Monday Morning Uni Watch, Hall of Fame Game Edition

Picture 2.png

I only caught the last few minutes of the Hall of Fame Game last night. Fortunately, thanks to the magic of internet photo galleries, I can bring you the uni-related highlights anyway:

• In recent weeks, it had looked like the Bills were gonna go with this pants stripe pattern. But they ended up going with this instead.

• The Titans’ much-discussed Steve McNair memorial decal is innocuous enough. And Tennessee’s coaching staff wore memorial collar pins.

• Take another look at that helmet photo. Notice anything? No NFL logo! In fact, the NFL shield was absent from both teams’ helmets. That’s nothing new for the Bills, whose throwback helmets have been shield-free for years now. It’ll be interesting to see if the Titans — and/or other teams partaking in the AFL throwback series — continue to eschew the league logo.

• Now go back to that Jeff Fisher shot. See how the logo on his shirt is all faded? That’s not a glitch — both coaching staff wore shirts with “distressed” emblems. I hate that faux-vintage approach (if you want a beat-up old Bills shirt, spend some time in thrift stores like I do), but I do find it interesting that they’d use that look for the coaches — a much more casual look than the usual coaching attire.

• The officials looked so damn great. A few people in last night’s comments were griping about the socks or the uni numbers not being fully accurate, but AFL officials had a wide range of looks over the years — they didn’t have just one standardized number font, e.g. I’m perfectly fine with how they’ve handled this.

• The red gloves that were worn by members of both teams reeeaaaally don’t belong in a throwback game.

• Bills owner Ralph Wilson wore his Hall of Fame blazer. But hey, Ralph, we gotta talk about those sneakers.

I’m sure there was a whole lot more that I missed, but I was busy catching the world debut of the Pedestrians. More on that later. For now, enjoy the onset of football season try not to melt today.

Raffle Reminder: I’m currently raffling off 10 free copies of Bill Henderson’s amazing MLB jersey guide. To enter, send an e-mail to the raffle address by 7pm tomorrow. One entry per person, except for Uni Watch Membership Program enrollees, who can send four separate entries. I’ll announce the winners on Wednesday.

Research Project: We’ve all long lamented the fact that there’s no online database for NBA uniform history. Now reader Chuck Myron wants to do something about that. He’s willing to do the archival research, but he’ll need help creating the illustration templates and the web site itself. If you’re interested in helping him out, contact him here. Thanks.

Uni Watch News Ticker: Some guy on eBay is selling some really great baseball-themed Cuban pin-up posters. I just bought this one, and there are additional examples here, here, here, here, and here. … Bizarre coincidence: In last week’s ESPN column, I mentioned that I’d met a collector named Michael Ono, who’s been collecting USC alum autographs. Got a note from him on Friday, thanking me for including him in the column, with a twist: Turns out that he’s been the creative services manager for the A’s for nearly a decade (“I thought I was the only one who knew about the various discrepancies in our logo,” he says) and even designed their 40th-anniversary patch last year. So when I interviewed him at the convention, I was talking to a professional logo guy and didn’t even realize it. Small world and all that. … Red Sox third base coach DeMarlo Hale appears to be wearing the same flapless Wilson helmet design worn by A.J. Pierzynski (good spot by Andy Chalifour). … New logo for GW hoops (with thanks to Dan Franko). … Whoa, check this out: a black Ohio State hoops uni. The design was never worn on the court (thankfully), but it’s still interesting (with thanks to Dylan Glickman). … Small change for Iowa football, where the chest wordmark has been replaced by a collar logo (with thanks to Matthew Nelson). … The Raiders have posted a bunch of archival photos, many of them spectacular, on their web site. Check out image No. 9 and you’ll see them playing against a decal-less Broncos team. Preseaon, perhaps? (Major thanks to Mako Mameli.) … Didn’t know AT&T Park had a Giants uni display until Brinke Guthrie sent me these pics. … I might actually watch soccer if it was played by kangaroos. That’s the logo for the bidding for the 2018-2022 World Cups in Australia (with thanks to Jeremy Brahm). … Those Adidas college football practice jerseys, first seen on Tennessee, are also being worn by other schools, including Notre Dame, Kansas, and Indiana. … New football uniforms Louisville. In addition to the new striping, Louis Samuels notes that the QBs already have hand-warmer pockets — odd for August, no? … And according to the very last sentence on this page, Pitt will be unveiling new Nike uniforms today (with thanks to CJ Giannuzzi). … Here’s a NickNOB. That’s Yuji Nakazawa of the Yokohama F Marinos in the J-League (with thanks to Jeremy Brahm). … Matthew Hiett notes that Braves first base coach Glenn Hubbard still has the 4ALS decal on his helmet. … Lots of good shots of Babe Ruth as a pitcher here (with thanks to Chad Todd). … Scott Little sent a bunch of scans from a Tokyo Giants mag. Among the highlights: a guide to the uniforms worn by the stadium staff at the ballpark and some sort of “design the uni contest” (look here, here, and here). … Also from Scott: Maybe the best “Official [whatever] of the [league]” sponsorship ever and some killer furniture. … Ricko sent me scans of a ticket brochure from the old Minnesota Buckskins of World Team Tennis. “I was league PR director and a minority owner in the Buckskins,” he explains. “I didn’t do the paintings, but I did design the unis and the logo (well, drew the intentionally unisex character and my dad did the lettering, by hand). Note that the women are shown wearing two different colors — brown was to be the road uni. Men’s road would have flip-flopped the brown and gold on the uni shown. All moot, though, cuz the majority owner didn’t wanna pop for the custom unis.” … Super-cool interactive map on old Indiana basketball gyms here (great find by Ben Traxel). … Dr. John C. Barnes notes that UNLV appears to have changed their black helmet stripe to a red stripe. … Mark Teixeira was missing the 2 on his helmet last night (as spotted by Mike Lafferty). … “This watch ad ran in various football game programs, including those at Dartmouth, in the late ’70s and early ’80s,” says Tris Wykes. “It ran with the image reversed year after year, and they failed to correct it. That’s Columbia at Harvard, in case you’re wondering. Interesting that the helmet logos weren’t airbrushed out.” … Reprinted from last night’s comments: Chris Cooley’s latest blog entry is all about uniform fines. … Check out this completely amazing vintage SF Giants apron! It’s available for sale here. … The Cowboys have been engaging in some haircut-based rookie hazing. … The long-rumored new Arizona State jerseys look like this. … Ladies and gentlemen, your new Philadelphia 76ers. … Someone on the Chris Creamer board showed a small scan showing that Broncos-style vertically striped socks were briefly featured in the Wilson catalog.

 

255 comments to Monday Morning Uni Watch, Hall of Fame Game Edition

  • Marc M. | August 10, 2009 at 8:35 am |

    “Ladies and gentlemen, your new Philadelphia 76ers.”

    Heaven forbid that they actually would just go back to the simplicity of the early 80′s uniform. They had to add stuff that just junks it up, still a lot better than the current crappy design, which if I remember correctly Allen Iverson had a hand in designing.

  • M.Princip | August 10, 2009 at 8:40 am |

    After seeing last nights game, and how the Titans donned the AFL Houston Oiler throwbacks, I couldn’t help but wonder if, maybe, say 20 years down the road the Ravens put some Browns throwbacks on and we have a vintage Browns team playing against the present day Cleveland Browns team? Technically could happen, right?

  • M.Princip | August 10, 2009 at 8:42 am |

    Paul, I don’t know jack shit about Golf, yet, I was thinking how interseting it would be if you interviewed say, for example, Tiger Wood’s Caddie. I mean he’s an equipment manager, coach, and psycho therapist all rolled up in one. Just thinking, if I were going to read an article about Golf, that would be the one I’d love to read.

  • Mycoskie | August 10, 2009 at 8:43 am |

    [quote comment="344831"]After seeing last nights game, and how the Titans donned the AFL Houston Oiler throwbacks, I couldn’t help but wonder if, maybe, say 20 years down the road the Ravens put some Browns throwbacks on and we have a vintage Browns team playing against the present day Cleveland Browns team? Technically could happen, right?[/quote]

    No, because the NFL made Modell leave the team’s history in Cleveland. Records started fresh in Baltimore. No such thing happened with the Oilers/Titans.

  • Jeremy Brahm | August 10, 2009 at 8:45 am |

    The design the uni contest for the Yomiuri Giants was actually the presentation of six different designs that were created for the 75th Anniversary of the Giants. Each one is done by a Giants fan who is a graphic designer.

    They are shown in these photos.
    http://www.oricon.co...

    http://blogimg.goo.n...

    http://image.excite....

    http://blog.magabon....

    http://blog.magabon....

  • M.Princip | August 10, 2009 at 8:47 am |

    [quote comment="344833"][quote comment="344831"]After seeing last nights game, and how the Titans donned the AFL Houston Oiler throwbacks, I couldn’t help but wonder if, maybe, say 20 years down the road the Ravens put some Browns throwbacks on and we have a vintage Browns team playing against the present day Cleveland Browns team? Technically could happen, right?[/quote]

    No, because the NFL made Modell leave the team’s history in Cleveland. Records started fresh in Baltimore. No such thing happened with the Oilers/Titans.[/quote]

    Ah yes, that’s right.

  • Ben | August 10, 2009 at 8:52 am |

    Red Sox third base coach DeMarlo Hale appears to be wearing the same flapless Wilson helmet design worn by A.J. Pierzynski

    The really interesting thing about Hale wearing this style is that the Red Sox have not, and hopefully won’t ever, adopted the CoolFlo style helmet for batters, only the base coaches. First base coach Tim Bogar wore one briefly also, yet has opted for the standard model recently.

  • Pat | August 10, 2009 at 8:55 am |

    Got 4 of those Cuban Pinup posters a couple of years ago. I believe it was the same seller. Decent quality (we’re not talking crazy high quality art paper or anything but good none the less) and they look great framed and on my wall. Must have for anyone that\’s a fan of baseball and of pinups or vintage art!

  • Fappy McFapper | August 10, 2009 at 8:57 am |

    As far as Ralph Wilsdon’s wearing sneakers go, the guy is 90 years old, god forbid he should be allowed to feel comfortable and not have his feet ache. Give me a fucking break.

    Looking ahead 10 years will bring us to the 100th anniversary of the NFL. One thinks that there will be a huge year long celebration involving retro unis and such. One suggestion I would throw out right now is that rather then having teams only wear retro/anniversary unis for 3 or 4 games that season, that every game be played in retro unis, and no just one uni, but the entire history of the franchise. With the newer teams that won’t mean many if any uni changes, but with a team like the Redskins you’d have 5 or 6 different unis to wear.

  • Jeff Boone | August 10, 2009 at 8:58 am |

    Anyone got pictures of the Charlotte Bobcats new uniforms? They were aired on the Charlotte NBC affiliate during last night’s news apparently. All I’ve seen so far is low-quality screen captures, hoping someone would have something better.

  • Jonathan | August 10, 2009 at 9:25 am |

    This has probably been mentioned before, and its not huge news by any means. But i saw a Todd Hamilton McFarlane figure last night and it had the dreaded 2 tone batting helmet. The only pics i found online don’t show the helmet detail.

  • Jonathan | August 10, 2009 at 9:27 am |

    and yeah that would be Josh Hamilton of course… i had Todd McFarlane on my mind i guess.

  • Prexy Hater | August 10, 2009 at 9:51 am |

    [quote comment="344836"][quote comment="344833"][quote comment="344831"]After seeing last nights game, and how the Titans donned the AFL Houston Oiler throwbacks, I couldn’t help but wonder if, maybe, say 20 years down the road the Ravens put some Browns throwbacks on and we have a vintage Browns team playing against the present day Cleveland Browns team? Technically could happen, right?[/quote]

    I understand that the Titans have the Oilers legacy, but its an insult to Houston fans that the NFL would allow Tennessee to wear Houston Oilers throwbacks. They look good, though.
    No, because the NFL made Modell leave the team’s history in Cleveland. Records started fresh in Baltimore. No such thing happened with the Oilers/Titans.[/quote]

    Ah yes, that’s right.[/quote]

  • Scott Little | August 10, 2009 at 9:52 am |

    Somehow I knew J.Brahm would have a little insight on those Tokyo Giants scans…

  • Jeremy Brahm | August 10, 2009 at 9:56 am |

    Scott was that a Brutus magazine?

  • Eriq Jaffe | August 10, 2009 at 9:57 am |

    FYI, the Yuji Nakazawa link doesn’t work.

  • Dave | August 10, 2009 at 9:58 am |

    [quote comment="344830"]“Ladies and gentlemen, your new Philadelphia 76ers.”

    Heaven forbid that they actually would just go back to the simplicity of the early 80′s uniform. They had to add stuff that just junks it up, still a lot better than the current crappy design, which if I remember correctly Allen Iverson had a hand in designing.[/quote]

    i like how they got the type size correct, but not sure i like the shiny, thick blue trim. agreed these are better than what they’ve had.

  • Paul Lukas | August 10, 2009 at 10:00 am |

    [quote comment="344848"]FYI, the Yuji Nakazawa link doesn’t work.[/quote]

    Now fixed.

  • LI Phil | August 10, 2009 at 10:06 am |

    [quote]I understand that the Titans have the Oilers legacy, but its an insult to Houston fans that the NFL would allow Tennessee to wear Houston Oilers throwbacks.[/quote]

    how’s that again?

  • Pretty Boy Paulie | August 10, 2009 at 10:18 am |

    I’m gonna have to see more of those new Sixers unis in order for me to make a judgement. But I may be liking what I see.

  • bill | August 10, 2009 at 10:29 am |

    [quote comment="344837"]Red Sox third base coach DeMarlo Hale appears to be wearing the same flapless Wilson helmet design worn by A.J. Pierzynski

    The really interesting thing about Hale wearing this style is that the Red Sox have not, and hopefully won’t ever, adopted the CoolFlo style helmet for batters, only the base coaches. First base coach Tim Bogar wore one briefly also, yet has opted for the standard model recently.[/quote]

    If I were a base coach I would definitely have a flap.

    I understand why Mr. Wilson wore sneakers. At least he didn’t wear velcro slippers.

  • marc | August 10, 2009 at 10:40 am |

    [quote comment="344839"]Looking ahead 10 years will bring us to the 100th anniversary of the NFL. One thinks that there will be a huge year long celebration involving retro unis and such. One suggestion I would throw out right now is that rather then having teams only wear retro/anniversary unis for 3 or 4 games that season, that every game be played in retro unis, and no just one uni, but the entire history of the franchise. With the newer teams that won’t mean many if any uni changes, but with a team like the Redskins you’d have 5 or 6 different unis to wear.[/quote]

    …then you’d have teams like the browns and colts who would pretty much be in the same unis all season. the biggest exceptions might be the colts’ blue helmet with dual horseshoes on the back or the browns’ dreaded brown pants (worn in yesterday’s team scrimmage, btw).

    personally, i like how the modern nfl — in comparison to the other majors — is relatively consistent with unis (nike-fication notwithstanding). most nfl teams are pretty indistinguishable from their counterparts of about 40 years ago. teams like the browns, chiefs, dolphins, and niners have barely skipped a beat. the jets fell off the wagon in the 80s but thankfully got back on. fewer in number are teams that have made major changes like the broncos, pats and bengals (in whose case made a major change over 20 years ago and have remained relatively unchanged since).

  • The Jeff | August 10, 2009 at 10:45 am |

    In regards to the link for Raiders pictures…

    Picture 70 – What’s the patch on his leg?

  • marc | August 10, 2009 at 10:50 am |

    [quote comment="344833"][quote comment="344831"]After seeing last nights game, and how the Titans donned the AFL Houston Oiler throwbacks, I couldn’t help but wonder if, maybe, say 20 years down the road the Ravens put some Browns throwbacks on and we have a vintage Browns team playing against the present day Cleveland Browns team? Technically could happen, right?[/quote]

    No, because the NFL made Modell leave the team’s history in Cleveland. Records started fresh in Baltimore. No such thing happened with the Oilers/Titans.[/quote]

    technically, though, you could have throwbacks between the chiefs and texans (texans v. texans)… or rams and cardinals (cards v. cards)… or rams and browns (rams v. rams).

  • Scott Little | August 10, 2009 at 10:51 am |

    Jeremy,
    Yes, it was Brutus. Kinokuniya makes a ton of money off me.

    We outta get together, I need some stuff translated…

  • marc | August 10, 2009 at 10:54 am |

    [quote comment="344851"][quote]I understand that the Titans have the Oilers legacy, but its an insult to Houston fans that the NFL would allow Tennessee to wear Houston Oilers throwbacks.[/quote]

    how’s that again?[/quote]

    the uniform thing is no big deal. the bigger insult is the nfl allowing teams like the titans to have come into existence the way they did. (no offense titan, raven, colt, ram or cardinal fans)

  • Giancarlo | August 10, 2009 at 10:56 am |

    The Broncos went without a helmet decal all through the ’67 season. Last AFL/NFL team to do that besides the Browns.

    Nice to see in the Raider photos so many old discarded uni designs while the Raiders remain almost exactly indentical-looking.

  • JSS | August 10, 2009 at 10:58 am |

    First look at Pitt’s Uni:
    http://img256.yfrog....

    It appears the gold on them is much less metallic and more flat. Thus far, I like.

  • JTH | August 10, 2009 at 11:05 am |

    [quote comment="344837"]Red Sox third base coach DeMarlo Hale appears to be wearing the same flapless Wilson helmet design worn by A.J. Pierzynski

    The really interesting thing about Hale wearing this style is that the Red Sox have not, and hopefully won’t ever, adopted the CoolFlo style helmet for batters, only the base coaches. First base coach Tim Bogar wore one briefly also, yet has opted for the standard model recently.[/quote]
    Y’know, I really don’t understand all the Cool-Flo hatred around these parts. Other than the foolishness displayed by teams like the Mets & Rockies (and the Texases — almost) the overall look of the helmet is not that bad when done correctly.

  • gusto | August 10, 2009 at 11:05 am |

    [quote comment="344860"]First look at Pitt’s Uni:
    http://img256.yfrog....

    It appears the gold on them is much less metallic and more flat. Thus far, I like.[/quote]

    It’s an improvement, but it doesn’t appear as though the script “Pitt” is coming back to the helmet. I noticed the boring “PITT” on the jersey.
    At least it’s a step in the right direction.

  • JSS | August 10, 2009 at 11:09 am |

    Yes, it is a step in the right direction and I’ll take it; excited to see the rest. I’m pleased they are clean and classic.

  • Frank from B-more | August 10, 2009 at 11:10 am |

    Trust me, as the fan of a stolen team, who got his new team through theft; I have been conflicted. In the end both Houston and Cleveland got their teams back (and Cleveland got to keep their name). In a perfect would my kids would still be rooting for the Colts and I would wear blue on sunday instead of purple, but I still love the Ravens.

  • Nick | August 10, 2009 at 11:12 am |

    In fact, the NFL shield was

    I noticed during the touchdown celebration photo that AJ Trapasso’s (No. 4) back helmet bumper is being pulled down by a teammate. I’m never seen that before.

  • LI Phil | August 10, 2009 at 11:12 am |

    [quote comment="344858"][quote comment="344851"][quote]I understand that the Titans have the Oilers legacy, but its an insult to Houston fans that the NFL would allow Tennessee to wear Houston Oilers throwbacks.[/quote]

    how’s that again?[/quote]

    the uniform thing is no big deal. the bigger insult is the nfl allowing teams like the titans to have come into existence the way they did. (no offense titan, raven, colt, ram or cardinal fans)[/quote]

    not following…

    you’re saying it’s an insult for teams to move? or that any team who moves can’t take any of it’s history with it?

  • Nick | August 10, 2009 at 11:14 am |

    [quote comment="344865"]

    In fact, the NFL shield was

    I noticed during the touchdown celebration photo that AJ Trapasso’s (No. 4) back helmet bumper is being pulled down by a teammate. I’m never seen that before [/quote]

    Here is the photo I was referencing
    http://d.yimg.com/a/...

  • Paul Lukas | August 10, 2009 at 11:18 am |

    [quote comment="344855"]In regards to the link for Raiders pictures…

    Picture 70 – What’s the patch on his leg?[/quote]

    Excellent catch:
    http://farm3.static....

    I confess that this is new(s) to me. Ricko (or anyone else), care to weigh in?

  • Joe Hilseberg | August 10, 2009 at 11:18 am |

    [quote comment="344864"]Trust me, as the fan of a stolen team, who got his new team through theft; I have been conflicted. In the end both Houston and Cleveland got their teams back (and Cleveland got to keep their name). In a perfect would my kids would still be rooting for the Colts and I would wear blue on sunday instead of purple, but I still love the Ravens.[/quote]

    Agreed. Cleveland fans can complain all they want about Modell and writers can lobby to keep him out of the HOF, but he did right by the city and left them their legacy. I really hate Bob Irsay.

  • mike 2 | August 10, 2009 at 11:21 am |

    [quote comment="344866"][quote comment="344858"][quote comment="344851"][quote]I understand that the Titans have the Oilers legacy, but its an insult to Houston fans that the NFL would allow Tennessee to wear Houston Oilers throwbacks.[/quote]

    how’s that again?[/quote]

    the uniform thing is no big deal. the bigger insult is the nfl allowing teams like the titans to have come into existence the way they did. (no offense titan, raven, colt, ram or cardinal fans)[/quote]

    not following…

    you’re saying it’s an insult for teams to move? or that any team who moves can’t take any of it’s history with it?[/quote]

    I think what he’s saying (and I stand to be corrected) is that it would hurt like heck to see the team that left town and broke your heart wearing the same jerseys again as part of a promotion.

    I’m a former Winnipeg Jets fan and ticketholder, I’m not sure I agree, but I get the sentiment.

  • Hott Rodd | August 10, 2009 at 11:23 am |

    [quote comment="344867"][quote comment="344865"]

    In fact, the NFL shield was

    I noticed during the touchdown celebration photo that AJ Trapasso’s (No. 4) back helmet bumper is being pulled down by a teammate. I’m never seen that before.

    Ohio Cards Blog[/quote]

    Here is the photo I was referencing
    http://d.yimg.com/a/...[/quote]

    The really weird part is that many of the oiler’s helmets last night did not even have the bumper.

  • marc | August 10, 2009 at 11:27 am |

    [quote comment="344866"][quote comment="344858"][quote comment="344851"][quote]I understand that the Titans have the Oilers legacy, but its an insult to Houston fans that the NFL would allow Tennessee to wear Houston Oilers throwbacks.[/quote]

    how’s that again?[/quote]

    the uniform thing is no big deal. the bigger insult is the nfl allowing teams like the titans to have come into existence the way they did. (no offense titan, raven, colt, ram or cardinal fans)[/quote]

    not following…

    you’re saying it’s an insult for teams to move? or that any team who moves can’t take any of it’s history with it?[/quote]

    the moving. it’s hard to stomach no matter how it’s handled — from the robert irsay’s sneak thief act of to the months-long rumblin’, stumblin’ and bumblin’ act perpetrated by art modell. nobody ever said business was pretty.

  • M.Princip | August 10, 2009 at 11:28 am |

    [quote comment="344864"]Trust me, as the fan of a stolen team, who got his new team through theft; I have been conflicted. In the end both Houston and Cleveland got their teams back (and Cleveland got to keep their name). In a perfect would my kids would still be rooting for the Colts and I would wear blue on sunday instead of purple, but I still love the Ravens.[/quote]

    This is just my opinion, yet, Baltimore football fans got uni screwed twice. First, when they lost the awesome Colt’s uniforms. Second, when they lost the first, totally badass, Raven’s winged shield logo. Now, they have one of the worst helmet decals in the league. I root for the Ravens, yet, I hate their logo. I do like the alt. logo though; MD flag shield.

  • LI Phil | August 10, 2009 at 11:29 am |

    [quote comment="344855"]In regards to the link for Raiders pictures…

    Picture 70 – What’s the patch on his leg?[/quote]

    it looks like that logo on the pants is this patch

  • Bes rnard | August 10, 2009 at 11:31 am |

    [quote comment="344862"][quote comment="344860"]First look at Pitt’s Uni:
    http://img256.yfrog....

    It appears the gold on them is much less metallic and more flat. Thus far, I like.[/quote]

    It’s an improvement, but it doesn’t appear as though the script “Pitt” is coming back to the helmet. I noticed the boring “PITT” on the jersey.
    At least it’s a step in the right direction.[/quote]

    I’m all for clean and classic, but this is just kinda “blah”.

    As for those new ASU jerseys… that’s a shame. The sleeve piping really doesn’t work without… y’know… sleeves. Could have been a clean look, instead it looks like it’s falling into Cardinals/Falcons/UnderArmour territory.

  • Mike | August 10, 2009 at 11:34 am |

    When can we expect an official announcement on the new 76ers Jerseys now that the road jersey has been released on UW.

    Can i also assume that the home jersey is the unmodified version of last year’s throwback?

  • JTH | August 10, 2009 at 11:36 am |

    [quote comment="344854"]personally, i like how the modern nfl — in comparison to the other majors — is relatively consistent with unis (nike-fication notwithstanding). most nfl teams are pretty indistinguishable from their counterparts of about 40 years ago. teams like the browns, chiefs, dolphins, and niners have barely skipped a beat. the jets fell off the wagon in the 80s but thankfully got back on. fewer in number are teams that have made major changes like the broncos, pats and bengals (in whose case made a major change over 20 years ago and have remained relatively unchanged since).[/quote]

    The Bengals’ look is relatively unchanged? Relative to what?

    Plus, you’re leaving out a LOT of teams that made major changes over the last couple decades:

    49ers & Giants: a couple “off and back on the wagon” teams
    Falcons
    Eagles
    Cardinals
    Rams
    Vikings
    Bills
    Buccaneers
    Seahawks
    Chargers
    I guess I have throw the Titans in there, too.
    Hell, even the Jaguars just overhauled their look

  • Kevin Z. | August 10, 2009 at 11:36 am |

    While we’re at it with the NBA uni history, we need to resuscitate FUPP – dormant since 2003…

    http://www.weirdwolf...

  • marc | August 10, 2009 at 11:42 am |

    [quote comment="344869"]Agreed. Cleveland fans can complain all they want about Modell and writers can lobby to keep him out of the HOF, but he did right by the city and left them their legacy. I really hate Bob Irsay.[/quote]

    modell didn’t leave the team name and colors by choice. the nfl did that as part of a deal that would help them force convince the city of cleveland to pony up hundreds of millions to build a new stadium.

  • The Jeff | August 10, 2009 at 11:43 am |

    [quote comment="344877"][quote comment="344854"]personally, i like how the modern nfl — in comparison to the other majors — is relatively consistent with unis (nike-fication notwithstanding). most nfl teams are pretty indistinguishable from their counterparts of about 40 years ago. teams like the browns, chiefs, dolphins, and niners have barely skipped a beat. the jets fell off the wagon in the 80s but thankfully got back on. fewer in number are teams that have made major changes like the broncos, pats and bengals (in whose case made a major change over 20 years ago and have remained relatively unchanged since).[/quote]

    The Bengals’ look is relatively unchanged? Relative to what?

    Plus, you’re leaving out a LOT of teams that made major changes over the last couple decades:

    49ers & Giants: a couple “off and back on the wagon” teams
    Falcons
    Eagles
    Cardinals
    Rams
    Vikings
    Bills
    Buccaneers
    Seahawks
    Chargers
    I guess I have throw the Titans in there, too.
    Hell, even the Jaguars just overhauled their look[/quote]

    I’d say most of those are all unchanged enough.

    Of that list, only the Bucs doesn’t still jump out as looking basically the same. The Chargers are still covered in lightning bolts, the Eagles still have a wing on the helmet, etc. They’re different, but a guy waking up from a 30 year coma would still be able to identify most of the teams with no problem.

  • Paul Lukas | August 10, 2009 at 11:46 am |

    [quote comment="344874"][quote comment="344855"]In regards to the link for Raiders pictures…

    Picture 70 – What’s the patch on his leg?[/quote]

    it looks like that logo on the pants is this patch[/quote]

    Sensational work!

    This left-hip patch appears to have been worn for most of the 1984 season, including the playoffs:

    10/1/84:
    http://www.gettyimag...

    10/7/84:
    http://www.gettyimag...

    10/14/84:
    http://www.gettyimag...

    10/28/84:
    http://www.gettyimag...

    12/2/84:
    http://www.gettyimag...

    12/22/84:
    http://www.gettyimag...

    I am ashamed to say I was completely unaware of this.

  • LI Phil | August 10, 2009 at 11:47 am |

    here’s a side by side on that raider patch

  • Scott Little | August 10, 2009 at 11:51 am |

    Paul,
    That patch that Phil made reference to:

    If you have in your bookcase The NFL Experience by David Boss & Bill McGrane (coffeetable picturebook) it shows those AFL patches throughout.

  • Scott Little | August 10, 2009 at 11:53 am |

    By the way, you’re focusing on the Raiders. All teams had them ya know…

  • gusto | August 10, 2009 at 11:55 am |

    [quote comment="344882"]here’s a side by side on that raider patch[/quote]

    Looking at those cool Raider photographs, reminds me of the proud history of that franchise, which is in sad shape right now. The Oakland Raiders are like the Pittsburgh Pirates of the NFL, but they have better opportunity to rebound, thanks to the smart and fair economic system of the NFL.

  • Piping Mike | August 10, 2009 at 11:58 am |

    Regarding the Notre Dame practice jersey, I know (sure hope!) those Adidas stripes won’t be on the game uniform, but I wonder if they are changing the number font. Check out the 5.

    09 Practice
    http://i564.photobuc...

    08 Game
    http://assets.espn.g...

  • anotherguy | August 10, 2009 at 12:02 pm |

    [quote comment="344877"]The Bengals’ look is relatively unchanged? Relative to what?[/quote]
    Relative to the idea that they’re good citizens in the Cincy community?

    BTW JTH, I was thinking the same way as you on the “guess the game” picture of Wrigley. IIRC that was the game when one of the players freaked out and almost ran off the field in the middle of the game because of the lightning.

  • Lee | August 10, 2009 at 12:04 pm |

    My god, those Arizona State uniforms are awful. yes I know I am not adding anything here, but it has to be said. Again.

    Whoever designed them and approved them should be ashamed.

    Lee

  • anotherguy | August 10, 2009 at 12:06 pm |

    [quote comment="344869"]Cleveland fans can complain all they want about Modell… but he did right by the city and left them their legacy.[/quote]
    I’m breaking the lawyer’s rule and asking a question that I don’t know the answer to: but are we sure that Modell was the one who “did right” in keeping the Browns name, etc in Cleveland, or was it the political pressure of the Cleveland leaders?

  • chance michaels | August 10, 2009 at 12:11 pm |

    [quote comment="344884"]By the way, you’re focusing on the Raiders. All teams had them ya know…[/quote]
    Yeah, but not all teams wore them on their hips.

  • Ricko | August 10, 2009 at 12:12 pm |

    [quote comment="344887"][quote comment="344877"]The Bengals’ look is relatively unchanged? Relative to what?[/quote]
    Relative to the idea that they’re good citizens in the Cincy community?

    BTW JTH, I was thinking the same way as you on the “guess the game” picture of Wrigley. IIRC that was the game when one of the players freaked out and almost ran off the field in the middle of the game because of the lightning.[/quote]

    Back in the very early ’60s (long before they automatically pulled teams off the field when lightning threatened) an Oriole outfielder named Willie Tasby played half an inning on defense in his stocking feet one rainy, highly charged night in Baltimore. Didn’t wanna be standing out there wearing steel cleats.
    Mr. Tasby…
    http://vintagecardtr...

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | August 10, 2009 at 12:13 pm |

    Just found this…
    http://www.baseballl...

  • Lee | August 10, 2009 at 12:15 pm |

    [quote comment=\"344889\"][quote comment=\"344869\"]Cleveland fans can complain all they want about Modell… but he did right by the city and left them their legacy.[/quote]
    I\’m breaking the lawyer\’s rule and asking a question that I don\’t know the answer to: but are we sure that Modell was the one who \”did right\” in keeping the Browns name, etc in Cleveland, or was it the political pressure of the Cleveland leaders?[/quote]

    I don’t think it was his idea, but ultimately he was the one who had to give his ‘okay’ for it to actually happen.

    Lee

  • chance michaels | August 10, 2009 at 12:16 pm |

    [quote comment="344889"][quote comment="344869"]Cleveland fans can complain all they want about Modell… but he did right by the city and left them their legacy.[/quote]
    I’m breaking the lawyer’s rule and asking a question that I don’t know the answer to: but are we sure that Modell was the one who “did right” in keeping the Browns name, etc in Cleveland, or was it the political pressure of the Cleveland leaders?[/quote]
    We’re pretty sure that he wasn’t actually.

    http://www.baltimore...

    Telling point – upon reaching an agreement to move his franchise and leave the name behind, Art Modell said: “I am happy for the people of Cleveland. I am happy for the people of Baltimore, and I am happy most of all for the Modell family.”

    You stay classy, Art.

  • Ricko | August 10, 2009 at 12:19 pm |

    [quote comment="344881"][quote comment="344874"][quote comment="344855"]In regards to the link for Raiders pictures…

    Picture 70 – What’s the patch on his leg?[/quote]

    it looks like that logo on the pants is this patch[/quote]

    Sensational work!

    This left-hip patch appears to have been worn for most of the 1984 season, including the playoffs:

    10/1/84:
    http://www.gettyimag...

    10/7/84:
    http://www.gettyimag...

    10/14/84:
    http://www.gettyimag...

    10/28/84:
    http://www.gettyimag...

    12/2/84:
    http://www.gettyimag...

    12/22/84:
    http://www.gettyimag...

    I am ashamed to say I was completely unaware of this.[/quote]

    I’d forgotten about them, too. Well, until seeing the patch brought it back.

    At first I thought maybe was from first year back in Oakland after years in L.A.
    Y’know, that maybe the banner under the Raider guy said…
    “Sorry We Ran Away From Home”
    or something.

    —Ricko

  • anotherguy | August 10, 2009 at 12:19 pm |

    [quote comment="344893"]I don’t think it was his idea, but ultimately he was the one who had to give his ‘okay’ for it to actually happen.[/quote]
    Interesting.

    Of course it’s hard to tell what arms were twisted and by who, and which politicans may have wanted to claim that they were the ones who “saved” the nickname for Cleveland.

    At the very least, I think this inspired a rule change, didn’t it?

  • chance michaels | August 10, 2009 at 12:20 pm |

    [quote comment="344893"][quote comment=\"344889\"][quote comment=\"344869\"]Cleveland fans can complain all they want about Modell… but he did right by the city and left them their legacy.[/quote]
    I\’m breaking the lawyer\’s rule and asking a question that I don\’t know the answer to: but are we sure that Modell was the one who \”did right\” in keeping the Browns name, etc in Cleveland, or was it the political pressure of the Cleveland leaders?[/quote]

    I don’t think it was his idea, but ultimately he was the one who had to give his ‘okay’ for it to actually happen.[/quote]
    You don’t get credit for actions which required a lawsuit for you to take.

    Yes, he agreed to “do the right thing” as part of the settlement. But if it takes a pointed gun for me to help a little old lady across the street, I haven’t exactly earned a merit badge.

  • anotherguy | August 10, 2009 at 12:22 pm |

    [quote comment="344891"]
    Back in the very early ’60s (long before they automatically pulled teams off the field when lightning threatened) an Oriole outfielder named Willie Tasby played half an inning on defense in his stocking feet one rainy, highly charged night in Baltimore. Didn’t wanna be standing out there wearing steel cleats.[/quote]
    I don’t think it got to that level here, but IIRC one of the visitors was gesturing into his dugout, asking them to pick up the phone (yeah, in a lightning storm) and call up to the press box to have them stop the game.

    And afterwards he was pretty candid about his feelings that he didn’t want any part of being one of the dozen or so lightning rods on that stretch of lawn. :-)

  • Berto | August 10, 2009 at 12:23 pm |

    Sorry to be a pest. Could someone kindly provide the tags for doing that “making text into a link instead of posting a separate link” thing that so many of you do in your comments. I’d look it up but as you can see I don’t know what it is actually called.

    Thanks.

  • Lee | August 10, 2009 at 12:29 pm |

    I was looking for items relating to Cleveland keeping the Browns name, colors & history, and found something i don’t ever recall seeing before:

    The Browns were founded in Cleveland in 1946; the Colts in Baltimore in 1947. Both teams began in the All-America Football Conference and joined the NFL in 1950, when the AAFC folded.

    Contrary to popular belief, the Browns were not named for their famous coach Paul Brown. Rather, they were called the Brown Bombers, after the nickname of the revered boxer of that era, Joe Louis. The name later was shortened to the Browns.
    http://www.washingto...

    Is that common knowledge?

    Lee

  • Doc | August 10, 2009 at 12:33 pm |

    Berto,

    a href=\”http://www.espn.com\”> ESPN /a href>
    would become this:

    ESPN

    simply by adding the left pointed bracket before
    the “a href” and “/a href”

  • Teebz | August 10, 2009 at 12:34 pm |

    Picked up a solid book today at my local Indigo/Chapters store.

    The history of Indian Cricket rang through at $5 in the bargain bin. I’m telling you all… this book is a treasure trove of Indian cricket photos. There might be one or two left if anyone wants me to go back and pick them up one.

  • Doc | August 10, 2009 at 12:34 pm |

    Berto,

    a href=”http://www.espn.com”> ESPN /a href>
    would become this:

    ESPN

    simply by adding the left pointed bracket before
    the “a href\” and “a href\”

    Fixed now

  • Beardface | August 10, 2009 at 12:36 pm |

    I’ll hold judgement on the UofL and ASU uniforms until I see them in full pads to see how the sleeve loops look on the field. There’s a chance it won’t be as bad as it originally looks.

    I’m not holding out hope, though.

  • JTH | August 10, 2009 at 12:39 pm |

    [quote comment="344886"]Regarding the Notre Dame practice jersey, I know (sure hope!) those Adidas stripes won’t be on the game uniform, but I wonder if they are changing the number font. Check out the 5.

    09 Practice
    http://i564.photobuc...

    08 Game
    http://assets.espn.g...
    IU’s jerseys have the “Packers 5” as well. I’m guessing it’s just some kind of default Adidas font because the Tennessee practice jerseys (you can see a couple in photo #20 of This gallery) have them, but not the gamers.

    I mean, if they’re using a template for the jerseys, why not use one for the numeral fonts? (Kansas need not apply.)

  • Hibbsy | August 10, 2009 at 12:40 pm |

    Those shirts the coaches wore last night were hideous and insulting. No offense to people who shop at Urban Outfitters, but I think that’s where they got them.
    I often buy vintage wear at thrift stores. However, if a shirt looks “distressed”, I’m not buying it. Maybe a tee shirt. Maybe.
    What were they trying to sell us with those.
    Coaches never wore “distressed” items then, and they don’t now. Except Mr. Sloppy in New England.
    They are seriously insulting everyone’s intelligence. Or at least their own.

  • bourbon soaked idiot | August 10, 2009 at 12:45 pm |

    [quote comment="344880"][quote comment="344877"][quote comment="344854"]personally, i like how the modern nfl — in comparison to the other majors — is relatively consistent with unis (nike-fication notwithstanding). most nfl teams are pretty indistinguishable from their counterparts of about 40 years ago. teams like the browns, chiefs, dolphins, and niners have barely skipped a beat. the jets fell off the wagon in the 80s but thankfully got back on. fewer in number are teams that have made major changes like the broncos, pats and bengals (in whose case made a major change over 20 years ago and have remained relatively unchanged since).[/quote]

    The Bengals’ look is relatively unchanged? Relative to what?

    Plus, you’re leaving out a LOT of teams that made major changes over the last couple decades:

    49ers & Giants: a couple “off and back on the wagon” teams
    Falcons
    Eagles
    Cardinals
    Rams
    Vikings
    Bills
    Buccaneers
    Seahawks
    Chargers
    I guess I have throw the Titans in there, too.
    Hell, even the Jaguars just overhauled their look[/quote]

    I’d say most of those are all unchanged enough.

    Of that list, only the Bucs doesn’t still jump out as looking basically the same. The Chargers are still covered in lightning bolts, the Eagles still have a wing on the helmet, etc. They’re different, but a guy waking up from a 30 year coma would still be able to identify most of the teams with no problem.[/quote]

    And why does this matter. Some teams had crappy designs 30 years ago, 50 years ago, etc. Just because a design is old doesn’t make it good and just because a design is new doesn’t make it bad.

  • Beardface | August 10, 2009 at 12:46 pm |

    http://www.wralsport...

    Carolina Hurricanes issue cease and decist order to a local rap artist for wearing their jersey in promotional material. They say he has damaged the franchise by his use of unauthorized trademarks.

  • stirpey | August 10, 2009 at 12:46 pm |

    [quote comment="344875"][quote comment="344862"][quote comment="344860"]First look at Pitt’s Uni:
    http://img256.yfrog....

    It appears the gold on them is much less metallic and more flat. Thus far, I like.[/quote]

    It’s an improvement, but it doesn’t appear as though the script “Pitt” is coming back to the helmet. I noticed the boring “PITT” on the jersey.
    At least it’s a step in the right direction.[/quote]

    I’m all for clean and classic, but this is just kinda “blah”.

    As for those new ASU jerseys… that’s a shame. The sleeve piping really doesn’t work without… y’know… sleeves. Could have been a clean look, instead it looks like it’s falling into Cardinals/Falcons/UnderArmour territory.[/quote]

    http://www.thepittsb...

    Better Picture of Pitt’s Uni’s. They are not “blah” minus the shoulder striping it is a shout to our past with the white blue white striping on the pants. You’re probably the same person who likes penn state’s uniforms because they are “classic”

  • Joe Hilseberg | August 10, 2009 at 12:47 pm |

    [quote comment="344900"]I was looking for items relating to Cleveland keeping the Browns name, colors & history, and found something i don’t ever recall seeing before:

    The Browns were founded in Cleveland in 1946; the Colts in Baltimore in 1947. Both teams began in the All-America Football Conference and joined the NFL in 1950, when the AAFC folded.

    Contrary to popular belief, the Browns were not named for their famous coach Paul Brown. Rather, they were called the Brown Bombers, after the nickname of the revered boxer of that era, Joe Louis. The name later was shortened to the Browns.
    http://www.washingto...

    Is that common knowledge?

    Lee[/quote]

    In a sort of coincidence, Baltimore’s expansion team in the 90′s was to be called the Bombers

    http://www.signnetwo...

  • Jim Bullard | August 10, 2009 at 12:48 pm |

    [quote comment="344840"]Anyone got pictures of the Charlotte Bobcats new uniforms? They were aired on the Charlotte NBC affiliate during last night’s news apparently. All I’ve seen so far is low-quality screen captures, hoping someone would have something better.[/quote]

    I’m interested in this as well. Do you have links to even the low-quality screen captures?

  • David | August 10, 2009 at 12:49 pm |

    [quote comment="344873"][quote comment="344864"]Trust me, as the fan of a stolen team, who got his new team through theft; I have been conflicted. In the end both Houston and Cleveland got their teams back (and Cleveland got to keep their name). In a perfect would my kids would still be rooting for the Colts and I would wear blue on sunday instead of purple, but I still love the Ravens.[/quote]

    This is just my opinion, yet, Baltimore football fans got uni screwed twice. First, when they lost the awesome Colt’s uniforms. Second, when they lost the first, totally badass, Raven’s winged shield logo. Now, they have one of the worst helmet decals in the league. I root for the Ravens, yet, I hate their logo. I do like the alt. logo though; MD flag shield.[/quote]

    Interesting – my view is completely opposite. I thought the winged shield logo was childish, amateurish and mundane, but I REALLY like the bird logo now on the helmets. To each his own!

  • Ricko | August 10, 2009 at 12:52 pm |

    [quote comment="344900"]I was looking for items relating to Cleveland keeping the Browns name, colors & history, and found something i don’t ever recall seeing before:

    The Browns were founded in Cleveland in 1946; the Colts in Baltimore in 1947. Both teams began in the All-America Football Conference and joined the NFL in 1950, when the AAFC folded.

    Contrary to popular belief, the Browns were not named for their famous coach Paul Brown. Rather, they were called the Brown Bombers, after the nickname of the revered boxer of that era, Joe Louis. The name later was shortened to the Browns.
    http://www.washingto...

    Is that common knowledge?

    Lee[/quote]

    Commonly regarded to not be so, I believe. That “Brown Bombers” thing has become something of an “urban legend”, repeated so many times people have come to see it as the truth.

    Someone else far more familiar with the story than I should tell it, though. So I’ll wait for them to do so properly.

    —Ricko

  • Sam H | August 10, 2009 at 12:56 pm |

    The 76ers link doesn’t seem to work anymore, anyone happen to save the pictures?

  • interlockingtc | August 10, 2009 at 12:57 pm |

    I remember the Minnesota Buckskins. And, Ricko, I always loved that logo a lot.

    Pro tennis back then was really popular and full of such interesting personalities that froming a league didn’t seem outlandish.

  • interlockingtc | August 10, 2009 at 12:57 pm |

    …er…forming

  • Lee | August 10, 2009 at 12:59 pm |

    [quote comment="344913"][quote comment="344900"]I was looking for items relating to Cleveland keeping the Browns name, colors & history, and found something i don’t ever recall seeing before:

    The Browns were founded in Cleveland in 1946; the Colts in Baltimore in 1947. Both teams began in the All-America Football Conference and joined the NFL in 1950, when the AAFC folded.

    Contrary to popular belief, the Browns were not named for their famous coach Paul Brown. Rather, they were called the Brown Bombers, after the nickname of the revered boxer of that era, Joe Louis. The name later was shortened to the Browns.
    http://www.washingto...

    Is that common knowledge?

    Lee[/quote]

    Commonly regarded to not be so, I believe. That “Brown Bombers” thing has become something of an “urban legend”, repeated so many times people have come to see it as the truth.

    Someone else far more familiar with the story than I should tell it, though. So I’ll wait for them to do so properly.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    According to Sports Encyclopedia:
    “Nickname:
    When owner Arthur McBride brought an AAFC team to Cleveland, he held a newspaper contest to name the team and offered a $1,000 war bond to the winner. Browns became a popular choice in tribute to Paul Brown the team’s head coach. Browns was selected the team was unable to use the winning entry Panthers, in honor of Cleveland’s first NFL entry.”
    http://www.sportsecy...

    According to pro Football HoF:
    ” CLEVELAND BROWNS -

    The Cleveland All-America Football Conference franchise conducted a fan contest in 1945 to name the team. The most popular submission was “Browns” in recognition of the team’s first coach and general manager Paul Brown, who was already a popular figure in Ohio sports. Brown at first vetoed the choice and the team selected from the contest entries the name “Panthers.” However, after an area businessman informed the team that he owned the rights to the name Cleveland Panthers, from an earlier failed football team, Brown rescinded his objection and agreed to the use of his name.”
    http://www.profootba...

    Hmmm…

    Lee

  • Ricko | August 10, 2009 at 1:04 pm |

    [quote comment="344912"][quote comment="344873"][quote comment="344864"]Trust me, as the fan of a stolen team, who got his new team through theft; I have been conflicted. In the end both Houston and Cleveland got their teams back (and Cleveland got to keep their name). In a perfect would my kids would still be rooting for the Colts and I would wear blue on sunday instead of purple, but I still love the Ravens.[/quote]

    This is just my opinion, yet, Baltimore football fans got uni screwed twice. First, when they lost the awesome Colt’s uniforms. Second, when they lost the first, totally badass, Raven’s winged shield logo. Now, they have one of the worst helmet decals in the league. I root for the Ravens, yet, I hate their logo. I do like the alt. logo though; MD flag shield.[/quote]

    Interesting – my view is completely opposite. I thought the winged shield logo was childish, amateurish and mundane, but I REALLY like the bird logo now on the helmets. To each his own![/quote]

    “Ravens” owes to Baltimore’s Edgar Allen Poe and his famous poem, of course. As such, the original logo was a little more appropriate, more “spooky old house.” Certainly more attuned to the era when Poe wrote, too. Too bad they were forced to scuttle it.
    http://www.instantre...

    The cartoon Raven is bit too much like the Dom DeLuise-voiced crow in SECRET OF NIMH. “Ooooo….a SPARKLY!” “Awwwww, the turkey faw down.”
    http://media.photobu...

    Doesn’t mean isn’t workable, just doesn’t have the nice “gothic” mood of its predecessor.

    —Ricko

  • Nick | August 10, 2009 at 1:04 pm |

    [quote comment="344888"]My god, those Arizona State uniforms are awful. yes I know I am not adding anything here, but it has to be said. Again.

    Whoever designed them and approved them should be ashamed.

    Lee[/quote]

    Agreed.

    They should have left well enough alone.

  • marc | August 10, 2009 at 1:05 pm |

    [quote comment="344877"]The Bengals’ look is relatively unchanged? Relative to what?

    Plus, you’re leaving out a LOT of teams that made major changes over the last couple decades:

    49ers & Giants: a couple “off and back on the wagon” teams
    Falcons
    Eagles
    Cardinals
    Rams
    Vikings
    Bills
    Buccaneers
    Seahawks
    Chargers
    I guess I have throw the Titans in there, too.
    Hell, even the Jaguars just overhauled their look[/quote]

    the bengals are relatively unchanged when compared to teams like the pats or bucs. same basic color scheme, stripes, etc., but put the bengals of ickey’s era next to today’s bengals in a black jersey and white pants and most folks would say “yeah, they look alike.” to the uni-obsessed, there’s probably something like 872 details i’ve overlooked, but for normal people, the bengals look basically the same.

    by major changes, i meant MAJOR changes (e.g.: pats, broncos, bucs), not color shifts or modern jersey styling. i wasn’t trying to get all UW-OCD about it. my main point was “most nfl teams are pretty indistinguishable from their counterparts of about 40 years ago.” i never said “totally indistinguishable” or “identical.” and i also said stuff such as “teams like…” without stating it was a complete listing.

  • DJ | August 10, 2009 at 1:06 pm |

    Regarding the Notre Dame practice jersey, I know (sure hope!) those Adidas stripes won’t be on the game uniform, but I wonder if they are changing the number font. Check out the 5.

    They couldn’t be on the uniform as they are in the practice jersey; three stripes of the same color are considered an Adidas logo; more than one Adidas logo on the jersey would be an NCAA uniform violation.

    Notre Dame’s jerseys should be unchanged from last year.

  • marc | August 10, 2009 at 1:10 pm |

    [quote comment="344906"]Those shirts the coaches wore last night were hideous and insulting.[/quote]

    agreed. bad move. they weren’t “distressed” in 1960, so they shouldn’t be now.

  • LI Phil | August 10, 2009 at 1:14 pm |

    [quote]to the uni-obsessed, there’s probably something like 872 details i’ve overlooked, but for normal people, the bengals look basically the same.[/quote]

    more like 873

    you’re telling us this resembles this?

     other than black and orange, pretty much NOTHING is the same (side by side)

  • Ricko | August 10, 2009 at 1:21 pm |

    [quote comment="344923"][quote]to the uni-obsessed, there’s probably something like 872 details i’ve overlooked, but for normal people, the bengals look basically the same.[/quote]

    more like 873

    you’re telling us this resembles this?[/quote]

    Amazing how adding TV numbers clutters up a uni.

  • marc | August 10, 2009 at 1:25 pm |

    [quote comment="344923"][quote]to the uni-obsessed, there’s probably something like 872 details i’ve overlooked, but for normal people, the bengals look basically the same.[/quote]

    more like 873

    you’re telling us this resembles this?[/quote]

    no no no no no no no…. my point was is this really that far removed (to the layman) from this?

  • Namhob | August 10, 2009 at 1:29 pm |

    [quote comment="344923"][quote]to the uni-obsessed, there’s probably something like 872 details i’ve overlooked, but for normal people, the bengals look basically the same.[/quote]

    more like 873

    you’re telling us this resembles this?

     other than black and orange, pretty much NOTHING is the same (side by side)[/quote]
    I think he was trying to say that this; looks “similar” to this;

  • Namhob | August 10, 2009 at 1:30 pm |

    [quote comment="344926"][quote comment="344923"][quote]to the uni-obsessed, there’s probably something like 872 details i’ve overlooked, but for normal people, the bengals look basically the same.[/quote]

    more like 873

    you’re telling us this resembles this?

     other than black and orange, pretty much NOTHING is the same (side by side)[/quote]
    I think he was trying to say that a href\=”http://a.espncdn.com/media/pg2/2001/1204/photo/s_ickey_i.jpg”> this /a href\> looks “similar” to a href\=”http://s2nblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/chadjohnson.jpg”> this /a href\>[/quote]
    Yeah, I tried it and failed miserably. I’m going to stick with just copying & pasting the link…

  • Rob Hinkle | August 10, 2009 at 1:33 pm |

    In other Philadelpha 76ers news, they unveiled their new home court today, here’s a photo that I saw on another site court photo

  • timmy b | August 10, 2009 at 1:34 pm |

    [quote comment="344878"]While we’re at it with the NBA uni history, we need to resuscitate FUPP – dormant since 2003…

    http://www.weirdwolf...

    Kevin Z,

    trust me, some of us are working on it.

  • Berto | August 10, 2009 at 1:37 pm |

    [quote comment="344903"]Berto,

    a href=”http://www.espn.com”> ESPN /a href>
    would become this:

    ESPN

    simply by adding the left pointed bracket before
    the “a href\” and “a href\”

    Fixed now[/quote]

    Awesome! Thanks you.

  • timmy b | August 10, 2009 at 1:39 pm |

    The patch on the left hip of the Raiders pants is the 25th AFL anniversary patch. The Raiders were the only one to feature the patch on the trouser hip. All other teams had them on the players’ upper right chest.

    The Raiders and I think the Patriots had the logo only on the patch. The Chiefs had a full right profile of the helmet on the patch and all the other teams (Chargers, Bills, Oilers, Jets and Broncos) had a 3/4′s right profile of their helmet on the patch.

    They were worn in 1984.

  • marc | August 10, 2009 at 1:40 pm |

    this is exactly what i meant by my initial post about how the bengals had a major overhaul over 20 years ago, but since then, they’re relatively unchanged (again, to the layman).

  • flip | August 10, 2009 at 1:40 pm |

    Couple thoughts:
    * Each day Adidas or Under Armor dink with a uniform makes Nike less and less nauseating. Fact is, Nike is doing some downright stylish stuff, Oregon notwithstanding (prior to this year).
    • Art Modell deserves no credit for anything. He’s a greedy bastard. He was an underfunded millionaire trying to play with billionaires. He’d sell his mother if he thought it”d raise his standing.

  • Bernard | August 10, 2009 at 1:41 pm |

    [quote comment="344909"][quote comment="344875"][quote comment="344862"][quote comment="344860"]First look at Pitt’s Uni:
    http://img256.yfrog....

    It appears the gold on them is much less metallic and more flat. Thus far, I like.[/quote]

    It’s an improvement, but it doesn’t appear as though the script “Pitt” is coming back to the helmet. I noticed the boring “PITT” on the jersey.
    At least it’s a step in the right direction.[/quote]

    I’m all for clean and classic, but this is just kinda “blah”.

    As for those new ASU jerseys… that’s a shame. The sleeve piping really doesn’t work without… y’know… sleeves. Could have been a clean look, instead it looks like it’s falling into Cardinals/Falcons/UnderArmour territory.[/quote]

    http://www.thepittsb...

    Better Picture of Pitt’s Uni’s. They are not “blah” minus the shoulder striping it is a shout to our past with the white blue white striping on the pants. You’re probably the same person who likes penn state’s uniforms because they are “classic”[/quote]

    What I meant was they’re fine, just not terribly inspired. I think it’s possible to come up with clean, timeless design without going all the way to plain jersey, plain pants. I know it might be a stretch for Nike… I just think they had an opportunity to design something cool, but went too far the other way.

    Oh, and for the record, I do like Penn State’s uniforms because they’re classic.

  • Lee | August 10, 2009 at 1:41 pm |

    [quote comment="344929"][quote comment="344878"]While we’re at it with the NBA uni history, we need to resuscitate FUPP – dormant since 2003…

    http://www.weirdwolf...

    Kevin Z,

    trust me, some of us are working on it.[/quote]

    Why did whoever was running the FUP&P site stop doing it? I loved (and still love) that site, (although I never liked how they displayed the pants stripes)

    Just curious.

    Lee

  • marc | August 10, 2009 at 1:42 pm |

    [quote comment="344932"]this is exactly what i meant by my initial post about how the bengals had a major overhaul over 20 years ago, but since then, they’re relatively unchanged (again, to the layman).[/quote]

    whoops… meant this.

  • marc | August 10, 2009 at 1:47 pm |

    [quote comment="344913"]Commonly regarded to not be so, I believe. That “Brown Bombers” thing has become something of an “urban legend”, repeated so many times people have come to see it as the truth.

    Someone else far more familiar with the story than I should tell it, though. So I’ll wait for them to do so properly.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    from what i’ve heard, art modell was the one who concocted that pile of crap to deny paul brown the credit. if true, it sure wouldn’t surprise many folks in cleveland.

    btw, i agree whole-heartedly with flip:

    “Art Modell deserves no credit for anything. He’s a greedy bastard. He was an underfunded millionaire trying to play with billionaires. He’d sell his mother if he thought it’’d raise his standing. ”

    amen.

  • JTH | August 10, 2009 at 1:47 pm |

    [quote comment="344920"]my main point was “most nfl teams are pretty indistinguishable from their counterparts of about 40 years ago.” i never said “totally indistinguishable” or “identical.”[/quote]
    Sorry. My mistake. When I read the word “indistinguishable” I took it to mean duplicate, same, etc.

    Anyway, to-MAY-to / to-MAH-to. You say pretty indistinguishable. I say vaguely similar.

  • HIJKMNOP | August 10, 2009 at 1:47 pm |

    I’d like to pose an opinion soliciting starter question: I noticed in the Raiders pix that Jim Otto’s NOB read “J.Otto”. I am aware that his brother also was on the team, but do we think anybody would confuse them? The beautiful symmetry of OTTO above 00 is ruined. (On a side note I am assembling a directory of pallindromic NOBs). :) Is it really necessary to include first initials to identify players when there are already large numerals to assist in that?

  • Giancarlo | August 10, 2009 at 1:51 pm |

    [quote comment="344900"]
    The Browns were founded in Cleveland in 1946; the Colts in Baltimore in 1947. Both teams began in the All-America Football Conference and joined the NFL in 1950, when the AAFC folded.
    [/quote]
    Those weren’t the same Colts. That team played exactly one season in the NFL (1950) and then folded. The modern day Colts were snatched from Dallas in 1953 where they were called the Texans. On the uni tip, the old Colts wore green & silver, new Colts blue & white.

  • Jeff | August 10, 2009 at 1:51 pm |

    UNLV has not changed the color of the stripe on its helmets. The black is staying. The red is for rookies that must earn the right to wear the black stripe.

  • Ricko | August 10, 2009 at 1:54 pm |

    [quote comment="344936"][quote comment="344932"]this is exactly what i meant by my initial post about how the bengals had a major overhaul over 20 years ago, but since then, they’re relatively unchanged (again, to the layman).[/quote]

    whoops… meant this.[/quote]

    If you’re saying the Bengals last redesign came with the Icky Woods look and since then they’ve been just jerking around inside it, updating and improving (well, in their minds, anyway) rather than starting over….

    I’d say that’s accurate.

    Now, when the color scheme changes, like the Bucs, or the Broncos in ’62, and to some extent moves such as the Eagles and Seahawks made…that’s much more toward a “back to the beginning”.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | August 10, 2009 at 1:56 pm |

    [quote comment="344938"][quote comment="344920"]my main point was “most nfl teams are pretty indistinguishable from their counterparts of about 40 years ago.” i never said “totally indistinguishable” or “identical.”[/quote]
    Sorry. My mistake. When I read the word “indistinguishable” I took it to mean duplicate, same, etc.

    Anyway, to-MAY-to / to-MAH-to. You say pretty indistinguishable. I say vaguely similar.[/quote]

    I dunno, without the logos, that’s not a slam dunk, “That’s the Seahawks”

  • marc | August 10, 2009 at 2:02 pm |

    [quote comment="344942"]If you’re saying the Bengals last redesign came with the Icky Woods look and since then they’ve been just jerking around inside it, updating and improving (well, in their minds, anyway) rather than starting over….

    I’d say that’s accurate.

    Now, when the color scheme changes, like the Bucs, or the Broncos in ’62, and to some extent moves such as the Eagles and Seahawks made…that’s much more toward a “back to the beginning”.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Phew… I feel vindicated.

  • Ricko | August 10, 2009 at 2:02 pm |

    Does this help? I think what Marc is saying is that, if a non-uni-obsessed NFL fan came out of a 20-year coma today, he probably could ID most teams by their current unis, even without a clear look at any team logos thereon.

    That about it?

    And I agree, I think the formerly comatose individual in question could do just that.

    Although the Ravens and Titans might confuse him a bit.

    —Ricko

  • marc | August 10, 2009 at 2:05 pm |

    [quote comment="344940"][quote comment="344900"]
    The Browns were founded in Cleveland in 1946; the Colts in Baltimore in 1947. Both teams began in the All-America Football Conference and joined the NFL in 1950, when the AAFC folded.
    [/quote]
    Those weren’t the same Colts. That team played exactly one season in the NFL (1950) and then folded. The modern day Colts were snatched from Dallas in 1953 where they were called the Texans. On the uni tip, the old Colts wore green & silver, new Colts blue & white.[/quote]

    check me if i’m wrong, but the texans became the chiefs. i thought THE colts were technically an expansion team.

  • LI Phil | August 10, 2009 at 2:06 pm |

    [quote comment="344938"][quote comment="344920"]my main point was “most nfl teams are pretty indistinguishable from their counterparts of about 40 years ago.” i never said “totally indistinguishable” or “identical.”[/quote]
    Sorry. My mistake. When I read the word “indistinguishable” I took it to mean duplicate, same, etc.

    Anyway, to-MAY-to / to-MAH-to. You say pretty indistinguishable. I say vaguely similar.[/quote]

    james beat me to this point

    and i’m sorry to keep doing this

    but to a UNI WATCHER, those two unis are light years apart except for the bird on the helmet — if you were frozen in time 30 years ago and were thawed out, would you still be able to recognize the seahawks? im sure you would — the bird is PRETTY much the same (the colors are also slightly different on the new bird – that graphic is from a color swap i did)

    maybe to a layman they’re unchanged…but to us, they’re completely different…not even vaguely similar

  • marc | August 10, 2009 at 2:11 pm |

    [quote comment="344945"]Does this help? I think what Marc is saying is that, if a non-uni-obsessed NFL fan came out of a 20-year coma today, he probably could ID most teams by their current unis, even without a clear look at any team logos thereon.

    That about it?

    And I agree, I think the formerly comatose individual in question could do just that.

    Although the Ravens and Titans might confuse him a bit.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    EXACTLY! i feel that of the four major sports in the u.s., the nfl would cause coma-guy the least amount of confusion uni-wise.

  • Jason L | August 10, 2009 at 2:11 pm |

    The 76ers link is not working. anyone have the pics saved?

  • JTH | August 10, 2009 at 2:15 pm |

    [quote comment="344947"][quote comment="344938"][quote comment="344920"]my main point was “most nfl teams are pretty indistinguishable from their counterparts of about 40 years ago.” i never said “totally indistinguishable” or “identical.”[/quote]
    Sorry. My mistake. When I read the word “indistinguishable” I took it to mean duplicate, same, etc.

    Anyway, to-MAY-to / to-MAH-to. You say pretty indistinguishable. I say vaguely similar.[/quote]

    james beat me to this point

    and i’m sorry to keep doing this

    but to a UNI WATCHER, those two unis are light years apart except for the bird on the helmet — if you were frozen in time 30 years ago and were thawed out, would you still be able to recognize the seahawks? im sure you would — the bird is PRETTY much the same (the colors are also slightly different on the new bird – that graphic is from a color swap i did)

    maybe to a layman they’re unchanged…but to us, they’re completely different…not even vaguely similar[/quote]
    Atlanta’s kinda got the same thing going on.

    This has the same basic colors that this does and the bird logos are similar, but to me that’s where the similarities end.

  • DenverGregg | August 10, 2009 at 2:19 pm |

    [quote comment="344946"][quote comment="344940"][quote comment="344900"]
    The Browns were founded in Cleveland in 1946; the Colts in Baltimore in 1947. Both teams began in the All-America Football Conference and joined the NFL in 1950, when the AAFC folded.
    [/quote]
    Those weren’t the same Colts. That team played exactly one season in the NFL (1950) and then folded. The modern day Colts were snatched from Dallas in 1953 where they were called the Texans. On the uni tip, the old Colts wore green & silver, new Colts blue & white.[/quote]

    check me if i’m wrong, but the texans became the chiefs. i thought THE colts were technically an expansion team.[/quote]
    First Dallas Texans became second Baltimore Colts. Second Dallas Texans (1960 edition) became KC Chiefs.

  • Geeman | August 10, 2009 at 2:23 pm |

    [quote comment="344950"][quote comment="344947"][quote comment="344938"][quote comment="344920"]my main point was “most nfl teams are pretty indistinguishable from their counterparts of about 40 years ago.” i never said “totally indistinguishable” or “identical.”[/quote]
    Sorry. My mistake. When I read the word “indistinguishable” I took it to mean duplicate, same, etc.

    Anyway, to-MAY-to / to-MAH-to. You say pretty indistinguishable. I say vaguely similar.[/quote]

    james beat me to this point

    and i’m sorry to keep doing this

    but to a UNI WATCHER, those two unis are light years apart except for the bird on the helmet — if you were frozen in time 30 years ago and were thawed out, would you still be able to recognize the seahawks? im sure you would — the bird is PRETTY much the same (the colors are also slightly different on the new bird – that graphic is from a color swap i did)

    maybe to a layman they’re unchanged…but to us, they’re completely different…not even vaguely similar[/quote]
    Atlanta’s kinda got the same thing going on.

    This has the same basic colors that this does and the bird logos are similar, but to me that’s where the similarities end.[/quote]

    The Falcons have had red helmets/black jerseys (1960s), red helmets/red jerseys (1970s/1980s), black helmets/black jerseys (1990s) to (mostly) red helmets/black jerseys (2000s).

  • duker | August 10, 2009 at 2:24 pm |

    All these Ravens and Modell comments flying around today. I wish I could find the source again but I recall that Art Modell offered a couple million to the Irsays to get the Colts name and colors from them when he moved the team to Baltimore. Did anyone else hear this?

  • marc | August 10, 2009 at 2:24 pm |

    [quote comment="344947"]james beat me to this point

    and i’m sorry to keep doing this

    but to a UNI WATCHER, those two unis are light years apart except for the bird on the helmet — if you were frozen in time 30 years ago and were thawed out, would you still be able to recognize the seahawks? im sure you would — the bird is PRETTY much the same (the colors are also slightly different on the new bird – that graphic is from a color swap i did)

    maybe to a layman they’re unchanged…but to us, they’re completely different…not even vaguely similar[/quote]

    i never used the seahawks as an example. my original post compared the unis of some of the teams that existed in the 60s to their modern counterparts and made the case that, for the most part, they were “pretty indistiguishable.” my examples were the browns, chiefs, dolphins and niners. of the examples given, can one really say that the difference in uniform appearance can be measured in light years, especially by the layman?

  • DenverGregg | August 10, 2009 at 2:26 pm |

    [quote comment="344945"]Does this help? I think what Marc is saying is that, if a non-uni-obsessed NFL fan came out of a 20-year coma today, he probably could ID most teams by their current unis, even without a clear look at any team logos thereon.

    That about it?

    And I agree, I think the formerly comatose individual in question could do just that.

    Although the Ravens and Titans might confuse him a bit.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    If they say new Broncos before seeing Colts, not sure what they’d think.

  • Wollen1 | August 10, 2009 at 2:29 pm |

    The Raiders slide show was great. I did think two things were hilarious though, both of which have to do with the same thing: 1.) the inability of the Raiders organization to find any photos from before the Al Davis era, and 2. ) the Stalinesque Al Davis photo at the end. The man has been a joke for the last 20 years and he acts like he’s the greatest thing to ever happen to not only the organization, but to profesional sports in general. Dream big Al. No one’s laughing at you.

  • marc | August 10, 2009 at 2:30 pm |

    [quote comment="344953"]All these Ravens and Modell comments flying around today. I wish I could find the source again but I recall that Art Modell offered a couple million to the Irsays to get the Colts name and colors from them when he moved the team to Baltimore. Did anyone else hear this?[/quote]

    a couple million sounds right up art’s alley. the name alone was probably worth in the tens of millions range.

  • Wollen1 | August 10, 2009 at 2:30 pm |

    I wonder if the USFL still has an official cheese.

  • ChrisSh | August 10, 2009 at 2:31 pm |

    The 76ers link doesn’t work for me, it says it is a private album and I’m not allowed to view it. Anyone know what’s up with that? I’d really like to see them…

  • marc | August 10, 2009 at 2:32 pm |

    [quote comment="344958"]I wonder if the USFL still has an official cheese.[/quote]

    the xfl’s shoulda been limburger ’cause…

    never mind… too easy.

  • bourbon soaked idiot | August 10, 2009 at 2:33 pm |

    [quote comment="344954"][quote comment="344947"]james beat me to this point

    and i’m sorry to keep doing this

    but to a UNI WATCHER, those two unis are light years apart except for the bird on the helmet — if you were frozen in time 30 years ago and were thawed out, would you still be able to recognize the seahawks? im sure you would — the bird is PRETTY much the same (the colors are also slightly different on the new bird – that graphic is from a color swap i did)

    maybe to a layman they’re unchanged…but to us, they’re completely different…not even vaguely similar[/quote]

    i never used the seahawks as an example. my original post compared the unis of some of the teams that existed in the 60s to their modern counterparts and made the case that, for the most part, they were “pretty indistiguishable.” my examples were the browns, chiefs, dolphins and niners. of the examples given, can one really say that the difference in uniform appearance can be measured in light years, especially by the layman?[/quote]

    I don’t get your point. Why are you having an aneurysm? Who cares?

    Some teams had crappy uniforms 30 years ago, 50 years ago, etc. Just because a design is old doesn’t make it good and just because a design is new doesn’t make it bad.

  • Teebz | August 10, 2009 at 2:38 pm |

    Nice little gallery of questionable MLB uniforms from SI.

  • Jordan Sogn | August 10, 2009 at 2:38 pm |

    After watching a bit of the game last night, I hope all of the NFL teams have the new Reebok “fit”…looks much cleaner than the past few years. I’ve always thought college teams look much better than the NFL.

  • marc | August 10, 2009 at 2:39 pm |

    [quote comment="344961"]I don’t get your point. Why are you having an aneurysm? Who cares?

    Some teams had crappy uniforms 30 years ago, 50 years ago, etc. Just because a design is old doesn’t make it good and just because a design is new doesn’t make it bad.[/quote]

    no aneurysm here, friend. just posted something that wasn’t completely understood. i never said any of the unis were good or bad, only that some were pretty close to what they were 40 years ago, so you don’t need to make your point about old vs. new design a third time.

  • anotherguy | August 10, 2009 at 2:44 pm |

    [quote comment="344962"]Nice little gallery of questionable MLB uniforms from SI.[/quote]
    Didn’t the girls all swoon for Bucky Dent: imagine the reaction he’d get in those short pants.

    BTW, can he dig into that batter’s box any deeper without striking oil?

  • anotherguy | August 10, 2009 at 2:47 pm |

    [quote comment="344958"]I wonder if the USFL still has an official cheese.[/quote]
    Someone has long since officially moved their official cheese.

  • duker | August 10, 2009 at 2:48 pm |

    Here is an article similar to the one I had seen before (although it doesn’t list a number). I remember when the team was moving to Baltimore and they had the team name contest, I really wanted to Rhinos to win.

  • Ricko | August 10, 2009 at 2:48 pm |

    Clearly, Marc and I are contending this awakened 20-year sleeper could identify MOST NFL teams. Never said “all”. Never said “overwhelming majority”. Just “most.” And I think that’s true.

    Without seeing logos, his slam dunks probably would be Lions, Packers, Bears, Vikings, Steelers, Dolphins, Niners, Redskins, Giants, Jets, Colts, Bengals, Browns, Raiders, Chargers, Browns, Chiefs, Saints (18).

    Relatively likely, educated guess…Broncos, Falcons, Eagles, Cardinals, Bills, Rams (6).

    Tougher, maybe could guess…Bucs, Seahawks, Patriots (3)

    Texans, Titans, Ravens, Jaguars and Panthers really not part of the equation.

    —Ricko

  • Mike | August 10, 2009 at 2:50 pm |

    here’s the 76ers pics:

    http://www.prosports...

  • Ricko | August 10, 2009 at 2:51 pm |

    Ooops. Browns listed twice. Change one of them to Cowboys.

  • marc | August 10, 2009 at 2:51 pm |

    [quote comment="344968"]Clearly, Marc and I are contending this awakened 20-year sleeper could identify MOST NFL teams. Never said “all”. Never said “overwhelming majority”. Just “most.” And I think that’s true.

    Without seeing logos, his slam dunks probably would be Lions, Packers, Bears, Vikings, Steelers, Dolphins, Niners, Redskins, Giants, Jets, Colts, Bengals, Browns, Raiders, Chargers, Browns, Chiefs, Saints (18).

    Relatively likely, educated guess…Broncos, Falcons, Eagles, Cardinals, Bills, Rams (6).

    Tougher, maybe could guess…Bucs, Seahawks, Patriots (3)

    Texans, Titans, Ravens, Jaguars and Panthers really not part of the equation.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Oh God, thank you, Ricko.

  • =bg= | August 10, 2009 at 2:58 pm |

    You Know The USOpen Is Near When:

    http://store.nike.co...

    New Retro McEnroe Nike line- very well done.
    Tho on the opening page, the graphic of Mac is him wearing a Sergio Tachinni polo.

  • Dave Mac | August 10, 2009 at 3:00 pm |

    I loved the game last night. I thought it was one of the most amazing games (uni-wise) I have seen in quite a while.

  • =bg= | August 10, 2009 at 3:03 pm |

    [quote comment="344942"][quote comment="344936"][quote comment="344932"]this is exactly what i meant by my initial post about how the bengals had a major overhaul over 20 years ago, but since then, they’re relatively unchanged (again, to the layman).[/quote]

    whoops… meant this.[/quote]

    If you’re saying the Bengals last redesign came with the Icky Woods look and since then they’ve been just jerking around inside it, updating and improving (well, in their minds, anyway) rather than starting over….

    I’d say that’s accurate.

    Now, when the color scheme changes, like the Bucs, or the Broncos in ’62, and to some extent moves such as the Eagles and Seahawks made…that’s much more toward a “back to the beginning”.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    The Bengals should return to the 1972 look. Period.

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

  • LI Phil | August 10, 2009 at 3:06 pm |

    [quote comment="344968"]Clearly, Marc and I are contending this awakened 20-year sleeper could identify MOST NFL teams. Never said “all”. Never said “overwhelming majority”. Just “most.” And I think that’s true.

    Without seeing logos, his slam dunks probably would be Lions, Packers, Bears, Vikings, Steelers, Dolphins, Niners, Redskins, Giants, Jets, Colts, Bengals, Browns, Raiders, Chargers, Browns, Chiefs, Saints (18).

    Relatively likely, educated guess…Broncos, Falcons, Eagles, Cardinals, Bills, Rams (6).

    Tougher, maybe could guess…Bucs, Seahawks, Patriots (3)

    Texans, Titans, Ravens, Jaguars and Panthers really not part of the equation.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    ricko and marc

    i was never arguing that rip van winkle couldn’t tell the 67 pack or chiefs from the current versions of each

    same goes for the 18 teams you mentioned

    my point is that this is Uni Watch, the obsessive study of athletics aesthetics; we pride ourselves in noticing even the most subtle change in a uniform from year to year…what the “layman” doesn’t consider anything important we obsess over (like, for example, the mets changing the button on the top of their cap from blue to orange)

    what is “unchanged” to the layman is most certainly not unchanged to the uni watcher…

    that’s all

  • Ricko | August 10, 2009 at 3:06 pm |

    [quote comment="344973"]I loved the game last night. I thought it was one of the most amazing games (uni-wise) I have seen in quite a while.[/quote]

    Ditto. For those of us who were around prior to the coming of widespread color TV in ’70s, it was like some kind of time machine.

    Throwback inaccuracies and all, really looking forward to seeing the other matchups.

    —Ricko

  • JTH | August 10, 2009 at 3:07 pm |

    [quote comment="344968"]Clearly, Marc and I are contending this awakened 20-year sleeper could identify MOST NFL teams. Never said “all”. Never said “overwhelming majority”. Just “most.” And I think that’s true.

    Without seeing logos, his slam dunks probably would be Lions, Packers, Bears, Vikings, Steelers, Dolphins, Niners, Redskins, Giants, Jets, Colts, Bengals, Browns, Raiders, Chargers, Browns, Chiefs, Saints (18).

    Relatively likely, educated guess…Broncos, Falcons, Eagles, Cardinals, Bills, Rams (6).

    Tougher, maybe could guess…Bucs, Seahawks, Patriots (3)

    Texans, Titans, Ravens, Jaguars and Panthers really not part of the equation.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Have you gone mad? The Bears? They wore blue pants on the road in 1989. And Halas’ initials were in a different font back then. Packers? Totally different sleeve stripes…

    OK, I’ll stop now. Seriously, the red flag word for me was “indistinguishable”. My contention was never that a time-traveller or a coma patient or an unfrozen caveman (lawyer or otherwise) would never be able to figure out what team he’s looking at. Rather, I was simply saying that I happen to think that the uniforms have evolved quite a bit for all the teams I listed earlier.

  • JimV19 | August 10, 2009 at 3:09 pm |

    [quote comment="344958"]I wonder if the USFL still has an official cheese.[/quote]

    If the new USFL kicks off next year as promised, they might…

    I want a set of that old USFL furniture! Wonder how many they sold. That would look great next to my Coliseum seats.

    Joined in too late today to chime in on the NFL uni thing, so I’ll just say:

    - I like GW basketball’s new logo.

    - I don’t dislike Louisville’s unis.

    - Pitt’s unis are okay.

    - If I would’ve been better organized today I could’ve provided some more pics of the AFL 25th anniversary patches. I have a PROLOG magazine from ’84 that has lots of good pics. Maybe I’ll post some later.

  • JTH | August 10, 2009 at 3:09 pm |

    [quote comment="344975"][quote comment="344968"]Clearly, Marc and I are contending this awakened 20-year sleeper could identify MOST NFL teams. Never said “all”. Never said “overwhelming majority”. Just “most.” And I think that’s true.

    Without seeing logos, his slam dunks probably would be Lions, Packers, Bears, Vikings, Steelers, Dolphins, Niners, Redskins, Giants, Jets, Colts, Bengals, Browns, Raiders, Chargers, Browns, Chiefs, Saints (18).

    Relatively likely, educated guess…Broncos, Falcons, Eagles, Cardinals, Bills, Rams (6).

    Tougher, maybe could guess…Bucs, Seahawks, Patriots (3)

    Texans, Titans, Ravens, Jaguars and Panthers really not part of the equation.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    ricko and marc

    i was never arguing that rip van winkle couldn’t tell the 67 pack or chiefs from the current versions of each

    same goes for the 18 teams you mentioned

    my point is that this is Uni Watch, the obsessive study of athletics aesthetics; we pride ourselves in noticing even the most subtle change in a uniform from year to year…what the “layman” doesn’t consider anything important we obsess over (like, for example, the mets changing the button on the top of their cap from blue to orange)

    what is “unchanged” to the layman is most certainly not unchanged to the uni watcher…

    that’s all[/quote]
    Yeah. What he said.

  • Mike | August 10, 2009 at 3:10 pm |

    SI photos has a photo gallery called “Baseball Uniforms Through the years which includes the White Sox shorts….shiver…, Stirrups!, Powder blues, even different mustaches

  • Mike | August 10, 2009 at 3:11 pm |
  • Beardface | August 10, 2009 at 3:12 pm |

    [quote comment="344968"]Clearly, Marc and I are contending this awakened 20-year sleeper could identify MOST NFL teams. Never said “all”. Never said “overwhelming majority”. Just “most.” And I think that’s true.

    Without seeing logos, his slam dunks probably would be Lions, Packers, Bears, Vikings, Steelers, Dolphins, Niners, Redskins, Giants, Jets, Colts, Bengals, Browns, Raiders, Chargers, Browns, Chiefs, Saints (18).

    Relatively likely, educated guess…Broncos, Falcons, Eagles, Cardinals, Bills, Rams (6).

    Tougher, maybe could guess…Bucs, Seahawks, Patriots (3)

    Texans, Titans, Ravens, Jaguars and Panthers really not part of the equation.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Move the Chargers, Vikings, and Lions to the educated guess section. Those 3 franchises have taken their original design and funkified it to the point where, other than color, its pretty different from the past. If you remove the helmets and logos, a coma patient wouldn’t immediately recognize them.

    But then again, all leagues have their historical teams. From 20 years ago:

    MLB: Cards, Yanks, RedSox, Cubs, Mets, Tigers, Dodgers, Orioles, Twins, Royals, Rangers, Athletics, Braves, Reds, Pirates, and Giants (16/30)

    NBA: Lakers, Knicks, Celtics, Clippers,Bulls (5/30)

    NHL: BHawks, RedWings, Flyers (now that they’re using the orange), Bruins, Rangers, Islanders, Oilers, Canadiens, Maple Leafs, Canucks (even a 20 year coma patient would recognize the throwback), Penguins, Devils (12/32)

  • Ricko | August 10, 2009 at 3:14 pm |

    [quote comment="344975"][quote comment="344968"]Clearly, Marc and I are contending this awakened 20-year sleeper could identify MOST NFL teams. Never said “all”. Never said “overwhelming majority”. Just “most.” And I think that’s true.

    Without seeing logos, his slam dunks probably would be Lions, Packers, Bears, Vikings, Steelers, Dolphins, Niners, Redskins, Giants, Jets, Colts, Bengals, Browns, Raiders, Chargers, Browns, Chiefs, Saints (18).

    Relatively likely, educated guess…Broncos, Falcons, Eagles, Cardinals, Bills, Rams (6).

    Tougher, maybe could guess…Bucs, Seahawks, Patriots (3)

    Texans, Titans, Ravens, Jaguars and Panthers really not part of the equation.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    ricko and marc

    i was never arguing that rip van winkle couldn’t tell the 67 pack or chiefs from the current versions of each

    same goes for the 18 teams you mentioned

    my point is that this is Uni Watch, the obsessive study of athletics aesthetics; we pride ourselves in noticing even the most subtle change in a uniform from year to year…what the “layman” doesn’t consider anything important we obsess over (like, for example, the mets changing the button on the top of their cap from blue to orange)

    what is “unchanged” to the layman is most certainly not unchanged to the uni watcher…

    that’s all[/quote]

    Fair enough. There’s laymen, yes. And there’s us.

    And there’s Al Micheals, too, who spied the orange-and-white vertically striped officials prior to last night’s kickoff and said they looked…”like the Denver Broncos.”

    Evidently Al identifies teams by stripe orientation, rather than color.

    There’s laymen, yes. And there’s us. There’s also clueless, despite their lofty status around the NFL.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | August 10, 2009 at 3:20 pm |

    “Move the Chargers, Vikings, and Lions to the educated guess section. Those 3 franchises have taken their original design and funkified it to the point where, other than color, its pretty different from the past. If you remove the helmets and logos, a coma patient wouldn’t immediately recognize them.”

    Why move them? Wouldn’t our Sleeper be seeing the unis in color?
    Lotta purple and honolulu blue around the NFL to confuse him?

  • TEAM MICHAEL | August 10, 2009 at 3:20 pm |

    Has this been mentioned yet?

    ‘Team Michael’ upsets U.S.
    11-and-under boys honour his memory

    http://www.thehamilt...

  • Maks | August 10, 2009 at 3:20 pm |

    Sid the Kid in skateboarding helmet. chuckles, what’s wrong with the military type? ya know, get into it? Holding the Cup.

  • Teebz | August 10, 2009 at 3:21 pm |

    [quote comment="344982"]
    NHL: BHawks, RedWings, Flyers (now that they’re using the orange), Bruins, Rangers, Islanders, Oilers, Canadiens, Maple Leafs, Canucks (even a 20 year coma patient would recognize the throwback), Penguins, Devils (12/30)[/quote]

    Fixed… just so people aren’t trying to find two teams that don’t exist. :o)

  • ballzy | August 10, 2009 at 3:24 pm |

    RE: Ralph’s shoes

    Try walking on turf/grass in dress shoes stupid

  • timmy b | August 10, 2009 at 3:26 pm |

    [quote comment="344922"][quote comment="344906"]Those shirts the coaches wore last night were hideous and insulting.[/quote]

    agreed. bad move. they weren’t “distressed” in 1960, so they shouldn’t be now.[/quote]

    If the coaches were to have the true feel of the throwbacks, they would have sported white dress shirts and neckties.

  • LI Phil | August 10, 2009 at 3:39 pm |

    [quote]And there’s Al Micheals, too, who spied the orange-and-white vertically striped officials prior to last night’s kickoff and said they looked…”like the Denver Broncos.”[/quote]

    so you’re saying he was seeing things that didn’t exist

  • Teebz | August 10, 2009 at 3:39 pm |

    [quote comment="344988"]RE: Ralph’s shoes

    Try walking on turf/grass in dress shoes stupid[/quote]

    I have. It’s not that hard. One foot is placed forward, and then the shifting of body weight forward allows the body to move the other foot ahead of the body with the motion of the leg.

    I fail to see why it would be any harder on fake grass than it is on real grass. I’ve walked on turf here in dress shoes, and you can barely tell the difference between the artificial turf and real grass.

    Now, what point were you trying to make?

  • Berto | August 10, 2009 at 3:42 pm |

    [quote comment="344861"][quote comment="344837"]Red Sox third base coach DeMarlo Hale appears to be wearing the same flapless Wilson helmet design worn by A.J. Pierzynski

    The really interesting thing about Hale wearing this style is that the Red Sox have not, and hopefully won’t ever, adopted the CoolFlo style helmet for batters, only the base coaches. First base coach Tim Bogar wore one briefly also, yet has opted for the standard model recently.[/quote]
    Y’know, I really don’t understand all the Cool-Flo hatred around these parts. Other than the foolishness displayed by teams like the Mets & Rockies (and the Texases — almost) the overall look of the helmet is not that bad when done correctly.[/quote]

    I like the two-tone look.

  • JimV19 | August 10, 2009 at 3:43 pm |

    [quote comment="344983"]Fair enough. There’s laymen, yes. And there’s us.

    And there’s Al Micheals, too, who spied the orange-and-white vertically striped officials prior to last night’s kickoff and said they looked…”like the Denver Broncos.”

    Evidently Al identifies teams by stripe orientation, rather than color.

    There’s laymen, yes. And there’s us. There’s also clueless, despite their lofty status around the NFL.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Another member of the “We could do without Al Michaels” club, perhaps?

    Don’t get me wrong, he’s solid and all, but anyone think Collinsworth and Dungy could have done that game on their own just fine? Sometimes Michaels comes off as a bit of a Cosell smart-aleck type, without the loveable personality. I’d like to hear if Cris could do some play-by-play instead. Worth a shot, huh?

  • super390 | August 10, 2009 at 3:47 pm |

    What strikes me about the 1969 NFL/AFL uniforms is that if we just look at the 16 NFL teams, most of them are readily recognizable to modern fans. About half the AFL teams have had some substantial changes. And the other Browns/Colts connection is that those were 2 of the 3 teams that were sent to the new AFC in 1970.

    It seems the newer your team is, the more often it changes its look. The NFL’s old guard (Giants, Eagles, Steelers, Cardinals, Bears, Redskins, Packers and Lions) have been remarkably stable in their appearance over 75 years given that football uniforms have been greatly affected by practical changes like protective gear and the desire of players to be harder to grab. Teams seem to change their looks often until they find a permanent look (it took the Packers 40 years).

    As an Oiler fan I enjoyed the HOF throwbacks last night. I had seen the 1960 throwbacks in 1995, and something about them disappointed me. This time it looked better. But I think the real 1960 helmets had matte paint, and the shiny paint used in 1995 and last night really alters the appearance of Columbia blue – makes it bluer instead of the warmth of the jerseys. Matte paint also looks tougher.

  • Mike Engle | August 10, 2009 at 3:50 pm |

    [quote comment="344881"][quote comment="344874"][quote comment="344855"]In regards to the link for Raiders pictures…

    Picture 70 – What’s the patch on his leg?[/quote]

    it looks like that logo on the pants is this patch[/quote]

    Sensational work!

    This left-hip patch appears to have been worn for most of the 1984 season, including the playoffs:

    10/1/84:
    http://www.gettyimag...

    10/7/84:
    http://www.gettyimag...

    10/14/84:
    http://www.gettyimag...

    10/28/84:
    http://www.gettyimag...

    12/2/84:
    http://www.gettyimag...

    12/22/84:
    http://www.gettyimag...

    I am ashamed to say I was completely unaware of this.[/quote]
    Every former AFL team had that patch all season. (Same template, different design to match the team, of course.) Most were jersey patches. Only the Raiders placed their version on the pants.

  • JTH | August 10, 2009 at 3:52 pm |

    [quote comment="344993"]Don’t get me wrong, he’s solid and all, but anyone think Collinsworth and Dungy could have done that game on their own just fine? Sometimes Michaels comes off as a bit of a Cosell smart-aleck type, without the loveable personality. I’d like to hear if Cris could do some play-by-play instead. Worth a shot, huh?[/quote]
    Do you believe in miracles? YES!

  • ballzy | August 10, 2009 at 3:53 pm |

    [quote comment="344991"][quote comment="344988"]RE: Ralph’s shoes

    Try walking on turf/grass in dress shoes stupid[/quote]

    I have. It’s not that hard. One foot is placed forward, and then the shifting of body weight forward allows the body to move the other foot ahead of the body with the motion of the leg.

    I fail to see why it would be any harder on fake grass than it is on real grass. I’ve walked on turf here in dress shoes, and you can barely tell the difference between the artificial turf and real grass.

    Now, what point were you trying to make?[/quote]

    The point is: a 91 year old man would have fell on his ass in dress shoes

  • ERIK | August 10, 2009 at 3:54 pm |

    Pics of new ASU jerseys.

    Best shots start around image #9.

    http://www.azcentral...

  • Mike | August 10, 2009 at 3:59 pm |

    Cover your eyes. The new UFL (United Football League) has unveiled the Las Vegas Locomotives uniforms:

    http://www.getufl.co...

    Worse yet, apparently all four teams will be wearing this template. To think, J.P. Losman had to watch his old team wear those sweet throwbacks last night, and then see these things unveiled today…that’s got to sting.

  • Mike Engle | August 10, 2009 at 4:00 pm |

    [quote comment="344969"]here’s the 76ers pics:

    http://www.prosports...
    Anybody else think those new Sixers jerseys need more royal? I’m especially looking at the wordmark and numbers. I mean, the body clearly has three colors, but it looks like the team was too cheap to buy two-color lettering. Right now, I’m calling it “disappointing,” but reserve my right to change my mind if they look good in game action.

  • Teebz | August 10, 2009 at 4:05 pm |

    [quote comment="344997"]
    The point is: a 91 year old man would have fell on his ass in dress shoes[/quote]

    Is that the fault of his shoes?

    He made the trek up to the booth to talk with Michaels and Collinsworth with no problem, so walking doesn’t seem to be difficult for him. How hard is it to change into dress shoes for 10 minutes?

  • Jim McCue | August 10, 2009 at 4:08 pm |

    In regards to the Raiders pics, I would love to see the team give the Coliseum field a throwback look with the yard lines painted like those shown in Picture 15 (number inside the shield). Very nice!

  • M.Princip | August 10, 2009 at 4:08 pm |

    [quote comment="344994"]What strikes me about the 1969 NFL/AFL uniforms is that if we just look at the 16 NFL teams, most of them are readily recognizable to modern fans. About half the AFL teams have had some substantial changes. And the other Browns/Colts connection is that those were 2 of the 3 teams that were sent to the new AFC in 1970.

    It seems the newer your team is, the more often it changes its look. The NFL’s old guard (Giants, Eagles, Steelers, Cardinals, Bears, Redskins, Packers and Lions) have been remarkably stable in their appearance over 75 years given that football uniforms have been greatly affected by practical changes like protective gear and the desire of players to be harder to grab. Teams seem to change their looks often until they find a permanent look (it took the Packers 40 years).

    As an Oiler fan I enjoyed the HOF throwbacks last night. I had seen the 1960 throwbacks in 1995, and something about them disappointed me. This time it looked better. But I think the real 1960 helmets had matte paint, and the shiny paint used in 1995 and last night really alters the appearance of Columbia blue – makes it bluer instead of the warmth of the jerseys. Matte paint also looks tougher.[/quote]

    Also, matte pants look tougher and not this shiny spandex crap.

  • M.Princip | August 10, 2009 at 4:11 pm |

    [quote comment="344999"]Cover your eyes. The new UFL (United Football League) has unveiled the Las Vegas Locomotives uniforms:

    http://www.getufl.co...

    Worse yet, apparently all four teams will be wearing this template. To think, J.P. Losman had to watch his old team wear those sweet throwbacks last night, and then see these things unveiled today…that’s got to sting.[/quote]

    Oi! Damn!?!?! What were they smokin’ when they came up with that mess? See kids, don’t smoke Angel Dust.

  • DenverGregg | August 10, 2009 at 4:18 pm |

    [quote comment="344999"]Cover your eyes. The new UFL (United Football League) has unveiled the Las Vegas Locomotives uniforms:

    http://www.getufl.co...

    Worse yet, apparently all four teams will be wearing this template. To think, J.P. Losman had to watch his old team wear those sweet throwbacks last night, and then see these things unveiled today…that’s got to sting.[/quote]
    More than just the motives are loco.

  • Teebz | August 10, 2009 at 4:19 pm |

    [quote comment="345005"][quote comment="344999"]Cover your eyes. The new UFL (United Football League) has unveiled the Las Vegas Locomotives uniforms:

    http://www.getufl.co...

    Worse yet, apparently all four teams will be wearing this template. To think, J.P. Losman had to watch his old team wear those sweet throwbacks last night, and then see these things unveiled today…that’s got to sting.[/quote]
    More than just the motives are loco.[/quote]

    As proven with the CFL’s Las Vegas Posse… black at home in the desert is a bad idea. LOL

  • Jeff Boone | August 10, 2009 at 4:21 pm |

    [quote comment="344911"][quote comment="344840"]Anyone got pictures of the Charlotte Bobcats new uniforms? They were aired on the Charlotte NBC affiliate during last night’s news apparently. All I’ve seen so far is low-quality screen captures, hoping someone would have something better.[/quote]

    I’m interested in this as well. Do you have links to even the low-quality screen captures?[/quote]

    Here’s all I have seen so far: http://c1.ac-images....

  • ballzy | August 10, 2009 at 4:25 pm |

    [quote comment="345001"][quote comment="344997"]
    The point is: a 91 year old man would have fell on his ass in dress shoes[/quote]

    Is that the fault of his shoes?

    He made the trek up to the booth to talk with Michaels and Collinsworth with no problem, so walking doesn’t seem to be difficult for him. How hard is it to change into dress shoes for 10 minutes?[/quote]

    He changed OUT of dress shoes for ten minutes so he was safe on the field. You are missing it.

  • S. Bennett | August 10, 2009 at 4:26 pm |

    [quote comment="345001"][quote comment="344997"]
    The point is: a 91 year old man would have fell on his ass in dress shoes[/quote]

    Is that the fault of his shoes?

    He made the trek up to the booth to talk with Michaels and Collinsworth with no problem, so walking doesn’t seem to be difficult for him. How hard is it to change into dress shoes for 10 minutes?[/quote]

    Wow. they guy looks fantastic for a 91 year old and all people want to talk about is his shoes?

    That’s fucked.

    SB

  • Lee | August 10, 2009 at 4:28 pm |

    [quote comment="345001"][quote comment="344997"]
    The point is: a 91 year old man would have fell on his ass in dress shoes[/quote]

    Is that the fault of his shoes?

    He made the trek up to the booth to talk with Michaels and Collinsworth with no problem, so walking doesn’t seem to be difficult for him. How hard is it to change into dress shoes for 10 minutes?[/quote]

    Who has a problem with him wearing sneaks? And if you have a problem, ummm… why??!!

    Lee

  • mike 2 | August 10, 2009 at 4:28 pm |

    [quote comment="344982"]
    NHL: BHawks, RedWings, Flyers (now that they’re using the orange), Bruins, Rangers, Islanders, Oilers, Canadiens, Maple Leafs, Canucks (even a 20 year coma patient would recognize the throwback), Penguins, Devils (12/32)[/quote]

    It would have to be a 30 year coma patient, because 20 years ago the Canucks were in the hallowe’en uniforms.

    In any event, lumping the Canadiens (who haven’t changed uniforms in forever) together with the Canucks (who’ve been through three major redesigns and landed not too far from where they started) isn’t quite right. Its like saying the White Sox are stable because they’re wearing the same jerseys they wore in 1949, ignoring everything that happene in the middle.

  • Joe Hilseberg | August 10, 2009 at 4:29 pm |

    [quote comment="344953"]All these Ravens and Modell comments flying around today. I wish I could find the source again but I recall that Art Modell offered a couple million to the Irsays to get the Colts name and colors from them when he moved the team to Baltimore. Did anyone else hear this?[/quote]

    I found this..

    http://www.sportsbus...

  • Teebz | August 10, 2009 at 4:29 pm |

    [quote comment="345008"][quote comment="345001"][quote comment="344997"]
    The point is: a 91 year old man would have fell on his ass in dress shoes[/quote]

    Is that the fault of his shoes?

    He made the trek up to the booth to talk with Michaels and Collinsworth with no problem, so walking doesn’t seem to be difficult for him. How hard is it to change into dress shoes for 10 minutes?[/quote]

    He changed OUT of dress shoes for ten minutes so he was safe on the field. You are missing it.[/quote]

    Perhaps I am missing it then because his shoes would have no effect on his walking on the field. It’s artificial turf. Unless the bottoms of his shoes are extremely smooth causing him to slide on the artificial turf fabric, there’s no need to change shoes at all. I’ve seen guys here running routes in dress shoes as a joke.

    So why did he wear the sneakers?

  • marc | August 10, 2009 at 4:32 pm |

    [quote comment="344975"]my point is that this is Uni Watch, the obsessive study of athletics aesthetics; we pride ourselves in noticing even the most subtle change in a uniform from year to year…what the “layman” doesn’t consider anything important we obsess over (like, for example, the mets changing the button on the top of their cap from blue to orange)

    what is “unchanged” to the layman is most certainly not unchanged to the uni watcher…

    that’s all[/quote]

    understood, however, i would venture to guess that a lot of folks who come here are laymen and not true “uni-watchers” (myself included). i know a fair amount of stuff re: uniforms, but i’m really just a guy who casually appreciates the aesthetics of sports. i read this blog every day and enjoy most of it. i comment every now and again on something i might find interesting, which is what i was trying to do today — about how there’s a good amount of teams in the nfl that happen to look a lot like they did 40 years ago. i wasn’t saying the sock-stripe patterns remained the same or facemask colors were identical. i have no problem with people disagreeing with me. that’s their opinion and they’re entitled. today i was making an observation that generated some replies which, frankly, missed my point, misquoted me or both. i was thankful a guy like ricko understood what i was saying.

    the really tricky part, though, is when one starts down the slippery slope of “us v. them.” it’s great that someone knows what color hat button the mets wore in game #76 of the 1993 season. i appreciate someone having that sort of encyclopedic knowledge. but it’s also great when someone comes along the day of the HOF game and says “hey, did you guys know the titans and bills are gonna be wearing throwbacks tonight?” a comment like “what the ‘layman’ doesn’t consider anything important we obsess over” makes me think “who’s we?” i’m an avid, regular reader, but i don’t obsess over NOBs or “pedro portholes.” i find them interesting or amusing (or both) and part of the fun of UW. see where i’m coming from?

  • LI Phil | August 10, 2009 at 4:42 pm |

    [quote comment="345014"][quote comment="344975"]my point is that this is Uni Watch, the obsessive study of athletics aesthetics; we pride ourselves in noticing even the most subtle change in a uniform from year to year…what the “layman” doesn’t consider anything important we obsess over (like, for example, the mets changing the button on the top of their cap from blue to orange)

    what is “unchanged” to the layman is most certainly not unchanged to the uni watcher…

    that’s all[/quote]

    understood, however, i would venture to guess that a lot of folks who come here are laymen and not true “uni-watchers” (myself included). i know a fair amount of stuff re: uniforms, but i’m really just a guy who casually appreciates the aesthetics of sports. i read this blog every day and enjoy most of it. i comment every now and again on something i might find interesting, which is what i was trying to do today — about how there’s a good amount of teams in the nfl that happen to look a lot like they did 40 years ago. i wasn’t saying the sock-stripe patterns remained the same or facemask colors were identical. i have no problem with people disagreeing with me. that’s their opinion and they’re entitled. today i was making an observation that generated some replies which, frankly, missed my point, misquoted me or both. i was thankful a guy like ricko understood what i was saying.

    the really tricky part, though, is when one starts down the slippery slope of “us v. them.” it’s great that someone knows what color hat button the mets wore in game #76 of the 1993 season. i appreciate someone having that sort of encyclopedic knowledge. but it’s also great when someone comes along the day of the HOF game and says “hey, did you guys know the titans and bills are gonna be wearing throwbacks tonight?” a comment like “what the ‘layman’ doesn’t consider anything important we obsess over” makes me think “who’s we?” i’m an avid, regular reader, but i don’t obsess over NOBs or “pedro portholes.” i find them interesting or amusing (or both) and part of the fun of UW. see where i’m coming from?[/quote]

    i see exactly where you’re coming from

    i simply point to your own quote from earlier:

    [quote]to the uni-obsessed, there’s probably something like 872 details i’ve overlooked, but for normal people, the bengals look basically the same.[/quote]

    “for normal people”

    you yourself made the distinction, implying uni watchers (or “uni obsessed”) aren’t normal people

    that’s fine, i’m sure WE are not

    but you started down that “slippery slope” … i merely went for the ride

    /it’s all good marc, i enjoyed the give-and-take; you even got ricko on your side ;)

  • JTH | August 10, 2009 at 4:52 pm |

    [quote comment="345015"][quote comment="345014"][quote comment="344975"]my point is that this is Uni Watch, the obsessive study of athletics aesthetics; we pride ourselves in noticing even the most subtle change in a uniform from year to year…what the “layman” doesn’t consider anything important we obsess over (like, for example, the mets changing the button on the top of their cap from blue to orange)

    what is “unchanged” to the layman is most certainly not unchanged to the uni watcher…

    that’s all[/quote]

    understood, however, i would venture to guess that a lot of folks who come here are laymen and not true “uni-watchers” (myself included). i know a fair amount of stuff re: uniforms, but i’m really just a guy who casually appreciates the aesthetics of sports. i read this blog every day and enjoy most of it. i comment every now and again on something i might find interesting, which is what i was trying to do today — about how there’s a good amount of teams in the nfl that happen to look a lot like they did 40 years ago. i wasn’t saying the sock-stripe patterns remained the same or facemask colors were identical. i have no problem with people disagreeing with me. that’s their opinion and they’re entitled. today i was making an observation that generated some replies which, frankly, missed my point, misquoted me or both. i was thankful a guy like ricko understood what i was saying.

    the really tricky part, though, is when one starts down the slippery slope of “us v. them.” it’s great that someone knows what color hat button the mets wore in game #76 of the 1993 season. i appreciate someone having that sort of encyclopedic knowledge. but it’s also great when someone comes along the day of the HOF game and says “hey, did you guys know the titans and bills are gonna be wearing throwbacks tonight?” a comment like “what the ‘layman’ doesn’t consider anything important we obsess over” makes me think “who’s we?” i’m an avid, regular reader, but i don’t obsess over NOBs or “pedro portholes.” i find them interesting or amusing (or both) and part of the fun of UW. see where i’m coming from?[/quote]

    i see exactly where you’re coming from

    i simply point to your own quote from earlier:

    [quote]to the uni-obsessed, there’s probably something like 872 details i’ve overlooked, but for normal people, the bengals look basically the same.[/quote]

    “for normal people”

    you yourself made the distinction, implying uni watchers (or “uni obsessed”) aren’t normal people

    that’s fine, i’m sure WE are not

    but you started down that “slippery slope” … i merely went for the ride

    /it’s all good marc, i enjoyed the give-and-take; you even got ricko on your side ;)[/quote]
    Marc, I’ll concede that maybe your point was missed, but there’s one thing I have to ask. Where exactly were you misquoted?

  • Mike | August 10, 2009 at 4:58 pm |

    [quote comment="345004"]Oi! Damn!?!?! What were they smokin’ when they came up with that mess? See kids, don’t smoke Angel Dust.[/quote]

    It gets worse.

    http://www.ufl-footb...

  • LI Phil | August 10, 2009 at 5:02 pm |

    one last thing…

    do these look the same to you?

    they’re both green, they both have andy jackson on them and they both are worth $20

    but they sure don’t look the same

  • marc | August 10, 2009 at 5:03 pm |

    definitely, phil… it’s all good! i didn’t mean to come across as jerky or self-righteous. i may not have been entirely clear in any of this. perhaps “normal” was a poor choice of word. by “normal people” i was trying to say people who invest absolutely zero emotion in sports aesthetics. i don’t have as vast a knowledge-base as most of the regulars, but i consider myself a uni-watcher. i definitely notice stuff like how the bengals have changed their font, sleeve striping style, jersey style, sock color… all that. my point through all this, however, has been that in regard to the casual observer, many nfl teams have essentially retained their basic “look” for years.

  • Lee | August 10, 2009 at 5:06 pm |

    [quote comment="345017"][quote comment="345004"]Oi! Damn!?!?! What were they smokin’ when they came up with that mess? See kids, don’t smoke Angel Dust.[/quote]

    It gets worse.

    http://www.ufl-footb...

    I am always for new football leagues and what-not, but damn, it’s hard to get very excited about a 4 team league that will play 6 games each. and seeing the Las Vegas uniform isn’t helping.

    Lee

  • JimV19 | August 10, 2009 at 5:07 pm |

    [quote comment="345017"][quote comment="345004"]Oi! Damn!?!?! What were they smokin’ when they came up with that mess? See kids, don’t smoke Angel Dust.[/quote]

    It gets worse.

    http://www.ufl-footb...

    I don’t know…I was expecting so much worse. This uni isn’t that bad. I like the name, too – there aren’t enough train-related names in sports.

    Not what I would have designed, but if I were playing in the UFL I wouldn’t be ashamed to wear it.

  • JTH | August 10, 2009 at 5:26 pm |

    [quote comment="345021"][quote comment="345017"][quote comment="345004"]Oi! Damn!?!?! What were they smokin’ when they came up with that mess? See kids, don’t smoke Angel Dust.[/quote]

    It gets worse.

    http://www.ufl-footb...

    I don’t know…I was expecting so much worse. This uni isn’t that bad. I like the name, too – there aren’t enough train-related names in sports.

    Not what I would have designed, but if I were playing in the UFL I wouldn’t be ashamed to wear it.[/quote]
    I’m with you. It certainly doesn’t strike me as a future classic, but overall, it’s not that bad. I also expected a whole lot worse.

  • Beardface | August 10, 2009 at 5:28 pm |

    [quote comment="345017"][quote comment="345004"]Oi! Damn!?!?! What were they smokin’ when they came up with that mess? See kids, don’t smoke Angel Dust.[/quote]

    It gets worse.

    http://www.ufl-footb...
    Is that showing a template where every team will be wearing the same helmet with the UFL logo on the sides?

    Please tell me I’m wrong…

  • ballzy | August 10, 2009 at 5:31 pm |

    [quote comment="345014"][quote comment="344975"]my point is that this is Uni Watch, the obsessive study of athletics aesthetics; we pride ourselves in noticing even the most subtle change in a uniform from year to year…what the “layman” doesn’t consider anything important we obsess over (like, for example, the mets changing the button on the top of their cap from blue to orange)

    what is “unchanged” to the layman is most certainly not unchanged to the uni watcher…

    that’s all[/quote]

    understood, however, i would venture to guess that a lot of folks who come here are laymen and not true “uni-watchers” (myself included). i know a fair amount of stuff re: uniforms, but i’m really just a guy who casually appreciates the aesthetics of sports. i read this blog every day and enjoy most of it. i comment every now and again on something i might find interesting, which is what i was trying to do today — about how there’s a good amount of teams in the nfl that happen to look a lot like they did 40 years ago. i wasn’t saying the sock-stripe patterns remained the same or facemask colors were identical. i have no problem with people disagreeing with me. that’s their opinion and they’re entitled. today i was making an observation that generated some replies which, frankly, missed my point, misquoted me or both. i was thankful a guy like ricko understood what i was saying.

    the really tricky part, though, is when one starts down the slippery slope of “us v. them.” it’s great that someone knows what color hat button the mets wore in game #76 of the 1993 season. i appreciate someone having that sort of encyclopedic knowledge. but it’s also great when someone comes along the day of the HOF game and says “hey, did you guys know the titans and bills are gonna be wearing throwbacks tonight?” a comment like “what the ‘layman’ doesn’t consider anything important we obsess over” makes me think “who’s we?” i’m an avid, regular reader, but i don’t obsess over NOBs or “pedro portholes.” i find them interesting or amusing (or both) and part of the fun of UW. see where i’m coming from?[/quote]

    I’d say 75% of readers fall into this Demo. The problem is a site like this would be boring if they didn’t expand it beyond what the casual fan is ‘dropping in for’. UW does a great job in it’s presentation/information, even if some of it’s contributors do bring a holier than thou attitude when someone doesn’t “GET IT”. (maybe they just need to explain IT a little better.

    BTW on the trademark “get it’, Todd Wright(Former ESPN RADIO Host) used the exact same tagline for his show long before UW, so that has always bugged me.

  • Beardface | August 10, 2009 at 5:32 pm |

    [quote comment="345011"][quote comment="344982"]
    NHL: BHawks, RedWings, Flyers (now that they’re using the orange), Bruins, Rangers, Islanders, Oilers, Canadiens, Maple Leafs, Canucks (even a 20 year coma patient would recognize the throwback), Penguins, Devils (12/32)[/quote]

    It would have to be a 30 year coma patient, because 20 years ago the Canucks were in the hallowe’en uniforms.

    In any event, lumping the Canadiens (who haven’t changed uniforms in forever) together with the Canucks (who’ve been through three major redesigns and landed not too far from where they started) isn’t quite right. Its like saying the White Sox are stable because they’re wearing the same jerseys they wore in 1949, ignoring everything that happene in the middle.[/quote]
    I know they were wearing the V at the time, but you can’t tell me that a hockey fan wouldn’t recognize the uniform as the Canucks because of (to him) how recently they wore that design, if he just woke up from a 20 year coma.

    You never said anything about having to remain constant in order to be recognized by a coma patient. Just sayin…

  • Berto | August 10, 2009 at 5:37 pm |

    [quote comment="345020"][quote comment="345017"][quote comment="345004"]Oi! Damn!?!?! What were they smokin’ when they came up with that mess? See kids, don’t smoke Angel Dust.[/quote]

    It gets worse.

    http://www.ufl-footb...

    I am always for new football leagues and what-not, but damn, it’s hard to get very excited about a 4 team league that will play 6 games each. and seeing the Las Vegas uniform isn’t helping.

    Lee[/quote]

    I think it’s good that they’re starting with very modest expectations. Go ahead and start small, then expand if able. The one thing I haven’t seen is when they plan to play, as in which day. Can’t do Saturday or Sunday or Monday. I guess if they end soon enough they can do Thursday but then you go up against the NBC line up. How about Wednesday?

    “Are you kinda ready for like some football sorta? A Wednesday night Party! It’s hump day and it’s really to early to really set your fantasy football roster so why not watch some other football?”

  • marc | August 10, 2009 at 5:38 pm |

    [quote comment="345018"]one last thing…

    do these look the same to you?

    they’re both green, they both have andy jackson on them and they both are worth $20

    but they sure don’t look the same[/quote]

    nope, they don’t. but these sure look a lot alike.

  • Berto | August 10, 2009 at 5:40 pm |

    [quote comment="345027"][quote comment="345018"]one last thing…

    do these look the same to you?

    they’re both green, they both have andy jackson on them and they both are worth $20

    but they sure don’t look the same[/quote]

    nope, they don’t. but these sure look a lot alike.[/quote]

    Black shoes vs white shoes. Waaaaaay different :-)

  • Cooper's Dad | August 10, 2009 at 5:43 pm |

    [quote comment="345027"][quote comment="345018"]one last thing…

    do these look the same to you?

    they’re both green, they both have andy jackson on them and they both are worth $20

    but they sure don’t look the same[/quote]

    nope, they don’t. but these sure look a lot alike.[/quote]
    I gotta admit….I love Marc’s moxie…the guy is arguing ’til the end. ATTABOY!!!

  • MPowers1634 | August 10, 2009 at 5:44 pm |

    Where are the Pitt unis?

  • marc | August 10, 2009 at 5:49 pm |

    [quote comment="345027"][quote comment="345018"]one last thing…

    do these look the same to you?

    they’re both green, they both have andy jackson on them and they both are worth $20

    but they sure don’t look the same[/quote]

    nope, they don’t. but these sure look a lot alike.[/quote]

    but wait… there’s more! here, here, and here.

  • ballzy | August 10, 2009 at 5:50 pm |

    [quote comment="345013"][quote comment="345008"][quote comment="345001"][quote comment="344997"]
    The point is: a 91 year old man would have fell on his ass in dress shoes[/quote]

    Is that the fault of his shoes?

    He made the trek up to the booth to talk with Michaels and Collinsworth with no problem, so walking doesn’t seem to be difficult for him. How hard is it to change into dress shoes for 10 minutes?[/quote]

    He changed OUT of dress shoes for ten minutes so he was safe on the field. You are missing it.[/quote]

    Perhaps I am missing it then because his shoes would have no effect on his walking on the field. It’s artificial turf. Unless the bottoms of his shoes are extremely smooth causing him to slide on the artificial turf fabric, there’s no need to change shoes at all. I’ve seen guys here running routes in dress shoes as a joke.

    So why did he wear the sneakers?[/quote]

    You just don’t GET IT™ then…He’s gonna be 91 years old and turf is slippery….it’s simple.

  • ballzy | August 10, 2009 at 5:53 pm |

    [quote comment="345031"][quote comment="345027"][quote comment="345018"]one last thing…

    do these look the same to you?

    they’re both green, they both have andy jackson on them and they both are worth $20

    but they sure don’t look the same[/quote]

    nope, they don’t. but these sure look a lot alike.[/quote]

    but wait… there’s more! here, here, and here.[/quote]

    http://i221.photobuc...

    AND

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

    ?

  • JTH | August 10, 2009 at 6:02 pm |

    [quote comment="345029"][quote comment="345027"][quote comment="345018"]one last thing…

    do these look the same to you?

    they’re both green, they both have andy jackson on them and they both are worth $20

    but they sure don’t look the same[/quote]

    nope, they don’t. but these sure look a lot alike.[/quote]
    I gotta admit….I love Marc’s moxie…the guy is arguing ’til the end. ATTABOY!!![/quote]
    Yep. Even though the “argument” ended hours ago.

  • Berto | August 10, 2009 at 6:04 pm |

    [quote comment="345031"][quote comment="345027"][quote comment="345018"]one last thing…

    do these look the same to you?

    they’re both green, they both have andy jackson on them and they both are worth $20

    but they sure don’t look the same[/quote]

    nope, they don’t. but these sure look a lot alike.[/quote]

    but wait… there’s more! here, here, and here.[/quote]

    but wait… there’s more! here, (blue facemask vs. white facemask) here, (No autograph on second picture) and here (no NFL shield in first picture and player does not suck).

  • Teebz | August 10, 2009 at 6:07 pm |

    [quote comment="345032"][quote comment="345013"][quote comment="345008"][quote comment="345001"][quote comment="344997"]
    The point is: a 91 year old man would have fell on his ass in dress shoes[/quote]

    Is that the fault of his shoes?

    He made the trek up to the booth to talk with Michaels and Collinsworth with no problem, so walking doesn’t seem to be difficult for him. How hard is it to change into dress shoes for 10 minutes?[/quote]

    He changed OUT of dress shoes for ten minutes so he was safe on the field. You are missing it.[/quote]

    Perhaps I am missing it then because his shoes would have no effect on his walking on the field. It’s artificial turf. Unless the bottoms of his shoes are extremely smooth causing him to slide on the artificial turf fabric, there’s no need to change shoes at all. I’ve seen guys here running routes in dress shoes as a joke.

    So why did he wear the sneakers?[/quote]

    You just don’t GET IT™ then…He’s gonna be 91 years old and turf is slippery….it’s simple.[/quote]

    Unless it was wet – WHICH IT WAS NOT – it is not slippery. Have you played on it? It’s designed to NOT be slippery for traction purposes. Otherwise, why would anyone choose to play on it?

  • JTH | August 10, 2009 at 6:08 pm |

    [quote comment="345032"][quote comment="345013"][quote comment="345008"][quote comment="345001"][quote comment="344997"]
    The point is: a 91 year old man would have fell on his ass in dress shoes[/quote]

    Is that the fault of his shoes?

    He made the trek up to the booth to talk with Michaels and Collinsworth with no problem, so walking doesn’t seem to be difficult for him. How hard is it to change into dress shoes for 10 minutes?[/quote]

    He changed OUT of dress shoes for ten minutes so he was safe on the field. You are missing it.[/quote]

    Perhaps I am missing it then because his shoes would have no effect on his walking on the field. It’s artificial turf. Unless the bottoms of his shoes are extremely smooth causing him to slide on the artificial turf fabric, there’s no need to change shoes at all. I’ve seen guys here running routes in dress shoes as a joke.

    So why did he wear the sneakers?[/quote]

    You just don’t GET IT™ then…He’s gonna be 91 years old and turf is slippery….it’s simple.[/quote]
    You know something? They actually make dress shoes with rubber soles nowadays. Maybe Mr. Wilson should look into a pair or two.

  • Berto | August 10, 2009 at 6:11 pm |

    Lots of emotion over what seemed to be basically a throw away line.

    If I were old and rich I’d go out there barefoot just cuz.

  • marc | August 10, 2009 at 6:11 pm |

    [quote comment="345034"][quote comment="345029"][quote comment="345027"][quote comment="345018"]one last thing…

    do these look the same to you?

    they’re both green, they both have andy jackson on them and they both are worth $20

    but they sure don’t look the same[/quote]

    nope, they don’t. but these sure look a lot alike.[/quote]
    I gotta admit….I love Marc’s moxie…the guy is arguing ’til the end. ATTABOY!!![/quote]
    Yep. Even though the “argument” ended hours ago.[/quote]

    ok, JTH. you’re absolutely right. the examples i provided of the chiefs, browns, colts and raiders prove without a shadow of a doubt that the uniforms they wore in the 1960s look COMPLETELY different than the ones they currently wear. i’m sorry i don’t know what brand of socks they wear or the color of their mouthguards or what brand of toilet paper they wiped their ass with in the pregame. you win, alright?

  • Lee | August 10, 2009 at 6:15 pm |

    [quote comment="345038"]Lots of emotion over what seemed to be basically a throw away line.

    If I were old and rich I’d go out there barefoot just cuz.[/quote]

    If I were Wilson, I would have rocked these:
    http://nfl.imageg.ne...

    Can we shut up about his damn shoes?

    Lee

  • Giancarlo | August 10, 2009 at 6:18 pm |

    If Rip Van Couchpotato were to wake up today and read this thread he would drop dead from future shock.

  • Hibbsy | August 10, 2009 at 6:25 pm |

    Lot of jumping down throats today. I heard there was an aneurism, and someone ended up in a coma.
    I guess opinions will forever be debatable. Get well soon everybody.

  • JTH | August 10, 2009 at 6:25 pm |

    [quote comment="345039"][quote comment="345034"][quote comment="345029"][quote comment="345027"][quote comment="345018"]one last thing…

    do these look the same to you?

    they’re both green, they both have andy jackson on them and they both are worth $20

    but they sure don’t look the same[/quote]

    nope, they don’t. but these sure look a lot alike.[/quote]
    I gotta admit….I love Marc’s moxie…the guy is arguing ’til the end. ATTABOY!!![/quote]
    Yep. Even though the “argument” ended hours ago.[/quote]

    ok, JTH. you’re absolutely right. the examples i provided of the chiefs, browns, colts and raiders prove without a shadow of a doubt that the uniforms they wore in the 1960s look COMPLETELY different than the ones they currently wear. i’m sorry i don’t know what brand of socks they wear or the color of their mouthguards or what brand of toilet paper they wiped their ass with in the pregame. you win, alright?[/quote]
    Dude, what the hell are you talking about?

    First of all, I’m not out to “win” anything. I long ago conceded that I may have missed the gist of your original point.

    Second, When did ANYONE ever mention the Chiefs, Browns, Raiders and Colts as examples of teams that have changed their looks over the years? I jokingly suggested that the Bears and Packers look way different in 1989 than they do today, but that’s about it.

  • Hibbsy | August 10, 2009 at 6:30 pm |

    If I live to be 90, I hope I wear better sneakers than those. Those white Rockports scream, “I’m old!”
    If your going to wear sneakers with a suit or jacket, Chucks are about all that will work.
    He looks like an older version of Jerry Seinfeld. Big old clunky white sneakers.

  • Giancarlo | August 10, 2009 at 6:42 pm |

    That being said, I think Marc’s main point is a valid one & something I’ve also noticed. Uni watching isn’t only about details & minor inconsistencies; it’s also about long term trends & continuity. The design tropes that franchises carry over through the years – be they color schemes, logos, or whatever – really represent the heart of team/brand identification. And it is noteworthy that the NFL over the last 40-50 years has respected continuity more than any other of the major sports, including Ye Olde Game of Base Ball. But to see that you have to step back and look at patterns & general schema instead of minute particulars.

  • Nick | August 10, 2009 at 6:49 pm |

    [quote comment="344942"][quote comment="344936"][quote comment="344932"]this is exactly what i meant by my initial post about how the bengals had a major overhaul over 20 years ago, but since then, they’re relatively unchanged (again, to the layman).[/quote]

    whoops… meant this.[/quote]

    If you’re saying the Bengals last redesign came with the Icky Woods look and since then they’ve been just jerking around inside it, updating and improving (well, in their minds, anyway) rather than starting over….

    I’d say that’s accurate.

    Now, when the color scheme changes, like the Bucs, or the Broncos in ’62, and to some extent moves such as the Eagles and Seahawks made…that’s much more toward a “back to the beginning”.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I somewhat kinda, gotta disagree.

    While the 1980 “Punk Rock” helmet is a radical departure from the original 1968 “BENGALS” helmet, the reasonableness of the jerseys in the first three generations (1968, 1981, then the addition of the logo to the sleeve) are all more similar to each other than the irritating current unis where the jerseys and pants look like the innards of the shark from “Jaws I” when the Richard Dreyfus cut it open.

    Despite the retention of the 1981 “Punk Rock” helmet with the current unis, this current Bengals uni is a mess well beyond anything before it, rivaled only by the current Bills uni of the Three shades of Blue, and SEVEN stripes on the helmet (Count em’)!!!!!

  • Nick | August 10, 2009 at 6:53 pm |

    [quote comment="344924"][quote comment="344923"][quote]to the uni-obsessed, there’s probably something like 872 details i’ve overlooked, but for normal people, the bengals look basically the same.[/quote]

    more like 873

    you’re telling us this resembles this?[/quote]

    Amazing how adding TV numbers clutters up a uni.[/quote]

    Ricko, on second thought, maybe after seeing the beaty of that Ken Anderson pic in the original Bengals uni,I have to conced and agree with you – because that classic Bengals uni confirms that all that came after that come from the same family of uni basterdization.

  • Nick | August 10, 2009 at 7:13 pm |

    BROWNS NAME GOING BACK TO CLEVELAND …

    As I understood it, the Cleveland forces (pols, fans, stadium commission) had a heavy bit of leverage over Art Modell in this dispute, as the Browns had some years on their lease left to go at Municipal Staduim when Modell chose to take the money and move to Baltimore.

    I understood that because the Cleveland people were in a position to sue to enforce the lease, which would have forced the Browns to stay in Cleveland as lame ducks and to play out the terms of the lease, or pay a settlement in the tens of millions to leave, that part of the settlement with Art Modell and the NFL included their concession and the requirement that the name, colors and records remain in Cleveland.

    Someone in that part of the country must know more about this than me, a New Orleans guy…..

  • Hibbsy | August 10, 2009 at 7:25 pm |

    [quote comment="345046"][quote comment="344942"][quote comment="344936"][quote comment="344932"]this is exactly what i meant by my initial post about how the bengals had a major overhaul over 20 years ago, but since then, they’re relatively unchanged (again, to the layman).[/quote]

    whoops… meant this.[/quote]

    If you’re saying the Bengals last redesign came with the Icky Woods look and since then they’ve been just jerking around inside it, updating and improving (well, in their minds, anyway) rather than starting over….

    I’d say that’s accurate.

    Now, when the color scheme changes, like the Bucs, or the Broncos in ’62, and to some extent moves such as the Eagles and Seahawks made…that’s much more toward a “back to the beginning”.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I somewhat kinda, gotta disagree.

    While the 1980 “Punk Rock” helmet is a radical departure from the original 1968 “BENGALS” helmet, the reasonableness of the jerseys in the first three generations (1968, 1981, then the addition of the logo to the sleeve) are all more similar to each other than the irritating current unis where the jerseys and pants look like the innards of the shark from “Jaws I” when the Richard Dreyfus cut it open.

    Despite the retention of the 1981 “Punk Rock” helmet with the current unis, this current Bengals uni is a mess well beyond anything before it, rivaled only by the current Bills uni of the Three shades of Blue, and SEVEN stripes on the helmet (Count em’)!!!!![/quote]

    Was it really referred to as the “punk rock” helmet?
    Huh… And I always heard that 91 was the year that punk broke.

  • Nick | August 10, 2009 at 7:27 pm |

    RANDOM THOUGHTS ON THE UFL …

    God Awful unis on the LOCOOMTIVES (!!!!)

    If I were the UFL I would do this as far as unis go …

    a.) Have the each of the four teams have different colors that allow for COLOR vs COLOR games, while still having the road Whites/Gold/Silver light jerseys.

    b.) Have the uni templates ENTIRELY UNIQUE to each team, creating/fitting their personalities. I would have at least one team in a DECENT modern look, at least one with true UCLA stripe jerseys, maybe one in a different version of a classic look, and then one team in a very older, throwback sort of template – maybe similar to the 1994 Packers throwbacks, or maybe as far back as the 1994 Bears/Steelers friction strip-type throwbacks.

    c.) This would create instant uni-buzz and identiy, instant contrasts for each team with a personality and identity for each team, and a break with the current monotony (excepting the Bengals/Bills?Falcons/Vikings messes)we are blessed with in the NO Fun League.

    Anybody else have any ideas?

    Because if the LV Locos unis are any indication, it looks to me like we are soon going to see Arena League AFL34, or XFL 21 ….

  • Matt | August 10, 2009 at 7:36 pm |
  • bartusball | August 10, 2009 at 7:37 pm |

    Here’s a good gallery on the new Pitt Unis

    Gotta say I like, very much. Love the pants stripe, harken back to the good old days. The way players wear their jerseys these days, the sleeve stripes are needless anyway. A script Pitt would be a cherry on top.

  • LarryB | August 10, 2009 at 7:43 pm |

    [quote comment="345052"]Here’s a good gallery on the new Pitt Unis

    Gotta say I like, very much. Love the pants stripe, harken back to the good old days. The way players wear their jerseys these days, the sleeve stripes are needless anyway. A script Pitt would be a cherry on top.[/quote]

    Why is Pitt making so many changes to the uniforms the last few years?

    Sheesh

  • JimV19 | August 10, 2009 at 7:51 pm |

    [quote comment="345040"][quote comment="345038"]Lots of emotion over what seemed to be basically a throw away line.

    If I were old and rich I’d go out there barefoot just cuz.[/quote]

    If I were Wilson, I would have rocked these:
    http://nfl.imageg.ne...

    Can we shut up about his damn shoes?

    Lee[/quote]

    Gotta agree on this one. Could be any number of reasons – swollen feet, lost his dress shoes, you name it. I was curious when I saw the picture, but not very concerned about it.

    Moving on, I’m pretty sure I’m in the minority since I don’t think the LV Locomotives’ unis are that bad. BUT, can we at least agree they’re better than a number of current NFL unis?

  • Bernard | August 10, 2009 at 7:59 pm |

    [quote comment="345052"]Here’s a good gallery on the new Pitt Unis

    Gotta say I like, very much. Love the pants stripe, harken back to the good old days. The way players wear their jerseys these days, the sleeve stripes are needless anyway. A script Pitt would be a cherry on top.[/quote]

    I’ll say it again.

    Clean? Yes. Uninspired? Also yes.

  • Patrick in MI | August 10, 2009 at 8:31 pm |

    Because when I think of Las Vegas, I think of locomotives. Also, nice link to those Cuban baseball pin-ups today Paul. My girlfriend and I are big fans of Elvgren (giggity) and I’m trying to convince her I need her Ullmann-ized.

  • Eddie | August 10, 2009 at 8:45 pm |

    I wonder if the LV Locomotives would still be as recognizable in twenty years. Just incase I slip into a coma ;)

  • Patrick in MI | August 10, 2009 at 9:03 pm |

    If anyone cares, Adam Everett’s tittle appears to have reverted to its natural blue color. In weeks past, it had been orange. Sorry, no screencaps.

  • LI Phil | August 10, 2009 at 9:23 pm |

    [quote comment="345029"][quote comment="345027"][quote comment="345018"]one last thing…

    do these look the same to you?

    they’re both green, they both have andy jackson on them and they both are worth $20

    but they sure don’t look the same[/quote]

    nope, they don’t. but these sure look a lot alike.[/quote]
    I gotta admit….I love Marc’s moxie…the guy is arguing ’til the end. ATTABOY!!![/quote]

    wow…leave the board for a couple hours and…

    i just wanna say i enjoyed marc’s points and his rebuttals — i thought both sides were well articulated

    and i completely agree that it’s awesome one can look at the chiefs v. raiders or dolphins v. stillers today and know that, for the most part, yep — those are pretty much what they 30 – 40 wore years ago

    those uniforms stood the test of time and don’t need change, at least not for the sake of change — sure the chiefs added/removed red pants, stillers went from college block to nike slash, etc., but they’re minor (ok, maybe red pants isn’t minor) changes … but there are subtle differences that are important to those who post there

    if i had any beef with marc, and i really don’t (i largely agree with him), it was perhaps his generalization (incorrectly noted by me) that ALL uniforms from 1969 look the same — i think his true point, which ricko picked up on, was that someone who left the country and spent 30 years in a tibetan monestary could return and STILL recognize the teams he hadn’t seen…fair enough — just took a bit of umbrage with how he characterized us as “uni obsessed” versus “normal” people … this is Uni Watch, after all, of course we’re uni obsessed

    anyway, sorry things got testy

  • Taxman | August 10, 2009 at 9:31 pm |

    [quote comment="344974"][quote comment="344942"][quote comment="344936"][quote comment="344932"]this is exactly what i meant by my initial post about how the bengals had a major overhaul over 20 years ago, but since then, they’re relatively unchanged (again, to the layman).[/quote]

    whoops… meant this.[/quote]

    If you’re saying the Bengals last redesign came with the Icky Woods look and since then they’ve been just jerking around inside it, updating and improving (well, in their minds, anyway) rather than starting over….

    I’d say that’s accurate.

    Now, when the color scheme changes, like the Bucs, or the Broncos in ’62, and to some extent moves such as the Eagles and Seahawks made…that’s much more toward a “back to the beginning”.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    The Bengals should return to the 1972 look. Period.

    http://cgi.ebay.com....
    Gotta disagree on those helmets – dull shade of orange and an uninspired wordmark. Not even a conventional stripe.
    As an O’s fan, I love black and orange – just don’t care for those old Bengals brain buckets.

  • dave r | August 10, 2009 at 9:36 pm |

    [quote comment="345052"]Here’s a good gallery on the new Pitt Unis

    Gotta say I like, very much. Love the pants stripe, harken back to the good old days. The way players wear their jerseys these days, the sleeve stripes are needless anyway. A script Pitt would be a cherry on top.[/quote]

    From what I see so far, these are great. I really like the pants stripes. Straight and wide. So many new designs today fall into two categories: 1. no stripes at all (i.e. boring) or 2. thin curved stripes (i.e. stupid). Is it possible the helmet will have regular stripes too?

    As for the rest of the uniform, I like the simpler numbers; I like the smaller chest word mark; and I like the less metallic gold. I do wish the gold was more yellowish, though. These uniforms seem like they will look more like blue/white in the bright sun than blue/gold.

  • RobT | August 10, 2009 at 9:36 pm |

    [quote comment="345023"][quote comment="345017"][quote comment="345004"]Oi! Damn!?!?! What were they smokin’ when they came up with that mess? See kids, don’t smoke Angel Dust.[/quote]

    It gets worse.

    http://www.ufl-footb...
    Is that showing a template where every team will be wearing the same helmet with the UFL logo on the sides?

    Please tell me I’m wrong…[/quote]

    Yeah you are. In the weirdest marketing concept known to man, the UFL decided to unveil names and uniforms but not a logo. The logos will be unveiled at a later date.

    The UFL logo on the side of the helmet is simply there as a placeholder.

    From what I hear the other teams in the league will be the Florida Tuskers, New York Sentinals and San Francisco RockFish. I guess I have to give them points for originality.

  • LI Phil | August 10, 2009 at 9:54 pm |

    remember those great potential t-shirts robert marshall designed?

    i got one more

  • anotherguy | August 10, 2009 at 9:58 pm |

    [quote comment="345053"]Why is Pitt making so many changes to the uniforms the last few years?[/quote]
    As a longtime Bears fan, I have to think it has something to do with Wanny.

    Ayyupp, he’s got a uni….

  • =bg= | August 10, 2009 at 10:07 pm |

    It’s game time.
    Beat LA.
    That is all.

  • Teebz | August 10, 2009 at 10:15 pm |

    [quote comment="345063"]remember those great potential t-shirts robert marshall designed?

    i got one more[/quote]

    I still want a Teebowski one. LOL

  • MPowers1634 | August 10, 2009 at 10:16 pm |

    Detroit at Boston:

    1. Placido Polanco has a DIESEL head…I bet his 5950 is a size 8 1/2

    2. Boston intentionally walked Cabrera? to get to Guillen because he’s got so much shit on, he can get around in time

  • JimV19 | August 10, 2009 at 10:18 pm |

    [quote comment="345062"][quote comment="345023"][quote comment="345017"][quote comment="345004"]Oi! Damn!?!?! What were they smokin’ when they came up with that mess? See kids, don’t smoke Angel Dust.[/quote]

    It gets worse.

    http://www.ufl-footb...
    Is that showing a template where every team will be wearing the same helmet with the UFL logo on the sides?

    Please tell me I’m wrong…[/quote]

    Yeah you are. In the weirdest marketing concept known to man, the UFL decided to unveil names and uniforms but not a logo. The logos will be unveiled at a later date.

    The UFL logo on the side of the helmet is simply there as a placeholder.

    From what I hear the other teams in the league will be the Florida Tuskers, New York Sentinals and San Francisco RockFish. I guess I have to give them points for originality.[/quote]

    Please tell me the names are a joke. I liked the Locmotives name, but those others sound like OFOS (original for original’s sake). We can do better, people.

  • JimV19 | August 10, 2009 at 10:19 pm |

    [quote comment="345063"]remember those great potential t-shirts robert marshall designed?

    i got one more[/quote]

    I shoulda put the cup over my face…

  • JimV19 | August 10, 2009 at 10:25 pm |

    [quote comment="345059"]just took a bit of umbrage with how he characterized us as “uni obsessed” versus “normal” people … this is Uni Watch, after all, of course we’re uni obsessed

    anyway, sorry things got testy[/quote]

    See, I took that as meaning there were normal people, then there were new and improved models known as uni-obsessed people. Guess it’s a matter of perspective…

  • aflfan | August 10, 2009 at 10:35 pm |

    [quote comment="345056"]Because when I think of Las Vegas, I think of locomotives.[/quote]

    As a railroad fan that makes no sense to me either. Las Vegas was never a major “rail town” nor was it the site of any plants to build locomotives. Cities with rail history that it would make sense for are:

    Chicago, OH
    Lima, OH
    Schenectady, NY
    Omaha, NE
    Cheyene, WY
    Philadelphia, PA

  • aflfan | August 10, 2009 at 10:35 pm |

    Doh!

    Chicago, IL

  • =bg= | August 10, 2009 at 10:39 pm |

    BTW, the game tonite is a certain uni-classic. Looking at the Dodgers and the Giants, this game could’ve been played in the early 60′s and the looks would be almost precisely the same, exept for some minor differences.

    And that’s what we like.

  • JTH | August 10, 2009 at 10:58 pm |

    I might need to have my membership card revoked because I just noticed that the Mariners have a vaguely Brewers-like number font on their blue alts. There are a couple good views of it in this gallery.

    How long has this been going on?

  • Dave Mac | August 10, 2009 at 11:50 pm |

    So here’s what I want to know. If someone went into a coma in 1984 and came out in 2008, would they be able to recognize Michael Jackson.

    And yeah, we’ve all heard way too much about him lately but I couldn’t resist.

  • Ricko | August 10, 2009 at 11:51 pm |

    Obviously, Ralph Wilson was going for the Obama look.

    How can everyone on a board like this one miss a new “on-field casual” trend when they see it.

    Come on, people. Focus.

    :)

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | August 10, 2009 at 11:58 pm |

    [quote comment="345075"]So here’s what I want to know. If someone went into a coma in 1984 and came out in 2008, would they be able to recognize Michael Jackson.

    And yeah, we’ve all heard way too much about him lately but I couldn’t resist.[/quote]

    Him?
    http://www.pro-footb...

  • Dave Mac | August 11, 2009 at 12:13 am |

    [quote comment="345077"][quote comment="345075"]So here’s what I want to know. If someone went into a coma in 1984 and came out in 2008, would they be able to recognize Michael Jackson.

    And yeah, we’ve all heard way too much about him lately but I couldn’t resist.[/quote]

    Him?
    http://www.pro-footb...

    Haha! Well he did play for the Browns/Ravens, so it would be doubly confusing.

  • JD | August 11, 2009 at 12:29 am |

    [quote comment="345074"]I might need to have my membership card revoked because I just noticed that the Mariners have a vaguely Brewers-like number font on their blue alts. There are a couple good views of it in this gallery.

    How long has this been going on?[/quote]

    2001 or so…

    Does anyone still check this at 9:30pm PST?

  • Greenie | August 11, 2009 at 12:36 am |

    [quote comment="344918"][quote comment="344912"][quote comment="344873"][quote comment="344864"]
    “Ravens” owes to Baltimore’s Edgar Allen Poe and his famous poem, of course. As such, the original logo was a little more appropriate, more “spooky old house.” Certainly more attuned to the era when Poe wrote, too. Too bad they were forced to scuttle it.
    http://www.instantre...

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Ricko, what is the story behind the Ravens being forced to drop the first helmet logo? I never knew the change wasn’t their choice.

    -Greenie

  • Ricko | August 11, 2009 at 12:41 am |

    [quote comment="345080"][quote comment="344918"][quote comment="344912"][quote comment="344873"][quote comment="344864"]
    “Ravens” owes to Baltimore’s Edgar Allen Poe and his famous poem, of course. As such, the original logo was a little more appropriate, more “spooky old house.” Certainly more attuned to the era when Poe wrote, too. Too bad they were forced to scuttle it.
    http://www.instantre...

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Ricko, what is the story behind the Ravens being forced to drop the first helmet logo? I never knew the change wasn’t their choice.

    -Greenie[/quote]

    Here’s the story…
    http://www.cbc.ca/sp...

    —Ricko

  • Greenie | August 11, 2009 at 12:45 am |

    [quote comment=\"345081\"][quote comment=\"345080\"][quote comment=\"344918\"][quote comment=\"344912\"][quote comment=\"344873\"][quote comment=\"344864\"]
    \”Ravens\” owes to Baltimore\’s Edgar Allen Poe and his famous poem, of course. As such, the original logo was a little more appropriate, more \”spooky old house.\” Certainly more attuned to the era when Poe wrote, too. Too bad they were forced to scuttle it.
    http://www.instantre...

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Ricko, what is the story behind the Ravens being forced to drop the first helmet logo? I never knew the change wasn\’t their choice.

    -Greenie[/quote]

    Here\’s the story…
    http://www.cbc.ca/sp...

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Thanks Ricko, I was hoping you hadn\’t fallen asleep already. :-)

  • LI Phil | August 11, 2009 at 1:03 am |

    [quote comment="345076"]Obviously, Ralph Wilson was going for the Obama look.

    How can everyone on a board like this one miss a new “on-field casual” trend when they see it.

    Come on, people. Focus.

    :)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    clearly, this is the look we all would have been happy with

  • RobT | August 11, 2009 at 1:13 am |

    [quote comment="345068"][quote comment="345062"][quote comment="345023"][quote comment="345017"][quote comment="345004"]Oi! Damn!?!?! What were they smokin’ when they came up with that mess? See kids, don’t smoke Angel Dust.[/quote]

    It gets worse.

    http://www.ufl-footb...
    Is that showing a template where every team will be wearing the same helmet with the UFL logo on the sides?

    Please tell me I’m wrong…[/quote]

    Yeah you are. In the weirdest marketing concept known to man, the UFL decided to unveil names and uniforms but not a logo. The logos will be unveiled at a later date.

    The UFL logo on the side of the helmet is simply there as a placeholder.

    From what I hear the other teams in the league will be the Florida Tuskers, New York Sentinals and San Francisco RockFish. I guess I have to give them points for originality.[/quote]

    Please tell me the names are a joke. I liked the Locmotives name, but those others sound like OFOS (original for original’s sake). We can do better, people.[/quote]

    I would love to. Apparently, there are some UFL superfans who went through the US Trademark office and searched for UFL trademarks and unfortunately the other 3 (and the Locomotives) were all listed. So we’ll see what comes of it I guess. I hear the other three jerseys/names will be announced in the next few days.

    As Paul may be interested in this, here’s the official UFL Guideline for the Locomotive:

    http://www.ufl-footb...(1).pdf

  • Hibbsy | August 11, 2009 at 3:23 am |

    Cool-flo helmets are always bad.

    I REALLY like the the post-fight apologetic state that people go through on this site. When it all boils down, we’re arguing about clothing for athletic teams. Most complaints are to the choir, or to the unforgiving.

    Billsownerboy definitely looks better in the outfit that Aunt Martha made the Beaver put on.

    When Beaver told Ward that he was like one of the fellas, and Ward said, “That’s the nicest thing you’ve evr said to me.”, I welled up.

    I also enjoy the freedom of a late night post.

    No one is reading.

  • JTH | August 11, 2009 at 8:01 am |

    [quote comment="345085"]Cool-flo helmets are always bad.

    I REALLY like the the post-fight apologetic state that people go through on this site. When it all boils down, we’re arguing about clothing for athletic teams. Most complaints are to the choir, or to the unforgiving.

    Billsownerboy definitely looks better in the outfit that Aunt Martha made the Beaver put on.

    When Beaver told Ward that he was like one of the fellas, and Ward said, “That’s the nicest thing you’ve evr said to me.”, I welled up.

    I also enjoy the freedom of a late night post.

    No one is reading.[/quote]
    [quote comment="345079"][quote comment="345074"]I might need to have my membership card revoked because I just noticed that the Mariners have a vaguely Brewers-like number font on their blue alts. There are a couple good views of it in this gallery.

    How long has this been going on?[/quote]

    2001 or so…

    Does anyone still check this at 9:30pm PST?[/quote]
    2001 or so? Cripes. That long?

  • bquinn | August 11, 2009 at 3:55 pm |

    [quote comment="344871"][quote comment="344867"][quote comment="344865"]

    In fact, the NFL shield was

    I noticed during the touchdown celebration photo that AJ Trapasso’s (No. 4) back helmet bumper is being pulled down by a teammate. I’m never seen that before.

    Ohio Cards Blog[/quote]

    Here is the photo I was referencing
    http://d.yimg.com/a/...[/quote]

    The really weird part is that many of the oiler’s helmets last night did not even have the bumper.[/quote]
    It depends on the helmet the player wears. Riddell has the neck bumpers, but Schutt does not because the neck pad on their helmets hangs down in the back.