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

Monday Morning Uni Watch

jags.jpg

As you may have noticed, there was an extra color on NFL gridirons yesterday. We all knew it was coming, and it was pretty much what we expected. In other words: snoozers.

My general feeling was: (1) It looked like crap, and (2) I didn’t really care because it was 75 degrees and sunny here in NYC, so there was no way I was gonna spend the day watching teevee. Caught about 15 mins. of the Giants game before going hiking in Staten Island. (Yes, hiking in Staten Island — it exists! We even saw three whitetail deer. In Staten Island!)

Anyway: It could have been pinker, because Chad Johnson/Ochocinco had been toying with the idea of a pink chinstrap, but instead he just went with standard white — something of a surprise, because at various points in the past he’s gone with a black version and an orange version (most recently during a preseason game a little over a month ago, which earned him a fine).

Ochocinco’s chinstrap maneuverings have been of particular interest to reader Henry Chan. I’ll let him explain:

In 2007, I came up with the idea to make Johnson an orange and black “Bengal-striped” chinstrap. The idea didn’t come completely out of the blue: Back when I was in University in the late ’90s, I created a company called “Strap It On Sports” — “SioSports” for short — with the idea of making custom-painted chinstraps for NCAA football teams (I figured I would start with college and hopefully work my way up to the NFL). I made a couple of prototypes based on my hometown CFL Calgary Stampeders and then sent letters with hand-drawn mock-ups to various NCAA schools. The chinstraps were customized with the school logo on the chin cup, along with the player’s name and/or number. Unfortunately, I received no response and the idea kind of faded. I no longer have the mock-ups, either.

Anyway, back to Chad Johnson. I figured if he was willing to wear an orange chinstrap (which incidentally was an Adams 50 “youth” model and not a Adams 100 “pro” model), then he might be willing to wear one with black tiger stripes, so I ordered an orange chinstrap and began to customize it. Unfortunately, the paint didn’t adhere very well to the plastic chin cup or the straps, and the idea again faded.

However, this past summer I tried using a black Sharpie instead of paint, and it worked perfectly. After experimenting with a few different designs, I was able to come up with the first Bengal-striped chinstrap, customized for Chad Ochocinco. On September 17th I sent the chinstrap to Chad, c/o of the Bengals, in the hopes that he might wear it for a game (hopefully he won’t make me pay for the fine), or at least a practice.

Very cool. Personally, I’m surprised the NFL has been so tight-assed about chinstrap colors and designs. They already allow bright-colored gloves and color-trimmed shoes, yet they cling to plain white chinstraps. I’m not saying I want them to allow other colors and patterns; I’m just saying I’m surprised they haven’t done it. And I bet the eventually do it in the not-too-distant future, whether Ochocinco wears Henry’s chinstrap or not.

Research Reminder: In case you missed it last week, I’m trying to gather as many different hockey red line designs as possible. I’m not talking about the center ice logo — I mean the red line itself, which is sometimes solid, sometimes checkered, and sometimes imprinted with little icons relating to the home team. If you have any red line designs to contribute, please send them here. Thanks.

Screen shot 2009-10-04 at 10.07.15 PM.png

Culinary Corner: Why pay 50¢ at the convenience store for a bag of chips when you could spend far more time, energy, and money making your own, as Kirsten and I did on Saturday? The great thing about cooking them yourself is that you can make them as dark as you want — and believe me, I want.

So here’s what you do: Go buy a few nice-sized baking potatoes (preferably russets, but any tuber will do). No need to peel them — just slice them really thin with a mandoline or food processor or whatever. Soak the slices in water for two hours and then dry them as best you can. A salad spinner is ideal for this, but only losers eat salads so I assume you don’t have one of those. Just use paper towels.

Meanwhile, take the widest pot you own, pour in a few inches of vegetable oil, and heat it until it registers 380º on a candy thermometer (if you don’t have a candy thermometer, just stick your finger in the oil until nothing’s left but the bone). Working in batches, put the spud slices in the oil. Don’t crowd them in the pot — if they touch, they’ll stick together. When the chips reach your desired shade of golden brown (figure three-ish minutes), use a slotted spoon to transfer them to a rack or paper towel. Let the oil heat back up to 380º and then start the next batch. While those slices are cooking, transfer the first batch of cooked chips to a big bowl.

Repeat all steps until the bowl is full or you run out of potato slices. Toss cooked chips with salt. Transfer chips and self to sofa in time for Monday Night Football. Serves 1.

Uni Watch News Ticker: The Padres wore jersey patches promoting their charitable foundation yesterday. … New masks for Jonas Gustavsson and Dan Ellis (with thanks to Matthew Gahm and Dirk Hoag, respectively). … Jeremy Lewis reports that Pearl Jam’s current tour features team-based T-shirts for each stop on the tour. “The number corresponds to the date the show was played,” he explains. … Sanchez-o-rama! That’s Jonathan at bat and Freddy on deck, as recently snapped by James Allen at Dodger Stadium. … Totally gorgeous basketball warm-up shirt available here. … Man, if you’re gonna steal an NFL team’s design, why would you choose the Bengals? Those are the Lincoln University Blue Tigers, a historically black college in Jefferson City, Missouri (with thanks to Jason Walker). … So now Adidas logo creep has spread to deodorant. “Guess which brand was on sale?” says Timothy McGlone. … And speaking of Adisas logo creep (with thanks to Brinke Guthrie). … More NOB inconsistencies, this time for Pitt (with thanks to Chris Hilf). … Mike Menner notes that the Twins have already produced a printed version of their 2010 schedule, and that it includes this logo. A sensible person might reasonably conclude that this logo will be worn as a sleeve patch next season, but of course I can’t confirm anything of that sort. … How do you make the lame-o blackout thing even lamer? Put a nickname on your jersey and color-reverse your helmet stripe (as noted by Brian Davis). … One one-handed D1 hoops player? Sure, why not? (With thanks to Chad Todd). … Chris Speakman, who runs the excellent Sports Propaganda operation, has a new line of screen prints available from Topps. … Hmmm, is hockey headed for its own Gazoo helmet? The funny thing about using Messier as your helmet spokesguy is that he looks the same without a helmet as he does when he’s wearing one (with thanks to Ryan Harrington). … Interesting NOB available here. “Looks like a FNOB, but it’s actually the jersey of Ovince Saint Preux — who, according to my research, is now an MMA star,” says Nathan Haas. … Four of Southern’s football jerseys were stolen prior to Saturday’s game against Jackson State, prompting a quick uni switcheroo (with thanks to Prentice James). … Now that the UFL has unveiled its helmet designs, Bill Jones has gumball-ized them. “Also,” he adds, “I have been working on sets of NCAA helmets. I have recently uploaded some the FCS and D2 sets that I have completed, as well as the Asian baseball sets that Jeremy Brahm helped me with, to my Flickr stream. I hope to have my FBS and FCS throwbacks uploaded this month, and then I will start on a D3 set.” … Showtime has aired the third installment of its AFL series, so Mako Mameli has added new images to his screen shot set. Dig the alternating-color yard line numbers in KC! … Also from Mako: Really interesting article here about the Broncos’ throwback field design. Highly recommended reading. … Texas A&M went with white helmets on Saturday. … Reprinted from yesterday’s comments: The Rochester Amerks wore some awesome throwbacks on Saturday. … “I was browsing eBay today when I came across a photo slide being sold by the Topps Vault,” writes Paul Carr. “The picture shows Don Zimmer, supposedly from 1972, wearing a very strange Padres cap I have never seen before. The cap is similar to the one they wore for most of the 70s, but the yellow panel in front is HUGE, going all the way back to Zimmer’s ears.” Anyone know more about this? … It’s gotta be the shoes, or something. … Hmmm, is this a hint of what the 2010 BP caps will look like? … Classy move by David Wright, who closed out the season by wearing blue stirrups yesterday — nice (pics courtesy of Steve Wojtowicz). … Kellan Walski spotted this guy at yesterday’s Pats game. “Turns out the guy knew someone who worked at a sporting goods store and was willing to put in the work on the custom job,” he says. “The numbers were custom-cut to be able to fit three across without looking too squished. Beneath all of that customization is a Lawyer Milloy jersey.” … Apple (the computer company, not the record label) is suing Woolworths (the Australian supermarket chain, not the defunct five and dime retailer) due to some logo similarities, although that seems like a stretch to me (with thanks to John Muir). … The Capitals have made changes to their banners and retired numbers (with thanks to William Yurasko). … NOB of the year, right? And yes, it’s his real name, although maybe he should change it to “Ah, Shit,” given the state of the Rams this year (nice find by Tyler Hull). … Hey, did you know there’s a blog that’s tracking the demolition of Yankee Stadium? Love the straightforward URL (with thanks to Kevin Rozell).

 

293 comments to Monday Morning Uni Watch

  • Sam D. | October 5, 2009 at 8:19 am |

    David WRIGHT, not David “Weight.”

  • Sarran | October 5, 2009 at 8:58 am |

    Those Pearl Jam tees really look sweet! Quite unusual in this day and age for a band to be doing something that requires thought and effort. Ill bet they cost at least $50 though.

  • fred | October 5, 2009 at 9:00 am |

    http://www.lubluetig...

    Looks like the other team in this picture stole the K-State helmet logo too.

  • KF | October 5, 2009 at 9:07 am |

    Has there been a lot of hubbub in the New York media about tearing down Yankee Stadium? Tearing down Tiger Stadium in Detroit was an unnecessarily long process and had all of the preservationists up in arms for 10 years. And while Tiger Stadium had a rich history, it was no Yankee Stadium. Any insight from New Yorkers out there?

  • The Jeff | October 5, 2009 at 9:08 am |

    I finally managed to catch up and watch the first 3 parts of the Full Color Football AFL documentary thing… and I’m really not that impressed by it.

    It’s interesting and they have mentioned a few tidbits I wasn’t aware of, but it feels kinda incomplete and sloppy to me. For example, while they’re talking about how awesome the 1964 Bills defense was, they’re showing footage vs the Chargers which is -obviously- from ’66 or later. Or when talking about the Broncos, they show the burning of the brown and yellow, but then fail to mention what the new uniforms were. It would have been the perfect opportunity to show off a color photo proving the blue or brown issue, and they completely skip it.

    I guess it’s not bad, but I think it really could have been better.

  • Mark K | October 5, 2009 at 9:16 am |

    I like the new Caps banners without a team logo. They’re old school- and timeless.

  • Brian R. | October 5, 2009 at 9:18 am |

    Apparently Tom Brady hasn’t had the “C” patch on at all this season…anyone know why or who the Offensive Captain is??

    Week 1
    ——–

    http://cache.boston....

    Week 2
    ——-

    http://cache.boston....

    Week 3
    ——-

    http://cache.boston....

    Week 4
    ——-

    http://cache.boston....

  • Hott Rodd | October 5, 2009 at 9:21 am |

    My wife asked me why the Broncos didn’t have the team name in the endzone yesterday. I was so proud..

    (Btw the article mentions the groundskeeper watching film.. someone get in touch with him re: the denver dilemma)

  • Sam D. | October 5, 2009 at 9:24 am |

    [quote comment=”352066″]Apparently Tom Brady hasn’t had the “C” patch on at all this season…anyone know why or who the Offensive Captain is??

    Week 1
    ——–

    http://cache.boston....

    Week 2
    ——-

    http://cache.boston....

    Week 3
    ——-

    http://cache.boston....

    Week 4
    ——-

    http://cache.boston....

    The Patriots don’t use the C patch at all. No one wears it.

  • Brian R. | October 5, 2009 at 9:24 am |

    [quote comment=”352066″]Apparently Tom Brady hasn’t had the “C” patch on at all this season…anyone know why or who the Offensive Captain is??[/quote]

    Brady was named captain this year by the Patriots…not sure why he doesn’t have the “C”

    http://www.patriots....

  • LI Phil | October 5, 2009 at 9:27 am |

    [quote comment=”352066″]Apparently Tom Brady hasn’t had the “C” patch on at all this season…anyone know why or who the Offensive Captain is??

    Week 1
    ——–

    http://cache.boston....

    Week 2
    ——-

    http://cache.boston....

    Week 3
    ——-

    http://cache.boston....

    Week 4
    ——-

    http://cache.boston....

    2009 captains

    apparently they don’t need no stinkin’ captaincy patches

  • ATLShaun | October 5, 2009 at 9:29 am |

    Love the homemade chips Paul! I used to make those all the time, just may have to start em up again. those store chips suck, get a shiny bag half full of air for $4… gimme a break

  • =bg= | October 5, 2009 at 9:30 am |

    little typo here

    And speaking of Adisas logo creep

  • Graf Zeppelin | October 5, 2009 at 9:40 am |

    I remember a player in the USFL named Junior Ah You. Apparently, he’s C.J.’s uncle.

  • John | October 5, 2009 at 9:50 am |

    Looks like the stupid Louisville black out uni also had a facemask switch – from red to black

  • George Ciervo | October 5, 2009 at 9:52 am |

    I think the Seahawks missed an opportunity to pair their neon green with pink accessories (call it the Delta Zeta look…).

  • Eric | October 5, 2009 at 9:55 am |

    the Pearl Jam shirts are unreal. Best band in the world making an effort to give us fans somethign unique at the merch stand.

    But these shirts are just like the Klausen/Ames Bros posters in that they are very limited, “supposed” to be one per customer, and they are going on ebay for hundreds of dollars.

    IF anyone cares they are $35 at the shows. I cant wait to see what they do for the 4 Philly shows at the end of the month. Ill be there all 4 nights tryign to grab them

  • Hal | October 5, 2009 at 9:58 am |

    [quote comment=”352076″]the Pearl Jam shirts are unreal. Best band in the world making an effort to give us fans somethign unique at the merch stand.

    But these shirts are just like the Klausen/Ames Bros posters in that they are very limited, “supposed” to be one per customer, and they are going on ebay for hundreds of dollars.

    IF anyone cares they are $35 at the shows. I cant wait to see what they do for the 4 Philly shows at the end of the month. Ill be there all 4 nights tryign to grab them[/quote]

    As though I needed another reason to love Pearl Jam!

  • JTH | October 5, 2009 at 10:02 am |

    [quote comment=”352077″][quote comment=”352076″]the Pearl Jam shirts are unreal. Best band in the world making an effort to give us fans somethign unique at the merch stand.

    But these shirts are just like the Klausen/Ames Bros posters in that they are very limited, “supposed” to be one per customer, and they are going on ebay for hundreds of dollars.

    IF anyone cares they are $35 at the shows. I cant wait to see what they do for the 4 Philly shows at the end of the month. Ill be there all 4 nights tryign to grab them[/quote]

    As though I needed another reason to love Pearl Jam![/quote]
    If you want to snag a shirt at the show, get there when the doors open. Otherwise, you have no chance. F’rinstance, I went to both Chicago shows and got there before the opening band (Bad Religion) took the stage and did not see a single show-specific shirt.

    That reminds me, I still have not seen what the August 24th shirt looks like. Was it the same as the 23rd with a 24 on the back or was it completely different? Jeremy Lewis? Anyone?

  • ClubMedSux | October 5, 2009 at 10:04 am |

    So I guess the Pats season ticket holder in the ticker would be an SOB (Section On Back)?

  • mike | October 5, 2009 at 10:07 am |

    Matt Bradley for the Capitals was wearing the hockey Gazoo helmet at the home opener on Saturday. Here is a pic from the white version he wore in Boston. The home version is blue and was noticeably different….at least to me…

    http://news.yahoo.co...

  • Matt Brosseau | October 5, 2009 at 10:09 am |

    I think, technically, you’re hiking “on” Staten Island. Thoughts?

  • Kellan | October 5, 2009 at 10:09 am |

    [quote comment=”352079″]So I guess the Pats season ticket holder in the ticker would be an SOB (Section On Back)?[/quote]

    I suggested LoNOB (Location Name On Back)

  • peter | October 5, 2009 at 10:09 am |

    [quote comment=”352077″][quote comment=”352076″]the Pearl Jam shirts are unreal. Best band in the world making an effort to give us fans somethign unique at the merch stand.

    But these shirts are just like the Klausen/Ames Bros posters in that they are very limited, “supposed” to be one per customer, and they are going on ebay for hundreds of dollars.

    IF anyone cares they are $35 at the shows. I cant wait to see what they do for the 4 Philly shows at the end of the month. Ill be there all 4 nights tryign to grab them[/quote]

    As though I needed another reason to love Pearl Jam![/quote]

    PJ has been UNI centric back to the Mookie Blaylock Band days…even TEN was named for his UNI number.

    Wish they were coming to NY, that would have made a great uni-band shirt Using the Rangers OR the Knicks logo

    (kind of makes up for the ho-hum Backspacer)

  • BuckeyeMark | October 5, 2009 at 10:13 am |

    don’t have a screen capture but a Notre Dame player had a TON of gold paint come off his helmet in the game Saturday. surprised it didn’t get a mention in today’s ticker. did it get mentioned yesterday?

  • JTH | October 5, 2009 at 10:15 am |

    [quote comment=”352083″][quote comment=”352077″][quote comment=”352076″]the Pearl Jam shirts are unreal. Best band in the world making an effort to give us fans somethign unique at the merch stand.

    But these shirts are just like the Klausen/Ames Bros posters in that they are very limited, “supposed” to be one per customer, and they are going on ebay for hundreds of dollars.

    IF anyone cares they are $35 at the shows. I cant wait to see what they do for the 4 Philly shows at the end of the month. Ill be there all 4 nights tryign to grab them[/quote]

    As though I needed another reason to love Pearl Jam![/quote]

    PJ has been UNI centric back to the Mookie Blaylock Band days…even TEN was named for his UNI number.

    Wish they were coming to NY, that would have made a great uni-band shirt Using the Rangers OR the Knicks logo

    (kind of makes up for the ho-hum Backspacer)[/quote]
    Incidentally, if anyone pines for the days when you could walk into a discount department store and buy a record (an actual vinyl phonograph record), you can buy Backspacer at Target. Not all stores are carrying the vinyl version, but “select” ones are.

  • mmwatkin | October 5, 2009 at 10:27 am |

    [quote comment=”352063″]And while Tiger Stadium had a rich history, it was no Yankee Stadium.[/quote]

    Ha…good one. People keep forgetting that the original Yankee Stadium was destroyed in ’73.

  • Dave | October 5, 2009 at 10:27 am |

    That Cascade/Messier helmet situation is nothing new. There were Cascade helmets for hockey using the same air cells as the new one, just with slightly different shells. I only ever saw maybe two or three Cascade helmets on actual players, and they aren’t Gazoo-like at all. I think the only thing that has changed is Cascade’s celebrity endorser. Messier, of course, wore the same ratty Winn Well helmets for 25 years.

  • Ricko | October 5, 2009 at 10:28 am |

    [quote comment=”352075″]I think the Seahawks missed an opportunity to pair their neon green with pink accessories (call it the Delta Zeta look…).[/quote]

    Or a small dinner salad. In Chernobyl.

    —Ricko

  • bill | October 5, 2009 at 10:36 am |

    “apparently they don’t need no stinkin’ captaincy patches”

    Most franchises would be fined by Goodell but the Patriots are above the law.

    The field in Kansas City always looked cool during the AFL days. Has there ever been a better professional football groundskeeper than George Toma?

  • Gusto44 | October 5, 2009 at 10:43 am |

    re: Messier Helmet

    Kudos to Mark Messier on this proposed new helmet to increase player safety in the NHL. I can’t think of another sport where the equipment protection of the players is greater at the lower levels of competition. Obviously, it’s the nature of hockey, even in the 1970s, you had a few goalies not wearing masks. There is no good reason why NHL players shouldn’t be wearing the full cage projection worn at the college level.
    Reducing the amount of facial injuries would only improve the NHL. It’s like football helmet protection in the single/double bar face mask protection era. Much like the Clint Marlachuk throat injury for goalies, I fear it’s going to take a life threatening injury to a player before this obvious improvement should take place. The helmets worn today, even with a visor, just don’t offer sufficient protection.

  • Hott Rodd | October 5, 2009 at 10:45 am |

    [quote comment=”352089″]”apparently they don’t need no stinkin’ captaincy patches”

    Most franchises would be fined by Goodell but the Patriots are above the law.

    The field in Kansas City always looked cool during the AFL days. Has there ever been a better professional football groundskeeper than George Toma?[/quote]

    Actually, the Captaincy patches are, and have been from the beginning, optional. The Patriots are not the only team that does not wear them.
    I know the Cowboys do not wear them, and there are probably 2 or 3 or more other teams that do not as well.

  • M.Princip | October 5, 2009 at 10:46 am |

    [quote comment=”352084″]don’t have a screen capture but a Notre Dame player had a TON of gold paint come off his helmet in the game Saturday. surprised it didn’t get a mention in today’s ticker. did it get mentioned yesterday?[/quote]

    I noticed this. Probably four layers of gold paint at one go. Isn’t it some sort of tradition that students repaint the helmets after every game?

  • Hott Rodd | October 5, 2009 at 10:48 am |

    [quote comment=”352092″][quote comment=”352084″]don’t have a screen capture but a Notre Dame player had a TON of gold paint come off his helmet in the game Saturday. surprised it didn’t get a mention in today’s ticker. did it get mentioned yesterday?[/quote]

    I noticed this. Probably four layers of gold paint at one go. Isn’t it some sort of tradition that students repaint the helmets after every game?[/quote]

    Rudy Rudy Rudy..

    Yeah I may have heard of that tradition somewhere.. I can’t quite remember where though.. :-)

  • JTH | October 5, 2009 at 10:50 am |

    [quote comment=”352091″][quote comment=”352089″]”apparently they don’t need no stinkin’ captaincy patches”

    Most franchises would be fined by Goodell but the Patriots are above the law.

    The field in Kansas City always looked cool during the AFL days. Has there ever been a better professional football groundskeeper than George Toma?[/quote]

    Actually, the Captaincy patches are, and have been from the beginning, optional. The Patriots are not the only team that does not wear them.
    I know the Cowboys do not wear them, and there are probably 2 or 3 or more other teams that do not as well.[/quote]
    No Cs on the Steelers’ jerseys.

  • Teebz | October 5, 2009 at 10:51 am |

    [quote comment=”352090″]re: Messier Helmet

    Kudos to Mark Messier on this proposed new helmet to increase player safety in the NHL. I can’t think of another sport where the equipment protection of the players is greater at the lower levels of competition. Obviously, it’s the nature of hockey, even in the 1970s, you had a few goalies not wearing masks. There is no good reason why NHL players shouldn’t be wearing the full cage projection worn at the college level.
    Reducing the amount of facial injuries would only improve the NHL. It’s like football helmet protection in the single/double bar face mask protection era. Much like the Clint Marlachuk throat injury for goalies, I fear it’s going to take a life threatening injury to a player before this obvious improvement should take place. The helmets worn today, even with a visor, just don’t offer sufficient protection.[/quote]

    There are very good reasons why they don’t do these things you suggest: they are adults. It’s the same reason why people drink and drive even though they know it can kill them. Or why some people still don’t like to use a seatbelt. Creating a better helmet does not eliminate head injuries, but it can reduce them.

    Visors aren’t supported by the majority of NHL players in the NHLPA. And players HATE the cages because it restricts and reduces their field of vision. How many college players are wearing them in the NHL?

    I commend Messier for working towards a solution, but players don’t change equipment unless they have to. And the NHL doesn’t hold enough power to make players change their equipment when companies like Reebok are playing them millions of dollars to wear the Vector.

  • JTH | October 5, 2009 at 10:53 am |
  • Teebz | October 5, 2009 at 10:57 am |

    [quote comment=”352095″]companies like Reebok are paying them millions of dollars to wear the Vector.[/quote]

    Whoops… an extra letter in there.

  • ry co 40 | October 5, 2009 at 10:58 am |

    [quote comment=”352094″][quote comment=”352091″][quote comment=”352089″]”apparently they don’t need no stinkin’ captaincy patches”

    Most franchises would be fined by Goodell but the Patriots are above the law.

    The field in Kansas City always looked cool during the AFL days. Has there ever been a better professional football groundskeeper than George Toma?[/quote]

    Actually, the Captaincy patches are, and have been from the beginning, optional. The Patriots are not the only team that does not wear them.
    I know the Cowboys do not wear them, and there are probably 2 or 3 or more other teams that do not as well.[/quote]
    No Cs on the Steelers’ jerseys.[/quote]

    thank goodness…

  • Hott Rodd | October 5, 2009 at 11:00 am |

    [quote comment=”352096″]Broncos…[/quote]

    come to think of it, no wonder I didn’t get to see any pink captains patches yesterday..

    I only watched the Boys-Broncos and very small parts of Steelers-Bolts, nary a captain’s patch to be found.

  • chance michaels | October 5, 2009 at 11:01 am |

    [quote comment=”352091″][quote comment=”352089″]”apparently they don’t need no stinkin’ captaincy patches”

    Most franchises would be fined by Goodell but the Patriots are above the law.

    The field in Kansas City always looked cool during the AFL days. Has there ever been a better professional football groundskeeper than George Toma?[/quote]

    Actually, the Captaincy patches are, and have been from the beginning, optional. The Patriots are not the only team that does not wear them.
    I know the Cowboys do not wear them, and there are probably 2 or 3 or more other teams that do not as well.[/quote]
    Don’t know about this year, but when they were first introduced in 2007, about a third of the teams opted not to wear them.

    The Packers haven’t worn them in the regular season, because they chose captains on a game-by-game basis. They do wear them in the postseason, because they chose one set of captains for the entire postseason.

    Of course, that’s the old policy. Don’t know what they will do if and when they make the playoffs this year.

  • Hott Rodd | October 5, 2009 at 11:02 am |

    doesn’t look like the Ravens wear them either.

  • Kyle@IU | October 5, 2009 at 11:06 am |

    I’m actually not cool with the Capitals changing their banners to reflect the current colors. I would like it if, say, the 1998 Eastern Conf. Champions banner stuck with the blue, black, and gold border, because that was the uniform of the time. Likewise, when Olaf Kolzig’s #37 gets (presumably) retired, I’d like to see it rendered in the uniform that made him famous (black banner, gold art-deco-style numbers).

    The Indiana Pacers do something like this in that their ABA Championship banners all have the old hand-and-ball logo on them.

  • Richard Craig | October 5, 2009 at 11:06 am |

    Re Zimmer Padres cap: The Padres played around with their cap designs quite a bit in 1972. They’d used solid brown before, but in ’72 they tried both a solid yellow design and brown with a yellow front panel.

    The first batch of caps with the yellow front panel looked like this picture of Zimmer, with the yellow much larger than later on. I have a couple of programs somewhere that show this on the whole team. In fact, I think the 1973 Padres Topps team photo card (using the ’72 photo) shows some if not all of the players wearing the caps with the big yellow panels.

    I’m at work right now and don’t have time to look around online to find more examples, but they’re out there.

  • Teebz | October 5, 2009 at 11:08 am |

    [quote comment=”352102″]I’m actually not cool with the Capitals changing their banners to reflect the current colors. I would like it if, say, the 1998 Eastern Conf. Champions banner stuck with the blue, black, and gold border, because that was the uniform of the time. Likewise, when Olaf Kolzig’s #37 gets (presumably) retired, I’d like to see it rendered in the uniform that made him famous (black banner, gold art-deco-style numbers).[/quote]

    I have to agree with this reasoning. It would be like the Coyotes changing their banners for Bobby Hull and Thomas Steen to Coyotes’ colours.

    It’s just not right.

  • Ricko | October 5, 2009 at 11:10 am |

    [quote comment=”352096″]Broncos…[/quote]

    I vote for this jersey being Broncos’ primary home, with the navy being the alt. Or maybe being deep-sixed altogether.

    Anyone else feel thay way?

    (P.S., Can Champ Bailey play corner or what.)

    —Ricko

  • MPowers1634 | October 5, 2009 at 11:11 am |

    1. I LOVE the custom chinstraps…Henry, you should give one to your local paper’s Behgals beat writer and have him present it to Ocho Pinko!

    2. Reyes chose poorly going with UA…he should have asked ME first.

    3. I LOVED the pink accented gear. However, my wife noticed it, which started a debate. She thinks that the money used in manufaturing and distributing these items would be better suited going directly to whatever fund, Komen?, is working on a cure.

    I stated that the visability of these items will get cavemen, like Ricko, to become more proactive in preventing the ailment by having the women in their lives tested earlier, etc. Plus, they look cool and it gives us something to talk about.

    and 4. I EFFING LOVE THE PEARL JAM TEES. I want to purchase a few of them…any help?

  • chance michaels | October 5, 2009 at 11:11 am |

    Agree – drives me crazy to go to Miller Park and see Hank Aaron’s retired number in the modern font and colors.

  • MPowers1634 | October 5, 2009 at 11:13 am |

    [quote comment=”352089″]”apparently they don’t need no stinkin’ captaincy patches”

    Most franchises would be fined by Goodell but the Patriots are above the law.

    The field in Kansas City always looked cool during the AFL days. Has there ever been a better professional football groundskeeper than George Toma?[/quote]

    The marquis de SOD

  • Ricko | October 5, 2009 at 11:15 am |

    [quote comment=”352104″][quote comment=”352102″]I’m actually not cool with the Capitals changing their banners to reflect the current colors. I would like it if, say, the 1998 Eastern Conf. Champions banner stuck with the blue, black, and gold border, because that was the uniform of the time. Likewise, when Olaf Kolzig’s #37 gets (presumably) retired, I’d like to see it rendered in the uniform that made him famous (black banner, gold art-deco-style numbers).[/quote]

    I have to agree with this reasoning. It would be like the Coyotes changing their banners for Bobby Hull and Thomas Steen to Coyotes’ colours.

    It’s just not right.[/quote]

    Aw, hell, everybody knows if you don’t like history, just change it. The WHA never existed, remember? Was just a figment of our collective imaginations. Or take the Oakland Raiders. Nothing before 1963, when Al Davis got there. No life til the Great Al reached out and touched them. Black and gold Raiders unis? Never happened.

    —Ricko

  • Teebz | October 5, 2009 at 11:15 am |

    [quote comment=”352106″]
    3. I LOVED the pink accented gear. However, my wife noticed it, which started a debate. She thinks that the money used in manufaturing and distributing these items would be better suited going directly to whatever fund, Komen?, is working on a cure.

    I stated that the visability of these items will get cavemen, like Ricko, to become more proactive in preventing the ailment by having the women in their lives tested earlier, etc. Plus, they look cool and it gives us something to talk about.[/quote]

    I agree 100% with your wife. I know breast cancer exists. I know we all have moms, sisters, wives, aunts, friends, and co-workers who have been affected by breast cancer. I know that we should do everything we can to help save the lives of these women.

    Do I show up to work in pink shoes to show my support? No. I donate cash. Why? It goes much further.

    As Phil pointed out in the comments yesterday, people that were watching the game around him had no clue as to why the players were wearing pink. So the NFL’s message isn’t really as far-reaching as they may think.

  • LI Phil | October 5, 2009 at 11:15 am |

    [quote]2. Reyes chose poorly going with UA…he should have asked ME first.[/quote]

    because you’re more knowledgable than a major league baseball player?

  • matt | October 5, 2009 at 11:15 am |

    Yes Paul…the pink looks bad in sports uniforms. But how about nixing your bitching for ONE month? It’s for a fantastic cause, whether or not you think it’s “appropriate” to showcase it in that way or no.

  • The Jeff | October 5, 2009 at 11:16 am |

    [quote comment=”352106″]1. I LOVE the custom chinstraps…Henry, you should give one to your local paper’s Behgals beat writer and have him present it to Ocho Pinko!

    2. Reyes chose poorly going with UA…he should have asked ME first.

    3. I LOVED the pink accented gear. However, my wife noticed it, which started a debate. She thinks that the money used in manufaturing and distributing these items would be better suited going directly to whatever fund, Komen?, is working on a cure.

    I stated that the visability of these items will get cavemen, like Ricko, to become more proactive in preventing the ailment by having the women in their lives tested earlier, etc. Plus, they look cool and it gives us something to talk about.

    and 4. I EFFING LOVE THE PEARL JAM TEES. I want to purchase a few of them…any help?[/quote]

    Your wife is right.

    The caveman reaction is more along the lines of “WTF are they wearing pink shoes? That’s stupid.”

    The NFL should have just painted a giant pink ribbon at the 50 yard line for all the games. That gets your attention and specifically tells you exactly what it is. Chad OchoCinco in pink shoes? Not so much.

  • JTH | October 5, 2009 at 11:17 am |

    [quote comment=”352106″] I EFFING LOVE THE PEARL JAM TEES. I want to purchase a few of them…any help?[/quote]
    http://shop.ebay.com...

  • Teebz | October 5, 2009 at 11:17 am |

    [quote comment=”352111″][quote]2. Reyes chose poorly going with UA…he should have asked ME first.[/quote]

    because you’re more knowledgable than a major league baseball player?[/quote]

    Powers can also tell him where to find an Oakland A’s hat in Yankee Stadium if necessary. LOL

  • MPowers1634 | October 5, 2009 at 11:17 am |

    [quote comment=”352077″][quote comment=”352076″]the Pearl Jam shirts are unreal. Best band in the world making an effort to give us fans somethign unique at the merch stand.

    But these shirts are just like the Klausen/Ames Bros posters in that they are very limited, “supposed” to be one per customer, and they are going on ebay for hundreds of dollars.

    IF anyone cares they are $35 at the shows. I cant wait to see what they do for the 4 Philly shows at the end of the month. Ill be there all 4 nights tryign to grab them[/quote]

    As though I needed another reason to love Pearl Jam![/quote]

    Alright, UWers. If these tees are out of the question availability and price wise…the DIY machines need to get cranked up. The Trailblazers and Canuck versions are smokin!

  • MPowers1634 | October 5, 2009 at 11:18 am |

    [quote comment=”352111″][quote]2. Reyes chose poorly going with UA…he should have asked ME first.[/quote]

    because you’re more knowledgable than a major league baseball player?[/quote]

    The comment was tongue-in-cheek but I’ve been known to have a bit of knowledge when it comes to cleats and kicks.

  • MPowers1634 | October 5, 2009 at 11:20 am |

    [quote comment=”352115″][quote comment=”352111″][quote]2. Reyes chose poorly going with UA…he should have asked ME first.[/quote]

    because you’re more knowledgable than a major league baseball player?[/quote]

    Powers can also tell him where to find an Oakland A’s hat in Yankee Stadium if necessary. LOL[/quote]

    1. it was Citi-Field and
    2. if it was Camden Yards, then yes:

    http://i256.photobuc...

  • Ricko | October 5, 2009 at 11:21 am |

    [quote comment=”352110″][quote comment=”352106″]
    3. I LOVED the pink accented gear. However, my wife noticed it, which started a debate. She thinks that the money used in manufaturing and distributing these items would be better suited going directly to whatever fund, Komen?, is working on a cure.

    I stated that the visability of these items will get cavemen, like Ricko, to become more proactive in preventing the ailment by having the women in their lives tested earlier, etc. Plus, they look cool and it gives us something to talk about.[/quote]

    I agree 100% with your wife. I know breast cancer exists. I know we all have moms, sisters, wives, aunts, friends, and co-workers who have been affected by breast cancer. I know that we should do everything we can to help save the lives of these women.

    Do I show up to work in pink shoes to show my support? No. I donate cash. Why? It goes much further.

    As Phil pointed out in the comments yesterday, people that were watching the game around him had no clue as to why the players were wearing pink. So the NFL’s message isn’t really as far-reaching as they may think.[/quote]

    It’s advertising, gang. Serves a purpose and doesn’t come free. Apparently every year in the weeks following MLB’s powder blue Father’s Day event, the number of men coming in for prostate screening goes way, way up.

    That’s what “awareness” means, and why they don’t call it “CURE Breast Cancer”. Secondarily it’s about money. Primarily it’s about “Have Yourself Checked” or “Make Sure Someone You Love Has a Check Up.”

    Get it now?

    —Ricko

  • Teebz | October 5, 2009 at 11:22 am |

    [quote comment=”352118″][quote comment=”352115″][quote comment=”352111″][quote]2. Reyes chose poorly going with UA…he should have asked ME first.[/quote]

    because you’re more knowledgable than a major league baseball player?[/quote]

    Powers can also tell him where to find an Oakland A’s hat in Yankee Stadium if necessary. LOL[/quote]

    1. it was Citi-Field and
    2. if it was Camden Yards, then yes:

    http://i256.photobuc...

    I was kidding, Matt. I know you’re the shoe guru in this arena. I wouldn’t have even noticed had you not said anything. ;o)

  • Teebz | October 5, 2009 at 11:23 am |

    [quote comment=”352119″]
    It’s advertising, gang. Serves a purpose and doesn’t come free. Apparently every year in the weeks following MLB’s powder blue Father’s Day event, the number of men coming in for prostate screening goes way, way up.

    That’s what “awareness” means, and why they don’t call it “CURE Breast Cancer”. Secondarily it’s about money. Primarily it’s about “Have Yourself Checked” or “Make Sure Someone You Love Has a Check Up.”

    Get it now?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    You mean all those advertising dollars wouldn’t be better spent to CURE breast cancer instead if increasing the number of people afflicted with it?

  • LI Phil | October 5, 2009 at 11:24 am |

    [quote]3. I LOVED the pink accented gear. However, my wife noticed it, which started a debate. She thinks that the money used in manufaturing and distributing these items would be better suited going directly to whatever fund, Komen?, is working on a cure.[/quote]

    have mrs. powers come to the next UW gathering at sheep station

    i’ll give her a free breast cancer screening

  • JimV19 | October 5, 2009 at 11:26 am |

    Not only did the alternating colors look cool for KC’s yard lines, I liked that the numbers were every five yards. I’d rather see that than the bigger numbers with the arrows. I also liked when the Chargers and Raiders used little shields with the yard line numbers in them.

  • Brian R. | October 5, 2009 at 11:29 am |

    [quote comment=”352068″]The Patriots don’t use the C patch at all. No one wears it.[/quote]

    I’ve been a Patriots fan for years but never noticed this until I specifically wanted to point out the pink “C” patch to my mother…but it wasn’t there.

    And in fact, in going back and looking at game photo’s from yesterday, I also noticed the Ravens don’t wear them, which someone has already pointed out here.

    I honestly had no idea they were optional and I never noticed they were missing from the Patriots uniforms since they began using them in the league.

  • JimV19 | October 5, 2009 at 11:32 am |

    Regarding the Pitt/’Ville game:
    “I’m Calling It A Blech-out.”

  • Giulio | October 5, 2009 at 11:33 am |

    [quote comment=”352081″]I think, technically, you’re hiking “on” Staten Island. Thoughts?[/quote]

    When I saw this in the ticker, I had the same thought. However, I think the usage is correct, given that the author was referring to the borough and not the physical island. In other words, you would say I went hiking in Queens or Brooklyn.

  • DJ | October 5, 2009 at 11:36 am |

    Isn’t it some sort of tradition that students repaint the helmets after every game?

    Yes. They paint the game helmets the Monday night before the game.

  • JTH | October 5, 2009 at 11:38 am |

    [quote comment=”352126″][quote comment=”352081″]I think, technically, you’re hiking “on” Staten Island. Thoughts?[/quote]

    When I saw this in the ticker, I had the same thought. However, I think the usage is correct, given that the author was referring to the borough and not the physical island. In other words, you would say I went hiking in Queens or Brooklyn.[/quote]
    Was thinking “in Manhattan” would be a better analogy since it’s also a borough and an island. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say “on Manhattan” once.

  • Hott Rodd | October 5, 2009 at 11:39 am |

    [quote comment=”352121″][quote comment=”352119″]
    It’s advertising, gang. Serves a purpose and doesn’t come free. Apparently every year in the weeks following MLB’s powder blue Father’s Day event, the number of men coming in for prostate screening goes way, way up.

    That’s what “awareness” means, and why they don’t call it “CURE Breast Cancer”. Secondarily it’s about money. Primarily it’s about “Have Yourself Checked” or “Make Sure Someone You Love Has a Check Up.”

    Get it now?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    You mean all those advertising dollars wouldn’t be better spent to CURE breast cancer instead if increasing the number of people afflicted with it?[/quote]

    not to fan the flames either way, but this was a really informative article

    http://www.boston.co...

  • Ricko | October 5, 2009 at 11:39 am |

    [quote comment=”352121″][quote comment=”352119″]
    It’s advertising, gang. Serves a purpose and doesn’t come free. Apparently every year in the weeks following MLB’s powder blue Father’s Day event, the number of men coming in for prostate screening goes way, way up.

    That’s what “awareness” means, and why they don’t call it “CURE Breast Cancer”. Secondarily it’s about money. Primarily it’s about “Have Yourself Checked” or “Make Sure Someone You Love Has a Check Up.”

    Get it now?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    You mean all those advertising dollars wouldn’t be better spent to CURE breast cancer instead if increasing the number of people afflicted with it?[/quote]

    Not necessarily. Not if one of your overall goals—in addition to finding a cure–is to save the lives of people already afflicted with the disease.

    Seriously. Identify their intent before criticizing. You can say you prefer one goal over the other, sure. But these promotions are about early detection, which clearly DOES save lives, is a perfectly valid goal, and deserves to be promoted. That’s my point.

    How valid would it be for them think, “Okay, everyone knows about breast and prostate cancer, let’s stop spending any money on anything but finding the cure” That would be absolutely insane. From an early-detection standpoint. From a fund-raising standpoint. Just plain lunacy to think like that.

    —Ricko

  • War Damn Eagle | October 5, 2009 at 11:40 am |

    Anyone else notice that Brandon Marshall had completely white socks (with pink wristbands) during the 1st half, but switched to the proper navy socks in the 2nd half? Here’s the navy socks he wore in the 2nd half:

    http://sports.yahoo....

    And here’s the all-white look from the 1st half (scroll down to the 4th row):

    http://www.apimages....;

  • peter | October 5, 2009 at 11:42 am |

    How come only products were in pink…the reebok letters were not?

    Does go against branding?

  • Kek | October 5, 2009 at 11:44 am |

    [quote comment=”352122″][quote]3. I LOVED the pink accented gear. However, my wife noticed it, which started a debate. She thinks that the money used in manufaturing and distributing these items would be better suited going directly to whatever fund, Komen?, is working on a cure.[/quote]

    have mrs. powers come to the next UW gathering at sheep station

    i’ll give her a free breast cancer screening[/quote]
    Creepy. Comment. Of the Week. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • anotherguy | October 5, 2009 at 11:45 am |

    [quote comment=”352123″]Not only did the alternating colors look cool for KC’s yard lines, I liked that the numbers were every five yards. I’d rather see that than the bigger numbers with the arrows. I also liked when the Chargers and Raiders used little shields with the yard line numbers in them.[/quote]Some of the fun things with the AFL 50 year celebration!

  • War Damn Eagle | October 5, 2009 at 11:46 am |

    I think it’s on page 2 of those AP images from the Cowboys-Broncos game.

  • Kek | October 5, 2009 at 11:49 am |

    Regarding Pitt, the Mick Williams thing is a mystery to me. I can only guess that when he got to Pitt there was another Williams with a first name that started with M. That being said, I don’t recall another Panther with FNOB.

    Now, even though there isn’t another M. Williams on the team, maybe he is superstitious and doesn’t want to let it go.

    Regarding Friday’s uni matchup, first off Louisville. I guess if you’re forced to play football on Friday night, you should go for the High School look right? Black out and “THE VILLE” just sucked so bad, they deserved to get the ass kicking they got.

    As for Pitt, I actually thought the all-white was a nice look. I’m guessing they did this in response and counteract the blackout, who knows?

  • Teebz | October 5, 2009 at 11:50 am |

    [quote comment=”352130″]
    You mean all those advertising dollars wouldn’t be better spent to CURE breast cancer instead if increasing the number of people afflicted with it?[/quote]

    Not necessarily. Not if one of your overall goals—in addition to finding a cure–is to save the lives of people already afflicted with the disease.

    Seriously. Identify their intent before criticizing. You can say you prefer one goal over the other, sure. But these promotions are about early detection, which clearly DOES save lives, is a perfectly valid goal, and deserves to be promoted. That’s my point.

    How valid would it be for them think, “Okay, everyone knows about breast and prostate cancer, let’s stop spending any money on anything but finding the cure” That would be absolutely insane. From an early-detection standpoint. From a fund-raising standpoint. Just plain lunacy to think like that.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    If early detection is the end to their marketing campaign – and I support that message since it is vitally important to get treatment as soon as possible – they need to start marketing that message clearly and directly.

    As I said, the people surrounding Phil on the weekend in New York had no idea why the players were wearing pink. None. Despite it being in the news all week long.

    I’m not saying that the campaign isn’t important whatsoever. I’m saying that the marketing wasn’t as effective as it should or could be. Personally, have the players wear highly-noticeable ribbons and pink captain’s patches. People will notice them.

    But the cost of producing shoes, sweatbands, towels, gloves, coins, and special footballs could have been used more effectively since people didn’t know why the NFL was doing it. That’s what I’m saying.

  • -Vince | October 5, 2009 at 11:50 am |

    [quote comment=”352105″][quote comment=”352096″]Broncos…[/quote]

    I vote for this jersey being Broncos’ primary home, with the navy being the alt. Or maybe being deep-sixed altogether.

    Anyone else feel thay way?

    (P.S., Can Champ Bailey play corner or what.)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Agreed! I thought that the first time I saw the current uni set. Need that Orange Crush.

  • Mary O | October 5, 2009 at 11:50 am |

    The Padres were wearing a patch for their foundation as part of a fundraiser they do each year. The Padres Foundation sells $1 raffle tickets to game attendees to win the jerseys that the players were on the final day of the season. It’s called “Win the Shirts Off Their Backs” and it’s been raising money for quite a few years (I can’t remember how many but it started before the team moved to Petco.) The players present their jerseys to the winners on the field after the game. I just wish I could win!

  • anotherguy | October 5, 2009 at 11:52 am |

    [quote comment=”352130″]
    Seriously. Identify their intent before criticizing. You can say you prefer one goal over the other, sure. But these promotions are about early detection, which clearly DOES save lives, is a perfectly valid goal, and deserves to be promoted. That’s my point.

    How valid would it be for them think, “Okay, everyone knows about breast and prostate cancer, let’s stop spending any money on anything but finding the cure” That would be absolutely insane. From an early-detection standpoint. From a fund-raising standpoint. Just plain lunacy to think like that.[/quote]

    My thoughts about the entire pink-out yesterday…how much did it cost to put pink brims on the coach’s caps? Or pink accents on some of the players caps? I just don’t see them selling enough of those caps to even come close to recouping costs. I would have given each coach a pink NFL cap and been done with it: those one-offs are just not “cost effective” IMHO. Donate the money you used to produce those to breast cancer; live with just the ribbons, towels, etc. as your sideline representation. I think that would have given more money to the charity in the long run.

    And pink REFEREE’S caps?? Same thing-they don’t pass the cost/benefit analysis.

    Off this part of the rant: Did we have a throwback game in Pittsburgh yesterday with the new, winter referee gear?

    A) Messes up the throwback look even more (but that was also kind of blown with the pink cleats).

    B) It’s not winter yet.

  • JohnnyO | October 5, 2009 at 11:55 am |

    If anyone needs any information that is Wisconsin-related…I will be unavailable for commenting until after the 12 time World Champion Packers take on the Viqueens.

    Oh, Trevor Hoffman signed a 1 year deal with the Brew Crew today. So there will be a lot more Hells Bells at Miller Park!

  • LI Phil | October 5, 2009 at 11:55 am |

    [quote comment=”352135″]I think it’s on page 2 of those AP images from the Cowboys-Broncos game.[/quote]

    it was…so i did a grab

    sorry about the AP watermarks

  • anotherguy | October 5, 2009 at 11:57 am |

    [quote comment=”352141″]If anyone needs any information that is Wisconsin-related…I will be unavailable for commenting until after the 12 time World Champion Packers take on the Viqueens.[/quote]
    Hey, I forgot my pocket schedule today, exactly when is that game? Next week or the 18th?

  • Kek | October 5, 2009 at 12:00 pm |

    Hockey question, I was at the Pens’ opener Friday night against the Rangers. Normally I stroll in just in time, but I wanted to be early as they were raising the cup banner.

    So I’m watching warmups and I noticed that some players weren’t wearing their helmets. Gonchar, Adams, Guerin, Dupuis and Godard were the ones I spotted. All the Rangers had their helmets on.

    Is this a veteran thing? An actual rule that older players are grandfathered into or just an unwritten tradition?

  • leon | October 5, 2009 at 12:00 pm |

    Some thoughts about the Caps red banners:

    From Wiki (I know, I know);

    “Prior to the start of the 1995–96 season, the team abandoned its original logo and color scheme in favor of a blue, black and bronze palette with an American bald eagle with five stars as its logo. The alternate logo depicted the Capitol with crossed hockey sticks behind. The new logos were viewed as being unpopular with fans.”

    As I recall, the eagle logo in particular was derided for depicting the bird heading downward, as if about to crash (a sentiment attributed to the Caps early exit from the playoff in those days).

    While the “rock the red” campaign seems pretty jive, I’m not so sure some of this isn’t an attempt to purge some of those old memories. While there are still some of us who remember the bad old days of expansion and a lot of under-achieving in the playoffs, I’d guess a lot of the new fanbase thinks hockey started in D.C. when Ovechkin was drafted.
    Just my 2 cents.

  • Rev. Nørb | October 5, 2009 at 12:03 pm |

    The hot pink gloves and shoes on the Steelers throwback unis looked EXCELLENT last night. The hot pink brims on the coaches’ baseball caps were also similarly excellent. This particularly nifty shade of pink looked far superior to the standard pastel tint i seem to remember seeing in the past. My compliments to the chef.

  • Teebz | October 5, 2009 at 12:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”352144″]Hockey question, I was at the Pens’ opener Friday night against the Rangers. Normally I stroll in just in time, but I wanted to be early as they were raising the cup banner.

    So I’m watching warmups and I noticed that some players weren’t wearing their helmets. Gonchar, Adams, Guerin, Dupuis and Godard were the ones I spotted. All the Rangers had their helmets on.

    Is this a veteran thing? An actual rule that older players are grandfathered into or just an unwritten tradition?[/quote]

    There is no rule stating that players must wear helmets for warm-ups. Players can choose to wear or not wear them.

  • leon | October 5, 2009 at 12:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”352125″]Regarding the Pitt/’Ville game:
    “I’m Calling It A Blech-out.”[/quote]

    My attornies will be contacting you!
    Blech @2009
    :)

  • Tick | October 5, 2009 at 12:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”352105″][quote comment=”352096″]Broncos…[/quote]

    I vote for this jersey being Broncos’ primary home, with the navy being the alt. Or maybe being deep-sixed altogether.

    Anyone else feel thay way?

    (P.S., Can Champ Bailey play corner or what.)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Totally agree with you Ricko!! Love the Orange – and he CAN play corner!

  • Hott Rodd | October 5, 2009 at 12:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”352105″][quote comment=”352096″]Broncos…[/quote]

    I vote for this jersey being Broncos’ primary home, with the navy being the alt. Or maybe being deep-sixed altogether.

    Anyone else feel thay way?

    (P.S., Can Champ Bailey play corner or what.)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I vote for or what.

  • Tom V | October 5, 2009 at 12:06 pm |

    I was at the jags/titans game yesterday with some friends from Jacksonville (I live a few hours away) and said to one of the guys “you know they changed their uniforms this year, whats the feeling here in Jacksonville?”

    He said nobody really cared.

    I think we just have to accept the uniwatch crowd is just a small niche of folks who pay alot of attention to deatil, I’d say a good 75% of the folks out there just don’t share our interests when it comes to what this site is about.

  • Ricko | October 5, 2009 at 12:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”352137″][quote comment=”352130″]
    You mean all those advertising dollars wouldn’t be better spent to CURE breast cancer instead if increasing the number of people afflicted with it?[/quote]

    Not necessarily. Not if one of your overall goals—in addition to finding a cure–is to save the lives of people already afflicted with the disease.

    Seriously. Identify their intent before criticizing. You can say you prefer one goal over the other, sure. But these promotions are about early detection, which clearly DOES save lives, is a perfectly valid goal, and deserves to be promoted. That’s my point.

    How valid would it be for them think, “Okay, everyone knows about breast and prostate cancer, let’s stop spending any money on anything but finding the cure” That would be absolutely insane. From an early-detection standpoint. From a fund-raising standpoint. Just plain lunacy to think like that.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    If early detection is the end to their marketing campaign – and I support that message since it is vitally important to get treatment as soon as possible – they need to start marketing that message clearly and directly.

    As I said, the people surrounding Phil on the weekend in New York had no idea why the players were wearing pink. None. Despite it being in the news all week long.

    I’m not saying that the campaign isn’t important whatsoever. I’m saying that the marketing wasn’t as effective as it should or could be. Personally, have the players wear highly-noticeable ribbons and pink captain’s patches. People will notice them.

    But the cost of producing shoes, sweatbands, towels, gloves, coins, and special footballs could have been used more effectively since people didn’t know why the NFL was doing it. That’s what I’m saying.[/quote]

    Gang, they WANT people to ask, “Why are they wearing pink?” and get an answer. That’s the WHOLE DAMN POINT. It’s just as much about that (maybe more) than who knows about the Wearing O’ The Pink in advance. And pink shoes, etc., will get that question asked a lot more often than just a pink ribbon on a coach’s hat.

    That’s what raising awareness is. Plant thoughts, remind women “Oh, yeah, I don’t check myself regularly enough”.

    It’s about generating immediate action, yes, but also about creating what’s called “unaided recall” later on.

    Advertising/Public Relations 101 stuff, really.

    —Ricko

  • JimV19 | October 5, 2009 at 12:08 pm |

    The Broncos were on to something: this http://a.espncdn.com... by itself would be a good awareness raiser…

  • -Vince | October 5, 2009 at 12:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”352144″]Hockey question, I was at the Pens’ opener Friday night against the Rangers. Normally I stroll in just in time, but I wanted to be early as they were raising the cup banner.

    So I’m watching warmups and I noticed that some players weren’t wearing their helmets. Gonchar, Adams, Guerin, Dupuis and Godard were the ones I spotted. All the Rangers had their helmets on.

    Is this a veteran thing? An actual rule that older players are grandfathered into or just an unwritten tradition?[/quote]

    Players are not (I think) required to wear a helmet in warm-ups. All players must wear a helmet when entering the playing surface during a game. The last veteran player grandfathered into no helmet was Craig MacTavish in 1997. But favorite helmet free player was The Secretary of Defence, Rod Langway.
    http://www.legendsof...

  • leon | October 5, 2009 at 12:13 pm |

    (P.S., Can Champ Bailey play corner or what.)

    Apparently, some fucking dumb-ass with the redskins didn’t think so. 2nd worst trade in their history (after paul krause for marlin mckeever).

  • leon | October 5, 2009 at 12:15 pm |

    But favorite helmet free player was The Secretary of Defence, Rod Langway.
    http://www.legendsof

    No Bronze and blue bullshit on that uni!
    thanks for the post

  • Stuby | October 5, 2009 at 12:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”352075″]I think the Seahawks missed an opportunity to pair their neon green with pink accessories (call it the Delta Zeta look…).[/quote]
    If memory serves, the DZ colors are more along the lines of what Rex Ryan was wearing…

    http://a.espncdn.com...

  • Teebz | October 5, 2009 at 12:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”352152″]
    Gang, they WANT people to ask, “Why are they wearing pink?” and get an answer. That’s the WHOLE DAMN POINT. It’s just as much about that (maybe more) than who knows about the Wearing O’ The Pink in advance. And pink shoes, etc., will get that question asked a lot more often than just a pink ribbon on a coach’s hat.

    That’s what raising awareness is. Plant thoughts, remind women “Oh, yeah, I don’t check myself regularly enough”.

    It’s about generating immediate action, yes, but also about creating what’s called “unaided recall” later on.

    Advertising/Public Relations 101 stuff, really.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    If you can’t get an answer to the question because the people around you don’t know, you’ve failed in advertising.

    As Phil wrote yesterday, and I quote,
    oh man…finally back to where i can actually watch football today…saw (at lunch, on a tv in the restaurant) about 10 minutes of the g-men

    had to explain to some folks about “all that pink” they were noticing; apparently the NFL didn’t do a good job getting the word out about october being bc awareness month

    comments ranged from “HAH-THAT GUYS WEARING PINK SHOES” to “WTF”…once i ‘explained’ the deal, people (male and female) all generally expressed the opinion that this was one of the more stupid things the NFL ever did

    one guy even misheard me when i said ‘breast cancer awareness’ — i guess he didn’t hear the last word or thought he was being funny when he said, “so the NFL’s promoting breast cancer now? is there anything they won’t do?”

    I’m not saying that awareness is wrong, Rick. I’m saying that subtlety on the uniforms can be combined with a very strong message during each TV timeouts. Or when a color guy is yapping away about the weather. Et cetera.

    If you want to make people aware of the cause, they have to be aware that you’re doing something. And from Phil’s comment alone, people didn’t know.

  • Gusto44 | October 5, 2009 at 12:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”352095″][quote comment=”352090″]re: Messier Helmet

    Kudos to Mark Messier on this proposed new helmet to increase player safety in the NHL. I can’t think of another sport where the equipment protection of the players is greater at the lower levels of competition. Obviously, it’s the nature of hockey, even in the 1970s, you had a few goalies not wearing masks. There is no good reason why NHL players shouldn’t be wearing the full cage projection worn at the college level.
    Reducing the amount of facial injuries would only improve the NHL. It’s like football helmet protection in the single/double bar face mask protection era. Much like the Clint Marlachuk throat injury for goalies, I fear it’s going to take a life threatening injury to a player before this obvious improvement should take place. The helmets worn today, even with a visor, just don’t offer sufficient protection.[/quote]

    There are very good reasons why they don’t do these things you suggest: they are adults. It’s the same reason why people drink and drive even though they know it can kill them. Or why some people still don’t like to use a seatbelt. Creating a better helmet does not eliminate head injuries, but it can reduce them.

    Visors aren’t supported by the majority of NHL players in the NHLPA. And players HATE the cages because it restricts and reduces their field of vision. How many college players are wearing them in the NHL?

    I commend Messier for working towards a solution, but players don’t change equipment unless they have to. And the NHL doesn’t hold enough power to make players change their equipment when companies like Reebok are playing them millions of dollars to wear the Vector.[/quote]

    I understand what you’re saying, but that same argument was brought up before players wore helmets, and then Bill Masterton died. As far as field of vision is concerned, NFL players said the same thing back in the day, and they’ve adjusted very easily. NHL players are notorious for resisting change, and it will inevitably take someone losing an eye, or life threatening injury for this change to occur. It’s amazing to me that rich NHL players would rather suffer broken noses, loss of teeth, etc.
    I think a big reason former college players don’t keep their helmets is the macho sttitude of team sports. I’ve heard NHL players back in the day talk about the reluctance to don a helmet for this reason. The NFL was the same way, until players realized the smaller face masks failed to offer sufficient protection.
    The other reason is simply the speed and evolution of the NHL game, it’s far more athletic now than decades ago. When you watch the NHL Network replays of 1970s hockey, the difference is startling, even more so than the NFL. Today, more players are hitting the ice, which also increases the chances of a blade injury, too. It’s inevitable, and just pure luck we have not seen another death on the ice. I recall that playoff game when Kevin Stevens fell flat on his face, causing massive facial injuries, they actually had to remove his entire face to fix the damage. What about Al McGinnis and the needless eye injury?
    I suggest people read “Saving Face”, I believe this site has mentioned this book before, it’s great. History repeats itself, and the same arguments against my proposal were the same for resisting goalie masks. Certainly, we have the technology to design a full protection helmet without limiting field of vision.
    Reducing injuries would obviously increase the quality of play, and that benefits everyone. I think we’ll look back in the future at the idea of NHL players without full helmet protection, the same way we look back today at players from the 1970s with no helmets at all, or goalies from the 1950s with no masks. It’s inevitable.

  • Tom V | October 5, 2009 at 12:16 pm |

    Not a Ranger fan whatsoever but I think my fav non helmut guy was Ron Duguay and his fro.

    http://crashingthego...

  • Ricko | October 5, 2009 at 12:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”352140″][quote comment=”352130″]
    Seriously. Identify their intent before criticizing. You can say you prefer one goal over the other, sure. But these promotions are about early detection, which clearly DOES save lives, is a perfectly valid goal, and deserves to be promoted. That’s my point.

    How valid would it be for them think, “Okay, everyone knows about breast and prostate cancer, let’s stop spending any money on anything but finding the cure” That would be absolutely insane. From an early-detection standpoint. From a fund-raising standpoint. Just plain lunacy to think like that.[/quote]

    My thoughts about the entire pink-out yesterday…how much did it cost to put pink brims on the coach’s caps? Or pink accents on some of the players caps? I just don’t see them selling enough of those caps to even come close to recouping costs. I would have given each coach a pink NFL cap and been done with it: those one-offs are just not “cost effective” IMHO. Donate the money you used to produce those to breast cancer; live with just the ribbons, towels, etc. as your sideline representation. I think that would have given more money to the charity in the long run.

    And pink REFEREE’S caps?? Same thing-they don’t pass the cost/benefit analysis.

    Off this part of the rant: Did we have a throwback game in Pittsburgh yesterday with the new, winter referee gear?

    A) Messes up the throwback look even more (but that was also kind of blown with the pink cleats).

    B) It’s not winter yet.[/quote]

    Ah, yes, the old cost-benefit-analysis, that’s how to judge everything.

    It’s a PROMOTION. If it isn’t having the results they’re after, they’ll stop doing it. And so far they haven’t stopped.

    Valid conclusion? In their eyes it’s passing the cost-benefit-analysis test. And they’re in a far better position to judge that than we are.

    Aren’t they?

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | October 5, 2009 at 12:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”352158″][quote comment=”352152″]
    Gang, they WANT people to ask, “Why are they wearing pink?” and get an answer. That’s the WHOLE DAMN POINT. It’s just as much about that (maybe more) than who knows about the Wearing O’ The Pink in advance. And pink shoes, etc., will get that question asked a lot more often than just a pink ribbon on a coach’s hat.

    That’s what raising awareness is. Plant thoughts, remind women “Oh, yeah, I don’t check myself regularly enough”.

    It’s about generating immediate action, yes, but also about creating what’s called “unaided recall” later on.

    Advertising/Public Relations 101 stuff, really.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    If you can’t get an answer to the question because the people around you don’t know, you’ve failed in advertising.

    As Phil wrote yesterday, and I quote,
    oh man…finally back to where i can actually watch football today…saw (at lunch, on a tv in the restaurant) about 10 minutes of the g-men

    had to explain to some folks about “all that pink” they were noticing; apparently the NFL didn’t do a good job getting the word out about october being bc awareness month

    comments ranged from “HAH-THAT GUYS WEARING PINK SHOES” to “WTF”…once i ‘explained’ the deal, people (male and female) all generally expressed the opinion that this was one of the more stupid things the NFL ever did

    one guy even misheard me when i said ‘breast cancer awareness’ — i guess he didn’t hear the last word or thought he was being funny when he said, “so the NFL’s promoting breast cancer now? is there anything they won’t do?”

    I’m not saying that awareness is wrong, Rick. I’m saying that subtlety on the uniforms can be combined with a very strong message during each TV timeouts. Or when a color guy is yapping away about the weather. Et cetera.

    If you want to make people aware of the cause, they have to be aware that you’re doing something. And from Phil’s comment alone, people didn’t know.[/quote]

    So we judge the effectiveness only by those who know about it advance? Those who learn of it, and what it means, on that day don’t count?

    —Ricko

  • JimV19 | October 5, 2009 at 12:24 pm |

    How about pink endzones with some kind of short message written on them? That would be more effective than the apparel, IMO.

  • Ricko | October 5, 2009 at 12:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”352163″]How about pink endzones with some kind of short message written on them? That would be more effective than the apparel, IMO.[/quote]

    No, it wouldn’t. It wouldn’t get as many questions asked. The goal is to start conversations, not just demonstrate the NFL’s support.

  • Gusto44 | October 5, 2009 at 12:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”352162″][quote comment=”352158″][quote comment=”352152″]
    Gang, they WANT people to ask, “Why are they wearing pink?” and get an answer. That’s the WHOLE DAMN POINT. It’s just as much about that (maybe more) than who knows about the Wearing O’ The Pink in advance. And pink shoes, etc., will get that question asked a lot more often than just a pink ribbon on a coach’s hat.

    That’s what raising awareness is. Plant thoughts, remind women “Oh, yeah, I don’t check myself regularly enough”.

    It’s about generating immediate action, yes, but also about creating what’s called “unaided recall” later on.

    Advertising/Public Relations 101 stuff, really.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    If you can’t get an answer to the question because the people around you don’t know, you’ve failed in advertising.

    As Phil wrote yesterday, and I quote,
    oh man…finally back to where i can actually watch football today…saw (at lunch, on a tv in the restaurant) about 10 minutes of the g-men

    had to explain to some folks about “all that pink” they were noticing; apparently the NFL didn’t do a good job getting the word out about october being bc awareness month

    comments ranged from “HAH-THAT GUYS WEARING PINK SHOES” to “WTF”…once i ‘explained’ the deal, people (male and female) all generally expressed the opinion that this was one of the more stupid things the NFL ever did

    one guy even misheard me when i said ‘breast cancer awareness’ — i guess he didn’t hear the last word or thought he was being funny when he said, “so the NFL’s promoting breast cancer now? is there anything they won’t do?”

    I’m not saying that awareness is wrong, Rick. I’m saying that subtlety on the uniforms can be combined with a very strong message during each TV timeouts. Or when a color guy is yapping away about the weather. Et cetera.

    If you want to make people aware of the cause, they have to be aware that you’re doing something. And from Phil’s comment alone, people didn’t know.[/quote]

    So we judge the effectiveness only by those who know about it advance? Those who learn of it, and what it means, on that day don’t count?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Good point, Ricko. Certainly, no sane person could argue about the need for awareness of breast cancer, and the urgency for a cure ASAP.
    Don’t know if this has been brought up, but what about prostate cancer, that too, is a common disease in our country? What about diabetes? Will we get to the point where every Sunday is color coded for a different cause?

  • Teebz | October 5, 2009 at 12:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”352159″]
    I understand what you’re saying, but that same argument was brought up before players wore helmets, and then Bill Masterton died. As far as field of vision is concerned, NFL players said the same thing back in the day, and they’ve adjusted very easily. NHL players are notorious for resisting change, and it will inevitably take someone losing an eye, or life threatening injury for this change to occur. It’s amazing to me that rich NHL players would rather suffer broken noses, loss of teeth, etc.
    I think a big reason former college players don’t keep their helmets is the macho sttitude of team sports. I’ve heard NHL players back in the day talk about the reluctance to don a helmet for this reason. The NFL was the same way, until players realized the smaller face masks failed to offer sufficient protection.
    The other reason is simply the speed and evolution of the NHL game, it’s far more athletic now than decades ago. When you watch the NHL Network replays of 1970s hockey, the difference is startling, even more so than the NFL. Today, more players are hitting the ice, which also increases the chances of a blade injury, too. It’s inevitable, and just pure luck we have not seen another death on the ice. I recall that playoff game when Kevin Stevens fell flat on his face, causing massive facial injuries, they actually had to remove his entire face to fix the damage. What about Al McGinnis and the needless eye injury?
    I suggest people read “Saving Face”, I believe this site has mentioned this book before, it’s great. History repeats itself, and the same arguments against my proposal were the same for resisting goalie masks. Certainly, we have the technology to design a full protection helmet without limiting field of vision.
    Reducing injuries would obviously increase the quality of play, and that benefits everyone. I think we’ll look back in the future at the idea of NHL players without full helmet protection, the same way we look back today at players from the 1970s with no helmets at all, or goalies from the 1950s with no masks. It’s inevitable.[/quote]

    Masterton died in 1968 from his on-ice accident. The NHL instituted the helmet rule in 1979. That’s 11 years of hand-wringing and second-guessing. And with the NHLPA being much stronger than it was in 1979, the NHL will have a hard time convincing players to wear these new helmets.

    They have tried to enforce a visor rule in the past, and it was killed by the ‘PA. The AHL mandated a rule after Jordan Smith, an Anaheim Ducks’ prospect, lost an eye after being struck by a puck while playing with the Portland Pirates. The CHL in Canada has mandatory visors and cages as well, and the OHL has mandatory neck guards as well. The reasons for these changes was because both leagues are developmental leagues trying to get players to the next level. Once you hit the NHL, though, you can wear whatever you want as long as it falls into the NHL’s uniform policies.

    AHL President David Andrews had this comment after Smith’s devastating eye injury: “From our point of view, it was completely a safety issue. Over the last 10-12 years, we’ve had six or seven players who have had their careers ended by eye injuries. Obviously there has been a discussion on and off for years about mandating it, but we just felt it was time. We couldn’t have gone ahead without the support of the general managers of the NHL.”

    The ‘PA argues that players get more careless because of visors as they become slightly more invincible. Because of it, they cling to their “player’s preference” idea when it comes to visors.

    I wrote a long piece about making visors mandatory, and I think they should be. But I have no sway with the ‘PA, and they’re the ones who are holding the NHL back.

    As for the goalies, it took them almost 30 years before Dave Dryden came up with hybrid mask that offers both protection and the greatest field of vision. Cages for hockey players have been around for about 40 years, and no one has improved upon them. That might be a dead idea.

  • MPowers1634 | October 5, 2009 at 12:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”352153″]The Broncos were on to something: this http://a.espncdn.com... by itself would be a good awareness raiser…[/quote]

    if by awareness, you mean…..then yes! Good idea.

  • -Vince | October 5, 2009 at 12:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”352155″](P.S., Can Champ Bailey play corner or what.)

    Apparently, some fucking dumb-ass with the redskins didn’t think so. 2nd worst trade in their history (after paul krause for marlin mckeever).[/quote]

    Don’t remind me… portis is a jack-ass

  • Teebz | October 5, 2009 at 12:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”352162″]
    So we judge the effectiveness only by those who know about it advance? Those who learn of it, and what it means, on that day don’t count?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I judge effectiveness on the number of people it reaches without having segments of the population who are NFL fans asking why the NFL players are wearing pink.

    They should have beat that horse into glue on every telecast, and should continue to do so until the calendar flips to November. In fact, the broadcasters should be forced to mention it at least once per quarter, and make sure that each commercial break features one breast cancer-related commercial.

    How much would that cost the NFL? Um… nothing? And how effective would that be?

  • anotherguy | October 5, 2009 at 12:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”352161″]

    Ah, yes, the old cost-benefit-analysis, that’s how to judge everything.

    It’s a PROMOTION. If it isn’t having the results they’re after, they’ll stop doing it. And so far they haven’t stopped.

    Valid conclusion? In their eyes it’s passing the cost-benefit-analysis test. And they’re in a far better position to judge that than we are.

    Aren’t they?

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Yeah, but that doesn’t change the fact that I’m in a valid position to give an opinion. ;-)

    They money spent on one-offs like those hats would have been better spent dotated to the cause. The added “promotional” value of those hats compared to the overload of (standardized) stickers, ribbons, pins, towels, sweatbands and all the rest was negligible. Hell, get a embroidery machine set up and stitch a pink ribbon on the side of each coach’s hat where the ugly “World Series” logo goes for baseball. Less costly, you might sell just as many hats (and either way, the answer there is not many at all); and the cause gets just as much promotional benefit with the added value of a monetary benefit.

    Seriously: how will anyone judge if this promotion is “having the results they’re after“?? Last year, did someone at the NFL office look around and say “gee, this isn’t having the results we’re after; let’s try pink referee hats in 2009 and see how much more of an effect we get”?

    (IMHO, that is.)

    As we discussed last week, this is just another “everyone’s doing it” thing to start, and the pink coaches and refs hats are a part of that taken to the extreme.

  • JimV19 | October 5, 2009 at 12:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”352164″][quote comment=”352163″]How about pink endzones with some kind of short message written on them? That would be more effective than the apparel, IMO.[/quote]

    No, it wouldn’t. It wouldn’t get as many questions asked. The goal is to start conversations, not just demonstrate the NFL’s support.[/quote]

    That plus the Rams and Raiders’ fans didn’t see much of the endzones yesterday…

  • Kenny Jacobson | October 5, 2009 at 12:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”352090″]re: Messier Helmet

    Kudos to Mark Messier on this proposed new helmet to increase player safety in the NHL. I can’t think of another sport where the equipment protection of the players is greater at the lower levels of competition. Obviously, it’s the nature of hockey, even in the 1970s, you had a few goalies not wearing masks. There is no good reason why NHL players shouldn’t be wearing the full cage projection worn at the college level.
    Reducing the amount of facial injuries would only improve the NHL. It’s like football helmet protection in the single/double bar face mask protection era. Much like the Clint Marlachuk throat injury for goalies, I fear it’s going to take a life threatening injury to a player before this obvious improvement should take place. The helmets worn today, even with a visor, just don’t offer sufficient protection.[/quote]
    Actually, there are a ton of players out there who feel that the game is as dangerous as it is specifically because the equipment has gotten so good. Used to be that in the days of low-tech gear if you took a run at someone it hurt you just as much as it hurt them and you a) learned to hit the right way and b) learned a respect for protecting yourself and others. Now, with players bundled up head to toe in armor, they run around the rink throwing themselves headlong at everything that moves and creating a more dangerous environment.

  • The Jeff | October 5, 2009 at 12:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”352164″][quote comment=”352163″]How about pink endzones with some kind of short message written on them? That would be more effective than the apparel, IMO.[/quote]

    No, it wouldn’t. It wouldn’t get as many questions asked. The goal is to start conversations, not just demonstrate the NFL’s support.[/quote]

    So, you don’t think that something like “Support Breast Cancer Research and Awareness” in a cicle, around the NFL-logo-on-pink-ribbon at midfield would be a better way to promote the message than “why the hell is that guy wearing pink shoes”?

  • Paul Ricciardi | October 5, 2009 at 12:39 pm |

    Similar to the Pearl Jam tees, I noticed at the recent U2 show at Giants Stadium they were selling Giants and Jets colored varsity styled jackets. No pics, unfortunately.

  • Valjean | October 5, 2009 at 12:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”352071″]Love the homemade chips Paul! I used to make those all the time, just may have to start em up again. those store chips suck, get a shiny bag half full of air for $4… gimme a break[/quote]

    Second that! As a fellow uni-watcher-foodie I’d even extol you to make Culinary Corner a regular feature … talk about aprons or something if you need a uni angle.

    As for the chips, two humble suggestions: pluck ’em out with tongs rather than a slotted spoon (if you’re fast, there’s less spillage and grease — and I use the tongs to flip ’em once anyway) and if you’re a salt fan, *grind* the best stuff you can afford onto them while they’re still hot. I find it sticks better.

  • Ed Hughes | October 5, 2009 at 12:41 pm |

    “Repeat all steps until the bowl is full or you run out of potato slices.”

    …or (if you lack a candy thermometer) until you run out of fingers.

  • MPowers1634 | October 5, 2009 at 12:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”352122″][quote]3. I LOVED the pink accented gear. However, my wife noticed it, which started a debate. She thinks that the money used in manufaturing and distributing these items would be better suited going directly to whatever fund, Komen?, is working on a cure.[/quote]

    have mrs. powers come to the next UW gathering at sheep station

    i’ll give her a free breast cancer screening[/quote]

    And to respond in a similar fashion….I will offer you a free prostrate screening when I break my foot off in your ass…

    Dammit Phil!

  • mike | October 5, 2009 at 12:47 pm |

    [quote comment=”352144″]Hockey question, I was at the Pens’ opener Friday night against the Rangers. Normally I stroll in just in time, but I wanted to be early as they were raising the cup banner.

    So I’m watching warmups and I noticed that some players weren’t wearing their helmets. Gonchar, Adams, Guerin, Dupuis and Godard were the ones I spotted. All the Rangers had their helmets on.

    Is this a veteran thing? An actual rule that older players are grandfathered into or just an unwritten tradition?[/quote]

    Ovechkin, Green and a bunch of other Caps were helmetless during wwarmups the other night, are are without helmets most warmups. I can’t remember seeing Ovechkin wearing his at ahome game.

  • JimV19 | October 5, 2009 at 12:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”352177″][quote comment=”352122″][quote]3. I LOVED the pink accented gear. However, my wife noticed it, which started a debate. She thinks that the money used in manufaturing and distributing these items would be better suited going directly to whatever fund, Komen?, is working on a cure.[/quote]

    have mrs. powers come to the next UW gathering at sheep station

    i’ll give her a free breast cancer screening[/quote]

    And to respond in a similar fashion….I will offer you a free prostrate screening when I break my foot off in your ass…

    Dammit Phil![/quote]

    Derrick Mason seemed to be promoting prostate screening with his touchdown pose: http://a.espncdn.com...

  • mike | October 5, 2009 at 12:49 pm |

    Also, noticed the new refs gear at the Caps-Leafs game on Saturday. The new orange band trailing down the arm looks pretty good….overall, they look more like the NFL refs.

  • MPowers1634 | October 5, 2009 at 12:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”352120″][quote comment=”352118″][quote comment=”352115″][quote comment=”352111″][quote]2. Reyes chose poorly going with UA…he should have asked ME first.[/quote]

    because you’re more knowledgable than a major league baseball player?[/quote]

    Powers can also tell him where to find an Oakland A’s hat in Yankee Stadium if necessary. LOL[/quote]

    1. it was Citi-Field and
    2. if it was Camden Yards, then yes:

    http://i256.photobuc...

    I was kidding, Matt. I know you’re the shoe guru in this arena. I wouldn’t have even noticed had you not said anything. ;o)[/quote]

    No need, Teebz! All in good fun…except for Phil…he’s on my list, right now.

  • anotherguy | October 5, 2009 at 12:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”352179″]
    Derrick Mason seemed to be promoting prostate screening with his touchdown pose: http://a.espncdn.com...
    Same facial reaction too.

  • leon | October 5, 2009 at 12:55 pm |

    That plus the Rams and Raiders’ fans didn’t see much of the endzones yesterday…

    Bada-bing!

  • Stuby | October 5, 2009 at 12:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”352176″]”Repeat all steps until the bowl is full or you run out of potato slices.”

    …or (if you lack a candy thermometer) until you run out of fingers.[/quote]
    My fingers would be toast after the mandolin phase.

  • leon | October 5, 2009 at 12:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”352176″]”Repeat all steps until the bowl is full or you run out of potato slices.”

    …or (if you lack a candy thermometer) until you run out of fingers.[/quote]

    Got any mustard fer them taters? Uh huh

  • MPowers1634 | October 5, 2009 at 12:58 pm |

    [quote comment=”352111″][quote]2. Reyes chose poorly going with UA…he should have asked ME first.[/quote]

    because you’re more knowledgable than a major league baseball player?[/quote]

    And in the case of baserunning and overall baseball smarts, I think this Powers is more knowledgable than the major leaguer in question:

    http://i256.photobuc...

  • ClubMedSux | October 5, 2009 at 1:06 pm |

    It’s a PROMOTION. If it isn’t having the results they’re after, they’ll stop doing it. And so far they haven’t stopped.

    True, but the question remains: what results are they after? When you’re dealing with huge not-for-profits, you often have executive directors and professional fundraisers getting paid big bucks to raise money. If they’re successful, they keep their jobs, and so they have a huge incentive to raise as much money as they can. However, raising a lot of money doesn’t necessarily translate into making a difference for the cause itself, and many an organization can continue to operate as a successful fundraising machine without actually making a difference when it comes to the cause they promote. I’m not saying this is one such situation, but given the two very distinct goals of large not-for-profits, it’s inaccurate to suggest that continued fundraising indicates that the organization is actually making significant strides to accomplish their end goal (in this case, reducing deaths from breast cancer).

  • Ricko | October 5, 2009 at 1:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”352173″][quote comment=”352164″][quote comment=”352163″]How about pink endzones with some kind of short message written on them? That would be more effective than the apparel, IMO.[/quote]

    No, it wouldn’t. It wouldn’t get as many questions asked. The goal is to start conversations, not just demonstrate the NFL’s support.[/quote]

    So, you don’t think that something like “Support Breast Cancer Research and Awareness” in a cicle, around the NFL-logo-on-pink-ribbon at midfield would be a better way to promote the message than “why the hell is that guy wearing pink shoes”?[/quote]

    No, because, once again, it isn’t close to the conversation starter that pink shoes, etc. are. Not saying it wouldn’t be more dignified, just saying it wouldn’t create the same amount of buzz…and that’s what this is about…creating buzz. Plain and simple.

    As far as “who’s to judge”? The people at American Cancer Society (or whoever’s on that end), working with the NFL, that’s who. It’s their deal. They know what they’re after and I guarantee you they have some means of measuring the effectiveness of things.

    Now, do I think it’s heading toward overkill, with all the other leagues and colleges doing it, too? Absolutely.

    But, if their perspective shows that despite than apparent excess it’s still achieving the desired results…then I guess they know better. And are in a far better position to say than we are.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | October 5, 2009 at 1:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”352187″]It’s a PROMOTION. If it isn’t having the results they’re after, they’ll stop doing it. And so far they haven’t stopped.

    True, but the question remains: what results are they after? When you’re dealing with huge not-for-profits, you often have executive directors and professional fundraisers getting paid big bucks to raise money. If they’re successful, they keep their jobs, and so they have a huge incentive to raise as much money as they can. However, raising a lot of money doesn’t necessarily translate into making a difference for the cause itself, and many an organization can continue to operate as a successful fundraising machine without actually making a difference when it comes to the cause they promote. I’m not saying this is one such situation, but given the two very distinct goals of large not-for-profits, it’s inaccurate to suggest that continued fundraising indicates that the organization is actually making significant strides to accomplish their end goal (in this case, reducing deaths from breast cancer).[/quote]

    One more time. Isn’t a fund-raiser. Is about early detection.
    Says right there, Cancer AWARENESS…not Walk for The Cure.

    —Ricko

  • Gusto44 | October 5, 2009 at 1:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”352172″][quote comment=”352090″]re: Messier Helmet

    Kudos to Mark Messier on this proposed new helmet to increase player safety in the NHL. I can’t think of another sport where the equipment protection of the players is greater at the lower levels of competition. Obviously, it’s the nature of hockey, even in the 1970s, you had a few goalies not wearing masks. There is no good reason why NHL players shouldn’t be wearing the full cage projection worn at the college level.
    Reducing the amount of facial injuries would only improve the NHL. It’s like football helmet protection in the single/double bar face mask protection era. Much like the Clint Marlachuk throat injury for goalies, I fear it’s going to take a life threatening injury to a player before this obvious improvement should take place. The helmets worn today, even with a visor, just don’t offer sufficient protection.[/quote]
    Actually, there are a ton of players out there who feel that the game is as dangerous as it is specifically because the equipment has gotten so good. Used to be that in the days of low-tech gear if you took a run at someone it hurt you just as much as it hurt them and you a) learned to hit the right way and b) learned a respect for protecting yourself and others. Now, with players bundled up head to toe in armor, they run around the rink throwing themselves headlong at everything that moves and creating a more dangerous environment.[/quote]

    Agreed, we sometimes see that in the NFL, so the officials must do a better job preventing players from launching themselves. With a safer, full protection helmet, and better officiating, I think we’ll see a better game as injuries are reduced. Can’t be fun playing with a broken nose if you don’t have to.

  • joe | October 5, 2009 at 1:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”352063″]Has there been a lot of hubbub in the New York media about tearing down Yankee Stadium? Tearing down Tiger Stadium in Detroit was an unnecessarily long process and had all of the preservationists up in arms for 10 years. And while Tiger Stadium had a rich history, it was no Yankee Stadium. Any insight from New Yorkers out there?[/quote]
    Why would there be, its a 35 year old rebuild of a stadium being torn down. I can see there being an uproar if it was the original stadium and had that history (which was the case with Detroit)

  • rhdii | October 5, 2009 at 1:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”352165″][quote comment=”352162″][quote comment=”352158″][quote comment=”352152″]
    Gang, they WANT people to ask, “Why are they wearing pink?” and get an answer. That’s the WHOLE DAMN POINT. It’s just as much about that (maybe more) than who knows about the Wearing O’ The Pink in advance. And pink shoes, etc., will get that question asked a lot more often than just a pink ribbon on a coach’s hat.

    That’s what raising awareness is. Plant thoughts, remind women “Oh, yeah, I don’t check myself regularly enough”.

    It’s about generating immediate action, yes, but also about creating what’s called “unaided recall” later on.

    Advertising/Public Relations 101 stuff, really.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    If you can’t get an answer to the question because the people around you don’t know, you’ve failed in advertising.

    As Phil wrote yesterday, and I quote,
    oh man…finally back to where i can actually watch football today…saw (at lunch, on a tv in the restaurant) about 10 minutes of the g-men

    had to explain to some folks about “all that pink” they were noticing; apparently the NFL didn’t do a good job getting the word out about october being bc awareness month

    comments ranged from “HAH-THAT GUYS WEARING PINK SHOES” to “WTF”…once i ‘explained’ the deal, people (male and female) all generally expressed the opinion that this was one of the more stupid things the NFL ever did

    one guy even misheard me when i said ‘breast cancer awareness’ — i guess he didn’t hear the last word or thought he was being funny when he said, “so the NFL’s promoting breast cancer now? is there anything they won’t do?”

    I’m not saying that awareness is wrong, Rick. I’m saying that subtlety on the uniforms can be combined with a very strong message during each TV timeouts. Or when a color guy is yapping away about the weather. Et cetera.

    If you want to make people aware of the cause, they have to be aware that you’re doing something. And from Phil’s comment alone, people didn’t know.[/quote]

    So we judge the effectiveness only by those who know about it advance? Those who learn of it, and what it means, on that day don’t count?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Good point, Ricko. Certainly, no sane person could argue about the need for awareness of breast cancer, and the urgency for a cure ASAP.
    Don’t know if this has been brought up, but what about prostate cancer, that too, is a common disease in our country? What about diabetes? Will we get to the point where every Sunday is color coded for a different cause?[/quote]

    That’s what bugs me about the pink. I’d prefer they use yellow, Lance Armstrong, to find a cure for ALL cancer and not just one type. It’s certainly a good cause, but of the seven people I’ve been close to have had a serious illness, only one had breast cancer. Five others had other types of cancer and another has a chronic disease for which there is no cure–and it feels like nobody in a position of authority cares about her illness. No major sport wears orange ribbons or wristbands.

  • MPowers1634 | October 5, 2009 at 1:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”352190″][quote comment=”352172″][quote comment=”352090″]re: Messier Helmet

    Kudos to Mark Messier on this proposed new helmet to increase player safety in the NHL. I can’t think of another sport where the equipment protection of the players is greater at the lower levels of competition. Obviously, it’s the nature of hockey, even in the 1970s, you had a few goalies not wearing masks. There is no good reason why NHL players shouldn’t be wearing the full cage projection worn at the college level.
    Reducing the amount of facial injuries would only improve the NHL. It’s like football helmet protection in the single/double bar face mask protection era. Much like the Clint Marlachuk throat injury for goalies, I fear it’s going to take a life threatening injury to a player before this obvious improvement should take place. The helmets worn today, even with a visor, just don’t offer sufficient protection.[/quote]
    Actually, there are a ton of players out there who feel that the game is as dangerous as it is specifically because the equipment has gotten so good. Used to be that in the days of low-tech gear if you took a run at someone it hurt you just as much as it hurt them and you a) learned to hit the right way and b) learned a respect for protecting yourself and others. Now, with players bundled up head to toe in armor, they run around the rink throwing themselves headlong at everything that moves and creating a more dangerous environment.[/quote]

    Agreed, we sometimes see that in the NFL, so the officials must do a better job preventing players from launching themselves. With a safer, full protection helmet, and better officiating, I think we’ll see a better game as injuries are reduced. Can’t be fun playing with a broken nose if you don’t have to.[/quote]

    I agree wholeheartedly. The officiating is an area where these changes can be implemented.

    However, there will be people who resist such change.

    Yesterday, i officiated a handful of pop warner games. Maybe twice, my colleagues threw flages for personal fouls involving kids leading with their heads to make tackles. One was on a kickoff, where the tackler lead with his helmet, flagged and was then required to sit out at least one play because of an injury suffered during the tackle. More than one father yelled from the sidelines, “Let em play, keep em in your pocket”.

    That is caveman mentality!

  • Kenny Jacobson | October 5, 2009 at 1:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”352190″][quote comment=”352172″][quote comment=”352090″]re: Messier Helmet

    Kudos to Mark Messier on this proposed new helmet to increase player safety in the NHL. I can’t think of another sport where the equipment protection of the players is greater at the lower levels of competition. Obviously, it’s the nature of hockey, even in the 1970s, you had a few goalies not wearing masks. There is no good reason why NHL players shouldn’t be wearing the full cage projection worn at the college level.
    Reducing the amount of facial injuries would only improve the NHL. It’s like football helmet protection in the single/double bar face mask protection era. Much like the Clint Marlachuk throat injury for goalies, I fear it’s going to take a life threatening injury to a player before this obvious improvement should take place. The helmets worn today, even with a visor, just don’t offer sufficient protection.[/quote]
    Actually, there are a ton of players out there who feel that the game is as dangerous as it is specifically because the equipment has gotten so good. Used to be that in the days of low-tech gear if you took a run at someone it hurt you just as much as it hurt them and you a) learned to hit the right way and b) learned a respect for protecting yourself and others. Now, with players bundled up head to toe in armor, they run around the rink throwing themselves headlong at everything that moves and creating a more dangerous environment.[/quote]

    Agreed, we sometimes see that in the NFL, so the officials must do a better job preventing players from launching themselves. With a safer, full protection helmet, and better officiating, I think we’ll see a better game as injuries are reduced. Can’t be fun playing with a broken nose if you don’t have to.[/quote]
    I don’t necessarily agree that a ‘safer’ helmet really IS safer. Car manufacturers will tell you that the best way to survive a car accident is to not be in one in the first place. Same thing with hockey helmets/face masks. I know from my own playing days that the less I had on my head the better I could see and the more aware I was of what was around me. That helped me avoid contact in most cases. Everyone who plays arrives at a different balance for themselves regarding the protection/awareness issue. For me it was a helmet (CCM HT2 for most of my years) and an Itech (later Oakley) half shield. For a lot of other guys it was no face mask at all.

  • Ricko | October 5, 2009 at 1:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”352192″][quote comment=”352165″][quote comment=”352162″][quote comment=”352158″][quote comment=”352152″]
    Gang, they WANT people to ask, “Why are they wearing pink?” and get an answer. That’s the WHOLE DAMN POINT. It’s just as much about that (maybe more) than who knows about the Wearing O’ The Pink in advance. And pink shoes, etc., will get that question asked a lot more often than just a pink ribbon on a coach’s hat.

    That’s what raising awareness is. Plant thoughts, remind women “Oh, yeah, I don’t check myself regularly enough”.

    It’s about generating immediate action, yes, but also about creating what’s called “unaided recall” later on.

    Advertising/Public Relations 101 stuff, really.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    If you can’t get an answer to the question because the people around you don’t know, you’ve failed in advertising.

    As Phil wrote yesterday, and I quote,
    oh man…finally back to where i can actually watch football today…saw (at lunch, on a tv in the restaurant) about 10 minutes of the g-men

    had to explain to some folks about “all that pink” they were noticing; apparently the NFL didn’t do a good job getting the word out about october being bc awareness month

    comments ranged from “HAH-THAT GUYS WEARING PINK SHOES” to “WTF”…once i ‘explained’ the deal, people (male and female) all generally expressed the opinion that this was one of the more stupid things the NFL ever did

    one guy even misheard me when i said ‘breast cancer awareness’ — i guess he didn’t hear the last word or thought he was being funny when he said, “so the NFL’s promoting breast cancer now? is there anything they won’t do?”

    I’m not saying that awareness is wrong, Rick. I’m saying that subtlety on the uniforms can be combined with a very strong message during each TV timeouts. Or when a color guy is yapping away about the weather. Et cetera.

    If you want to make people aware of the cause, they have to be aware that you’re doing something. And from Phil’s comment alone, people didn’t know.[/quote]

    So we judge the effectiveness only by those who know about it advance? Those who learn of it, and what it means, on that day don’t count?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Good point, Ricko. Certainly, no sane person could argue about the need for awareness of breast cancer, and the urgency for a cure ASAP.
    Don’t know if this has been brought up, but what about prostate cancer, that too, is a common disease in our country? What about diabetes? Will we get to the point where every Sunday is color coded for a different cause?[/quote]

    That’s what bugs me about the pink. I’d prefer they use yellow, Lance Armstrong, to find a cure for ALL cancer and not just one type. It’s certainly a good cause, but of the seven people I’ve been close to have had a serious illness, only one had breast cancer. Five others had other types of cancer and another has a chronic disease for which there is no cure–and it feels like nobody in a position of authority cares about her illness. No major sport wears orange ribbons or wristbands.[/quote]

    Okay, one MORE time, I guess.
    If you listen, really listen, it’s primary focus is early detection.
    Talk of a cure is secondary. A close second, but still second.
    Did anyone ask for, say, anyone to pledge 10 cents for every yard Ocho Cinco gained yesterday in his pink shoes?
    No.
    Not a fund-raising event. At least not its primary intent.
    It’s sending a message: Get checked, don’t neglect yourself.

    Everyone, please, start hearing what they’re saying, not what you think they’re saying.

    I’m guessing there is still evidence that the number of people making appointments for mammograms or prostate screening spikes significantly after these promotions. And I’d wager they see that as reason enough for them to continue. And proof that they’re working.

    —Ricko

  • The Jeff | October 5, 2009 at 1:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”352196″][quote comment=”352192″][quote comment=”352165″][quote comment=”352162″][quote comment=”352158″][quote comment=”352152″]
    Gang, they WANT people to ask, “Why are they wearing pink?” and get an answer. That’s the WHOLE DAMN POINT. It’s just as much about that (maybe more) than who knows about the Wearing O’ The Pink in advance. And pink shoes, etc., will get that question asked a lot more often than just a pink ribbon on a coach’s hat.

    That’s what raising awareness is. Plant thoughts, remind women “Oh, yeah, I don’t check myself regularly enough”.

    It’s about generating immediate action, yes, but also about creating what’s called “unaided recall” later on.

    Advertising/Public Relations 101 stuff, really.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    If you can’t get an answer to the question because the people around you don’t know, you’ve failed in advertising.

    As Phil wrote yesterday, and I quote,
    oh man…finally back to where i can actually watch football today…saw (at lunch, on a tv in the restaurant) about 10 minutes of the g-men

    had to explain to some folks about “all that pink” they were noticing; apparently the NFL didn’t do a good job getting the word out about october being bc awareness month

    comments ranged from “HAH-THAT GUYS WEARING PINK SHOES” to “WTF”…once i ‘explained’ the deal, people (male and female) all generally expressed the opinion that this was one of the more stupid things the NFL ever did

    one guy even misheard me when i said ‘breast cancer awareness’ — i guess he didn’t hear the last word or thought he was being funny when he said, “so the NFL’s promoting breast cancer now? is there anything they won’t do?”

    I’m not saying that awareness is wrong, Rick. I’m saying that subtlety on the uniforms can be combined with a very strong message during each TV timeouts. Or when a color guy is yapping away about the weather. Et cetera.

    If you want to make people aware of the cause, they have to be aware that you’re doing something. And from Phil’s comment alone, people didn’t know.[/quote]

    So we judge the effectiveness only by those who know about it advance? Those who learn of it, and what it means, on that day don’t count?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Good point, Ricko. Certainly, no sane person could argue about the need for awareness of breast cancer, and the urgency for a cure ASAP.
    Don’t know if this has been brought up, but what about prostate cancer, that too, is a common disease in our country? What about diabetes? Will we get to the point where every Sunday is color coded for a different cause?[/quote]

    That’s what bugs me about the pink. I’d prefer they use yellow, Lance Armstrong, to find a cure for ALL cancer and not just one type. It’s certainly a good cause, but of the seven people I’ve been close to have had a serious illness, only one had breast cancer. Five others had other types of cancer and another has a chronic disease for which there is no cure–and it feels like nobody in a position of authority cares about her illness. No major sport wears orange ribbons or wristbands.[/quote]

    Okay, one MORE time, I guess.
    If you listen, really listen, it’s primary focus is early detection.
    Talk of a cure is secondary. A close second, but still second.
    Did anyone ask for, say, anyone to pledge 10 cents for every yard Ocho Cinco gained yesterday in his pink shoes?
    No.
    Not a fund-raising event. At least not its primary intent.
    It’s sending a message: Get checked, don’t neglect yourself.

    Everyone, please, start hearing what they’re saying, not what you think they’re saying.

    I’m guessing there is still evidence that the number of people making appointments for mammograms or prostate screening spikes significantly after these promotions. And I’d wager they see that as reason enough for them to continue. And proof that they’re working.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    He’s still got a point. What makes breast cancer more important than any other type of cancer?

  • Hott Rodd | October 5, 2009 at 1:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”352193″][quote comment=”352190″][quote comment=”352172″][quote comment=”352090″]re: Messier Helmet

    Kudos to Mark Messier on this proposed new helmet to increase player safety in the NHL. I can’t think of another sport where the equipment protection of the players is greater at the lower levels of competition. Obviously, it’s the nature of hockey, even in the 1970s, you had a few goalies not wearing masks. There is no good reason why NHL players shouldn’t be wearing the full cage projection worn at the college level.
    Reducing the amount of facial injuries would only improve the NHL. It’s like football helmet protection in the single/double bar face mask protection era. Much like the Clint Marlachuk throat injury for goalies, I fear it’s going to take a life threatening injury to a player before this obvious improvement should take place. The helmets worn today, even with a visor, just don’t offer sufficient protection.[/quote]
    Actually, there are a ton of players out there who feel that the game is as dangerous as it is specifically because the equipment has gotten so good. Used to be that in the days of low-tech gear if you took a run at someone it hurt you just as much as it hurt them and you a) learned to hit the right way and b) learned a respect for protecting yourself and others. Now, with players bundled up head to toe in armor, they run around the rink throwing themselves headlong at everything that moves and creating a more dangerous environment.[/quote]

    Agreed, we sometimes see that in the NFL, so the officials must do a better job preventing players from launching themselves. With a safer, full protection helmet, and better officiating, I think we’ll see a better game as injuries are reduced. Can’t be fun playing with a broken nose if you don’t have to.[/quote]

    I agree wholeheartedly. The officiating is an area where these changes can be implemented.

    However, there will be people who resist such change.

    Yesterday, i officiated a handful of pop warner games. Maybe twice, my colleagues threw flages for personal fouls involving kids leading with their heads to make tackles. One was on a kickoff, where the tackler lead with his helmet, flagged and was then required to sit out at least one play because of an injury suffered during the tackle. More than one father yelled from the sidelines, “Let em play, keep em in your pocket”.

    That is caveman mentality![/quote]

    I agree with this at the pop warner/pee wee level. However sometimes at the NFL level the officiating goes too far. Case in point yesterday Kyle Orton was hit cleanly just after releasing the ball, and the was slight contact as the defensive players helmet rose into Orton’s helmet. Not a spear, not leading with the helmet but a 15 yard penalty none the less. That is a let them play situation.

    Spearing at the junior levels should be taken seriously, and those dad’s who don’t thinks so will after it’s their son with a neck injury.

  • flip | October 5, 2009 at 1:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”352150″][quote comment=”352105″][quote comment=”352096″]Broncos…[/quote]

    I vote for this jersey being Broncos’ primary home, with the navy being the alt. Or maybe being deep-sixed altogether.

    Anyone else feel thay way?

    (P.S., Can Champ Bailey play corner or what.)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I vote for or what.[/quote]

    I vote for 86’ing the navy jerseys. Bring back the Orange Crush. The navy swooshes on the pants and jerseys look better (all things being relative) than the orange swooshes.

  • flip | October 5, 2009 at 1:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”352108″][quote comment=”352089″]”apparently they don’t need no stinkin’ captaincy patches”

    Most franchises would be fined by Goodell but the Patriots are above the law.

    The field in Kansas City always looked cool during the AFL days. Has there ever been a better professional football groundskeeper than George Toma?[/quote]

    The marquis de SOD[/quote]

    Having Geoge maintain the artificial turn at old Royals Stadium and Arrowhead was just cruel to George. Bring back the alternating green five-yard look.

  • Ricko | October 5, 2009 at 1:39 pm |

    [quote comment=”352197″][quote comment=”352196″][quote comment=”352192″][quote comment=”352165″][quote comment=”352162″][quote comment=”352158″][quote comment=”352152″]
    Gang, they WANT people to ask, “Why are they wearing pink?” and get an answer. That’s the WHOLE DAMN POINT. It’s just as much about that (maybe more) than who knows about the Wearing O’ The Pink in advance. And pink shoes, etc., will get that question asked a lot more often than just a pink ribbon on a coach’s hat.

    That’s what raising awareness is. Plant thoughts, remind women “Oh, yeah, I don’t check myself regularly enough”.

    It’s about generating immediate action, yes, but also about creating what’s called “unaided recall” later on.

    Advertising/Public Relations 101 stuff, really.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    If you can’t get an answer to the question because the people around you don’t know, you’ve failed in advertising.

    As Phil wrote yesterday, and I quote,
    oh man…finally back to where i can actually watch football today…saw (at lunch, on a tv in the restaurant) about 10 minutes of the g-men

    had to explain to some folks about “all that pink” they were noticing; apparently the NFL didn’t do a good job getting the word out about october being bc awareness month

    comments ranged from “HAH-THAT GUYS WEARING PINK SHOES” to “WTF”…once i ‘explained’ the deal, people (male and female) all generally expressed the opinion that this was one of the more stupid things the NFL ever did

    one guy even misheard me when i said ‘breast cancer awareness’ — i guess he didn’t hear the last word or thought he was being funny when he said, “so the NFL’s promoting breast cancer now? is there anything they won’t do?”

    I’m not saying that awareness is wrong, Rick. I’m saying that subtlety on the uniforms can be combined with a very strong message during each TV timeouts. Or when a color guy is yapping away about the weather. Et cetera.

    If you want to make people aware of the cause, they have to be aware that you’re doing something. And from Phil’s comment alone, people didn’t know.[/quote]

    So we judge the effectiveness only by those who know about it advance? Those who learn of it, and what it means, on that day don’t count?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Good point, Ricko. Certainly, no sane person could argue about the need for awareness of breast cancer, and the urgency for a cure ASAP.
    Don’t know if this has been brought up, but what about prostate cancer, that too, is a common disease in our country? What about diabetes? Will we get to the point where every Sunday is color coded for a different cause?[/quote]

    That’s what bugs me about the pink. I’d prefer they use yellow, Lance Armstrong, to find a cure for ALL cancer and not just one type. It’s certainly a good cause, but of the seven people I’ve been close to have had a serious illness, only one had breast cancer. Five others had other types of cancer and another has a chronic disease for which there is no cure–and it feels like nobody in a position of authority cares about her illness. No major sport wears orange ribbons or wristbands.[/quote]

    Okay, one MORE time, I guess.
    If you listen, really listen, it’s primary focus is early detection.
    Talk of a cure is secondary. A close second, but still second.
    Did anyone ask for, say, anyone to pledge 10 cents for every yard Ocho Cinco gained yesterday in his pink shoes?
    No.
    Not a fund-raising event. At least not its primary intent.
    It’s sending a message: Get checked, don’t neglect yourself.

    Everyone, please, start hearing what they’re saying, not what you think they’re saying.

    I’m guessing there is still evidence that the number of people making appointments for mammograms or prostate screening spikes significantly after these promotions. And I’d wager they see that as reason enough for them to continue. And proof that they’re working.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    He’s still got a point. What makes breast cancer more important than any other type of cancer?[/quote]

    For one thing, it can be to some extent self-detected…or at least the reason for a checkup can be discovered on your own. So early detection truly is an issue. And worth being publicized.

    I don’t disagree on how the messages are worded. They certainly could mention a regular colonoscopy, etc., if you’re a certain age.

    The Cancer groups do seem have segmented themselves a bit too much, yes.

    But I was talking only about its avowed purpose, methods and possible means of gauging success…strictly as a promotion. Not judging the merits of the issue itself.

    —Ricko

  • peter | October 5, 2009 at 1:40 pm |

    Re: Injuries:

    Then why don’t we mandate that MLB uses masks too?
    Baseballs come at their faces in excess of 90 MPH

    How about setting netting up for golfers who’s shanked balls hit crowd members…

    How about making NBA players wear eye goggles…we all know prevention is the key…

  • The Jeff | October 5, 2009 at 1:44 pm |

    [quote comment=”352202″]

    How about making NBA players wear eye goggles…we all know prevention is the key…[/quote]

    What the hell could would that do? Goggles don’t prevent a broken nose.

  • The Jeff | October 5, 2009 at 1:44 pm |

    [quote comment=”352203″][quote comment=”352202″]

    How about making NBA players wear eye goggles…we all know prevention is the key…[/quote]

    What the hell could would that do? Goggles don’t prevent a broken nose.[/quote]

    GOOD. What GOOD would that do. I don’t know what I was typing there.

  • concealed78 | October 5, 2009 at 1:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”352175″][quote comment=”352071″]Love the homemade chips Paul! I used to make those all the time, just may have to start em up again. those store chips suck, get a shiny bag half full of air for $4… gimme a break[/quote]

    Second that! As a fellow uni-watcher-foodie I’d even extol you to make Culinary Corner a regular feature … talk about aprons or something if you need a uni angle.[/quote]

    +1. I always enjoyed Paul’s food writings & pics. Man can’t live on uni watch info alone.

  • peter | October 5, 2009 at 1:52 pm |

    The Jeff:

    My point was/is that no matter what, there is an inherent risk when it comes to ANY competition. I understand and fully agree with taking as much precaution as possible, at the same time…when does too much become too much?

    (I like how my point about the netting in golf didn’t stir you up!)

  • Gusto44 | October 5, 2009 at 1:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”352195″][quote comment=”352190″][quote comment=”352172″][quote comment=”352090″]re: Messier Helmet

    Kudos to Mark Messier on this proposed new helmet to increase player safety in the NHL. I can’t think of another sport where the equipment protection of the players is greater at the lower levels of competition. Obviously, it’s the nature of hockey, even in the 1970s, you had a few goalies not wearing masks. There is no good reason why NHL players shouldn’t be wearing the full cage projection worn at the college level.
    Reducing the amount of facial injuries would only improve the NHL. It’s like football helmet protection in the single/double bar face mask protection era. Much like the Clint Marlachuk throat injury for goalies, I fear it’s going to take a life threatening injury to a player before this obvious improvement should take place. The helmets worn today, even with a visor, just don’t offer sufficient protection.[/quote]
    Actually, there are a ton of players out there who feel that the game is as dangerous as it is specifically because the equipment has gotten so good. Used to be that in the days of low-tech gear if you took a run at someone it hurt you just as much as it hurt them and you a) learned to hit the right way and b) learned a respect for protecting yourself and others. Now, with players bundled up head to toe in armor, they run around the rink throwing themselves headlong at everything that moves and creating a more dangerous environment.[/quote]

    Agreed, we sometimes see that in the NFL, so the officials must do a better job preventing players from launching themselves. With a safer, full protection helmet, and better officiating, I think we’ll see a better game as injuries are reduced. Can’t be fun playing with a broken nose if you don’t have to.[/quote]
    I don’t necessarily agree that a ‘safer’ helmet really IS safer. Car manufacturers will tell you that the best way to survive a car accident is to not be in one in the first place. Same thing with hockey helmets/face masks. I know from my own playing days that the less I had on my head the better I could see and the more aware I was of what was around me. That helped me avoid contact in most cases. Everyone who plays arrives at a different balance for themselves regarding the protection/awareness issue. For me it was a helmet (CCM HT2 for most of my years) and an Itech (later Oakley) half shield. For a lot of other guys it was no face mask at all.[/quote]

    Valid point, I think you see reckless players who don’t have that awareness you spoke of. I believe at the current NHL level, even the most gifted, careful player can’t prevent the inevitable. When you add the sticks,blades, pucks, and physical play, accidents are just going to happen. I think when you look at any sport when equipment changes come in, there is a resistance in the fear it would somehow hamper performance. I remember hearing from a MLB catcher about the throat protector that was instituted after the Steve Yeager incident, and he felt it would reduce his agility around the plate. Of course, players at the highest level can adjust pretty easily to minor equipment changes, so I think it’s a slam dunk we could design a full protection helmet with sufficient field vision.
    It’s only a matter of time before we see a horrific injury, whether its to a reserve player or superstar. At the end of the day, it’s in the best interests of the game. Less injuries and longer, more productive careers for players. The quality of play would also improve. I recall the Flyers lost a quality player in the playoffs this past season when his visor failed to stop a puck. Obviously, there are thousands of examples like this, you would hope the NHL players would be more proactive.

  • Ricko | October 5, 2009 at 1:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”352206″]The Jeff:

    My point was/is that no matter what, there is an inherent risk when it comes to ANY competition. I understand and fully agree with taking as much precaution as possible, at the same time…when does too much become too much?

    (I like how my point about the netting in golf didn’t stir you up!)[/quote]

    Well, and what can we do to cut down on the number of bowling fights? It’s just getting out of hand.
    (snicker)

    —Ricko

  • Kerry P | October 5, 2009 at 1:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”352151″]I was at the jags/titans game yesterday with some friends from Jacksonville (I live a few hours away) and said to one of the guys “you know they changed their uniforms this year, whats the feeling here in Jacksonville?”

    He said nobody really cared.

    I think we just have to accept the uniwatch crowd is just a small niche of folks who pay alot of attention to deatil, I’d say a good 75% of the folks out there just don’t share our interests when it comes to what this site is about.[/quote]
    Maybe….but the people in Jacksonville don’t even care about the team much less the unis. Less than 50k for an NFL game? Possibilities of playing in Orlando just to improve your attendance? Bad.

  • bourbon soaked idiot | October 5, 2009 at 1:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”352104″][quote comment=”352102″]I’m actually not cool with the Capitals changing their banners to reflect the current colors. I would like it if, say, the 1998 Eastern Conf. Champions banner stuck with the blue, black, and gold border, because that was the uniform of the time. Likewise, when Olaf Kolzig’s #37 gets (presumably) retired, I’d like to see it rendered in the uniform that made him famous (black banner, gold art-deco-style numbers).[/quote]

    I have to agree with this reasoning. It would be like the Coyotes changing their banners for Bobby Hull and Thomas Steen to Coyotes’ colours.

    It’s just not right.[/quote]
    Why bother they’ll have to change them again in a year or two when they move.

  • JimV19 | October 5, 2009 at 1:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”352193″][quote comment=”352190″][quote comment=”352172″][quote comment=”352090″]re: Messier Helmet

    Kudos to Mark Messier on this proposed new helmet to increase player safety in the NHL. I can’t think of another sport where the equipment protection of the players is greater at the lower levels of competition. Obviously, it’s the nature of hockey, even in the 1970s, you had a few goalies not wearing masks. There is no good reason why NHL players shouldn’t be wearing the full cage projection worn at the college level.
    Reducing the amount of facial injuries would only improve the NHL. It’s like football helmet protection in the single/double bar face mask protection era. Much like the Clint Marlachuk throat injury for goalies, I fear it’s going to take a life threatening injury to a player before this obvious improvement should take place. The helmets worn today, even with a visor, just don’t offer sufficient protection.[/quote]
    Actually, there are a ton of players out there who feel that the game is as dangerous as it is specifically because the equipment has gotten so good. Used to be that in the days of low-tech gear if you took a run at someone it hurt you just as much as it hurt them and you a) learned to hit the right way and b) learned a respect for protecting yourself and others. Now, with players bundled up head to toe in armor, they run around the rink throwing themselves headlong at everything that moves and creating a more dangerous environment.[/quote]

    Agreed, we sometimes see that in the NFL, so the officials must do a better job preventing players from launching themselves. With a safer, full protection helmet, and better officiating, I think we’ll see a better game as injuries are reduced. Can’t be fun playing with a broken nose if you don’t have to.[/quote]

    I agree wholeheartedly. The officiating is an area where these changes can be implemented.

    However, there will be people who resist such change.

    Yesterday, i officiated a handful of pop warner games. Maybe twice, my colleagues threw flages for personal fouls involving kids leading with their heads to make tackles. One was on a kickoff, where the tackler lead with his helmet, flagged and was then required to sit out at least one play because of an injury suffered during the tackle. More than one father yelled from the sidelines, “Let em play, keep em in your pocket”.

    That is caveman mentality![/quote]

    Amen. That reminds me: does anyone think NBC upgraded its NFL coverage by adding that thug Rodney Harrison? I don’t.

    A small part of me thinks new equipment is futile, because it just enables guys like Harrison or Ray Lewis to get even more lethal. Of course, I know you have to increase safety. One freak accident is too many, so yes, keep improving the gear.

    BUT, the key is the officiating. The major sports leagues have to take the lead on this, becasue you know those Pop Warner kids were emulating what they see on TV. Get even stricter on leading with the head or leaving your feet (or flying at a guy who’s already down instead of just tapping him). It’s called tackle football…not fly like a missle and try to kill someone football.

    It would also help if the leagues and the networks stopped producing “The Greatest Hits Of (fill in your sport)” videos. Sure they’re moneymakers, but grow a pair and take a stand. The game is exciting enough without the jaw-dropping hits we sometimes see.

  • Ricko | October 5, 2009 at 2:03 pm |

    “A small part of me thinks new equipment is futile, because it just enables guys like Harrison or Ray Lewis to get even more lethal.”

    That sort of paraphrases something the Redskins’ trainer mused about to me in’83 when I working on that Redskins tabloid…
    “Maybe it was better when the guys had a layer of fat and weren’t launching themselves at each other on artificial turf.”

    —Ricko

  • peter | October 5, 2009 at 2:04 pm |

    JimV: RE: Exciting Hits

    One of the keys of my success when I played football, was that I hit hard…and I mean I meant to put someone down,(not injure but put a good jolt into them).

    I’m not trying to hurt someone, because improper tackling also could have & has hurt me. I wanted to put a fear into someone or at least “oh shit, I don’t want to get hit again by this guy”…

    I recently joined an adult hockey league (hip checking is allowed, but extremely closely monitored, so it’s almost pointless, but a clean bump IS acceptable)…

    The Hits are important to the game, and I would hate to see it soften to almost touch status…

  • peter | October 5, 2009 at 2:05 pm |

    what’s the injury rate of rugby players?

  • Kenny Jacobson | October 5, 2009 at 2:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”352211″][quote comment=”352193″][quote comment=”352190″][quote comment=”352172″][quote comment=”352090″]

    BUT, the key is the officiating. [/quote]
    Actually, I think the key is coaching. I think the key is having young athletes instilled from the very beginning with a sense of responsibility for themselves and others playing the game. I know, I know… hard to do in mite hockey where the coach is a dad/volunteer, etc etc etc…

  • Stu | October 5, 2009 at 2:12 pm |

    In the A&M game, LB Von Miller (normally #40) and RB Cyrus Gray (normally #32) both wore #24 in support of Corey Borner. Borner is a current Desoto HS junior who became paralyzed while participating in some spring drills. Both Miller and Gray are Desoto graduates.

    Story here

  • JimV19 | October 5, 2009 at 2:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”352212″]”A small part of me thinks new equipment is futile, because it just enables guys like Harrison or Ray Lewis to get even more lethal.”

    That sort of paraphrases something the Redskins’ trainer mused about to me in’83 when I working on that Redskins tabloid…
    “Maybe it was better when the guys had a layer of fat and weren’t launching themselves at each other on artificial turf.”

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Yeah, now the “skill” positions have almost no fat, while the lineman have several layers…

    Along with better equipment, I’d like to see some kind of weight limit…that is, follow the standard height-weight ratios that doctors and insurers use. There’s no reason a human being should have to bulk up to 350-400 pounds just to play a game, even if it’s his livelihood.

    I don’t want the players turned into freaks of nature just so we can have a stronger, faster, harder-hitting game. If you appreciate the sport for what it is, then size shouldn’t matter.

  • JimV19 | October 5, 2009 at 2:22 pm |

    [quote comment=”352213″]JimV: RE: Exciting Hits

    One of the keys of my success when I played football, was that I hit hard…and I mean I meant to put someone down,(not injure but put a good jolt into them).

    I’m not trying to hurt someone, because improper tackling also could have & has hurt me. I wanted to put a fear into someone or at least “oh shit, I don’t want to get hit again by this guy”…

    I recently joined an adult hockey league (hip checking is allowed, but extremely closely monitored, so it’s almost pointless, but a clean bump IS acceptable)…

    The Hits are important to the game, and I would hate to see it soften to almost touch status…[/quote]

    I agree there should still be hitting. I enjoy a good clean check or a great clean tackle as much as any guy. I was just telling Phil today about a CFL punter who de-cleated the return man this weekend.

    I do think if a guy is already down, anything more than tapping him should be unnecssary roughness. Period. Hit somebody to take them down yes, but when the mission is accomplished, the hitting should end. No leaving the feet to make a tackle and no leading with the head, either. Other than that, yes play on and hit hard.

  • JimV19 | October 5, 2009 at 2:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”352214″]what’s the injury rate of rugby players?[/quote]

    Excellent point. I’d like to know that, too.

  • peter | October 5, 2009 at 2:30 pm |

    RUGBY

    Found this:

    http://www.aut.ac.nz...

  • Frank | October 5, 2009 at 2:48 pm |

    In the “do we really need this?” department, it appears there is a logo for the Twins/Tigers game tomorrow. Last time I checked, click on MLB’s site and it’s sitting there on the upper left.

  • Teebz | October 5, 2009 at 2:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”352208″][quote comment=”352206″]The Jeff:

    My point was/is that no matter what, there is an inherent risk when it comes to ANY competition. I understand and fully agree with taking as much precaution as possible, at the same time…when does too much become too much?

    (I like how my point about the netting in golf didn’t stir you up!)[/quote]

    Well, and what can we do to cut down on the number of bowling fights? It’s just getting out of hand.
    (snicker)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Brawl in the alley, Rick? LOL

  • peter | October 5, 2009 at 2:53 pm |

    why don’t we just have logo’s for every goddamn match up

    “TieBreaker” / GAME 3 ON A WEDNESDAY NIGHT BROUGHT TO YOU BY NIKE / MLB NETWORK PRESENTS PITTSBURGH PIRATES OFF NITE!!

    it’s really out of hand…

  • Ricko | October 5, 2009 at 2:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”352221″]In the “do we really need this?” department, it appears there is a logo for the Twins/Tigers game tomorrow. Last time I checked, click on MLB’s site and it’s sitting there on the upper left.[/quote]

    Of course we do.
    And, coming soon, the NFL’s “I’m Today’s Emergency QB” patch.

  • mmwatkin | October 5, 2009 at 3:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”352221″]In the “do we really need this?” department, it appears there is a logo for the Twins/Tigers game tomorrow. Last time I checked, click on MLB’s site and it’s sitting there on the upper left.[/quote]

    I really wouldn’t call it too innovative. They just took the ALDS logo and replaced it with “TIEBREAKER”

    http://mlb.mlb.com/m...

    Wonder how long it will take the shirts to be printed up and available in the metrodome?

  • LI Phil | October 5, 2009 at 3:03 pm |

    in re: my comments yesterday about folks watching the g-men vs. chiefs;

    i got the impression that a) not only did then not realize why the players were wearing pink, but b) they didn’t care even after they were made aware

    small sample size, to be sure, but i got the impression that the nfl failed to raise awareness in the majority of viewers; if ONE person decided to get a mammo, then i guess you could call this whole thing a success, since that’s one more possible cancer recognized and treated before it becomes serious/fatal

    my point then, as now, is i think there are far better ways (like, say, a straight cash donation to komen or whatever charity they chose) than to have (or let) players debase the uni

    several readers suggested better alternatives (for example a hugh-jass ribbon at the 50, and again at the 25s; what about replacing all the ads with bc-awareness ribbons)…just keep the pink off the uns

    here’s a better thought — if the NFL REALLY wanted to raise awareness, how about give free airtime (like, say a 30 second spot twice a quarter, or even more often) to the various breast cancer orgs out there? surely an in your face “LADIES 35 and OVER: DID YOU GET YOUR YEARLY MAMMOGRAM THIS YEAR” would be far more effective than ocho cinco wearing a pink chin strap, no?

    but no, the NFL chose to play “LOOK AT US” first, just to make sure everyone knows how much they care…but for the small viewing sample i observed, it not only didn’t do a damn bit of good, their reaction was decidedly NOT what the nfl was hoping for

    good cause…TERRIBLE execution

  • chance michaels | October 5, 2009 at 3:03 pm |

    [quote comment=”352182″][quote comment=”352179″]
    Derrick Mason seemed to be promoting prostate screening with his touchdown pose: http://a.espncdn.com...
    Same facial reaction too.[/quote]
    Man, if you’re going to perform all these over-the-top celebratory dances, you really ought to make sure your team wins the game.

  • Ricko | October 5, 2009 at 3:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”352224″][quote comment=”352221″]In the “do we really need this?” department, it appears there is a logo for the Twins/Tigers game tomorrow. Last time I checked, click on MLB’s site and it’s sitting there on the upper left.[/quote]

    Of course we do.
    And, coming soon, the NFL’s “I’m Today’s Emergency QB” patch.[/quote]

    Jeez, I should wash out my mouth with soap. Do you realize how many of those patches the NFL would sell!!! Lordy, even as a conversation piece worn to be tongue-in-cheek, they’d be fun.

    Or maybe for Naming Wrongs…teeshirts in team color schemes.

    —Ricko

  • LarryB | October 5, 2009 at 3:04 pm |

    Shorpy Charlotte Hall 1905 basketball

    http://www.shorpy.co...

  • Teebz | October 5, 2009 at 3:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”352226″]in re: my comments yesterday about folks watching the g-men vs. chiefs;

    i got the impression that a) not only did then not realize why the players were wearing pink, but b) they didn’t care even after they were made aware

    small sample size, to be sure, but i got the impression that the nfl failed to raise awareness in the majority of viewers; if ONE person decided to get a mammo, then i guess you could call this whole thing a success, since that’s one more possible cancer recognized and treated before it becomes serious/fatal

    my point then, as now, is i think there are far better ways (like, say, a straight cash donation to komen or whatever charity they chose) than to have (or let) players debase the uni

    several readers suggested better alternatives (for example a hugh-jass ribbon at the 50, and again at the 25s; what about replacing all the ads with bc-awareness ribbons)…just keep the pink off the uns

    here’s a better thought — if the NFL REALLY wanted to raise awareness, how about give free airtime (like, say a 30 second spot twice a quarter, or even more often) to the various breast cancer orgs out there? surely an in your face “LADIES 35 and OVER: DID YOU GET YOUR YEARLY MAMMOGRAM THIS YEAR” would be far more effective than ocho cinco wearing a pink chin strap, no?

    but no, the NFL chose to play “LOOK AT US” first, just to make sure everyone knows how much they care…but for the small viewing sample i observed, it not only didn’t do a damn bit of good, their reaction was decidedly NOT what the nfl was hoping for

    good cause…TERRIBLE execution[/quote]

    I agree on all points. And said so in comment #110. ;oP

  • mmwatkin | October 5, 2009 at 3:08 pm |

    The NFL raises awareness for testicular cancer every game.

    They only play with one ball.

    http://www.instantri...

  • Ricko | October 5, 2009 at 3:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”352226″]in re: my comments yesterday about folks watching the g-men vs. chiefs;

    i got the impression that a) not only did then not realize why the players were wearing pink, but b) they didn’t care even after they were made aware

    small sample size, to be sure, but i got the impression that the nfl failed to raise awareness in the majority of viewers; if ONE person decided to get a mammo, then i guess you could call this whole thing a success, since that’s one more possible cancer recognized and treated before it becomes serious/fatal

    my point then, as now, is i think there are far better ways (like, say, a straight cash donation to komen or whatever charity they chose) than to have (or let) players debase the uni

    several readers suggested better alternatives (for example a hugh-jass ribbon at the 50, and again at the 25s; what about replacing all the ads with bc-awareness ribbons)…just keep the pink off the uns

    here’s a better thought — if the NFL REALLY wanted to raise awareness, how about give free airtime (like, say a 30 second spot twice a quarter, or even more often) to the various breast cancer orgs out there? surely an in your face “LADIES 35 and OVER: DID YOU GET YOUR YEARLY MAMMOGRAM THIS YEAR” would be far more effective than ocho cinco wearing a pink chin strap, no?

    but no, the NFL chose to play “LOOK AT US” first, just to make sure everyone knows how much they care…but for the small viewing sample i observed, it not only didn’t do a damn bit of good, their reaction was decidedly NOT what the nfl was hoping for

    good cause…TERRIBLE execution[/quote]

    A commercial or a logo on the field, people see.
    Pink shoes, they talk about.
    That’s the difference.
    Not saying I like it. Saying from an ad guy’s point of view, “talk about” is better. Far more buzz. Light years better retention.
    And a :30 spot every quarter better than pink shoes every second for creating such buzz? Never.

    —Ricko

  • JohnnyO | October 5, 2009 at 3:12 pm |

    I just need to get something off my chest before “the game” starts tonight. I can’t believe that a legend, the man with ‘the streak’, the man who played two decades in Wisconsin, would end up in Minnesota and face his old team. I hate Paul Molitor. That is all.

  • Chris M | October 5, 2009 at 3:12 pm |

    Make the pink merchandise to raise awareness.
    Have the players wear them in the game.
    Auction off the used gear and donate all money to breast cancer research.

    Done and done.

  • BuckeyeMark | October 5, 2009 at 3:13 pm |

    as we prepare to enter the all-out blitz on all things Favre this evening I have been noticing that he seems to wear a jersey with an elastic waist band, almost like some jackets people wear. it doesn’t appear he tucks his jersey into his pants but it instead has virtually no “tail” and ends in a tight drawstring or elastic band. the shirt then hangs normally, covering the band, but certainly not tucking into his pants. is that NFL uni policy legit or are they cutting a superstar a pass? how long has Brett worn it like that?

    here are a couple of pics

    http://watchmojo.com...

    http://images.morris...

    maybe others will have better pics or know more about this.

  • Mike Engle | October 5, 2009 at 3:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”352233″]I just need to get something off my chest before “the game” starts tonight. I can’t believe that a legend, the man with ‘the streak’, the man who played two decades in Wisconsin, would end up in Minnesota and face his old team. I hate Paul Molitor. That is all.[/quote]
    And a #4 at that.
    Coincidence?

  • Ricko | October 5, 2009 at 3:15 pm |

    If a :30 second spot every quarter would be more effective, why doesn’t Nike do that instead of wasting money putting their logo all over everything?

    —Ricko

  • Teebz | October 5, 2009 at 3:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”352237″]If a :30 second spot every quarter would be more effective, why doesn’t Nike do that instead of wasting money putting their logo all over everything?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Nike is a BRAND. Cancer awareness is not.

    That’s why.

  • MR | October 5, 2009 at 3:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”352138″][quote comment=”352105″][quote comment=”352096″]Broncos…[/quote]

    I vote for this jersey being Broncos’ primary home, with the navy being the alt. Or maybe being deep-sixed altogether.

    Anyone else feel thay way?

    (P.S., Can Champ Bailey play corner or what.)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Agreed! I thought that the first time I saw the current uni set. Need that Orange Crush.[/quote]

    Yes, I’ve been voting a return to orange jerseys full time for a decade now! Why Denver ran from their history in that way I have no idea. I don’t like their uni design and would like to see them go back to the early Elway years look, but that ain’t happening any time soon, so the least they can do is make the orange shirt the designated home jersey. PLEASE.

  • Hott Rodd | October 5, 2009 at 3:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”352233″]I just need to get something off my chest before “the game” starts tonight. I can’t believe that a legend, the man with ‘the streak’, the man who played two decades in Wisconsin, would end up in Minnesota and face his old team. I hate Paul Molitor. That is all.[/quote]

    I’m so excited about the longtime packer getting to face his former team! I surely to hope that it comes down to him having to make a play with the game on the line. Can you imagine the pressure Ryan Longwell must be under today?

  • JohnnyO | October 5, 2009 at 3:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”352236″][quote comment=”352233″]I just need to get something off my chest before “the game” starts tonight. I can’t believe that a legend, the man with ‘the streak’, the man who played two decades in Wisconsin, would end up in Minnesota and face his old team. I hate Paul Molitor. That is all.[/quote]
    And a #4 at that.
    Coincidence?[/quote]

    Good call Mike… that should have been added to the list.

  • Greg V. | October 5, 2009 at 3:22 pm |

    Carson Palmer has his jersey tailored short as well. No elastic, but same effect. Maybe frees up a QB’s throwing motion?

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

  • TJB | October 5, 2009 at 3:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”352109″][quote comment=”352104″][quote comment=”352102″]I’m actually not cool with the Capitals changing their banners to reflect the current colors. I would like it if, say, the 1998 Eastern Conf. Champions banner stuck with the blue, black, and gold border, because that was the uniform of the time. Likewise, when Olaf Kolzig’s #37 gets (presumably) retired, I’d like to see it rendered in the uniform that made him famous (black banner, gold art-deco-style numbers).[/quote]

    I have to agree with this reasoning. It would be like the Coyotes changing their banners for Bobby Hull and Thomas Steen to Coyotes’ colours.

    It’s just not right.[/quote]

    Aw, hell, everybody knows if you don’t like history, just change it. The WHA never existed, remember? Was just a figment of our collective imaginations. Or take the Oakland Raiders. Nothing before 1963, when Al Davis got there. No life til the Great Al reached out and touched them. Black and gold Raiders unis? Never happened.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Good point about the WHA. There is little, if any, type of recognition of the WHA as a whole by the NHL. I realize the two leagues duked it out legally during the WHA’s exisitence, but isn’t it time the NHL got past all that? High salaries aside, the NHL owes a lot to the exisitence of the WHA.

    You’d think seeing the NFL celebrate the anniversary and existence of the AFL, a light bulb would go off over someone’s head down at NHL HQ’s. (Hello….major mechandising opportunity alert!!!)

    2011-12 will be the 40th Anniversary of the birth of the WHA. Let’s see.

  • Ricko | October 5, 2009 at 3:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”352238″][quote comment=”352237″]If a :30 second spot every quarter would be more effective, why doesn’t Nike do that instead of wasting money putting their logo all over everything?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Nike is a BRAND. Cancer awareness is not.

    That’s why.[/quote]

    But yesterday it was. That’s what you need to realize in order to properly evaluate things.

    For an advertiser—and that’s what this is, a mini-campaign—people talking with each other about the message I’m sending is far, far better than them only watching it and moving on.

    Stop being offended by how it looked. Not talking about that. I’m dissecting it, talking about how it worked, and not necessarily on a cognitive basis. Talking about how viewers/people receive input, process input and retain input. Consciously and subconsciously.

    Advertising 101. Not Proper Unis 101.

    (And I’m outta here…so you can call the ol’ Perfesser a moron and I won’t see it ’til later. LOL)

    —Ricko

  • MPowers1634 | October 5, 2009 at 3:36 pm |

    [quote comment=”352198″][quote comment=”352193″][quote comment=”352190″][quote comment=”352172″][quote comment=”352090″]re: Messier Helmet

    Kudos to Mark Messier on this proposed new helmet to increase player safety in the NHL. I can’t think of another sport where the equipment protection of the players is greater at the lower levels of competition. Obviously, it’s the nature of hockey, even in the 1970s, you had a few goalies not wearing masks. There is no good reason why NHL players shouldn’t be wearing the full cage projection worn at the college level.
    Reducing the amount of facial injuries would only improve the NHL. It’s like football helmet protection in the single/double bar face mask protection era. Much like the Clint Marlachuk throat injury for goalies, I fear it’s going to take a life threatening injury to a player before this obvious improvement should take place. The helmets worn today, even with a visor, just don’t offer sufficient protection.[/quote]
    Actually, there are a ton of players out there who feel that the game is as dangerous as it is specifically because the equipment has gotten so good. Used to be that in the days of low-tech gear if you took a run at someone it hurt you just as much as it hurt them and you a) learned to hit the right way and b) learned a respect for protecting yourself and others. Now, with players bundled up head to toe in armor, they run around the rink throwing themselves headlong at everything that moves and creating a more dangerous environment.[/quote]

    Agreed, we sometimes see that in the NFL, so the officials must do a better job preventing players from launching themselves. With a safer, full protection helmet, and better officiating, I think we’ll see a better game as injuries are reduced. Can’t be fun playing with a broken nose if you don’t have to.[/quote]

    I agree wholeheartedly. The officiating is an area where these changes can be implemented.

    However, there will be people who resist such change.

    Yesterday, i officiated a handful of pop warner games. Maybe twice, my colleagues threw flages for personal fouls involving kids leading with their heads to make tackles. One was on a kickoff, where the tackler lead with his helmet, flagged and was then required to sit out at least one play because of an injury suffered during the tackle. More than one father yelled from the sidelines, “Let em play, keep em in your pocket”.

    That is caveman mentality![/quote]

    I agree with this at the pop warner/pee wee level. However sometimes at the NFL level the officiating goes too far. Case in point yesterday Kyle Orton was hit cleanly just after releasing the ball, and the was slight contact as the defensive players helmet rose into Orton’s helmet. Not a spear, not leading with the helmet but a 15 yard penalty none the less. That is a let them play situation.

    Spearing at the junior levels should be taken seriously, and those dad’s who don’t thinks so will after it’s their son with a neck injury.[/quote]

    Unfortunately, that does seem to be the case.
    This is my second year as a football official and I am finishing up my first as a baseball/softball umpire and I see that defiant attitude IN PARENTS, way too much. I have witnessed MAYBE 3 or 4 kids that were difficult to deal with.

    However, the parents, epecially this football season have been tough. The NFHS has instituted a new rule that states that the sideline restraining boz be place from 25 to 25 two ryards off of the field. When the snap is “imminent” all personnel, including coaches, must be in the box.

    This prevents injuries to A.players B. coaches C. officials d. Chain crews e. EVERYONE. Yet there is still bitching and moaning EVERY EFFING game until we throw our first flag, which is simply a warning. After that it is a five yard and every subsequent is a 15.

    A coach got two straight unsportsmanlike flags in a span of 90 seconds because of arguing calls, while his 10 year old team was up 31-0.

    It is A GAME…Rules and Officials are there to uphold the rules as well as maintain equity and most importantly Insure safety.

    What did the coach He’s still got a point. What makes breast cancer more important than any other type of cancer?

    What did the coach hope to gain by teaching his players the wrong thing?

    Sorry for the rant, but it’s fucking ridiculous that people think that certain behavior is acceptable!

  • Teebz | October 5, 2009 at 3:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”352244″][quote comment=”352238″][quote comment=”352237″]If a :30 second spot every quarter would be more effective, why doesn’t Nike do that instead of wasting money putting their logo all over everything?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Nike is a BRAND. Cancer awareness is not.

    That’s why.[/quote]

    But yesterday it was. That’s what you need to realize in order to properly evaluate things.

    For an advertiser—and that’s what this is, a mini-campaign—people talking with each other about the message I’m sending is far, far better than them only watching it and moving on.

    Stop being offended by how it looked. Not talking about that. I’m dissecting it, talking about how it worked, and not necessarily on a cognitive basis. Talking about how viewers/people receive input, process input and retain input. Consciously and subconsciously.

    Advertising 101. Not Proper Unis 101.

    (And I’m outta here…so you can call the ol’ Perfesser a moron and I won’t see it ’til later. LOL)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I’d not call you a moron, Rick, ever. You’re one of UW’s Respected Elders. I believe we’re arguing two different concepts here, though.

    I’m saying the marketing campaign executed by the NFL was poorly done (as Phil said above).

    You’re saying that if pink was seen, it should automatically trigger breast cancer awareness. I’m saying it does not trigger awareness as much as the NFL likes to think. One commercial per commercial break, combined with a :30 PSA from the announcers each quarter, would further the cause infinitely more than some pink on-field apparel. All three together? That’s an effective marketing campaign.

  • Jake | October 5, 2009 at 3:44 pm |

    BuckeyeMark,

    Roy Williams of the Cowboys had a similar jersey yesterday. You could see it on the sidelines after he got drilled and had to sit out.

  • Grundy | October 5, 2009 at 3:51 pm |

    Here’s my theory. ‘Yellow’ is basically owned by Nike/Lance. Since Reebok has the uni rights for the NFL, they went with Pink.

  • JimV19 | October 5, 2009 at 3:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”352232″][quote comment=”352226″]in re: my comments yesterday about folks watching the g-men vs. chiefs;

    i got the impression that a) not only did then not realize why the players were wearing pink, but b) they didn’t care even after they were made aware

    small sample size, to be sure, but i got the impression that the nfl failed to raise awareness in the majority of viewers; if ONE person decided to get a mammo, then i guess you could call this whole thing a success, since that’s one more possible cancer recognized and treated before it becomes serious/fatal

    my point then, as now, is i think there are far better ways (like, say, a straight cash donation to komen or whatever charity they chose) than to have (or let) players debase the uni

    several readers suggested better alternatives (for example a hugh-jass ribbon at the 50, and again at the 25s; what about replacing all the ads with bc-awareness ribbons)…just keep the pink off the uns

    here’s a better thought — if the NFL REALLY wanted to raise awareness, how about give free airtime (like, say a 30 second spot twice a quarter, or even more often) to the various breast cancer orgs out there? surely an in your face “LADIES 35 and OVER: DID YOU GET YOUR YEARLY MAMMOGRAM THIS YEAR” would be far more effective than ocho cinco wearing a pink chin strap, no?

    but no, the NFL chose to play “LOOK AT US” first, just to make sure everyone knows how much they care…but for the small viewing sample i observed, it not only didn’t do a damn bit of good, their reaction was decidedly NOT what the nfl was hoping for

    good cause…TERRIBLE execution[/quote]

    A commercial or a logo on the field, people see.
    Pink shoes, they talk about.
    That’s the difference.
    Not saying I like it. Saying from an ad guy’s point of view, “talk about” is better. Far more buzz. Light years better retention.
    And a :30 spot every quarter better than pink shoes every second for creating such buzz? Never.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I get where you’re coming from, Ricko…my only concern is this: marketers think all buzz is good buzz, but that’s not always the case.

    I assume Ohio is not the only place where they still do the old-fashioned car commercials – where the guy yells through the whole spot. Yeah, people talk about that crazy guy, and they know where his store is. Personally, though, I turn the channel the instant I hear him. I have no idea what deals he has, so it’s not an effective buzz.

    The same can apply to awarenesss raising and fundraising. If the buzz generated is too annoying, some people will tune it out, no matter how well-intentioned the cause is.

  • ry co 40 | October 5, 2009 at 4:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”352245″][quote comment=”352198″][quote comment=”352193″][quote comment=”352190″][quote comment=”352172″][quote comment=”352090″]re: Messier Helmet

    Kudos to Mark Messier on this proposed new helmet to increase player safety in the NHL. I can’t think of another sport where the equipment protection of the players is greater at the lower levels of competition. Obviously, it’s the nature of hockey, even in the 1970s, you had a few goalies not wearing masks. There is no good reason why NHL players shouldn’t be wearing the full cage projection worn at the college level.
    Reducing the amount of facial injuries would only improve the NHL. It’s like football helmet protection in the single/double bar face mask protection era. Much like the Clint Marlachuk throat injury for goalies, I fear it’s going to take a life threatening injury to a player before this obvious improvement should take place. The helmets worn today, even with a visor, just don’t offer sufficient protection.[/quote]
    Actually, there are a ton of players out there who feel that the game is as dangerous as it is specifically because the equipment has gotten so good. Used to be that in the days of low-tech gear if you took a run at someone it hurt you just as much as it hurt them and you a) learned to hit the right way and b) learned a respect for protecting yourself and others. Now, with players bundled up head to toe in armor, they run around the rink throwing themselves headlong at everything that moves and creating a more dangerous environment.[/quote]

    Agreed, we sometimes see that in the NFL, so the officials must do a better job preventing players from launching themselves. With a safer, full protection helmet, and better officiating, I think we’ll see a better game as injuries are reduced. Can’t be fun playing with a broken nose if you don’t have to.[/quote]

    I agree wholeheartedly. The officiating is an area where these changes can be implemented.

    However, there will be people who resist such change.

    Yesterday, i officiated a handful of pop warner games. Maybe twice, my colleagues threw flages for personal fouls involving kids leading with their heads to make tackles. One was on a kickoff, where the tackler lead with his helmet, flagged and was then required to sit out at least one play because of an injury suffered during the tackle. More than one father yelled from the sidelines, “Let em play, keep em in your pocket”.

    That is caveman mentality![/quote]

    I agree with this at the pop warner/pee wee level. However sometimes at the NFL level the officiating goes too far. Case in point yesterday Kyle Orton was hit cleanly just after releasing the ball, and the was slight contact as the defensive players helmet rose into Orton’s helmet. Not a spear, not leading with the helmet but a 15 yard penalty none the less. That is a let them play situation.

    Spearing at the junior levels should be taken seriously, and those dad’s who don’t thinks so will after it’s their son with a neck injury.[/quote]

    Unfortunately, that does seem to be the case.
    This is my second year as a football official and I am finishing up my first as a baseball/softball umpire and I see that defiant attitude IN PARENTS, way too much. I have witnessed MAYBE 3 or 4 kids that were difficult to deal with.

    However, the parents, epecially this football season have been tough. The NFHS has instituted a new rule that states that the sideline restraining boz be place from 25 to 25 two ryards off of the field. When the snap is “imminent” all personnel, including coaches, must be in the box.

    This prevents injuries to A.players B. coaches C. officials d. Chain crews e. EVERYONE. Yet there is still bitching and moaning EVERY EFFING game until we throw our first flag, which is simply a warning. After that it is a five yard and every subsequent is a 15.

    A coach got two straight unsportsmanlike flags in a span of 90 seconds because of arguing calls, while his 10 year old team was up 31-0.

    It is A GAME…Rules and Officials are there to uphold the rules as well as maintain equity and most importantly Insure safety.

    What did the coach He’s still got a point. What makes breast cancer more important than any other type of cancer?

    What did the coach hope to gain by teaching his players the wrong thing?

    Sorry for the rant, but it’s fucking ridiculous that people think that certain behavior is acceptable![/quote]

    wow powers, you must really love being an official… do you get paid, or do you volunteer???

  • chance michaels | October 5, 2009 at 4:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”352196″]Okay, one MORE time, I guess.
    If you listen, really listen, it’s primary focus is early detection.
    Talk of a cure is secondary. A close second, but still second.
    Did anyone ask for, say, anyone to pledge 10 cents for every yard Ocho Cinco gained yesterday in his pink shoes?
    No.
    Not a fund-raising event. At least not its primary intent.
    It’s sending a message: Get checked, don’t neglect yourself.

    Everyone, please, start hearing what they’re saying, not what you think they’re saying.

    I’m guessing there is still evidence that the number of people making appointments for mammograms or prostate screening spikes significantly after these promotions. And I’d wager they see that as reason enough for them to continue. And proof that they’re working.
    [/quote]
    Or perhaps there is evidence that high-profile events like this help the fundraising efforts of breast cancer research and prevention groups.

    That certainly seems a lot easier to prove.

    Not that they are mutually exclusive, only saying that all parties can have an interest in this event beyond the stated goal of “raising awareness.”

  • chance michaels | October 5, 2009 at 4:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”352233″]I just need to get something off my chest before “the game” starts tonight. I can’t believe that a legend, the man with ‘the streak’, the man who played two decades in Wisconsin, would end up in Minnesota and face his old team. I hate Paul Molitor. That is all.[/quote]
    Paul Molitor was pushed (thanks, Sal Bando). Favre blew it all on his own with his drama-queen theatrics.

  • rpm | October 5, 2009 at 4:11 pm |

    3 pieces of good news that are over due!

    1)after more then a week of temps in the 50’s, the thermometer in my drafty studio hit 60 degrees today, woo-frigin-hoo!

    2)after nearly a month of going to a neighbors to check email everyday, i will finally have internets by 9pm tuesday. can’t wait to read this with my morning joe again.

    3) after kicking ass and taking names with tck friday, i got the call today, stirrups are FINALLY in the mail. i should get them wednesday at the latest, and turn them around thursday at the latest. y’all should be getting them friday-next wednesday depending on where you live in relation to chicago.

  • LI Phil | October 5, 2009 at 4:12 pm |

    [quote]A commercial or a logo on the field, people see.
    Pink shoes, they talk about.
    That’s the difference.
    Not saying I like it. Saying from an ad guy’s point of view, “talk about” is better. Far more buzz. Light years better retention.
    And a :30 spot every quarter better than pink shoes every second for creating such buzz? Never.[/quote]

    sure, they talked about the pink shoes…they didn’t (at first) even “get” that it was attached to a cause, and even after they were made aware, they still didn’t care

    you may think that’s an ‘effective’ ad, but clearly people weren’t buying what they were selling

    would oh…8-10 minutes of ads have been more effective? donno…and you don’t know either

    i said, if one person saw the pink shoes and said, “gee, i better get a mammogram” then you could say it was a success…but i just feel there were better AND more effective ways the NFL could help promote breast cancer awareness than the “look at me/us” bravado that typifies everything they do

    just my $.02….YMMV

  • JimV19 | October 5, 2009 at 4:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”352245″][quote comment=”352198″][quote comment=”352193″][quote comment=”352190″][quote comment=”352172″][quote comment=”352090″]However, the parents, epecially this football season have been tough. The NFHS has instituted a new rule that states that the sideline restraining boz be place from 25 to 25 two ryards off of the field. When the snap is “imminent” all personnel, including coaches, must be in the box.

    This prevents injuries to A.players B. coaches C. officials d. Chain crews e. EVERYONE. Yet there is still bitching and moaning EVERY EFFING game until we throw our first flag, which is simply a warning. After that it is a five yard and every subsequent is a 15.

    A coach got two straight unsportsmanlike flags in a span of 90 seconds because of arguing calls, while his 10 year old team was up 31-0.

    It is A GAME…Rules and Officials are there to uphold the rules as well as maintain equity and most importantly Insure safety.

    What did the coach hope to gain by teaching his players the wrong thing?

    Sorry for the rant, but it’s fucking ridiculous that people think that certain behavior is acceptable![/quote]

    No problem. Keep up the good work!

  • rhdii | October 5, 2009 at 4:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”352201″][quote comment=”352197″][quote comment=”352196″][quote comment=”352192″][quote comment=”352165″][quote comment=”352162″][quote comment=”352158″][quote comment=”352152″]
    Gang, they WANT people to ask, “Why are they wearing pink?” and get an answer. That’s the WHOLE DAMN POINT. It’s just as much about that (maybe more) than who knows about the Wearing O’ The Pink in advance. And pink shoes, etc., will get that question asked a lot more often than just a pink ribbon on a coach’s hat.

    That’s what raising awareness is. Plant thoughts, remind women “Oh, yeah, I don’t check myself regularly enough”.

    It’s about generating immediate action, yes, but also about creating what’s called “unaided recall” later on.

    Advertising/Public Relations 101 stuff, really.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    If you can’t get an answer to the question because the people around you don’t know, you’ve failed in advertising.

    As Phil wrote yesterday, and I quote,
    oh man…finally back to where i can actually watch football today…saw (at lunch, on a tv in the restaurant) about 10 minutes of the g-men

    had to explain to some folks about “all that pink” they were noticing; apparently the NFL didn’t do a good job getting the word out about october being bc awareness month

    comments ranged from “HAH-THAT GUYS WEARING PINK SHOES” to “WTF”…once i ‘explained’ the deal, people (male and female) all generally expressed the opinion that this was one of the more stupid things the NFL ever did

    one guy even misheard me when i said ‘breast cancer awareness’ — i guess he didn’t hear the last word or thought he was being funny when he said, “so the NFL’s promoting breast cancer now? is there anything they won’t do?”

    I’m not saying that awareness is wrong, Rick. I’m saying that subtlety on the uniforms can be combined with a very strong message during each TV timeouts. Or when a color guy is yapping away about the weather. Et cetera.

    If you want to make people aware of the cause, they have to be aware that you’re doing something. And from Phil’s comment alone, people didn’t know.[/quote]

    So we judge the effectiveness only by those who know about it advance? Those who learn of it, and what it means, on that day don’t count?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Good point, Ricko. Certainly, no sane person could argue about the need for awareness of breast cancer, and the urgency for a cure ASAP.
    Don’t know if this has been brought up, but what about prostate cancer, that too, is a common disease in our country? What about diabetes? Will we get to the point where every Sunday is color coded for a different cause?[/quote]

    That’s what bugs me about the pink. I’d prefer they use yellow, Lance Armstrong, to find a cure for ALL cancer and not just one type. It’s certainly a good cause, but of the seven people I’ve been close to have had a serious illness, only one had breast cancer. Five others had other types of cancer and another has a chronic disease for which there is no cure–and it feels like nobody in a position of authority cares about her illness. No major sport wears orange ribbons or wristbands.[/quote]

    Okay, one MORE time, I guess.
    If you listen, really listen, it’s primary focus is early detection.
    Talk of a cure is secondary. A close second, but still second.
    Did anyone ask for, say, anyone to pledge 10 cents for every yard Ocho Cinco gained yesterday in his pink shoes?
    No.
    Not a fund-raising event. At least not its primary intent.
    It’s sending a message: Get checked, don’t neglect yourself.

    Everyone, please, start hearing what they’re saying, not what you think they’re saying.

    I’m guessing there is still evidence that the number of people making appointments for mammograms or prostate screening spikes significantly after these promotions. And I’d wager they see that as reason enough for them to continue. And proof that they’re working.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    He’s still got a point. What makes breast cancer more important than any other type of cancer?[/quote]

    For one thing, it can be to some extent self-detected…or at least the reason for a checkup can be discovered on your own. So early detection truly is an issue. And worth being publicized.

    I don’t disagree on how the messages are worded. They certainly could mention a regular colonoscopy, etc., if you’re a certain age.

    The Cancer groups do seem have segmented themselves a bit too much, yes.

    But I was talking only about its avowed purpose, methods and possible means of gauging success…strictly as a promotion. Not judging the merits of the issue itself.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    There’s no doubt they’ve succeeded at raising awareness–we see pink bases in baseball, pink ice, now pink gloves and pink shoes. My point is it seems they’ve cornered the market on visibility and promotions, leaving other diseases in the cold. That’s not their fault (it’s their goal), but I do wonder why this one disease gets so much more attention than others.

  • aflfan | October 5, 2009 at 4:30 pm |

    To Bill Jones,

    Excellent job on the gumball helmets at the Division II level. I was gald to see that you got the weird Cardinal of my alma mater Saginaw Valey State University. I can tell you (as a manager and then a student SID) they had that logo from 1983-unitl the early 80’s. And there were a bitch to get onto the helmets.

  • JTH | October 5, 2009 at 4:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”352253″]3 pieces of good news that are over due!

    1)after more then a week of temps in the 50’s, the thermometer in my drafty studio hit 60 degrees today, woo-frigin-hoo!

    2)after nearly a month of going to a neighbors to check email everyday, i will finally have internets by 9pm tuesday. can’t wait to read this with my morning joe again.

    3) after kicking ass and taking names with tck friday, i got the call today, stirrups are FINALLY in the mail. i should get them wednesday at the latest, and turn them around thursday at the latest. y’all should be getting them friday-next wednesday depending on where you live in relation to chicago.[/quote]
    I finally remembered to get those 10×13 envelopes for you. They’re sitting here on the floor right next to my file cabinet.

    And my dad loved the bobblehead.

  • bartusball | October 5, 2009 at 4:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”352196″][quote comment=”352192″][quote comment=”352165″][quote comment=”352162″][quote comment=”352158″][quote comment=”352152″]
    Gang, they WANT people to ask, “Why are they wearing pink?” and get an answer. That’s the WHOLE DAMN POINT. It’s just as much about that (maybe more) than who knows about the Wearing O’ The Pink in advance. And pink shoes, etc., will get that question asked a lot more often than just a pink ribbon on a coach’s hat.

    That’s what raising awareness is. Plant thoughts, remind women “Oh, yeah, I don’t check myself regularly enough”.

    It’s about generating immediate action, yes, but also about creating what’s called “unaided recall” later on.

    Advertising/Public Relations 101 stuff, really.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    If you can’t get an answer to the question because the people around you don’t know, you’ve failed in advertising.

    As Phil wrote yesterday, and I quote,
    oh man…finally back to where i can actually watch football today…saw (at lunch, on a tv in the restaurant) about 10 minutes of the g-men

    had to explain to some folks about “all that pink” they were noticing; apparently the NFL didn’t do a good job getting the word out about october being bc awareness month

    comments ranged from “HAH-THAT GUYS WEARING PINK SHOES” to “WTF”…once i ‘explained’ the deal, people (male and female) all generally expressed the opinion that this was one of the more stupid things the NFL ever did

    one guy even misheard me when i said ‘breast cancer awareness’ — i guess he didn’t hear the last word or thought he was being funny when he said, “so the NFL’s promoting breast cancer now? is there anything they won’t do?”

    I’m not saying that awareness is wrong, Rick. I’m saying that subtlety on the uniforms can be combined with a very strong message during each TV timeouts. Or when a color guy is yapping away about the weather. Et cetera.

    If you want to make people aware of the cause, they have to be aware that you’re doing something. And from Phil’s comment alone, people didn’t know.[/quote]

    So we judge the effectiveness only by those who know about it advance? Those who learn of it, and what it means, on that day don’t count?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Good point, Ricko. Certainly, no sane person could argue about the need for awareness of breast cancer, and the urgency for a cure ASAP.
    Don’t know if this has been brought up, but what about prostate cancer, that too, is a common disease in our country? What about diabetes? Will we get to the point where every Sunday is color coded for a different cause?[/quote]

    That’s what bugs me about the pink. I’d prefer they use yellow, Lance Armstrong, to find a cure for ALL cancer and not just one type. It’s certainly a good cause, but of the seven people I’ve been close to have had a serious illness, only one had breast cancer. Five others had other types of cancer and another has a chronic disease for which there is no cure–and it feels like nobody in a position of authority cares about her illness. No major sport wears orange ribbons or wristbands.[/quote]

    Okay, one MORE time, I guess.
    If you listen, really listen, it’s primary focus is early detection.
    Talk of a cure is secondary. A close second, but still second.
    Did anyone ask for, say, anyone to pledge 10 cents for every yard Ocho Cinco gained yesterday in his pink shoes?
    No.
    Not a fund-raising event. At least not its primary intent.
    It’s sending a message: Get checked, don’t neglect yourself.

    Everyone, please, start hearing what they’re saying, not what you think they’re saying.

    I’m guessing there is still evidence that the number of people making appointments for mammograms or prostate screening spikes significantly after these promotions. And I’d wager they see that as reason enough for them to continue. And proof that they’re working.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Folks, as a 4-1/2 years and counting cancer survivor, I can assure you that early detection is key in survival of almost any type of cancer.

    Ricko is right, you need to check yourself regularly. If this promo succeeded in getting an additional 10% of women to check their breasts, or men to check their boys for that matter, then the program is successful.

    Don’t take for granted that the little bump or bruise that doesn’t go away is simply that, a bump or a bruise. My cancer started as an ulcer on the side of my tongue, that I initially thought was just that, an ulcer. It wasn’t until I was getting my teeth cleaned a couple months later that I asked my dentist about it. He immediately saw that I had a lateral squamous cell carcinoma. In layman’s terms, a skin cancer on my tongue. I don’t smoke or chew so this is indeed a rare occurence. While this type of cancer in highly cureable when caught at an early stage, I was lucky. In the short period of time, roughly 6 weeks, from diagnosis to surgery. The tumor more than doubled in size.

    I’m happy to report that while I still have a few more months to go before I’m declared cured, everything is going very well.

    Cancer these days is not a death sentence like it once was. Mario Lemieux and Phil Kessel are perfect examples of men who were detected early, went through the treatment, and have led very productive lives to say the least.

    My hope is that the wearing of the pink has given you all cause to pause and reflect. Do a self exam, or have your doctor check you out. Do it for yourself and your loved ones.

  • chance michaels | October 5, 2009 at 4:56 pm |

    Thank you, bartusball. I wish the NFL’s promotion was half as compelling as your testimonial.

    Congrats in advance, if you don’t mind my jumping the gun.

  • Chris | October 5, 2009 at 5:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”352253″]3 pieces of good news that are over due!

    1)after more then a week of temps in the 50’s, the thermometer in my drafty studio hit 60 degrees today, woo-frigin-hoo!

    2)after nearly a month of going to a neighbors to check email everyday, i will finally have internets by 9pm tuesday. can’t wait to read this with my morning joe again.

    3) after kicking ass and taking names with tck friday, i got the call today, stirrups are FINALLY in the mail. i should get them wednesday at the latest, and turn them around thursday at the latest. y’all should be getting them friday-next wednesday depending on where you live in relation to chicago.[/quote]
    Just curious, which batch is this?

  • mike 2 | October 5, 2009 at 5:14 pm |

    1. I don’t think NHL will honour the WHA. Its only 4 teams out of 30, only one team is still in the original location, and that one team has itself ignored its WHA past to a large extent (wearing patches for anniversaries of joining the NHL, not its WHA founding).
    2. I don’t see the adidas soap as logo creep – adidas has a line of soaps, deodorants, etc, and I don’t think putting your own logo on a product is logo creep. The stuff (IMHO) smells like ass, which is another issue, but I don’t think there’s an issue with the logo.

  • Scott Davis | October 5, 2009 at 5:17 pm |

    Is this really jersey worthy?

    http://farm3.static....

  • MPowers1634 | October 5, 2009 at 5:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”352250″][quote comment=”352245″][quote comment=”352198″][quote comment=”352193″][quote comment=”352190″][quote comment=”352172″][quote comment=”352090″]re: Messier Helmet

    Kudos to Mark Messier on this proposed new helmet to increase player safety in the NHL. I can’t think of another sport where the equipment protection of the players is greater at the lower levels of competition. Obviously, it’s the nature of hockey, even in the 1970s, you had a few goalies not wearing masks. There is no good reason why NHL players shouldn’t be wearing the full cage projection worn at the college level.
    Reducing the amount of facial injuries would only improve the NHL. It’s like football helmet protection in the single/double bar face mask protection era. Much like the Clint Marlachuk throat injury for goalies, I fear it’s going to take a life threatening injury to a player before this obvious improvement should take place. The helmets worn today, even with a visor, just don’t offer sufficient protection.[/quote]
    Actually, there are a ton of players out there who feel that the game is as dangerous as it is specifically because the equipment has gotten so good. Used to be that in the days of low-tech gear if you took a run at someone it hurt you just as much as it hurt them and you a) learned to hit the right way and b) learned a respect for protecting yourself and others. Now, with players bundled up head to toe in armor, they run around the rink throwing themselves headlong at everything that moves and creating a more dangerous environment.[/quote]

    Agreed, we sometimes see that in the NFL, so the officials must do a better job preventing players from launching themselves. With a safer, full protection helmet, and better officiating, I think we’ll see a better game as injuries are reduced. Can’t be fun playing with a broken nose if you don’t have to.[/quote]

    I agree wholeheartedly. The officiating is an area where these changes can be implemented.

    However, there will be people who resist such change.

    Yesterday, i officiated a handful of pop warner games. Maybe twice, my colleagues threw flages for personal fouls involving kids leading with their heads to make tackles. One was on a kickoff, where the tackler lead with his helmet, flagged and was then required to sit out at least one play because of an injury suffered during the tackle. More than one father yelled from the sidelines, “Let em play, keep em in your pocket”.

    That is caveman mentality![/quote]

    I agree with this at the pop warner/pee wee level. However sometimes at the NFL level the officiating goes too far. Case in point yesterday Kyle Orton was hit cleanly just after releasing the ball, and the was slight contact as the defensive players helmet rose into Orton’s helmet. Not a spear, not leading with the helmet but a 15 yard penalty none the less. That is a let them play situation.

    Spearing at the junior levels should be taken seriously, and those dad’s who don’t thinks so will after it’s their son with a neck injury.[/quote]

    Unfortunately, that does seem to be the case.
    This is my second year as a football official and I am finishing up my first as a baseball/softball umpire and I see that defiant attitude IN PARENTS, way too much. I have witnessed MAYBE 3 or 4 kids that were difficult to deal with.

    However, the parents, epecially this football season have been tough. The NFHS has instituted a new rule that states that the sideline restraining boz be place from 25 to 25 two ryards off of the field. When the snap is “imminent” all personnel, including coaches, must be in the box.

    This prevents injuries to A.players B. coaches C. officials d. Chain crews e. EVERYONE. Yet there is still bitching and moaning EVERY EFFING game until we throw our first flag, which is simply a warning. After that it is a five yard and every subsequent is a 15.

    A coach got two straight unsportsmanlike flags in a span of 90 seconds because of arguing calls, while his 10 year old team was up 31-0.

    It is A GAME…Rules and Officials are there to uphold the rules as well as maintain equity and most importantly Insure safety.

    What did the coach He’s still got a point. What makes breast cancer more important than any other type of cancer?

    What did the coach hope to gain by teaching his players the wrong thing?

    Sorry for the rant, but it’s fucking ridiculous that people think that certain behavior is acceptable![/quote]

    wow powers, you must really love being an official… do you get paid, or do you volunteer???[/quote]

    Please, don’t anyone misconstrue my rant….I have never worked at anything that I have enjoyed more than officiating.

    Here in the nearest suburbs OF NYC, the fees are extremely lucrative.

  • Hibbsy | October 5, 2009 at 5:36 pm |

    Wilco had t-shirts that incorporated Cardinals’ logos back in 2008.
    No offense to Pearl Jam, but Wilco is a way better band.
    Tweedy grew up just across the river in Belleville, Illinois.
    He threw out the first pitch at the Cardinals/Brewers game the other day.
    I would have bought a shirt at that show, but they were expensive, and I didn’t like them.
    I like the PJ ones even less.

  • JTH | October 5, 2009 at 5:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”352263″]Is this really jersey worthy?

    http://farm3.static....
    I dunno. I kinda like it. I’d imagine the guy’s a season ticket holder. He probably feels more connected to the other regulars in his section than he does to anyone on the team, so I can see why he’d have a jersey made up like that.

  • JTH | October 5, 2009 at 5:44 pm |

    [quote comment=”352265″]Wilco had t-shirts that incorporated Cardinals’ logos back in 2008.
    No offense to Pearl Jam, but Wilco is a way better band.
    Tweedy grew up just across the river in Belleville, Illinois.
    He threw out the first pitch at the Cardinals/Brewers game the other day.
    I would have bought a shirt at that show, but they were expensive, and I didn’t like them.
    I like the PJ ones even less.[/quote]
    So you opted for this shirt instead?

    I’m surprised it took over 200 comments to get the first “PJ sucks” post.

  • Ricko | October 5, 2009 at 5:44 pm |

    “I assume Ohio is not the only place where they still do the old-fashioned car commercials – where the guy yells through the whole spot. Yeah, people talk about that crazy guy, and they know where his store is. Personally, though, I turn the channel the instant I hear him. I have no idea what deals he has, so it’s not an effective buzz.”

    Is he still in business? Has he sold, and does he sell, a lot of cars? Like it or not, in some instances and some industries “annoying” can be the route to success. Advertisers do not continue campaigns that waste money. We, as guys, may have hated Mr. Whipple and Madge (“You’re soaking in it”) for Palmolive Liquid Dishwashing Detergent but, guess what, they don’t give a shit. What percentage of those products are purchased by men? It’s not very high. If those commeicals weren’t moving product they’d have vanished in a flash.

    And, while there’s no way to measure it, you can bet a whole lot of women checked themselves yesterday for the first time in a long time…even if they did think pink cleats were “stupid”.

    And that would be pretty much a “mission accomplished”.

    —Ricko

  • CWeb | October 5, 2009 at 5:44 pm |

    RE: 10/4 Thread …

    [quote comment=\”351932\”]Ricko, you have USFL games on VHS? Let\’s talk…[/quote]

    I got all three title games on Beta. Was a huge fan of the Philly Stars. I grew up in L.A., and still got the tix stubs from the Express-Gamblers slugfest with Young and Kelly.

    -Chris

  • Ricko | October 5, 2009 at 5:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”352259″][quote comment=”352196″][quote comment=”352192″][quote comment=”352165″][quote comment=”352162″][quote comment=”352158″][quote comment=”352152″]
    Gang, they WANT people to ask, “Why are they wearing pink?” and get an answer. That’s the WHOLE DAMN POINT. It’s just as much about that (maybe more) than who knows about the Wearing O’ The Pink in advance. And pink shoes, etc., will get that question asked a lot more often than just a pink ribbon on a coach’s hat.

    That’s what raising awareness is. Plant thoughts, remind women “Oh, yeah, I don’t check myself regularly enough”.

    It’s about generating immediate action, yes, but also about creating what’s called “unaided recall” later on.

    Advertising/Public Relations 101 stuff, really.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    If you can’t get an answer to the question because the people around you don’t know, you’ve failed in advertising.

    As Phil wrote yesterday, and I quote,
    oh man…finally back to where i can actually watch football today…saw (at lunch, on a tv in the restaurant) about 10 minutes of the g-men

    had to explain to some folks about “all that pink” they were noticing; apparently the NFL didn’t do a good job getting the word out about october being bc awareness month

    comments ranged from “HAH-THAT GUYS WEARING PINK SHOES” to “WTF”…once i ‘explained’ the deal, people (male and female) all generally expressed the opinion that this was one of the more stupid things the NFL ever did

    one guy even misheard me when i said ‘breast cancer awareness’ — i guess he didn’t hear the last word or thought he was being funny when he said, “so the NFL’s promoting breast cancer now? is there anything they won’t do?”

    I’m not saying that awareness is wrong, Rick. I’m saying that subtlety on the uniforms can be combined with a very strong message during each TV timeouts. Or when a color guy is yapping away about the weather. Et cetera.

    If you want to make people aware of the cause, they have to be aware that you’re doing something. And from Phil’s comment alone, people didn’t know.[/quote]

    So we judge the effectiveness only by those who know about it advance? Those who learn of it, and what it means, on that day don’t count?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Good point, Ricko. Certainly, no sane person could argue about the need for awareness of breast cancer, and the urgency for a cure ASAP.
    Don’t know if this has been brought up, but what about prostate cancer, that too, is a common disease in our country? What about diabetes? Will we get to the point where every Sunday is color coded for a different cause?[/quote]

    That’s what bugs me about the pink. I’d prefer they use yellow, Lance Armstrong, to find a cure for ALL cancer and not just one type. It’s certainly a good cause, but of the seven people I’ve been close to have had a serious illness, only one had breast cancer. Five others had other types of cancer and another has a chronic disease for which there is no cure–and it feels like nobody in a position of authority cares about her illness. No major sport wears orange ribbons or wristbands.[/quote]

    Okay, one MORE time, I guess.
    If you listen, really listen, it’s primary focus is early detection.
    Talk of a cure is secondary. A close second, but still second.
    Did anyone ask for, say, anyone to pledge 10 cents for every yard Ocho Cinco gained yesterday in his pink shoes?
    No.
    Not a fund-raising event. At least not its primary intent.
    It’s sending a message: Get checked, don’t neglect yourself.

    Everyone, please, start hearing what they’re saying, not what you think they’re saying.

    I’m guessing there is still evidence that the number of people making appointments for mammograms or prostate screening spikes significantly after these promotions. And I’d wager they see that as reason enough for them to continue. And proof that they’re working.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Folks, as a 4-1/2 years and counting cancer survivor, I can assure you that early detection is key in survival of almost any type of cancer.

    Ricko is right, you need to check yourself regularly. If this promo succeeded in getting an additional 10% of women to check their breasts, or men to check their boys for that matter, then the program is successful.

    Don’t take for granted that the little bump or bruise that doesn’t go away is simply that, a bump or a bruise. My cancer started as an ulcer on the side of my tongue, that I initially thought was just that, an ulcer. It wasn’t until I was getting my teeth cleaned a couple months later that I asked my dentist about it. He immediately saw that I had a lateral squamous cell carcinoma. In layman’s terms, a skin cancer on my tongue. I don’t smoke or chew so this is indeed a rare occurence. While this type of cancer in highly cureable when caught at an early stage, I was lucky. In the short period of time, roughly 6 weeks, from diagnosis to surgery. The tumor more than doubled in size.

    I’m happy to report that while I still have a few more months to go before I’m declared cured, everything is going very well.

    Cancer these days is not a death sentence like it once was. Mario Lemieux and Phil Kessel are perfect examples of men who were detected early, went through the treatment, and have led very productive lives to say the least.

    My hope is that the wearing of the pink has given you all cause to pause and reflect. Do a self exam, or have your doctor check you out. Do it for yourself and your loved ones.[/quote]

    Thank you. That is precisely the point I’ve been trying to make clear.

    And I wish you well.

    —Ricko

  • Gusto44 | October 5, 2009 at 6:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”352268″]”I assume Ohio is not the only place where they still do the old-fashioned car commercials – where the guy yells through the whole spot. Yeah, people talk about that crazy guy, and they know where his store is. Personally, though, I turn the channel the instant I hear him. I have no idea what deals he has, so it’s not an effective buzz.”

    Is he still in business? Has he sold, and does he sell, a lot of cars? Like it or not, in some instances and some industries “annoying” can be the route to success. Advertisers do not continue campaigns that waste money. We, as guys, may have hated Mr. Whipple and Madge (“You’re soaking in it”) for Palmolive Liquid Dishwashing Detergent but, guess what, they don’t give a shit. What percentage of those products are purchased by men? It’s not very high. If those commeicals weren’t moving product they’d have vanished in a flash.

    And, while there’s no way to measure it, you can bet a whole lot of women checked themselves yesterday for the first time in a long time…even if they did think pink cleats were “stupid”.

    And that would be pretty much a “mission accomplished”.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Speaking of annoying ads, I’m sick and tired of being bombarded with endless those erectile dysfunction spots during sports events. I don’t ever want to hear about the four hour erection again!

  • Tom V | October 5, 2009 at 6:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”352263″]Is this really jersey worthy?

    http://farm3.static....

    Well I think thats part of the beauty of it. If he’s walking around with a section 109 jersey on hes some rich guy who probably leaves at halftime who’s rubbing it in everyones faces with his custom three number jersey which cost $300. But he’s not, he’s a regular guy in one of the worst sections who can’t afford better seats but loves the patriots so much he got a jersey with his section number on it, like previous poster said he probably identifies more with the people in that section than the players. Besides, I doubt the patriots are ever going to trade section 317 to another team!

  • Ricko | October 5, 2009 at 6:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”352271″][quote comment=”352268″]”I assume Ohio is not the only place where they still do the old-fashioned car commercials – where the guy yells through the whole spot. Yeah, people talk about that crazy guy, and they know where his store is. Personally, though, I turn the channel the instant I hear him. I have no idea what deals he has, so it’s not an effective buzz.”

    Is he still in business? Has he sold, and does he sell, a lot of cars? Like it or not, in some instances and some industries “annoying” can be the route to success. Advertisers do not continue campaigns that waste money. We, as guys, may have hated Mr. Whipple and Madge (“You’re soaking in it”) for Palmolive Liquid Dishwashing Detergent but, guess what, they don’t give a shit. What percentage of those products are purchased by men? It’s not very high. If those commeicals weren’t moving product they’d have vanished in a flash.

    And, while there’s no way to measure it, you can bet a whole lot of women checked themselves yesterday for the first time in a long time…even if they did think pink cleats were “stupid”.

    And that would be pretty much a “mission accomplished”.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Speaking of annoying ads, I’m sick and tired of being bombarded with endless those erectile dysfunction spots during sports events. I don’t ever want to hear about the four hour erection again![/quote]

    And that’s the curse of such things. We tire of the same ads—or the same style ads—but the reasons we keep seeing them are because we’re watching what their target market is watching…and the ads are working.

    The primary reason for a commercial is not to entertain, or even to be liked. It’s to sell stuff or motivate action.

    —Ricko

  • Chris | October 5, 2009 at 6:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”352248″]Here’s my theory. ‘Yellow’ is basically owned by Nike/Lance. Since Reebok has the uni rights for the NFL, they went with Pink.[/quote]

    The color was pink because it wasn’t cancer in general, it was for breast cancer. That color has always been pink. Like how baseball has a day of pink for breast cancer and blue for prostate cancer.

  • JimV19 | October 5, 2009 at 6:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”352271″][quote comment=”352268″]”I assume Ohio is not the only place where they still do the old-fashioned car commercials – where the guy yells through the whole spot. Yeah, people talk about that crazy guy, and they know where his store is. Personally, though, I turn the channel the instant I hear him. I have no idea what deals he has, so it’s not an effective buzz.”

    Is he still in business? Has he sold, and does he sell, a lot of cars? Like it or not, in some instances and some industries “annoying” can be the route to success. Advertisers do not continue campaigns that waste money. We, as guys, may have hated Mr. Whipple and Madge (“You’re soaking in it”) for Palmolive Liquid Dishwashing Detergent but, guess what, they don’t give a shit. What percentage of those products are purchased by men? It’s not very high. If those commeicals weren’t moving product they’d have vanished in a flash.

    And, while there’s no way to measure it, you can bet a whole lot of women checked themselves yesterday for the first time in a long time…even if they did think pink cleats were “stupid”.

    And that would be pretty much a “mission accomplished”.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Speaking of annoying ads, I’m sick and tired of being bombarded with endless those erectile dysfunction spots during sports events. I don’t ever want to hear about the four hour erection again![/quote]

    I’d rather wear pink from head to toe than endure those ads! They’re not exactly appropriate for when the kids are watching the game, are they? I could almost understand playing them on Sunday night or Monday, but leave them off the afternoon games, please.

    Ricko has a point – annoying ads can be effective…just not with me. You want my business, entertain me.

  • anotherguy | October 5, 2009 at 6:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”352273″]The primary reason for a commercial is not to entertain, or even to be liked. It’s to sell stuff or motivate action.
    [/quote]
    I am often motivated to “act”; the action is to change to the other game.

  • anotherguy | October 5, 2009 at 6:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”352275″]Ricko has a point – annoying ads can be effective…just not with me. You want my business, entertain me.[/quote]Oldest marketing story in the world, goes back to the 1940’s or 50’s and a marketing class in that era of all-male colleges; the prof passes around a calender page from a nudie calendar of the day. When the page finally comes back to the teacher he asks “so what month was that?” Nobody knows, of course.

    Don’t let the ad distract from the intended action.

  • anotherguy | October 5, 2009 at 6:58 pm |

    [quote comment=”352272″][quote comment=”352263″]Is this really jersey worthy?

    http://farm3.static....

    Well I think thats part of the beauty of it. If he’s walking around with a section 109 jersey on hes some rich guy who probably leaves at halftime who’s rubbing it in everyones faces with his custom three number jersey which cost $300. But he’s not, he’s a regular guy in one of the worst sections who can’t afford better seats but loves the patriots so much he got a jersey with his section number on it, like previous poster said he probably identifies more with the people in that section than the players.[/quote]
    What section did the owner of the Patsies sit in when he was merely a season ticket holder?

  • JTH | October 5, 2009 at 7:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”352275″]I’d rather wear pink from head to toe than endure those ads! They’re not exactly appropriate for when the kids are watching the game, are they? I could almost understand playing them on Sunday night or Monday, but leave them off the afternoon games, please.[/quote]
    That’s something I’ve been thinking about now that my kids are starting to get older. I’m definitely not looking forward to the day when they understand what those commercials are for. I absolutely dread the thought of sitting down with them to watch a game and having them bust out laughing about 4-hour boners. Or even worse, if they start asking me how often it happens to me.

  • anotherguy | October 5, 2009 at 7:03 pm |

    [quote comment=”352273″]And that’s the curse of such things. We tire of the same ads—or the same style ads—but the reasons we keep seeing them are because we’re watching what their target market is watching…and the ads are working.[/quote]
    So the target market for BOTH breast cancer awareness AND boner pills is what is percived as the typical NFL fan?

    I don’t know, I just don’t see that many “women of a particular age” when I go to Soldier Field. Maybe I don’t understand the target.

  • Hibbsy | October 5, 2009 at 7:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”352267″][quote comment=”352265″]Wilco had t-shirts that incorporated Cardinals’ logos back in 2008.
    No offense to Pearl Jam, but Wilco is a way better band.
    Tweedy grew up just across the river in Belleville, Illinois.
    He threw out the first pitch at the Cardinals/Brewers game the other day.
    I would have bought a shirt at that show, but they were expensive, and I didn’t like them.
    I like the PJ ones even less.[/quote]
    So you opted for this shirt instead?

    I’m surprised it took over 200 comments to get the first “PJ sucks” post.[/quote]
    “PJ sucks”
    Now you’re putting words in my mouth.

    Accurate words.
    Most bands do.
    Kind of like uniforms these days.

  • anotherguy | October 5, 2009 at 7:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”352279″][quote comment=”352275″]I’d rather wear pink from head to toe than endure those ads! They’re not exactly appropriate for when the kids are watching the game, are they? I could almost understand playing them on Sunday night or Monday, but leave them off the afternoon games, please.[/quote]
    That’s something I’ve been thinking about now that my kids are starting to get older. I’m definitely not looking forward to the day when they understand what those commercials are for. [/quote]When WGN had the games, right before kickoff they would run a “Kathy and Judy” double-entendre that was pretty tasteless IMHO.

    I remember thinking “hey, guys who are driving their kids to-and-fro on Sundays have this on in the car-that’s fairly raunchy for the weekend daytime”; and also “do you really think your typical Bears fan is going to tune into Kathy/Judy in the middle of the afternoon tomorrow?”

  • DenverGregg | October 5, 2009 at 7:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”352280″][quote comment=”352273″]And that’s the curse of such things. We tire of the same ads—or the same style ads—but the reasons we keep seeing them are because we’re watching what their target market is watching…and the ads are working.[/quote]
    So the target market for BOTH breast cancer awareness AND boner pills is what is percived as the typical NFL fan?

    I don’t know, I just don’t see that many “women of a particular age” when I go to Soldier Field. Maybe I don’t understand the target.[/quote]
    But the target is the multi-million person TV audience, not just the realively few who attend in person. The abuelitas I work with all watch at least the Bronco game and some others.

  • anotherguy | October 5, 2009 at 7:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”352283″]But the target is the multi-million person TV audience, not just the realively few who attend in person. The abuelitas I work with all watch at least the Bronco game and some others.[/quote]
    Oh, no doubt the TV audience is more gender-diverse than the in-person experience: but I’d bet that it skews far more male than the average weeknight shows. Or baseball for that matter.

    My nonnina was a big fan of horse racing and bowling. :-) Down the street, my buddy’s mother (who was born in rural Europe & moved to Chicago when she was in her 40’s) was a huge boxing fan.

    JMHO, but they’re generally the exception rather than the rule.

  • JTH | October 5, 2009 at 7:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”352281″][quote comment=”352267″][quote comment=”352265″]Wilco had t-shirts that incorporated Cardinals’ logos back in 2008.
    No offense to Pearl Jam, but Wilco is a way better band.
    Tweedy grew up just across the river in Belleville, Illinois.
    He threw out the first pitch at the Cardinals/Brewers game the other day.
    I would have bought a shirt at that show, but they were expensive, and I didn’t like them.
    I like the PJ ones even less.[/quote]
    So you opted for this shirt instead?

    I’m surprised it took over 200 comments to get the first “PJ sucks” post.[/quote]
    “PJ sucks”
    Now you’re putting words in my mouth.

    Accurate words.
    Most bands do.
    Kind of like uniforms these days.[/quote]
    OK, you got me. To be fair, you did not explicitly state that you think they suck. You just denigrated them as compared to another band.

    For the record, both bands are in my personal top 5. I consider Wilco to be the better studio band and PJ the better live band.

  • pflava | October 5, 2009 at 7:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”352105″][quote comment=”352096″]Broncos…[/quote]

    I vote for this jersey being Broncos’ primary home, with the navy being the alt. Or maybe being deep-sixed altogether.

    Anyone else feel thay way?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Absolutely!

    Those orange jerseys are absolutely killer. It’s nice to see them actually LOOK like the Denver Broncos.

  • LarryB | October 5, 2009 at 7:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”352064″]I finally managed to catch up and watch the first 3 parts of the Full Color Football AFL documentary thing… and I’m really not that impressed by it.

    It’s interesting and they have mentioned a few tidbits I wasn’t aware of, but it feels kinda incomplete and sloppy to me. For example, while they’re talking about how awesome the 1964 Bills defense was, they’re showing footage vs the Chargers which is -obviously- from ’66 or later. Or when talking about the Broncos, they show the burning of the brown and yellow, but then fail to mention what the new uniforms were. It would have been the perfect opportunity to show off a color photo proving the blue or brown issue, and they completely skip it.

    I guess it’s not bad, but I think it really could have been better.[/quote]

    That is always a big gripe of mine. In watching film histories or even sometimes in books.

    To have the wrong dates for the game action being used.

  • pflava | October 5, 2009 at 7:36 pm |

    Looking back to yesterdays games, I would have to say it was a tie for best uni matchup between the Cowboys-Broncos and Chiefs-Giants.

    And on the flip side, the Patriots-Ravens game was a visual turd.

  • Hibbsy | October 5, 2009 at 7:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”352286″][quote comment=”352281″][quote comment=”352267″][quote comment=”352265″]Wilco had t-shirts that incorporated Cardinals’ logos back in 2008.
    No offense to Pearl Jam, but Wilco is a way better band.
    Tweedy grew up just across the river in Belleville, Illinois.
    He threw out the first pitch at the Cardinals/Brewers game the other day.
    I would have bought a shirt at that show, but they were expensive, and I didn’t like them.
    I like the PJ ones even less.[/quote]
    So you opted for this shirt instead?

    I’m surprised it took over 200 comments to get the first “PJ sucks” post.[/quote]
    “PJ sucks”
    Now you’re putting words in my mouth.

    Accurate words.
    Most bands do.
    Kind of like uniforms these days.[/quote]
    OK, you got me. To be fair, you did not explicitly state that you think they suck. You just denigrated them as compared to another band.

    For the record, both bands are in my personal top 5. I consider Wilco to be the better studio band and PJ the better live band.[/quote]

    To each his own. And I mean that.
    But…
    Wilco blew me away when I saw them. Tweedy is a brilliant writer, and I’m proud that Uncle Tupelo is from my metro area. However, I still don’t think they even crack my top 20.
    Pearl Jam? I can’t even tolerate. Vedder’s “moanan”(sp?) voice really irritates me.
    We should end this discussion before we get in trouble.
    I’ll say it again.
    To each his own.

  • anotherguy | October 5, 2009 at 7:44 pm |

    [quote comment=”352289″]And on the flip side, the Patriots-Ravens game was a visual turd.[/quote]

    For my money, the Pittsburgh/San Diego mixture of throwbacks and pink cleats was more than a little bit jarring visually.

  • Hibbsy | October 5, 2009 at 8:12 pm |

    That Viking helmet is pretty. Big time.
    I am not a big fan of purple. Never have been.
    But that helmet looks fantastic! And as I’ve always said, every league needs a little purple.
    I just wish the jersey matched.

  • LI Phil | October 5, 2009 at 8:17 pm |

    [quote]I absolutely dread the thought of sitting down with them to watch a game and having them bust out laughing about 4-hour boners. Or even worse, if they start asking me how often it happens to me.[/quote]

    whoa nelly

  • LI Phil | October 5, 2009 at 8:20 pm |

    vikes in throwbacks…

    fuckin sweet

  • Taxman | October 5, 2009 at 8:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”352294″]vikes in throwbacks…

    fuckin sweet[/quote]
    they look like FOOTBALL uniforms!

  • Hibbsy | October 5, 2009 at 8:25 pm |

    Percy Harvin is wearing a regular Riddell helmet. I believe he usually wears one of those Revolution monstrosities.
    Is he doing it for the throwback?
    Are other Viking players doing the same?

  • Taxman | October 5, 2009 at 8:31 pm |

    [quote comment=”352279″][quote comment=”352275″]I’d rather wear pink from head to toe than endure those ads! They’re not exactly appropriate for when the kids are watching the game, are they? I could almost understand playing them on Sunday night or Monday, but leave them off the afternoon games, please.[/quote]
    That’s something I’ve been thinking about now that my kids are starting to get older. I’m definitely not looking forward to the day when they understand what those commercials are for. I absolutely dread the thought of sitting down with them to watch a game and having them bust out laughing about 4-hour boners. Or even worse, if they start asking me how often it happens to me.[/quote]
    As an avid watcher of sports and golf in particular, with a 15 yr old daughter and an 11 year old daughter – I have already endured this awkward moment. It’s not the end of the world, but just a lose-lose situation for all parties involved. Not fun.

  • Greg B. | October 5, 2009 at 8:38 pm |

    [quote comment=\”352176\”]\”Repeat all steps until the bowl is full or you run out of potato slices.\”

    …or (if you lack a candy thermometer) until you run out of fingers.[/quote]

    Or until the oil explodes and burns your house down.

  • JTH | October 5, 2009 at 9:11 pm |

    Al Harris is wearing thigh-high white socks and quite possibly the shortest football “pants” I’ve ever seen.

    Holy shit, does he look like a jackass.

  • flip | October 5, 2009 at 9:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”352294″]vikes in throwbacks…

    fuckin sweet[/quote]
    I’d rather the Vikes not burn the throwbacks when they’re wearing the pink shoes. Better to wait … or just change back for good, though that’s not going to happen.

  • leon | October 5, 2009 at 9:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”352293″][quote]I absolutely dread the thought of sitting down with them to watch a game and having them bust out laughing about 4-hour boners. Or even worse, if they start asking me how often it happens to me.[/quote]

    whoa nelly[/quote]

    excellent call, keith

  • Paul Lukas | October 5, 2009 at 9:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”352299″]Al Harris is wearing thigh-high white socks and quite possibly the shortest football “pants” I’ve ever seen.

    Holy shit, does he look like a jackass.[/quote]

    He does this all the time. Nothing new.

    He often switches to solid-green hose (instead of solid-white) for the second half.

  • JTH | October 5, 2009 at 9:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”352290″][quote comment=”352286″][quote comment=”352281″][quote comment=”352267″][quote comment=”352265″]Wilco had t-shirts that incorporated Cardinals’ logos back in 2008.
    No offense to Pearl Jam, but Wilco is a way better band.
    Tweedy grew up just across the river in Belleville, Illinois.
    He threw out the first pitch at the Cardinals/Brewers game the other day.
    I would have bought a shirt at that show, but they were expensive, and I didn’t like them.
    I like the PJ ones even less.[/quote]
    So you opted for this shirt instead?

    I’m surprised it took over 200 comments to get the first “PJ sucks” post.[/quote]
    “PJ sucks”
    Now you’re putting words in my mouth.

    Accurate words.
    Most bands do.
    Kind of like uniforms these days.[/quote]
    OK, you got me. To be fair, you did not explicitly state that you think they suck. You just denigrated them as compared to another band.

    For the record, both bands are in my personal top 5. I consider Wilco to be the better studio band and PJ the better live band.[/quote]

    To each his own. And I mean that.
    But…
    Wilco blew me away when I saw them. Tweedy is a brilliant writer, and I’m proud that Uncle Tupelo is from my metro area. However, I still don’t think they even crack my top 20.
    Pearl Jam? I can’t even tolerate. Vedder’s “moanan”(sp?) voice really irritates me.
    We should end this discussion before we get in trouble.
    I’ll say it again.
    To each his own.[/quote]
    Get in trouble? At least both bands have been mentioned here before in the ticker/main entries.

    So we got that goin’ for us.

  • Jon in SLC | October 5, 2009 at 9:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”352083″][quote comment=”352077″][quote comment=”352076″]the Pearl Jam shirts are unreal. Best band in the world making an effort to give us fans somethign unique at the merch stand.

    But these shirts are just like the Klausen/Ames Bros posters in that they are very limited, “supposed” to be one per customer, and they are going on ebay for hundreds of dollars.

    IF anyone cares they are $35 at the shows. I cant wait to see what they do for the 4 Philly shows at the end of the month. Ill be there all 4 nights tryign to grab them[/quote]

    As though I needed another reason to love Pearl Jam![/quote]

    PJ has been UNI centric back to the Mookie Blaylock Band days…even TEN was named for his UNI number.

    Wish they were coming to NY, that would have made a great uni-band shirt Using the Rangers OR the Knicks logo

    (kind of makes up for the ho-hum Backspacer)[/quote]

    Saw Pearl Jam here in Salt Lake last week. They put on a good show, I’m glad I went. I saw the Utah shirt and liked the customization, I’m just not much of a concert t-shirt guy.

    On to Favre – something is not right with his alignment of his NOB and number. Am I the only one seeing this or does anyone else?

  • JTH | October 5, 2009 at 9:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”352302″][quote comment=”352299″]Al Harris is wearing thigh-high white socks and quite possibly the shortest football “pants” I’ve ever seen.

    Holy shit, does he look like a jackass.[/quote]

    He does this all the time. Nothing new.

    He often switches to solid-green hose (instead of solid-white) for the second half.[/quote]
    I’ve seen him in the solid-greens, but I guess I’ve never noticed the all-whites before.

    And the pants really do look shorter than ever tonight.

  • JTH | October 5, 2009 at 9:20 pm |

    Ryan Grant in the high whites as well, but at least his pants look like actual pants.

  • Hibbsy | October 5, 2009 at 9:24 pm |

    Is David Byrne the Packer’s GM?

  • Chris | October 5, 2009 at 9:25 pm |

    I just got an e-mail from the Mets linking to a video with Jeff Wilpon and his opening line was, “On behalf of everyone at the Mets, thank you for sticking with us through this painful and disappointing season.” Methinks there’s a correlation between the lack of pinstripage and the “painful and disappointing season”.

  • James Craven | October 5, 2009 at 9:28 pm |

    BTW, the pink trimmed officials’ hats are available on NFLShop.com.

  • anotherguy | October 5, 2009 at 9:31 pm |

    [quote comment=”352305″]Is David Byrne the Packer’s GM?[/quote]Stop making sense.

  • JTH | October 5, 2009 at 9:35 pm |

    OK, here’s how I remember seeing Harris wear the socks (when he’s not going with the mostly green look). The green starts just below his knees.

    Tonight, the green parts of his socks are so narrow they look like garters.

  • Patrick in MI | October 5, 2009 at 9:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”352268″]”I assume Ohio is not the only place where they still do the old-fashioned car commercials – where the guy yells through the whole spot. Yeah, people talk about that crazy guy, and they know where his store is. Personally, though, I turn the channel the instant I hear him. I have no idea what deals he has, so it’s not an effective buzz.”

    Is he still in business? Has he sold, and does he sell, a lot of cars? Like it or not, in some instances and some industries “annoying” can be the route to success. Advertisers do not continue campaigns that waste money. We, as guys, may have hated Mr. Whipple and Madge (“You’re soaking in it”) for Palmolive Liquid Dishwashing Detergent but, guess what, they don’t give a shit. What percentage of those products are purchased by men? It’s not very high. If those commeicals weren’t moving product they’d have vanished in a flash.

    And, while there’s no way to measure it, you can bet a whole lot of women checked themselves yesterday for the first time in a long time…even if they did think pink cleats were “stupid”.

    And that would be pretty much a “mission accomplished”.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Are you referring to Fred Ricart? I moved from Columbus nearly 20 years ago and I still recall that turd’s name! His shtick obviously worked on me.

  • peter | October 5, 2009 at 9:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”352310″][quote comment=”352305″]Is David Byrne the Packer’s GM?[/quote]Stop making sense.[/quote]

    Only “once in a lifetime”…

  • Oakville Endive | October 5, 2009 at 9:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”352105″][quote comment=”352096″]Broncos…[/quote]

    I vote for this jersey being Broncos’ primary home, with the navy being the alt. Or maybe being deep-sixed altogether.

    Anyone else feel thay way?

    (P.S., Can Champ Bailey play corner or what.)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Yes , fully agree. Instead of being one of four or five teams that wear dark blue (Houston, Buffalo, Chicago, New England – maybe missing one or two), Denver becomes unique again. I think having a unique color help creates an identity and also adds to the passion the fans have with their team. After all – how many “dark blue outs” do you see, but with the colour orange, fans will inevitably wear it in droves in the stands.

    In general their should be more unique colors in the NFL – why can’t the Ravens be a really dark shade of purple, or say plum shade, something to distinguish it from the Vikings? How about burnt orange?

  • Greenie | October 5, 2009 at 9:53 pm |

    Clay just stole the rock from Purple Jesus! Amen!

    (Those Vikings jerseys do look great though)

    -Greenie

  • JohnnyO | October 5, 2009 at 9:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”352313″][quote comment=”352310″][quote comment=”352305″]Is David Byrne the Packer’s GM?[/quote]Stop making sense.[/quote]

    Only “once in a lifetime”…[/quote]

    “It’s a once in a lifetime thing that happens every so often.”
    – Randy Moss

  • Hibbsy | October 5, 2009 at 9:59 pm |

    I don’t think Harvin is alone.
    I have yet to see a single Viking wearing any of those futuristic helmet styles.
    Has this ever been a part of Throwback culture?
    I like it.
    If it is indeed the case.

  • JimV19 | October 5, 2009 at 10:03 pm |

    Boy, those pom-poms really stick out in this picture: http://a.espncdn.com...

    You know, if they really wanted to throwback, they could have played at the Gophers’ stadium. Then the Twins could have played tonight.

  • JimV19 | October 5, 2009 at 10:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”352277″][quote comment=”352275″]Ricko has a point – annoying ads can be effective…just not with me. You want my business, entertain me.[/quote]Oldest marketing story in the world, goes back to the 1940’s or 50’s and a marketing class in that era of all-male colleges; the prof passes around a calender page from a nudie calendar of the day. When the page finally comes back to the teacher he asks “so what month was that?” Nobody knows, of course.

    Don’t let the ad distract from the intended action.[/quote]

    Well, I did say entertain me, not “raise my awareness”…so to speak.

  • Benjamin Johnson | October 5, 2009 at 10:08 pm |

    Thank you for your great blog! Do you or any of your readers have any information on the Broncos’ blank blue helmets worn in the 60’s? I thought they were worn for part of the 1967 season only, but it seems like I keep seeing screen shots from other seasons with those helmets. It’s driving me nuts.

    Benjamin Johnson

  • JohnnyO | October 5, 2009 at 10:11 pm |

    ESPN showed a shot of Favre and Gruden together from a while back, and the Pack were wearing their green unis, but it didn’t look like Lambeau Field. I don’t have access to my DVR so I can’t rewind. Anyone else see this? I only caught the tail end of it.

  • LarryB | October 5, 2009 at 10:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”352320″]Thank you for your great blog! Do you or any of your readers have any information on the Broncos’ blank blue helmets worn in the 60’s? I thought they were worn for part of the 1967 season only, but it seems like I keep seeing screen shots from other seasons with those helmets. It’s driving me nuts.

    Benjamin Johnson[/quote]

    As far as I know they were only worn during the 1967 season. I think they looked sharp.

    http://lh3.ggpht.com...

    http://lh6.ggpht.com...

  • Gusto44 | October 5, 2009 at 10:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”352320″]Thank you for your great blog! Do you or any of your readers have any information on the Broncos’ blank blue helmets worn in the 60’s? I thought they were worn for part of the 1967 season only, but it seems like I keep seeing screen shots from other seasons with those helmets. It’s driving me nuts.

    Benjamin Johnson[/quote]

    I think it had something to do with an unexpected delay with getting the “D” logo completed somehow, so then head coach Lou Saban said fuck it, we’ll just go with the plain blue.
    Ricko should have the answer if he checks this board tonight.

  • JimV19 | October 5, 2009 at 10:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”352322″][quote comment=”352320″]Thank you for your great blog! Do you or any of your readers have any information on the Broncos’ blank blue helmets worn in the 60’s? I thought they were worn for part of the 1967 season only, but it seems like I keep seeing screen shots from other seasons with those helmets. It’s driving me nuts.

    Benjamin Johnson[/quote]

    As far as I know they were only worn during the 1967 season. I think they looked sharp.

    http://lh3.ggpht.com...

    http://lh6.ggpht.com...

    Were they blank blue, or blue with a blue pony on them? ;)

  • Ricko | October 5, 2009 at 10:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”352324″][quote comment=”352322″][quote comment=”352320″]Thank you for your great blog! Do you or any of your readers have any information on the Broncos’ blank blue helmets worn in the 60’s? I thought they were worn for part of the 1967 season only, but it seems like I keep seeing screen shots from other seasons with those helmets. It’s driving me nuts.

    Benjamin Johnson[/quote]

    As far as I know they were only worn during the 1967 season. I think they looked sharp.

    http://lh3.ggpht.com...

    http://lh6.ggpht.com...

    Were they blank blue, or blue with a blue pony on them? ;)[/quote]

    Were gonna go wth a brown horsey to “honor” the brown and gold, but decided against it.

    That’s a preseason game, btw. Broncos ever wore those jerseys with that helmet in reg. season. Back then teams often saved their new sets til the opening game. They’d wear the new helmets for played to get used to hew headgear, though.

    —Ricko

  • anotherguy | October 5, 2009 at 10:46 pm |

    [quote comment=”352319″]
    Well, I did say entertain me, not “raise my awareness”…so to speak.[/quote]

    Ricko’s “awareness” is raised by a well-turned… uniform stripe.

    :-)))

  • LarryB | October 5, 2009 at 10:47 pm |

    Chargers Broncos 1967 Blue helmets

    http://lh4.ggpht.com...

    http://lh6.ggpht.com...

  • anotherguy | October 5, 2009 at 10:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”352316″]

    Only “once in a lifetime”…[/quote]

    [/quote]
    I saw those guys a “lifetime ago” in Chicago. I can’t say I remember much about the concert.

    Youth is wasted on the young.

  • Matthew | October 5, 2009 at 10:48 pm |

    Greg Jennings is also doing the “shorts” instead of pants. They were showing him warming up without socks on and it was like he was wearing bike shorts.

  • JimV19 | October 5, 2009 at 10:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”352325″][quote comment=”352324″][quote comment=”352322″][quote comment=”352320″]Thank you for your great blog! Do you or any of your readers have any information on the Broncos’ blank blue helmets worn in the 60’s? I thought they were worn for part of the 1967 season only, but it seems like I keep seeing screen shots from other seasons with those helmets. It’s driving me nuts.

    Benjamin Johnson[/quote]

    As far as I know they were only worn during the 1967 season. I think they looked sharp.

    http://lh3.ggpht.com...

    http://lh6.ggpht.com...

    Were they blank blue, or blue with a blue pony on them? ;)[/quote]

    Were gonna go wth a brown horsey to “honor” the brown and gold, but decided against it.

    That’s a preseason game, btw. Broncos ever wore those jerseys with that helmet in reg. season. Back then teams often saved their new sets til the opening game. They’d wear the new helmets for played to get used to hew headgear, though.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    That reminds me, Ricko…during the UW hiatus I thought I found your all-blue Indians unis. I was watching This Week in Baseball’s coverage of the ’81 All-Star Game. I had the tape going while I was doing something else, and out of the corner of my eye I coulda sworn I saw it. When I rewound the tape I realized it was just a girl in the stands wearing a blue jersey and blue jeans. I was hoping, man.

  • JTH | October 5, 2009 at 10:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”352321″]ESPN showed a shot of Favre and Gruden together from a while back, and the Pack were wearing their green unis, but it didn’t look like Lambeau Field. I don’t have access to my DVR so I can’t rewind. Anyone else see this? I only caught the tail end of it.[/quote]
    I saw that. It looked to me like they were at Tampa Stadium.

  • M.Princip | October 5, 2009 at 11:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”352294″]vikes in throwbacks…

    fuckin sweet[/quote]

    Yes, they look amazing tonight. I love those deep purple helmets and gray face masks.

  • The Jeff | October 5, 2009 at 11:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”352332″][quote comment=”352294″]vikes in throwbacks…

    fuckin sweet[/quote]

    Yes, they look amazing tonight. I love those deep purple helmets and gray face masks.[/quote]

    They look better than their normal uniforms… but I hate gray facemasks and helmets that don’t match the jersey colors. A white mask would look so much better, and the helmet is too dark.

  • Dwayne | October 5, 2009 at 11:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”352112″]Yes Paul…the pink looks bad in sports uniforms. But how about nixing your bitching for ONE month? It’s for a fantastic cause, whether or not you think it’s “appropriate” to showcase it in that way or no.[/quote]

    When is the NFLook-At-Me gonna do special games for Prostate Cancer, Colon Cancer, Lung Cancer, et al…?

  • JimV19 | October 5, 2009 at 11:24 pm |

    Here’s a shot that shows #4’s sleeve stripes don’t go all the way around his sleeves. http://a.espncdn.com...

    A lot closer than everyone else’s, though.

    What do you think – is there a market for a Purple Judas shirt?

  • Ricko | October 5, 2009 at 11:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”352333″][quote comment=”352332″][quote comment=”352294″]vikes in throwbacks…

    fuckin sweet[/quote]

    Yes, they look amazing tonight. I love those deep purple helmets and gray face masks.[/quote]

    They look better than their normal uniforms… but I hate gray facemasks and helmets that don’t match the jersey colors. A white mask would look so much better, and the helmet is too dark.[/quote]

    Check Giants and Michigan State, to name two. There’s an epidemic of that this year.

    And the gray facemask is true to that era of the Vikings. For the most part, anyway.

    —Ricko

  • The Jeff | October 5, 2009 at 11:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”352336″][quote comment=”352333″][quote comment=”352332″][quote comment=”352294″]vikes in throwbacks…

    fuckin sweet[/quote]

    Yes, they look amazing tonight. I love those deep purple helmets and gray face masks.[/quote]

    They look better than their normal uniforms… but I hate gray facemasks and helmets that don’t match the jersey colors. A white mask would look so much better, and the helmet is too dark.[/quote]

    Check Giants and Michigan State, to name two. There’s an epidemic of that this year.

    And the gray facemask is true to that era of the Vikings. For the most part, anyway.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I know the gray is historically accurate, but I still don’t like it. It’s part of the uniform, it should be color coordinated with it. If it’s not the same color as the helmet, it needs to be one of the team’s other colors. I don’t like them on the Browns, Colts or Cardinals either. The old masks were originally gray because it was the only color available, not because it was a good color.

  • =bg= | October 5, 2009 at 11:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”352332″][quote comment=”352294″]vikes in throwbacks…

    fuckin sweet[/quote]

    Yes, they look amazing tonight. I love those deep purple helmets and gray face masks.[/quote]

    Absolutely true. Those look so much better than the contemporary version.

    They were my first favorite football team, oh, 1970 or so…strictly due to the helmet design. And I didn’t know til YEARS later it was a Viking helmet horn. I didn’t know WHAT it was.

  • Ricko | October 5, 2009 at 11:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”352335″]Here’s a shot that shows #4’s sleeve stripes don’t go all the way around his sleeves. http://a.espncdn.com...

    A lot closer than everyone else’s, though.

    What do you think – is there a market for a Purple Judas shirt?[/quote]

    Judas? As I recall, the Packers didn’t want Favre as their starter. Or are we gonna revise that history, too?

    I’m not being a Favre backer, just saying that WAS how it went down, wasn’t it.

    Granted, he was wishy washy-ing all over the place (which was self-involved to say the least), but management DID say they were going with Aaron Rodgers.

    Also we’re learning one of two things (maybe both):
    1. Favre was hurt a lot more than we knew last year.
    2. Mangini sure didn’t know what to do with the guy.

    —Ricko

  • =bg= | October 5, 2009 at 11:36 pm |

    speaking of the WHA…
    One of the best logos EVER..IMO.
    http://www.stingersh...

  • Ricko | October 5, 2009 at 11:38 pm |

    “The old masks were originally gray because it was the only color available, not because it was a good color.”

    I suppose there are lot of people who don’t realize that.

    And I wasn’t saying good or bad, just that it doesn’t look out of place with those unis.

    —Ricko

  • JimV19 | October 5, 2009 at 11:43 pm |

    [quote comment=”352339″][quote comment=”352335″]Here’s a shot that shows #4’s sleeve stripes don’t go all the way around his sleeves. http://a.espncdn.com...

    A lot closer than everyone else’s, though.

    What do you think – is there a market for a Purple Judas shirt?[/quote]

    Judas? As I recall, the Packers didn’t want Favre as their starter. Or are we gonna revise that history, too?

    I’m not being a Favre backer, just saying that WAS how it went down, wasn’t it.

    Granted, he was wishy washy-ing all over the place (which was self-involved to say the least), but management DID say they were going with Aaron Rodgers.

    Also we’re learning one of two things (maybe both):
    1. Favre was hurt a lot more than we knew last year.
    2. Mangini sure didn’t know what to do with the guy.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I’m not saying I would buy one, but I bet a lot of people in Dairyland would.

    I stopped paying attention a long time ago (even though I used to be a Favre fan), so what came first – did the Pack side with Rogers because Brett was wishy-washy, or did Brett become wishy-washy because the Pack were leaning towards Rogers?

  • JTH | October 5, 2009 at 11:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”352339″][quote comment=”352335″]Here’s a shot that shows #4’s sleeve stripes don’t go all the way around his sleeves. http://a.espncdn.com...

    A lot closer than everyone else’s, though.

    What do you think – is there a market for a Purple Judas shirt?[/quote]

    Judas? As I recall, the Packers didn’t want Favre as their starter. Or are we gonna revise that history, too?

    I’m not being a Favre backer, just saying that WAS how it went down, wasn’t it.

    Granted, he was wishy washy-ing all over the place (which was self-involved to say the least), but management DID say they were going with Aaron Rodgers.

    Also we’re learning one of two things (maybe both):
    1. Favre was hurt a lot more than we knew last year.
    2. Mangini sure didn’t know what to do with the guy.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    The facts are irrelevant. I’d say there’s a market for a shirt like that.

  • Ricko | October 5, 2009 at 11:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”352343″][quote comment=”352339″][quote comment=”352335″]Here’s a shot that shows #4’s sleeve stripes don’t go all the way around his sleeves. http://a.espncdn.com...

    A lot closer than everyone else’s, though.

    What do you think – is there a market for a Purple Judas shirt?[/quote]

    Judas? As I recall, the Packers didn’t want Favre as their starter. Or are we gonna revise that history, too?

    I’m not being a Favre backer, just saying that WAS how it went down, wasn’t it.

    Granted, he was wishy washy-ing all over the place (which was self-involved to say the least), but management DID say they were going with Aaron Rodgers.

    Also we’re learning one of two things (maybe both):
    1. Favre was hurt a lot more than we knew last year.
    2. Mangini sure didn’t know what to do with the guy.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    The facts are irrelevant. I’d say there’s a market for a shirt like that.[/quote]

    Certainly. Especially among those who don’t let facts interfere with their opinion.

    Oh, shit…that encompasses most of America.

    —Ricko

  • JTH | October 5, 2009 at 11:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”352340″]speaking of the WHA…
    One of the best logos EVER..IMO.
    http://www.stingersh...
    Whoa! I had no idea that Jason Lee was an alternate captain with the Stingers!

    Pro skater, actor and pro hockey player… is there anything he can’t do?

  • JimV19 | October 5, 2009 at 11:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”352343″][quote comment=”352339″][quote comment=”352335″]Here’s a shot that shows #4’s sleeve stripes don’t go all the way around his sleeves. http://a.espncdn.com...

    A lot closer than everyone else’s, though.

    What do you think – is there a market for a Purple Judas shirt?[/quote]

    Judas? As I recall, the Packers didn’t want Favre as their starter. Or are we gonna revise that history, too?

    I’m not being a Favre backer, just saying that WAS how it went down, wasn’t it.

    Granted, he was wishy washy-ing all over the place (which was self-involved to say the least), but management DID say they were going with Aaron Rodgers.

    Also we’re learning one of two things (maybe both):
    1. Favre was hurt a lot more than we knew last year.
    2. Mangini sure didn’t know what to do with the guy.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    The facts are irrelevant. I’d say there’s a market for a shirt like that.[/quote]

    Is there a market for a shirt like this one, though? http://a.espncdn.com...

  • Ricko | October 5, 2009 at 11:58 pm |

    We’ll let’s see. It’s the Metrodome, and the thought going through my head is…

    and we’ll see you tomorrow night.

    (Yikes, what a couple of days around here; already sold 50,000 or so tickets for tomorrow)

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | October 5, 2009 at 11:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”352346″][quote comment=”352343″][quote comment=”352339″][quote comment=”352335″]Here’s a shot that shows #4’s sleeve stripes don’t go all the way around his sleeves. http://a.espncdn.com...

    A lot closer than everyone else’s, though.

    What do you think – is there a market for a Purple Judas shirt?[/quote]

    Judas? As I recall, the Packers didn’t want Favre as their starter. Or are we gonna revise that history, too?

    I’m not being a Favre backer, just saying that WAS how it went down, wasn’t it.

    Granted, he was wishy washy-ing all over the place (which was self-involved to say the least), but management DID say they were going with Aaron Rodgers.

    Also we’re learning one of two things (maybe both):
    1. Favre was hurt a lot more than we knew last year.
    2. Mangini sure didn’t know what to do with the guy.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    The facts are irrelevant. I’d say there’s a market for a shirt like that.[/quote]

    Is there a market for a shirt like this one, though? http://a.espncdn.com...

    Wow, a horny ugly cheesehead woman.
    Scary.

  • LI Phil | October 6, 2009 at 12:00 am |

    so…there are three undefeated teams in the NFC

    raise your hand if you thought the vikes would be one of them

    (mine is, and ricko can corroborate that … i actually think they’ll hit 6-0 if not beyond)

    /otoh…i didn’t see the g-men or saints being the other two

  • JimV19 | October 6, 2009 at 12:06 am |

    [quote comment=”352348″][quote comment=”352346″][quote comment=”352343″][quote comment=”352339″][quote comment=”352335″]Here’s a shot that shows #4’s sleeve stripes don’t go all the way around his sleeves. http://a.espncdn.com...

    A lot closer than everyone else’s, though.

    What do you think – is there a market for a Purple Judas shirt?[/quote]

    Judas? As I recall, the Packers didn’t want Favre as their starter. Or are we gonna revise that history, too?

    I’m not being a Favre backer, just saying that WAS how it went down, wasn’t it.

    Granted, he was wishy washy-ing all over the place (which was self-involved to say the least), but management DID say they were going with Aaron Rodgers.

    Also we’re learning one of two things (maybe both):
    1. Favre was hurt a lot more than we knew last year.
    2. Mangini sure didn’t know what to do with the guy.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    The facts are irrelevant. I’d say there’s a market for a shirt like that.[/quote]

    Is there a market for a shirt like this one, though? http://a.espncdn.com...

    Wow, a horny ugly cheesehead woman.
    Scary.[/quote]

    Think this guy’s related to her? http://a.espncdn.com...

  • Gusto44 | October 6, 2009 at 12:09 am |

    [quote comment=”352349″]so…there are three undefeated teams in the NFC

    raise your hand if you thought the vikes would be one of them

    (mine is, and ricko can corroborate that … i actually think they’ll hit 6-0 if not beyond)

    /otoh…i didn’t see the g-men or saints being the other two[/quote]

    Assuming Favre and Peterson remain healthy, the Vikes have the potential to win it all. I’m looking forward to the rematch at Green Bay.
    Getting back to uniforms, someone mentioned white face masks on the Vikings. Minnesota actually did wear white face masks in the early 1980s, during the Tommy Kramer era.

  • Ryan | October 6, 2009 at 1:06 am |

    Not sure if this has already been brought up, and I don’t have the ability to get a screen grab, but tonight Packers coach Mike McCarthy had a little extra piece of fabric sewn into the back of his hat (like a belt loop turned sideways) for holding a Sharpie.

  • metsfan1963 | October 6, 2009 at 3:30 am |

    Off the subject a bit, but check out this story on retired baseball uniforms: http://www.bloggingm...

  • The Jeff | October 6, 2009 at 6:10 am |

    [quote comment=”352353″]Off the subject a bit, but check out this story on retired baseball uniforms: http://www.bloggingm...

    No one’s going to read this since it’s only an hour or two from the next blog going up…. but I really don’t like retired numbers.

    I don’t mind seeing player names and numbers up around a stadium, but I think the numbers should stay available. I think by not retiring numbers, you can give new players a goal to make a number “theirs” after it’d been worn by a legend previously.