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

Survey Says…

best worst 3

By Phil Hecken, with James T. Huening

OK faithful Uni Watchers. You voted. We heard you. The results are in. As most of you are no doubt aware, two weekends ago, UW (with the tremendous help of James Huening) ran the first of what we hope are several polls to determine our uniform preferences. We asked you to vote on your favorite NFL home uniform, ranking each team from 0 (for the worst) to 5 (for the best). We also asked you for some demographic data and perhaps to give us a quote about your favorite and least favorite uniform. You guys were outstanding. We liked this so much we’re doing it again, this time with the ROAD uniforms.

*** Please see below for your link to the road uniform voting. It can be found next to the “New Poll” graphic! ***

We’ve got a lot to tell you, and even more you can glean for yourself if you look at the outstanding graphics and charts Adam Walter (who provided much of the heavy lifting on this project) provided based upon the data gathered. Be sure to click on the links to Adam’s work — It’s great stuff! Here’s James:

~~~

Once again, thanks to Adam Walter for crunching the numbers and putting together some great presentation materials. You can download the full PowerPoint file and/or the PDF that he put together. And of course, thanks to everyone who participated. The response was truly fantastic. I alluded to it last weekend, but we got input from literally all over the globe. Here’s the full list of places we received responses from: USA, Canada, UK, Australia, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Argentina, Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, Bahamas, China, Denmark, Hong Kong, Israel, South Korea, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Qatar, Thailand, Ghana and Antarctica. In addition, there were 14 responses from unknown locations, so who knows if any of those came from localities outside that list?

OK, so on to the “definitive” list of the best and worst home uniforms in the NFL.

The Best
1) Bears
2) Packers
3) Steelers
4) Colts
5) Raiders
6) 49ers
7) Giants
8) Jets
9) Saints
10) Chargers

The Worst (from 5th-worst to absolute worst)
5) Vikings
4) Seahawks
3) Jaguars
2) Bengals

and the worst home uniform in the NFL, as decided by you, the reader:

1) Bills

Did any of these results surprise me? Well, a little. I expected the Bills to finish in last place, but I was a bit stunned by the overwhelmingly negative response they received. They averaged less than one point per response and 666 nominations as worst uniform out of 1,951 responses counted.

666!

Also, I wasn’t expecting the 49ers, Saints or Chargers to crack the top 10. (I’m not saying that they don’t deserve to be there.) On the other hand, I was expecting at least three of the following to make the top 10: Chiefs, Redskins, Cowboys, Browns and Dolphins. As it turns out, they were 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 16th, respectively.

One thing that didn’t surprise me is how close the voting was between the top two finishers. The Bears averaged 4.239 points per response to the Packers’ 4.211. On that alone, I’d declare it a tie for first, but more people chose the Bears as the best (15% of responses compared to 12%). Either way, it was an epic battle worthy of the best rivalry in the league. Or something.

Along with the nominations for best and worst, we asked for your reasons as to why you feel that way. There were some truly great responses — far too many to list them all here. (Maybe Phil would like to do that in a future post.) However, I will point out that the word “mess” was used 64 times; “trainwreck” was used 11 times; “clusterfuck” and “joke” appeared 8 times each; 5 times for “nightmare” and “abortion” made 3 appearances.

Those were obviously referring to the worst uni. For the best ones, the words “class/classy/classic” appeared 936 times; “tradition(al)” got 156 mentions; 129 of you noted a “clean” appearance as a positive and uniforms were praised as “iconic” 31 times.

So what did I learn from this experience? Well, for starters, the Uni Watch readership has good taste in football uniforms. But I guess I already knew that. The thing I really learned is that for the most part, I really like the way the NFL teams dress at home.

I’m not just talking about the teams that finished in the top 10. There are a lot of teams I never really thought about one way or the other that really look good. The Houston Texans are a perfect example. No, not the “Battle Red” unis, of course, but their regular home uniform is really pretty sharp. I rated them 4 points. As it turns out, I gave four teams a score of 5 and twelve teams got 4. That’s high marks for half the league. On top of that, I gave out five more 3s. That’s two-thirds of the league getting above-average marks. (In my mind 5 = A+, 4 = A, 3 = B, 2 = C, 1 = D and 0 = F.)

In contrast, I only gave out only two zeroes, five 1s and four 3s. Clearly, there are some poorly dressed teams, but not as many as I initially had thought.

~~~

Thanks James! And thanks so much dear readers for participating. And with that, I direct your attention to our New Poll, which will be basically a mirror of the first one, only this time, you’ll be ranking the NFL Road Uniforms. That poll just below:

~~~

poll 1 Ready to take the next Uni Watch poll? This time you’ll be ranking the ROAD UNIFORMS for the 32 NFL teams. Just click on the poll (below) and rate each team’s away uniform by giving each team a rating of 0 (for the worst) to 5 (for the best). Be sure to complete the full survey. We should be able to release the preliminary results next weekend, and have the full results shortly thereafter. Ready?

Here is your link to the Uni Watch NFL Road Uniform Survey. As before, the password is greendot.

For your easy reference, James has provided breakdowns of the NFL road uniforms, by division: AFC East; AFC North; AFC South; AFC West; NFC East; NFC North; NFC South; and the NFC West.

Thanks in advance for your participation!

~~~~~~~~~~

scoreboardGuess The Game From The Scoreboard: OK, back with a pigskin puzzle today, as we examine another football scoreboard. I hope you guys like the football (please feel free to send me more) scoreboards. Hopefully, this one will be easy enough to solve, but not so easy that you know it off the bat…er, kick. As always, please don’t post the answer but rather, use pro-fooball reference to find the link to the game. Teams and location should be easy, so Guess The Game from the scoreboard.

~~~~~~~~~~

retro broncosToday we are treated to two Legacy Games in the NFL. The first of which, kicking off at 1:00 pm (EDT) on FOX features the Dallas Cowboys facing off against the Dallas Texans (Kansas City Chiefs). I’m not entirely certain what the Cowboys will be wearing, but I think it will approximate this beauty from the way-back days. It’s actually very similar to the current throwback, except it’s white, and it’s similar to what they wore in 1994, during the NFL’s 75th Anniversary season. The Texans, a/k/a Chiefs, won’t look very different than they do now, except they’ll be wearing special Texans helmets. OK, that’s pretty cool, but that’s just the early game.

At 4:00 pm (EDT), on CBS, in what may be the most eagerly awaited “worst” uniform throwback in history, the Denver Broncos will throwback to their brown & gold 1960-style uniforms. Will they pull it off as well as such memorable throwback efforts like the LA Lakers or will it look as garish as the Philadelphia Eagles? I suppose that will be in the eye of the beholder, assuming that eye is wearing protective lenses.

I don’t want to prejudge the uniforms until I see them on the field, but we got a few glimpses of the throwbacks from Friday’s practice. They look pretty good, right? Well, that’s just from the waist up. We can’t see the socks with the uni from the waist up. Well, at least we’re not supposed to. I’m under the impression they’ll be wearing white oversocks, so the effect of the full length sock will hopefully be mitigated. But, at first glance, we could be headed for sartorial disaster. And lets just hope no one gets the idea to invoke the fashion police and scream “Look At ME” on game day. Course, maybe he just did that because the socks are so long.

The Broncos will be hosting the Patriots, who themselves will be throwing back to their White 1963 uniforms. We’ve already seen them in their red throwbacks, so this is our first look at their roadies.

Buckle up. Air sickness bags can be found in the seatback in front of you.

~~~~~~~~~~

benchies headerSweet.

Brand new Sunday Benchies for ya today. I know it’s new because the ink was still wet when Ricko e-mailed it to me. What would a Sunday in October be without the boys playing some football? Not much fun. Well, the bye-week is over, and now the boys are back to work. So, with that, enjoy your Sunday Benchies.

~~~~~~~~~~

pink nfl logoSo you thought we were done with the pink accessories? Well, in a way, the NFL is. But not quite. See, after their “Look At Me” display last weekend, where everyone and their mother wore pink, the NFL is now putting all those game worn shoes, wristbands, gloves and caps to use — having the players sign and donate them to be “auctioned off with all proceeds going to Breast Cancer Awareness.” Good on them. Lets hope they will be successful in raising a boatload of money for the cause. I still think the NFL could have done more good than by letting the players wear pink accessories (how great would it have been to have half the teams wear pink jerseys, while the other half wore white with pink stripes or something? Ok, maybe not so good), but at least we see they’re living up to their commitment. Thanks to Joe Skiba (via Paul and Tim Slaman) for that pic!

~~~~~~~~~~

ducks unis UW #1 Seahawks Fan Michael Princip has been tracking the Oregon Ducks and all of their 2,456 possible uniform combinations this season. He’ll be updating it after each game. This week the Ducks took their show on the road to the University of Kal-ee-for-nah-yay, at Los Angeles, where the Beaverton Boys were empowered to where one of their myriad white looks. Mike was all over it, as usual. Thanks Mike!

~~~~~~~~~~

5 & 1a Our man in the street, Jim Vilk brings you his Jim’s in the boonies, I’m bringing you today’s “Top 5” Best and one WORST college football uni matchup from yesterday:

5. Oregon vs. UCLA: A duckwalk in the park for the U of Zero. Nice look for both today.

4. Horns vs. Buffs: Burnt orange is almost always a candidate for a top 5 — and despite Colorado’s funky pants, it was a good looking matchup.

3. Naval Academy vs. Rice: Jim may love Rice, which is nice, but this branch of the armed forces needs love too.

2. Roll Tide vs. The Rebs: Oh yeah. Bama gets points for the helmet numbers alone.

1. Rutgers vs. Texas Southern: You know Jim’s not gonna put either one in the one slot. But I am.

and the WORST uni matchup of the day (tie):

FAMU v. THE U: Oh how bad it could have been.

Whyoming vs. New Mehico: Giving the pro Broncos a run for their money with brown and mustard.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Guess that’ll have to do it for today. Enjoy the day. Hope everyone gets the Broncos game, it’s gonna be one for the ages, if not for the eyes. Don’t forget to cast your vote for in the NFL Away Uni Rankings poll. Peace.

 

263 comments to Survey Says…

  • leon | October 11, 2009 at 7:27 am |

    I know the thrust of today’s comments will be about the poll, but I’ve got some questions about yesterday’s college games. I’ve been perusing some photos of yesterdays action (I used to only read about them before you bastards came along) and uni-related thoughts came up. Too many to include in one post and I know a box containing a lot of text is daunting to many.
    What’s going on here?:

    http://sportsillustr...

    New Balance football unis? Really? What about Nike wristband? (and that “panther” looks like a seal or beaver, IMHO).

  • The Jeff | October 11, 2009 at 7:30 am |

    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:

    http://img205.images...

  • leon | October 11, 2009 at 7:32 am |

    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!

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 7:37 am |

    [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.

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 7:38 am |

    “(and that “panther” looks like a seal or beaver, IMHO). ”

    A very ANGRY beaver.
    With whiskers.

    —Ricko

  • leon | October 11, 2009 at 7:39 am |

    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).

    http://sportsillustr...

  • leon | October 11, 2009 at 7:40 am |

    Sorry, I f’ed that up. Try again.

    http://sportsillustr...

  • leon | October 11, 2009 at 7:41 am |

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

  • The Jeff | October 11, 2009 at 7:42 am |

    [quote comment=”353351″]Sorry, I f’ed that up. Try again.

    http://sportsillustr...

    I assume you mean photo 8. I don’t think you can link to it like that.

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 7:45 am |

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

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 7:46 am |

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

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Made same mistake. Hope this works.
    http://sportsillustr...

  • leon | October 11, 2009 at 7:48 am |

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

    http://sportsillustr...

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 7:48 am |

    Gotta click on “Photos”. #4 shows unis the best.

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 7:54 am |

    Talk about wanting to avert your eyes.
    http://farm3.static....

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 7:56 am |

    [quote comment=”353358″]Talk about wanting to avert your eyes.
    http://farm3.static....

    Better.
    http://farm4.static....

  • leon | October 11, 2009 at 7:56 am |

    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?
    http://sportsillustr...

  • bartusball | October 11, 2009 at 8:00 am |

    [quote comment=”353346″]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:

    http://img205.images...

    I’m not surprised. I’d be even more surprised if they didn’t run the table.

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 8:01 am |

    Falcons could wear ’em, too (pair on left).
    Would really complete their, um, “look”.
    http://www.darkdream...

  • leon | October 11, 2009 at 8:01 am |

    [quote comment=”353359″][quote comment=”353358″]Talk about wanting to avert your eyes.
    http://farm3.static....

    Better.
    http://farm4.static....

    Not an angry beaver.

  • Ray D. | October 11, 2009 at 8:28 am |

    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.

  • JTH | October 11, 2009 at 8:58 am |

    [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. . . .

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 9:09 am |

    [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

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 9:11 am |

    Hmmm…brings up and interesting problem.

    Would a four-way tie for last be the same thing as a four-way tie for first?

  • JTH | October 11, 2009 at 9:12 am |

    [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.
    http://sportsillustr....

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Made same mistake. Hope this works.
    http://sportsillustr...
    Mistake? 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 stick with the gold pants, their road unis would be pretty solid. (That’s a practice photo, but you get the idea.)

  • JTH | October 11, 2009 at 9:17 am |

    [quote comment=”353367″]Hmmm…brings up and interesting problem.

    Would a four-way tie for last be the same thing as a four-way tie for first?[/quote]
    4-way tie for tallest midget is also a 4-way tie for… what’s the opposite of a “tallest midget” contest?

    First thing that comes to mind is “shortest giant” but that really doesn’t work in this case, does it?

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 9:21 am |

    [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.
    http://sportsillustr....

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Made same mistake. Hope this works.
    http://sportsillustr...
    Mistake? 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 stick with the gold pants, 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

  • The Jeff | October 11, 2009 at 9:24 am |

    [quote comment=”353366″][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]

    I think the UFL should be officially excluded from any uniform/logo conversations. 4 teams using one color palette is not worthy of discussion, even if the uniform template wasn’t silly.

    Honestly the idea of a league wide template isn’t that horrible (see 1974, WFL), but the complete lack of team colors is about as bad as you can get.

    If Las Vegas was wearing silver & blue w/black trim, while the Redwoods had burgundy & kelly green, then you could actually discuss something.

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 9:26 am |

    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

  • JTH | October 11, 2009 at 9:35 am |

    [quote comment=”353370″][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.
    http://sportsillustr....

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Made same mistake. Hope this works.
    http://sportsillustr...
    Mistake? 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 stick with the gold pants, 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[/quote]
    That’s the one gripe I have with my alma mater’s unis.

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

    Basketball team in black socks? No way, no how.

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 9:43 am |

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

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 9:48 am |

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

    —Ricko

  • JTH | October 11, 2009 at 9:50 am |

    [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).

  • The Jeff | October 11, 2009 at 9:59 am |

    [quote comment=”353373″]
    That’s the one gripe I have with my alma mater’s unis.

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

    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: http://img210.images...
    instead?

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

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

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

    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: http://img210.images...
    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…
    http://farm3.static....

    —Ricko

  • Fleeser | October 11, 2009 at 10:12 am |

    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: http://insidetheiggl...

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

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

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

    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: http://img210.images...
    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…
    http://farm3.static....

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

  • Stan the Man | October 11, 2009 at 10:22 am |

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

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

    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: http://img210.images...
    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…
    http://farm3.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Iowa comes to mind 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… :-(

  • Steve | October 11, 2009 at 10:23 am |

    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.

  • Stan the Man | October 11, 2009 at 10:25 am |

    [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: http://insidetheiggl...

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

    http://www.weirdwolf...

    Outstanding…!!!

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 10:26 am |

    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

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 10:29 am |

    Iowa comes to mind with the pro-style socks for most of the players (kinda completes the Steelers copycat look).

    Ah! Forgot about Iowa.
    Penn State does it sometimes, too, right?
    And Arkansas used to, I think.

    —Ricko

  • Mike McAllister | October 11, 2009 at 10:37 am |

    Gents,

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

    Chapeaunoirgolf.com

    Mike

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 10:39 am |

    [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: http://insidetheiggl...

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

    http://www.weirdwolf...

    Outstanding…!!![/quote]

    Indeed.
    http://farm3.static....
    Kinda like those ‘Skins “feather” helmets, too.

    —Ricko

  • BenA | October 11, 2009 at 10:43 am |

    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.

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 10:43 am |

    Oregon in their actual team colors…
    http://farm4.static....

    Not a bad lookin’ uni, either.
    And, yeah, that’s Bobby Moore.

    —Ricko

  • M.Princip | October 11, 2009 at 10:44 am |

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

    —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*

  • Stan the Man | October 11, 2009 at 10:45 am |

    [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…

    http://www.weirdwolf...
    http://www.weirdwolf...

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

    Stan

  • M.Princip | October 11, 2009 at 10:47 am |

    Awesome! *lol*

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 10:47 am |

    Once upon a time, Penn State wore royal blue.
    Striped pants, too.
    http://farm3.static....
    (Ted Kwalick, 1969 or so)

    —Ricko

  • Adam | October 11, 2009 at 10:47 am |

    [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..

  • Stan the Man | October 11, 2009 at 10:48 am |

    Speaking of “throwbacks”, this is the uniform the Rams should be donning today…

    http://www.weirdwolf...

    Beautiful…!!!

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 10:49 am |

    [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…

    http://www.weirdwolf...
    http://www.weirdwolf...

    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

  • Stan the Man | October 11, 2009 at 10:54 am |

    [quote comment=”353396″][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…

    http://www.weirdwolf...
    http://www.weirdwolf...

    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[/quote]

    Ricko…point taken..I appreciate your candor…

    Stan

  • DenverGregg | October 11, 2009 at 11:20 am |

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

  • A3 | October 11, 2009 at 11:29 am |

    So I log onto my computer this morning and open my yahoo browser. What is one of the stories in the scrolling news?
    http://sports.yahoo....

    Nice!

  • Patrick M | October 11, 2009 at 11:50 am |

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

    http://ultimatecheer...

  • Oakville Endive | October 11, 2009 at 12:00 pm |

    [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.
    http://sportsillustr....

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Made same mistake. Hope this works.
    http://sportsillustr...

    At least in my opinion, cold weather games – are always more visually appealing games to watch.

  • Pretty Boy Paulie | October 11, 2009 at 12:02 pm |

    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.

  • Pretty Boy Paulie | October 11, 2009 at 12:04 pm |

    I dunno about some of you guys but I’m really looking forward to seeing the Broncos take the field in those throwbacks. I think the swirly socks look quite intriguing.

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 12:05 pm |

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

    http://ultimatecheer...

    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

  • M.Princip | October 11, 2009 at 12:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”353404″][quote comment=”353400″]I just want to say that not even the Seattle Sea Gals look good in puke green.

    http://ultimatecheer...

    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]

    Yea, the navy blue pants just made the green that much brighter.

  • Gusto44 | October 11, 2009 at 12:32 pm |

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

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

    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: http://img210.images...
    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…
    http://farm3.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Iowa comes to mind 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?

  • Oakville Endive | October 11, 2009 at 12:39 pm |

    There some potential bad karma shaping up for the long anticipated re-emergence of the Broncos Brown/Gold.

    The Broncos season has had a “don’t burst that bubble” sense to it, i.e. who was predicting they would be undefeated at this point, so if the Pats – start to play like the Pats – and blow the Broncos out, does the “bubble popping” loss – get hung on the threads? Wouldn’t that be somewhat appropriate for such ugly uni’s (although I admit it, I’m looking forward to seeing them)

  • Shane | October 11, 2009 at 12:39 pm |

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

    I’m amazed.

  • The Jeff | October 11, 2009 at 12:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”353407″]There some potential bad karma shaping up for the long anticipated re-emergence of the Broncos Brown/Gold.

    The Broncos season has had a “don’t burst that bubble” sense to it, i.e. who was predicting they would be undefeated at this point, so if the Pats – start to play like the Pats – and blow the Broncos out, does the “bubble popping” loss – get hung on the threads? Wouldn’t that be somewhat appropriate for such ugly uni’s (although I admit it, I’m looking forward to seeing them)[/quote]

    Considering the Broncos record while wearing brown is 7-20-1, I’d say yeah. If they get blown out, they burn the uniforms again.

  • Giancarlo | October 11, 2009 at 1:04 pm |

    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?

  • JohnnyO | October 11, 2009 at 1:05 pm |

    I friggin’ love the Rams throwbacks! (Even though they threw back just a few years) Too bad the Vikings didn’t join the party.

  • Adam | October 11, 2009 at 1:06 pm |

    OchoCinco = pink chin strap-o

  • david | October 11, 2009 at 1:07 pm |

    Chad is sporting the pink chinstrap this week.

  • Ric | October 11, 2009 at 1:07 pm |

    Ochocinco’s wearing the fabled pink chinstrap today.

  • leon | October 11, 2009 at 1:09 pm |

    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?

  • Ric | October 11, 2009 at 1:09 pm |

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

  • MPowers1634 | October 11, 2009 at 1:11 pm |

    Nice work, Phil and friends!

    60 degrees in NY and the refs are in cold weather black?

  • Steve | October 11, 2009 at 1:15 pm |

    Color-on-Color game in Kansas City!!

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

  • TD | October 11, 2009 at 1:16 pm |

    Carson Palmer’s captain C is still pink. Ew.

  • The Jeff | October 11, 2009 at 1:17 pm |

    [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.

  • TD | October 11, 2009 at 1:18 pm |

    So is Favre’s.. looks like maybe everyone is keeping those?

  • TD | October 11, 2009 at 1:19 pm |

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

  • The Jeff | October 11, 2009 at 1:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”353418″]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]

    Because the NFL is stupid. There’s no other explanation. The Bengals and Dolphins don’t get to use throwbacks even though they played in the AFL, but the Cowboys, who were basically brought into existence as a big middle finger to the AFL, get to be involved in 2 throwback games. It’s just stupid.

  • leon | October 11, 2009 at 1:22 pm |

    [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?

  • JTH | October 11, 2009 at 1:25 pm |

    [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 Team™

    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.

  • leon | October 11, 2009 at 1:26 pm |

    [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.

  • Adam | October 11, 2009 at 1:29 pm |

    [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 Team™

    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]

    The only bias that I really saw in the data was we are clearly an “old-school” group. If we gave the survey to a bunch of 7 year olds who like something different than sleeve stripes, solid colors and don’t like inexplicable lines and side panels(not to say 7 year olds don’t have taste), I would assume the results to be skewed the other way.

  • The Jeff | October 11, 2009 at 1:29 pm |

    [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 Team™

    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?

  • Chris | October 11, 2009 at 1:39 pm |

    For all the hating on Oregon, they’ve been in the best matchups a couple times now.

    Just a thought…someone should keep track of it week to week and crown a champ at the end of the year. Like 5 points for being one of the teams in the best matchup down to 1 point for the fifth place game. Maybe minus some points if you end up in the worst game….tally it up and crown a uni champ!

  • Adam | October 11, 2009 at 1:43 pm |

    [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 Team™

    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).

  • JTH | October 11, 2009 at 1:43 pm |

    [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 Team™

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

  • leon | October 11, 2009 at 1:48 pm |

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

    Sarcasm, right?

  • Shaftman | October 11, 2009 at 1:50 pm |

    Great job as usual Phil

    I’m watching the Giants – Raiders game rout and it looks like Brandon Jacobs lost his Reebok Vector sleeve logos again. I thought Joe Skiba had a fix for that.

  • caknuck | October 11, 2009 at 1:50 pm |

    Marion Barber looks like he’s wearing the wrong socks

  • JTH | October 11, 2009 at 1:52 pm |

    [quote comment=”353424″][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]
    Among those who identified themselves as Bears fans, about 50% were from the Chicago area/downstate Illinois/Indiana.

  • mike 2 | October 11, 2009 at 1:58 pm |

    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.

  • LI Phil | October 11, 2009 at 1:59 pm |

    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

  • The Jeff | October 11, 2009 at 2:04 pm |

    [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)

  • Oakville Endive | October 11, 2009 at 2:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”353417″]Nice work, Phil and friends!

    60 degrees in NY and the refs are in cold weather black?[/quote]

    I wrote on another positing “At least in my opinion, cold weather games – are always more visually appealing games to watch.” I suspect I’m not the only one who shares this view, and I’ve wondered if the increased presence of cold weather gear worn by the refs, is not a weak attempt on the NFL part , to create an illusion that the game is being played in cold weather. Yeah I’m probably wrong – but I’ve noticed the long sleeve look more and more.

  • mike 2 | October 11, 2009 at 2:15 pm |

    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?

  • JTH | October 11, 2009 at 2:16 pm |

    [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, this blows this away in so many ways, but I think those unis still look great even with the truncation.

  • leon | October 11, 2009 at 2:17 pm |

    [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.

  • The Jeff | October 11, 2009 at 2:20 pm |

    [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, this blows this 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.

  • Mike | October 11, 2009 at 2:24 pm |

    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.

  • JTH | October 11, 2009 at 2:35 pm |

    [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, this blows this 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.

  • =bg= | October 11, 2009 at 2:35 pm |

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

  • war eagle jeffrey | October 11, 2009 at 2:36 pm |

    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.”

  • The Jeff | October 11, 2009 at 2:39 pm |

    [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.

  • The Jeff | October 11, 2009 at 2:43 pm |

    [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, this blows this 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.

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 2:43 pm |

    [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

  • The Jeff | October 11, 2009 at 2:46 pm |

    [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”.

  • =bg= | October 11, 2009 at 2:52 pm |

    [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, this blows this 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.

  • EddieAtari | October 11, 2009 at 2:56 pm |

    [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]

    And we’re getting white on yellow today too…

  • JTH | October 11, 2009 at 3:01 pm |

    [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, this blows this 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.

  • Jake | October 11, 2009 at 3:04 pm |

    If the NFL fines players for not having their proper uniform on,why is it that players are not fined for wearing all of the uniform, like the pads in their pants? As safety conscious as the NFL wants to be, how do they not make players have a complete set of pads? Just curious…and apologize if this has been covered before.

  • TD | October 11, 2009 at 3:08 pm |

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

  • tosaman | October 11, 2009 at 3:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”353372″]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[/quote]

    I may not be that young Ricko, but I definitely feel older knowing this.

  • JTH | October 11, 2009 at 3:22 pm |

    [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 90s throwbacks (1999 — Super Bowl championship season?).

    70s/80s had striped socks.

    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.

  • JTH | October 11, 2009 at 3:39 pm |

    …and I just got my answer. They are throwing back to 1999. It was just mentioned during the broadcast.

  • Kek | October 11, 2009 at 3:40 pm |

    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.

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 3:49 pm |

    [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

  • Gusto44 | October 11, 2009 at 3:57 pm |

    [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?

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 4:01 pm |

    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

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 4:04 pm |

    [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

  • LI Phil | October 11, 2009 at 4:06 pm |

    anyone realize the bungles are a tipped ball away from being undefeated?

    and i did a quick mock up of a bills tweak

    /works for me

  • JTH | October 11, 2009 at 4:06 pm |

    [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?

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 4:07 pm |

    [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

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 4:12 pm |

    [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.”

  • JohnnyO | October 11, 2009 at 4:16 pm |

    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.

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 4:18 pm |

    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

  • JTH | October 11, 2009 at 4:18 pm |

    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.

  • Jeff I | October 11, 2009 at 4:18 pm |

    Lots of Broncos having fun with those vertically striped socks.

  • Jay | October 11, 2009 at 4:19 pm |

    Gaffney’s got the spiral look to his socks going.

  • RedWing in Colorado | October 11, 2009 at 4:19 pm |

    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……

  • Berto | October 11, 2009 at 4:19 pm |

    Don’t know if Santonio Holmes twisted his socks or if he has different ones than the rest of the team but the barber pole look is keen.

  • LarryB | October 11, 2009 at 4:20 pm |

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

  • MBReed | October 11, 2009 at 4:21 pm |

    Okay, the Broncs unis are bad, but the fact that the brown on the helmet isn’t even close to matching the brown in the pants.

  • LI Phil | October 11, 2009 at 4:21 pm |

    LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME

    goddam it, look at me!!!!!

  • Greg B. | October 11, 2009 at 4:22 pm |

    Broncos uniforms are very trippy; not sure I could stand them week after week. The Pats all-white unis are sweet, though.

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 4:22 pm |

    [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

  • leon | October 11, 2009 at 4:23 pm |

    Broncos socks would look “better” if there was no pants stripe.
    What’s on Josh Mcdaniel’s hat?

  • Chuck | October 11, 2009 at 4:23 pm |

    [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!

  • Gusto44 | October 11, 2009 at 4:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”353478″]Does anybody know the story behind Denver picking those colors to start with?[/quote]

    My guess is they were looking for something original at the pro level, seeing the University of Wyoming may have played a minor role.
    Personally, the next time Denver wears throwbacks, I think the 1994 version is more suitable.

  • LI Phil | October 11, 2009 at 4:27 pm |

    ummm

    shouldn’t the broncos have white oversocks?

  • leon | October 11, 2009 at 4:27 pm |

    Someone on Broncos’ D has his stripes “checkerboarded”. Maybe of Croatian descent?

  • Kirk | October 11, 2009 at 4:30 pm |

    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!”

  • JTH | October 11, 2009 at 4:31 pm |

    [quote comment=”353486″]ummm

    shouldn’t the broncos have white oversocks?[/quote]
    Yep.

    At least there’s none of this going on… yet.

  • JTH | October 11, 2009 at 4:32 pm |

    [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.

  • LarryB | October 11, 2009 at 4:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”353485″][quote comment=”353478″]Does anybody know the story behind Denver picking those colors to start with?[/quote]

    My guess is they were looking for something original at the pro level, seeing the University of Wyoming may have played a minor role.
    Personally, the next time Denver wears throwbacks, I think the 1994 version is more suitable.[/quote]

    Wyoming did come to mind with the brown. I never heard or thought about the reason Denver picked those colors when the franchise began.

  • =bg= | October 11, 2009 at 4:37 pm |

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

    goddam it, look at me!!!!![/quote]

    Those are the Broncos?

    PS
    How BOUT dem Cowboys.

  • LarryB | October 11, 2009 at 4:39 pm |

    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.

  • Chad | October 11, 2009 at 4:45 pm |

    [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?

  • LI Phil | October 11, 2009 at 4:47 pm |

    [quote comment=”353491″][quote comment=”353485″][quote comment=”353478″]Does anybody know the story behind Denver picking those colors to start with?[/quote]

    My guess is they were looking for something original at the pro level, seeing the University of Wyoming may have played a minor role.
    Personally, the next time Denver wears throwbacks, I think the 1994 version is more suitable.[/quote]

    Wyoming did come to mind with the brown. I never heard or thought about the reason Denver picked those colors when the franchise began.[/quote]

    larry…while there may be some debate as to how the broncos got outfitted in “those” unis,

    this page pretty much has the accepted verson

    there’s more, but here’s the quick and dirty:

    [quote]The story has it that, for the Broncos’ inaugural season, general manager Dean Griffing purchased what were considered “compromise” uniforms, light colored jerseys and drab brown pants that could be worn at both home and away games. Reputed to be extremely frugal, Griffing reportedly bought these used uniforms from a defunct organization in Tucson, Arizona.

    Research indicates differing accounts as to the exact origin of the uniforms. Some sources have indicated that the uniforms were purchased from a defunct college bowl organization (see sidebar below), while coach Jack Faulkner has suggested that the uniforms came from an Arizona semi-pro organization—the Rattlers—with whom Griffing had been previously employed.[/quote]

    the whole article is pretty good

  • Kek | October 11, 2009 at 4:48 pm |

    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.

  • leon | October 11, 2009 at 4:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”353494″][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?[/quote]

    It’s 57 and it’s only on one leg.

  • Giancarlo | October 11, 2009 at 4:51 pm |

    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.

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 4:54 pm |

    [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

  • Taxman | October 11, 2009 at 4:54 pm |

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

    http://www.weirdwolf...

    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.

  • Berto | October 11, 2009 at 4:58 pm |

    Yeah, and of course I meant Jabbar Gaffney because I was able to get confused and think I was watching the Steelers. Duh.

  • Kek | October 11, 2009 at 4:58 pm |

    [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.

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 4:58 pm |

    [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]

    They aren’t auditioning new uniforms, for chrissakes.

    It’s a look back at history. And—surprise—things were different. Hello, that’s the whole damn point.

    —Ricko

  • Taxman | October 11, 2009 at 5:01 pm |

    [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: http://insidetheiggl...

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

    http://www.weirdwolf...

    Outstanding…!!![/quote]

    Indeed.
    http://farm3.static....
    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.

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 5:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”353485″][quote comment=”353478″]Does anybody know the story behind Denver picking those colors to start with?[/quote]

    My guess is they were looking for something original at the pro level, seeing the University of Wyoming may have played a minor role.
    Personally, the next time Denver wears throwbacks, I think the 1994 version is more suitable.[/quote]

    One story, which has been told many times, is that Dean Griffing, looking to be thrifty, bought they unis from some kind of defunct all-star game called the Cooper Bowl.

    Another is that he bought them from a semi-pro team that had folded.

    One thing can’t bitch about. They’re the color of broncos.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 5:04 pm |

    [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.

  • mookworth | October 11, 2009 at 5:07 pm |

    woo hoo give it up for Rutgers!!!

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

    [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

  • Kek | October 11, 2009 at 5:16 pm |

    [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.

  • =bg= | October 11, 2009 at 5:21 pm |

    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.

  • Chad | October 11, 2009 at 5:23 pm |

    wow! did you see that seahawks player?! screen grabs in a minute

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 5:25 pm |

    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

  • leon | October 11, 2009 at 5:26 pm |

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

    Neither is “Meet me in the frozen foods department”.

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 5:29 pm |

    [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

  • Chad | October 11, 2009 at 5:33 pm |

    [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. http://i119.photobuc...
    turns out he was hitting himself in the head with his head during player introductions http://i119.photobuc...
    the end result http://i119.photobuc...

  • Wes | October 11, 2009 at 5:33 pm |

    [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.

  • =bg= | October 11, 2009 at 5:37 pm |

    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.

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 5:43 pm |

    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

  • LarryB | October 11, 2009 at 5:46 pm |

    [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

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 5:47 pm |

    [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

  • Gusto44 | October 11, 2009 at 5:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”353516″][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.[/quote]

    I agree with your view, a blend of tradition with innovation yields the best results. Interesting you mentioned the Bengals and Ravens. I think the more traditional James Brooks era uniforms were best, but dark pants could be introduced. The Ravens could use more imagination, both in their logo and uniform set. Excluding the helmet, I liked the purple jersey/black pants with white striping of the Vinny Testaverde era over the lackluster uniform they’ve had in this decade.

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 5:52 pm |

    [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

  • Filthy McNasty | October 11, 2009 at 6:00 pm |

    I’ve been looking forward to seeing my Rams in royal blue and yellow gold again, but I must say, the shoulder horns look too thin and start higher than they should, starting as a vertical stripe rather than curving from under the armpit.

  • Kirk | October 11, 2009 at 6:14 pm |

    [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.

  • Ben Wideman | October 11, 2009 at 6:15 pm |

    I think an MLB, NHL, NBA poll is a great idea.

  • duck fan | October 11, 2009 at 6:19 pm |

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

    http://blog.oregonli...

  • Joseph Skiba | October 11, 2009 at 6:21 pm |

    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

  • Jeff P(udlo) | October 11, 2009 at 6:25 pm |

    [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!

  • LI Phil | October 11, 2009 at 6:28 pm |

    [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]

    i tried joe…but we set it up so you could ONLY vote once! ;)

    got news for ya…unfortunately, don’t expect “our” roadies to crack the top 10 :(

  • Chris O | October 11, 2009 at 6:29 pm |

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

  • BenA | October 11, 2009 at 6:30 pm |

    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.)

  • Greenie | October 11, 2009 at 6:33 pm |

    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

  • Teebz | October 11, 2009 at 6:37 pm |

    Was there some sort of organized football game on today? The comments don’t seem to indicate that there was. LOL

  • Joseph Skiba | October 11, 2009 at 6:41 pm |

    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.

  • James Craven | October 11, 2009 at 6:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”353498″]“There’s something sort of Willie Wonka-ish about the Broncos today, no?”[/quote]

    You mean these guys?

  • Nick | October 11, 2009 at 6:59 pm |

    [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.

  • Joseph Skiba | October 11, 2009 at 7:02 pm |

    Hooked my boy Kurt Warner up with some Skiba-Pink Painted Specials…love to see him wearing them.

  • Nick | October 11, 2009 at 7:03 pm |

    [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?

  • Chris | October 11, 2009 at 7:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”353526″]Uh oh, I think somebody might have ripped off Oregonlive.com without giving credit for it…

    http://blog.oregonli...

    How is somebody ripping off Oregonlive.com? They have a Dress the Ducks feature…what should the Ducks wear for the upcoming game. Mike’s tracker thing is keeping track of what they’ve worn after they’ve worn it.

  • Nick | October 11, 2009 at 7:11 pm |

    [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.

  • Nick | October 11, 2009 at 7:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”353479″]Okay, the Broncs unis are bad, but the fact that the brown on the helmet isn’t even close to matching the brown in the pants.[/quote]

    Matching! Did you say Matching!

    As I understand it, the 1960 Broncos unis Brown pants did not even match each others.

    Oral histories given by players and coaches say that some of the players were issued Shiny Brown pants, others had dull Brown pants.

    So much for matching.

  • Jamie | October 11, 2009 at 7:18 pm |

    [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.

  • Taxman | October 11, 2009 at 7:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”353540″][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]
    The Steelers’ gold from the 60’s Golden Triangle era appears to be the same athletic gold worn today, but I agree that there are a lot of pics from the early to mid 70’s where the pants looked like Gulden’s spicy brown mustard. Not unlike the Pirates in their early double knit days.

  • leon | October 11, 2009 at 7:24 pm |

    The socks that refuse to go away (OT).

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 7:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”353524″][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.[/quote]

    Well, excuse the fuck out of me. Should have said it has moments when it gives the feeling of getting to see a ’61 game in color. Never said EXACTLY like. Jesus.

    “No, it is nothing like watching 1961 in color.”
    How do YOU know? Unless you were alive in 1961 when virtually all football telecasts were in black and white, you don’t have one damn idea of what I’m talking about. And evidently also lack the ability to understand the perspective of someone who WAS watching in 1961. Someone other than yourself, apparently.

    I thought maybe some might appreciate what a unique experience this game has been for those of us who have been following sports for a long, long time. Obviously longer than you, btw.

    Guess you can’t grasp that. Too bad. Narrowness is not a trait likely to get you far in life.

    A lot of posts today have been right up there with, “Damn, the earth kept rotating overnight” on the Insightfulness Scale. Yours is certainly one of them.

    —Ricko

  • Joseph Skiba | October 11, 2009 at 7:28 pm |

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

  • Macca P. | October 11, 2009 at 7:54 pm |

    Cent #1 on the Broncs’ throwbacks:

    Chocolate brown is perennially underrated. Why all the love for navy, but not for chocolate? Much better than the Browns’ muddy tone. And I love the high contrast with the white helmet numbers!

    Cent #2:

    I wouldn’t have thunk it, but I like the vert-striped hose. The whole team looks 6’4″+!

    Bonus cent #3:

    That swirled/candy cane/barbershop pole sock treatment is for the birds. What a (fortunately limited) bunch of fucking prima donnas. You get paid pretty good scratch, and you can’t even be bothered to wear the uni correctly?

  • LI Phil | October 11, 2009 at 7:55 pm |

    [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

  • Macca P. | October 11, 2009 at 8:10 pm |

    re: mustard

    I never did finish that Ph.D. in color theory, but I’ve always thought of mustard as yellow that’s been tainted with just a touch of orange. The Broncs are definitely wearing gold today.

  • Shaggy | October 11, 2009 at 8:15 pm |

    Brandon Marshall postgame on NBC…

    http://i14.photobuck...

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

  • Mike | October 11, 2009 at 8:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”353546″]Good call Jamie…duh, I see them twice a year…[/quote]

    Hey Skeebs… big fan… Why the change to the Giants new uni-material in the first place? Also, I really thought the NFL Equipment patch on the red in-collar treatment set us apart from most of the other patch-on-collar teams.

  • M.Princip | October 11, 2009 at 8:26 pm |

    [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. http://i119.photobuc...
    turns out he was hitting himself in the head with his head during player introductions http://i119.photobuc...
    the end result http://i119.photobuc...

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

  • Kek | October 11, 2009 at 8:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”353553″][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. http://i119.photobuc...
    turns out he was hitting himself in the head with his head during player introductions http://i119.photobuc...
    the end result http://i119.photobuc...

    They also called him the runaway beer truck when he was with West Virginia, a.k.a. Owen Schmitt.[/quote]
    I wouldn’t expect anything less than the best from a WVU alum! (sorry bernard!)

  • Kek | October 11, 2009 at 8:43 pm |

    titans in all-light blue tonight.

  • flip | October 11, 2009 at 8:53 pm |

    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. http://www.kansascit...

  • =bg= | October 11, 2009 at 8:56 pm |

    [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.

  • Gusto44 | October 11, 2009 at 8:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”353555″]titans in all-light blue tonight.[/quote]

    Looks like it’ll be another Dismember the Titans game, but I like the uniforms(or lack thereof) on the Tennessee cheerleaders.

  • flip | October 11, 2009 at 9:00 pm |

    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.

  • =bg= | October 11, 2009 at 9:01 pm |

    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..

    http://www.kdvr.com/...

  • Kek | October 11, 2009 at 9:06 pm |

    [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 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[/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

    http://www.collegefo...

  • Kenny Jacobson | October 11, 2009 at 9:14 pm |

    Watching a bit of Colts/Titans something occured to me. Instead of ‘Best/Worst Uni Matchups’ we ought to keep track of ‘Greatest Disparity In Uniform Attractiveness In A Given Matchup’. The ‘best uni’ poll data could be used to calculate it.

  • The Jeff | October 11, 2009 at 9:16 pm |

    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.

  • Tony Miller | October 11, 2009 at 9:24 pm |

    [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.)

  • Stan the Man | October 11, 2009 at 9:28 pm |

    [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…

  • Manly Man | October 11, 2009 at 9:33 pm |

    …watching the Lambs game today and Steven Jackson sure looked “comfortable” wearing pink…she is a “good” running back….

    Get a haircut FREAK…!!

  • Manly Man | October 11, 2009 at 9:34 pm |

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

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

  • Manly Man | October 11, 2009 at 9:36 pm |

    [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….???!!????!?!?!??!

  • flip | October 11, 2009 at 9:40 pm |

    [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.

  • Cards Fan | October 11, 2009 at 9:41 pm |

    Just read that the STL Cardinals are meeting with Tony LaRussa tomorrow to discuss his future with the club…NOW is the time to rid yourselves of this arrogant SOB…lawyer scholar my A**…he’s nothing but a LIBERAL “POS” who needs to be indicted on perjury charges for the STEROIDS Scandal that has followed him for the past 20 + years…what a joke…!!!!

  • The Jeff | October 11, 2009 at 9:43 pm |

    [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.

  • NFL Fan 4ever | October 11, 2009 at 9:45 pm |

    [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]

    On the contrary, I’d like to see the white jerseys remain in the NFL…also, let’s place an Affirmative Action “quota” on the NFL with at least %0% White/European American players on the field every down…it’s only fair…!!!!!!!!!

  • flip | October 11, 2009 at 9:46 pm |

    [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. http://www.kansascit...

    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?

  • Giancarlo | October 11, 2009 at 9:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”353535″][quote comment=”353498″]“There’s something sort of Willie Wonka-ish about the Broncos today, no?”[/quote]

    You mean these guys?[/quote]
    That looks like the least formidable offensive line ever. (What are they doing, trying to raise the roof?)

  • The Jeff | October 11, 2009 at 9:53 pm |

    [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.

  • Kenny Jacobson | October 11, 2009 at 9:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”353570″]Just read that the STL Cardinals are meeting with Tony LaRussa tomorrow to discuss his future with the club…NOW is the time to rid yourselves of this arrogant SOB…lawyer scholar my A**…he’s nothing but a LIBERAL “POS” who needs to be indicted on perjury charges for the STEROIDS Scandal that has followed him for the past 20 + years…what a joke…!!!![/quote]
    Wow. And everything I’d heard about Cards fans was about how classy they are.

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 9:55 pm |

    [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 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[/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

    http://www.collegefo...

    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

  • The Jeff | October 11, 2009 at 10:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”353577″]

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

    —Ricko[/quote]

    No snow or onion on your belt? Wuss.

  • Swine the Mad | October 11, 2009 at 10:07 pm |

    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.

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 10:16 pm |

    During the Bronco game, Wes posted a point that kinda has been overlooked.

    He noted that the original Broncos truly were one of first unis that really made peple stop and think about what a team ought to look like. And he’s right. (Finley’s gold A’s in ’63 would be another).

    Doesn’t mean it should change anyone’s opinion of the Broncos’ brown and gold, but that set did help introduce more critical thinking, all of which eventually led to the now big business of team uniforms. So, good or bad, they do hold a position of certain importance in UW World.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 10:22 pm |

    [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

  • SoCalDrew | October 11, 2009 at 10:27 pm |

    [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, this blows this 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]

    Ditto, and I’d add:
    1) Saints bring back gold numbers on white jeresys AND lose annoying black outline on fleur des lys
    2) Rams go blue ‘n white
    3) Washington PLEASE return to the spear on helmet design

  • Robert K. Johnston | October 11, 2009 at 10:29 pm |

    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

  • MPowers1634 | October 11, 2009 at 10:32 pm |

    I demand to know where Ricko is RIGHT now!
    Hopefully not in handcuffs…

  • JTH | October 11, 2009 at 10:33 pm |

    [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.

  • JTH | October 11, 2009 at 10:43 pm |

    Oh, yeah. Someone who picked the Giants as the best recorded one of my favorite comments that we received in the survey: “Looks really sharp for a PLAIN BLUE T-SHIRT.”

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 10:44 pm |

    [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

  • JTH | October 11, 2009 at 10:49 pm |

    [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.

  • The Jeff | October 11, 2009 at 10:53 pm |

    [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.

  • =bg= | October 11, 2009 at 10:53 pm |

    MAN will u look at the fans @ the Rockies game. Sorry, this is just not baseball weather.

  • Ricko | October 11, 2009 at 10:54 pm |

    [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.
    http://www.hworth.ne...
    But did by SB IV.
    http://www.conigliof...

    —Ricko

  • JTH | October 11, 2009 at 10:55 pm |

    [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.

  • JTH | October 11, 2009 at 10:59 pm |

    [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.

  • leon | October 11, 2009 at 11:01 pm |

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

    And a base running coach!

  • The Jeff | October 11, 2009 at 11:03 pm |

    [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.

  • flip | October 11, 2009 at 11:17 pm |

    [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]

    Lamar had good tastes coming out of the chutes. A few tweaks like the sleeve trim, white face masks and red shoes, and you have sheer perfection — still it’s strange seeing that look on anything but KC.

  • LI Phil | October 11, 2009 at 11:24 pm |

    [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

  • JTH | October 11, 2009 at 11:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”353596″][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]
    I didn’t pull those off the top of my head. I had to look at all the reference pics for today’s survey to come up with them.

  • Carl | October 11, 2009 at 11:27 pm |

    [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..

    http://www.kdvr.com/...

    …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.

  • JimV19 | October 11, 2009 at 11:37 pm |

    “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.

  • James Craven | October 11, 2009 at 11:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”353574″][quote comment=”353535″]
    These guys.[/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…

  • Taxman | October 11, 2009 at 11:54 pm |

    [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]
    Hey – I picked the Chiefs road unis best as well!

  • The Jeff | October 12, 2009 at 12:00 am |

    [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.

  • Jimbo99 | October 12, 2009 at 12:58 am |

    What a great uni-watching day. Lots of great comments and opinions. Got to love me some uni-watching. I have to say the Broncos unis were so ugly that they were great. So maybe they were just great. I don’t know, great looking game all the way around.

    Not uni-related, did anyone notice during the Bengals-Ravens game how many time the announcers switched between Chad “Ochocinco” and Chad “Johnson”, they kept having to correct themselves, and I found it quite humorous for some reason.

  • JTH | October 12, 2009 at 1:00 am |

    [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. ;)

  • CMONEY | October 12, 2009 at 1:06 am |

    [quote comment=”353356″]What’s up with this guy’s pants? Looks like someone dropped (er, spilled) acid on them.

    http://sportsillustr...

    I think he is wearing padded undershorts that have a pattern on the padding like the new Adrian Peterson commercial.

  • Tyler | October 12, 2009 at 2:52 am |

    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.

    http://i256.photobuc...

  • Jason | October 12, 2009 at 3:30 am |

    The AZ Cardinals wore their white on white ensemble today at home.

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

    I don’t know if they’ve worn the white on white combo since moving into the UoP Stadium.
    –ps Fitz’ mom died from breast cancer in 2003 so it was fine seeing him wear pink attire today.

    Jason

  • Erik | October 15, 2009 at 4:40 am |

    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??

  • Old Sailor | October 17, 2009 at 8:57 am |

    @erik;
    “I hate to say it, but I’m just completely fed up with the whole “breast cancer awareness” thing.”

    I agree and, it’s for another reason.
    I’m a 70Y/O guy who has a prostate.
    HOW ABOUT A MONTH FOR US??!!

    I’ve even seen some comments by more than one woman about not wanting to see this as, she said she didn’t want to be reminded of what she and some of her family member had/dies from.

    It is WAY TOO MUCH AND TOO LONG.

    That said, the Pgh squealers’ throwbacks are the uuuuglies things I’ve seen anywhere in the NFL.
    Their heads look like faded pumpkins.