Survey Says…

I’m really surprised the Bills ended up last for their home jerseys. I think the Falcons and Bengals are worse in that department. Now the Bills road uniforms on the other hand…. those are apocalypticly bad.

…and now, just because I can… something to scare people even more.

Imagine if the Broncos had never dropped the yellow & brown as their primary colors. We might have had to live with these:

link

[quote comment=”353347″]I didn’t get to see any of the Texas/Colorado game in my viewing area. (The one top 5 selection I agree with). Were both Bevo and the Colorado buffalo (Buffy?, Curly? Bill?) on the field? The imagination soars at the possibilities![/quote]

Yeah, what a pile of crap that would be.

Thought this was an interesting use of a space to place a back-in-the-day graphic at the Vandy/Army game. (Sorry, one has to scroll down a bit on these).

link

F’ed it up again. It’s pic # 8 if you care.

re: Top 5:
This game looked pretty good, too, as far as colors, light pants vs. dark pants, etc.
link.

—Ricko

What’s up with this guy’s pants? Looks like someone dropped (er, spilled) acid on them.

link

Talk about wanting to avert your eyes.
link

In photo #5 in this group, there are crossed flags on the back of the Colorado player’s helmet. One is Old Glory. The other I’m guessing is the state flag. What’s the story?
link

Falcons could wear ’em, too (pair on left).
Would really complete their, um, “look”.
link

Hah…awesome. I’m like 90% sure my comment made it into the PDF. I really like the polling that was done. It’d be cool to extend this to the other major sports in the future, too.

[quote comment=”353365″][quote comment=”353364″]Hah…awesome. I’m like 90% sure my comment made it into the PDF. I really like the polling that was done. It’d be cool to extend this to the other major sports in the future, too.[/quote]
That’s a definite possibility. I was thinking that with the NHL season underway, maybe we can go there next.

Oh, wait, you said major sports. . . .[/quote]

We could do the UFL.

Problem is, even though would be quick and easy with only four teams, the highest anyone would finish would be Honorable Mention.

And that would be a reach.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”353355″][quote comment=”353354″]re: Top 5:
This game looked pretty good, too, as far as colors, light pants vs. dark pants, etc.
link.

—Ricko[/quote]

Made same mistake. Hope this works.
link
link? I’ll say. Surely you meant to link to photos of another game.

Black from waist to toe is not a good look for Purdue. If they’d link, their road unis would be pretty solid. (That’s a practice photo, but you get the idea.)

[quote comment=”353368″][quote comment=”353355″][quote comment=”353354″]re: Top 5:
This game looked pretty good, too, as far as colors, light pants vs. dark pants, etc.
link.

—Ricko[/quote]

Made same mistake. Hope this works.
link
link? I’ll say. Surely you meant to link to photos of another game.

Black from waist to toe is not a good look for Purdue. If they’d link, their road unis would be pretty solid. (That’s a practice photo, but you get the idea.)[/quote]

Oh, I know Purdue-Minnesota wasn’t perfect. Just better than I expected. The colors and all.

And, yeah, the dark jazzercise look sucks. Anywhere, anytime.

Which brings me to MY quibbling point. Texas in BFBS socks really detracted from that matchup. Detracts from Longhorns anytime. Likewise for teams like Wisconsin and Nebraska.

And, please, don’t someone claim black is a “neutral” color just cuz is a standard cleat color, or sometimes used in logos. Black got “declared” neutral a few years ago by teams so they could be, oooo, macho.

—Ricko

Well now, this’ll make even some of the younger folks here feel older.

It’s now been 20 years since the earthquake during the A’s-Giants World Series.

—Ricko

Hey, JTH, has anyone ever scrounged up color photos of those mono cream road monstrosities from the Sam Wyche years at Indiana?

—Ricko

[quote comment=”353374″]Hey, JTH, has anyone ever scrounged up color photos of those mono cream road monstrosities from the Sam Wyche years at Indiana?

—Ricko[/quote]
I’ve never seen any.

Maybe a li’l research is in order next time I’m in Bloomington (Lord only knows when that’ll be).

[quote comment=”353377″][quote comment=”353373″]
That’s the one gripe I have with my link.

I’ll live with it, though. Because at least they ditched link ridiculous link.

Basketball team in black socks? No way, no how.[/quote]

The black socks really throw that look off.

Why do college teams refuse to do this: link
instead?[/quote]

The absence of pro-style socks has almost become a tradition/trademark of college football. Very few teams go with that look (Oklahoma is only one that comes quickly to mind).

Given that, I’d be happy just with this…
link

—Ricko

[quote comment=”353378″][quote comment=”353377″][quote comment=”353373″]
That’s the one gripe I have with my link.

I’ll live with it, though. Because at least they ditched link ridiculous link.

Basketball team in black socks? No way, no how.[/quote]

The black socks really throw that look off.

Why do college teams refuse to do this: link
instead?[/quote]

The absence of pro-style socks has almost become a tradition/trademark of college football. Very few teams go with that look (Oklahoma is only one that comes quickly to mind).

Given that, I’d be happy just with this…
link

—Ricko[/quote]
link with the pro-style socks for most of the players (kinda completes the Steelers copycat look).

Great work with the data. I wonder if there’s a possibility we could see the relation between “favorite team” and “favorite uniform.” It’d be interesting to see how fans rate their favorite team’s uniforms.

Obviously, the voters were traditionalists, and I’m sure some people think we all feel that way here, and probably believe I’m one of the most rabid.

Truth is, I’m not. Not to that degree.

I’d put the Rams and Broncos in the Top Ten (but not with the dark pants). Great colors, great combinations of them; two examples of the modern look done well. Extremely well, in fact.

Their unis are imaginative and “rule-breaking”, but tempered with good judgement and restraint. Aren’t excessive, just inventive. That’s not a bad thing.

Would rank the Dolphins high, too (with white shoes, that is). Even the white over aqua. Colors and look are really perfect for the city/area they represent. And that should be a significant consideration in this.

—Ricko

Gents,

Here’s a rundown of apparel happenings from day three of the Presidents Cup. Enjoy!

link

Mike

Having voted Bears for best and Bills for worst, I feel like I have good taste this morning.

I was also surprised by some of the teams that didn’t make the top ten. Dallas made mine, but I had to hold my nose….hard. I cannot stand the Cowboys as a team and it took real willpower to judge those unis objectively. I assume others felt similarly but may have let their feelings about the Cowboys cloud their judgement of the unis.

A different thing took place with the Redskins, who didn’t make my top five. The abject racism of their nickname and, by extension, their unis affected my vote. I think I still gave them a 2 (they look sharp and classic, I’ll agree), but “Redskins” is one classic NFL moniker that can’t end soon enough.

Finally, some AFC/AFL throwback thoughts:

1) Like the Bills, the Pats just look better in their throwbacks. Boy would I like to see them ditch Elvis and return to Pat!

2) I know I’m in a tiny minority here, but I kinda like the Denver throwbacks with the striped socks. OK. Objectively they’re ugly. And unlike the Pats and the Bills, the Broncos should not for a moment consider adopting anything remotely like these, in either design or color. But, like the Bills and Pats, the Broncos made my Bottom 10 of current NFL home unis, so I certainly won’t be missing their current kit. And, however ugly they are, those Denver throwbacks do exactly what I want throwbacks to do: they remind me of a past era of uniform design. Nobody would dream of putting together uniforms like that today. Both the worst features of the kit (the striped socks) and the best (numbers on the helmet) are totally of their time. And that’s what I look for in a throwback.

[quote comment=”353375″]Yeah, these were kinda fun. Mindful of late ’40s, early ’50s, when everyone wore drab pants (back then muslin-khaki) and would jazz things up with two color numbers and maybe a white helmet.

White crew socks completed the look.
link

—Ricko[/quote]

This uniform ensemble rocked my world. The sad thing about all of these flippin’ Ducks uniform combinations is we might not see it again? ;o(

I think the reason I love this combination so much is it reminds me of something the Seahawks could have done back in the day, if they had someone with enough balls and creativity to push it through the FO. Those matte gray pants totally remind me of the matte grays they wore back in 1976-79, minus the side stripes. Also, that green is the perfect compliment to the original Seahawks green. *sigh*

link *lol*

[quote comment=”353382″]Great work with the data. I wonder if there’s a possibility we could see the relation between “favorite team” and “favorite uniform.” It’d be interesting to see how fans rate their favorite team’s uniforms.[/quote]

Good call. I actually tried this, but the regression fell apart quickly.

There is a much stronger correlation between teams with “old-school” uniforms (Teams ranked 1 – 20ish) and teams with “new-school” designs(teams ranked 25ish – 32). The 5 in the middle, I call them the “hybrid teams” (Baltimore -> Tennessee), not really old-school (sleeve stripes, etc.) and not really new..

[quote comment=”353391″][quote comment=”353384″]Obviously, the voters were traditionalists, and I’m sure some people think we all feel that way here, and probably believe I’m one of the most rabid.

Truth is, I’m not. Not to that degree.

I’d put the Rams and Broncos in the Top Ten (but not with the dark pants). Great colors, great combinations of them; two examples of the modern look done well. Extremely well, in fact.

Their unis are imaginative and “rule-breaking”, but tempered with good judgement and restraint. Aren’t excessive, just inventive. That’s not a bad thing.

Would rank the Dolphins high, too (with white shoes, that is). Even the white over aqua. Colors and look are really perfect for the city/area they represent. And that should be a significant consideration in this.

—Ricko[/quote]

Ricko…tradition is a noble trait…in the days before “marketing” overpriced jersey’s to the public became a “money maker” for all professional sports, the simplicity of uni’s were a treat to most fans…label me a “traditionalist” if that means a return to clean, crisp, “uniform” uniforms…

link
link

Stripes on the socks…thigh pads…sleeves…be still my heart!!!

Stan[/quote]

I didn’t knock tradition. All in favor it it. Just said some of the newer unis look pretty good, and that I don’t reject them all out of hand.

—Ricko

I’m surprised by the love for the Falcons’ new unis. Apparently the “one more bumpersticker” approach doesn’t offend that many Uniwatch readers.

I just want to say that not even the Seattle Sea Gals look good in puke green.

link

BEEEEAAAAAARRRRRSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!

Wow, I really didn’t think the Seahawks would make the Bottom 5. Thought I would have seen Falcons and/or Cardinals in there.

[quote comment=”353400″]I just want to say that not even the Seattle Sea Gals look good in puke green.

link

Don’t get all the hate. It’s just a color. Yeah, it’s bright. So what? Really no brighter than Bronco orange or Steeler gold. Not associated with feminine or anything, like pink.

Guess new and different just twists people up.

Now if the Seahawks wore it all the time, maybe not so good. But once or twice a season, on the face of it, is no different than the Broncos wearing their orange.

I have no problem with new, but do evaluate how it’s used. In this case, they didn’t radically redesign their unis or anything, just swapped some colors (well, okay, they did believe they had to initiate navy pants to go with them and that, I think, was unnecessary).

—Ricko

[quote comment=”353381″][quote comment=”353380″][quote comment=”353378″][quote comment=”353377″][quote comment=”353373″]
That’s the one gripe I have with my link.

I’ll live with it, though. Because at least they ditched link ridiculous link.

Basketball team in black socks? No way, no how.[/quote]

The black socks really throw that look off.

Why do college teams refuse to do this: link
instead?[/quote]

The absence of pro-style socks has almost become a tradition/trademark of college football. Very few teams go with that look (Oklahoma is only one that comes quickly to mind).

Given that, I’d be happy just with this…
link

—Ricko[/quote]
link with the pro-style socks for most of the players (kinda completes the Steelers copycat look).[/quote]

At least the Hawkeyes kept the correct font…Steelers should not have changed… :-([/quote]

Steelers went to their current jersey number font style in 1997, I’m glad it finally matches the helmet font number style, the pre-1997 look always bothered me. Besides, why copy the font style of the vast majority of other NFL teams?

Mike Napoli’s top two buttons are buttoned up?!

I’m amazed.

Nice work on the breakdown by Adam. A couple of non-uni observations:

1. It’s remarkable that Arizona, the team that just almost won the Super Bowl, is the 2nd-least favorite team in the league (or least most-favorite, whatever). I thought that being a winner combined with introducing a flashy new-fangled uni was supposed to cause a fanbase explosion. What went wrong?
2. More respondents refuse to declare a sex (5%) than admit to being female (1%).

Noting the traditionalist bias to the results makes me wonder about how today’s teams would fare against, say, their 1975 ancestors in a uni poll. Would more than half of respondents prefer teams to wear what they wore in ’75?

OchoCinco = pink chin strap-o

Ochocinco’s wearing the fabled pink chinstrap today.

Dang, who else actively watches the Bengals? I thought I was the only one.

Color-on-Color game in Kansas City!!

By the way, why the hell do the Cokeboys get to participate in these AFL Legacy games?

[quote comment=”353415″]Any relationship between “popularity” of the unis and age of participants? Or home towns of participants? Any evidence of ballot box stuffing ala the all-star games?[/quote]

I doubt there was any intentional stuffing of the ballot boxes, but the voter turnout was a bit biased. Limited readership or whatever… there’s no way in hell that the Bears are the most popular team in the country.

yep – several Browns even wearing the gloves and cleats again..

[quote comment=”353420″][quote comment=”353415″]Any relationship between “popularity” of the unis and age of participants? Or home towns of participants? Any evidence of ballot box stuffing ala the all-star games?[/quote]

I doubt there was any intentional stuffing of the ballot boxes, but the voter turnout was a bit biased. Limited readership or whatever… there’s no way in hell that the Bears are the most popular team in the country.[/quote]

Were there a lot of respondents from chicago?

[quote comment=”353421″]So is Favre’s.. looks like maybe everyone is keeping those?[/quote]
It’s Breast Cancer Awareness Month so presumably it will be a month-long effort at making people aware.

[quote comment=”353425″][quote comment=”353420″][quote comment=”353415″]Any relationship between “popularity” of the unis and age of participants? Or home towns of participants? Any evidence of ballot box stuffing ala the all-star games?[/quote]

I doubt there was any intentional stuffing of the ballot boxes, but the voter turnout was a bit biased. Limited readership or whatever… there’s no way in hell that the Bears are the most popular team in the country.[/quote]
Right. Cowboys = America’s Teamâ„¢

For the record, we did restrict it to one vote per person, but anyone who REALLY wants to cheat can get around that.

The IP addresses are logged and it didn’t really look like there were cheaters. (I’m sure there were a couple, though.)

Really, what’s the point? “Winning” the survey ain’t gonna get you any closer to the Lombardi trophy. Would be nice, though. I’m a Bears fan.[/quote]

I never said anything about cheating, I just don’t think that the UniWatch readership demographics match up very well with the general population as far as favorite teams go. We are the weird minority, remember?

[quote comment=”353428″][quote comment=”353425″][quote comment=”353420″][quote comment=”353415″]Any relationship between “popularity” of the unis and age of participants? Or home towns of participants? Any evidence of ballot box stuffing ala the all-star games?[/quote]

I doubt there was any intentional stuffing of the ballot boxes, but the voter turnout was a bit biased. Limited readership or whatever… there’s no way in hell that the Bears are the most popular team in the country.[/quote]
Right. Cowboys = America’s Teamâ„¢

For the record, we did restrict it to one vote per person, but anyone who REALLY wants to cheat can get around that.

The IP addresses are logged and it didn’t really look like there were cheaters. (I’m sure there were a couple, though.)

Really, what’s the point? “Winning” the survey ain’t gonna get you any closer to the Lombardi trophy. Would be nice, though. I’m a Bears fan.[/quote]

I never said anything about cheating, I just don’t think that the UniWatch readership demographics match up very well with the general population as far as favorite teams go. We are the weird minority, remember?[/quote]

Looking into the data a little deeper highlights a couple of interesting points:
-Buffalo was ranked 18 for “name your favorite team” and clearly the worst rated uniform
-The top 5 favorite teams (in order): Chicago, NYGiants, New England, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia did not follow that order for uni ratings. In fact, New England uniform rating was as mediocre as could be at 2.43 (a “perfect” mediocreness would have been 2.5)
-The bottom 5 favorite teams: Tampa Bay, Houston, St. Louis, Arizona and Jacksonville were largely forgotten and rated as somewhere in the middle.

Most importantly, if regional bias played a role, the standard deviations would have highlighted where the bias existed. As an example, if regional bias was in effect, I would have expected to see a team like the Bears have a very wide standard deviation as fans against the Bears should have given them a “0” rating (conversely, fans of the bears would rate them a “5”). If you look into the data the Bears results, whether you like the bears or not, they had the tightest standard deviation of anyone (highlights no bias from any source).

Oh, Gotcha. I thought “ballot box stuffing” meant multiple submissions

Sarcasm, right?

Marion Barber looks like he’s wearing the wrong socks

I wonder how many people who voted for the Bears, Packers, Steelers, voted for the current uniforms versus the uniforms they remember from years past.

IMHO those teams have great designs, but the current execution with the truncated stripes on the shoulder (fighting for space with the reebok logo) are pretty weak.

[quote comment=”353437″]man…so many comments, but i have no time (there are like 10 i want to respond to, maybe later)

but…

WTF is with dallas? why are we getting a color on color game (when this would normally be a very good thing)…i had what i though was pretty good authority theyd be breaking out the dandy don’s today….

that’s very disappointing[/quote]

I’m surprised it’s color vs color just because I figured the Chefs would wear their road uniform. Everything I read in pre-season indicated that the Cowboys were just going to use their regular blue throwbacks. (I assume that’s what they’re wearing, I’m stuck with the Bungles game)

I’m confused by the Chief’s game – both teams are wearing throwbacks, but not the officials. Is this because its not an “official” AFL game?

[quote comment=”353440″]I’m confused by the Chief’s game – both teams are wearing throwbacks, but not the officials. Is this because its not an “official” AFL game?[/quote]
Cowboys weren’t in the AFL.

It’s too bad the Vikings had to change their uniforms in 2006. They had top 10 worthy uniforms before they switched to the current.

Even their throwbacks worn on Monday night would crack the top 10. Very classical and simple, just like the Bears and Packers.

Stuck with this dog of a game, Rayduhz @ NYG; a lot of the NYG reebok logos are MIA.

[quote comment=”353447″]sorry if this has been covered before ad nauseum…

what is the origin of the star logo for the cowboys. what is the relation between the star and the nickname “cowboys.”[/quote]

I don’t know about the Cowboys name, but I’d almost guarantee that the star is due to Texas being “The Lone Star” state. Both Dallas teams in 1960 had a star on their helmet, the Texans was just smaller.

[quote comment=”353447″]sorry if this has been covered before ad nauseum…

what is the origin of the star logo for the cowboys. what is the relation between the star and the nickname “cowboys.”[/quote]

Just the Lone Star State.

Also, I wonder if Cowboys didn’t get shoehorned in on the legacy thing because someone thought it would look cool to see (supposedly, given the inaccurate Cowboy throwbacks)) the two teams that were in Dallas in ’61 and ’62 play against each other.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”353445″][quote comment=”353443″][quote comment=”353441″][quote comment=”353436″]I wonder how many people who voted for the Bears, Packers, Steelers, voted for the current uniforms versus the uniforms they remember from years past.

IMHO those teams have great designs, but the current execution with the truncated stripes on the shoulder (fighting for space with the reebok logo) are pretty weak.[/quote]
That’s the reason I gave the nod to the Raiders as my pick for best uni. It’s pretty much unaffected by the modern jersey cut.

But that didn’t stop me from giving 5 points to the Bears, Colts and Packers. True, link blows link away in so many ways, but I think those unis still look great even with the truncation.[/quote]

Meh. The Bears need to move the TV numbers up to the shoulders so that all the players have 3 stripes.

That does it, upon further review, the Packers win the poll instead.[/quote]
If I could have three wishes for NFL uni tweaks granted:
1) Bears move TV numbers to shoulders
2) Packers get rid of the collar stripes and bring back the sock stripes (I’m OK with the current stripe pattern).
3) Lions ditch the black and bring back block number font.[/quote]

Ya know, embarrassed to say this, but it’s the truth; I loved in Dallas way back when, longtime Cowboys fan, and when I was there and for YEARS afterward- I never picked up on the various shades of their home uni. IE helmet has navy trim but the jersey stripes are more royal, and the greenish looking pants. I just accepted it. Strange, eh?

I woulda thought Jerry woulda gone with a uni refresh for 2009—new look to go with new stadium, sell more merch to PAY for new stadium.

[quote comment=”353449″][quote comment=”353445″][quote comment=”353443″][quote comment=”353441″][quote comment=”353436″]I wonder how many people who voted for the Bears, Packers, Steelers, voted for the current uniforms versus the uniforms they remember from years past.

IMHO those teams have great designs, but the current execution with the truncated stripes on the shoulder (fighting for space with the reebok logo) are pretty weak.[/quote]
That’s the reason I gave the nod to the Raiders as my pick for best uni. It’s pretty much unaffected by the modern jersey cut.

But that didn’t stop me from giving 5 points to the Bears, Colts and Packers. True, link blows link away in so many ways, but I think those unis still look great even with the truncation.[/quote]

Meh. The Bears need to move the TV numbers up to the shoulders so that all the players have 3 stripes.

That does it, upon further review, the Packers win the poll instead.[/quote]
If I could have three wishes for NFL uni tweaks granted:
1) Bears move TV numbers to shoulders
2) Packers get rid of the collar stripes and bring back the sock stripes (I’m OK with the current stripe pattern).
3) Lions ditch the black and bring back block number font.[/quote]

You’re aiming way too low man… if you’re gonna get 3 wishes, do something people will notice.

Bills revert back to their previous uniform
Cowboys limited to a single shade of blue
Browns lose the brown pants.[/quote]
I said “tweaks” and the Bills would require more than a tweak.
One of the reasons I like the Cowboys unis’ is because of the weird inconsistencies. Two different shades of silver pants and neither one is a match for the helmet? Dunno why, but it works for me.
I’m a bit ambivalent about the brown trousers. Yes, they look horrible, but at least they wear the striped socks with them. I believe that their days are numbered anyway.

Rams are wearing 70s/80s throwbacks, except they have tackle twill numbers instead of the authentic iron-on vinyl.

[quote comment=”353458″]Rams are wearing 70s/80s throwbacks, except they have tackle twill numbers instead of the authentic iron-on vinyl.[/quote]
Are they throwing back to a specific year? Cuz it’s more like link (1999 — Super Bowl championship season?).

70s/80s had link.

By the way, those royal and yellow Rams unis are some of my favorites, but I agree with Ricko. The modern version is pretty sharp as well, especially when they go with the gold pants.

man, i think that U/FAMU game was predetermined before the game was even played. It might not have been the nicest uni-matchup, but it wasn’t the worst.

[quote comment=”353463″][quote comment=”353452″][quote comment=”353450″][quote comment=”353447″]sorry if this has been covered before ad nauseum…

what is the origin of the star logo for the cowboys. what is the relation between the star and the nickname “cowboys.”[/quote]

Just the Lone Star State.

Also, I wonder if Cowboys didn’t get shoehorned in on the legacy thing because someone thought it would look cool to see (supposedly, given the inaccurate Cowboy throwbacks)) the two teams that were in Dallas in ’61 and ’62 play against each other.

—Ricko[/quote]

That works for today’s game, but it doesn’t explain the game against the Raiders.

I’ll stick with “The NFL is stupid”.[/quote]

Okay, LOL, I tried to come up with something (Dallas vs. Dallas). Now I’ll say what I REALLY thought: Jerry Jones couldn’t stand something going on in the NFL that the Cowboys weren’t part of. So, he whined/lobbied to get the Cowboys involved because, I dunno, the first modern NFL expansion virtually coincided with the birth of the AFL…and the Cowboys were that expansion team…so, gee, shouldn’t we ge to play legacy games, too (and the get the resulting attention)?

—Ricko[/quote]

Wasn’t the state of Texas much larger on the original Dallas Texans helmets as opposed to these throwback uniforms worn by KC right now?

[quote comment=”353464″][quote comment=”353463″][quote comment=”353452″][quote comment=”353450″][quote comment=”353447″]sorry if this has been covered before ad nauseum…

what is the origin of the star logo for the cowboys. what is the relation between the star and the nickname “cowboys.”[/quote]

Just the Lone Star State.

Also, I wonder if Cowboys didn’t get shoehorned in on the legacy thing because someone thought it would look cool to see (supposedly, given the inaccurate Cowboy throwbacks)) the two teams that were in Dallas in ’61 and ’62 play against each other.

—Ricko[/quote]

That works for today’s game, but it doesn’t explain the game against the Raiders.

I’ll stick with “The NFL is stupid”.[/quote]

Okay, LOL, I tried to come up with something (Dallas vs. Dallas). Now I’ll say what I REALLY thought: Jerry Jones couldn’t stand something going on in the NFL that the Cowboys weren’t part of. So, he whined/lobbied to get the Cowboys involved because, I dunno, the first modern NFL expansion virtually coincided with the birth of the AFL…and the Cowboys were that expansion team…so, gee, shouldn’t we ge to play legacy games, too (and the get the resulting attention)?

—Ricko[/quote]

Wasn’t the state of Texas much larger on the original Dallas Texans helmets as opposed to these throwback uniforms worn by KC right now?[/quote]

Yes, it was. It goes to many logos becoming smaller (Vikings for instance) as facemasks and chin straps began to extend farther onto the side of the helmet. To fit on helmets of 2009—and look right—it almost certainly had to be smaller.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”353465″]As Fox switched to the Chiefs-Cowboys at the conclusion of the Viking game, Joe Buck said, “They’re billing this as ‘The Game That Never Was’. Cowboys didn’t want to play the Texans back then because the Texans were a better team.”

—Ricko[/quote]
I heard that, too. What the hell is he talking about? Were the Cowboys challenged to some kind of exhibition game that they declined?

[quote comment=”353469″][quote comment=”353465″]As Fox switched to the Chiefs-Cowboys at the conclusion of the Viking game, Joe Buck said, “They’re billing this as ‘The Game That Never Was’. Cowboys didn’t want to play the Texans back then because the Texans were a better team.”

—Ricko[/quote]

And that’s true. Lamar Hunt at one time challenged the Cowboys to play his Texans.

Cowboys said thank you, no.

—Ricko[/quote]

LOL. Might have been following Texans winning the AFL title in league’s third season. Maybe Hunt’s notion was, “Loser moves to Kansas City.”

Why is it that Steeler gold gets called “yellow” or “gold” everywhere else, but if you put exactly that same gold with brown it becomes “mustard”?

Happens with Broncos, with Padres, with Wyoming.

Every stinkin’ time.

It’s the same damn color we see all the time, people.

—Ricko

Lots of Broncos having fun with those vertically striped socks.

Brandon Marshall looks to have brown/yellow cleats for today, plus a striped towel, plus yellow gloves. (No screen grab, sory)

Mr. LOOK AT ME strikes again……

Does anybody know the story behind Denver picking those colors to start with?

LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME

goddam it, look at me!!!!!

[quote comment=”353471″]Don’t remember who it was, but a CBS guy just said the Broncos are wearing the worst uniforms he has ever seen. He must not Get It.[/quote]

What does he think of the new styles in neckties for 1960?

Who gives a shit.

It’s about history, doesn’t require anyone’s thumbs up or thumbs down. It’s just a chance to see what the unis looked like…on the field.

To say they’re a tad unsighty is a serious “no shit Sherlock” situation.

(Uh-oh…”look at me” twisty socks alert)

—Ricko

[quote comment=”353473″]OH MY GOD does this Denver/New England game look awesome. I only wish I was at home so I could watch it in HD.

BTW, yellow and brown stripes only on the Broncos’ socks. And yes, there are some that are twisted candy-stripe style.[/quote]

I gotta admit, I like the Broncos throwbacks! Much better than current Bills, Vikes and Cards. Those socks could catch on!

ummm

shouldn’t the broncos have white oversocks?

The Bronco unis are terrible, almost unwatchable. If someone tried to put their team in these unis today, they would be laughed out of town. But because they are old, everyone loves them. Makes no sense to me.

Uniwatch should change to tagline of the site from “The Obsessive study of athletic aesthetics” to “If it’s green, has stripes or is old, we like it!”

[quote comment=”353488″]The Bronco unis are terrible, almost unwatchable. If someone tried to put their team in these unis today, they would be laughed out of town. But because they are old, everyone loves them. Makes no sense to me.

Uniwatch should change to tagline of the site from “The Obsessive study of athletic aesthetics” to “If it’s green, has stripes or is old, we like it!”[/quote]
See comment #136.

[quote comment=”353480″]LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME

link[/quote]

Those are the Broncos?

PS
How BOUT dem Cowboys.

[quote comment=”353487″]Someone on Broncos’ D has his stripes “checkerboarded”. Maybe of Croatian descent?[/quote]

i keep going back and forth between this and nfl redzone(best channel ever). i haven’t seen this yet. do you know which player?

So one can’t have a negative opinion on the Broncos’ uniforms because they’re historic? Gimme a break. Because we all love striped socks, they should get a mulligan for what is a terrible looking uniforms? Nobody seemed to stick up for “history” when the Eagles toted out those yellow and light blue unis last year.

It’s also laughable to me that we want to blast someone for “look at me” because of twisted sock stripes. When the league/team puts the squad in these garish unis, aren’t you saying “look at me” to the entire team?

My opinion on this Broncos set is that as a complete uniform it’s awful. That being said, I really like the helmet and the jersey. The pants into those socks is just too much.

There is also a bias toward older FRANCHISES in the uni poll results. Of the twelve teams with pre-1960 roots (I’m including the Browns), nine of them finished in the top half of the poll, whereas of the ten franchises established post-1960 (I’m including the Ravens, what the hell) only one finished in the top half of the poll.

There’s something sort of Willie Wonka-ish about the Broncos today, no? Love it.

[quote comment=\”353395\”]Speaking of \”throwbacks\”, this is the uniform the Rams should be donning today…

link

Beautiful…!!![/quote]
I\’m with you Stan on sock stripes,pants stripes, and sleeve stripes. But I was so happy when the Rams brought back the athletic gold in 1973. Didn\’t like the Rams in \”George Allen\” unis without the gold.

[quote comment=”353499″][quote comment=”353483″]Broncos socks would look “better” if there was no pants stripe.
What’s on Josh Mcdaniel’s hat?[/quote]

And a guy went to a Civil War battle reinactment, and said. “Those Confederate unis were really dull. Gray. Ick. Could use a red stripe down the pantleg or something.

“And why WOOL? Wouldn’t you think it would be way to WARM? What were they thinking?”

If anything, the aesthetics in this case should be about accuracy, or lack of same, shouldn’t they?

—Rick[/quote]
Yeah, but none of throwbacks are truly accurate from a material standpoint. Jerseys and pants have a much more spandex composition these days. Visually they’re spot on, but helmets, shoes, equipment, etc have all evolved.

[quote comment=”353387″][quote comment=”353383″][quote comment=”353379″]I’m surprised that the Eagles scored as well as they did. I really hate their uniforms, especially considering the availability of a sweet design alternative: link

Here’s a beautiful jersey…”when it was a game”…

link

Outstanding…!!![/quote]

Indeed.
link
Kinda like those ‘Skins “feather” helmets, too.

—Ricko[/quote]
I like tradition, but as a kid watching games or looking in magazines, I hated completely plain jerseys like that Iggles jersey. Didn’t like the Cardinals plain red home jerseys either. I was mocking up St Louis football alternates with colored pencils back in the late 60s.

[quote comment=”353493″]I love the fact that Denver is wearing this uniform today. It is about history as Ricko said. And how about being able to see them in HD.

I have no idea how many times the Broncos would have been televised in 1960 or 1961. Or how many people had color tvs back then.

So seeing the Broncos and Patriots wearing these is a blast. The Patriots look nice. I would like the see just the Hat for the logo.[/quote]

AFL games in 1960 were broadcast in black and white. Not sure they were color (other than maybe title games) til ’63 or so.

[quote comment=”353502″][quote comment=”353499″][quote comment=”353483″]Broncos socks would look “better” if there was no pants stripe.
What’s on Josh Mcdaniel’s hat?[/quote]

And a guy went to a Civil War battle reinactment, and said. “Those Confederate unis were really dull. Gray. Ick. Could use a red stripe down the pantleg or something.

“And why WOOL? Wouldn’t you think it would be way to WARM? What were they thinking?”

If anything, the aesthetics in this case should be about accuracy, or lack of same, shouldn’t they?

—Rick[/quote]
Yeah, but none of throwbacks are truly accurate from a material standpoint. Jerseys and pants have a much more spandex composition these days. Visually they’re spot on, but helmets, shoes, equipment, etc have all evolved.[/quote]

Materials have changed? Really? LOL
Knew I shouldn’t have put that in.
The point was, judge things in the context of their time. Big-finned automobiles of the late ’50s were ugly, too. So that’s big news?
Or, we can just watch and realize we’re seeing something no one’s ever seen before live on TV in color…those Bronco unis.

—Ricko

Anncrs said Crabtree doesn’t have a decal on his helmet in practice by design..the team won’t give him one yet, he has ‘to earn it.’

Meanwhile, Falcs just scored again.

Totally NOT uni-related but important, nevertheless.

Had to make quick trip to the grocery store just now, and was reminded of one of the Universal and Unquestioned Truths of the American Experience. I pass it along to you now (especially to the single members of our merry band of uni geeks)…

Single women go grocery shopping on Sunday between 3 and 7 p.m. They do. Is fact, not urban legend.

(Although I’ll wager that “Can I buy you that cucumber?” is not a great opening line).

—Ricko

[quote comment=”353509″][quote comment=”353508″][quote comment=”353502″][quote comment=”353499″][quote comment=”353483″]Broncos socks would look “better” if there was no pants stripe.
What’s on Josh Mcdaniel’s hat?[/quote]

And a guy went to a Civil War battle reinactment, and said. “Those Confederate unis were really dull. Gray. Ick. Could use a red stripe down the pantleg or something.

“And why WOOL? Wouldn’t you think it would be way to WARM? What were they thinking?”

If anything, the aesthetics in this case should be about accuracy, or lack of same, shouldn’t they?

—Rick[/quote]
Yeah, but none of throwbacks are truly accurate from a material standpoint. Jerseys and pants have a much more spandex composition these days. Visually they’re spot on, but helmets, shoes, equipment, etc have all evolved.[/quote]

Materials have changed? Really? LOL
Knew I shouldn’t have put that in.
The point was, judge things in the context of their time. Big-finned automobiles of the late ’50s were ugly, too. So that’s big news?
Or, we can just watch and realize we’re seeing something no one’s ever seen before live on TV in color…those Bronco unis.

—Ricko[/quote]
Wow, Ricko, I love you, but did you drink some spoiled milk this morning? You brought up wool in the civil war reinactment, I was just adding my opinion on the throwbacks and how that from a material standpoint they aren’t the same as what was worn.

In your example of a war reinactment, they would, in fact be as close to the originals in both design and materials.[/quote]

That’s why I was laughing. Cuz my putting in the stuff about the wool was stewwwwwwwwwwpid. Almost totally busted the point of the analogy.

AND YES, I KNOW THEY’RE UGLY, BUT I’VE BEEN WAITING 50 YEARS TO SEE THE DAMN THINGS IN COLOR IN A GAME ON TV.

And THAT’s what’s cool about it. Not whether they’re ugly or not. That’s a given.

So there. ;)

—Ricko

[quote comment=\”353508\”][quote comment=\”353502\”][quote comment=\”353499\”][quote comment=\”353483\”]Broncos socks would look \”better\” if there was no pants stripe.
What\’s on Josh Mcdaniel\’s hat?[/quote]

And a guy went to a Civil War battle reinactment, and said. \”Those Confederate unis were really dull. Gray. Ick. Could use a red stripe down the pantleg or something.

\”And why WOOL? Wouldn\’t you think it would be way to WARM? What were they thinking?\”

If anything, the aesthetics in this case should be about accuracy, or lack of same, shouldn\’t they?

—Rick[/quote]
Yeah, but none of throwbacks are truly accurate from a material standpoint. Jerseys and pants have a much more spandex composition these days. Visually they\’re spot on, but helmets, shoes, equipment, etc have all evolved.[/quote]

Materials have changed? Really? LOL
Knew I shouldn\’t have put that in.
The point was, judge things in the context of their time. Big-finned automobiles of the late \’50s were ugly, too. So that\’s big news?
Or, we can just watch and realize we\’re seeing something no one\’s ever seen before live on TV in color…those Bronco unis.

—Ricko[/quote]

My sentiments exactly, Ricko.

I look at these unis from the Broncos as being the first (or one of the first, at least) to really make people think about what a uniform for a certain team should look like. I like the uniform (all of it) because of what it says about where uniform design has been taken in the last 50 years. I also like it because I want to see teams that challenge the norm, meaning that I want to see all that is possible, including the ugly, the beautiful, the questionable, and the colorful.

IMHO, Several NFL teams would look a lot more conservative (design-wise) today if it weren\’t for this Broncos uniform (Bengals and Ravens to name a couple).

But I’m just one guy.

I’m just now sitting back and watching the game. Finally just “experiencing” it.

Wow, is like 1961 (cuz of Pat Patriot) in living color. No white crew socks on Broncos, but not really that big a deal. Keep seeing Babe Parilli hitting Gino Cappelletti or Jim Colclough. No, wait, it’s Brady to Welker.

I know maybe some of you don’t appreciate it for what it is, but this is really something special. Like watching old 35mm color game films recently discovered in an storeroom somewhere. Pretty extraordinary sensation.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”353517″]The only difference I saw between Chiefs==Texans is, the helmet obviously, and the numerals didn’t have trim, they were just solid white. Not much of a change.[/quote]

True. But there actually is a very, very thin gold edge on the numbers. Took me a long time to determine it back then. Is almost imperceptible, but it’s there.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”353519″][quote comment=\”353506\”][quote comment=\”353493\”]I love the fact that Denver is wearing this uniform today. It is about history as Ricko said. And how about being able to see them in HD.

I have no idea how many times the Broncos would have been televised in 1960 or 1961. Or how many people had color tvs back then.

So seeing the Broncos and Patriots wearing these is a blast. The Patriots look nice. I would like the see just the Hat for the logo.[/quote]

AFL games in 1960 were broadcast in black and white. Not sure they were color (other than maybe title games) til \’63 or so.[/quote]

I was thinking they most likely were not even televised in color. And thanks for the 2 storiees about the Broncos original uniforms[/quote]

Would be worth checking to see if ANY AFL games were telecast in color by ABC. It may well be that they weren’t in color until NBC picked up the contract. They were the pioneer in network color.

That’s why the peakcock logo. At the beginning of their color programs such as BONANZA, the logo would come up, the peacock’s tailfeathers would change colors and the same deep-voiced announcer would say, “The following program is brought to you in living color.”

Remember it well.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”353518″]
Wow, is like 1961 (cuz of Pat Patriot) in living color. No white crew socks on Broncos, but not really that big a deal. Keep seeing Babe Parilli hitting Gino Cappelletti or Jim Colclough. No, wait, it’s Brady to Welker.
—Ricko[/quote]

No, it is nothing like watching 1961 in color. It is exactly like watching 2009 players playing the 2009 game in a stadium built in 2001 with players who are bigger, stronger, faster, and smarter who just so happen to be wearing uniforms from 1961 in 2009 fabrics.

Uh oh, I think somebody might have ripped off Oregonlive.com without giving credit for it…

link

[quote comment=”353527″]Are you kidding only #7 for the best uni’s? How about more supoort for the Giants…

Hope all is well with everyone in Uniwatch land…

J.Skiba[/quote]
It’s a poll for best uniforms, not best equipment manager!

Banta-Cain on the Pats is wearing Socks on his Arms. Sorry no screen capture.

Hey Phil, told you it would be the Bills in last place. I’d also like to throw out that the Dolphins, Redskins and Cowboys will probably do better than expected because their ‘away’ jerseys aren’t white. I know I surprised myself when I rated their ‘away’ jerseys almost two full numbers better than their ‘home’ whites.

-Greenie

LI Phil-Our road uni should be in a whole different class…the only white (road) uni not a direct interpretation of the dark (home) uni. Am I missing another team? Also don’t sweat the vectors on the home uni, still waiting on the replacements.

[quote comment=”353450″][quote comment=”353447″]sorry if this has been covered before ad nauseum…

what is the origin of the star logo for the cowboys. what is the relation between the star and the nickname “cowboys.”[/quote]

Just the Lone Star State.

Also, I wonder if Cowboys didn’t get shoehorned in on the legacy thing because someone thought it would look cool to see (supposedly, given the inaccurate Cowboy throwbacks)) the two teams that were in Dallas in ’61 and ’62 play against each other.

—Ricko[/quote]

I actually think that it is pretty cool. It is the AFL vs NFL Dalls faceoff that would never have happened in 1960. I think the idea is actually pretty cool. The only thing cooler would be if the Texans/chiefs had won, and even cooler if it had been done in Jerry’s Billion Dollar Monstrosity.

Finally, the ulitimate in cool would be if they had somehow messed up on the computer and the 200 foot TV screen would replay the Texan/Chiefs winning at each and every Cowboys home game, over and over, for about the next ten years.

And I am not even a Cowboy hater – I just think that given the totality of the circumstances, and the obscene money spent on that stadium, that would be really cool.

I don’t mind the color-on-color, but I do believe the Cowboys should have worn White.

[quote comment=”353465″]As Fox switched to the Chiefs-Cowboys at the conclusion of the Viking game, Joe Buck said, “They’re billing this as ‘The Game That Never Was’. Cowboys didn’t want to play the Texans back then because the Texans were a better team.”

—Ricko[/quote]

I heard that too, but isn’t it true that the NFL was not playing the AFL, even in preseason, until after the merger? I could be wrong, but my impression is that the two leagues did not play even in preseason until well after the Texans moved to KC? Anybody know for sure?

[quote comment=”353472″]Why is it that Steeler gold gets called “yellow” or “gold” everywhere else, but if you put exactly that same gold with brown it becomes “mustard”?

Happens with Broncos, with Padres, with Wyoming.

Every stinkin’ time.

It’s the same damn color we see all the time, people.

—Ricko[/quote]

I gotta tell ya, IMO the Steelers yellow/gold looked alot closer to Mustard Gold in the 1970s – look at the Imaculate Reception film, than it does now, as the current Steelers “gold” looks alot closer to yelly than it did then.

Perhaps it is simply the film at that era, or the late fall/winter lack of sunlight.

[quote comment=”353534″]LI Phil-Our road uni should be in a whole different class…the only white (road) uni not a direct interpretation of the dark (home) uni. Am I missing another team? Also don’t sweat the vectors on the home uni, still waiting on the replacements.[/quote]

Cowboys.

The socks that refuse to go away (OT).

Good call Jamie…duh, I see them twice a year…

[quote]Why is it that Steeler gold gets called “yellow” or “gold” everywhere else, but if you put exactly that same gold with brown it becomes “mustard”?

Happens with Broncos, with Padres, with Wyoming.

Every stinkin’ time.

It’s the same damn color we see all the time, people.[/quote]

for some reason, when you pair “gold” (or yellow or whatever color it is we choose to call it), with brown…

we call it “mustard”

does that make sense? no

but to me, pods, wyoming and the 60-61 broncos are brown and mustard, not brown and gold or brown and yelly

and to totally defend what ricko said (with regard to never having seen, live and on color tv, the broncos in their brown and mustard), many kids today probably never saw the fathers wearing this getup, but for those of us who got treated to that throwback game, it was a treat — for those who never saw it, well, no it wasn’t the early 70’s, but dammit, it was as close as we’ll ever come

ricko was waiting 50 freakin years to see the game today, and ya know what…i bet it was worth the wait

Brandon Marshall postgame on NBC…

link

Notice the hat under the helmet. He is someone that truly Get(s) It. The Beast!!!!!!!

[quote comment=”353515″][quote comment=”353511″]wow! did you see that seahawks player?! screen grabs in a minute[/quote]

the announcers were commenting on the red on a players jersey. link
turns out he was hitting himself in the head with his head during player introductions link
the end result link

They also called him the runaway beer truck when he was with West Virginia, a.k.a. Owen Schmitt.

titans in all-light blue tonight.

[quote comment=”353531″] It’s now been 20 years since the earthquake during the A’s-Giants World Series.

Wow! That was the day my wife and I met! (Though we didn’t start dating until a few years later.)[/quote]

And I remember precisely where I was. Just finished a personal appearance at a police DARE event in Anderson Twp, Cincinnati with Reds pitcher Rob Dibble. We got into my van, turned on my Sony WatchMan TV, and..just as the picture came on, that was it. So 8:05pm ET, 5:05pm PT.

Looking at the stats and judging by past comments, I would have guessed there would have been far more old farts like myself lurking about this blog than 3 percent.

[quote comment=”353549″][quote]Why is it that Steeler gold gets called “yellow” or “gold” everywhere else, but if you put exactly that same gold with brown it becomes “mustard”?

Happens with Broncos, with Padres, with Wyoming.

Every stinkin’ time.

It’s the same damn color we see all the time, people.[/quote]

for some reason, when you pair “gold” (or yellow or whatever color it is we choose to call it), with brown…

we call it “mustard”

does that make sense? no

but to me, pods, wyoming and the 60-61 broncos are brown and mustard, not brown and gold or brown and yelly

and to totally defend what ricko said (with regard to never having seen, live and on color tv, the broncos in their brown and mustard), many kids today probably never saw the fathers wearing link, but for those of us who got treated to that throwback game, it was a treat — for those who never saw it, well, no it wasn’t the early 70’s, but dammit, it was as close as we’ll ever come

ricko was waiting 50 freakin years to see the game today, and ya know what…i bet it was worth the wait[/quote]
Fair enough,

When Penn State decides to wear pink and black football uniforms, no one will be allowed to tell me how bad they look because I’ll have been waiting over 120 years to see them on color TV

link

The NFL needs more color vs color games.

I’d love to see white jerseys start disappearing. The Colts & Jets and maybe 1 or 2 other teams would keep white as their alternate color, but the rest of the league could get away with color vs color and be contrasting enough to work. Even teams with really similar colors like the Broncos & Bears would end up playing blue vs orange and it wouldn’t be bad.

[quote comment=”353426″][quote comment=”353421″]So is Favre’s.. looks like maybe everyone is keeping those?[/quote]
It’s Breast Cancer Awareness Month so presumably it will be a month-long effort at making people aware.[/quote]

It’s also “Depression Awareness Month”…so where is the love for depressed folks out there…last count 27 million Americans suffer from Depression…

…..I bet she squats when she pees….yes, Steven…talking about you….

“Get a haircut and get a real job”…George Thorogood!!!

[quote comment=”353568″][quote comment=”353564″][quote comment=”353563″]The NFL needs more color vs color games.

I’d love to see white jerseys start disappearing. The Colts & Jets and maybe 1 or 2 other teams would keep white as their alternate color, but the rest of the league could get away with color vs color and be contrasting enough to work. Even teams with really similar colors like the Broncos & Bears would end up playing blue vs orange and it wouldn’t be bad.[/quote]
Except that the Bears would have to wear orange occasionally. (Among other monstrosities.)[/quote]

Yes…the Bears wearing orange would be a monstrosity….why should our eyes bleed….???!!????!?!?!??![/quote]

I can’t see the Chiefs in yellow jerseys. Nope, like the white just fine.

[quote comment=”353568″][quote comment=”353564″][quote comment=”353563″]The NFL needs more color vs color games.

I’d love to see white jerseys start disappearing. The Colts & Jets and maybe 1 or 2 other teams would keep white as their alternate color, but the rest of the league could get away with color vs color and be contrasting enough to work. Even teams with really similar colors like the Broncos & Bears would end up playing blue vs orange and it wouldn’t be bad.[/quote]
Except that the Bears would have to wear orange occasionally. (Among other monstrosities.)[/quote]

Yes…the Bears wearing orange would be a monstrosity….why should our eyes bleed….???!!????!?!?!??![/quote]

They’ve worn orange before, in a color vs color game vs the Cowboys, and we all survived with minimal eye-bleeding.

If they wanted to wear white instead of orange, they could. But I’d still like more color vs color games.

[quote comment=”353556″]Bronco unis almost would have worked paired with white socks. Still, week after week, I imagine it would get old really quick.

I can get used to Oregon’s new get-ups. Though the black and carbon helmets need to be eliminated. (Whatever happened to that green that would change colors like a duck’s back?)

Still object to black athletic socks. Thursday night, Nebraska just looked silly with black shoes, black socks, red pants, white jerseys and white helmets. Other schools look just as ridiculous. What’s the point?

On that note, whatever happened to black shoes with thick white laces? ‘Cept for Southern Cal, you just don’t see it any more. That’s the way cleats need to look. The Bears would look so much better with white laces.

Steelers’ jersey font works for me. But so does Iowa’s.

Here’s a good gallery of KC-Dallas, color vs. color. link

Flipping through that gallery, it occurred to me, how often do two teams square off wearing striped socks. I realize the Cowboys were in throw-back regalia, but how many teams are there that routinely wear striped socks? Off the top of my head, I can think of the Chiefs, Bears, Browns, Redskins (sometimes), and that’s about it. Others?

[quote comment=”353573″]

Flipping through that gallery, it occurred to me, how often do two teams square off wearing striped socks. I realize the Cowboys were in throw-back regalia, but how many teams are there that routinely wear striped socks? Off the top of my head, I can think of the Chiefs, Bears, Browns, Redskins (sometimes), and that’s about it. Others?[/quote]

The Patriots road uniforms, and the Jets occasionally.

Sock stripes are kind of a dying element. I think the Colts did for the first season when they switched back to the (stupid) gray facemasks, but those disappeared again.

[quote comment=”353561″][quote comment=”353549″][quote]Why is it that Steeler gold gets called “yellow” or “gold” everywhere else, but if you put exactly that same gold with brown it becomes “mustard”?

Happens with Broncos, with Padres, with Wyoming.

Every stinkin’ time.

It’s the same damn color we see all the time, people.[/quote]

for some reason, when you pair “gold” (or yellow or whatever color it is we choose to call it), with brown…

we call it “mustard”

does that make sense? no

but to me, pods, wyoming and the 60-61 broncos are brown and mustard, not brown and gold or brown and yelly

and to totally defend what ricko said (with regard to never having seen, live and on color tv, the broncos in their brown and mustard), many kids today probably never saw the fathers wearing link, but for those of us who got treated to that throwback game, it was a treat — for those who never saw it, well, no it wasn’t the early 70’s, but dammit, it was as close as we’ll ever come

ricko was waiting 50 freakin years to see the game today, and ya know what…i bet it was worth the wait[/quote]
Fair enough,

When Penn State decides to wear pink and black football uniforms, no one will be allowed to tell me how bad they look because I’ll have been waiting over 120 years to see them on color TV

link

When did anyone ever see Penn State in pink and black on B&W TV? Or in movie newsreels, for that matter. (wink…just pimpin’ ya)

What I was trying to convey (and messing it up, I guess) was that the big deal was being able to get a good look at the Broncos’ original unis. We’ve all seen color photos; we already knew they were gonna be kinda ugly. This was a chance to, finally, see them in play. That, to me, was the big deal today, and the only real advancement of anything.

I can’t help but have a different perspective.

1960 meant only B&W telecasts. No video tape. No instant replay. Very few sideline shots or closeups. No cable sports. No “highlight packages”. If you didn’t see it on Sunday, you didn’t see it. And if you did, the cameras weren’t even close to as advanced—and the images as well-defined–as they are today. No color photos in newspapers, either, or even in SI, especially not of this “new league”. Was a different world. This was a chance to compare then and now.

Uniwatching (lower case, LOL) back then was really frustrating much of the time. Today it was just a joy to see something from “back then” and have it be EASY for a change. And to imagine how nice it would have been to see things so well back then.

I also walked nine miles to school. One way. Uphill. Both ways.

So today’s late game really was a cool experience for me, maybe in a way most of you can’t identify with.

So many more levels–both nostalic and technological–than just a chance to see that, yup, those unis sure were…”different”.

Sorry for being a cranky old fart, guys.

—Ricko

I had several of those sports blooper books in my youth. One of them had a chapter on uniform mishaps. I wonder if the following story is true:

The Broncos hated the brown striped socks when they got the uniforms in the 1960s. They hated the jerseys, but they hated the socks worse than anything.

When the new jerseys with the new color scheme arrived, all the players got their socks … and barbecued them in the middle of the field.

[quote comment=”353580″]I had several of those sports blooper books in my youth. One of them had a chapter on uniform mishaps. I wonder if the following story is true:

The Broncos hated the brown striped socks when they got the uniforms in the 1960s. They hated the jerseys, but they hated the socks worse than anything.

When the new jerseys with the new color scheme arrived, all the players got their socks … and barbecued them in the middle of the field.[/quote]

Oh, they burned ’em in a bonfire, alright. That’s why so few pair of them survived. Don’t recall if it was just the players or if the public was invited as a PR deal. Heard it told both ways.

—Ricko

This is how I see it:

1) White unis are, indeed, worthy of being 86ed. However, I believe that under NFL rules, one team must wear white…and that’s at the discretion of the home team.
Also, white unis are practical in some NFL cities (Miami, SD) because of the early fall heat. Dark colors absorb heat–white reflects it!

2) We need to get something straight…
The University of Oregon is NOT “The University of Zero!” Although I believe that Phil Knight should take his uni designs, spread Grey Poupon on them, and eat them?
In case you have not noticed, the Oregon-based Pac-10 teams have been doing rather well recently on the gridiron, both in seasonal-and-bowl play. Univesity of Zero, my Woodburn Bulldog/Lemoore Tiger ass!

3) Next poll–how about helmets/logos…for both NCAA and the NFL? I’d love to see the outright sniping–BELAY THAT!–comments from my fellow Uni-Watchers!

4) one of the reasons that the Pads did away with brown/yello/orange was that they did not have a true “Traditional” Road Greys outfit (another concept that ought to be Deep-Sixed). Out went the old–in came Blue, White, and Orange (and Road Grey).
FYI: The road unis for the Pads between 1995-1992 consisted of a brown hat with an orange interlocking “SD”; tan-brown jerseys and pants with brown pinstriping, and a brown interlocking “SD” on the left chest panel.

5) Beware what you wish for—what you may get will not be to your advantage!
–HMCMC(Ret) Robert B. Johnston

Have a nice one, folks!
–RKJ

[quote comment=”353542″][quote comment=”353534″]LI Phil-Our road uni should be in a whole different class…the only white (road) uni not a direct interpretation of the dark (home) uni. Am I missing another team? Also don’t sweat the vectors on the home uni, still waiting on the replacements.[/quote]

Cowboys.[/quote]
Not to the same extent that the Giants’ & Cowboys’ are, but the Bears’ white jerseys are definitely not direct interpretations of the navy ones.

[quote comment=”353585″]I demand to know where Ricko is RIGHT now!
Hopefully not in handcuffs…[/quote]

Ah, Twins didn’t have enough to beat the Yankees. Knew that going in. Don’t die when they lose, but more fun when they win.

Hey, five division titles in eight years not so bad (might even have been six but for the coin-flip deal last year). I’ll take that. Puts them in pretty good company. Even though some say the division is a little soft, they do pretty well year in, year out.

Wish they’d spend some dough on a pitcher and power hitter, though.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”353586″][quote comment=”353542″][quote comment=”353534″]LI Phil-Our road uni should be in a whole different class…the only white (road) uni not a direct interpretation of the dark (home) uni. Am I missing another team? Also don’t sweat the vectors on the home uni, still waiting on the replacements.[/quote]

Cowboys.[/quote]
Not to the same extent that the Giants’ & Cowboys’ are, but the Bears’ white jerseys are definitely not direct interpretations of the navy ones.[/quote]

The Bears are probably #4 for the most variation from their dark jersey. The Giants and Cowboys are completely different styles, the Bills numbers are blatantly wrong… then the Bears and their differing sleeve stripes.

Denver has extra orange trim on their blue swooshes (swishes? sweesh?), while having no trim on the orange ones. The Raiders have number outlines on the white jersey and none on the black. I can’t really think of anything else.

[quote comment=”353589″][quote comment=”353520″][quote comment=”353517″]The only difference I saw between Chiefs==Texans is, the helmet obviously, and the numerals didn’t have trim, they were just solid white. Not much of a change.[/quote]

True. But there actually is a very, very thin gold edge on the numbers. Took me a long time to determine it back then. Is almost imperceptible, but it’s there.

—Ricko[/quote]
Did the “Texans” jerseys on display today have striped sleeves like the Chiefs do? I don’t think so.[/quote]

No, they didn’t. You’re right.
The Chiefs didn’t add them til they’d been in Kansas City for a few years.

Only thing they changed immediately when they moved was the logo on the helmet.

Didn’t have sleeve end trim in SB I.
link
But did by SB IV.
link

—Ricko

[quote comment=”353590″][quote comment=”353586″][quote comment=”353542″][quote comment=”353534″]LI Phil-Our road uni should be in a whole different class…the only white (road) uni not a direct interpretation of the dark (home) uni. Am I missing another team? Also don’t sweat the vectors on the home uni, still waiting on the replacements.[/quote]

Cowboys.[/quote]
Not to the same extent that the Giants’ & Cowboys’ are, but the Bears’ white jerseys are definitely not direct interpretations of the navy ones.[/quote]

The Bears are probably #4 for the most variation from their dark jersey. The Giants and Cowboys are completely different styles, the Bills numbers are blatantly wrong… then the Bears and their differing sleeve stripes.

Denver has extra orange trim on their blue swooshes (swishes? sweesh?), while having no trim on the orange ones. The Raiders have number outlines on the white jersey and none on the black. I can’t really think of anything else.[/quote]
OK, the Bengals and Cardinals have contrasting-color yokes on their white jerseys and the Rams have the contrasting-color sleeves.

So maybe the Bears need to move down a few spots on the variation scale.

[quote comment=”353594″][quote comment=”353590″][quote comment=”353586″][quote comment=”353542″][quote comment=”353534″]LI Phil-Our road uni should be in a whole different class…the only white (road) uni not a direct interpretation of the dark (home) uni. Am I missing another team? Also don’t sweat the vectors on the home uni, still waiting on the replacements.[/quote]

Cowboys.[/quote]
Not to the same extent that the Giants’ & Cowboys’ are, but the Bears’ white jerseys are definitely not direct interpretations of the navy ones.[/quote]

The Bears are probably #4 for the most variation from their dark jersey. The Giants and Cowboys are completely different styles, the Bills numbers are blatantly wrong… then the Bears and their differing sleeve stripes.

Denver has extra orange trim on their blue swooshes (swishes? sweesh?), while having no trim on the orange ones. The Raiders have number outlines on the white jersey and none on the black. I can’t really think of anything else.[/quote]
OK, the Bengals and Cardinals have contrasting-color yokes on their white jerseys and the Rams have the contrasting-color sleeves.

So maybe the Bears need to move down a few spots on the variation scale.[/quote]

Um, yeah. Not sure where my mind was to forget those two.

[quote comment=”353593″][quote comment=”353532″]Hey Phil, told you it would be the Bills in last place. I’d also like to throw out that the Dolphins, Redskins and Cowboys will probably do better than expected because their ‘away’ jerseys aren’t white.

I know I surprised myself when I rated their ‘away’ jerseys almost two full numbers better than their ‘home’ whites.

-Greenie[/quote]
In reality, the dark jerseys are more like “road alternates” than they are true road jerseys for all three of those teams. I briefly considered putting their whites up there again, but that just didn’t seem right. Phil was able to talk me out of that one really easily.[/quote]

it was a tougher call than you’d think…but for a different reason…it seems less and less home teams always wear dark at home; by my count, a quarter of all teams have worn white at home this year — now many of those made sense (warm weather games)…but at least one wore white at dome

i think, and i wouldn’t change a thing james did, a different option would have been to “rate the darks” and “rate the whites”, but really, only three of those would have differed from how it was set up anyway

obviously it’s late now, so not too many will see this, but i think we’re gonna be soliciting suggestions for our next poll…so if you guys have any ideas…we can begin taking those suggestions oh…now

[quote comment=”353560″]PS – I cannot even imagine being in Denver tonight. A hour til game time..and it’s 32 degrees.

See Coors Field here: YOU ARE LOOKING LIVE..

link

…and people are telling the Twins that they’re crazy for leaving the dome. Denver, both Chicago teams, Detroit and Cleveland have the same chance for snow as Minnesota this time of year. The season is called “fall.” Deal with it.

[quote comment=”353574″][quote comment=”353535″]
link[/quote]
“That looks like the least formidable offensive line ever. (What are they doing, trying to raise the roof?)”[/quote]
Those are the original Oompa Loompas fromWilly Wonka and the Chocolate factory, the original 1971 Gene Wilder version. Of course, the vertically striped socks were inspired from the Denver Broncos’ 1960-1961 unis from what I heard…

[quote comment=”353601″]”1. Rutgers vs. Texas Southern: You know Jim’s not gonna put either one in the one slot. But I am.”

Well, seeing them together, I would have considered them. Haven’t seen all the matchups yet, but they look as if they would have been one of my surprise picks. Good work, Phil.

Still catching up on things, but after seeing pics of the Pats/Broncs, I was impressed. I’d rather see these all the time instead of the current ones.

Bears as #1 uni? I smell some Chicago-style voting. They’re good (the Blitz were better), but I don’t know about #1. Ah, it could be worse…

Glad I missed the beginning of the UFL. One team looking like that is okay…only one.

Bills deserve the worst uni spot, but only for the homes. I voted the roads at a 3. Can’t believe the Chiefs were rated so low. I thought they were the 2nd best home – voted for them as the best road uni.[/quote]

Please don’t take this as too much of an insult, but what the hell is wrong with you? Giving the Bills road uniforms a 3? My god man. The bright royal blue numbers while the rest of the uniform is trimmed in navy is enough to make them lower than a 3, nevermind the shoulders or side panel that doesn’t line up with the pants stripes, or the 7 helmet stripes. Remember this is the current uniform, not the Jim Kelly version or the 60’s throwback.

[quote comment=”353601″]
Bears as #1 uni? I smell some Chicago-style voting. They’re good (the Blitz were better), but I don’t know about #1. Ah, it could be worse…[/quote]
Blitz were better? That brown acid was a motherfucker, wasn’t it?

OK, Because I was curious to see if the sheer numbers did affect the outcome, I took all 140 people who identified the Bears as their favorite team and totalled up their score for the Bears and divided it by 140. Then I multiplied that number by 59.121 (it’s the “average” number of fans per team: 1951 responses ÷ 33 options for favorite team). It came out to 286.738.
I subtracted all of their votes from the total and I added the 286.738 to it. I took that total and divided it by 1870.121 (that’s 1951 – 140 + 59.121). Basically, I just wanted to see what would happen if an “average” number of Bears fans responded.

I’ll spare you the numbers, but since the Packers were just a bit behind, I did the same thing for them (removed the 97 scores from their fans, etc.)

The mean score for the Bears came out to 4.212. Packers came out to 4.201 — so it was just a wee bit closer, but not really a significant difference.
[quote]Can’t believe the Chiefs were rated so low. I thought they were the 2nd best home – voted for them as the best road uni.[/quote]
Chiefs at #2? Oh, right. Because the Raiders are #1. ;)

There was a huge ommision from your TOP 5 best college uni games this weekend. The Iowa State vs Kanas game almost brought a tear to my eye.

link

I hate to say it, but I’m just completely fed up with the whole “breast cancer awareness” thing. We get it. Breast cancer is bad. It exists. Women need to get mammograms every year once they turn 40 despite the fact that it has no benefit until 50. Fine.

But do we have to do it for an ENTIRE MONTH? There are 16 games in the NFL season. We’re gonna go pink for a quarter of the season?

Can you imagine if MLB did the whole pink bat thing for six weeks straight? They do it once a year, which is plenty. 1/162nd of the season. not 1/4!

I hate to sound pro-cancer, but really? One game isn’t enough??