiasco is that it overshadowed what should have been the uni story of the night: Josh Outman‘s second start of the season. You’ll find a gallery of his magnificent stirrup stylings here.

(Big thanks to all who contributed pics and info from the Nats game, including David Raglin, Matt Kernan, Andrew Stebbins, Ari Cohen, Chad Dotson, David McGee, Bryan Mullican, Daniel Steinberg, Paul Soto, and of course Phil.)

Special Saturday Ticker: Big thanks to Tyler Kepner for writing about “I’m Calling It Shea” on his New York Times blog. … Major, major douchebaggery story out of Cleveland, where the City Stars (a USL soccer team) will be playing in Bedford High School’s Bearcat Stadium — except that it will be called Middlefield Cheese Stadium during City Stars matches. The good news is that Middlefield Cheese is a local operation, not a giant corporate monolith, but this is still completely ridiculous, especially at a high school facility, which should be as advertising-free as possible (with thanks to Chuck Nolan Jr.). … Dwayne White recently checked out the Ted Williams Museum at at the Trop and got shots of Teddy Ballgame wearing an unfamiliar uni number and an autographed baseball with an interesting history). … Did you know that members of two political groups in Thailand broadbast their affiliations by wearing red and yellow shirts? Fascinating. … Here are the track uniforms that the Japanese team will be wearing at the 2009 IAAF World Championships in Berlin (with thanks to, of course, Jeremy Brahm). … Most of you probably know that there used to be a minor league team called the Atlanta Crackers (not to mention a Negro League team called the Atlanta Black Crackers — one of my favorite team names ever). But check this out: Here’s reader Wallace Baine as a 1972 Little Leaguer. … Nick Adenhart wasn’t the only one who died in that car crash. The Mira Costa High School baseball team has added a memorial patch for 2002 grad Henry Pearson, who was in the car with Adenhart (with thanks to Matt Shevin). … Genius move by Brandon Yarian, who got this screen shot from the webcast of Friday’s Tribe/Yanks game. Five different team logos on the screen at one time! … Really interesting find by photo historian Dave Eskenazi: a cap that’s blank except for a letter on the brim. Never seen that before. The player is Charles Burke of the 1922 Vernon Tigers. … UCLA spring football news from Erkki Corpuz, who writes: “After an injury to senior TE Logan Paulsen, the coaching staff decided to switch OT Nate Chandler to TE, requiring him to change jersey numbers from 68 to 44. Now there’s a bit of confusion on the field, since the offense has two players wearing 44: Chandler and senior WR Alex Pearlstone. From the looks of Pearstone’s shorts, he might be the one asked to change his number when the real season starts.” … Excellent early-1980s softball stirrups here (with thanks to Jason A. Tirotta). … The Orioles’ solid-orange uni lives on — as a bobblehead (great find by Zevi Lowenberg). … Well, it’s good to know someone gets to wear the Mets’ blue cap and pinstriped jersey. That’s the new Archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan. Anyone know why they gave him No. 10? … Kenny Crookston found this LP in a thrift shop. Note the logo patch. … Some guy attending yesterday’s Cubs/Cards game was wearing a collared dress shirt with a 1970s Cubs road jersey treatment, complete with a uni number on the back (as spotted by Tim Donovan). … “Last year for Christmas, I scanned my family’s slide collection,” says Barry Badrinath. “One picture, taken either in late 1986 or early ’87, shows of my brother’s old friends in a crazy striped Eagles hat. A buddy of mine thinks the hat was originally a giveaway at local MAB pain stores. I can’t confirm that, but it looks like there’s a sponsor’s logo on the left side of the hat.” … “I was at the Mets game on Wednesday,” says Thomas Carter. “The security staff for Citi Field are dressed in maroon. Many fans asked, ‘Why would they dress security in Phillies colors?’” … The TD Bankworth Garden in Boston is getting a shorter name (with thanks to John Muir).

 

103 comments to Natinal Joke

  • Steve | April 18, 2009 at 8:52 am |

    Archbishop Dolan is the 10th archbishop of the New York Archdiocese.

  • aflfan | April 18, 2009 at 8:57 am |

    The uniform snafu was mentioned on MSNBC a few minutes ago

  • A. Tama | April 18, 2009 at 8:59 am |

    [quote comment="324225"]Archbishop Dolan is the 10th archbishop of the New York Archdiocese.[/quote]

    Yes. I think he was also the 10th Archbishop of Milwaukee. So he really needs that uni number!

  • mike | April 18, 2009 at 9:01 am |

    As for the security at Citi, my guess is you want your security wearing a color people will notice (which obviously rules out blue, orange, white and black). Apparently it works, because someone noticed.

  • Flip | April 18, 2009 at 9:16 am |

    It’s a wonder the letters are ever right. Who can tell with all the bevels, outlines and arching going on?

    Those alts truly are disasters, but the one thing I like is the two-toned piping.

  • Shane | April 18, 2009 at 9:29 am |

    If the Red Sox had lost last night, I was going to buy every alternate cap at Fenway Park and light them on fire.

    Figures. The one game I go to this year, and I get those hideous hats AND a color-on-color matchup.

  • Adam | April 18, 2009 at 9:36 am |

    Maybe they should just go to NATS. Perhaps that would be easier for them to spell.

  • JTH | April 18, 2009 at 9:58 am |

    What’s up with the “swiss cheese” effect on the almost-blank cap? Some kind of proto-mesh material? Or did the moths just get to it?

  • seven | April 18, 2009 at 10:00 am |

    The referee in today’s English Premier league game between Aston Villa & West Ham has decided that West Ham’s change strips are too close to Aston Villa’s home strip. Villa will apparently wear plain white training tops that will be completely blank except for their numbers on the back. The kit man is printing the numbers right now.

  • guy | April 18, 2009 at 10:04 am |

    “The good news is that Middlefield Cheese is a local operation, not a giant corporate monolith, but this is still completely ridiculous, especially at a high school facility, which should be as advertising-free as possible”

    Just to play devil’s advocate here…I understand your despise of corporate sponsoring, and I’d certainly rather not have one of my teams play there – but to say “which should be as advertising-free as possible” applies more to the professional level IMO because high school sports programs need every dollar they can find. If buying new uniforms or baseballs or keeping the field maintained means a sponsor’s name on their field, so be it.

  • seven | April 18, 2009 at 10:05 am |

    Looks like Villa is actually wearing their white change strips. No sponsor logo on the front which in Villa’s case is actually a local charity.

  • lose r | April 18, 2009 at 10:07 am |

    TD Garden . . . already being called (by my less mature friends) the Titty Garden.

    Say T D fast a few times and you’ll see/hear it

    Doubleheader at the Boob today. C’s at 12:30, Broons at 8.

  • Shane | April 18, 2009 at 10:09 am |

    [quote comment="324233"]The referee in today’s English Premier league game between Aston Villa & West Ham has decided that West Ham’s change strips are too close to Aston Villa’s home strip. Villa will apparently wear plain white training tops that will be completely blank except for their numbers on the back. The kit man is printing the numbers right now.[/quote]

    Wait, why are they making the home team switch? I guess logically, they have a change on them and West Ham don’t, but still, it doesn’t really make sense.

    Compare: West Ham away

    Villa

    According to Villa’s site, they’re wearing their “third kit”. Nice coverup, guys.

  • JTH | April 18, 2009 at 10:11 am |

    [quote comment="324233"]The referee in today’s English Premier league game between Aston Villa & West Ham has decided that West Ham’s change strips are too close to Aston Villa’s home strip. Villa will apparently wear plain white training tops that will be completely blank except for their numbers on the back. The kit man is printing the numbers right now.[/quote]
    I’m sure this has been mentioned here in the past, but didn’t West Ham originally get their colors because a player or players won a bet of some sort against Aston Villa (or one or more of its players)? The prize, as I understand it, was the Aston Villa kits.

  • Paul Lukas | April 18, 2009 at 10:13 am |

    [quote comment="324234"]I understand your despise of corporate sponsoring, and I’d certainly rather not have one of my teams play there – but to say “which should be as advertising-free as possible” applies more to the professional level IMO because high school sports programs need every dollar they can find. If buying new uniforms or baseballs or keeping the field maintained means a sponsor’s name on their field, so be it.[/quote]

    I strongly disagree. Kids are already exposed to way too much advertising. The last place they should be exposed to more is in their school.

  • Shane | April 18, 2009 at 10:14 am |

    [quote comment="324238"][quote comment="324233"]The referee in today’s English Premier league game between Aston Villa & West Ham has decided that West Ham’s change strips are too close to Aston Villa’s home strip. Villa will apparently wear plain white training tops that will be completely blank except for their numbers on the back. The kit man is printing the numbers right now.[/quote]
    I’m sure this has been mentioned here in the past, but didn’t West Ham originally get their colors because a player or players won a bet of some sort against Aston Villa (or one or more of its players)? The prize, as I understand it, was the Aston Villa kits.[/quote]

    Sounds about right.

  • DenverGregg | April 18, 2009 at 10:26 am |

    FWIW I think the striped Eagles hat probably came from a paint store, rather than a pain store.

    What makes “Natinals” even funnier is that these are not the tiniest ballplayers. If it were some middle infielder, the full wordmark would be too big to fit, but Dunn and Zimmerman are each well north of 200 pounds.

  • Sids Blvd of Broken Breams | April 18, 2009 at 10:31 am |

    The local NBC 4 station in DC just spent 5 minutes talking about the Nats and they’re uni woes. And they lost.

  • Marty | April 18, 2009 at 10:43 am |

    Yeah. What is up with Charles Burke’s hat? It looks like some sort of makeshift ventilation. No?

  • Mike Miller | April 18, 2009 at 10:51 am |

    I think the red sleeves with the Nats alts look OK. Red Helmets, no.

    Paul, you’d really hate my high school, who plays their games at Atrium Field at James VanDeGrift Stadium. Atrium is a local hospital that put up 500k for the stadium FieldTurf and new track.

    Also, is it me or is Mr. Outman wearing mismatched stirrups? The openings on his right leg look smaller than the left leg.

  • ben | April 18, 2009 at 11:00 am |

    speaking of jersey errors here’s a big one during a bullets game this

    He’s wearing a bullets jersey with blue chest, blue shorts, and spurs socks

  • ben | April 18, 2009 at 11:01 am |

    maybe this link’ll work http://i.cdn.turner....

  • Mike Engle | April 18, 2009 at 11:05 am |

    Speaking of Washington miscues, I remember last year, a common problem on the road grays was having an upside-down I on the front. (You can easily tell because the gold pattern is opposite compared to all the other letters.) I THINK Paul LoDuca had an affected jersey with that typo. Anybody have an old photo? It was discussed here.

  • Stan a.k.a. the took | April 18, 2009 at 11:10 am |

    [quote comment="324244"]Yeah. What is up with Charles Burke’s hat? It looks like some sort of makeshift ventilation. No?[/quote]

    Its just splatter, meaning its on the photo not on the cap.

  • Marty | April 18, 2009 at 11:16 am |

    That is a good splattering.

  • guy | April 18, 2009 at 11:16 am |

    [quote comment=\"324239\"][quote comment=\"324234\"]I understand your despise of corporate sponsoring, and I\’d certainly rather not have one of my teams play there – but to say \”which should be as advertising-free as possible\” applies more to the professional level IMO because high school sports programs need every dollar they can find. If buying new uniforms or baseballs or keeping the field maintained means a sponsor\’s name on their field, so be it.[/quote]

    I strongly disagree. Kids are already exposed to way too much advertising. The last place they should be exposed to more is in their school.[/quote]

    If it were absolutely necessary, I\’d rather have the game live on – guess we won\’t be agreeing on this.

  • Ricko | April 18, 2009 at 11:19 am |

    Trust me, this comment is NOT racially or ethnically intended. Rather it is looking at the practices of sporting goods manufacturers such as Majestic, and pro sports organizations in general.

    If ever there was indicator of the possible policies of those groups regarding hiring cheap labor, “Natinals” might be it. I say that because it is difficult to imagine that a work crew with even one member who spoke English would have made that mistake.

    It got me thinking of going into the McDonalds at Hollywood & Vine in L.A. on about 10 a.m. on Sunday a few years ago and finding that not one member of the crew spoke English. Seriously. Major tourist location (Walk of Fame, stars in the sidewalk, Hollywood Wax Museum and all that). Sunday morning. An entirely Spanish-speaking crew. Nothing against the crew members or their language skills, but you had to wonder what the franchise owner was thinking. He certainly wasn’t making that shift easy for either his crew OR his customers. One obvious assumption that could be made is that…he didn’t care. It was cheaper that way.

    —Ricko

  • Harvey Lee | April 18, 2009 at 11:34 am |

    So Japan track and field has switched from Mizuno to Asics? I believe this is a first.

    If anyone out there knows of a website that discusses track and field uniforms or singlets, please post.

  • seven | April 18, 2009 at 12:05 pm |

    A female announcer on The Score (Canadian sports network) was mocking Outman’s stirrups when showing highlights of last night’s game. I guess she doesn’t ‘get it’

  • muddlehead | April 18, 2009 at 12:17 pm |

    dig the hat with the v on the brim. we’ll see who reads the saturday version of paul’s blog. thought all hat ideas had been exhausted… kinda like song melodies or movie plots…i’ll mark this date on my calendar. over/under is 3 months before letter or logo on the brim only is spotted on a melon somewhere in a town near you.

  • Lwiedy | April 18, 2009 at 12:26 pm |

    Sorry Ted, wearing #5 will never make you this guy ;-)
    http://www.britannic...

  • Dave Zalatoris | April 18, 2009 at 12:40 pm |

    That Cubs #22 shirt was sold on mlb.com a few years ago. I forget who made it. mlb.com had quite a few teams in that style of dress shirts.

  • Reilly | April 18, 2009 at 12:42 pm |

    I noticed that some of the players on the Carolina Hurricanes wear the black strap under their chin, while others are wearing the standard white. Mainly guys like Eric Staal and i think Erik Cole.

    Also, no mention of the Pirates debuting their Friday black jerseys. Man did those look awesome

  • Squiddie | April 18, 2009 at 12:51 pm |

    Here’s a photo from Aston Villa vs West Ham.

    So when are we getting the review of the IPL unis? ;)

  • Eric | April 18, 2009 at 12:53 pm |

    @ #21/22: That picture’s been seen before here. The player in question is actually a Spurs player whose jersey was lost, so he wore an inside-out Bullets jersey and contrasting color shorts to differentiate himself.

    Also, more typos abound: Clicking on the solid-orange bobblehead link leads you to a page touting a Brooks Robison product.

  • LI Phil | April 18, 2009 at 12:54 pm |

    [quote comment="324258"]no mention of the Pirates debuting their Friday black jerseys. Man did those look awesome[/quote]

    i’ll say this for them…

    these > these

    that’s not saying much

  • LI Phil | April 18, 2009 at 1:03 pm |

    and who’s that team playing at shea with the blue caps & socks?

    /snow whites and not pins, but still…nice to see the blue and orange back where it belongs

  • RedWing in Colorado | April 18, 2009 at 1:04 pm |

    [quote comment="324239"][quote comment="324234"]I understand your despise of corporate sponsoring, and I’d certainly rather not have one of my teams play there – but to say “which should be as advertising-free as possible” applies more to the professional level IMO because high school sports programs need every dollar they can find. If buying new uniforms or baseballs or keeping the field maintained means a sponsor’s name on their field, so be it.[/quote]

    I strongly disagree. Kids are already exposed to way too much advertising. The last place they should be exposed to more is in their school.[/quote]

    The vast majority of schools have some sponsorship on the stadia fences or pressboxes. It is a question of how we pay for what the public demands we provide. The issue, of course, is with the antiquitated way we fund schools. But, until fundamental change is enacted, schools will sell add space.

    I’m curious, do you object to advertising in school publications, or is that a different category, since student publications are about learning business as well.

    I think the larger issue is when taxpayer funded stadia are named after coporate sponsors.

  • Sage Confucius | April 18, 2009 at 1:06 pm |

    Ricko, that was my immediate thought too. Cheaper is not always better.

  • Lou | April 18, 2009 at 1:10 pm |

    [quote comment="324257"]That Cubs #22 shirt was sold on mlb.com a few years ago. I forget who made it. mlb.com had quite a few teams in that style of dress shirts.[/quote]

    I was just going to say the same thing. I have a Giants #44 of the same shirt. They also did a pinstriped Yankees #5.

  • concealed78 | April 18, 2009 at 1:21 pm |

    I have to wonder if this misspelling of uniforms phenomenon started when teams started drifting away from pullovers and towards button-ups and individual lettering. First time I ever noticed it was on a Thursday in 1992, Ryne Sandberg had a misspelled road jersey. And I still say any team that has a wordmark that crosses the midsection that ends up interrupted, those teams should go to a pullover. I’m tired of seeing baggy loose uniforms that look like they have an extra letter on them.

  • Max | April 18, 2009 at 1:29 pm |

    Anybody seen this yet?

    http://sports.yahoo....

    Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:50 pm EDT

    MLB restrictions prevent sale of Nick Adenhart jerseys
    By ‘Duk

    After Nick Adenhart’s death in a tragic car crash last week, many fans have reached out and paid tribute, setting up makeshift memorials at places like Angels Stadium, the “accident” site and even Dodger Stadium.

    But as reported by Deadspin today, those wishing to honor Adenhart in a more permanent way by purchasing a customized t-shirt or jersey from the MLB.com shop are being flat out denied.

    Indeed, type in “Adenhart” and “34″ into MLB’s customizer and you’re greeted by this message:

    “Your current entry cannot be processed. Some entries are prohibited due to guidelines for past and present player names. Please create a new entry.”

    We’ve all seen stories of such jersey service refused in the past, though with good reason. Obviously, NFL.com shouldn’t be sending out Falcons shirts with Ron Mexico on the back. MLB shouldn’t be making A-Roid Yankee shirts available for sale.

    However, it boggles my mind that the league would shut down fans wishing to extend the memory of a promising career ended too soon. I suppose there’s an argument to be made for restricting access to the shirt in the name of keeping it “special” for the man who wore it, but the Yankees sell Lou Gehrig jerseys and it turns out that the Adenhart restrictions have more to do with one of the inflexible technology rules that MLB is famous for.

    Here’s what MLB reps told Deadspin:

    “The reason, according to MLB reps, is that the system won’t allow use of real players that aren’t on a current roster. So, if you wanted to have a ‘Sheets, 15′ shirt or some other actual player that might be on a current team, you’re not going to get the jersey you want. Even if your name is ‘Miranda Sheets’, your favorite number is ’15′ and your favorite team is the Brewers, you’re out of luck. That’s just how the system works.”

    Why MLB can’t — or won’t? — pay an Internet engineer to fix up a workaround on that ordering system is beyond me, but if it’s really a problem, why not make a special t-shirt with all the proceeds going to benefit the Nick Adenhart Memorial Fund or Angels charities? Hopefully a plan like that it is in the works, because there’s definitely a better way.

  • Marcus Hall - Lets play 162!! | April 18, 2009 at 1:51 pm |

    [quote comment="324261"][quote comment="324258"]no mention of the Pirates debuting their Friday black jerseys. Man did those look awesome[/quote]

    i’ll say this for them…

    these > these

    that’s not saying much[/quote]

    I just don’t understand the fascination with not having the number and the logo on an even plane. the number being lower than the logo just makes this uni look silly. same for the wasington natinals clown unis and the red alts

  • [...] permalink Uni Watch Natinal Joke __________________ . [...]

  • Jeff P | April 18, 2009 at 1:53 pm |

    [quote comment="324267"]Anybody seen this yet?

    http://sports.yahoo....

    Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:50 pm EDT

    MLB restrictions prevent sale of Nick Adenhart jerseys
    By ‘Duk

    After Nick Adenhart’s death in a tragic car crash last week, many fans have reached out and paid tribute, setting up makeshift memorials at places like Angels Stadium, the “accident” site and even Dodger Stadium.

    But as reported by Deadspin today, those wishing to honor Adenhart in a more permanent way by purchasing a customized t-shirt or jersey from the MLB.com shop are being flat out denied.

    Indeed, type in “Adenhart” and “34″ into MLB’s customizer and you’re greeted by this message:

    “Your current entry cannot be processed. Some entries are prohibited due to guidelines for past and present player names. Please create a new entry.”

    We’ve all seen stories of such jersey service refused in the past, though with good reason. Obviously, NFL.com shouldn’t be sending out Falcons shirts with Ron Mexico on the back. MLB shouldn’t be making A-Roid Yankee shirts available for sale.

    However, it boggles my mind that the league would shut down fans wishing to extend the memory of a promising career ended too soon. I suppose there’s an argument to be made for restricting access to the shirt in the name of keeping it “special” for the man who wore it, but the Yankees sell Lou Gehrig jerseys and it turns out that the Adenhart restrictions have more to do with one of the inflexible technology rules that MLB is famous for.

    Here’s what MLB reps told Deadspin:

    “The reason, according to MLB reps, is that the system won’t allow use of real players that aren’t on a current roster. So, if you wanted to have a ‘Sheets, 15′ shirt or some other actual player that might be on a current team, you’re not going to get the jersey you want. Even if your name is ‘Miranda Sheets’, your favorite number is ’15′ and your favorite team is the Brewers, you’re out of luck. That’s just how the system works.”

    Why MLB can’t — or won’t? — pay an Internet engineer to fix up a workaround on that ordering system is beyond me, but if it’s really a problem, why not make a special t-shirt with all the proceeds going to benefit the Nick Adenhart Memorial Fund or Angels charities? Hopefully a plan like that it is in the works, because there’s definitely a better way.[/quote]

    It was linked to in yesterday’s comments. Interesting, but I don’t think it’s all that bad MLB has made them unavailable. Yeah, people want to pay tribute, but MLB doesn’t want to be seen as profiting off of somebody’s death, and if they were continuing to sell the jerseys, that’s exactly what they would be doing, and they know it.

    I think it’s actually good they’re not for sale.

  • Jon in SLC | April 18, 2009 at 1:58 pm |

    Small typo in the last ticker note – it’s the BankNorth Garden.

  • mike 2 | April 18, 2009 at 2:29 pm |

    One of the reasons the Canadian banks have rebranded themselves with initials the last few years is so that they could appear less “foreign” when doing business in the US

    TD = Toronto Dominion
    RBC = Royal Bank of Canada

    Do people in Boston care that their arena (TD) has the name Toronto embedded in it as part of the bank name? Or are they aware?

  • Shawn | April 18, 2009 at 2:35 pm |

    [quote comment="324239"][quote comment="324234"]I understand your despise of corporate sponsoring, and I’d certainly rather not have one of my teams play there – but to say “which should be as advertising-free as possible” applies more to the professional level IMO because high school sports programs need every dollar they can find. If buying new uniforms or baseballs or keeping the field maintained means a sponsor’s name on their field, so be it.[/quote]

    I strongly disagree. Kids are already exposed to way too much advertising. The last place they should be exposed to more is in their school.[/quote]

    A sponsorship’s a sponsorship. One can only have so many car washes and collective yard sales. Beyond that, the particular deal in question involves the USL team only, so it isn’t any more offensive than little leaguers taking the field with “Bud’s Used Cars” on their backs.

    Even so, school is supposed to be a place for education. There’s nothing wrong with “exposing” youngsters to how the world works. So long as the sponsor’s business is not objectionable (I certainly wouldn’t want a high school gym named for a cigarette or beer company), no harm and no foul.

    BTW, I do get a big kick out of the guy who writes for ESPN railing against commercialism on a daily basis. ;)

  • Paul Lukas | April 18, 2009 at 2:50 pm |

    [quote comment="324273"]school is supposed to be a place for education. There’s nothing wrong with “exposing” youngsters to how the world works[/quote]

    Right. So let’s steal stuff from their lockers to “teach” them about crime, or beat them up to “teach” them about self-defense. Makes sense to me.

    [quote comment="324273"]BTW, I do get a big kick out of the guy who writes for ESPN railing against commercialism on a daily basis. ;)[/quote]

    This is a classic example of a straw-man “gotcha” statement that actually says exactly zero. So I’m gonna give you a chance to say more than zero: Please explain exactly — EXACTLY — what you are getting at. Specifically, if you feel I’m saying one thing and doing another, please specify how, and explain how that either (a) makes my stated positions on public advertising any less correct, or (b) makes my work ethically suspect.

    I eagerly await your well-stated reply.

  • Chris | April 18, 2009 at 2:55 pm |

    I don’t think the Nationals alt. blue would look THAT bad if they ditched the red helmet and long sleeves. It’s just with the white pants, and blue jersey adding that much red is just too much color.

  • Greenie | April 18, 2009 at 3:12 pm |

    not for the faint of heart
    http://www.freewebs....

    this person’s ‘designs’ are quite disturbing to me. thankfully, it looks like he hasn’t updated the site in 2 years.

  • LI Phil | April 18, 2009 at 3:20 pm |

    [quote comment="324275"]I don’t think the Nationals alt. blue would look THAT bad if they ditched the red helmet and long sleeves. It’s just with the white pants, and blue jersey adding that much red is just too much color.[/quote]

    check back tomorrow…i did some (really bad) mockups of how that would look and am trying to get an actual graphic artist to do it up right

    /we need to start the letterwriting email campaign for them to (1) ditch the patriotic unis altogether, and failing that, (2) wear the blue hose, lids and sleeves with those ‘jerseys’

  • Kaptain K | April 18, 2009 at 3:20 pm |

    When the baseball club left Montreal for D.C., they should have kept the ‘Expos’ name and added ‘es’ at the end of it; it would be so appropriate for Washington and an accent mark over the second ‘e’ would still give it the french influence! Alas, Majestic would probably eff up the spelling of ‘Exposes’ as well.

  • Patrick in MI | April 18, 2009 at 3:23 pm |

    Reflecting on today’s post:
    1) How is it possible that those Nats jerseys got screwed up so bad? HOW?! And not just on one player either. Paul, I truly hope you get to the bottom of this. That entire organization is a joke.

    2) Please tell me that Tony Bennet album cover is photoshopped. The ballcap part anyway. The shadow is just throwing me off. It looks ridiculous.

    3) That lady from the early 80′s softball team, I really like her cap. It’s sort of a pinwheel style and probably has a mesh back as well. I used to have a similar one for the Michigan Panthers.

    4) Barry B, how did you go about scanning those old slides? I have a TON of them I’d like to scan here at home, any tips appreciated thanks!

  • Johnny | April 18, 2009 at 4:14 pm |

    One of the interesting things about Canadian political parties isn’t just their “color” but that the parties have their own logos. On CBC News, they will include the logo when tallying votes. In terms of major party colors (or colours), Liberals are red, Conservatives are blue, NDP are gold and the Green Party is, well, green. Bloq Quebequois is another major party and they lean towards a lighter blue.

  • Johnny | April 18, 2009 at 4:14 pm |

    [quote comment="324281"]One of the interesting things about Canadian political parties isn’t just their “color” but that the parties have their own logos. On CBC News, they will include the logo when tallying votes. In terms of major party colors (or colours), Liberals are red, Conservatives are blue, NDP are gold and the Green Party is, well, green. Bloq Quebequois is another major party and they lean towards a lighter blue.[/quote]

    Link: http://www.elections...

  • Glen H | April 18, 2009 at 4:49 pm |

    I’m surprised this hasnt been mentioned yet. The first link for the Natinals snafu for Dunn is of Zimmerman

  • Chris | April 18, 2009 at 4:51 pm |

    [quote comment="324277"][quote comment="324275"]I don’t think the Nationals alt. blue would look THAT bad if they ditched the red helmet and long sleeves. It’s just with the white pants, and blue jersey adding that much red is just too much color.[/quote]

    check back tomorrow…i did some (really bad) mockups of how that would look and am trying to get an actual graphic artist to do it up right

    /we need to start the letterwriting email campaign for them to (1) ditch the patriotic unis altogether, and failing that, (2) wear the blue hose, lids and sleeves with those ‘jerseys’[/quote]

    I’m wondering if the reasoning behind the red hat, helmet and sleeves is since these are the ‘patriotic’ alternates is to create a red white and blue thing…the only problem is it just doesn’t look right on a uniform. Too many color changes.

  • mike 2 | April 18, 2009 at 5:19 pm |

    I’m as free-market as anyone, I’m sure if Paul and I talked about the commercialization of the public realm we’d have a lot to disagree about.

    But when it comes to children, I strongly disagree with commercialization.

    Studies show that children are especially susceptible to advertising. They can’t distinguish in many cases between actual content and content that’s being used to sell them things. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who’s seen McDonald’s advertising and the effect it has on kids.

    Naming rights for schools is wrong, and so are commercial arrangements that are designed to put advertising and product in front of kids in a school environment. Exclusive deals for soda in schools, Channel One (with ads) in schools, even sponsored scoreboards (which my high school had in 1981) are wrong IMHO.

    Some things just shouldn’t be for sale, and our kids attention and eyeballs should be one of them.

    /end rant.

  • mike 2 | April 18, 2009 at 5:21 pm |

    [quote comment="324282"][quote comment="324281"]One of the interesting things about Canadian political parties isn’t just their “color” but that the parties have their own logos. On CBC News, they will include the logo when tallying votes. In terms of major party colors (or colours), Liberals are red, Conservatives are blue, NDP are gold and the Green Party is, well, green. Bloq Quebequois is another major party and they lean towards a lighter blue.[/quote]

    Link: http://www.elections...

    Interesting to note that blue (Conservative) and red (Liberal) are the opposite of what they typically stand for in the US.

  • =bg= | April 18, 2009 at 5:28 pm |

    [quote comment="324261"][quote comment="324258"]no mention of the Pirates debuting their Friday black jerseys. Man did those look awesome[/quote]

    i’ll say this for them…

    these > these

    that’s not saying much[/quote]

    I think you need to put NSFW on those Pirate vests with the red. No, wait, NSFE (for Everywhere.)

  • "Jersey" Joe Chiaccio | April 18, 2009 at 5:29 pm |

    [quote comment="324267"]Anybody seen this yet?

    http://sports.yahoo....

    Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:50 pm EDT

    MLB restrictions prevent sale of Nick Adenhart jerseys
    By ‘Duk

    After Nick Adenhart’s death in a tragic car crash last week, many fans have reached out and paid tribute, setting up makeshift memorials at places like Angels Stadium, the “accident” site and even Dodger Stadium.

    But as reported by Deadspin today, those wishing to honor Adenhart in a more permanent way by purchasing a customized t-shirt or jersey from the MLB.com shop are being flat out denied.

    Indeed, type in “Adenhart” and “34″ into MLB’s customizer and you’re greeted by this message:

    “Your current entry cannot be processed. Some entries are prohibited due to guidelines for past and present player names. Please create a new entry.”

    We’ve all seen stories of such jersey service refused in the past, though with good reason. Obviously, NFL.com shouldn’t be sending out Falcons shirts with Ron Mexico on the back. MLB shouldn’t be making A-Roid Yankee shirts available for sale.

    However, it boggles my mind that the league would shut down fans wishing to extend the memory of a promising career ended too soon. I suppose there’s an argument to be made for restricting access to the shirt in the name of keeping it “special” for the man who wore it, but the Yankees sell Lou Gehrig jerseys and it turns out that the Adenhart restrictions have more to do with one of the inflexible technology rules that MLB is famous for.

    Here’s what MLB reps told Deadspin:

    “The reason, according to MLB reps, is that the system won’t allow use of real players that aren’t on a current roster. So, if you wanted to have a ‘Sheets, 15′ shirt or some other actual player that might be on a current team, you’re not going to get the jersey you want. Even if your name is ‘Miranda Sheets’, your favorite number is ’15′ and your favorite team is the Brewers, you’re out of luck. That’s just how the system works.”

    Why MLB can’t — or won’t? — pay an Internet engineer to fix up a workaround on that ordering system is beyond me, but if it’s really a problem, why not make a special t-shirt with all the proceeds going to benefit the Nick Adenhart Memorial Fund or Angels charities? Hopefully a plan like that it is in the works, because there’s definitely a better way.[/quote]

    Whomever wrote that article is wrong.

    This has nothing to do with the “limits of technology.” The technology is perfectly capable, and MLB does it ON PURPOSE.

    Why would they need to hire someone to do a workaround on some that they are specifically trying to prevent?

    You can only do your name and number, or that of a current player on his current team. It can’t be any retired, traded, or deceased players. Certain names and numbers cannot be put on jerseys no matter what. The MLB Player licensing rights don’t allow them.

  • Glen H | April 18, 2009 at 5:43 pm |

    [quote comment="324288"][quote comment="324267"]Anybody seen this yet?

    http://sports.yahoo....

    Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:50 pm EDT

    MLB restrictions prevent sale of Nick Adenhart jerseys
    By ‘Duk

    After Nick Adenhart’s death in a tragic car crash last week, many fans have reached out and paid tribute, setting up makeshift memorials at places like Angels Stadium, the “accident” site and even Dodger Stadium.

    But as reported by Deadspin today, those wishing to honor Adenhart in a more permanent way by purchasing a customized t-shirt or jersey from the MLB.com shop are being flat out denied.

    Indeed, type in “Adenhart” and “34″ into MLB’s customizer and you’re greeted by this message:

    “Your current entry cannot be processed. Some entries are prohibited due to guidelines for past and present player names. Please create a new entry.”

    We’ve all seen stories of such jersey service refused in the past, though with good reason. Obviously, NFL.com shouldn’t be sending out Falcons shirts with Ron Mexico on the back. MLB shouldn’t be making A-Roid Yankee shirts available for sale.

    However, it boggles my mind that the league would shut down fans wishing to extend the memory of a promising career ended too soon. I suppose there’s an argument to be made for restricting access to the shirt in the name of keeping it “special” for the man who wore it, but the Yankees sell Lou Gehrig jerseys and it turns out that the Adenhart restrictions have more to do with one of the inflexible technology rules that MLB is famous for.

    Here’s what MLB reps told Deadspin:

    “The reason, according to MLB reps, is that the system won’t allow use of real players that aren’t on a current roster. So, if you wanted to have a ‘Sheets, 15′ shirt or some other actual player that might be on a current team, you’re not going to get the jersey you want. Even if your name is ‘Miranda Sheets’, your favorite number is ’15′ and your favorite team is the Brewers, you’re out of luck. That’s just how the system works.”

    Why MLB can’t — or won’t? — pay an Internet engineer to fix up a workaround on that ordering system is beyond me, but if it’s really a problem, why not make a special t-shirt with all the proceeds going to benefit the Nick Adenhart Memorial Fund or Angels charities? Hopefully a plan like that it is in the works, because there’s definitely a better way.[/quote]

    Whomever wrote that article is wrong.

    This has nothing to do with the “limits of technology.” The technology is perfectly capable, and MLB does it ON PURPOSE.

    Why would they need to hire someone to do a workaround on some that they are specifically trying to prevent?

    You can only do your name and number, or that of a current player on his current team. It can’t be any retired, traded, or deceased players. Certain names and numbers cannot be put on jerseys no matter what. The MLB Player licensing rights don’t allow them.[/quote]

    I am sure that it is the players association and not the MLB that prevents the (mis)use of the names and numbers

  • Matthew Hackethal | April 18, 2009 at 6:10 pm |

    Caps goalie Simeon Varlamov wore his Hershey Bears equipment in today’s game vs. the Rangers. Not a great pic, but see photo #21 in this gallery:

    http://www.nhl.com/i...

  • Paul Lukas | April 18, 2009 at 6:16 pm |

    [quote comment="324285"]I’m as free-market as anyone, I’m sure if Paul and I talked about the commercialization of the public realm we’d have a lot to disagree about.

    But when it comes to children, I strongly disagree with commercialization.

    Studies show that children are especially susceptible to advertising. They can’t distinguish in many cases between actual content and content that’s being used to sell them things. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who’s seen McDonald’s advertising and the effect it has on kids.

    Naming rights for schools is wrong, and so are commercial arrangements that are designed to put advertising and product in front of kids in a school environment. Exclusive deals for soda in schools, Channel One (with ads) in schools, even sponsored scoreboards (which my high school had in 1981) are wrong IMHO.

    Some things just shouldn’t be for sale, and our kids attention and eyeballs should be one of them.

    /end rant.[/quote]

    Couldn’t have said it better. Thanks, Mike (and we’ll have our free-market/commercialization debate later).

  • Matthew Hackethal | April 18, 2009 at 6:17 pm |

    [quote comment="324290"]Caps goalie Simeon Varlamov wore his Hershey Bears equipment in today’s game vs. the Rangers. Not a great pic, but see photo #21 in this gallery:

    http://www.nhl.com/i...

    some better pics toward the end of this gallery

    http://capitals.nhl....

  • Filthy McNasty | April 18, 2009 at 6:24 pm |

    [quote comment="324286"]

    Interesting to note that blue (Conservative) and red (Liberal) are the opposite of what they typically stand for in the US.[/quote]

    As they are in the UK too.

  • Paul Lukas | April 18, 2009 at 6:38 pm |

    [quote comment="324293"][quote comment="324286"]

    Interesting to note that blue (Conservative) and red (Liberal) are the opposite of what they typically stand for in the US.[/quote]

    As they are in the UK too.[/quote]

    Our current red=GOP/blue=Dems color system is a relatively recent phenomenon, and its evolution is a matter of some debate. There’s a good summary of the situation here:
    http://www.nytimes.c...

    The funny part, of course, is that red traditionally equates with left-wing communism, yet in our country red has become the color of the right wing of the political spectrum. I’ve always wondered if someone at one of the TV networks assigned red to the GOP on the electoral map just to piss people off.

  • Kek | April 18, 2009 at 6:43 pm |

    Unfortunately, naming rights for HS stadia has hit close to home here in western PA. http://pittsburgh.bi...

    I have more to say on this, but it’s too damn nice out today and I’m too distracted to put it down. Maybe later when the sun goes down!!!!

  • Kurt | April 18, 2009 at 6:51 pm |

    Can’t find a picture of it, but Archbishop Dolan also got a Brewers jersey on the way out of Milwaukee.

    Here’s a screenshot from a Gary Sheffield montage last night, I just realized how ghastly those old teal Marlins batting helmets were.

  • Kurt | April 18, 2009 at 6:54 pm |

    Archbishop Dolan also got a Brewers jersey on his way out of Milwaukee.

    Here’s a screenshot from a Gary Sheffield montage last night – I just realized how ghastly those old teal Marlin batting helmets were.

  • Nick | April 18, 2009 at 7:28 pm |

    [quote comment="324294"][quote comment="324293"][quote comment="324286"]

    Interesting to note that blue (Conservative) and red (Liberal) are the opposite of what they typically stand for in the US.[/quote]

    As they are in the UK too.[/quote]

    Our current red=GOP/blue=Dems color system is a relatively recent phenomenon, and its evolution is a matter of some debate. There’s a good summary of the situation here:
    http://www.nytimes.c...

    The funny part, of course, is that red traditionally equates with left-wing communism, yet in our country red has become the color of the right wing of the political spectrum. I’ve always wondered if someone at one of the TV networks assigned red to the GOP on the electoral map just to piss people off.[/quote]

    ##################################

    I absolutely believe this to be true.

    I do not have tapes of earlier newscasts, but I specifically recall presidential elections into the 1980s that colored red states for the Democrats and blue states for the Republicans.

    I took note of this in my unicentricity, the same unicentricity that has me flummoxed by the Texas Rangers’ ongoing pschizophrenia in failing to chose whether they are a “Red” or “Blue” team….

    With my particular disdain reserved for the years that they try to wear equal parts both on the same day on the same uni. Pick one theme or the other and get it over with already !!!

    POLITICALLY SPEAKING ….

    I am certain that since that time (when Repubs were colored “Blue”) there has been focus group research that showed the public would somehow soften or favor blue over red, and that is why the media has now chosen to assign blue to the Democrats.

    By the way, you are hearing this from a real Democrat, who is perhaps a bit concerned about the media’s ongoing, increasing frenzied “fairness” as pertains to the two parties (sarcasm included).

  • Nick | April 18, 2009 at 7:36 pm |

    [quote comment="324291"][quote comment="324285"]I’m as free-market as anyone, I’m sure if Paul and I talked about the commercialization of the public realm we’d have a lot to disagree about.

    But when it comes to children, I strongly disagree with commercialization.

    Studies show that children are especially susceptible to advertising. They can’t distinguish in many cases between actual content and content that’s being used to sell them things. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who’s seen McDonald’s advertising and the effect it has on kids.

    Naming rights for schools is wrong, and so are commercial arrangements that are designed to put advertising and product in front of kids in a school environment. Exclusive deals for soda in schools, Channel One (with ads) in schools, even sponsored scoreboards (which my high school had in 1981) are wrong IMHO.

    Some things just shouldn’t be for sale, and our kids attention and eyeballs should be one of them.

    /end rant.[/quote]

    Couldn’t have said it better. Thanks, Mike (and we’ll have our free-market/commercialization debate later).[/quote]

    I agree with this. The naming rights FRENZY cheapens tradition and seriousness EVERYWHERE you look.

    If I remember right, Temple University just named a serious school building after a GOSSIP COLUMNIST because some moneybags type donated the money to honor his ex-wiife or girlfriend.

    You have stadiums named after people that never set foot on a campus because a moneybags type wants to “honor” a family member.

    However, some of these are really tough calls. I remember in the 1970s that entire big cities discontinued High School athletics due to budget concerns. If having “CocaCola” on every jersey and scoreboard is the difference between having a league OR NOT HAVING ONE AT ALL, I would chose the sponsorship and douchebaggery over not having the venue exist.

  • Dave | April 18, 2009 at 7:46 pm |

    Can someone explain the joke about the Reds and the Nati-nals?

    It doesn’t make “perfect sense” to me?

  • u2-horn | April 18, 2009 at 7:49 pm |

    [quote comment="324298"]

    I took note of this in my unicentricity, the same unicentricity that has me flummoxed by the Texas Rangers’ ongoing pschizophrenia in failing to chose whether they are a “Red” or “Blue” team….
    [/quote]

    Why can’t they be a “Red and Blue” team?

    Aren’t the Orioles a “Black and Orange” team?

    …Oakland a “Green and Gold” team?

    …Pittsburgh a “Black and Gold” team?

    …Rockies a “Black and Purple” team?

  • tmac3217 | April 18, 2009 at 8:28 pm |

    Delmon Young of the Twins doesn’t have his #21 on the front of his Twinkies throwback tonight.

  • matt | April 18, 2009 at 8:36 pm |

    I’m watching the Red Sox-Baltimore game right now, and the Orioles catcher appears to be wearing a regular hat instead of a helmet behind the plate. No pics, sorry.

  • Jesse | April 18, 2009 at 8:36 pm |

    Jersey issues for the Twins tonight. Delmon Young’s throwback is missing the front uni number. All other players have front numbers, as would be expected.

  • Eddie | April 18, 2009 at 9:06 pm |

    What do you guys believe to be the limit of sponsorship then? When I was playing high school bar, the local car dealership donated money to the program. So the scoreboard had their logo on it. Nobody ever made mention of it, it was just there.

    So I guess my question to y’all is what advertising are you not opposed to? Is it okay if the local Mom and Pop antique store has it’s logo on the scoreboard because they donated money to help the program get uniforms? Is it only when national brands advertise in high school venues? Is it when the advertising is obtrusive? As a previous poster asked, is the advertising in yearbooks and the school paper okay?

  • scott | April 18, 2009 at 9:12 pm |

    [quote comment="324226"]The uniform snafu was mentioned on MSNBC a few minutes ago[/quote]

    Today show mentioned it as part of the news headlines this morning, and the anchors and news reader all had a good laugh over it.

  • mike 2 | April 18, 2009 at 9:30 pm |

    [quote comment="324291"][quote comment="324285"]I’m as free-market as anyone, I’m sure if Paul and I talked about the commercialization of the public realm we’d have a lot to disagree about.

    But when it comes to children, I strongly disagree with commercialization.

    Studies show that children are especially susceptible to advertising. They can’t distinguish in many cases between actual content and content that’s being used to sell them things. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who’s seen McDonald’s advertising and the effect it has on kids.

    Naming rights for schools is wrong, and so are commercial arrangements that are designed to put advertising and product in front of kids in a school environment. Exclusive deals for soda in schools, Channel One (with ads) in schools, even sponsored scoreboards (which my high school had in 1981) are wrong IMHO.

    Some things just shouldn’t be for sale, and our kids attention and eyeballs should be one of them.

    /end rant.[/quote]

    Couldn’t have said it better. Thanks, Mike (and we’ll have our free-market/commercialization debate later).[/quote]

    If I’m lucky enough to get into the ING New York City Marathon again this year, we can have it at the Gatorade Endurance Refreshment Stop around mile 11.

  • matt | April 18, 2009 at 10:22 pm |

    Found a picture of Gregg Zaun wearing the cap. I don’t know how to format HTML and now isn’t the time to learn.

    http://espn.go.com/m...

  • matt | April 18, 2009 at 10:23 pm |

    [quote comment="324308"]Found a picture of Gregg Zaun wearing the cap. I don’t know how to format HTML and now isn’t the time to learn.

    http://espn.go.com/m...

    Never mind, auto linkage in effect.

  • Shawn | April 18, 2009 at 10:35 pm |

    [quote comment="324274"][quote comment="324273"]school is supposed to be a place for education. There’s nothing wrong with “exposing” youngsters to how the world works[/quote]

    Right. So let’s steal stuff from their lockers to “teach” them about crime, or beat them up to “teach” them about self-defense. Makes sense to me.

    [quote comment="324273"]BTW, I do get a big kick out of the guy who writes for ESPN railing against commercialism on a daily basis. ;)[/quote]

    This is a classic example of a straw-man “gotcha” statement that actually says exactly zero. So I’m gonna give you a chance to say more than zero: Please explain exactly — EXACTLY — what you are getting at. Specifically, if you feel I’m saying one thing and doing another, please specify how, and explain how that either (a) makes my stated positions on public advertising any less correct, or (b) makes my work ethically suspect.

    I eagerly await your well-stated reply.[/quote]

    Well, I intentionally included the smiley to indicate half-joking-ness, but there’s no denying that ESPN is one of the most ubiquitous, farthest-reaching, self-promoting commercial entities on the planet. I didn’t mean to imply that your working for them was somehow unethical or hypocritical. I just meant that I get a kick out of the irony of the situation.

    I do find it interesting that you include your own straw men, as if the acts of assault and theft could remotely be comparable to a practical display of legal free enterprise (if it happens that you think they can be equated, that’s a whole other discussion altogether).

    Obviously, we have a basic disagreement when it comes to this aspect of sponsorship of youth sports. I doubt any number of hours of discussing it would change either of our minds. My assertion is simply that these teams need equipment and have travel expenses, the money has to come from somewhere, and there’s no harm in acknowledging the donor. It’s all fine and good (to cite one example given above) to say you don’t like the Coke or Pepsi name on a scoreboard, but if not them, who’s going to pay for it? And is that entity really not going to expect a similar recognition?

    Saying, “some things just shouldn’t be for sale” sounds good, but the things required of these teams are, therefore something else down the line has to be. I can even accept the premise that in the realm of pro sports, some folks can be seen as going overboard in chasing a dollar for a dollar’s sake, but I just don’t see any difference between a playing field taking on the name of a reputable, local business for a certain event and the little league uniforms provided by Mike’s Quick Stop. If you do see one, please share it with me.

    To elaborate a little more on Eddie’s question above, in your original post on the subject, you said, “Kids are already exposed to way too much advertising.” Well, just how much, exactly is “too much,” and what, in turn, would be considered an acceptable amount? Can you offer an objective measure that can be applied, or is it just a personal matter of “I know it when I see it?”

  • JTH | April 18, 2009 at 11:01 pm |

    Holeeee shit! Check out Ryan Dempster doing the Shoot-the-Puck contest at the second intermission of the Hawks-Flames game.

    It’s about time someone classed up that joint.

  • Terri | April 18, 2009 at 11:07 pm |

    My school district caused big waves in the 90s when it decided to become the first district in the state to contract with Coke. It was a multi-million dollar deal, and the middle schools and high school got Coke machines. It caused a big controversy; alot of people were upset because not only were we basically selling out a big corporation, we were promoting unhealthy habits in kids. Eventually, they put a policy in place that said the machines could only be on at certain times of the day, and I think even more restrictions have been put in since I graduated.

  • JTH | April 18, 2009 at 11:09 pm |

    [quote comment="324301"][quote comment="324298"]

    I took note of this in my unicentricity, the same unicentricity that has me flummoxed by the Texas Rangers’ ongoing pschizophrenia in failing to chose whether they are a “Red” or “Blue” team….
    [/quote]

    Why can’t they be a “Red and Blue” team?

    Aren’t the Orioles a “Black and Orange” team?

    …Oakland a “Green and Gold” team?

    …Pittsburgh a “Black and Gold” team?

    …Rockies a “Black and Purple” team?[/quote]
    Nope. You must pick ONE color. Also, cap, lettering/numbers, socks and sleeves are required to match. Otherwise, you end up looking like some johnny-come-lately expansion team with absolutely no tradition, like these guys or, God forbid, like these bushleaguers. Clearly, these are two teams that don’t Get It.

    Seriously, though. I’m with you on this one. Why can’t the Rangers alternate the blue and red?

  • Nick | April 19, 2009 at 12:47 am |

    [quote comment="324313"][quote comment="324301"][quote comment="324298"]

    I took note of this in my unicentricity, the same unicentricity that has me flummoxed by the Texas Rangers’ ongoing pschizophrenia in failing to chose whether they are a “Red” or “Blue” team….
    [/quote]

    Why can’t they be a “Red and Blue” team?

    Aren’t the Orioles a “Black and Orange” team?

    …Oakland a “Green and Gold” team?

    …Pittsburgh a “Black and Gold” team?

    …Rockies a “Black and Purple” team?[/quote]
    Nope. You must pick ONE color. Also, cap, lettering/numbers, socks and sleeves are required to match. Otherwise, you end up looking like some johnny-come-lately expansion team with absolutely no tradition, like these guys or, God forbid, like these bushleaguers. Clearly, these are two teams that don’t Get It.

    Seriously, though. I’m with you on this one. Why can’t the Rangers alternate the blue and red?[/quote]

    ?????????????????????????????????????

    I am all for using both the Red and Blue. What I don’t like is using both colors in a GARISH, almost mismatched way, as they are doing now.
    The current unis are a mish-mash with no real theme or consistency to the uniform.

    Look, in the 1970s and into the Nolan Ryan years the Rangers were a “Blue” team, with a consistent well-themed uniform for that time. Later, when they opened the Ballpark in Arlington, they became a “Red” team, with a consistent, classy modern uni.

    Recently, they seem to wear the two colors in a very haphazard, distracting sense that priovides no real theme or classiness to the uni. Sure, use two colors, but have it make some kind of sense.
    On their worst day, the Expos pulled off Red and Blue very nicely, unless you may have a problem with the six-paneled cap.

    As for the Natinals, the fact that their regular caps are classy and perhaps circa 1950, while their nine-color jersey font belongs on the 2026 San Jose Sharks, says just about all we need to know about them. Their most classy uni is a disaster, and all that follow only worsen the infection. Perhaps the misspelling is an improvement, as it is one less hideous letter in that hideous font on the front of their jersey.

  • Paul Lukas | April 19, 2009 at 12:56 am |

    [quote comment="324308"]Found a picture of Gregg Zaun wearing the cap. I don’t know how to format HTML and now isn’t the time to learn.

    http://espn.go.com/m...

    Nothing unusual about a catcher wearing a regular cap if, like Zaun, he wears the hockey-style helmet, which has a built-in backplate. Helmet isn’t required (or even feasible, because of the backplate).

  • Nick | April 19, 2009 at 1:04 am |

    [quote comment="324313"][quote comment="324301"][quote comment="324298"]

    Speaking of classic unis, the Cards home unis are all-time classics. Almost perfection.

    The Cards road unis would, however, improve 1000% if they would wear the Red&Navy Stan Musial-era caps with their road grays, instead of that BLAH all-navy cap. The red bill and an untrimmed red “StL” on the Red&Navy Stan Musial-era caps would perfectly finish that uni.

    The current cap takes away from it.

    That’s just my opinion.

  • Paul Lukas | April 19, 2009 at 1:16 am |

    [quote comment="324310"]Well, I intentionally included the smiley to indicate half-joking-ness, but there’s no denying that ESPN is one of the most ubiquitous, farthest-reaching, self-promoting commercial entities on the planet. I didn’t mean to imply that your working for them was somehow unethical or hypocritical. I just meant that I get a kick out of the irony of the situation.[/quote]

    I don’t really see the irony. This web site runs advertising as well — so is that ironic too?

    For the 18 gazillionth time: I’m not opposed to advertising per se. I just think there are places where it doesn’t belong. A high school is one of them.

    [quote comment="324310"]My assertion is simply that these teams need equipment and have travel expenses, the money has to come from somewhere, and there’s no harm in acknowledging the donor. It’s all fine and good (to cite one example given above) to say you don’t like the Coke or Pepsi name on a scoreboard, but if not them, who’s going to pay for it? And is that entity really not going to expect a similar recognition?[/quote]

    That’s what school taxes and booster drives are for. Can’t raise enough $$$ thru those methods? Then maybe your school doesn’t get to have the fancy-shmancy electronic scoreboard, and what’s so bad about that? It’s supposed to be about the game, not the frills.

    [quote comment="324310"]I just don’t see any difference between a playing field taking on the name of a reputable, local business for a certain event and the little league uniforms provided by Mike’s Quick Stop.[/quote]

    I’m not quite sure what “reputable” means in this context, or how you assess or measure it. But in any case, the purpose of Little League is to play baseball. The purpose of a school is to provide an education. The baseball (or football, or whatever) is secondary. I know a lot of people think school athletics are really, really, really important. Personally, I don’t. I’m not against them, mind you — I think they can be a great thing for the school and the community — but I don’t think they’re particularly high on the list of what a school is supposed to be doing, and I think they can often detract from, and divert resources from, the other things on that list.

    [quote comment="324310"]To elaborate a little more on Eddie’s question above, in your original post on the subject, you said, “Kids are already exposed to way too much advertising.” Well, just how much, exactly is “too much,” and what, in turn, would be considered an acceptable amount? Can you offer an objective measure that can be applied, or is it just a personal matter of “I know it when I see it?”[/quote]

    It’s not about the total amount. It’s about the notion of a school as a sanctuary that should be an ad-free zone, or as ad-free as possible (i.e., I realize the kids’ jeans will have a logo on the pocket, I realize textbooks have the publisher’s logo on the spine, blah-blah-blah). There are lots of things that are allowed outside the school that are not allowed inside. I feel advertising should be one of them.

    Your responses were all excellent — thanks for the good give and take.

  • Will S | April 19, 2009 at 1:19 am |

    I think the Cardinals roads would look great with blue socks and sleeves. Keep the caps

  • Nick | April 19, 2009 at 3:56 am |

    The Natinals, like Travis Bickle of TAXI DRIVER fame, need to get ORGANIZIZED !!!!!

  • Tony in Erie | April 19, 2009 at 5:32 pm |

    Reading this a day late, but:

    I know a lot of people think school athletics are really, really, really important. Personally, I don’t. I’m not against them, mind you — I think they can be a great thing for the school and the community — but I don’t think they’re particularly high on the list of what a school is supposed to be doing, and I think they can often detract from, and divert resources from, the other things on that list.

    This is why college sports suck, IMO.

  • Shawn | April 19, 2009 at 5:43 pm |

    [quote comment="324317"][quote comment="324310"]Well, I intentionally included the smiley to indicate half-joking-ness, but there’s no denying that ESPN is one of the most ubiquitous, farthest-reaching, self-promoting commercial entities on the planet. I didn’t mean to imply that your working for them was somehow unethical or hypocritical. I just meant that I get a kick out of the irony of the situation.[/quote]

    I don’t really see the irony. This web site runs advertising as well — so is that ironic too?[/quote]

    If you don’t see the irony, there’s nothing I’m going to say that’s going to show it to you.

    [quote]For the 18 gazillionth time: I’m not opposed to advertising per se. I just think there are places where it doesn’t belong. A high school is one of them.

    That’s what school taxes and booster drives are for. Can’t raise enough $$$ thru those methods? Then maybe your school doesn’t get to have the fancy-shmancy electronic scoreboard, and what’s so bad about that? It’s supposed to be about the game, not the frills.

    I’m not quite sure what “reputable” means in this context, or how you assess or measure it. But in any case, the purpose of Little League is to play baseball. The purpose of a school is to provide an education. The baseball (or football, or whatever) is secondary. I know a lot of people think school athletics are really, really, really important. Personally, I don’t. I’m not against them, mind you — I think they can be a great thing for the school and the community — but I don’t think they’re particularly high on the list of what a school is supposed to be doing, and I think they can often detract from, and divert resources from, the other things on that list.

    It’s not about the total amount. It’s about the notion of a school as a sanctuary that should be an ad-free zone, or as ad-free as possible (i.e., I realize the kids’ jeans will have a logo on the pocket, I realize textbooks have the publisher’s logo on the spine, blah-blah-blah). There are lots of things that are allowed outside the school that are not allowed inside. I feel advertising should be one of them.[/quote]

    You make some good points, but some of them are a bit contradictory. You’re simultaneously saying sports aren’t essential to education, but at the same time, the rules applied to a classroom should also be applied to am extra-curricular ball field.

    That’s the very reason youth sports should have sponsors: we (hopefully) concentrate the majority of the taxpayers’ and parents’ resources on more important things. I’d much rather see a team play in “Middlefield Cheese Stadium” than see money that could be spent on new history books be spent on field-marking paint–in this particular case, for a recreational league to boot–instead.

    [quote]Your responses were all excellent — thanks for the good give and take.[/quote]

    I appreciate that.

  • TOTC | April 19, 2009 at 6:12 pm |

    [quote comment="324234"]“The good news is that Middlefield Cheese is a local operation, not a giant corporate monolith, but this is still completely ridiculous, especially at a high school facility, which should be as advertising-free as possible”[/quote]

    Just about every high school scoreboard at a football stadium has Coke or Pepsi on it. Sheesh.

  • TOTC | April 19, 2009 at 6:18 pm |

    [quote comment="324247"]maybe this link’ll work http://i.cdn.turner....

    I believe this was discussed previously — the San Antonio player whose luggage was misdirected and had to wear an inside-out Bullets jersey.

  • Karthik | April 20, 2009 at 3:06 pm |

    As regards the crazy striped Eagles hat, they were sponsored by MAB paints (I have one), and I believe they were a promotion at an Eagles game, but feel free to correct me on this if I am wrong (I was 7 when I got the hat).

  • Andrew | April 20, 2009 at 6:03 pm |

    Hey, it’s the worst team in baseball. What do you expect? The Red Sox wouldn’t misspell themselves Red Ox.

  • violrile | April 22, 2009 at 2:22 pm |

    [quote comment="324231"]Maybe they should just go to NATS. Perhaps that would be easier for them to spell.[/quote]They would spell it NADS

  • violrile | April 22, 2009 at 2:24 pm |

    They would spell it NADS

  • [...] For more, visit the outstanding “Uni Watch” blog, which among other things, documents other examples of errors like this (usually an individual player, not the whole team). [...]

  • [...] The Fightins’ extended the losing streak of the Fish to six yesterday with a 13-2 whooping. The Phillies have exposed the Marlins as being able to whoop up on the “Natinals” but not being able to do anything against everyone else. [...]