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

What Is Your “Anti-Uni Secret”?

anti uniform logo

By Phil Hecken … with Dave Ribar and Mike Engle

In yet another interesting bit of serendipity, last weekend’s “What Is Your Uni Secret?” column generated so much ‘buzz,’ I was approached, separately, by two readers, both of whom had remarkably similar ideas. Inspired by the ‘guilty pleasure’ of liking a uniform which generally meets with disdain and ridicule on these boards, both Dave Ribar and Mike Engle emailed me with their thought that a fun column might be basically the opposite of the guilty uniform secret — that being, a uniform which is generally lauded and loved by the UW readership, but which they secretly detest. I’ll let each explain, based on their E-mail contact with me. We’ll start with Dave Ribar who first approached me with the idea:

I enjoyed your Saturday topic of guilty pleasures. I thought it was a great weekend discussion topic — something simple and light that kept the comments section flowing.

That got me to thinking. Maybe you already have this planned, but it would be interesting to devote a future weekend post to the anti-guilty pleasure uniform. I don’t know what you would call it (Emperor Has No Uni?), but it’s the case where you dislike a uniform that nearly everyone else considers a classic. Maybe you hate the entire uniform, or maybe there is just one detail that drives you crazy and ruins the whole thing. To set some rules, the reason for disliking the uni should be uni-based (none of this “I hate the Yankees uniforms because I’m a Red Sox fan” – that adds nothing to the conversation). Another rule would be that the uniform must be considered great by a clear majority.

Next was Mike Engle, who ‘spearheaded’ last weekend’s guilty pleasure column. His E-mail to me was as follows, slightly more concise, but the exact same sentiment:

How about a jersey we’re afraid to say anything bad about?

And with that, both of these fine gentlemen proceeded to launch into diatribes bemoaning one or more uniforms. Since Dave approached me first, we’ll get to his selections momentarily. But he wanted to give us this small taste of a biography: “As for me, I’ll keep things short. I enjoyed Paul’s early ESPN columns, and I started reading Uni Watch from the very beginning. I’m originally from Pittsburgh, and I like all of their teams. Because of this, I root against the Browns, Penn St.. and Notre Dame. I am looking forward to the NHL returning to white at home. I have no information on this, but it seems obvious and long overdue.”

Thanks Dave. And now on to Dave’s “Anti-Uni Secrets”:

Now, for the fun part. Here are my unis for the topic…

Bears: The numbers are too skinny for me and don’t look right.

Cubs: I don’t hate the uniforms, but I’ve always thought of them as Little League, with the giant (and simple) chest logo. As for the road unis, they have tried many different things and come up empty each time.

Mets original: Not sure if this is a “classic”, but … I don’t think there is enough contrast between the blue and orange, and the Mets script is ok, but not great — maybe because it’s too short a name. And the interlocking NY is second rate to the Yankees. Lastly, this is another team that never got the road uni right.

Red Wings red: The white sweaters look really good, but the reds do nothing for me. The white stripes look too thick and the uniform is just too red and too plain, even with the great detailed chest logo … Also, sports with shoulder pads shouldn’t use arched names on back, even if it is the (overhyped on this site) vertically arched kind. Straight names on back look much much better in hockey and football.

Brewers ball in glove: Maybe not considered a classic, but definitely overrated. I like the colors, but from the neck down, these uniforms are horribly plain. And the cartoonish glove (4 fingers?!?) takes away from the double-meaning (although it is still a fun logo).

Wow, Dave. Thanks for that. I’m sure a LOT of folks aren’t going to agree with you, but you gave solid reasons for your dislike of these “classic” unis, and I for one can not only respect your opinions, but they definitely may cause others to look at them in a different light.

Next up is Mike Engle, who was on the same wavelength as Dave and who provided me with two unis he loves to hate. Here’s Mike:

The original Philly Flyers (recently reprised as an alternate): Now I’m not saying I prefer what they have now, but these orange uniforms just aren’t that good. The orange sleeve numbers creeping onto the orange body? Not good. The white nameplate? Glad to see it not fixed (it’s an essential throwback detail), but I still don’t like it. The socks? Not good at all. Now I know what the defenders will say: they’re just the Red Wings’ socks, in orange. Now here’s why the Flyers fail here. The Red Wings have two colors. Red and white. Not an ounce of anything else, except for sticks and skates, but I consider that players’ equipment, not the uniform. So while the Red Wings’ socks are REALLY simple (one thick band of color over the other color), it’s the best they can do, so it looks good. The Flyers have THREE colors. Orange, white, and black (really, black, not BFBS). Doubt me? Look at the number trim, the gloves, and the logo. That’s a lot of black. Been there since the Barry Ashbee era. Now look at the socks. Somebody forgot to put a team color on the Flyers’ socks. Either that, or the Flyers really did accept the Red Wings’ rejected laundry. So there you go. This is why I can’t join the “The Flyers look GREAT in their throwbacks!” chorus. Because they don’t. It’s their best uniform they can currently wear, but I just don’t like it.

If you want a second “secret gripe” from me, here’s one now — the white (and only the white) Buffalo Sabres, before they went black/red/silver batshit insane. Check out this picture. It’s a great uniform from a distance, but zone in on the stripe details. The bottom jersey hem goes yellow-blue-yellow, just like the socks. But the sleeves go blue-yellow-blue. There can’t be a good reason for this flip-flop. It’s just a STUPID design decision that drives me crazy every time I think about it, and proof that the Sabres REALLY should have gotten it all right the first time. Because no matter what happens to the socks, it looks all wrong for eternity, as seen about seventeen months ago.

Lets flash back to the 2008 Winter Classic. By this time, the Sabres had abandoned the black/red/silver batshit insanity in favor of the idiotic Buffaslug. I was almost looking forward to the break from that thing for a logo, but the special uniform was more of the same problem, but slightly worse. In what was supposed to be a straight throwback (the problem is that the socks aren’t double-triple striped like how they used to be), the Sabres found another way to fuck up their “timeless look.” You can see the new “wrong socks” have been flip-flopped to match the sleeves, leaving the bottom hem as the mismatched element. If I had to choose one or the other, I’d rather the sock stripes echo the bottom jersey hem, but I shouldn’t have to make that choice: all three components should match.

I love this crest, I think the colors are good, I adore the double-triple stripes of old, and the old all blue look is very good, but this really could have used a decent editor’s eye. Now it’s too iconic of a throwback, which means the stripes will never get fixed, and I’ll be stuck with this gripe forever, and I’ll never fully like the old-time Sabres in white.

Well thank you Michael. That’s a lot of “anti-love” for a couple of what many consider “classic” puck kits. I’m sure there are some who read who will take umbrage with your thoughts, but like Dave, they were well articulated and certainly thought-provoking.

What say you, Uni Watchers? Got a uniform that’s “so classic” or “so good” that you just can’t stand? Remember, you can’t hate the Yankees uni just because you’re a Red Sox fan (or vice versa), and the uniform must be thought of as a true ‘classic.’ You need a legitimate beef with what many of us consider a real solid uniform. Let’s hear it.

~~~~~~~~~~

scoreboardGuess The Game From The Scoreboard: You guys are obviously getting too good at this game. So, you shouldn’t have any problems guessing this one either. But then, maybe you will. Remember, if you get it, DON’T POST THE ANSWER in the comments, but instead, go to Baseball Almanac or Retrosheet and copy the URL of the game that’s about to follow. Just say something like “I GOT IT” and post the link as your “answer” in the comments. As a special “weekday edition” we’ve got TWO scoreboards today, so you must find the answer to BOTH. Final Score, Date & Location required. Ready?

Guess The Game, Pt. I

Guess The Game, Pt. II

~~~~~~~~~~

Uni Watch Ticker: Reader Johnny Griswold writes, “I saw your post today (Saturday) about recoloring of new logos to their traditional colors and I wanted to point you to a design project that I’ve been working on for a month or two. It’s called Totally 80’s Redesign, where I take the five most deserving/modern NHL teams and redesign their uniforms as though they were around in the 1980’s.” You can view Johnny’s latest creation here — All of the other team redesigns can be seen by clicking the banners in my right sidebar of the site. Johnny continues, “Additionally, I’ll be creating a Totally Reebok concept, where I take defunct NHL teams, bring them back to life, and modernize them to the new Reebok Edge jerseys.” … Welcome back to the BlackJeffery Waszak found what looks like an interesting drink — not quite the ‘official’ Mets’ script, but close … Hey Pirates! This is what a trophy looks like — and how brilliant were the schedule-makers to have the Buccos playing Detroit? … I believe these photos may have been posted in the comments on a previous day, but Steven Wojtowicz writes, “Here’s Carrie Underwood at the 19th Annual City of Hope Celebrity Softball Challenge. I can say without a doubt in my mind that this is the first time I’ve ever had any sexy feelings about women’s softball.” … I stumbled on this photo of France vs. Turkey playing hoops — for a second, I thought it was a WNBA game … It seems we haven’t seen the last of pink in sport, as Craig Costello points out in this article about players dye facial hair pink to support Women In League, and also this one, which remarks on the facial stylings of someone known as “Wolfman” … The Pirates and Tigers did the throwback thing yesterday in Pittsburgh, with each team donning 1909 vintage unis, and Pittsburgh again showed Detroit who’s boss, celebrating like they did 100 years ago … Pacific Rim and Asian Baseball Correspondent Jeremy Brahm checks in with this “Pillbox” video — go about 50 seconds in and you can see the Pacific League pitchers for the Nippon Ham Fighters and Kintetsu Buffaloes wearing them for the 1979 All-Star Game. And even his Central League teammates as well. About 3 minutes in and you’ll get another shot of some of the hats. … The Mets have finally called for backupZevi Lowenberg found a great article on MLB.com Sunday morning about one pitcher that now sprints to the mound when he called in. … Got a note from Josh Neisler who writes, “you’ll find a few photos of a jersey Honus Wagner wore as a hitting instructor for the Pittsburgh Pirates. The jersey belongs to the collection of the Louisville Slugger Museum & Factory (where I work part-time as a tour guide) and was acquired at auction last November. Wagner is important to Louisville Slugger because he was the first player to sign an endorsement contract with the company (he first signed in 1905) and to have his name and likeness appear on Slugger retail models (see bat in photos). Wagner played for the Louisville Colonels until that team merged with the Pittsburgh Pirates in 1900. The jersey is white with red letters outlined in blue, and also has red and blue piping around the neck and down the front, in keeping with the Pirates’ color scheme in the first half of the 20th Century. Here’s the text on the placard next to the jersey: Honus Wagner wore this 1946 Pittsburgh Pirates jersey. Wagner was a hitting instructor from 1932 through 1952, and was credited with aiding in the development of players such as Ralph Kiner, Pie Trayno, Arky Vaughan, and Kiki Cuyler. The tag says, ‘Gold Smith, Made in U.S.A., A Preferred Product.’ The size is 48 and Wagner’s last name is stitched just below the tag.” … West Coast correspondent Brinke Guthrie checks in with Chein Ming Wang’s baseball inspired kicks — says Brinke, “I kinda like these. I think.” … Dan Lamothe writes, “Even when I travel on business, I can’t get away from this stuff.” What stuff? Fake Yankees gear, of course. … Ditch the black? Why that’s a novel concept for the Jays and Mets. Thanks to Ben Walsh for the find … Fortunately Paul is on vacation and didn’t have to witness the purple-clad LA Lakers capture the NBA championship, after which they got to wear these nifty caps & t-shirts. Of course, coach Phil chose to don a gold and purple “X” cap (for his 10 NBA titles as a coach), while the Lakers t-shirt said “15x Champions”. Kobe got all the hardware, clad in his 3 stripe swag. And somewhere, soon, in Somalia, small children will proudly walk around thinking the Magic & Red Wings are the World Champs.

 

245 comments to What Is Your “Anti-Uni Secret”?

  • SQL | June 15, 2009 at 7:45 am |

    I, for one, can’t stand the way the Boston Bruins home* socks stripes don’t even remotely match their jersey’s.

    It’s just one of those thing I can’t seem to get past, like the A’s white shoes with grays pants (something which is really aggravated by the pajama look) or the Tigers and Cards stupid road caps…

    (*should be away, you dummies….)

  • HockeyDad | June 15, 2009 at 7:46 am |

    The Montreal Canadiens red jersey.
    Yes this is a timless classic, but it always looks like s**t to me.

    The shade of blue of the pants does not seem to match the blue of the jersey. The piping on the pants is very busy, and the color of the helmets appears to match the pants slightly at best.

    This pretty much provides three shades of blue on one uniform. The stripes on the hem seem thin and busy, and the whole effect comes off as too red, and not in a good way.

    Disclaimer: I don’t hate the Canadiens, and would wear a white Ken Dryden jersey with pride.

  • JTH | June 15, 2009 at 7:46 am |

    Wow. I completely agree with two of Dave’s choices.

    Cubs: I hate the home jersey. I completely agree that the logo is terrible. The blue outline is waaaaaaaaaay too heavy. This, while not spectacular is still infinitely better than the current logo.

    That being said, I do like the road jersey, especially now that they no longer wear the red-brimmed caps with them. But they could be tweaked. Ditch the red numbers. Go to blue numbers with red outlines and while we’re at it, the letters should have red outlines instead of white.

    And the cap gets a hearty “meh” as well.

    Red Wings’ red jerseys: hate ’em. And it has nothing to do with the fact that I’m a Hawks fan, because I love the Wings’ white jerseys. The reds are just boring as hell.

    One other: Red Sox. Now there’s been plenty of bashing of the new road unis, but I’m talking about the home set. There’s nothing wrong with the front view, but I just can’t stand that numeral font.

  • Dan | June 15, 2009 at 7:52 am |

    Hate the Phillies uniforms, especially the number font which is goofy and old-looking. The design flaws of the front logo have been pointed out on this site before, and that combined with the numbers and the white/red pinstripes (just not a good look for anyone) or the road uni’s with striping that’s way too thick… ugh.

    The only thing I like about the Phils uni’s are the numbers being on the sleeves and how the front logo is done (chain stitched embroidery on that white piece). Other than that, they’re disgusting.

  • Oakville Belgium Endive II | June 15, 2009 at 7:58 am |

    The Indianopolis Colts – white uniform – it’s just too white and plain, and I agree wit the Chicago Bears comment – thus the Super Bowl where these two teams played – was the most over hyped from a uni-sense of any of the Super Bowls.

    While I overall love Montreal Canadiens red uniform – I would agree with the blue colour , especially the shade used on the helmet, does not seem to match up with the rest of the outfit.

  • JTH | June 15, 2009 at 8:01 am |

    [quote comment=”334973″]The Montreal Canadiens red jersey.
    Yes this is a timless classic, but it always looks like s**t to me.

    The shade of blue of the pants does not seem to match the blue of the jersey. The piping on the pants is very busy, and the color of the helmets appears to match the pants slightly at best.

    This pretty much provides three shades of blue on one uniform. The stripes on the hem seem thin and busy, and the whole effect comes off as too red, and not in a good way.

    Disclaimer: I don’t hate the Canadiens, and would wear a white Ken Dryden jersey with pride.[/quote]
    Yeah. I don’t dislike the red jersey, but it’s never done anything for me. I really like the white one, though.

  • Mike Edgerly | June 15, 2009 at 8:05 am |

    I got the first 1!!! http://www.baseball-...

    Working on the 2nd…

  • JimV19 | June 15, 2009 at 8:19 am |

    I’m not a big fan of the Notre Dame unis. You’re the Irish; go green lads! Or at least go back to the lighter blue of the Gerry Faust era. That’s right, I said Gerry Faust. Great guy, by the way, who deserved better.

    The fact that I’m a Steelers fan should not exclude me from this – I don’t like the Cowboys home whites. I DO like the road blues, but the home whites seemed too cold and sterile with the silver and blue. Plus I don’t like the number font. Yeah, you play in the Lone Star State, but have a cowboy-ish logo instead of a plain old star.

    Actually, the only reason I like the Steelers in black is because the bright yellow-gold sets it off perfectly. If the gold were muted, then I’d rather it be the predominant color. How’s that for equal time, ‘Boys fans? :)

    Let me add my name to the list of those praising the whole playing-with-team-colors thing. That was fun. Do you think any teams will ever decide to play a switcheroo game for real? Why not? It beats some of the other promotions they dream up these days. I doubt you’ll ever see it in college football or the NFL, but I think it’s worth a try in baseball.

  • Scott | June 15, 2009 at 8:19 am |

    It’s really not even close.

    The Yankees. Those home uniforms are bland, mainly because — yes I’m going to say it — pinstripes are just plain ugly. They’re ugly on the Yanks, they’re ugly on the Cubs, the Rockies, on down the line in baseball. They look pathetic on the Reds. They were ugly on the Pacers old hoops unis, they’re terrible on the NO Hornets. They’re actually reasonable but not attractive on the Magic. The Charlotte Hornets looked ridiculous with purple and teal — but I give them credit for trying something new. Frankly, it’s overkill on such a narrow piece of fabric such is hoops jerseys. For baseball, with more cover space, it just looks busy.

    Followed closely behind by the Boston Red Sox, who have done everything in their power to keep RED off their uniform. Makes no sense.

  • jon in b-lo | June 15, 2009 at 8:27 am |

    Cowboys whites. Royal blue numbers, royal blue “sleeve” stripes with thin black outline? Yet the helmet has the nice navy blue star. Then the pants-two different shades of silver? The dark jerseyed uniform set is great, the whites that they love to wear at home are a mess. I look forward to the 2 or 3 times a season when the blue jerseys are worn.

  • MPowers1634 | June 15, 2009 at 8:29 am |

    http://d.yimg.com/a/...

    This parachuting team is from West Point, which is about 40 minutes away from Yankee Stdium up the Hudson.

    George HW Buch skydived with them last week to celebrate his 85th birthday.

    In college, for Senior Day, the team parachuted down to the field carring the game ball.

    We were underneath the stadium, waiting to come out and it felt like a LONG time.

    It turns out that the ballcarrier got caught in a wind gust and ended up breaking his leg.

    My father was always thoroughly impressed that he NEVE dropped the ball.

    BTW, they do this for every home Army game at Michie Stadium.

  • JimV19 | June 15, 2009 at 8:36 am |

    [quote comment=”334976″]The Indianopolis Colts – white uniform – it’s just too white and plain, and I agree wit the Chicago Bears comment – thus the Super Bowl where these two teams played – was the most over hyped from a uni-sense of any of the Super Bowls.

    While I overall love Montreal Canadiens red uniform – I would agree with the blue colour , especially the shade used on the helmet, does not seem to match up with the rest of the outfit.[/quote]

    I respectfully disagree about the Colts. The all white look is classic – as close to Penn State as you’re going to get in the NFL. I’m not saying that every team should be that simple, but I wouldn’t change a thing about them.

    In general (there are some exceptions), if you have a light helmet you should have white pants. Dark helmets should have non-white pants. In ’70 or ’71 the Steelers had white road pants and it looked terrible (and not a good terrible like the towels). I’d like to see the Cowboys wear white pants at home, at least once. I didn’t like the Chiefs white pants with the white jerseys. The red helmet and pants look is much better.

  • TMD | June 15, 2009 at 8:54 am |

    I think you’d be hard pressed to find a Wings’ fan that is in love with that red jersey. It’s like you said. It’s just too red and there is nothing going on. My personal pet peeve is the bottom stripe.

    http://espn-att.star...

    To me, it looks like someone just bleached that thing.

  • Chris M | June 15, 2009 at 9:00 am |

    I have a gripe with the Colts, but not about the simplicity of the jersey, I like that. It’s with the striping.

    The pants have 2 stripes, the sleeves have 2 stripes… why not the helmet?

    Here is a quick photoshop I did of a 2 striped helmet:
    http://farm4.static....

    Does anyone agree that looks way better?

  • aflfan | June 15, 2009 at 9:03 am |

    [quote comment=”334984″]I think you’d be hard pressed to find a Wings’ fan that is in love with that red jersey. It’s like you said. It’s just too red and there is nothing going on. My personal pet peeve is the bottom stripe.

    http://espn-att.star...

    To me, it looks like someone just bleached that thing.[/quote]

    I am a Wings fan and love both uniforms. I agree the are kind of bland but that is what I love, the have kept the same classic look while everyone else if futzing around with their uniforms.

  • Mark K | June 15, 2009 at 9:04 am |

    I hate the Steelers logo on the jersey.

  • Oakville Endive | June 15, 2009 at 9:16 am |

    I’ll add one more

    The New York Giants – To me their uniform is the equivalent of watching a really good movie set in the 50’s, when all of a sudden a character pulls out a blackberry.

    i.e. if you’re going retro – you have to go retro all the way – no modern day gloss on the helmet!

  • MPowers1634 | June 15, 2009 at 9:18 am |

    [quote comment=”334987″]I hate the Steelers logo on the jersey.[/quote]

    I can’t stand the matte finish on the helmets but even worse still, is that wide swath on the pants.

  • Dave D | June 15, 2009 at 9:19 am |

    – The Yankees (any of them). Yeah, cool logo, but underwhelming color scheme, a real bore to the eyes. All that legacy with a ho-hum identity.
    – The Philadelphia Eagles: Those ‘winged’ helmets always looked silly to me. Like the team endorsed cupid.

  • LI Phil | June 15, 2009 at 9:21 am |

    [quote comment=”334988″]I’ll add one more

    The New York Giants – To me their uniform is the equivalent of watching a really good movie set in the 50’s, when all of a sudden a character pulls out a blackberry.

    i.e. if you’re going retro – you have to go retro all the way – no modern day gloss on the helmet![/quote]

    i have to say there’s one “classic” uniform that’s always bothered me, and it’s the new york football giants away uni…paul already detailed most of the complaints i and most fans of the g-men have, so i won’t bother reiterating them, save to say — why the hell is there almost NO blue? (i know, i know, the uniform they’re ‘throwing back’ to had almost no blue) — but that doesn’t make it any more likable…

    i’m not saying the road uni has to be a mirror image of the home, but it really needs more blue (maybe along the lines of what paul suggests in his article, maybe not)…but something’s gotta give

  • Stuby | June 15, 2009 at 9:22 am |

    I know it’s sacrilege on this site, but I hate any uniform with a green and gold/yellow color scheme. A’s, Packers, Sonics, Colorado State, Baylor, Notre Dame sometimes. Yuck.

    Perhaps because I got stuck with different variations of this color scheme in both high school and college.

  • Jerry | June 15, 2009 at 9:32 am |

    I was talking to my mom on Saturday morning, the day after the Wings lost to Pittsburgh.

    My mom lives in Michigan, and I live in Wisconsin. She told me that Walmart already had Detroit Red Wings “Stanley Cup Champions” T-Shirts were already out on the racks before the puck dropped for Game 7.

    I told her, now some kid in a Third World Country will now enjoy the t-shirts.

    It was the store in Bay City, can anyone verify if this is true?? Not that I doubt my mom or anything, but if its true, nothing like jumping the gun a little bit.

  • MPowers1634 | June 15, 2009 at 9:35 am |

    In years past, especially the Orel Hershhiser years, I didn’t like the LA Dodgers unis for their bland qualities and RED front numbers.

    They have grown on me as they have apparently for others:

    http://images.google...

  • drewdez | June 15, 2009 at 9:38 am |
  • MPowers1634 | June 15, 2009 at 9:41 am |

    [quote comment=”334994″]In years past, especially the Orel Hershhiser years, I didn’t like the LA Dodgers unis for their bland qualities and RED front numbers.

    They have grown on me as they have apparently for others:

    http://images.google...

    I will also be in the minority here but I CANNOT stand this:

    http://images.google...

    The Angels wearing of black cleats.

  • Jeremy Brahm | June 15, 2009 at 9:41 am |

    NRL in pink photos

    Referees in pink
    http://www.bulldogs....

    Pink ball
    http://www.bulldogs....

    The Penrith Panthers changed to the Pink Panthers
    http://www.abc.net.a...

    Two players wore pink boots
    https://www.imgecomm...
    https://www.imgecomm...

    St.George Illawarra Dragons wore pink
    https://www.imgecomm...(2).jpg

    Sydney Roosters also wore pink
    http://www.sydneyroo...

    From the West Coast Titans
    One player wore pink headgear
    http://www.rloc.com....,,12640~3717656,00.jpg

  • silentfrank | June 15, 2009 at 9:42 am |

    Secret love with an asterisk would be the the previous Bruins third jerseys. The asterisk comes in because I would agree that the “buzzsaw” (not sure if there’s a correct term for this) striping on the bottom and sleeves were annoying. But I loved the big bear on yellow and the black on white numbering really worked for me. I was disappointed when the current third jerseys were black.

    While on the subject on doing stuff half way, my closest anti-uni secret would be the Packers current jerseys. Though I really liked their throwbacks unis during the 75th anniversary (another secret?), my main gripe now is the overly striped collars they have. Go with a simple green, white or maybe yellow accordingly and problem pretty much solved.

  • mmwatkin | June 15, 2009 at 9:50 am |
  • bourbon soaked idiot | June 15, 2009 at 9:50 am |

    I hate the Yankees interlocking NY logo. It’s UGLY and looks like it was drawn by a blind monkey. I like their away uniforms but anything with that UGLY NY annoys me more than purple annoys Paul.

  • mmwatkin | June 15, 2009 at 10:01 am |

    [quote comment=”334993″]I was talking to my mom on Saturday morning, the day after the Wings lost to Pittsburgh.

    My mom lives in Michigan, and I live in Wisconsin. She told me that Walmart already had Detroit Red Wings “Stanley Cup Champions” T-Shirts were already out on the racks before the puck dropped for Game 7.

    I told her, now some kid in a Third World Country will now enjoy the t-shirts.

    It was the store in Bay City, can anyone verify if this is true?? Not that I doubt my mom or anything, but if its true, nothing like jumping the gun a little bit.[/quote]

    I doubt it was a case of someone jumping the gun, but rather a wal-mart employee not knowing what he/she was doing (surprise). A lot of those boxes have a sticker on them that says “Do not sell until xx/xx/xxxx in the event team x wins”. Someone probably just saw “Do not sell until 06/12/2009” and threw it out on a rack.

    I would hope your mom bought one! Has to be some kind of a collectors item now…

  • Josie | June 15, 2009 at 10:05 am |

    Got it!
    Part I: http://www.baseball-...

  • iLO | June 15, 2009 at 10:07 am |

    Many of my friends swear that the current Gifford era Giants’ are classic. I say other wise. I can’t stand the gray pants and plain piping. Ugh. I know that’s how it was in the past but you can’t beat the uniqueness of the mismatched helmet blue color of the Lawrence Taylor era uniform.

  • Flip | June 15, 2009 at 10:08 am |

    The Chicago Bears away uniform never has seemed quite right. White jerseys and white pants look too bland with white socks. I just don’t care for the dark pants.

    Funny, but for the Chiefs, both away sets — white pants/red pants/both with white socks look fine. Anyone care to explain why? Am I just goofy.

  • iLO | June 15, 2009 at 10:10 am |

    [quote comment=”334981″]Cowboys whites. Royal blue numbers, royal blue “sleeve” stripes with thin black outline? Yet the helmet has the nice navy blue star. Then the pants-two different shades of silver? The dark jerseyed uniform set is great, the whites that they love to wear at home are a mess. I look forward to the 2 or 3 times a season when the blue jerseys are worn.[/quote]

    Their home uniform pants actually have a ‘green’ tint. I forgot the pantone number but it’s an actual color they use strictly for home games, or when they wear their white jerseys.

  • Marcus Hall - Lets play 162!! | June 15, 2009 at 10:12 am |

    [quote comment=”334985″]I have a gripe with the Colts, but not about the simplicity of the jersey, I like that. It’s with the striping.

    The pants have 2 stripes, the sleeves have 2 stripes… why not the helmet?

    Here is a quick photoshop I did of a 2 striped helmet:
    http://farm4.static....

    Does anyone agree that looks way better?[/quote]

    As much as it hurts to say this (being from B-More and remembering that night like it was yesterday) I agree, two stripes on the helmet looks so much better

  • Teebz | June 15, 2009 at 10:13 am |

    This has nothing to do with today’s topic, but I just wanted to give a shout-out to JTH for winning the HBIC Hockey Pool. JTH actually tied with another entrant, but he correctly predicted more series correctly, so he took the top spot in a “shootout”.

    Congrats, JTH, and thanks for all those who entered! Also, thanks to Paul and Phil for mentioning the HBIC Pool in the ticker!

  • Juggernaut | June 15, 2009 at 10:15 am |

    I am a Pats fan and I can’t stand the Pats unis. This entire decade I’ve avoided buying anything Pats related, save for a Rodney Harrison red throwback (which he actually never wore). I’ve taken a lot of heat around here for my utter disgust with the unis.

    The Yankees road uniform. As good as their home uniform is, their road uniform is equally bad. It looks like something a little league team had leftover from the 80’s. It is bland and ugly.

    The Browns. It’s just so god damn ugly.

    The Cowboys. Doesn’t matter what they wear, it just looks tacky and digusting. Only good thing they have going for them is the helmet.

  • Ricko | June 15, 2009 at 10:15 am |

    Don’t know if they’re considered “classic” except possibly by White Sox fans, but to me the current White Sox unis are uninspired, dull and, well, they just leave me cold. Silver and black may work for the Raiders, but this is baseball and bit of brighter colors would help, I think.

    Now, I DO like pinstripes. Wouldn’t want to see them on everyone of course, but the White Sox have something of a tradition of pins over the years, so I much prefer the homes to the roads.

    What I’d like to see is the red replace the silver trim (a nod to the Go-Go Sox of ’59) both home and road, so that it’s used sparingly. I don’t mean the gray jerseys and pants, obviously, just the trim. Imagine those White Sox roads with red and black pant striping, letter and number edges, etc. (add a red edge to the cap logo, too, probably). Such an adjustment also would be something of a step toward “almost” city colors, with the White Sox, Bulls, Black Hawks (even the long-gone Chicago Fire) using essentially red and black as their base colors.

    —Ricko

  • TC Lofton | June 15, 2009 at 10:15 am |

    Since I was crawling, I have HATED the Red Sox Unis. The front font angers me, I mean… ANGERS me… and the numbers have always looked just beyond ridiculous. Every time I watch them play, I just want to go on a rampage… RRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!! (Crashes through office like Gojira)

    Thanks for letting us vent this stuff.

  • mmwatkin | June 15, 2009 at 10:16 am |

    I don’t necessarily hate the uniform, but one aspect of the Packers uniform I hate is if a player is wearing a helmet without a rear bumper and they add a decal to make it look like it does.

    http://cache.daylife...

    Annoys the hell out of me.

  • MPowers1634 | June 15, 2009 at 10:21 am |

    [quote comment=”335009″]Don’t know if they’re considered “classic” except possibly by White Sox fans, but to me the current White Sox unis are uninspired, dull and, well, they just leave me cold. Silver and black may work for the Raiders, but this is baseball and bit of brighter colors would help, I think.

    Now, I DO like pinstripes. Wouldn’t want to see them on everyone of course, but the White Sox have something of a tradition of pins over the years, so I much prefer the homes to the roads.

    What I’d like to see is the red replace the silver trim (a nod to the Go-Go Sox of ’59) both home and road, so that it’s used sparingly. I don’t mean the gray jerseys and pants, obviously, just the trim. Imagine those White Sox roads with red and black pant striping, letter and number edges, etc. (add a red edge to the cap logo, too, probably). Such an adjustment also would be something of a step toward “almost” city colors, with the White Sox, Bulls, Black Hawks (even the long-gone Chicago Fire) using essentially red and black as their base colors.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I agree 100%. That is why I chose to go with the “Black Sox” cap instead of the current, although Bo wore it:

    http://images.google...

    http://images.google...

  • Ricko | June 15, 2009 at 10:22 am |

    Oh, yeah, and the Cowboys white. Just a disjoined hodgepodge. Always struck me that someone was saying, “This is really good-looking because we say it is.”

    (However, I’m still a HUGE fan of their original 1960 royal-and-whites).

    —Ricko

  • iLO | June 15, 2009 at 10:22 am |

    [quote comment=”334976″]The Indianopolis Colts – white uniform – it’s just too white and plain, and I agree wit the Chicago Bears comment – thus the Super Bowl where these two teams played – was the most over hyped from a uni-sense of any of the Super Bowls.

    While I overall love Montreal Canadiens red uniform – I would agree with the blue colour , especially the shade used on the helmet, does not seem to match up with the rest of the outfit.[/quote]

    Did you ever see the Colts with grey pants? I’m trying to find the link but i think in ’86, they wore grey pants.

  • Marcus Hall - Lets play 162!! | June 15, 2009 at 10:22 am |

    NY Yankees – classic, yes. Pretentious. YES. What is the real reason that they haven’t had any major uniform changes since, hmmmm, 1936?? I actually would like to see more red and the Yankees script on the home uniform (maybe as an alt uni – I know, blasphemous right?)

  • MPowers1634 | June 15, 2009 at 10:23 am |
  • Marcus Hall - Lets play 162!! | June 15, 2009 at 10:24 am |

    [quote comment=”335015″]NY Yankees – classic, yes. Pretentious. YES. What is the real reason that they haven’t had any major uniform changes since, hmmmm, 1936?? I actually would like to see more red and the Yankees script on the home uniform (maybe as an alt uni – I know, blasphemous right?)[/quote]

    Yankees script

  • Marcus Hall - Lets play 162!! | June 15, 2009 at 10:26 am |

    [quote comment=”335017″][quote comment=”335015″]NY Yankees – classic, yes. Pretentious. YES. What is the real reason that they haven’t had any major uniform changes since, hmmmm, 1936?? I actually would like to see more red and the Yankees script on the home uniform (maybe as an alt uni – I know, blasphemous right?)[/quote]

    sorry, here’s the Yankees script

  • iLO | June 15, 2009 at 10:27 am |

    [quote comment=”335008″]I am a Pats fan and I can’t stand the Pats unis. This entire decade I’ve avoided buying anything Pats related, save for a Rodney Harrison red throwback (which he actually never wore). I’ve taken a lot of heat around here for my utter disgust with the u[/quote]

    Dude, you’re not the only one. I’m not a Pats fan, at all but I never liked those Navy Blue uniforms. Even though I prefer the Pat Patriot logo over the Flying Elvis, the true-blue Flying Elvis unis were way better than these.

    I hate Navy Blue.

  • Ricko | June 15, 2009 at 10:27 am |

    [quote comment=”335014″][quote comment=”334976″]The Indianopolis Colts – white uniform – it’s just too white and plain, and I agree wit the Chicago Bears comment – thus the Super Bowl where these two teams played – was the most over hyped from a uni-sense of any of the Super Bowls.

    While I overall love Montreal Canadiens red uniform – I would agree with the blue colour , especially the shade used on the helmet, does not seem to match up with the rest of the outfit.[/quote]

    Did you ever see the Colts with grey pants? I’m trying to find the link but i think in ’86, they wore grey pants.[/quote]

    Yes. White helmet, royal jersey, silver pants.
    Now THERE was a mishmash.

    http://cgi.ebay.com/...

    —Ricko

  • forgetyerskatesdream | June 15, 2009 at 10:30 am |

    In honor of the SC champion Pittsburgh Penguins, I will say that I have always liked their classic navy and light blue pre-1979 uniforms EXCEPT the fact that the logo was black and gold. Logo colors and uniform colors should always be the SAME! Are ya hearin’ me NY Yanks? You too Dallas “royal blue stripes/numbers with a navy blue star logo” Cowboys.

  • MPowers1634 | June 15, 2009 at 10:30 am |

    [quote comment=”335014″][quote comment=”334976″]The Indianopolis Colts – white uniform – it’s just too white and plain, and I agree wit the Chicago Bears comment – thus the Super Bowl where these two teams played – was the most over hyped from a uni-sense of any of the Super Bowls.

    While I overall love Montreal Canadiens red uniform – I would agree with the blue colour , especially the shade used on the helmet, does not seem to match up with the rest of the outfit.[/quote]

    Did you ever see the Colts with grey pants? I’m trying to find the link but i think in ’86, they wore grey pants.[/quote]

    http://images.google...

  • Ricko | June 15, 2009 at 10:34 am |

    [quote comment=”335021″]In honor of the SC champion Pittsburgh Penguins, I will say that I have always liked their classic navy and light blue pre-1979 uniforms EXCEPT the fact that the logo was black and gold. Logo colors and uniform colors should always be the SAME! Are ya hearin’ me NY Yanks? You too Dallas “royal blue stripes/numbers with a navy blue star logo” Cowboys.[/quote]

    The gold on the original Penguins was a nod to the “Golden Triangle”, wasn’t it?

  • PC Mackin | June 15, 2009 at 10:38 am |

    It bugs me that the LA Lakers are saying this is their 15th NBA championship. It is their 10th. Anyone in LA who wants to tack on the Minneapolis Lakers’ championships should have to prove that he could name someone on the Minneapolis Lakers besides George Mikan. The Atlanta Braves are said to have just one 1 World Series, and haven’t tacked on the Milwaukee Braves’ 1957 title, or the Boston “Miracle” Braves’ 1914 title. IMHO YMMV.

  • mtjaws | June 15, 2009 at 10:38 am |

    There are a few uniform things that people seem to love, but I just absolutely hate.

    First is the all-white Penn State road uniforms. As boring as boring can be.

    Second is the fact that the Steelers only have the helmet logo on one side. I know it is tradition, but logic should prevail here.

    My third gripe is also with helmets: TV numbers on them. What an ugly idea that takes away any concept of “team”, since every single one is different. Bama, Chargers, Georgia Southern (my alma mater). I wish they’d all have one uniform logo and promote it via the helmet.

    And finally, my fourth gripe is teams with No Name on Back (NNOB). Especially road baseball teams, and all football teams. I’ll never know those Yankee bullpen players since they never have names. (Plus, I hate the Yankees, but that’s a secondary reason not to learn them!)

  • anotherguy | June 15, 2009 at 10:41 am |

    [quote comment=”335007″]Congrats, JTH…[/quote]
    Seconded.

    Teebz, neither you nor I picked the Pens, but credit goes to you for picking a tight game. My “50 minutes of a blowout followed by an early celebration” was out of it after the second intermission.

    My own story with only a slight connection to Wal-Mart: Everyone knows the game ended about 9:30 on Saturday. I had to be at a Wal-Mart as soon as they opened Saturday, and at rougly 7:01 strolling in with me is a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed Pens fan, with the Crosby jersey, some sort of matching shorta and a Pens cap. You would think he would have been out late Friday celebrating: not only are there few Pittsburgh fans in Chicago, but their underdog status should have given him huge gloating rights. :-)

  • chance michaels | June 15, 2009 at 10:43 am |

    I’ve got one – I love the Packers but have hated the road unifroms since they were unveiled in 1984.

    It was part of my uni-awakening as a lad. I remember seeing them and thinking “Hey, what’d they do to the sleeves?”

    The Packers used to have beautiful road uniforms, but Forrest Gregg’s megalomania and fetish for matching home and road ruined them.

  • forgetyerskatesdream | June 15, 2009 at 10:43 am |

    [quote comment=”335023″][quote comment=”335021″]In honor of the SC champion Pittsburgh Penguins, I will say that I have always liked their classic navy and light blue pre-1979 uniforms EXCEPT the fact that the logo was black and gold. Logo colors and uniform colors should always be the SAME! Are ya hearin’ me NY Yanks? You too Dallas “royal blue stripes/numbers with a navy blue star logo” Cowboys.[/quote]

    The gold on the original Penguins was a nod to the “Golden Triangle”, wasn’t it?[/quote]

    I think that’s right, and penguins are black. I get it. So why did they have blue uniforms? As cool as it looked, they probably should have gone w/ the black and gold from the get go, no? Of course I’m sure the already black and gold Bruins probably had something to say about it.

  • anotherguy | June 15, 2009 at 10:44 am |

    [quote comment=”335009″]Don’t know if they’re considered “classic” except possibly by White Sox fans, but to me the current White Sox unis are uninspired, dull and, well, they just leave me cold. Silver and black may work for the Raiders, but this is baseball and bit of brighter colors would help, I think.

    Now, I DO like pinstripes. Wouldn’t want to see them on everyone of course, but the White Sox have something of a tradition of pins over the years, so I much prefer the homes to the roads.
    [/quote]
    Ricko, as a Sox fan here are my thoughts: I could lose the SILVER today and not shed a tear. I could have lost that on the day their latest look was introduced. You essentially “own” gray by having black and white as your primaries. Use that instead of silver.

    For me, no pinstripes.

  • iLO | June 15, 2009 at 10:49 am |

    [quote comment=”335025″]There are a few uniform things that people seem to love, but I just absolutely hate.

    First is the all-white Penn State road uniforms. As boring as boring can be.

    [/quote]

    Strongly agree. I mean I appreciate the fact they stuck around with it but ugh, over the years I’ve just come to dislike this uniform so much.

  • MPowers1634 | June 15, 2009 at 10:50 am |

    Somewhat off-topic:

    While umpiring this weekend I noticed the Little League patches on the players unis:

    http://images.google...

    Is it just a coincidence that it resembles the symbol of the Keystone state?

    http://images.google...

    On a related note, I was checking out some more caps, and I found a clever one for the Williamsport Crosscutters:

    http://www.mickeyspl...

    And what on Earth were they thinking with this?

    http://www.mickeyspl...

  • JimV19 | June 15, 2009 at 10:51 am |

    [quote comment=”335019″][quote comment=”335008″]I am a Pats fan and I can’t stand the Pats unis. This entire decade I’ve avoided buying anything Pats related, save for a Rodney Harrison red throwback (which he actually never wore). I’ve taken a lot of heat around here for my utter disgust with the u[/quote]

    Dude, you’re not the only one. I’m not a Pats fan, at all but I never liked those Navy Blue uniforms. Even though I prefer the Pat Patriot logo over the Flying Elvis, the true-blue Flying Elvis unis were way better than these.

    I hate Navy Blue.[/quote]

    Navy blue is the new black. Soon teams will be adding Navy blue for Navy blue’s sake (NBFNBS). Don’t let this happen to your team. Save them before it’s too late.

  • chance michaels | June 15, 2009 at 10:52 am |

    [quote comment=”335024″]It bugs me that the LA Lakers are saying this is their 15th NBA championship. It is their 10th. Anyone in LA who wants to tack on the Minneapolis Lakers’ championships should have to prove that he could name someone on the Minneapolis Lakers besides George Mikan. The Atlanta Braves are said to have just one 1 World Series, and haven’t tacked on the Milwaukee Braves’ 1957 title, or the Boston “Miracle” Braves’ 1914 title. IMHO YMMV.[/quote]
    “Said” by whom?

    I don’t know any source which ignores the past titles. Much less the Braves themselves.

  • JimV19 | June 15, 2009 at 10:53 am |

    [quote comment=”334985″]I have a gripe with the Colts, but not about the simplicity of the jersey, I like that. It’s with the striping.

    The pants have 2 stripes, the sleeves have 2 stripes… why not the helmet?

    Here is a quick photoshop I did of a 2 striped helmet:
    http://farm4.static....

    Does anyone agree that looks way better?[/quote]

    I didn’t think I’d like it, but I really do. I like that better than doing anything to the shoulder sleeves – they’re the best part of the whole uniform.

  • iLO | June 15, 2009 at 10:54 am |

    [Quote]

    Navy blue is the new black. Soon teams will be adding Navy blue for Navy blue’s sake (NBFNBS). Don’t let this happen to your team. Save them before it’s too late.[/quote]

    It’s too late for my Dolphins. :(

  • Teebz | June 15, 2009 at 10:54 am |

    [quote comment=”335026″][quote comment=”335007″]Congrats, JTH…[/quote]
    Seconded.

    Teebz, neither you nor I picked the Pens, but credit goes to you for picking a tight game. My “50 minutes of a blowout followed by an early celebration” was out of it after the second intermission.

    My own story with only a slight connection to Wal-Mart: Everyone knows the game ended about 9:30 on Saturday. I had to be at a Wal-Mart as soon as they opened Saturday, and at rougly 7:01 strolling in with me is a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed Pens fan, with the Crosby jersey, some sort of matching shorta and a Pens cap. You would think he would have been out late Friday celebrating: not only are there few Pittsburgh fans in Chicago, but their underdog status should have given him huge gloating rights. :-)[/quote]

    Yeah, I wanted to change my pick once I got home from work that night, but I was going to meet friends to watch Game Seven.

    I don’t know how superstitious any of us are, but I assume that, like athletes, we take the mundane and turn it into something larger than game occasionally.

    For example, my good friend Stephanie sent me two Roaming Penguins which I received through the mail on Friday morning. Needless to say, the Penguins won that night, and I’m attributing it to the arrival of Mario Penguin and Ron Penguin arriving that morning.

    Just so you all know, Stephanie hand-makes these Penguins and contributes half of the money for the Penguins to the Mario Lemieux Foundation. In terms of DIY, she’s doing a lot more than just knitting, and the money is going to great cause.

  • JimV19 | June 15, 2009 at 10:56 am |

    [quote comment=”334988″]I’ll add one more

    The New York Giants – To me their uniform is the equivalent of watching a really good movie set in the 50’s, when all of a sudden a character pulls out a blackberry.

    i.e. if you’re going retro – you have to go retro all the way – no modern day gloss on the helmet![/quote]

    Yes! And as much as I like the ny logo, I think I’d prefer the no-logo look…DEFINITELY without the gloss.

  • Beardface | June 15, 2009 at 10:57 am |

    Mine:

    Yankees pinstripes Uni. Why? Because of the logo. Seriously, once you realize the interlocking NY is off-center, crooked, and obviously poorly hand-drawn, you just can’t help but to see it every time you look at the jersey. Come on, seriously… fix it, please!

    Hartford Whalers green Uni. Why? Because its ugly. I liked the logo, and loved the blue jerseys later on, but these were horrid.

    Penn State football. There’s boring, there’s bland, and then there’s Penn State. Seriously, would it kill them to add a logo? I’m not asking for crazy batshit piping all over the place, but could you throw in an outline to the numbers or SOMETHING? As horrid as Oregon is, Penn State is boring. I don’t know how they even sell those jerseys with a straight face. Take a blue t-shirt, add some white masking tape, and you’ve got an authentic Penn State football jersey!

    Pittsburgh Pirates. I hate the font. Let me rephrase… I HATE the font. It just doesn’t look right, never has and never will. They’d be better off going with a font more like the one on the Yankees’ away jerseys than what they have now. Its just bad beyond bad.

  • Eric Romain | June 15, 2009 at 11:01 am |

    Wow, i never noticed the old Buffalo Sabres stripe inversion. I always loved those unis (especially the thin superfluous striped socks), now i’ll never be able to look at them the same. So thanks a lot >:o

    I’m a lifelong Red Wing fan and the few times that i’ve had a choice between buying a red or white sweater, I don’t even consider red, on grounds of blandness. But i love the white.

    I’ve always considered the leafs uniform change in 1992 to be a bad blanding decision. I always thought the stripe connecting both sleeves through the shoulders looked incredible. I thought the “TML” shoulder patches added in 2000 were just stupid. Now with the “blue pajama” look after reebok took the hem stripe away they look even blander.

  • Ricko | June 15, 2009 at 11:01 am |

    [quote comment=”335029″][quote comment=”335009″]Don’t know if they’re considered “classic” except possibly by White Sox fans, but to me the current White Sox unis are uninspired, dull and, well, they just leave me cold. Silver and black may work for the Raiders, but this is baseball and bit of brighter colors would help, I think.

    Now, I DO like pinstripes. Wouldn’t want to see them on everyone of course, but the White Sox have something of a tradition of pins over the years, so I much prefer the homes to the roads.
    [/quote]
    Ricko, as a Sox fan here are my thoughts: I could lose the SILVER today and not shed a tear. I could have lost that on the day their latest look was introduced. You essentially “own” gray by having black and white as your primaries. Use that instead of silver.

    For me, no pinstripes.[/quote]

    My thought was that a hybrid of the current Sox and the Go-Go Sox was a cool idea…and it would yield a uni with a bit more visual excitement than the current set.

    Of course—and this is really radical—I’d like to see the White Sox in shorter pants with solid white socks (maybe with that black diamond Sox logo stitched into the outside of the calf) and white shoes. From the bottom of the pants down, they’d look like the logo.

    I know, I know…no one likes white shoes. But is this instance they’d almost be bringing the logo to life.

    —Ricko

  • iLO | June 15, 2009 at 11:02 am |

    I’m also bothered by the USC Trojans uniform. Yes, it’s a uniform filled with legacy but it should also be filled with French fries. I can’t get the image of the McDonald arches out of my head when I see this team. I see them on TV and I think Team Mickey D’s.

  • iLO | June 15, 2009 at 11:05 am |

    [quote comment=”335038″]
    Pittsburgh Pirates. I hate the font. Let me rephrase… I HATE the font. It just doesn’t look right, never has and never will. They’d be better off going with a font more like the one on the Yankees’ away jerseys than what they have now. Its just bad beyond bad.[/quote]

    My only gripe with the Pirates is the color red. Was that always in their color scheme? I don’t like that Pirate. I could have sworn they had a better looking Black and Gold pirate.

  • Ricko | June 15, 2009 at 11:05 am |

    [quote comment=”335041″]I’m also bothered by the USC Trojans uniform. Yes, it’s a uniform filled with legacy but it should also be filled with French fries. I can’t get the image of the McDonald arches out of my head when I see this team. I see them on TV and I think Team Mickey D’s.[/quote]

    They were wearing those arches before anyone had ever heard of McDonalds (just a timeline point).

  • Shane | June 15, 2009 at 11:07 am |

    [quote comment=”335024″]It bugs me that the LA Lakers are saying this is their 15th NBA championship. It is their 10th. Anyone in LA who wants to tack on the Minneapolis Lakers’ championships should have to prove that he could name someone on the Minneapolis Lakers besides George Mikan. The Atlanta Braves are said to have just one 1 World Series, and haven’t tacked on the Milwaukee Braves’ 1957 title, or the Boston “Miracle” Braves’ 1914 title. IMHO YMMV.[/quote]
    I know what you mean. I see Twins caps around here with “3-time World Series Champions” on them, counting the 1924 Washington Senators as their own. Just doesn’t seem right.

  • Quint | June 15, 2009 at 11:08 am |

    Brewers ball in glove: Maybe not considered a classic, but definitely overrated. I like the colors, but from the neck down, these uniforms are horribly plain. And the cartoonish glove (4 fingers?!?) takes away from the double-meaning (although it is still a fun logo).

    To be fair, a 3 fingered glove is historically accurate:

    http://keymancollect...

  • JimV19 | June 15, 2009 at 11:08 am |

    I hate any Sox uni that doesn’t have said color. You’re the Red Sox, always wear red socks. You’re the White Sox, always wear white socks (including the stirrups) or call yourself something else.

    The Reds get a break, but if they go back to calling themselves the RedLegs, they’d better always have red on their legs, be it pinstripes, red socks (red pants?) or something.

  • Ricko | June 15, 2009 at 11:09 am |

    [quote comment=”335044″][quote comment=”335024″]It bugs me that the LA Lakers are saying this is their 15th NBA championship. It is their 10th. Anyone in LA who wants to tack on the Minneapolis Lakers’ championships should have to prove that he could name someone on the Minneapolis Lakers besides George Mikan. The Atlanta Braves are said to have just one 1 World Series, and haven’t tacked on the Milwaukee Braves’ 1957 title, or the Boston “Miracle” Braves’ 1914 title. IMHO YMMV.[/quote]
    I know what you mean. I see Twins caps around here with “3-time World Series Champions” on them, counting the 1924 Washington Senators as their own. Just doesn’t seem right.[/quote]

    So the Giants can’t count 1954?
    Or the Dodgers ’55?
    (Don’t have an opinion, just asking)

  • Mike Engle | June 15, 2009 at 11:12 am |

    [quote comment=”335042″][quote comment=”335038″]
    Pittsburgh Pirates. I hate the font. Let me rephrase… I HATE the font. It just doesn’t look right, never has and never will. They’d be better off going with a font more like the one on the Yankees’ away jerseys than what they have now. Its just bad beyond bad.[/quote]

    My only gripe with the Pirates is the color red. Was that always in their color scheme? I don’t like that Pirate. I could have sworn they had a better looking Black and Gold pirate.[/quote]
    I think their font is great for the wordmarks, and generally good for the numbers. But the seven (7) digit needs a total mulligan.
    Compare Zach Duke’s #57 to Adam LaRoche’s #25. It looks like Duke was #52, but a piece of the number fell off. I don’t know how to rework that 7 digit, but something needs to happen. (Maybe make it boxier up top?)

  • JimV19 | June 15, 2009 at 11:15 am |

    [quote comment=”335025″]There are a few uniform things that people seem to love, but I just absolutely hate.

    First is the all-white Penn State road uniforms. As boring as boring can be.

    Second is the fact that the Steelers only have the helmet logo on one side. I know it is tradition, but logic should prevail here.

    My third gripe is also with helmets: TV numbers on them. What an ugly idea that takes away any concept of “team”, since every single one is different. Bama, Chargers, Georgia Southern (my alma mater). I wish they’d all have one uniform logo and promote it via the helmet.

    And finally, my fourth gripe is teams with No Name on Back (NNOB). Especially road baseball teams, and all football teams. I’ll never know those Yankee bullpen players since they never have names. (Plus, I hate the Yankees, but that’s a secondary reason not to learn them!)[/quote]

    And you probably hate the Nuggets skyline jerseys, the Michigan (and Delaware) winged helmet, and Pat the Patriot, because so far we agree on nothing. That’s all right, fellow UniWatcher, it’s a big enough world for the two of us.

  • MPowers1634 | June 15, 2009 at 11:17 am |

    [quote comment=”335038″]
    Pittsburgh Pirates. I hate the font. Let me rephrase… I HATE the font. It just doesn’t look right, never has and never will. They’d be better off going with a font more like the one on the Yankees’ away jerseys than what they have now. Its just bad beyond bad.[/quote]

    Wow…their font is what I love about their unis as well as the SF Giants:

    http://images.google...

  • johnny | June 15, 2009 at 11:19 am |

    I hate the Yankees, and I hate that they use two different interlocking NY’s. The cap NY is tight and gorgeous, the home uni NY is loose, messy, and completely bush-league. Use matching NY’s for goodness’ (and design) sake – the cap one! The Tiger’s two different D’s bugs me too, but not quite as much because both D’s are good-looking. Still, use the same D for design consistency! Okay, vent over.

  • JimV19 | June 15, 2009 at 11:22 am |

    http://www.mickeyspl...

    Who doesn’t like the Montgomery Biscuits? My sister has one of the yellow hats with the blue brim. Actually, I’d like to see a hockey team with the name biscuits, so they could “put the biscuit in the basket.” as Keith Olbermann used to say.

  • marc | June 15, 2009 at 11:23 am |

    “somewhere, soon, in Somalia, small children will proudly walk around thinking the Magic & Red Wings are the World Champs.”

    that’s one of the funniest lines i’ve read in awhile. good one.

    my uni-beef isn’t necessarily one particular uniform. what drives me nuts is when a team has a great design and they just keep futzing with it for the sake of marketing till they drain all the magic out of it. the mets are a perfect example. i’m not advocating they make no changes, but if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

  • mmwatkin | June 15, 2009 at 11:29 am |

    [quote comment=”335052″]I hate the Yankees, and I hate that they use two different interlocking NY’s. The cap NY is tight and gorgeous, the home uni NY is loose, messy, and completely bush-league. Use matching NY’s for goodness’ (and design) sake – the cap one! The Tiger’s two different D’s bugs me too, but not quite as much because both D’s are good-looking. Still, use the same D for design consistency! Okay, vent over.[/quote]

    I thought that Detroit should use the same D on the cap and jersey, but then I saw a mockup (here, i think) and it looked horrible both ways. The jersey d on the cap looks like a cheap chinese knockoff. The cap d on the jersey isn’t as bad, but looks out of place.

  • LI Phil | June 15, 2009 at 11:34 am |

    [quote comment=”335054″]”somewhere, soon, in Somalia, small children will proudly walk around thinking the Magic & Red Wings are the World Champs.”

    that’s one of the funniest lines i’ve read in awhile. good one.[/quote]

    thanks, but i was just rewording a phrase we UWers have been using for a while… ;)

    [quote]my uni-beef isn’t necessarily one particular uniform. what drives me nuts is when a team has a great design and they just keep futzing with it for the sake of marketing till they drain all the magic out of it. the mets are a perfect example. i’m not advocating they make no changes, but if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.[/quote]

    there’s PLENTY broke with the mets uni

    but we already know that

  • mtjaws | June 15, 2009 at 11:34 am |

    [quote comment=”335050″]

    And you probably hate the Nuggets skyline jerseys, the Michigan (and Delaware) winged helmet, and Pat the Patriot, because so far we agree on nothing. That’s all right, fellow UniWatcher, it’s a big enough world for the two of us.[/quote]

    I have no problems with the winged helmets, Patriots, or Nuggets (although I hate the powder blues), but that’s why we enjoy discussing things like this.

    I get that a lot of the opinions have to do with teams we love/hate. I do hate quite a few teams, but some of them actually have beautiful uniforms. It’s just these quirks that bother me most, and I’ll be sure to change them when I become in charge!

  • chance michaels | June 15, 2009 at 11:37 am |

    [quote comment=”335052″]I hate the Yankees, and I hate that they use two different interlocking NY’s. The cap NY is tight and gorgeous, the home uni NY is loose, messy, and completely bush-league. Use matching NY’s for goodness’ (and design) sake – the cap one! The Tiger’s two different D’s bugs me too, but not quite as much because both D’s are good-looking. Still, use the same D for design consistency! Okay, vent over.[/quote]
    The Yankees actually use four “NY” logos. Jersey, cap, batting helmet and print.

  • Dan King | June 15, 2009 at 11:39 am |

    ok, i’m gonna say it: I HATE ONLY HAVING WHITE AND GREY JERSEYS IN BASEBALL! yes, every teams grey unis are so damn plain and boring. which team has grey as an official color? to me its the same as teams having black for no reason. i love the colored alternates.

  • Ricko | June 15, 2009 at 11:39 am |

    Better home the Pirates never finish second.
    Just what we need, a bunch of “Wold Champion Pirates” shirts in Somalia.

  • Ricko | June 15, 2009 at 11:40 am |

    Forgive my typos.

  • iLO | June 15, 2009 at 11:44 am |

    [quote comment=”335060″]Better home the Pirates never finish second.
    Just what we need, a bunch of “Wold Champion Pirates” shirts in Somalia.[/quote]

    In Nicaragua, the Patriots are 19-0.

  • Mark K | June 15, 2009 at 11:50 am |

    [quote comment=”335021″]In honor of the SC champion Pittsburgh Penguins, I will say that I have always liked their classic navy and light blue pre-1979 uniforms EXCEPT the fact that the logo was black and gold. Logo colors and uniform colors should always be the SAME! Are ya hearin’ me NY Yanks? You too Dallas “royal blue stripes/numbers with a navy blue star logo” Cowboys.[/quote]

    Chicago Blackhawks?

  • MPowers1634 | June 15, 2009 at 11:55 am |

    [quote comment=”335062″][quote comment=”335060″]Better home the Pirates never finish second.
    Just what we need, a bunch of “Wold Champion Pirates” shirts in Somalia.[/quote]

    In Nicaragua, the Patriots are 19-0.[/quote]

    And as we have stated before, Jim Kelly and Fran Tarkenton are GODS!

  • Craig D | June 15, 2009 at 11:59 am |

    [quote comment=”335001″][quote comment=”334993″]I was talking to my mom on Saturday morning, the day after the Wings lost to Pittsburgh.

    My mom lives in Michigan, and I live in Wisconsin. She told me that Walmart already had Detroit Red Wings “Stanley Cup Champions” T-Shirts were already out on the racks before the puck dropped for Game 7.

    I told her, now some kid in a Third World Country will now enjoy the t-shirts.

    It was the store in Bay City, can anyone verify if this is true?? Not that I doubt my mom or anything, but if its true, nothing like jumping the gun a little bit.[/quote]

    I doubt it was a case of someone jumping the gun, but rather a wal-mart employee not knowing what he/she was doing (surprise). A lot of those boxes have a sticker on them that says “Do not sell until xx/xx/xxxx in the event team x wins”. Someone probably just saw “Do not sell until 06/12/2009” and threw it out on a rack.

    I would hope your mom bought one! Has to be some kind of a collectors item now…[/quote]

    I had a Cleveland Browns 1986 AFC Champions sweatshirt….effing Elway….but that isnt much of a collectors item…lol…just sad really :(

  • Jeff P | June 15, 2009 at 12:01 pm |

    Mine are the Red Wings red, I can’t stand it for the blandness that others have mentioned. Looks like a cheap jersey template you get to save costs on a men’s league team, not something you should see in the NHL. And they have the best white uni in the NHL, go figure.

    The other one is the red sox hat and sox. Go back to the striped sox and the red crown hat, damnit! It’s not like they’re buried so deep in your past no fans would ever recognize them…

    Those are the only two that spring to mind…

  • JimV19 | June 15, 2009 at 12:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”335057″][quote comment=”335050″]

    And you probably hate the Nuggets skyline jerseys, the Michigan (and Delaware) winged helmet, and Pat the Patriot, because so far we agree on nothing. That’s all right, fellow UniWatcher, it’s a big enough world for the two of us.[/quote]

    I have no problems with the winged helmets, Patriots, or Nuggets (although I hate the powder blues), but that’s why we enjoy discussing things like this.

    I get that a lot of the opinions have to do with teams we love/hate. I do hate quite a few teams, but some of them actually have beautiful uniforms. It’s just these quirks that bother me most, and I’ll be sure to change them when I become in charge![/quote]

    Fair enough. Actually, I’ve never been a big Patriots fan, but I loved Pat the Patriot. Flying Elvis can keep flying. Also, one team I really like but whose uni I can’t stand is the Blue (Black) Jays.

  • ChrisSh | June 15, 2009 at 12:07 pm |

    Speaking of the Red Wings championship gear (and some of the others that you guys have mentioned), has Paul/Uni Watch done a column about incorrect championship gear? I’d love to see everyone send in their pictures of what they have and check them all out.

  • gusto | June 15, 2009 at 12:09 pm |

    Although the Pirates have only been in playoff contention once since 1992, it’s worth remembering this is still one of baseball’s most storied franchises. Only the New York Yankees,Boston Red Sox, and St. Louis Cardinals have won more World Titles than Pittsburgh. That’s significant.

  • Ricko | June 15, 2009 at 12:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”335066″]Mine are the Red Wings red, I can’t stand it for the blandness that others have mentioned. Looks like a cheap jersey template you get to save costs on a men’s league team, not something you should see in the NHL. And they have the best white uni in the NHL, go figure.

    The other one is the red sox hat and sox. Go back to the striped sox and the red crown hat, damnit! It’s not like they’re buried so deep in your past no fans would ever recognize them…

    Those are the only two that spring to mind…[/quote]

    The Red Sox wore those red-crown hats as their primary only for, what, four seasons? In that sense they’re an anomaly, not exactly anything that could be called traditional. They often seem to be seen as “so Red Sox”, when actually they aren’t. The Red Sox just happened to be wearing them…
    a) when color TV, cable TV and color photography became more the standard,
    b) for some memorable baseball moments, and
    c) in one of the all-time great World Series.

    —Ricko

  • Giancarlo | June 15, 2009 at 12:20 pm |

    I’ll take this opportunity to rag on one of Paul’s favorites: The St. Louis Cardinals..
    It bothers me that their pants are just plain white, no trim, no nothing. As if they lost their team pants & went out & bought some generic white baseball pants in a sporting goods store. Put something on those pants – you had nice trim back in the ’60s. Plus the bat on the jersey is too long & narrow.
    Another one for me is the Rays’ current look, which many people think “classy.” It reminds me of stationery in a chain motel. Designed by corporate committee, which also explains why they can’t decide what kind of Ray they are, sun or beast. Quite a few unis considered classy seem like duds to me – I’m looking at you, Houston Texans.
    (I’m with Dave on the Brewers glove logo – thought it was silly as a kid; still do)

  • WillFred | June 15, 2009 at 12:24 pm |

    Couldn’t find any pictures, but in the Tigers/Pirates game, the Pirates’ starting pitcher and Miguel Cabrera trimmed the long throwback sleeves. The pitcher’s looked fine, but Cabrera’s were uneven and looked quite ridiculous.

  • chance michaels | June 15, 2009 at 12:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”335069″]Although the Pirates have only been in playoff contention once since 1992, it’s worth remembering this is still one of baseball’s most storied franchises. Only the New York Yankees,Boston Red Sox, and St. Louis Cardinals have won more World Titles than Pittsburgh. That’s significant.[/quote]
    I remember. But unfortunately, it appears that it’s the good people of Pittsburgh who have forgotten.

  • JL | June 15, 2009 at 12:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”335004″]The Chicago Bears away uniform never has seemed quite right. White jerseys and white pants look too bland with white socks. I just don’t care for the dark pants.

    Funny, but for the Chiefs, both away sets — white pants/red pants/both with white socks look fine. Anyone care to explain why? Am I just goofy.[/quote]

    I agree, and I’m a Bears fan. I’m currently 29, and my early Bears memories of the white jerseys were accompanied by blue pants, which is the look I prefer with the white jersey, as worn by The Fridge in the pic above.

    I’ve also always found it weird that the sleeve stripe on the blue home jersey is orange with white outlines, and the orange alternate jersey has blue stripes with white outlines, yet the road white jersey has blue-orange-blue striping with no outlines…I’ve often wondered what it would like like with three blue stripes outlined in orange.

    If you notice, these same striping differences appear on the socks. The “home” socks are blue with the orange stripes outlined in white like the blue jersey, while the white socks have the blue-orange-blue striping and look especially plain with the all-white uniform set.

    Personally, I hate the long-underwear look of the all-white uniform set, and I think it’s because of the socks. If they’d mix it up and wear the “home” socks with the white pants at all times, the white-on-white would look better, which based on sportslogos.net is what the Chiefs apparently do.

  • JL | June 15, 2009 at 12:33 pm |

    My apologies, none of my links in the previous post appear to work…all references can be found here though:

    Bears:
    http://sportslogos.n...

    Chiefs:
    http://www.sportslog...

  • Big Jake | June 15, 2009 at 12:40 pm |
  • IowaAnt | June 15, 2009 at 12:43 pm |

    I hate beasball road jerseys that dont have the city name on them (for example, Cardinals, Angels, Brewers, Phillies) They seems to get lost as all the become are gray versions on the homes. When the roads have the city name, they become unique, apart of the team, not just a diffrent color.

  • jon | June 15, 2009 at 12:44 pm |

    ill throw mine in. youve prolly heard me say it before, but i hate stirrups. all of them. i hate them with a passion, and for a couple of reasons. first, they are completely unnecessary as a clothing item in modern days. dyed fabric does not poison people anymore, so there is no need to have another sock under a colored sock. second, long stirrups never looked good to me, especially with pinstriped pants.

    http://www.blackpast...

    i hate seeing the yankees uniforms from before the 90s or so because of that reason. the long stirrups simply look like shit with pinstripes (or ever, really). third, i hate it when there is space between the stirrup and the player’s lower leg (see left leg in picture).

    http://cache.daylife...

    i think that looks totally little league, like they couldn’t find a sock to fit the player. last, i hate stirrups because they are lauded less as an aesthetic nicety and more because they are traditional, which doesn’t make sense to me. i care more about how something looks than about what decade it evokes in my mind.

  • marc | June 15, 2009 at 12:48 pm |

    “I get that a lot of the opinions have to do with teams we love/hate. I do hate quite a few teams, but some of them actually have beautiful uniforms.”

    boy, do i get that one. i’m a browns fan, but i love the steeler’s unis. i’m an indians fan, but i love the red sox unis. i’m a cavs fan but i love the celtic’s unis. just ’cause i root for the home laundry doesn’t mean i have to like how they look (tho i do love their current unis… some past kits — cavs in the 90s & tribe in the 80s, for example — not so much).

  • JTH | June 15, 2009 at 12:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”335040″][quote comment=”335029″][quote comment=”335009″]Don’t know if they’re considered “classic” except possibly by White Sox fans, but to me the current White Sox unis are uninspired, dull and, well, they just leave me cold. Silver and black may work for the Raiders, but this is baseball and bit of brighter colors would help, I think.

    Now, I DO like pinstripes. Wouldn’t want to see them on everyone of course, but the White Sox have something of a tradition of pins over the years, so I much prefer the homes to the roads.
    [/quote]
    Ricko, as a Sox fan here are my thoughts: I could lose the SILVER today and not shed a tear. I could have lost that on the day their latest look was introduced. You essentially “own” gray by having black and white as your primaries. Use that instead of silver.

    For me, no pinstripes.[/quote]

    My thought was that a hybrid of the current Sox and the Go-Go Sox was a cool idea…and it would yield a uni with a bit more visual excitement than the current set.

    Of course—and this is really radical—I’d like to see the White Sox in shorter pants with solid white socks (maybe with that black diamond Sox logo stitched into the outside of the calf) and white shoes. From the bottom of the pants down, they’d look like the logo.

    I know, I know…no one likes white shoes. But is this instance they’d almost be bringing the logo to life.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    I happen to like the White Sox’ current home and road unis a lot(Not the alt. I hate the alt.), but I agree that they would look a hell of a lot better with red trim. Basically, just replace the silver trim on the home jerseys with red and replace the white trim on the road jerseys and you’re on to something.

    I say leave the cap alone, though. Red trim on the logo would just make it look cluttered.

    I guess it would be cool to see them wear white hosiery (with black and red stripes — not solid white), but the black socks just look better.

  • anotherguy | June 15, 2009 at 12:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”335040″]Of course—and this is really radical—I’d like to see the White Sox in shorter pants with solid white socks…[/quote]
    You’re channeling the spirit of Bill Veeck, aren’t you?

    ;-)

    When I was much younger and trying to “figure out” how to give the White Sox, well; white socks I thought they could go with white sani’s and white stirrups: but the stirrups would have blue edging and they’d have the Sox symbol on the side (this was back in the era when stripes on stirrups were popular).

    Okay, I’ll admit that I didn’t have that one thought all the way through; but I was trying!

  • dave r | June 15, 2009 at 12:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”335051″][quote comment=”335038″]
    Pittsburgh Pirates. I hate the font. Let me rephrase… I HATE the font. It just doesn’t look right, never has and never will. They’d be better off going with a font more like the one on the Yankees’ away jerseys than what they have now. Its just bad beyond bad.[/quote]

    Wow…their font is what I love about their unis as well as the SF Giants:

    http://images.google...

    I really like the font, but the big “P” annoys me.
    https://www.ecoupons...

    For a time, they had the letters all the same size, and it looked much better.
    http://mlb.imageg.ne...

    I’m not talking about the uniform colors or style. Just the lettering. For vertically arched, it looks better if the letters are all the same size.

  • Tony | June 15, 2009 at 12:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”335072″]Couldn’t find any pictures, but in the Tigers/Pirates game, the Pirates’ starting pitcher and Miguel Cabrera trimmed the long throwback sleeves. The pitcher’s looked fine, but Cabrera’s were uneven and looked quite ridiculous.[/quote]

    I was watching the pregame, and they actually showed Miggy cutting the sleeves in the dugout with some scissors. Sorry, no screen cap.

  • marc | June 15, 2009 at 12:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”335077″]I hate beasball road jerseys that dont have the city name on them (for example, Cardinals, Angels, Brewers, Phillies) They seems to get lost as all the become are gray versions on the homes. When the roads have the city name, they become unique, apart of the team, not just a diffrent color.[/quote]

    agreed. the only exception for me is the cardinals. the birds-on-bat thing is so perfect, i wouldn’t change a thing. “st. louis” would look odd, IMHO. didn’t someone do a mock-up of that recently, btw?

    i loved the grey boston away unis from the 80s. they looked prison-issued. should said “mean machine” on ’em. the new ones are similar, but i prefer the blocky text of the 80s version.

  • dave r | June 15, 2009 at 1:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”335052″]I hate the Yankees, and I hate that they use two different interlocking NY’s. The cap NY is tight and gorgeous, the home uni NY is loose, messy, and completely bush-league. Use matching NY’s for goodness’ (and design) sake – the cap one! The Tiger’s two different D’s bugs me too, but not quite as much because both D’s are good-looking. Still, use the same D for design consistency! Okay, vent over.[/quote]
    I like the Yankees and Tigers home uniforms. But it is surprising and annoying that they both have mismatched hat and chest logos.

  • Ricko | June 15, 2009 at 1:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”335081″][quote comment=”335040″]Of course—and this is really radical—I’d like to see the White Sox in shorter pants with solid white socks…[/quote]
    You’re channeling the spirit of Bill Veeck, aren’t you?

    ;-)

    When I was much younger and trying to “figure out” how to give the White Sox, well; white socks I thought they could go with white sani’s and white stirrups: but the stirrups would have blue edging and they’d have the Sox symbol on the side (this was back in the era when stripes on stirrups were popular).

    Okay, I’ll admit that I didn’t have that one thought all the way through; but I was trying![/quote]

    Didn’t mean shorts, LOL, just not ankle length pants. More like at the knee (as many wear them today) or mid calf.

  • JTH | June 15, 2009 at 1:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”335007″]This has nothing to do with today’s topic, but I just wanted to give a shout-out to JTH for winning the HBIC Hockey Pool. JTH actually tied with another entrant, but he correctly predicted more series correctly, so he took the top spot in a “shootout”.

    Congrats, JTH, and thanks for all those who entered! Also, thanks to Paul and Phil for mentioning the HBIC Pool in the ticker![/quote]
    Thanks. I will stand there and proudly take the verbal abuse my kid’s hockey coaches give me for wearing that Sabres shirt when I take him to practice.

  • Dan | June 15, 2009 at 1:03 pm |

    [quote comment=”335011″]I don’t necessarily hate the uniform, but one aspect of the Packers uniform I hate is if a player is wearing a helmet without a rear bumper and they add a decal to make it look like it does.

    http://cache.daylife...

    Annoys the hell out of me.[/quote]

    My biggest complaint about the Packers’ uniforms is the yellow pants on the road. It just looks bad. Green pants with striped socks would look much better.

  • anotherguy | June 15, 2009 at 1:03 pm |

    [quote comment=”335036″]I don’t know how superstitious any of us are, but I assume that, like athletes, we take the mundane and turn it into something larger than game occasionally.

    For example, my good friend Stephanie sent me two Roaming Penguins which I received through the mail on Friday morning. Needless to say, the Penguins won that night, and I’m attributing it to the arrival of Mario Penguin and Ron Penguin arriving that morning.

    Just so you all know, Stephanie hand-makes these Penguins and contributes half of the money for the Penguins to the Mario Lemieux Foundation. In terms of DIY, she’s doing a lot more than just knitting, and the money is going to great cause.[/quote]
    LOL! There’s always the big argument over things like “not talking about a no-hitter” and you sort of dismiss that as a superstition UNTIL Mark Burhele gets into the seventh with a no-no going… :-)

    It’s always silly until your team gets involved. Then its a hard-and-fast rule.

  • anotherguy | June 15, 2009 at 1:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”335086″]Didn’t mean shorts, LOL, just not ankle length pants. More like at the knee (as many wear them today) or mid calf.[/quote]
    Just as long as we make people like Thome or our former bullpen coach wear socks all the way up into the pants. :-)

  • Shane | June 15, 2009 at 1:06 pm |

    [quote comment=\”335047\”][quote comment=\”335044\”][quote comment=\”335024\”]It bugs me that the LA Lakers are saying this is their 15th NBA championship. It is their 10th. Anyone in LA who wants to tack on the Minneapolis Lakers\’ championships should have to prove that he could name someone on the Minneapolis Lakers besides George Mikan. The Atlanta Braves are said to have just one 1 World Series, and haven\’t tacked on the Milwaukee Braves\’ 1957 title, or the Boston \”Miracle\” Braves\’ 1914 title. IMHO YMMV.[/quote]
    I know what you mean. I see Twins caps around here with \”3-time World Series Champions\” on them, counting the 1924 Washington Senators as their own. Just doesn\’t seem right.[/quote]

    So the Giants can\’t count 1954?
    Or the Dodgers \’55?
    (Don\’t have an opinion, just asking)[/quote]

    I think with the Giants and Dodgers, there is so much history there to include all titles; it is well know where those teams came from. With the Twins, there is a major disconnect between the team now, and where they came from. A quick poll in my office, only 3 out of 20 knew they moved from Washington. The others thought we were a 1960s expansion team like the Vikings. But I get what you are saying, the franchise lineage is intact like the Dodgers and Giants, so all their titles should be respected. But their merchandise makes it seem like the “Minnesota Twins” won it all in 1924, not the Senators.

  • Dan | June 15, 2009 at 1:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”334975″]Hate the Phillies uniforms, especially the number font which is goofy and old-looking. The design flaws of the front logo have been pointed out on this site before, and that combined with the numbers and the white/red pinstripes (just not a good look for anyone) or the road uni’s with striping that’s way too thick… ugh.

    The only thing I like about the Phils uni’s are the numbers being on the sleeves and how the front logo is done (chain stitched embroidery on that white piece). Other than that, they’re disgusting.[/quote]

    Completely agreed. The most overrated uniform in baseball. Pinstripes are way too thin and the logo is just not that great. I love their alternate, especially the blue hat.

  • dave r | June 15, 2009 at 1:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”335034″][quote comment=”334985″]I have a gripe with the Colts, but not about the simplicity of the jersey, I like that. It’s with the striping.

    The pants have 2 stripes, the sleeves have 2 stripes… why not the helmet?

    Here is a quick photoshop I did of a 2 striped helmet:
    http://farm4.static....

    Does anyone agree that looks way better?[/quote]

    I didn’t think I’d like it, but I really do. I like that better than doing anything to the shoulder sleeves – they’re the best part of the whole uniform.[/quote]

    Much much better. While you’re at it, shouldn’t the horseshoe be sideways so it looks like a “C”?

  • JTH | June 15, 2009 at 1:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”335074″][quote comment=”335004″]The Chicago Bears away uniform never has seemed quite right. White jerseys and white pants look too bland with white socks. I just don’t care for the dark pants.

    Funny, but for the Chiefs, both away sets — white pants/red pants/both with white socks look fine. Anyone care to explain why? Am I just goofy.[/quote]

    I agree, and I’m a Bears fan. I’m currently 29, and my early Bears memories of the white jerseys were accompanied by blue pants, which is the look I prefer with the white jersey, as worn by The Fridge in the pic above.

    I’ve also always found it weird that the sleeve stripe on the blue home jersey is orange with white outlines, and the orange alternate jersey has blue stripes with white outlines, yet the road white jersey has blue-orange-blue striping with no outlines…I’ve often wondered what it would like like with three blue stripes outlined in orange.

    If you notice, these same striping differences appear on the socks. The “home” socks are blue with the orange stripes outlined in white like the blue jersey, while the white socks have the blue-orange-blue striping and look especially plain with the all-white uniform set.

    Personally, I hate the long-underwear look of the all-white uniform set, and I think it’s because of the socks. If they’d mix it up and wear the “home” socks with the white pants at all times, the white-on-white would look better, which based on sportslogos.net is what the Chiefs apparently do.[/quote]
    Y’know, for years, the Bears did wear the “home” socks with the white jersey/pants combo.

    I’m really torn. I like the contrast of the blue-topped socks with the white pants, but I also like the way that the stripe pattern of the white socks matches the sleeves of the white jerseys. I guess from a distance, I prefer the “home” socks with the all-white uni and up close, I like the “road” socks.

  • anotherguy | June 15, 2009 at 1:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”335080″]I happen to like the White Sox’ current home and road unis a lot(Not the alt. I hate the alt.)…[/quote]

    I don’t mind the black jerseys: personally I like the look better with the white rather than grey pants.

    But what I’d really like for them to do is to go back to their original idea which was using the black jerseys as their Sunday uniform. (And that would mean Sunday only.)

    For me; no red. It’s hard to explain but after years of switching around IMHO Black is our version of “white”. Just as the Cincy Reds use red and white, or as the KC Royals use blue and white the White Sox should use white and black.

    We use our primary color and it’s polar opposite. Simple, elegant solution IMHO.

    And while nobody asked me, no red for the Pirates either. Cute for their alternate, spring training uniform logo, but not for the real games. JMHO.

  • Mike Engle | June 15, 2009 at 1:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”335093″][quote comment=”335034″][quote comment=”334985″]I have a gripe with the Colts, but not about the simplicity of the jersey, I like that. It’s with the striping.

    The pants have 2 stripes, the sleeves have 2 stripes… why not the helmet?

    Here is a quick photoshop I did of a 2 striped helmet:
    http://farm4.static....

    Does anyone agree that looks way better?[/quote]

    I didn’t think I’d like it, but I really do. I like that better than doing anything to the shoulder sleeves – they’re the best part of the whole uniform.[/quote]

    Much much better. While you’re at it, shouldn’t the horseshoe be sideways so it looks like a “C”?[/quote]
    No, because then the luck would spill out of the horseshoe.
    [quote comment=”335092″][quote comment=”334975″]Hate the Phillies uniforms, especially the number font which is goofy and old-looking. The design flaws of the front logo have been pointed out on this site before, and that combined with the numbers and the white/red pinstripes (just not a good look for anyone) or the road uni’s with striping that’s way too thick… ugh.

    The only thing I like about the Phils uni’s are the numbers being on the sleeves and how the front logo is done (chain stitched embroidery on that white piece). Other than that, they’re disgusting.[/quote]

    Completely agreed. The most overrated uniform in baseball. Pinstripes are way too thin and the logo is just not that great. I love their alternate, especially the blue hat.[/quote]
    Plus red pinstripes + white uniform background = the Phillies look like candy canes. Hated that look as a kid. Still don’t like it. Go back to maroon!

  • LI Phil | June 15, 2009 at 1:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”335084″][quote comment=”335077″]I hate beasball road jerseys that dont have the city name on them (for example, Cardinals, Angels, Brewers, Phillies) They seems to get lost as all the become are gray versions on the homes. When the roads have the city name, they become unique, apart of the team, not just a diffrent color.[/quote]

    agreed. the only exception for me is the cardinals. the birds-on-bat thing is so perfect, i wouldn’t change a thing. “st. louis” would look odd, IMHO. didn’t someone do a mock-up of that recently, btw?

    i loved the grey boston away unis from the 80s. they looked prison-issued. should said “mean machine” on ’em. the new ones are similar, but i prefer the blocky text of the 80s version.[/quote]

    paulie did the mockups

    tampa bay

    milwaukee

    st. louis

    angels (actually that was a “home switcheroo” mockup)

    and also a “home switcheroo”: phillies

  • JTH | June 15, 2009 at 1:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”335095″][quote comment=”335080″]I happen to like the White Sox’ current home and road unis a lot(Not the alt. I hate the alt.)…[/quote]

    I don’t mind the black jerseys: personally I like the look better with the white rather than grey pants.

    But what I’d really like for them to do is to go back to their original idea which was using the black jerseys as their Sunday uniform. (And that would mean Sunday only.)

    For me; no red. It’s hard to explain but after years of switching around IMHO Black is our version of “white”. Just as the Cincy Reds use red and white, or as the KC Royals use blue and white the White Sox should use white and black.

    We use our primary color and it’s polar opposite. Simple, elegant solution IMHO.

    And while nobody asked me, no red for the Pirates either. Cute for their alternate, spring training uniform logo, but not for the real games. JMHO.[/quote]
    Jim Thome looks good in the alt jersey, but he’s about the only one.

    And I’m not saying they need to ditch the black, I’m saying they should ditch the silver and go back to the 50s-era black & red.

  • timmy b | June 15, 2009 at 1:20 pm |

    I am a Penn State fanatic and I HATE the all-whites. I have detested these for decades.

    IIRC, there was one year (c.1980’s) in the Blue-White game where not even the stripe was on the white helmets!! I think JoePa was flirting with the idea of going with a plain white helmet for the season.

    These unis are dogs and there’s no other way to say it.

    My solution?? I would do an outline of the numerals. Like a white then blue o/l on the blue #s and maybe lighten the tone on the blue just a shade.

    Also, since the Raiders are so horrid, maybe a change to something a little more flashy could be in the works…I wish.

    Ditto on the Red Wings reds by other UW posters.

  • Ricko | June 15, 2009 at 1:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”335091″][quote comment=\”335047\”][quote comment=\”335044\”][quote comment=\”335024\”]It bugs me that the LA Lakers are saying this is their 15th NBA championship. It is their 10th. Anyone in LA who wants to tack on the Minneapolis Lakers\’ championships should have to prove that he could name someone on the Minneapolis Lakers besides George Mikan. The Atlanta Braves are said to have just one 1 World Series, and haven\’t tacked on the Milwaukee Braves\’ 1957 title, or the Boston \”Miracle\” Braves\’ 1914 title. IMHO YMMV.[/quote]
    I know what you mean. I see Twins caps around here with \”3-time World Series Champions\” on them, counting the 1924 Washington Senators as their own. Just doesn\’t seem right.[/quote]

    So the Giants can\’t count 1954?
    Or the Dodgers \’55?
    (Don\’t have an opinion, just asking)[/quote]

    I think with the Giants and Dodgers, there is so much history there to include all titles; it is well know where those teams came from. With the Twins, there is a major disconnect between the team now, and where they came from. A quick poll in my office, only 3 out of 20 knew they moved from Washington. The others thought we were a 1960s expansion team like the Vikings. But I get what you are saying, the franchise lineage is intact like the Dodgers and Giants, so all their titles should be respected. But their merchandise makes it seem like the “Minnesota Twins” won it all in 1924, not the Senators.[/quote]

    I was kinda thinking the same thing, or something similar. If the nickname of the team changes it puts distance between the “eras,” as if the team itself is separating them. The Lakers, Giants, Dodgers, Braves and others are still who they are/were. But the Orioles, Twins, Titans, Coyotes, Avalanche, Hurricanes, Thunder and such, well, they themselves said good-bye to their former selves, didn’t they. It’s the same company, maybe, but not quite the same “team”.

    Know what I mean?

    —Ricko

  • LI Phil | June 15, 2009 at 1:30 pm |

    Paging Joe Hilseberg

    please text Paul your phone number

    thanks

  • concealed78 | June 15, 2009 at 1:36 pm |

    Anti-Uni secret? It sounds more like New School fans complaining about traditional designs. Bears numbers too skinny? Are you kidding me? MB-Glove logo 4 fingers > all cartoon characters have 4 fingers. Cubs outline too thick? It’s proportional to the “C”. Complaining about the Pirates font? I can’t even fathom this. My anti-Uni secret? Flying Elvis is a terrible logo. Pretty much any logo or design made on a computer is ugly.

  • Brad | June 15, 2009 at 1:37 pm |

    I don’t like the “classic” grey facemasks on most teams.
    Looks good on the Giants and Cowboys. The Colts looked better with blue and the Browns looked better with white facemasks.
    USC and UCLA both looked better with team colored facemasks.

  • Marc M. | June 15, 2009 at 1:39 pm |

    I have never seen the word “hate” used so much as I have seen today. You can have a dislike of something, be annoyed with something, be indifferent to something, but to hate? I think this word is being thrown around way too casually and it is a lazy way to express yourself.

  • Ricko | June 15, 2009 at 1:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”335102″]Anti-Uni secret? It sounds more like New School fans complaining about traditional designs. Bears numbers too skinny? Are you kidding me? MB-Glove logo 4 fingers > all cartoon characters have 4 fingers. Cubs outline too thick? It’s proportional to the “C”. Complaining about the Pirates font? I can’t even fathom this. My anti-Uni secret? Flying Elvis is a terrible logo. Pretty much any logo or design made on a computer is ugly.[/quote]

    Wondered when someone was gonna notice how much this today has been about when you think “always” begins.

    Packers in green pants with white jerseys? Sure, if they’re planning on playing junior college football instead of in the NFL.

    And, yeah, “hate” is at worst, overreaction. At best, laziness in word usage.

    —Ricko

  • Jeff P | June 15, 2009 at 1:46 pm |

    [quote comment=”335070″][quote comment=”335066″]Mine are the Red Wings red, I can’t stand it for the blandness that others have mentioned. Looks like a cheap jersey template you get to save costs on a men’s league team, not something you should see in the NHL. And they have the best white uni in the NHL, go figure.

    The other one is the red sox hat and sox. Go back to the striped sox and the red crown hat, damnit! It’s not like they’re buried so deep in your past no fans would ever recognize them…

    Those are the only two that spring to mind…[/quote]

    The Red Sox wore those red-crown hats as their primary only for, what, four seasons? In that sense they’re an anomaly, not exactly anything that could be called traditional. They often seem to be seen as “so Red Sox”, when actually they aren’t. The Red Sox just happened to be wearing them…
    a) when color TV, cable TV and color photography became more the standard,
    b) for some memorable baseball moments, and
    c) in one of the all-time great World Series.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    I know that they’re an anomaly, but they look so much better. Even if they just brought it back as an alternate instead of the hanging sox cap I would be much happier. Just a better fit for the team then then the copycat yankees hat.

  • leon | June 15, 2009 at 1:48 pm |

    Brewers ball in glove: Maybe not considered a classic, but definitely overrated. I like the colors, but from the neck down, these uniforms are horribly plain. And the cartoonish glove (4 fingers?!?) takes away from the double-meaning (although it is still a fun logo).

    To be fair, a 3 fingered glove is historically accurate

    boy, i’d give my left pinkie to see ted williams bat again!

  • el scotto | June 15, 2009 at 1:49 pm |

    As a Denver sports fan, here is my deep, dark confession.

    Never been a fan of the Broncos orange crush unis. They are good but like Paul is biased against purple, I am biased against orange in all ways, shapes and forms.

    I’ll take these any day…

    Also, I am not a huge fan of some of the older school hockey uniforms. The love of the Philadelphia Flyers (posted above) and Montreal Canadians has always baffled me to an extent. I’m sure the Canadians have historical content (similar to Cubs, Yanks, BoSox, etc) but they’ve always just struck me as bland.

  • Ricko | June 15, 2009 at 1:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”335108″]Brewers ball in glove: Maybe not considered a classic, but definitely overrated. I like the colors, but from the neck down, these uniforms are horribly plain. And the cartoonish glove (4 fingers?!?) takes away from the double-meaning (although it is still a fun logo).

    To be fair, a 3 fingered glove is historically accurate

    boy, i’d give my left pinkie to see ted williams bat again![/quote]

    In which case, the three-fingered glove would be perfect for you.
    :)

    —Ricko

  • JTH | June 15, 2009 at 1:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”335104″]I have never seen the word “hate” used so much as I have seen today. You can have a dislike of something, be annoyed with something, be indifferent to something, but to hate? I think this word is being thrown around way too casually and it is a lazy way to express yourself.[/quote]
    Wanna know what I hate? Hate haters.

  • leon | June 15, 2009 at 1:59 pm |

    Brewers ball in glove: Maybe not considered a classic, but definitely overrated. I like the colors, but from the neck down, these uniforms are horribly plain. And the cartoonish glove (4 fingers?!?) takes away from the double-meaning (although it is still a fun logo).

    To be fair, a 3 fingered glove is historically accurate

    boy, i’d give my left pinkie to see ted williams bat again!

    In which case, the three-fingered glove would be perfect for you.
    :)

    —Ricko

    great minds work alike

  • chance michaels | June 15, 2009 at 2:03 pm |

    [quote comment=”335088″][quote comment=”335011″]I don’t necessarily hate the uniform, but one aspect of the Packers uniform I hate is if a player is wearing a helmet without a rear bumper and they add a decal to make it look like it does.

    http://cache.daylife...

    Annoys the hell out of me.[/quote]

    My biggest complaint about the Packers’ uniforms is the yellow pants on the road. It just looks bad. Green pants with striped socks would look much better.[/quote]
    No, thanks.

    The Packers tried green pants before. Didn’t look good then, wouldn’t look good now.

    The gold pants perfectly balance the gold helmet.

  • Ry Co 40 | June 15, 2009 at 2:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”335036″][quote comment=”335026″][quote comment=”335007″]Congrats, JTH…[/quote]
    Seconded.

    Teebz, neither you nor I picked the Pens, but credit goes to you for picking a tight game. My “50 minutes of a blowout followed by an early celebration” was out of it after the second intermission.

    My own story with only a slight connection to Wal-Mart: Everyone knows the game ended about 9:30 on Saturday. I had to be at a Wal-Mart as soon as they opened Saturday, and at rougly 7:01 strolling in with me is a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed Pens fan, with the Crosby jersey, some sort of matching shorta and a Pens cap. You would think he would have been out late Friday celebrating: not only are there few Pittsburgh fans in Chicago, but their underdog status should have given him huge gloating rights. :-)[/quote]

    Yeah, I wanted to change my pick once I got home from work that night, but I was going to meet friends to watch Game Seven.

    I don’t know how superstitious any of us are, but I assume that, like athletes, we take the mundane and turn it into something larger than game occasionally.

    For example, my good friend Stephanie sent me two Roaming Penguins which I received through the mail on Friday morning. Needless to say, the Penguins won that night, and I’m attributing it to the arrival of Mario Penguin and Ron Penguin arriving that morning.

    Just so you all know, Stephanie hand-makes these Penguins and contributes half of the money for the Penguins to the Mario Lemieux Foundation. In terms of DIY, she’s doing a lot more than just knitting, and the money is going to great cause.[/quote]

    i’m on the list. my roamer comes in about a month or so!

  • chance michaels | June 15, 2009 at 2:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”335084″][quote comment=”335077″]I hate beasball road jerseys that dont have the city name on them (for example, Cardinals, Angels, Brewers, Phillies) They seems to get lost as all the become are gray versions on the homes. When the roads have the city name, they become unique, apart of the team, not just a diffrent color.[/quote]
    paulie did the mockups

    milwaukee
    [/quote]

    No offense to Paulie, but I like mine better.

  • Ricko | June 15, 2009 at 2:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”335112″]Brewers ball in glove: Maybe not considered a classic, but definitely overrated. I like the colors, but from the neck down, these uniforms are horribly plain. And the cartoonish glove (4 fingers?!?) takes away from the double-meaning (although it is still a fun logo).

    To be fair, a 3 fingered glove is historically accurate

    boy, i’d give my left pinkie to see ted williams bat again!

    In which case, the three-fingered glove would be perfect for you.
    :)

    —Ricko

    great minds work alike[/quote]

    Kinda figured it that way.

  • LI Phil | June 15, 2009 at 2:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”335115″][quote comment=”335084″][quote comment=”335077″]I hate beasball road jerseys that dont have the city name on them (for example, Cardinals, Angels, Brewers, Phillies) They seems to get lost as all the become are gray versions on the homes. When the roads have the city name, they become unique, apart of the team, not just a diffrent color.[/quote]
    paulie did the mockups

    milwaukee
    [/quote]

    No offense to Paulie, but I like mine better.[/quote]

    hey chance…that’s a new one yes?

    me likey!

  • JL | June 15, 2009 at 2:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”335094″][quote comment=”335074″][quote comment=”335004″]The Chicago Bears away uniform never has seemed quite right. White jerseys and white pants look too bland with white socks. I just don’t care for the dark pants.

    Funny, but for the Chiefs, both away sets — white pants/red pants/both with white socks look fine. Anyone care to explain why? Am I just goofy.[/quote]

    I agree, and I’m a Bears fan. I’m currently 29, and my early Bears memories of the white jerseys were accompanied by blue pants, which is the look I prefer with the white jersey, as worn by The Fridge in the pic above.

    I’ve also always found it weird that the sleeve stripe on the blue home jersey is orange with white outlines, and the orange alternate jersey has blue stripes with white outlines, yet the road white jersey has blue-orange-blue striping with no outlines…I’ve often wondered what it would like like with three blue stripes outlined in orange.

    If you notice, these same striping differences appear on the socks. The “home” socks are blue with the orange stripes outlined in white like the blue jersey, while the white socks have the blue-orange-blue striping and look especially plain with the all-white uniform set.

    Personally, I hate the long-underwear look of the all-white uniform set, and I think it’s because of the socks. If they’d mix it up and wear the “home” socks with the white pants at all times, the white-on-white would look better, which based on sportslogos.net is what the Chiefs apparently do.[/quote]
    Y’know, for years, the Bears did wear the “home” socks with the white jersey/pants combo.

    I’m really torn. I like the contrast of the blue-topped socks with the white pants, but I also like the way that the stripe pattern of the white socks matches the sleeves of the white jerseys. I guess from a distance, I prefer the “home” socks with the all-white uni and up close, I like the “road” socks.[/quote]

    Nice find, I’d never seen that before…and yes, I like the contrast of those socks with the all-white uniform even though the sleeve- and sock-stripes don’t match.

    Then again, maybe they should go with Devin Hester’s look from a couple seasons ago…LOL.

  • Ricko | June 15, 2009 at 2:19 pm |

    “Then again, maybe they should go with Devin Hester’s look from a couple seasons ago…LOL.”

    Got that from “So You Think You Can Dance/Hip Hop Night” I figured.

  • Elena | June 15, 2009 at 2:21 pm |

    I’ve never understod why anyone thinks the Cubs uni is one of the greats. They’ll never win as long as they have that red target C, which is just an invitation to kick them right in the heart.
    I also think the Yankees current unis have the pinstripes too thick. Makes them look fat.

  • Ricko | June 15, 2009 at 2:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”335120″]I’ve never understod why anyone thinks the Cubs uni is one of the greats. They’ll never win as long as they have that red target C, which is just an invitation to kick them right in the heart.
    I also think the Yankees current unis have the pinstripes too thick. Makes them look fat.[/quote]

    re: Thickness of pins.
    Paul ever addressed that?
    Doesn’t take much to see that, for example, the Twins’ pins are far less, um, emphatic than the Yankees.

    —Ricko

  • JL | June 15, 2009 at 2:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”335119″]”Then again, maybe they should go with Devin Hester’s look from a couple seasons ago…LOL.”

    Got that from “So You Think You Can Dance/Hip Hop Night” I figured.[/quote]

    Well, that was the MNF game at St. Louis in December 2006 when he returned two kickoffs for touchdowns…so if that’s what he needs to rekindle that spirit, Bears fans should be all for it!!

    Okay back to work ;)

  • chance michaels | June 15, 2009 at 2:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”335117″][quote comment=”335115″][quote comment=”335084″][quote comment=”335077″]I hate beasball road jerseys that dont have the city name on them (for example, Cardinals, Angels, Brewers, Phillies) They seems to get lost as all the become are gray versions on the homes. When the roads have the city name, they become unique, apart of the team, not just a diffrent color.[/quote]
    paulie did the mockups

    milwaukee
    [/quote]

    No offense to Paulie, but I like mine better.[/quote]

    hey chance…that’s a new one yes?

    me likey![/quote]

    Me glad. :D

    Truth be told, Paulie’s is certainly more accurate. I didn’t incoporate the Brewers’ stupid double-outline (which they undoutbedly will), and I couldn’t resist adding the Beer Barrel Man (which they don’t yet know they should bring back).

  • yellowporchhokie | June 15, 2009 at 2:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”334981″]Cowboys whites. Royal blue numbers, royal blue “sleeve” stripes with thin black outline? Yet the helmet has the nice navy blue star. Then the pants-two different shades of silver? The dark jerseyed uniform set is great, the whites that they love to wear at home are a mess. I look forward to the 2 or 3 times a season when the blue jerseys are worn.[/quote]

    I agree. The current home whites for the Cowboys look disjointed and, to be honest, cheap. The half stripe on the sleeves and the ultra boxy numbers are terrible. Plus, the jerseys just seem to have an odd fit on most players. But, back in the late ’80’s/early ’90’s the Cowboys had a BEAUTIFUL home uni (I believe Russell made the jerseys then). Check out some early Emmitt Smith and Troy Aikmen highlights….My uni “secret detest” is the Steelers uniforms. I love the black and gold but the rounded numbers do not seem to fit with the tough, rugged, hard-edged Steeler teams. They should go back to the older numbering style.

  • PC Mackin | June 15, 2009 at 2:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”335033″][quote comment=”335024″]It bugs me that the LA Lakers are saying this is their 15th NBA championship. It is their 10th. Anyone in LA who wants to tack on the Minneapolis Lakers’ championships should have to prove that he could name someone on the Minneapolis Lakers besides George Mikan. The Atlanta Braves are said to have just one 1 World Series, and haven’t tacked on the Milwaukee Braves’ 1957 title, or the Boston “Miracle” Braves’ 1914 title. IMHO YMMV.[/quote]
    “Said” by whom?

    I don’t know any source which ignores the past titles. Much less the Braves themselves.[/quote]

    That’s a fair point. This is from the 5/21/1972 edition of Sports Illustrated, an article on the NBA championship entitled, “Swish and they’re in” by Peter Carry, quoting the first paragraph, “For a night and part of the following day it looked as if it might be almost too easy for Los Angeles. After 11 seasons of succumbing to fate and their opponents’ heroics, the Lakers last Friday seemed to have their first NBA championship locked up.”

    here’s the link

    http://vault.sportsi...

    I’ll take your word that the Braves officially count the titles from each of their cities. I doubt any of their fans in ATL take solace in the titles won in Milw or Boston though.

  • The Ghost of Ross Gload | June 15, 2009 at 2:29 pm |

    I’m a 1987 graduate of the University of Kansas.

    I NEVER liked the old-timey/circus font that was on our basketball jerseys from 1984-2007.

    There, I said it. I’ve never felt so free…..

  • Ken | June 15, 2009 at 2:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”335100″][quote comment=”335091″][quote comment=\”335047\”][quote comment=\”335044\”][quote comment=\”335024\”]It bugs me that the LA Lakers are saying this is their 15th NBA championship. It is their 10th. Anyone in LA who wants to tack on the Minneapolis Lakers\’ championships should have to prove that he could name someone on the Minneapolis Lakers besides George Mikan. The Atlanta Braves are said to have just one 1 World Series, and haven\’t tacked on the Milwaukee Braves\’ 1957 title, or the Boston \”Miracle\” Braves\’ 1914 title. IMHO YMMV.[/quote]
    I know what you mean. I see Twins caps around here with \”3-time World Series Champions\” on them, counting the 1924 Washington Senators as their own. Just doesn\’t seem right.[/quote]

    So the Giants can\’t count 1954?
    Or the Dodgers \’55?
    (Don\’t have an opinion, just asking)[/quote]

    I think with the Giants and Dodgers, there is so much history there to include all titles; it is well know where those teams came from. With the Twins, there is a major disconnect between the team now, and where they came from. A quick poll in my office, only 3 out of 20 knew they moved from Washington. The others thought we were a 1960s expansion team like the Vikings. But I get what you are saying, the franchise lineage is intact like the Dodgers and Giants, so all their titles should be respected. But their merchandise makes it seem like the “Minnesota Twins” won it all in 1924, not the Senators.[/quote]

    I was kinda thinking the same thing, or something similar. If the nickname of the team changes it puts distance between the “eras,” as if the team itself is separating them. The Lakers, Giants, Dodgers, Braves and others are still who they are/were. But the Orioles, Twins, Titans, Coyotes, Avalanche, Hurricanes, Thunder and such, well, they themselves said good-bye to their former selves, didn’t they. It’s the same company, maybe, but not quite the same “team”.

    Know what I mean?

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Plying off that…do NFL titles (Pre-Super Bowl) count the same as SB wins ?
    And what of teams that played in rival legues then merged into the main one (ABA to NBA, AFL to NFL, WHA to NHL) Does Quebec’s Avaco Cup win count in Colorado’s Trophy case ?

  • Jeff Cooper | June 15, 2009 at 2:37 pm |

    Italy’s Confederations Cup kit, on display today against the US, is truly hideous: light blue jerseys, brown shorts, brown and blue socks. Ew.

    You’d think they’d save the brown shorts for the Brazil match.

  • LarryB | June 15, 2009 at 2:41 pm |

    Enjoyed the Pirates Tigers pictures. In looking at Chris Creamers logo site again, I drifted to the Chicago Cardinals.

    Yesterdays Matt Dunn switched colors made me think about the Bears and Cardinals. The Cardinals sort of had that C in maroon. And pretty sure the Chicago Maroon used that C also.

    http://www.sportslog...

    http://www.sportslog...

  • LI Phil | June 15, 2009 at 2:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”335128″]Italy’s Confederations Cup kit, on display today against the US, is truly hideous: light blue jerseys, brown shorts, brown and blue socks. Ew.

    You’d think they’d save the brown shorts for the Brazil match.[/quote]

    no brown shirts?

  • LarryB | June 15, 2009 at 2:42 pm |

    And speaking of the logo color switches. Michigan looked good in scarelt and gray. Ohio State did not look good in Michigan colors.

  • bourbon soaked idiot | June 15, 2009 at 2:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”335058″][quote comment=”335052″]I hate the Yankees, and I hate that they use two different interlocking NY’s. The cap NY is tight and gorgeous, the home uni NY is loose, messy, and completely bush-league. Use matching NY’s for goodness’ (and design) sake – the cap one! The Tiger’s two different D’s bugs me too, but not quite as much because both D’s are good-looking. Still, use the same D for design consistency! Okay, vent over.[/quote]
    The Yankees actually use four “NY” logos. Jersey, cap, batting helmet and print.[/quote]

    and all 4 are UGLY! 2nd worst logo in baseball, only the astro’s stupid half star sucks more.

  • Ricko | June 15, 2009 at 2:47 pm |

    “Does Quebec’s Avaco Cup win count in Colorado’s Trophy case ?”

    Wouldn’t think so. None of the players’ WHA stats count on their NHL totals.
    No ABA stats count in NBA totals, either.
    That’s one way to tell the NFL-AFL was a true merger: All the records count.
    Most other leagues were “absorbed”, so to speak, and the newer league disappeared as if it had never existed…at least as far as the older league was concerned.

    —Ricko

  • chance michaels | June 15, 2009 at 2:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”335127″]
    Plying off that…do NFL titles (Pre-Super Bowl) count the same as SB wins ?[/quote]
    Yes. Even before the Super Bowl, even before the NFL instituted a championship game under another name, the NFL’s top team was the World Champion.

    [quote comment=”335127″]
    And what of teams that played in rival legues then merged into the main one (ABA to NBA, AFL to NFL, WHA to NHL) Does Quebec’s Avaco Cup win count in Colorado’s Trophy case ?[/quote]
    Sure. Why not?

  • chance michaels | June 15, 2009 at 2:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”335133″]”Does Quebec’s Avaco Cup win count in Colorado’s Trophy case ?”

    Wouldn’t think so. None of the players’ WHA stats count on their NHL totals.
    No ABA stats count in NBA totals, either.
    That’s one way to tell the NFL-AFL was a true merger: All the records count.
    Most other leagues were “absorbed”, so to speak, and the newer league disappeared as if it had never existed…at least as far as the older league was concerned.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    The trophy still exists, though. The team still won it.

    It didn’t represent the highest level of compettition, but they still won it.

  • Ricko | June 15, 2009 at 2:56 pm |

    Part of the “merger,” though, was that the NHL basically didn’t want to recognize the WHA. No players stats transfer, no nuthin’. Teebz and others knows the story better, I think. I was long gone from the WHA when all that went down.

    I’m not saying I know what’s policy, just that if they’re gonna discuss the AVCO Trophy, they ought to keep it separate from any NHL title talk. MIght piss off long time NHL owners who, y’know, would rather deny Hockey Evolution.

    —Ricko

  • Teebz | June 15, 2009 at 2:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”335133″]”Does Quebec’s Avaco Cup win count in Colorado’s Trophy case ?”

    Wouldn’t think so. None of the players’ WHA stats count on their NHL totals.
    No ABA stats count in NBA totals, either.
    That’s one way to tell the NFL-AFL was a true merger: All the records count.
    Most other leagues were “absorbed”, so to speak, and the newer league disappeared as if it had never existed…at least as far as the older league was concerned.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    The Avco Cup, nor any WHA achievements, are recognized by the NHL to this day despite them absorbing the four most successful franchises.

    Why? Because it didn’t happen in the NHL.

  • LarryB | June 15, 2009 at 3:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”335130″][quote comment=”335128″]Italy’s Confederations Cup kit, on display today against the US, is truly hideous: light blue jerseys, brown shorts, brown and blue socks. Ew.

    You’d think they’d save the brown shorts for the Brazil match.[/quote]

    no brown shirts?[/quote]

    I have that game on too Phil and was thinking the same thing. I read Italy is using this shade of blue for this tourney only. But the brown??? Not a good look.

    And that buzzing sound is very annoying.

  • War Damn Eagle | June 15, 2009 at 3:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”335047″][quote comment=”335044″][quote comment=”335024″]It bugs me that the LA Lakers are saying this is their 15th NBA championship. It is their 10th. Anyone in LA who wants to tack on the Minneapolis Lakers’ championships should have to prove that he could name someone on the Minneapolis Lakers besides George Mikan. The Atlanta Braves are said to have just one 1 World Series, and haven’t tacked on the Milwaukee Braves’ 1957 title, or the Boston “Miracle” Braves’ 1914 title. IMHO YMMV.[/quote]
    I know what you mean. I see Twins caps around here with “3-time World Series Champions” on them, counting the 1924 Washington Senators as their own. Just doesn’t seem right.[/quote]

    So the Giants can’t count 1954?
    Or the Dodgers ’55?
    (Don’t have an opinion, just asking)[/quote]

    The problem is that the Nats also claim that 1924 title – they have a penant hanging at Nats Park.

  • Matt Brosseau | June 15, 2009 at 3:04 pm |

    I never liked the New York Rangers’ third jerseys (Angry Liberty/NYR), which were lauded when the Rangers were wearing them before the new RBK template. But I’m an Islanders fan, and thus selection bias applies.

  • leon | June 15, 2009 at 3:05 pm |

    no brown shirts?

    they’re representing italy, not germany

  • Rob Ullman | June 15, 2009 at 3:12 pm |

    Everyone’s aware that the Brewers ball-in-glove logo only has that number of fingers so that it can form an “M” and a “B”, right?

    On liking the unis of teams you don’t…I lost a bet on the Stanley Cup finals last year and had to wear a Red Wings jersey to the Heroes Comic Convention a couple weeks later. I reeeally don’t like the Wings, and less and less with every passing day, but I gotta admit, the white jersey’s pretty sharp, even with the name Osgood on the back. The red, not so much. Unfortunately, I won’t get to return the favor and make my pal wear my Malkin jersey at the convention this weekend, cause he won’t be making the trip this year. BOO!

  • War Damn Eagle | June 15, 2009 at 3:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”335097″][quote comment=”335084″][quote comment=”335077″]I hate beasball road jerseys that dont have the city name on them (for example, Cardinals, Angels, Brewers, Phillies) They seems to get lost as all the become are gray versions on the homes. When the roads have the city name, they become unique, apart of the team, not just a diffrent color.[/quote]

    agreed. the only exception for me is the cardinals. the birds-on-bat thing is so perfect, i wouldn’t change a thing. “st. louis” would look odd, IMHO. didn’t someone do a mock-up of that recently, btw?

    i loved the grey boston away unis from the 80s. they looked prison-issued. should said “mean machine” on ’em. the new ones are similar, but i prefer the blocky text of the 80s version.[/quote]

    paulie did the mockups

    tampa bay

    milwaukee

    st. louis

    angels (actually that was a “home switcheroo” mockup)

    and also a “home switcheroo”: phillies[/quote]

    Just have the Angels put these back on:

    http://photos.upi.co...

    It is where they’re from, after all.

  • Jeff P | June 15, 2009 at 3:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”335113″][quote comment=”335088″][quote comment=”335011″]I don’t necessarily hate the uniform, but one aspect of the Packers uniform I hate is if a player is wearing a helmet without a rear bumper and they add a decal to make it look like it does.

    http://cache.daylife...

    Annoys the hell out of me.[/quote]

    My biggest complaint about the Packers’ uniforms is the yellow pants on the road. It just looks bad. Green pants with striped socks would look much better.[/quote]
    No, thanks.

    The Packers tried green pants before. Didn’t look good then, wouldn’t look good now.

    The gold pants perfectly balance the gold helmet.[/quote]
    On the road means with white jerseys. Personally, I can’t stand the yellow with white look either. Not enough contrast.

    Forgot about it, but that’s one I should put on my list. Packers Road. Not really that great at all for me. One of those ones that say tradition filled isn’t always good design to me.

  • Namhob | June 15, 2009 at 3:18 pm |

    JTH,

    Saturday you asked for a cross of the Bears & Packers uni-wise. This is the best I could do…

    http://i400.photobuc...

  • Jeff P | June 15, 2009 at 3:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”335144″][quote comment=”335113″][quote comment=”335088″][quote comment=”335011″]I don’t necessarily hate the uniform, but one aspect of the Packers uniform I hate is if a player is wearing a helmet without a rear bumper and they add a decal to make it look like it does.

    http://cache.daylife...

    Annoys the hell out of me.[/quote]

    My biggest complaint about the Packers’ uniforms is the yellow pants on the road. It just looks bad. Green pants with striped socks would look much better.[/quote]
    No, thanks.

    The Packers tried green pants before. Didn’t look good then, wouldn’t look good now.

    The gold pants perfectly balance the gold helmet.[/quote]
    On the road means with white jerseys. Personally, I can’t stand the yellow with white look either. Not enough contrast.

    Forgot about it, but that’s one I should put on my list. Packers Road. Not really that great at all for me. One of those ones that say tradition filled isn’t always good design to me.[/quote]

    And my grammar and composition has been off today. Sorry ’bout that. Screwed up my first post, a bunch of redundant mes in this one.

  • Beardface | June 15, 2009 at 3:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”335139″]The problem is that the Nats also claim that 1924 title – they have a penant hanging at Nats Park.[/quote]
    Don’t tell this to the Mets, or they’ll start claiming all the titles the Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Giants won when they were in the city…

  • Mike Engle | June 15, 2009 at 3:22 pm |

    [quote comment=”335147″][quote comment=”335139″]The problem is that the Nats also claim that 1924 title – they have a penant hanging at Nats Park.[/quote]
    Don’t tell this to the Mets, or they’ll start claiming all the titles the Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Giants won when they were in the city…[/quote]
    Everybody knows the Mets won’t try to claim Giants history. Just black the Giants just happened to wear in New York once.

  • Ry Co 40 | June 15, 2009 at 3:33 pm |

    i was at the penguins victory parade today and noticed that a bunch of players had their jerseys autographed by the rest of the team. well, first i should mention, all the players were wearing their SCF game 7 jerseys, and some had the back numbers signed. really cool. LOTS of expensive laundry going down grant street this afternoon! haha

    scroll down to fluery and crosby. see fleury’s “29”:

    http://thepensblog.c...

  • Juggernaut | June 15, 2009 at 3:35 pm |

    I detest the current Bruins jerseys. The player name font on the back is goofy, I don’t care for all the nonsense on the shoulders, just go back to the 1980’s and make it simple. Neely used to look like an executioner in the Black and Gold roadies.

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

    I’d much rather have those little roaring bears on the sleeves than the current nonsense.

  • chance michaels | June 15, 2009 at 3:36 pm |

    [quote comment=”335144″][quote comment=”335113″][quote comment=”335088″][quote comment=”335011″]I don’t necessarily hate the uniform, but one aspect of the Packers uniform I hate is if a player is wearing a helmet without a rear bumper and they add a decal to make it look like it does.

    http://cache.daylife...

    Annoys the hell out of me.[/quote]

    My biggest complaint about the Packers’ uniforms is the yellow pants on the road. It just looks bad. Green pants with striped socks would look much better.[/quote]
    No, thanks.

    The Packers tried green pants before. Didn’t look good then, wouldn’t look good now.

    The gold pants perfectly balance the gold helmet.[/quote]
    On the road means with white jerseys. Personally, I can’t stand the yellow with white look either. Not enough contrast.

    Forgot about it, but that’s one I should put on my list. Packers Road. Not really that great at all for me. One of those ones that say tradition filled isn’t always good design to me.[/quote]

    Ah, the “tradition” in the roads isn’t all that great. Just one World Championship.

    Not enough contrast? Sorry, I don’t see that. Even in fog and snow, the gold pants clearly stand out from the jerseys.

  • War Damn Eagle | June 15, 2009 at 3:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”335148″][quote comment=”335147″][quote comment=”335139″]The problem is that the Nats also claim that 1924 title – they have a penant hanging at Nats Park.[/quote]
    Don’t tell this to the Mets, or they’ll start claiming all the titles the Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Giants won when they were in the city…[/quote]
    Everybody knows the Mets won’t try to claim Giants history. Just black the Giants just happened to wear in New York once.[/quote]

    The Nats even have an homage to the 1924 team in the PNC Diamond Club bar – the boxscore from game 7:

    http://nationals.mlb...

    It’s hard to see in this pic, but they have flags for the 1924 world champs, the 1925 american league champs, and the 1933 american league champs:

    http://2.bp.blogspot...

  • aflfan | June 15, 2009 at 3:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”335059″]ok, i’m gonna say it: I HATE ONLY HAVING WHITE AND GREY JERSEYS IN BASEBALL! yes, every teams grey unis are so damn plain and boring. which team has grey as an official color? to me its the same as teams having black for no reason. i love the colored alternates.[/quote]

    I agree. I understand the whole white at home but why not more colors in the away uniforms.

  • War Damn Eagle | June 15, 2009 at 3:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”335152″][quote comment=”335148″][quote comment=”335147″][quote comment=”335139″]The problem is that the Nats also claim that 1924 title – they have a penant hanging at Nats Park.[/quote]
    Don’t tell this to the Mets, or they’ll start claiming all the titles the Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Giants won when they were in the city…[/quote]
    Everybody knows the Mets won’t try to claim Giants history. Just black the Giants just happened to wear in New York once.[/quote]

    The Nats even have an homage to the 1924 team in the PNC Diamond Club bar – the boxscore from game 7:

    http://nationals.mlb...

    It’s hard to see in this pic, but they have flags for the 1924 world champs, the 1925 american league champs, and the 1933 american league champs:

    http://2.bp.blogspot...

    And even though they took all of the Expos records and history with them, they have nothing commemorating Montreal’s 1981 division championship.

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

  • aflfan | June 15, 2009 at 3:51 pm |

    Couldn’t find any pictures, but in the Tigers/Pirates game, the Pirates’ starting pitcher and Miguel Cabrera trimmed the long throwback sleeves. The pitcher’s looked fine, but Cabrera’s were uneven and looked quite ridiculous.[/quote]

    I can’t remember which relief pitcher for the Pirates it was but one of them trimmed the sleeve on his pitching hand but left the other one at the regular length.

  • War Damn Eagle | June 15, 2009 at 3:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”335153″][quote comment=”335059″]ok, i’m gonna say it: I HATE ONLY HAVING WHITE AND GREY JERSEYS IN BASEBALL! yes, every teams grey unis are so damn plain and boring. which team has grey as an official color? to me its the same as teams having black for no reason. i love the colored alternates.[/quote]

    I agree. I understand the whole white at home but why not more colors in the away uniforms.[/quote]

    Why not have someone mock up what solid color road unis would look like for a few baseball teams? You know, along the lines of the solid navy w/ white pinstripe unis the White Sox wore in KC.

    http://cache.daylife...

    What if the Yankees reversed their pinstripes for a road uniform?

    Or if the Braves extended their navy road alts to include their pants?

    Or if the Astros had red-brick colored pants to match their alt tops?

    Or if the Pirates wore black pants with the black alt unis?

    Or a solid blue road jersey for the Nats with the curly W on the chest, similar to this early Senators look:

    http://exhibits.base...

  • Tim D | June 15, 2009 at 3:56 pm |

    Not a fan of the D-backs uni’s..logo’s…EXCEPT the snake head ” db”…and I am most likely the ONLY person who actually liked the Coyotes old “Picasso ” multi-colored sweaters….I hate myself.

  • LI Phil | June 15, 2009 at 4:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”335156″][quote comment=”335153″][quote comment=”335059″]ok, i’m gonna say it: I HATE ONLY HAVING WHITE AND GREY JERSEYS IN BASEBALL! yes, every teams grey unis are so damn plain and boring. which team has grey as an official color? to me its the same as teams having black for no reason. i love the colored alternates.[/quote]

    I agree. I understand the whole white at home but why not more colors in the away uniforms.[/quote]

    Why not have someone mock up what solid color road unis would look like for a few baseball teams? You know, along the lines of the solid navy w/ white pinstripe unis the White Sox wore in KC.

    http://cache.daylife...

    What if the Yankees reversed their pinstripes for a road uniform?

    Or if the Braves extended their navy road alts to include their pants?

    Or if the Astros had red-brick colored pants to match their alt tops?

    Or if the Pirates wore black pants with the black alt unis?

    Or a solid blue road jersey for the Nats with the curly W on the chest, similar to this early Senators look:

    http://exhibits.base...

    im planning on doing that for a weekend piece in the the not too distant future jon

    stay tuned

  • anotherguy | June 15, 2009 at 4:02 pm |

    Personal Trainer is 82 years old and still pumping iron: apparently no relation to the optometrist on Long Island. :-)

    http://www.macon.com...

  • anotherguy | June 15, 2009 at 4:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”335145″]JTH,

    Saturday you asked for a cross of the Bears & Packers uni-wise. [/quote]

    JTH, I thought you’d ask for a Sox/Cubs crossover considering the games coming up this week.

  • anotherguy | June 15, 2009 at 4:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”335112″]boy, i’d give my left pinkie to see ted williams bat again!
    [/quote]Off with his head!

  • aflfan | June 15, 2009 at 4:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”335150″]I detest the current Bruins jerseys. The player name font on the back is goofy, I don’t care for all the nonsense on the shoulders, just go back to the 1980’s and make it simple. Neely used to look like an executioner in the Black and Gold roadies.

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

    I’d much rather have those little roaring bears on the sleeves than the current nonsense.[/quote]

    I am a Wings fan but I totally agree with you. I miss the Boston unis of the 80’s

  • leon | June 15, 2009 at 4:15 pm |

    boy, i’d give my left pinkie to see ted williams bat again!

    Off with his head!

    man, that was cold!

  • Skycat | June 15, 2009 at 4:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”335059″]ok, i’m gonna say it: I HATE ONLY HAVING WHITE AND GREY JERSEYS IN BASEBALL! yes, every teams grey unis are so damn plain and boring. which team has grey as an official color? to me its the same as teams having black for no reason. i love the colored alternates.[/quote]
    We already have a sport like that. It’s call softball!

  • Skycat | June 15, 2009 at 4:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”335158″][quote comment=”335156″][quote comment=”335153″][quote comment=”335059″]ok, i’m gonna say it: I HATE ONLY HAVING WHITE AND GREY JERSEYS IN BASEBALL! yes, every teams grey unis are so damn plain and boring. which team has grey as an official color? to me its the same as teams having black for no reason. i love the colored alternates.[/quote]

    I agree. I understand the whole white at home but why not more colors in the away uniforms.[/quote]

    Why not have someone mock up what solid color road unis would look like for a few baseball teams? You know, along the lines of the solid navy w/ white pinstripe unis the White Sox wore in KC.

    http://cache.daylife...

    What if the Yankees reversed their pinstripes for a road uniform?

    Or if the Braves extended their navy road alts to include their pants?

    Or if the Astros had red-brick colored pants to match their alt tops?

    Or if the Pirates wore black pants with the black alt unis?

    Or a solid blue road jersey for the Nats with the curly W on the chest, similar to this early Senators look:

    http://exhibits.base...

    im planning on doing that for a weekend piece in the the not too distant future jon

    stay tuned[/quote]

    From Wikipedia:
    Although the Yankees have worn the same road uniform since 1918 (with the exception of 1927 to 1930, when the arched “NEW YORK” was replaced by the word “YANKEES”), a radical change was proposed in 1974. Marty Appel, in his book Now Pitching for the Yankees, describes the proposed uniforms:[4]
    “ In 1974 I walked into (then-General Manager) Gabe Paul’s office to find samples of new Yankee road uniforms draped across his sofa. They were the opposite of the home pinstripes — they were navy blue with white pinstripes. The NY logo was in white. Gabe liked them. I nearly fainted. Although the drab gray road uniforms were not exciting, with the plain NEW YORK across the chest, they were just as much the Yankees’ look as were the home uniforms. I think my dramatic disdain helped saved (sic) the day and saved the Yankees from wearing those awful pajamas on the field. ”
    The Yankees did, however, make some minor updates to the road uniforms that season, including adding striping patterns to the sleeves and a white outline to the jersey numbers and the “NEW YORK” arch. This has remained since.

  • Jeff P | June 15, 2009 at 4:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”335151″][quote comment=”335144″][quote comment=”335113″][quote comment=”335088″][quote comment=”335011″]I don’t necessarily hate the uniform, but one aspect of the Packers uniform I hate is if a player is wearing a helmet without a rear bumper and they add a decal to make it look like it does.

    http://cache.daylife...

    Annoys the hell out of me.[/quote]

    My biggest complaint about the Packers’ uniforms is the yellow pants on the road. It just looks bad. Green pants with striped socks would look much better.[/quote]
    No, thanks.

    The Packers tried green pants before. Didn’t look good then, wouldn’t look good now.

    The gold pants perfectly balance the gold helmet.[/quote]
    On the road means with white jerseys. Personally, I can’t stand the yellow with white look either. Not enough contrast.

    Forgot about it, but that’s one I should put on my list. Packers Road. Not really that great at all for me. One of those ones that say tradition filled isn’t always good design to me.[/quote]

    Ah, the “tradition” in the roads isn’t all that great. Just one World Championship.

    Not enough contrast? Sorry, I don’t see that. Even in fog and snow, the gold pants clearly stand out from the jerseys.[/quote]
    Not enough for me. It’s distinct and you can tell the difference, but they’re two different lights, and it’s just not a good look. for example, would you wear a white jacket with tan slacks? It just looks like you dressed in the dark.

    Now try that uni with green pants and white socks. The helmet is a bit odd, but headwear just has to go, not to match.

    Here’s a quick job to show what it would look like

    Much better IMO.

  • Skycat | June 15, 2009 at 4:36 pm |

    I would take exception to the “Mets never having gotten their road uni right,” by referencing the obvious:

    http://exhibits.base...

    Should have left well enough alone.

  • Pretty Boy Paulie | June 15, 2009 at 4:37 pm |

    I reacted almost violently when I first saw the “Anti-Cubs” logo at the top of the post LOL! Great post today!

    I STRONGLY disagree with some of the secrets posted up there but that’s what this all about. Ya gotta keep this thing going. I think different editions for each sport/league would be really cool.

  • DJ | June 15, 2009 at 4:38 pm |

    Italy’s Confederations Cup kit, on display today against the US, is truly hideous: light blue jerseys, brown shorts, brown and blue socks. Ew.

    It’s an homage to the World Cup-winning teams of 1934 and 1938, who wore the lighter blue shade. They say they went with dark brown for “aesthetic” reasons; I suspect it was because they didn’t want to wear the black shorts and socks they really wore back then to avoid people saying they were Fascist sympathizers.

  • NJL | June 15, 2009 at 4:46 pm |

    Carrie Underwood is one of the few people who can really make fake stirrups work.

  • War Damn Eagle | June 15, 2009 at 4:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”335166″][quote comment=”335151″][quote comment=”335144″][quote comment=”335113″][quote comment=”335088″][quote comment=”335011″]I don’t necessarily hate the uniform, but one aspect of the Packers uniform I hate is if a player is wearing a helmet without a rear bumper and they add a decal to make it look like it does.

    http://cache.daylife...

    Annoys the hell out of me.[/quote]

    My biggest complaint about the Packers’ uniforms is the yellow pants on the road. It just looks bad. Green pants with striped socks would look much better.[/quote]
    No, thanks.

    The Packers tried green pants before. Didn’t look good then, wouldn’t look good now.

    The gold pants perfectly balance the gold helmet.[/quote]
    On the road means with white jerseys. Personally, I can’t stand the yellow with white look either. Not enough contrast.

    Forgot about it, but that’s one I should put on my list. Packers Road. Not really that great at all for me. One of those ones that say tradition filled isn’t always good design to me.[/quote]

    Ah, the “tradition” in the roads isn’t all that great. Just one World Championship.

    Not enough contrast? Sorry, I don’t see that. Even in fog and snow, the gold pants clearly stand out from the jerseys.[/quote]
    Not enough for me. It’s distinct and you can tell the difference, but they’re two different lights, and it’s just not a good look. for example, would you wear a white jacket with tan slacks? It just looks like you dressed in the dark.

    Now try that uni with green pants and white socks. The helmet is a bit odd, but headwear just has to go, not to match.

    Here’s a quick job to show what it would look like

    Much better IMO.[/quote]

    You just made the Green Bay Packers into the Edmonton Eskimos.

    http://www.esks.com/...

  • War Damn Eagle | June 15, 2009 at 4:52 pm |
  • chance michaels | June 15, 2009 at 4:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”335166″][quote comment=”335151″][quote comment=”335144″][quote comment=”335113″][quote comment=”335088″][quote comment=”335011″]I don’t necessarily hate the uniform, but one aspect of the Packers uniform I hate is if a player is wearing a helmet without a rear bumper and they add a decal to make it look like it does.

    http://cache.daylife...

    Annoys the hell out of me.[/quote]

    My biggest complaint about the Packers’ uniforms is the yellow pants on the road. It just looks bad. Green pants with striped socks would look much better.[/quote]
    No, thanks.

    The Packers tried green pants before. Didn’t look good then, wouldn’t look good now.

    The gold pants perfectly balance the gold helmet.[/quote]
    On the road means with white jerseys. Personally, I can’t stand the yellow with white look either. Not enough contrast.

    Forgot about it, but that’s one I should put on my list. Packers Road. Not really that great at all for me. One of those ones that say tradition filled isn’t always good design to me.[/quote]

    Ah, the “tradition” in the roads isn’t all that great. Just one World Championship.

    Not enough contrast? Sorry, I don’t see that. Even in fog and snow, the gold pants clearly stand out from the jerseys.[/quote]
    Not enough for me. It’s distinct and you can tell the difference, but they’re two different lights, and it’s just not a good look. for example, would you wear a white jacket with tan slacks? It just looks like you dressed in the dark.

    Now try that uni with green pants and white socks. The helmet is a bit odd, but headwear just has to go, not to match.

    Here’s a quick job to show what it would look like

    Much better IMO.[/quote]

    I guess w’ll have to agree to disagree. I think it looks hideous.

    And while I prefer to wear a very pale blue with my linen suits, nobody’s ever accused me of getting “dressed in the dark” when I choose a white shirt. Quite the contrary.

  • Hibbs | June 15, 2009 at 4:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”334985″]I have a gripe with the Colts, but not about the simplicity of the jersey, I like that. It’s with the striping.

    The pants have 2 stripes, the sleeves have 2 stripes… why not the helmet?

    Here is a quick photoshop I did of a 2 striped helmet:
    http://farm4.static....
    /3023/3628994616_19933a92ec_o.jpg

    Does anyone agree that looks way better?[/quote]

    It looks good, but I prefer the single stripe. I struggled with that for years. I finally realized the single stripe goes well with the solid sock, and the pants then go with the sleeves (er shoulders). Lose the truncation and they’re flawless.

  • Lou | June 15, 2009 at 5:19 pm |

    I hate the Cowboys white jersey, but for a different reason than everyone else. I used to love them, when they had the notched numbers in the 70’s. However, in the early 80’s they switched to the BOLD numbers, making them thicker and without the notching (which was most prominent on the 2 and 3) and that just ruined the look. To this day, every time I see the Cowboys I can’t help but think how they ruined a perfect look by changing their number font!

  • Hibbs | June 15, 2009 at 5:32 pm |

    I’m impressed with what I am hearing from many. Some of the comments regarding stripes and such are echoing thoughts I’ve had for years. It is validating my theory that there are “natural truths” in uniform design.
    In my opinion, there are only a handful of teams in the 4 major sports that are actually flawless. Several have designs I can stomach, but very few would I deem flawless.

  • Jeff P | June 15, 2009 at 5:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”335173″][quote comment=”335166″][quote comment=”335151″][quote comment=”335144″][quote comment=”335113″][quote comment=”335088″][quote comment=”335011″]I don’t necessarily hate the uniform, but one aspect of the Packers uniform I hate is if a player is wearing a helmet without a rear bumper and they add a decal to make it look like it does.

    http://cache.daylife...

    Annoys the hell out of me.[/quote]

    My biggest complaint about the Packers’ uniforms is the yellow pants on the road. It just looks bad. Green pants with striped socks would look much better.[/quote]
    No, thanks.

    The Packers tried green pants before. Didn’t look good then, wouldn’t look good now.

    The gold pants perfectly balance the gold helmet.[/quote]
    On the road means with white jerseys. Personally, I can’t stand the yellow with white look either. Not enough contrast.

    Forgot about it, but that’s one I should put on my list. Packers Road. Not really that great at all for me. One of those ones that say tradition filled isn’t always good design to me.[/quote]

    Ah, the “tradition” in the roads isn’t all that great. Just one World Championship.

    Not enough contrast? Sorry, I don’t see that. Even in fog and snow, the gold pants clearly stand out from the jerseys.[/quote]
    Not enough for me. It’s distinct and you can tell the difference, but they’re two different lights, and it’s just not a good look. for example, would you wear a white jacket with tan slacks? It just looks like you dressed in the dark.

    Now try that uni with green pants and white socks. The helmet is a bit odd, but headwear just has to go, not to match.

    Here’s a quick job to show what it would look like

    Much better IMO.[/quote]

    I guess w’ll have to agree to disagree. I think it looks hideous.

    And while I prefer to wear a very pale blue with my linen suits, nobody’s ever accused me of getting “dressed in the dark” when I choose a white shirt. Quite the contrary.[/quote]
    Yes, but the white jacket would look stupid, would it not? Dress shirts are different, they serve as an accent when wearing the jacket.

    This is a bad look, is it not?

    But I guess we’ll have to disagree on the packers.

  • rpm | June 15, 2009 at 5:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”335009″]Don’t know if they’re considered “classic” except possibly by White Sox fans, but to me the current White Sox unis are uninspired, dull and, well, they just leave me cold. Silver and black may work for the Raiders, but this is baseball and bit of brighter colors would help, I think.

    Now, I DO like pinstripes. Wouldn’t want to see them on everyone of course, but the White Sox have something of a tradition of pins over the years, so I much prefer the homes to the roads.

    What I’d like to see is the red replace the silver trim (a nod to the Go-Go Sox of ’59) both home and road, so that it’s used sparingly. I don’t mean the gray jerseys and pants, obviously, just the trim. Imagine those White Sox roads with red and black pant striping, letter and number edges, etc. (add a red edge to the cap logo, too, probably). Such an adjustment also would be something of a step toward “almost” city colors, with the White Sox, Bulls, Black Hawks (even the long-gone Chicago Fire) using essentially red and black as their base colors.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    BINGO! replace the silver with red, i have been saying this for a long time. great minds my friend, great minds.

  • Frank | June 15, 2009 at 5:56 pm |

    I HATE the Yankee’s interlocking NY. If you look at the N, and just the N, notice the contortions it has to go through in order to shimmy the Y in there. It’s painful to look at.
    The Met’s interlocking NY has a much more elegant and clean look to it. On the other hand, I think that the Met’s NY doesn’t match the Met’s script on their home unis. They clash together. The NY was lifted from the NY Giants, but the Giants’ NY matched well with the Giants’ font on their unis.

  • Flip | June 15, 2009 at 5:58 pm |

    [quote comment=”335003″]Many of my friends swear that the current Gifford era Giants’ are classic. I say other wise. I can’t stand the gray pants and plain piping. Ugh. I know that’s how it was in the past but you can’t beat the uniqueness of the mismatched helmet blue color of the Lawrence Taylor era uniform.[/quote]

    I favor the Lawrence Taylor set — including the Giants logo on the helmet.

    In the same vein, I liked the white facemasks better than the gray. At the top of my head, the only grays I like are the 49ers, Cardinals, Cowboys and Raiders. Browns look better in white. Colts look better in blue or white, but I can tolerate the gray.

    Now if Buffalo goes old school, that gray would be OK.

    While I’m at it, count me in the column that thought the ball-in-the-mitt Brewers logo looked amateurish and is WAY overrated.

  • JTH | June 15, 2009 at 6:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”335145″]JTH,

    Saturday you asked for a cross of the Bears & Packers uni-wise. This is the best I could do…

    http://i400.photobuc...
    Cool. Not exactly what I had in mind, but this probably looks a lot better than what I envisioned.

    My thought was essentially to swap the corresponding colors: blue trades places with green and orange trades places with yellow (white stays white). So you’d have orange helmet & pants with a blue jersey for the Pack and green helmet & jersey with white pants for the Bears.

  • Hibbs | June 15, 2009 at 6:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”335180″][quote comment=”335003″]Many of my friends swear that the current Gifford era Giants’ are classic. I say other wise. I can’t stand the gray pants and plain piping. Ugh. I know that’s how it was in the past but you can’t beat the uniqueness of the mismatched helmet blue color of the Lawrence Taylor era uniform.[/quote]

    I favor the Lawrence Taylor set — including the Giants logo on the helmet.

    In the same vein, I liked the white facemasks better than the gray. At the top of my head, the only grays I like are the 49ers, Cardinals, Cowboys and Raiders. Browns look better in white. Colts look better in blue or white, but I can tolerate the gray.

    Now if Buffalo goes old school, that gray would be OK.

    While I’m at it, count me in the column that thought the ball-in-the-mitt Brewers logo looked amateurish and is WAY overrated.[/quote]

    The gray mask on the Giants matches their pants. That is good.
    Gray masks look good with classic looks. Therefore, the Cardinals do not look right.

  • Ray Barrington | June 15, 2009 at 6:47 pm |

    To the guy who needed Carrie Underwood to get interested in women’s softball, I have just three words.
    Pitcher. Jennie. Finch. (

    Thank me later.

  • Kelley O | June 15, 2009 at 7:12 pm |

    The Yankees road uniform. Even a Yankees hater like me has a hard time tearing down the pinstripe homers. Sure, they’re 60 years behind the times, but that’s how long since they’ve been significantly altered, so fair enough. The road grays on the other hand, are ridivulously boring. Even the addition of sleeve stripes hasn’t improved this monochromatic slumber-inducing kit. Pinstripes are lively enough to compensate for the fact that there are no names, no colors (midnight navy is so close to black as to make no difference except on the shiny batting helmet), and no logos on the home set. The road uniform has no such personality. It could be the road uniform of any team from any era in baseball’s past. Any era, that is, except the recent era, where marketing demands have enforced a degree of differentiation even in road unis, which after all are seen on television by an entire nation. I can hear a chorus of defenders clearing their throats to stand up for this uni, so it’s got to meet the public acceptance criteria. And I think sinfully boring is as good a justification as any. Willfully anachronistic for nostalgia’s sake alone (i.e., the uniform has no other redeeming merits, as do the pinstripes, or the “boring” uniforms of the Cleveland Browns or Penn State) is another.

    Also, the Los Angeles Lakers home yellows. Yeah, yeah, yeah, you’re the most special franchise ever, you gave us Magic and the Logo and all the way back to Mikan. But the Celtics have won two more titles than you (all in the same city, no less – five of yours belong to Minneapolis), are also one of the original BAA franchises to remain in their original city and with their original nickname. And yet they still manage to wear white at home. As do the other 28 franchises in the NBA and the vast majority of those in the NCAA (except those that have jocked your lead and wear some form of nauseating gold, goldenrod, yellow, old gold, or canary).

    Unique does not by definition equal exceptional. Sometimes unique is just a stupid exception.

    Thanks.

  • Kelley O | June 15, 2009 at 7:22 pm |

    Sorry, sounds like I’m a Boston fan. I’m not. And I hate the new retro-boring roadies for the Sawx, for the record. But I don’t think those have gained public acceptance yet, and they certainly aren’t classics, except in the manufactured sense of the word.

  • Vegas4BOC | June 15, 2009 at 8:05 pm |

    Tuesday at the CWS, ASU will be the home team and will wear 1981 throwback jerseys, commemorating the most recent of the Sun Devils’ five CWS championships.

  • Nick | June 15, 2009 at 8:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”334981″]Cowboys whites. Royal blue numbers, royal blue “sleeve” stripes with thin black outline? Yet the helmet has the nice navy blue star. Then the pants-two different shades of silver? The dark jerseyed uniform set is great, the whites that they love to wear at home are a mess. I look forward to the 2 or 3 times a season when the blue jerseys are worn.[/quote]

    RE: Cowboys

    I am, a huge fan of their original 1960-1963 Blue/white unis – despite the positively WEIRD crossing material on their front neckline, which contributed to the front numerals being 4-6 inches lower than the larger back numerals. They were unique and flashy, yet perfectly classic in their own way. Supposedly, Tom Landry really fought to keep them, but ownership wanted the updated look.

    Speaking of the update (1964+), the color was never supposed to be SILVER. but a “metallic blue”. I read a story/interview with one of the Dalls honchos (Tex Schramm, Gil Brandt? – I simply don’t remember) that explained that the management was looking for an update to the original unis, and that the particular Cowboy exec responsible for the new unis saw the color of “metallic blue” ON A NEW CAR DRIVING ON THE FREEWAY, he caught up with it at a stop, and decided then and there that it would be the new second color for the Cowboys new unis.

    Another detail, I read a second story in 1980-1981 after the Cowboys lost to the Eagles in the NFC Championship game, where the Eagles wore white and the Cowboys lost in their “Bad Luck” road royal blue jerseys, that team management decided to ditch the “Bad Luck” jerseys get a new color road jerseys, and almost chose a “metallic Blue” road jersey, to be worn with white pants, before finally settling on the 1981 navy blue jersey.

    Anybody else know more?

  • Nick | June 15, 2009 at 8:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”334985″]I have a gripe with the Colts, but not about the simplicity of the jersey, I like that. It’s with the striping.

    The pants have 2 stripes, the sleeves have 2 stripes… why not the helmet?

    Here is a quick photoshop I did of a 2 striped helmet:
    http://farm4.static....

    Does anyone agree that looks way better?[/quote]

    Sorry, the single stripe look on both white helmets is a much cleaner look.

    If I were starting the NY Jets today, I would have a single stripe on the helmet.

    Since they now have a 30+ year identity with the current striped white helmet, I would definitely keep the two stripes on the Jets helmet, and leave the Colts helmet as is.

  • Jeff P | June 15, 2009 at 8:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”335190″][quote comment=”334985″]I have a gripe with the Colts, but not about the simplicity of the jersey, I like that. It’s with the striping.

    The pants have 2 stripes, the sleeves have 2 stripes… why not the helmet?

    Here is a quick photoshop I did of a 2 striped helmet:
    http://farm4.static....

    Does anyone agree that looks way better?[/quote]

    Sorry, the single stripe look on both white helmets is a much cleaner look.

    If I were starting the NY Jets today, I would have a single stripe on the helmet.

    Since they now have a 30+ year identity with the current striped white helmet, I would definitely keep the two stripes on the Jets helmet, and leave the Colts helmet as is.[/quote]

    They’re both good looks. I don’t really see one being better, just a stylistic choice. Both are quite clean- cluttered is when you get outlines on stripes and such, neither of which are there. One color stripes on a plain helmet are clean whether there’s one or two.

  • Nick | June 15, 2009 at 8:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”334991″][quote comment=”334988″]I’ll add one more

    The New York Giants – To me their uniform is the equivalent of watching a really good movie set in the 50’s, when all of a sudden a character pulls out a blackberry.

    i.e. if you’re going retro – you have to go retro all the way – no modern day gloss on the helmet![/quote]

    i have to say there’s one “classic” uniform that’s always bothered me, and it’s the new york football giants away uni…paul already detailed most of the complaints i and most fans of the g-men have, so i won’t bother reiterating them, save to say — why the hell is there almost NO blue? (i know, i know, the uniform they’re ‘throwing back’ to had almost no blue) — but that doesn’t make it any more likable…

    i’m not saying the road uni has to be a mirror image of the home, but it really needs more blue (maybe along the lines of what paul suggests in his article, maybe not)…but something’s gotta give[/quote]

    Tarkenton era Giants (white pants always) unis were much better.

    If I am not mistaken, didn’t the Giants wear white pants with dark jerseys/gray pants with white jerseys in the pre-white on white Tarkenton era?

  • dan | June 15, 2009 at 8:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”334992″]I know it’s sacrilege on this site, but I hate any uniform with a green and gold/yellow color scheme. A’s, Packers, Sonics, Colorado State, Baylor, Notre Dame sometimes. Yuck.

    Perhaps because I got stuck with different variations of this color scheme in both high school and college.[/quote]

    i agree. it has always looked like puke to me. anything with yellow or old gold has looked ugly to me. sadly, if i had to pick a match for yellow, it would be purple! don’t kill me! it looks the best even though i really hate the lakers and vikings. i don’t like the a’s white shoes.

    i can’t stand the cowboys home white. none of the silvers match and you shouldn’t wear white at home in football.

    i am a cub fan, but i don’t like their home or road. it is really boring and the pinstripes make it hard on the eyes. i like the blue jersey.

    i don’t like the (white) sox faux retro. it is one of the reasons i changed my allegiance to the cubs. it is too gang-like and i loved the 87-90 script “c” on the hat and number on the pants.

    i don’t like the colts white if it has white shoes and a grey facemask. they need to go back to blue bars.

  • jbona | June 15, 2009 at 9:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”335066″]Mine are the Red Wings red, I can’t stand it for the blandness that others have mentioned. Looks like a cheap jersey template you get to save costs on a men’s league team, not something you should see in the NHL. And they have the best white uni in the NHL, go figure.

    [/quote]

    as a die-hard bruins fan (unless the whalers were to make a return, of course…) who HATES the wings, I love their red unis for the same reasons i hate them. when i see them line up on the ice, i think of this

    http://www.1972summi...
    which, in my humble mind, symbolizes the wings perfectly: the big, bad, intimidating, (evil), detroit red wings.

  • PuckyTheWhale | June 15, 2009 at 9:10 pm |

    My “Anti-Uni Secrets”:

    Baseball:
    Yankees– many consider their uniforms to be classic. I think they’ve looked the same for so long they could really use some change. Nothing drastic, just an update. Kinda like how the stripes on the NFL’s referee shirts were updated a couple years ago, why not do something like that with the pinstripes?

    Also, MLB teams wearing white at home and gray on the road has really got to stop. How can you make a sport that is already notorious for being boring to watch, even MORE boring? I know, lets have all the teams wear the same plain, blah colors! What can be more plain and blah than white and gray? Nothing! Boring uniforms is one of the main reasons why I don’t watch baseball. Let’s bring back some of the interesting, colorful uniforms from the 70’s, like the all-yellow A’s, the all-green A’s, the all-orange Orioles, the all-light-blue of several teams, the all-yellow Padres, the all-red Indians, the rainbow Astros, the all-yellow Pirates, and the maroon-and-light-blue Phillies. Here is a mystery that boggles my mind: why can’t modern MLB uniforms have colored pants??? Watching the World Baseball Classic was great, ’cause you got to see colored baseball pants for the first time in a while:

    http://www.juventudr...

    To put the white-at-home, gray-on-the-road in perspective, how boring would the NFL, NBA, and NHL be if their teams also all wore white and gray?

    Football:
    Many people believe the Packers uni’s are classic because they harken back to their 1960’s glory years, but like the Yankees, they could really use an update. Keep the colors, just modernize the details. The Bears are also considered to have classic uni’s, but could use an update too. I like the dark-yellow Redskins facemask, but it seems like Washington has had their current uni FOREVER and they could really use some change (not to mention the whole racist “redskin” nickname thing, which really shouldn’t exist in this day and age). They should change their name to something less racially-toned yet still Native American related, and bring back the big-feather-on-the-back helmets:

    http://www.helmethut...

    http://www.helmethut...

    Many people believe the Colts uniforms to be classic, but I think they have way too much white when they wear white jerseys. It’s too bad the 1995 blue pants were short lived; they added some color to the otherwise very plain uni’s:

    http://footballunifo...

    The Colts need something added to their uni’s to spice them up a bit. Perhaps black-and-white checkered flag accents, as a reference to the Indianapolis 500. (Which leads me to suggest “HORSEPOWER” would be a great nickname for their defense or fan base or something, if they did indeed incorporate Indy car elements on their uniforms.)

    When the Colts moved to Indy they should’ve changed their nickname, logo, and colors and left the Colts history and legacy in Baltimore in case that city ever got an expansion team, and then that expansion team could be named the Colts. (Like what the Browns did to Cleveland when they moved in the 90’s.) Baltimore Colts just sounds so classic and so much better than Indianapolis Colts. But then again, Baltimore Ravens is pretty badass and dark and fear-inducing and relevant to the city, which is cool, but their Raven-head helmet logo is so puke-tastically ugly!!! The Ravens need to incorporate the insanely awesome Maryland flag into their uniforms more. They already have an alternate logo with elements from the state flag that appears on the jersey sleeves (also used as the midfield logo), but this logo should be on the helmets. Here’s a link to this alternate logo:

    http://sportslogos.n...

    And here’s how it appears on the Ravens jerseys:
    http://www.patriotsi...

    The Raiders are another NFL team with classic uni’s that could really use an update, but as long as Al Davis is alive this is not gonna happen. They should keep the silver and black which is synonymous with the team, but just update the logo, the numbers, and the pants striping.

    College Football:
    The fact that Notre Dame is called the Fighting Irish and yet wears navy blue jerseys drives me absolutely batshit crazy. I’m sure a lot of Notre Dame fans consider their navy blue and gold uniforms to be classic, but they really should adopt their green alternate jerseys as their full-time jerseys. It just makes SOOOO much more sense! Irish = green.

    Also, many fans consider Penn State’s simple uniforms to be classic, but they are so uninteresting to me. Like the Colts, when they wear white jerseys, they have waaaay too much white. They desperately need a helmet logo, and their pants look like practice pants, since they are all white with no striping. Like the Raiders with Al Davis, Penn State’s uni’s will never change as along as Paterno is alive.

    One more thing related to uniforms that a lot of people think is good but drives me up the fucking wall: having game-used helmets and jerseys autographed by the player who wore them. I feel this ruins the relic as an athletic artifact. It probably adds value to the item. but to me it destroys the aesthetics and adds an element that was never there when the piece was worn during games. If you want an autographed helmet, have the player sign a replica, and please leave the game-worn ones alone. If having game-worn helmets and jerseys autographed by their respective players was actually appropriate, everything in Canton would be signed! Even the busts would have signatures across the foreheads! Hopefully this illustrates how foolish I think getting authentic athletic artifacts autographed by athletes is. (How’s THAT for alliteration, bitch?)

  • bukbukbuk | June 15, 2009 at 9:11 pm |

    I GOT IT (Game 1)

    http://www.baseball-...

    I GOT IT (Game 2)

    http://www.baseball-...

  • Nick | June 15, 2009 at 9:22 pm |

    [quote comment=”335106″][quote comment=”335102″]Anti-Uni secret? It sounds more like New School fans complaining about traditional designs. Bears numbers too skinny? Are you kidding me? MB-Glove logo 4 fingers > all cartoon characters have 4 fingers. Cubs outline too thick? It’s proportional to the “C”. Complaining about the Pirates font? I can’t even fathom this. My anti-Uni secret? Flying Elvis is a terrible logo. Pretty much any logo or design made on a computer is ugly.[/quote]

    Wondered when someone was gonna notice how much this today has been about when you think “always” begins.

    Packers in green pants with white jerseys? Sure, if they’re planning on playing junior college football instead of in the NFL.

    And, yeah, “hate” is at worst, overreaction. At best, laziness in word usage.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I TOTALLY AGREE.

    My all-time uni anti is watching my beloved Saints play in white jerseys and BLACK LEOTARD PANTS.

    The template for the Saints, Packers, Lions, Cowboys, etc. have been to wear their second color for both pants and helmet, with a white or dark jersey. This is a cleran, themed, sensible, traditional look.

    Then, the same IDIOTS that have to play rap music between ewvery play and think that Richard Pryor’s quote of “We Bad, We Bad” is the all-time eternal height of Hollywood script writing, decided to put the Saints and the Lions in dark pants. Thus the creation of athletic, esthetic VOMIT !!!

    Luckily, the Packers and Cowboys have resisted.
    That would be next to as horrible as the Saints – and objectively probably worse than the Saints uni-wise.

    The Colts allowed their ill-fated idiot BYU-ripoff blue pants to go away pretty quickly.
    The Browns were hopefully one&done with the brown monstrosities.

    Who would have known that Lions would at least be ahead of the curve on ditching the Dark pants !!!

  • LI Phil | June 15, 2009 at 10:09 pm |

    [quote]My all-time uni anti is watching my beloved Saints play in white jerseys and BLACK LEOTARD PANTS.[/quote]

    hardly fits anyone’s definition of “classic” tho ;)

  • JimV19 | June 15, 2009 at 10:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”335172″]http://www.punkoryan.com/images/oct06/rj_esks_riders_17.jpg[/quote]

    I like the Eskimos with this look. Mostly it’s because it separates them from looking like the Packers, which they did for about 20 years.

    This discussion made me think of oriental rug makers (trust me, this is going somewhere). I read where a lot of middle-eastern and oriental rug makers would go to great lengths to make such intricate patterns and designs…and then they would purposely add one little flaw, because they felt they were mere mortals and should not seek to achieve perfection on their own. Perhaps we should consider this approach with uniforms. Do we want every team to have the same perfect colors and style, or do we embrace some of the quirks and mistakes of the sporting world?

    Yes, every team should have good uniforms, but let’s be glad most of them stop short of perfection. I say kudos, Cleveland Browns, for taking a classic design, then making it look like a pumpkin sitting on a giant cowpie. You have my respect for trying that look. I say kudos, Buffalo Sabres, for your old inconsistently-striped jerseys. I say kudos, U. of Oregon…well…okay, kudos to you for wearing lightning yellow.

    If a “bad” color scheme or a design flaw is something that has a story behind it, instead of being a fad or a result of some marketing study, all the more reason to not change it. I’m not saying baseball’s worst team should officially call themselves the Natinals, but hopefully you get my drift.

  • JTH | June 15, 2009 at 10:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”335177″][quote comment=”335173″][quote]
    Not enough for me. It’s distinct and you can tell the difference, but they’re two different lights, and it’s just not a good look. for example, would you wear a white jacket with tan slacks? It just looks like you dressed in the dark.

    Now try that uni with green pants and white socks. The helmet is a bit odd, but headwear just has to go, not to match.

    Here’s a quick job to show what it would look like

    Much better IMO.[/quote]

    I guess w’ll have to agree to disagree. I think it looks hideous.

    And while I prefer to wear a very pale blue with my linen suits, nobody’s ever accused me of getting “dressed in the dark” when I choose a white shirt. Quite the contrary.[/quote]
    Yes, but the white jacket would look stupid, would it not? Dress shirts are different, they serve as an accent when wearing the jacket.

    This is a bad look, is it not?

    But I guess we’ll have to disagree on the packers.[/quote]
    Jeff,

    Are you really discussing fashion dos and don’ts with a Packers fan?

  • Nick | June 15, 2009 at 10:52 pm |

    [quote comment=”335198″][quote]My all-time uni anti is watching my beloved Saints play in white jerseys and BLACK LEOTARD PANTS.[/quote]

    hardly fits anyone’s definition of “classic” tho ;)[/quote]

    Agreed – but my hatred of the black leotards forced me to bring it up here.

    Classic unis that could be made better …

    The Yankees, Red Sox, and most of all Cardinals road unis. (Assuming they are thought of as “classic”.)

    The Cards’ road unis are a train wreck. Simply decide that Navy or Red is your dominant color, and use it for both the hat and the sleeves. And Heaven forbid, never use a solid Navy hat and/or sleeves with Red shoes. AND THAT NAVY CAP IS CRAP as long as there is white trim on the Red “ST.L”!!!

    Cards road unis are a very easy problem to solve:
    Cap – Musial era navy crown, red brim, untrimmed Red “St. L”. Black shoes. Navy or Red sleeves since the two-tone cap allows for both, though I prefer Navy.

    The Yankess and Red Sox road unis are way too bland. Keep the caps, they are classic, but how about some trim, or piping, and a better font on the front chest. These are still 3000% better in their present form than the Cards road unis.

  • Chance Michaels | June 15, 2009 at 10:52 pm |

    [quote comment=”335193″][quote comment=”334992″]I know it’s sacrilege on this site, but I hate any uniform with a green and gold/yellow color scheme. A’s, Packers, Sonics, Colorado State, Baylor, Notre Dame sometimes. Yuck.

    Perhaps because I got stuck with different variations of this color scheme in both high school and college.[/quote]

    i agree. it has always looked like puke to me. anything with yellow or old gold has looked ugly to me. sadly, if i had to pick a match for yellow, it would be purple! don’t kill me![/quote]

    Purple, all associations aside, is a terrible sports color.

    The problem with purple is that, perhaps alone amongst colors, it looks completely different under different lighting.

    Watch the Lakers on television, even high-def, and you could easily mistake their uniforms for blue. Same with the Vikings.

    All colors react differently under artificial light, cloud cover, bright sunlight, etc. (not to mention in person or on television, 35mm film). But while the Football Giants’ blue may look like different shades of blue under those different circumstances, it’s always blue. They’re always identifiable. Same with red, or green. But purple? Never looks the same, too seldom looks like purple at all.

  • JimV19 | June 15, 2009 at 10:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”335184″]To the guy who needed Carrie Underwood to get interested in women’s softball, I have just three words.
    Pitcher. Jennie. Finch. (

    Thank me later.[/quote]

    (the writer of this post is officially not at liberty to express any signs of extreme thankfulness at this time)

    Hmm, that’s not bad. I agree with the decision to not go with stirrups in the 2nd photo.

  • Nick | June 15, 2009 at 11:01 pm |

    WHAT RUINS ANY CLASIC UNI?

    NFL – gratuitous and unneeded “NFL EQUIPMENT” patches, needless team wordmarks and/or logos on chest, Reebok logos on sleeves as big as team logos (I know, Seahawks are not “classic”, but it’s the douchbaggery of it that is creeping”).
    Neck stripes/collars on jerseys that are better done without (Saints, Packers)and UCLA stripes that do not go all the way around (Colts – NOW THAT’s CLASSIC !!!)

    MLB/NCAA Baseball – ANY cap patches/embroidery that isn’t the regular cap logo or letter.

    Basketball – A lost cause.

    Hockey – All updated uni templates as well as the “rounded bottom” jerseys of recent vintage.

    Soccer – Douchbaggery of incorporation of manufacterer stripes into uni stripes.

  • Matt | June 15, 2009 at 11:02 pm |

    Many people claim that the Braves’ alternate navy jersey is better than the red one, but I just don’t see it. The navy looks worse than the BP jersey with that white outline that looks unfinished. The red one at least has a finished look to it and much more personality.
    If red was used to fill in the logo and numbers on the navy, I’d like it just fine.

  • Clyde | June 15, 2009 at 11:30 pm |

    My gosh, what about Jennie Fitch? Are you crazy????

  • Clyde | June 15, 2009 at 11:31 pm |

    Finch, even lol

  • JimV19 | June 15, 2009 at 11:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”335206″]My gosh, what about Jennie Fitch? Are you crazy????[/quote]

    Just trying to give a proper, subdued (married) response…

  • Patrick in MI | June 15, 2009 at 11:47 pm |

    [quote comment=”335078″]ill throw mine in. youve prolly heard me say it before, but i hate stirrups. all of them. i hate them with a passion, and for a couple of reasons. first, they are completely unnecessary as a clothing item in modern days. dyed fabric does not poison people anymore, so there is no need to have another sock under a colored sock. second, long stirrups never looked good to me, especially with pinstriped pants.

    http://www.blackpast...

    i hate seeing the yankees uniforms from before the 90s or so because of that reason. the long stirrups simply look like shit with pinstripes (or ever, really). third, i hate it when there is space between the stirrup and the player’s lower leg (see left leg in picture).

    http://cache.daylife...

    i think that looks totally little league, like they couldn’t find a sock to fit the player. last, i hate stirrups because they are lauded less as an aesthetic nicety and more because they are traditional, which doesn’t make sense to me. i care more about how something looks than about what decade it evokes in my mind.[/quote]

    Wow, another stirrup-hater comes out of the closet. I am not alone! My dislike of them comes from playing two years of Little League which I absolutely detested. Bad memories I guess.

    As far as “classic” unis that I dislike, I’d have to go with Ohio State’s football helmets, particularly the achievement decals or whatever the hell they’re called. It’s a team sport, no one person should be singled out. And stop calling them “The” Ohio State University/tOSU. Quit being so arrogant, Columbus! For the record, I dislike the Wolverines just as much.

  • Mike Engle | June 15, 2009 at 11:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”335208″][quote comment=”335206″]My gosh, what about Jennie Fitch? Are you crazy????[/quote]

    Just trying to give a proper, subdued (married) response…[/quote]
    Come on, she’s married too. She’s a beautiful woman. There. Easy and non-offensive. If I were married, it would still be harmless for me to say that because it’s true.

  • Chuck | June 15, 2009 at 11:53 pm |

    Red Wings, blood red jerseys are a thing of beauty!

  • Scott | June 16, 2009 at 12:22 am |

    Nobody sticking up for the Flyers’ orange uni set yet? I agree the sleeve numbers overlapping the edge of the white are not great and I could do without the white box around the name on back, but I am just a huge fan of orange, black and white when there is a dominance of orange (exception being the Orioles’ all-orange unis they wore a couple times). To me the “flying P” logo of the Flyers is the most gorgeous of all logos in any sport (next to the YELLOW horn on the helmets of the LA Rams) and when placed on an orange background it is well nigh perfect, making up for a few other lapses in judgment. Just wish the current orange was the slightly more burnt orange of the old rather than the almost florescent orange of the current jerseys…

    Also, in the spirit of commenting on what drives us CRAZY: I am struck with complete and utter incomprehension about the White Sox wearing black socks. Every other element of their uniform is completely irrelevant until they fix the biggest nick-name/uniform incongruity in sports.

  • JimV19 | June 16, 2009 at 12:30 am |

    [quote comment=”335210″][quote comment=”335208″][quote comment=”335206″]My gosh, what about Jennie Fitch? Are you crazy????[/quote]

    Just trying to give a proper, subdued (married) response…[/quote]
    Come on, she’s married too. She’s a beautiful woman. There. Easy and non-offensive. If I were married, it would still be harmless for me to say that because it’s true.[/quote]

    My original comment was just playing up to the UW stereotype that only we would see a beautiful woman in a dress pitching a softball and say, “I agree with the decision not to go with stirrups.” You have no argument from me, Mike…

  • rjcoy06 | June 16, 2009 at 1:51 am |

    [quote comment=”335195″]My “Anti-Uni Secrets”:

    One more thing related to uniforms that a lot of people think is good but drives me up the fucking wall: having game-used helmets and jerseys autographed by the player who wore them. I feel this ruins the relic as an athletic artifact. It probably adds value to the item. but to me it destroys the aesthetics and adds an element that was never there when the piece was worn during games. If you want an autographed helmet, have the player sign a replica, and please leave the game-worn ones alone. If having game-worn helmets and jerseys autographed by their respective players was actually appropriate, everything in Canton would be signed! Even the busts would have signatures across the foreheads! Hopefully this illustrates how foolish I think getting authentic athletic artifacts autographed by athletes is. (How’s THAT for alliteration, bitch?)[/quote]

    I collect game worn hockey jerseys, and an autograph on a jersey is considered to lower the value of a jersey for the reasons you mentioned. It is not how it was when worn on the ice. I know a lot of collectors that will not buy jerseys with autos or will pay significantly less for them. A few of mine are auto’d, but everything I buy is for my personal collection, not to sell. I prefer mine without an auto, but if it is something that fits my collection, and it is auto’d, I will still buy it.

  • Chris in DC | June 16, 2009 at 2:51 am |

    [quote comment=”335152″][quote comment=”335148″][quote comment=”335147″][quote comment=”335139″]The problem is that the Nats also claim that 1924 title – they have a penant hanging at Nats Park.[/quote]
    Don’t tell this to the Mets, or they’ll start claiming all the titles the Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Giants won when they were in the city…[/quote]
    Everybody knows the Mets won’t try to claim Giants history. Just black the Giants just happened to wear in New York once.[/quote]

    The Nats even have an homage to the 1924 team in the PNC Diamond Club bar – the boxscore from game 7:

    http://nationals.mlb...

    It’s hard to see in this pic, but they have flags for the 1924 world champs, the 1925 american league champs, and the 1933 american league champs:

    http://2.bp.blogspot...

    Any recognition to a previous championship is only simply to honor Washington baseball, not the Expos/Nationals franchise. For a team with as few championships as the original Nats/Senators team, and then Senators II, it’s important that they work with what they’ve got.

  • Nick | June 16, 2009 at 4:37 am |

    [quote comment=”335198″][quote]My all-time uni anti is watching my beloved Saints play in white jerseys and BLACK LEOTARD PANTS.[/quote]

    hardly fits anyone’s definition of “classic” tho ;)[/quote]

    Only 16 of 239 comments have come after 10pm …

    This is the most wholesome, Calvinistic group of “early risers” that I have ever been involved with !!!

  • Filthy McNasty | June 16, 2009 at 5:13 am |

    I appear to be in the minority here, but I don’t see adidas stripes on the shoulders/sleeves/shorts/socks as douchbaggery, it’s a classic look for me, one that was used long before obtrusive company logos on the the chest of ‘soccer’ jerseys.

    Maybe it’s double standards, as I wouldn’t like to see a huge Nike swoosh or Reebok vector mark across a shirt, but the three stripe trim looks right to me. Many in England who pine for simpler designs compared to today’s overcooked mostrosities would point to adidas kits from the 70’s and 80’s as an example of correct design.

  • Gemnr | June 16, 2009 at 5:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”335169″]Italy’s Confederations Cup kit, on display today against the US, is truly hideous: light blue jerseys, brown shorts, brown and blue socks. Ew.

    It’s an homage to the World Cup-winning teams of 1934 and 1938, who wore the lighter blue shade. They say they went with dark brown for “aesthetic” reasons; I suspect it was because they didn’t want to wear the black shorts and socks they really wore back then to avoid people saying they were Fascist sympathizers.[/quote]

    Throwbacks, (kinda sorta).

  • PuckyTheWhale | June 16, 2009 at 9:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”335212″]Also, in the spirit of commenting on what drives us CRAZY: I am struck with complete and utter incomprehension about the White Sox wearing black socks. Every other element of their uniform is completely irrelevant until they fix the biggest nick-name/uniform incongruity in sports.[/quote]

    I completely, wholeheartedly agree. The White Sox should always wear white socks, and the Red Sox should always wear red socks. The End.

  • ChillicotheCraig | June 16, 2009 at 9:52 pm |

    Little late coming in with my Secret Uni Love but I didn’t see it referred to yet. I actually like the Gorton Fisherman NY Islanders 3rd. Don’t own one but I hope to get one.

    Now to totally bury myself. Not so much a specific uni but something I’ve seen Paul refer to that I really dislike. I love stirrups. But sorry Paul, I in no way shape or form like the bloused baseball pants. Give me a nice set of stirrups with some high riding elastic cuffed pants. Please no blousing.