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

‘Why Yes, I Do Think I Could Do Better’

Screen shot 2009-11-10 at 3.12.57 PM.png

I wrote pretty regularly for Fast Company magazine from 2004 through 2007. But I guess they must not have me in their Rolodex anymore, because nobody told me about this article, which they just posted on their web site (not sure if it’s also in the printed mag, but I don’t think so).

Anyway: The author — an NFL fan named Ken Carbone, who also happens to be a graphic designer — posits that too many of today’s helmet designs are bland and formulaic. He heaps particular scorn on the Redskins, Bucs, and Pats:

Among the weakest designs are the Washington Redskins and Tampa Bay Buccaneers , whose visually complicated logos become a graphic mess when televised and, I imagine, even if you’re sitting on the fifty-yard line. At the very the bottom of the list are the New England Patriots. The Patriots’ helmet is plastered with their logo, which comes dangerously close to looking like a wind-swept John Kerry dressed up like a Minute Man. If there was ever a time to go with the obvious this is it. Why not really play the patriotic card and star and stripe the helmet?

These certainly aren’t the three NFL helmets at the top of my “Please revise now!” list (I’d probably pick some subset of the Bengals, Panthers, Titans, Lions, and Bills). I’d also quibble with the notion that the Washington and Tampa Bay logos are “complicated” or “a graphic mess when televised,” and I’d love to know what Carbone thought of Pat Patriot compared to Flying Elvis.

But whatever — unlike most critics, Carbone is willing to propose his own alternatives, and that’s where things get interesting. He prepared these sketches and gave them to a graphics guy who created more polished digital versions — voila!

The Pats design is laughably bad (unless the rest of your uniform looks like this), and the Bucs execution is obviously way too Raiders-ish (bad rookie mistake there, Ken — don’t create a design that looks a lot like another team’s design). Gotta admit, though I’m totally digging the Redskins treatment. Never would’ve guessed that the headdress motif would translate so well to a helmet shell.

All in all, a silly article that’s mostly a lark, but that ’Skins design is like the nibble on the end of the line that’s gonna keep me fishing all day. Are there other teams that could be revamped as effectively as Carbone’s done with the ’Skins? Hmmmmm….

The best video you’ll see this year (or at least today): No Mas has produced a super-cool animation about Dock Ellis and his fabled no-hitter on acid, narrated by Ellis himself. The full vid will be available tomorrow, but here’s a short excerpt:

Uni Watch News Ticker: Ladies and gentlemen, you Nike riflery uniforms, all in one place. … Remember the football sweater knitting guide I scanned and posted last week? Ricko found a baseball version on eBay (yes, those “jackets” are actually knitted sweaters) and sent it to me to scan. You can access the full publication here. … Whoa, who would’ve thought the Broncos had a throwback helmet cart (big thanks to Jason Krause). … “I was briefly following this VW bug through Columbus this morning and couldn’t help but laugh,” writes Jason Lawrence. “As you probably know, OSU applies buckeye leaf decal to the left side of the helmet first, then eventually to the right side only after the left side is full. The funniest part about this guy’s error is that if he’d applied the stickers correctly to the left side, he wouldn’t have had to bother custom-cutting a sticker around his gas-cap door.” … Lots of Fort Hood memorial decals on tap for this weekend (big thanks to decal maven Chris Willis). … Further evidence of Troy Polamalu’s cross habit. That shot was taken by Steve Harrison two weeks ago. … Reprinted from yesterday’s comments: Separated at birth? (As spotted by eagle-eyed Jim Vilk.) … Way back in late September I asked about these Arkansas merit decals. Not sure if we ever got a good answer, but here’s one from Sean Patton: “They are not crosses — they are supposed to be sledgehammers. Back in the summer, the strength coaches started a reward for players during two-a-days. They would pick the players, four or five a day, who showed the greatest effort during practice, and those players would be given a sledgehammer (a real one, not a decal) and would get to hit a huge flat boulder that was set up at the outdoor practice fields. Each player would try to take a chunk of the rock off with their allotted number of swings. So the decals are sledgehammers.” In other words, your reward for working hard at practice is being put on a prison-style chain gang. … Tyler Kepner notes that Padres GM Jed Hoyer needs to update some logos on his wall. … The Hornets are going to unveil a Mardi Gras-themed uniform a week from today. I’ve seen the design, and it’s the bomb. … Arkansas has signed an outfitting deal with Nike. … Remember Craig Anders(s)on and the extra “S” that appeared and then disappeared from his NOB? Turns out it’s still on his stick (great catch by Michael Putlack). … Chris Cocuzza had an authentic Randy Moss Raiders jersey and wanted to convert it to a Louis Murphy jersey (same uni number). So he got himself a $15 lettering kit, had his sewing-skilled grandma remove the “Moss” nameplate from the jersey and then had her remove the letters from the nameplate. Then he sewed the new letters onto the ’plate and sewed the ’plate back onto the jersey — presto! … Here’s a craigslist listing you don’t see every day: football pumpkins (amazing find by Steven Brown). … The Florida Panthers will finally unveil their alternate jersey on November 23rd. If you believe the folks on the Chris Creamer site, it will look something like this. … More World Cup kits, for Greece, Germany, Mexico, and South Africa (with thanks to Stephen Wong).

 

306 comments to ‘Why Yes, I Do Think I Could Do Better’

  • dwight | November 11, 2009 at 8:20 am |

    2 questions re: the Nikefied unis – 1) Why didn’t Texas have burnt orange pants and/or helmet? 2) are there any other shots showing the helmet decals?

  • sobrairk | November 11, 2009 at 8:21 am |

    Didn’t Ohio State apply thier leaf decals on the right side in Woodys day?

  • Terry | November 11, 2009 at 8:21 am |

    I could see Ken Carbone’s designs being used by rollerderby teams. But not by bad ass rollerderby teams, though.

  • LI Phil | November 11, 2009 at 8:27 am |

    fun column today…i gotta say, the skins helmet turned out pretty well…and although they probably should have had a new monicker years ago, i like the final results…the others, not so much (first thing i thought of when i saw the pats helmet was a wyatt’s chopper lid from easy rider)

    but the skins helmet would be an improvement…certainly better than one i attempted a short while ago

  • The Jeff | November 11, 2009 at 8:34 am |

    I think I agree about the Redskins being the only one of those where his redesign could work, though I think the helmet stripe muddles it up. Take the stripe out and add another feather in the void. Even that isn’t really too far off from the old feather-stripe helmet of the 50’s.

    The stars-n-stripes helmet might be OK for an Olympic team, should American Football ever achieve global domination, but that’s about it.

  • Dane | November 11, 2009 at 8:35 am |

    After losing to Calgary last night, the Montreal Canadiens now have a four-game losing streak wearing the red jerseys with the green maple leaf. The losing streak began on March 2, 1911.

    Source: Habs Inside/Out

  • DJ | November 11, 2009 at 8:36 am |

    No, I have to say he acheived a Triple Crown of sorts. None of his designs are any good.

  • Tom V | November 11, 2009 at 8:39 am |

    Whoa there Mr. Carbone….VERY THIN ICE you’re skating there coming up with your own designs…

    Oh wait he’s a graphic designer, it’s ok.

    [sarcasm off]

  • BuckeyeMark | November 11, 2009 at 8:42 am |

    [quote comment=”359693″]Whoa there Mr. Carbone….VERY THIN ICE you’re skating there coming up with your own designs…

    Oh wait he’s a graphic designer, it’s ok.

    [sarcasm off][/quote]

    lol

  • BuckeyeMark | November 11, 2009 at 8:45 am |

    more proof that beauty is in the eye of the beholder – I liked the Tampa treatment (didn’t really think of the Raiders connection) and thought the Patriots helmet was okay to good. the Redskins thing? nope.

    it does raise an interesting question: if helmets were designed for today where TV is king would they use bigger graphics? the Raider shield is pretty complicated as is the Dolphin “sun hoop.” wonder if that kind of conversation was held with the new football league? although since teams wear different colors does anybody really get confused as to who is who, at home (with HD TV) or on the 50 yard line?

  • GoTerriers | November 11, 2009 at 8:47 am |

    That Patriots helmet treatment would work if they changed their name to the New England Evil Knievels

  • leon | November 11, 2009 at 8:48 am |

    redskins helmet looks like fuck

  • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2009 at 8:58 am |

    I just added an embedded video to today’s post. If you read today’s entry before I added the video, I *strongly* recommend scrolling back up to watch it.

  • jesse. | November 11, 2009 at 8:58 am |

    Is there a reason they are called “riflery” uniforms, rather than rivalry uniforms. Is this an inside joke or a typo?

  • The Jeff | November 11, 2009 at 8:59 am |

    [quote comment=”359695″]more proof that beauty is in the eye of the beholder – I liked the Tampa treatment (didn’t really think of the Raiders connection) and thought the Patriots helmet was okay to good. the Redskins thing? nope.

    it does raise an interesting question: if helmets were designed for today where TV is king would they use bigger graphics? the Raider shield is pretty complicated as is the Dolphin “sun hoop.” wonder if that kind of conversation was held with the new football league? although since teams wear different colors does anybody really get confused as to who is who, at home (with HD TV) or on the 50 yard line?[/quote]

    TV has pretty much always been king. Helmet logos didn’t start showing up until the late 50’s (except the Rams horns) and were pretty much standard by 1965, with the exception of the Browns of course. If there was any need for helmet logos to be bigger, they’d have done it already. Hell, HDTV makes it even easier to see the details. It’s not an issue.

    Also, I don’t think his Bucs design is really that Raider-ish, unless of course simply having crossed swords makes it Raider-ish by default. I don’t think the two Pirate-themed teams having similar design elements in their logos is any worse than the Panthers and Jaguars both using the head of their respective cats for logos.

  • DW95MVP | November 11, 2009 at 9:02 am |

    Still no Beefsteak pics?

  • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2009 at 9:02 am |

    [quote comment=”359699″]Is there a reason they are called “riflery” uniforms, rather than rivalry uniforms. Is this an inside joke or a typo?[/quote]

    Nike keeps referring to “combat,” so I’m gonna keep calling them riflery uniforms.

  • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2009 at 9:03 am |

    [quote comment=”359701″]Still no Beefsteak pics?[/quote]

    Tomorrow.

  • Bernard | November 11, 2009 at 9:07 am |

    I think I have to disagree about the Patriots design being laughably bad. It looks, to me, like a vintage high school treatment, in the very best way possible. Perhaps not right for the NFL, but then again, that’s a league that features this:
    http://www.sportsmem...

    and this:
    http://ecx.images-am...

    which I think ARE laughably bad.

  • Adam | November 11, 2009 at 9:10 am |

    Those Mexico kits look awful. I dig the feather motif on the front, but there’s WAYYYY too much going on on the arms. It looks like they patched over something with that huge green spot. South Africa’s got something similar going on, but the green/yellow scheme makes it look a lot more natural than the green/red look Mexico goes with. Also, what’s up with the unnecessary piping for the Greeks? What ever happened to less is more?

  • Dave R | November 11, 2009 at 9:14 am |

    I actually think the Patriots redesign is cool and could work. It’s definitely my favorite.

    The Redskins — it will never happen because teams with Native American nicknames never add emphasis to Native Americans when redesigning uniforms. It’s one of those weird double standards I don’t understand. You can maintain your existing logo because it’s been around for a long time, but don’t create a new one because that would be offensive.

    The Bucs redesign is a major misfire. Something like the awesome East Carolina alternate helmets worn against VT would be much better.

  • WillS | November 11, 2009 at 9:14 am |

    I’m not so sure about the new designs, but at least I’ve finally found someone who agrees with me that the Bengals design is the best helmet in the league!

    If he wants to look into more realistic helmet designs and logos, maybe he should look into college, where there are three Tigers teams that I can think of off the top of my head with pretty un-Tiger-like colors: Clemson (secondary color is purple), Auburn (primary color is blue), and LSU (purple and yellow???). This has always bugged me, and I know that they are classic designs, but can’t they figure this out?

  • jdreyfuss | November 11, 2009 at 9:14 am |

    The Patriots design was simply ridiculous, but the other two were clean, bold and interesting. I didn’t really see the connection between the Bucs and Raiders helmets, since the Raiders’ logo is evocative of Jolly Roger without actually being one and this is simply a Jolly Roger. the lack of a shield or an outline also distances the two.

    Overall, the Bucs helmet is my favorite of the three, but I really like the Redskins helmet too.

  • KimK | November 11, 2009 at 9:14 am |

    Just to pile on to the three helmet designs.

    The Pats helmet looks like it came out of 1970’s movie where the couldn’t get the rights to use real NFL stuff (or that Keanu Reeves movie).

    The Bucs helmet looks WLAF. It’s just too…something. Though something good could evolve from it.

    The Washington helmet is the best of the three. But it also needs refinement. Maybe ditch the stripe. Or change the stripe to colored feathers. But anything’s better than the current decapitated head logo.

  • Kent | November 11, 2009 at 9:15 am |

    The Arkansas sledgehammers remind me of my favorite USFL team:

    http://www.usfl.info...

    I cannot believe that I actually attended four of their home games.

    Kent in Atlanta

  • Beardface | November 11, 2009 at 9:15 am |

    [quote comment=”359701″]Still no Beefsteak pics?[/quote]
    I’m not sure pictures of Paul’s beefsteak experience will be SFW.

  • TMcLaughlin | November 11, 2009 at 9:21 am |

    The Dock Ellis video and that reimagineered Pats helmet go well together. One’s about a guy on acid, and the other’s designed by a guy on acid.

  • BenA | November 11, 2009 at 9:24 am |

    1) Helmet redesigns: Putting aside the fact that the Redskins should have changed nicknames/mascots decades ago (not only is it objectionably objectifying Native Americans….it’s a derogatory expression for Native Americans!), the ‘Skins helmet is far and away the best of the three, if you lose the stripe which really doesn’t work. That said, the Redskins current helmet design is fine, overlooking the racism that is.

    2) Riflery Unis: I’m not sure which of those is OU’s, but how come the Sooners didn’t get TNOF? “MIZZOU” and “TEXAS” appear on the front of two other unis. And there’s just something wrong about Oklahoma kits without “SOONERS” on the front.

  • Shaun | November 11, 2009 at 9:25 am |

    LOVE the vid… cant wait for full version! thanks paul!

  • Richard | November 11, 2009 at 9:27 am |

    the German kit is a thing of beauty.

  • jdreyfuss | November 11, 2009 at 9:32 am |

    [quote comment=\”359686\”]2 questions re: the Nikefied unis – 1) Why didn’t Texas have burnt orange pants and/or helmet? 2) are there any other shots showing the helmet decals?[/quote]
    [quote comment=\”359713\”]2) Riflery Unis: I’m not sure which of those is OU’s, but how come the Sooners didn’t get TNOF? “MIZZOU” and “TEXAS” appear on the front of two other unis. And there’s just something wrong about Oklahoma kits without “SOONERS” on the front.[/quote]
    Since these questions are related, the Texas and Oklahoma uniforms are taken from designs the schools used in the 50s and 60s. Texas didn’t have burnt orange pants or helmets for their road unis then and Oklahoma didn’t have their name on the chest. It’s the fourth from the left, by the way, between Virginia Tech and Florida.

  • jdreyfuss | November 11, 2009 at 9:33 am |

    [quote comment=”359716″][quote comment=\”359686\”]2 questions re: the Nikefied unis – 1) Why didn’t Texas have burnt orange pants and/or helmet? 2) are there any other shots showing the helmet decals?[/quote]
    [quote comment=\”359713\”]2) Riflery Unis: I’m not sure which of those is OU’s, but how come the Sooners didn’t get TNOF? “MIZZOU” and “TEXAS” appear on the front of two other unis. And there’s just something wrong about Oklahoma kits without “SOONERS” on the front.[/quote]
    Since these questions are related, the Texas and Oklahoma uniforms are taken from designs the schools used in the 50s and 60s. Texas didn’t have burnt orange pants or helmets for their road unis then and Oklahoma didn’t have their name on the chest. It’s the fourth from the left, by the way, between Virginia Tech and Florida.[/quote]

    Don’t know why it did that with the quotes, but that was dwight and BenA, respectively. I wasn’t answering my own questions.

  • Tom V | November 11, 2009 at 9:34 am |

    [quote comment=”359707″]Tigers teams that I can think of off the top of my head with pretty un-Tiger-like colors: Clemson (secondary color is purple), Auburn (primary color is blue), and LSU (purple and yellow???). This has always bugged me, and I know that they are classic designs, but can’t they figure this out?[/quote]

    One of my pet peeves is UF colors. Orange and blue and white and then you slap a big green gator on top of it. UF should have Miami’s colors. Too much orange in that stadium to be swamplike. My apologies in advance Gator fans.

  • ukben | November 11, 2009 at 9:35 am |

    I think the buckeye car owner applied the decals from the front? So from that perspective he was doing the left side first?

    I don;t follow college football, so I’m unsure if the decals usually are applied at the back or front of the helmet?

    Also, I really like the redskins helmet redesign, but the other 2 are meh. I do however agree with the article that the bengals helmet is nice, when I first started following the NFL about 5/6 years ago I thought it was really original and cool

  • Juke Early | November 11, 2009 at 9:36 am |

    The ‘skins helmet is a huge winner. Too bad they wouldn’t adopt it. NOT to mention finally changing that shameful nickname for a team—in the US Capitol, no less. Considering there on field woes—maybe a rebranding would generate much needed fan energy. I’ve said it before & it is verifiable: that word ” redskin ” was the equivalent of the N-word, at its inception. It currently is the same as another N word—NUMBSKULLS.

  • The Jeff | November 11, 2009 at 9:36 am |

    [quote comment=”359713″]1) Helmet redesigns: Putting aside the fact that the Redskins should have changed nicknames/mascots decades ago (not only is it objectionably objectifying Native Americans….it’s a derogatory expression for Native Americans!), the ‘Skins helmet is far and away the best of the three, if you lose the stripe which really doesn’t work. That said, the Redskins current helmet design is fine, overlooking the racism that is.

    2) Riflery Unis: I’m not sure which of those is OU’s, but how come the Sooners didn’t get TNOF? “MIZZOU” and “TEXAS” appear on the front of two other unis. And there’s just something wrong about Oklahoma kits without “SOONERS” on the front.[/quote]

    From this article: http://www.associate...

    In actuality, less than 18% of Native Americans are offended by Indian Mascots in pro sports. In a March 4, 2002 Sports Illustrated 7 page editorial entitled “The Indian Wars”, a poll was conducted amongst Native Americans. Surprisingly, the following information was gathered

    “Asked if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames, 81% of Native American respondents said no. As for pro sports, 83% of Native American respondents said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters and symbols.”

    Stop being “offended” on behalf of other people. If you don’t like the name, don’t support the team. You have no right to not be offended, and we do not want the government deciding what is or isn’t offensive, do we? The FCC and censorship on TV and radio is bad enough as it is.

  • Juke Early | November 11, 2009 at 9:38 am |

    Sigh—kids let this be a lesson—never grow old, have dial up AND a Mac. Just leads to typos. Even when one do proof. There ain’t no there, there, when it should be their. . ..

  • jdreyfuss | November 11, 2009 at 9:41 am |

    [quote comment=”359720″]The ‘skins helmet is a huge winner. Too bad they wouldn’t adopt it. NOT to mention finally changing that shameful nickname for a team—in the US Capitol, no less. Considering there on field woes—maybe a rebranding would generate much needed fan energy. I’ve said it before & it is verifiable: that word ” redskin ” was the equivalent of the N-word, at its inception. It currently is the same as another N word—NUMBSKULLS.[/quote]
    I’m an Indians fan, so I’ll always argue that the offensiveness of that name is subjective, especially when the Miami tribe declined the opportunity to protest, but things like the name ‘Redskins’ or Chief Wahoo are offensive on their own. The Skins need to change their name and the Indians need to change their logo back to the wishbone C. I still like the helmet design though. Like i said, it’s visually interesting without being cluttered.

  • bourbon soaked idiot | November 11, 2009 at 9:41 am |

    I don’t find it to be a silly article at all.
    Perhaps Paul you are the one being self important.

  • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2009 at 9:47 am |

    [quote comment=”359721″]The FCC and censorship on TV and radio is bad enough as it is.[/quote]

    Poor analogy. The electromagnetic spectrum is a finite resource — that’s why broadcasting is regulated (not censored). It’s not the same as standing on a street corner.

  • Matt Brosseau | November 11, 2009 at 9:48 am |

    “I was high as a Georgia pine!” Great stuff from the guys at No Mas. Can’t wait for the rest of it tomorrow.

    In somewhat related news, thanks to the Stirrup Club, I was properly attired in multi-stripe fashion for the recent Halloween Phish festival in Indio, California. Phans wear all sorts of weird shit so stirrups were a nice addition to the mix, got a lot of positive comments especially on the ’59 ChiSox hose (which I believe are the same ones Paul wore to the Hall of Fame, no?)

    One thing about Phish fans is that they know their baseball, they know their hallucinogens, and they are definitely pro-stirrup…

  • jdreyfuss | November 11, 2009 at 9:56 am |

    [quote comment=”359725″][quote comment=”359721″]The FCC and censorship on TV and radio is bad enough as it is.[/quote]

    Poor analogy. The electromagnetic spectrum is a finite resource — that’s why broadcasting is regulated (not censored). It’s not the same as standing on a street corner.[/quote]
    I’m pretty sure he was talking about the seven dirty words and all that, not limited bandwidth. Not a bad thing, but probably more restrictive than it needs to be. Remember though, FCC broadcast standards only apply to broadcast stations. Cable stations are self-regulating, even the ones on basic.

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

    [quote comment=”359725″][quote comment=”359721″]The FCC and censorship on TV and radio is bad enough as it is.[/quote]

    Poor analogy. The electromagnetic spectrum is a finite resource — that’s why broadcasting is regulated (not censored). It’s not the same as standing on a street corner.[/quote]

    Regulated sure seems to mean censored in modern context, or have we forgotten about the multi-million dollar fines over a “wardrobe malfunction” already?

    Regardless of my bad analogy, I don’t want the government forcing sports team name changes over “offensive” names that no one actually finds offensive. I don’t care how racist the name’s origin may be, it isn’t seen that way now. Swastikas were not always an evil symbol, and 100 years ago “gay” meant “happy”.

    When between 75% and 90% of the Native population doesn’t care and isn’t offended, why should anyone else be?

  • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2009 at 10:00 am |

    [quote comment=”359727″][quote comment=”359725″][quote comment=”359721″]The FCC and censorship on TV and radio is bad enough as it is.[/quote]

    Poor analogy. The electromagnetic spectrum is a finite resource — that’s why broadcasting is regulated (not censored). It’s not the same as standing on a street corner.[/quote]
    I’m pretty sure he was talking about the seven dirty words and all that, not limited bandwidth.[/quote]

    The reason those words are banned — and the reason other FCC regulations exist — is that the electromagnetic spectrum is a finite resource that needs to be managed for the public good. That’s why you need a license to broadcast; that’s why certain content is verboten. That’s not censorship — that’s managing a public resource.

    And yes, none of that applies to cable, because cable, by definition, is not broadcasting.

  • EddieAtari | November 11, 2009 at 10:01 am |

    The stars-and-stripes helmet would have been an improvement for Any Given Sunday’s Minnesota Americans

  • JTH | November 11, 2009 at 10:02 am |

    The Pats are definitely ridiculous. The Bucs could be tweaked a bit to make it a little less Raiders ripoff-ish. A red shell might be a good idea.

    The Skins design is definitely the class of that group.

    The headdress motif certainly works well on a helmet.

    And it has for years.

  • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2009 at 10:03 am |

    [quote comment=”359728″]Regulated sure seems to mean censored in modern context, or have we forgotten about the multi-million dollar fines over a “wardrobe malfunction” already?[/quote]

    You’re missing the point. Censorship is the quashing of free speech. But broadcasting isn’t free speech — it’s licensed use of a public resource, which means it comes with certain rules and responsibilities. This is all settled law.

    I have to do the dishes now. Have fun pretending to be outraged about this……

  • Casey (Davis, CA) | November 11, 2009 at 10:04 am |

    So Carey Price of the Montreal Canadiens now has a THIRD new mask. It’s a mask for Veteran’s Day:

    http://www.habsinsid...

    Has any other goalie worn 3 different masks in a matter of 20 games? (not including goalies who are traded/minor league call-ups, etc)

  • T-Payne | November 11, 2009 at 10:04 am |

    Do you know if adidas is doing anything special for these rivalry games nike is making these jerseys for, because most of these matchups are adidas vs nike? Kansas v Mizzou, Mich v OSU, A&M v Texas, LSU v Arkansas.

  • leon | November 11, 2009 at 10:05 am |

    IMHO, the Redskins won’t change the name unless some or all of the following occur:
    Agents dissuade their player/clients from signing with them because of the name.
    A majority of the other owners find it inappropriate and call for a change.
    Buying public speaks with its pocketbook and refuses to buy shit with offensive references (this includes out of towners as well).
    Fox,CBS,ESPN, etc. refuse to televise their games.

  • Todd Peak | November 11, 2009 at 10:06 am |

    I don’t understand the hatred that Paul has for the Bengals helmet. I might be biased growing up in the Cincinnati area, but I really do love that helmet.
    I agree with his critique of the proposed helmets, so I don’t understand why our tastes differ so much on the Cincy hats.

  • jdreyfuss | November 11, 2009 at 10:11 am |

    [quote comment=”359728″][quote comment=”359725″][quote comment=”359721″]The FCC and censorship on TV and radio is bad enough as it is.[/quote]

    Poor analogy. The electromagnetic spectrum is a finite resource — that’s why broadcasting is regulated (not censored). It’s not the same as standing on a street corner.[/quote]

    Regulated sure seems to mean censored in modern context, or have we forgotten about the multi-million dollar fines over a “wardrobe malfunction” already?

    Regardless of my bad analogy, I don’t want the government forcing sports team name changes over “offensive” names that no one actually finds offensive. I don’t care how racist the name’s origin may be, it isn’t seen that way now. Swastikas were not always an evil symbol, and 100 years ago “gay” meant “happy”.

    When between 75% and 90% of the Native population doesn’t care and isn’t offended, why should anyone else be?[/quote]
    A lot of derogatory words are only offensive in context and in that case, it should be the referred group that should have the most say, but some words are pejorative. They have only the one connotation and are always offensive, no matter if the group referred to complains. A football team calling itself the Redskins or a college calling its sports teams the Savages is offensive in any context, even if the original intent was to evoke a proud or fierce perception of Native Americans.

  • The Jeff | November 11, 2009 at 10:13 am |

    [quote comment=”359732″][quote comment=”359728″]Regulated sure seems to mean censored in modern context, or have we forgotten about the multi-million dollar fines over a “wardrobe malfunction” already?[/quote]

    You’re missing the point. Censorship is the quashing of free speech. But broadcasting isn’t free speech — it’s licensed use of a public resource, which means it comes with certain rules and responsibilities. This is all settled law.

    I have to do the dishes now. Have fun pretending to be outraged about this……[/quote]

    Just because it’s currently the law, it doesn’t mean it’s “right”.

    But this is the wrong place to argue about it, so consider the topic dropped.

  • JTH | November 11, 2009 at 10:14 am |

    [quote comment=”359728″]When between 75% and 90% of the Native population doesn’t care and isn’t offended, why should anyone else be?[/quote]
    So the other 10 to 25 percent are offended? I guess it’s OK to ignore them because they’re the minority, right?

    What if three-fifths of them were offended?

  • Brian Walden | November 11, 2009 at 10:15 am |

    Those helmet designs are all cartoonish.

    WillS said:

    If he wants to look into more realistic helmet designs and logos, maybe he should look into college, where there are three Tigers teams that I can think of off the top of my head with pretty un-Tiger-like colors: Clemson (secondary color is purple), Auburn (primary color is blue), and LSU (purple and yellow???). This has always bugged me, and I know that they are classic designs, but can’t they figure this out?

    Their colors aren’t tiger colors for the same reason the Broncos, Ravens, Colts, Jaguars, Dolphins, Bears, Lions, Falcons, Panthers, Seahawks, Rams, and Eagles don’t wear the colors of their mascots’ fur/feathers/skin. Most teams choose their colors from their city/school colors, or the owner’s favorite colors, or the colors the marketing department thinks will sell the best. If teams chose their colors from their mascots almost all the teams with animal mascots would wear browns and blacks.

  • leon | November 11, 2009 at 10:16 am |

    “A football team calling itself the Redskins or a college calling its sports teams the Savages is offensive in any context, even if the original intent was to evoke a proud or fierce perception of Native Americans.”

    So the Packers should change their name?

  • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2009 at 10:20 am |

    [quote comment=”359736″]I don’t understand the hatred that Paul has for the Bengals helmet. I might be biased growing up in the Cincinnati area, but I really do love that helmet.
    I agree with his critique of the proposed helmets, so I don’t understand why our tastes differ so much on the Cincy hats.[/quote]

    I have never liked the tiger stripe helmet. Looks like too much of a hodgepodge, too abstract. But I appreciate that it’s a very different approach to helmet design (and was pretty radical when it was introduced). My experience is that people either love it or hate it. I’m in the latter camp, but I realize that many fans — including many Uni Watch readers — count it among their favorite NFL helmet designs.

  • Beardface | November 11, 2009 at 10:21 am |

    [quote comment=”359733″]So Carey Price of the Montreal Canadiens now has a THIRD new mask. It’s a mask for Veteran’s Day:

    http://www.habsinsid...

    Has any other goalie worn 3 different masks in a matter of 20 games? (not including goalies who are traded/minor league call-ups, etc)[/quote]
    Cam Ward has done that in previous years. He’ll have the old mask from the previous year, then he’ll have 2 more developed in the offseason that aren’t finished (main and a backup that he’ll rotate throughout the season) but will wear both within a week or so of each other once they are.

  • Stuby | November 11, 2009 at 10:22 am |

    Hell, I’ve never been able to figure out what the Redskins current helmet logo is supposed to be. I mean, is it a drum or what? The feathers on the outside of the circle are redundant since there are feathers are on the inside. Always hated that.

  • Brian Erni | November 11, 2009 at 10:25 am |

    Paul,

    As we move into MLB unveiling season, do you have a list of firm dates that new stuff will be announced? I know a lot of people have been waiting on the Twins thinking that they’re coming sometime this week and I saw Nov 22 for the Mets somewhere. Any chance on shedding some light? Thanks!

  • The Jeff | November 11, 2009 at 10:27 am |

    [quote comment=”359739″][quote comment=”359728″]When between 75% and 90% of the Native population doesn’t care and isn’t offended, why should anyone else be?[/quote]
    So the other 10 to 25 percent are offended? I guess it’s OK to ignore them because they’re the minority, right?

    What if three-fifths of them were offended?[/quote]

    Funny…

    Three-fifths wouldn’t be a minority, now would it?

    Do we care if PETA wants to protest the various animal-named teams?

    If a majority of the native population was offended, by all means, change the name. But it’s a small fraction of them.

  • BenA | November 11, 2009 at 10:29 am |

    Add me to the list of people who like the Bengals’ helmets. The rest of their current kit….not so much.

    As for the offensiveness of Native American mascots. I’m not being offended for anyone. I am offended. More importantly many Native Americans are offended (as even that one poll suggests).

    I’m also certainly not calling for government censorship. I’m calling for the Washington Redskins to voluntarily adopt another name or for the NFL, a private organization, to voluntarily make them do so.

    One of the things that the University of Oklahoma–where I work–is justifiably proud about is that, back in 1970, we were the first college to voluntarily ditch its Indian mascot (“Little Red” who used to parade the sidelines of Sooner football games).

  • RS Rogers | November 11, 2009 at 10:30 am |

    The Skins helmet is a terrific idea, though most of the black in the feathers should probably be yellow, in order to make it visibly contrasty. However, I still prefer the 1960-64 feather helmets. Tweak/update the color scheme, and that’d be the best helmet in the NFL. The great thing about either design is that the team could change its name to the Warriors and retain the feather helmets.

    On the Patriots, I’d go with something a bit more abstract: Throw a thick white line around the helmet to make a tricorn hat like both Pat and Elvis wear. Could even make it a bit more literal with a Revolutionary-era cockade on one side.

  • Jeff P | November 11, 2009 at 10:31 am |

    [quote comment=”359746″][quote comment=”359739″][quote comment=”359728″]When between 75% and 90% of the Native population doesn’t care and isn’t offended, why should anyone else be?[/quote]
    So the other 10 to 25 percent are offended? I guess it’s OK to ignore them because they’re the minority, right?

    What if three-fifths of them were offended?[/quote]

    Funny…

    Three-fifths wouldn’t be a minority, now would it?

    Do we care if PETA wants to protest the various animal-named teams?

    If a majority of the native population was offended, by all means, change the name. But it’s a small fraction of them.[/quote]

    I wonder how different the poll would be if it was just about the redskins name and not groupings of “Indians” and “Souix” or whatnot.

    Naming your team the Indians is very different then naming your team the redskins. I would bet that that poll would be far different.

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

    [quote comment=”359749″][quote comment=”359746″][quote comment=”359739″][quote comment=”359728″]When between 75% and 90% of the Native population doesn’t care and isn’t offended, why should anyone else be?[/quote]
    So the other 10 to 25 percent are offended? I guess it’s OK to ignore them because they’re the minority, right?

    What if three-fifths of them were offended?[/quote]

    Funny…

    Three-fifths wouldn’t be a minority, now would it?

    Do we care if PETA wants to protest the various animal-named teams?

    If a majority of the native population was offended, by all means, change the name. But it’s a small fraction of them.[/quote]

    I wonder how different the poll would be if it was just about the redskins name and not groupings of “Indians” and “Souix” or whatnot.

    Naming your team the Indians is very different then naming your team the redskins. I would bet that that poll would be far different.[/quote]
    And the PETA analogy is completely bogus.

    Now, if 10-25% of Bears, Tigers, Eagles, Wolverines, etc. found the names offensive, you’re damn right I’m willing to listen.

  • EddieAtari | November 11, 2009 at 10:39 am |

    [quote comment=”359736″]I don’t understand the hatred that Paul has for the Bengals helmet. I might be biased growing up in the Cincinnati area, but I really do love that helmet.
    I agree with his critique of the proposed helmets, so I don’t understand why our tastes differ so much on the Cincy hats.[/quote]

    I like the tiger stripe helmet a lot too. But I don’t like how they bleed down the shoulder and side panels. It’s been that way for a while

  • The Jeff | November 11, 2009 at 10:39 am |

    [quote comment=”359750″][quote comment=”359749″][quote comment=”359746″][quote comment=”359739″][quote comment=”359728″]When between 75% and 90% of the Native population doesn’t care and isn’t offended, why should anyone else be?[/quote]
    So the other 10 to 25 percent are offended? I guess it’s OK to ignore them because they’re the minority, right?

    What if three-fifths of them were offended?[/quote]

    Funny…

    Three-fifths wouldn’t be a minority, now would it?

    Do we care if PETA wants to protest the various animal-named teams?

    If a majority of the native population was offended, by all means, change the name. But it’s a small fraction of them.[/quote]

    I wonder how different the poll would be if it was just about the redskins name and not groupings of “Indians” and “Souix” or whatnot.

    Naming your team the Indians is very different then naming your team the redskins. I would bet that that poll would be far different.[/quote]
    And the PETA analogy is completely bogus.

    Now, if 10-25% of Bears, Tigers, Eagles, Wolverines, etc. found the names offensive, you’re damn right I’m willing to listen.[/quote]

    So I guess we need to find out of Simba and Aslan are offended, right?

  • Chris | November 11, 2009 at 10:40 am |

    I vaguely remember several years ago the Chiefs displaying a helmet prototype that used the feather headdress idea that spanned from earhole to earhole. Any remember this as well and/or have an image?

  • BenA | November 11, 2009 at 10:41 am |

    [quote comment=\”359749\”]
    I wonder how different the poll would be if it was just about the redskins name and not groupings of \”Indians\” and \”Souix\” or whatnot.

    Naming your team the Indians is very different then naming your team the redskins. I would bet that that poll would be far different.[/quote]

    This.

    I\’m totally comfortable with the Seminole tribe agreeing that the Florida State should be able to use its name as a team nickname (and the NCAA therefore letting them keep it), and, similarly, with Native American colleges using Indian nicknames if they wish.

    I\’ve always been untroubled by the nickname \”Braves\” (though I find the tomahawk chop problematic) and the Golden State Warriors have long since ditched the Native American connotation of the nickname (which was once explicit in their team logo) while keeping the name itself.

    The biggest problem with the Cleveland Indians is Chief Wahoo, who is a deeply racist caricature.

    And before anyone complains yet again about my saying these things: these are my subjective reactions to these names and images. I\’m not feeling offended for other people. In cases where I am offended, I am offended. So I wish that the things that cause me offense were not there, while at the same time acknowledging the 1st Amendment rights of those offending me to engage in offensive speech.

  • BenA | November 11, 2009 at 10:41 am |

    Whoops…

    I’m not quoting myself there. I’m quoting Jeff P.

  • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2009 at 10:43 am |

    [quote comment=”359753″]I vaguely remember several years ago the Chiefs displaying a helmet prototype that used the feather headdress idea that spanned from earhole to earhole. Any remember this as well and/or have an image?[/quote]

    The Chiefs prototype is one of the great Uni Watch holy grails. Many readers have told me they recall seeing the prototype displayed in the broadcast booth during a game, I think in the 1990s. But nobody has ever produced an image….

  • Broadway Connie | November 11, 2009 at 10:43 am |

    1. [quote comment=”359705″]Those Mexico kits look awful. I dig the feather motif on the front, but there’s WAYYYY too much going on on the arms. It looks like they patched over something with that huge green spot. South Africa’s got something similar going on, but the green/yellow scheme makes it look a lot more natural than the green/red look Mexico goes with. Also, what’s up with the unnecessary piping for the Greeks? What ever happened to less is more?[/quote]

    Adam says it perfectly. Especially upsetting to see that stupid piping attached to Greece’s heretofore splendidly simple kit. Adam omits discussion of the new German shirt, though, which I think is a very cool, classy affair.

    2. Dock Ellis video is fabulous. Thanks, Paul!

    3. Proposed Patriots helmet even worse than Flying Elvis.

  • The Jeff | November 11, 2009 at 10:48 am |

    [quote comment=”359756″][quote comment=”359753″]I vaguely remember several years ago the Chiefs displaying a helmet prototype that used the feather headdress idea that spanned from earhole to earhole. Any remember this as well and/or have an image?[/quote]

    The Chiefs prototype is one of the great Uni Watch holy grails. Many readers have told me they recall seeing the prototype displayed in the broadcast booth during a game, I think in the 1990s. But nobody has ever produced an image….[/quote]

    Would you by chance know what team the Chiefs were playing when this supposedly occurred?

  • Brian Walden | November 11, 2009 at 10:56 am |

    Who the hell is Savages offensive to? I don\’t know of any group in the US today who would classify as savages. Better outlaw barbarians while we\’re at it, there are so many Barbarian Americans who might be offended. Savages or Barbarians could be used in an offensive manner if applied to a specific ethnic group in a derogatory way, but I don\’t see any problem with a team using those words in and of themselves.

    You may be right about the Redskins, but you sound like the type PC-activist who\’s offended by the word niggardly.

    Funny side note, I looked at the Redskins Wikipedia entry to see if it had information on why the team originally chose the name and someone changed the entry to say: \”The Washington Redskins are a semi-professional American football team based in the Washington, D.C. area. The team attempts to play at FedExField in Landover, Maryland, which is in Prince George\’s County, Maryland.\” (emphasis mine).

  • Maks | November 11, 2009 at 10:56 am |

    sigh… you know… sometimes i really wish the internet try to follow the ADA law of providing accessibility, ie: subtitles/captioning. (i know the ADA law might need to be updated to apply on ALL kinds of media: tv and Internet)

    The No Mas video looks cool but it seems like there were some dialog happening. and i have no clue whats being said.

    Why? I’m deaf.

    But i give them kudos for neat graphic/visuals.

    okay. vent over. continue on.

  • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2009 at 10:58 am |

    [quote comment=”359758″][quote comment=”359756″][quote comment=”359753″]I vaguely remember several years ago the Chiefs displaying a helmet prototype that used the feather headdress idea that spanned from earhole to earhole. Any remember this as well and/or have an image?[/quote]

    The Chiefs prototype is one of the great Uni Watch holy grails. Many readers have told me they recall seeing the prototype displayed in the broadcast booth during a game, I think in the 1990s. But nobody has ever produced an image….[/quote]

    Would you by chance know what team the Chiefs were playing when this supposedly occurred?[/quote]

    Nope. Never been able to narrow it down to a specific game, or even a specific season.

  • The Jeff | November 11, 2009 at 11:01 am |

    [quote comment=”359761″][quote comment=”359758″][quote comment=”359756″][quote comment=”359753″]I vaguely remember several years ago the Chiefs displaying a helmet prototype that used the feather headdress idea that spanned from earhole to earhole. Any remember this as well and/or have an image?[/quote]

    The Chiefs prototype is one of the great Uni Watch holy grails. Many readers have told me they recall seeing the prototype displayed in the broadcast booth during a game, I think in the 1990s. But nobody has ever produced an image….[/quote]

    Would you by chance know what team the Chiefs were playing when this supposedly occurred?[/quote]

    Nope. Never been able to narrow it down to a specific game, or even a specific season.[/quote]

    Damn. I’ve recently found a source for a few old broadcasts with a scattering of games from the 90’s available, but I really don’t want to try to search through that many Chiefs games looking for something which may not have even happened.

  • A.G. | November 11, 2009 at 11:04 am |

    Going through some old VHS tapes over the weekend of college football games/highlights late 70’s early 80’s. Can anyone tell me what exactly were the pride/spirit stickers worn by Michigan and Pitt?
    Michigans seemed to be flush with the helmet…while Pitt’s were actually a raised plastic round application.

    Wish both programs would bring them back…and I miss seeing the rifle on the WVU’s helmets at this time of year!

  • JTH | November 11, 2009 at 11:12 am |

    [quote comment=”359759″]You may be right about the Redskins, but you sound like the type PC-activist who’s offended by the word niggardly.
    [/quote]
    What? Please clarify this statement. I see no connection.

    If someone finds the word “niggardly” offensive, it’s likely due to ignorance of its definition and confusion with a completely different, but similar-sounding word.

    Redskin, on the other hand, is an actual word that has a history of being used to disparage an ethnic group.

  • BenA | November 11, 2009 at 11:13 am |

    [quote comment=”359759″]
    You may be right about the Redskins, but you sound like the type PC-activist who\’s offended by the word niggardly.
    [/quote]

    FWIW, I don’t find the word “niggardly” at all offensive and I think that those who do are being a bit silly. On the other hand, I’m aware that many people find it offensive, so I avoid using it (and, due to the wonders of the English language which is blessed with multiple words for most concepts, am able to communicate just fine without using it).

    Language is social. And when you know that words or images offend others, it often makes sense to politely use different words or images. And it’s silly to complain when one uses predictably offensive words and images that others are offended by them. That’s a choice that the user of offensive imagery and language has made.

  • Doug | November 11, 2009 at 11:17 am |

    [quote comment=”359687″]Didn’t Ohio State apply thier leaf decals on the right side in Woodys day?[/quote]
    Actually, if you were standing in front of the Bug looking at it, the decals would be on the left side of the car.

  • John T | November 11, 2009 at 11:21 am |

    Now this is offensive…

    http://theropolitans...

  • Blake | November 11, 2009 at 11:22 am |

    [quote comment=”359733″]So Carey Price of the Montreal Canadiens now has a THIRD new mask. It’s a mask for Veteran’s Day:

    http://www.habsinsid...

    Has any other goalie worn 3 different masks in a matter of 20 games? (not including goalies who are traded/minor league call-ups, etc)[/quote]

    Actually he has a 4th mask which he has yet to wear. I really doubt there ever been a goalie who wore 4 different masks in a season.

  • Brian Walden | November 11, 2009 at 11:29 am |

    This was before my time, but my Dad told me that Syracuse’s mascot used to be the Saltine Warrior. There’s still a really cool statue of the Saltine Warrior on campus. That sounds like a cool mascot to me because it’s based on local elements. Saltine references Syracuse’s nickname as the Salt City because of it’s salty marshes which led to salt production becoming one of the city’s early major industries (there are many businesses in Syracuse that still use Salt City in their name). And Syracuse is in Onondaga County, named after the Onondaga Nation of Iroquois Indians. While the name “Saltine Warrior” comes from a now debunked archaeological discovery, as far as I can tell it was adopted in a sense of pride in the heritage of the region’s Native Americans.

    After the Saltine Warrior was ditched, a Roman gladiator was adopted for a short time before being abandoned due to it’s unpopularity with fans. My mom’s whole side of the family is Italian (3 of her 4 grandparents were born in Italy). Should I, who am likely a decedent of citizens of the Roman Empire, be offended? What about Orangemen (the school recently dropped the men part)? I’m Catholic (as is a significant proportion of Central New Yorkers), should I be offended by the name because a group with the same name still puts on anti-Catholic parades in the United Kingdom to this day?

    It seems to me that the Saltine Warrior is a much better mascot for a Syracuse team than a fruit which doesn’t grow in the city’s climate. (As a side note, if I were starting my own team in Syracuse I’d name them the Salt City Warriors but I’d use American military imagery rather than Indian imagery for the team).

  • Giancarlo | November 11, 2009 at 11:34 am |

    I like the idea of the feathers for the Skins, but it should be rendered carefully so that it doesn’t look like the helmet’s been shat on by an eagle. Not a good look for the NFC East.

  • Blake | November 11, 2009 at 11:34 am |

    Sort of surprised no one has mentioned the beatiful sweaters The Montreal Canadiens wore last night. The entire kit was mouthwateringly gorgeous. Here’s the clearest pick I could find of the front. They brought out the brown gloves and everything. Wonderful.

  • nateisfunny | November 11, 2009 at 11:36 am |

    It would be interesting to see a matchup of that Redskins design against the Eagles- feathers v. wings.

  • The Jeff | November 11, 2009 at 11:37 am |

    [quote comment=”359765″][quote comment=”359759″]
    You may be right about the Redskins, but you sound like the type PC-activist who\’s offended by the word niggardly.
    [/quote]

    FWIW, I don’t find the word “niggardly” at all offensive and I think that those who do are being a bit silly. On the other hand, I’m aware that many people find it offensive, so I avoid using it (and, due to the wonders of the English language which is blessed with multiple words for most concepts, am able to communicate just fine without using it).

    Language is social. And when you know that words or images offend others, it often makes sense to politely use different words or images. And it’s silly to complain when one uses predictably offensive words and images that others are offended by them. That’s a choice that the user of offensive imagery and language has made.[/quote]

    As you said, language is social – that also means that it changes as society changes. Things that were offensive 100 years ago may no longer maintain the same meaning. Perhaps I just live in the wrong part of the country to hear it, but I have NEVER heard anyone use “redskin” to refer to anything other than the football team. Sure, it started as racist, but to say it still is… I don’t think so.

    Give it another 30 years and a certain N word isn’t going to be offensive either, as evidenced by how often it shows up in rap lyrics and casual conversation of some groups.

  • JimV19 | November 11, 2009 at 11:47 am |

    [quote comment=”359740″]Those helmet designs are all cartoonish.

    WillS said:

    If he wants to look into more realistic helmet designs and logos, maybe he should look into college, where there are three Tigers teams that I can think of off the top of my head with pretty un-Tiger-like colors: Clemson (secondary color is purple), Auburn (primary color is blue), and LSU (purple and yellow???). This has always bugged me, and I know that they are classic designs, but can’t they figure this out?

    Their colors aren’t tiger colors for the same reason the Broncos, Ravens, Colts, Jaguars, Dolphins, Bears, Lions, Falcons, Panthers, Seahawks, Rams, and Eagles don’t wear the colors of their mascots’ fur/feathers/skin. Most teams choose their colors from their city/school colors, or the owner’s favorite colors, or the colors the marketing department thinks will sell the best. If teams chose their colors from their mascots almost all the teams with animal mascots would wear browns and blacks.[/quote]

    Exactly. I have no problem with team colors being different from the mascots. That applies to the teams that change the color of the animal (Detroit Lions) or teams who keep the animal color but the rest of the uni is team colors (Florida Gators).

    Hmm, I’d like to see a silver and blue Lions helmet with a brown lion on it. Or a green Eagles helmet with brown wings. Just for fun.

  • DenverGregg | November 11, 2009 at 11:51 am |

    [quote comment=”359748″]The Skins helmet is a terrific idea, though most of the black in the feathers should probably be yellow, in order to make it visibly contrasty. However, I still prefer the 1960-64 feather helmets. Tweak/update the color scheme, and that’d be the best helmet in the NFL. The great thing about either design is that the team could change its name to the Warriors and retain the feather helmets.

    On the Patriots, I’d go with something a bit more abstract: Throw a thick white line around the helmet to make a tricorn hat like both Pat and Elvis wear. Could even make it a bit more literal with a Revolutionary-era cockade on one side.[/quote]
    Great idea on the Pats helmet. Might be even better if the lower half were colored differently (silver?) from the upper half.

  • Bryan | November 11, 2009 at 11:52 am |

    [quote comment=”359771″]Sort of surprised no one has mentioned the beatiful sweaters The Montreal Canadiens wore last night. The entire kit was mouthwateringly gorgeous. Here’s the clearest pick I could find of the front. They brought out the brown gloves and everything. Wonderful.[/quote]
    Besides Quote #6, that they are on a 4 game losing streak with them.

  • JimV19 | November 11, 2009 at 11:52 am |

    [quote comment=”359772″]It would be interesting to see a matchup of that Redskins design against the Eagles- feathers v. wings.[/quote]

    That would sure ruffle some feathers…

    As for the Bucs helmet, there’s an easy way to keep it from looking like a Raiders helmet – creamsicle orange, baby!

  • John T | November 11, 2009 at 11:53 am |

    interesting, Uniwatch is the top item in hot clicks today

    Under the cheerleaders that is…..
    http://sportsillustr...

  • The Jeff | November 11, 2009 at 11:54 am |

    [quote comment=”359774″][quote comment=”359740″]Those helmet designs are all cartoonish.

    WillS said:

    If he wants to look into more realistic helmet designs and logos, maybe he should look into college, where there are three Tigers teams that I can think of off the top of my head with pretty un-Tiger-like colors: Clemson (secondary color is purple), Auburn (primary color is blue), and LSU (purple and yellow???). This has always bugged me, and I know that they are classic designs, but can’t they figure this out?

    Their colors aren’t tiger colors for the same reason the Broncos, Ravens, Colts, Jaguars, Dolphins, Bears, Lions, Falcons, Panthers, Seahawks, Rams, and Eagles don’t wear the colors of their mascots’ fur/feathers/skin. Most teams choose their colors from their city/school colors, or the owner’s favorite colors, or the colors the marketing department thinks will sell the best. If teams chose their colors from their mascots almost all the teams with animal mascots would wear browns and blacks.[/quote]

    Exactly. I have no problem with team colors being different from the mascots. That applies to the teams that change the color of the animal (Detroit Lions) or teams who keep the animal color but the rest of the uni is team colors (Florida Gators).

    Hmm, I’d like to see a silver and blue Lions helmet with a brown lion on it. Or a green Eagles helmet with brown wings. Just for fun.[/quote]

    Like this?

    http://img91.imagesh...

    /no, I don’t have anything better to do

  • Giancarlo | November 11, 2009 at 11:55 am |

    Plus, mascots often have to wear little outfits in team colors, like the Florida gator with its little sweater, and you need to have a color contrast – in other words, not a green gator in a green sweater… U of Miami colors would work, though, ’cause the gator could still wear orange.

  • concealed78 | November 11, 2009 at 11:55 am |

    [quote comment=”359742″]

    I have never liked the tiger stripe helmet. Looks like too much of a hodgepodge, too abstract. But I appreciate that it’s a very different approach to helmet design (and was pretty radical when it was introduced). My experience is that people either love it or hate it. I’m in the latter camp, but I realize that many fans — including many Uni Watch readers — count it among their favorite NFL helmet designs.[/quote]

    Perhaps since I born in 1978, that’s the only Bengals helmet I know, and I never really thought much of it. I don’t hate it nor is it a favorite, I never saw the big deal of it – like it was consistent with the sleeve & pant stripes pattern. When I was a kid, that helmet was easy to draw. But the current uniforms are absolute shit.

  • JimV19 | November 11, 2009 at 11:55 am |

    The guy who made the football pumpkins could have saved some paint and made a bunch of Browns helmets. My dad’s been calling them pumpkin heads for years.

  • CMONEY | November 11, 2009 at 11:57 am |

    [quote comment=”359739″][quote comment=”359728″]When between 75% and 90% of the Native population doesn’t care and isn’t offended, why should anyone else be?[/quote]
    So the other 10 to 25 percent are offended? I guess it’s OK to ignore them because they’re the minority, right?

    What if three-fifths of them were offended?[/quote]
    What about the minority group that finds all of pro sports offensive? should we ignore them too?

  • JimV19 | November 11, 2009 at 12:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”359779″][quote comment=”359774″][quote comment=”359740″]Hmm, I’d like to see a silver and blue Lions helmet with a brown lion on it. Or a green Eagles helmet with brown wings. Just for fun.[/quote]

    Like this?

    http://img91.imagesh...

    /no, I don’t have anything better to do[/quote]

    That’s it! I like that, as much as I like the current helmet. Thanks.

  • joe | November 11, 2009 at 12:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”359766″][quote comment=”359687″]Didn’t Ohio State apply thier leaf decals on the right side in Woodys day?[/quote]
    Actually, if you were standing in front of the Bug looking at it, the decals would be on the left side of the car.[/quote]
    except that I’ve seen those cars for other schools and they have a facemask on the front, sh there is no question about which side is which. Some one where I work has a U of Ill-ness one.

  • seven | November 11, 2009 at 12:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”359733″]So Carey Price of the Montreal Canadiens now has a THIRD new mask. It’s a mask for Veteran’s Day:

    http://www.habsinsid...

    Has any other goalie worn 3 different masks in a matter of 20 games? (not including goalies who are traded/minor league call-ups, etc)[/quote]

    Actually Remembrance Day in Canada

  • Jim Bullard | November 11, 2009 at 12:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”359736″]I don’t understand the hatred that Paul has for the Bengals helmet. I might be biased growing up in the Cincinnati area, but I really do love that helmet.
    I agree with his critique of the proposed helmets, so I don’t understand why our tastes differ so much on the Cincy hats.[/quote]

    I agree, Cincy’s helmet is the most unique in the league. Unique doesn’t always mean “good” necessarily, but in my estimation, it does when it comes to the Bengals helmets.

    I won’t lie, I didn’t hate that Pats’ mockup either. I know it wouldn’t work in the NFL, but for a high school or arena league team I think it would be cool.

  • RDuke | November 11, 2009 at 12:13 pm |

    The No Mas/Dock Ellis story also covered on “America’s Favorite Pastime” a song from Todd Snider on his new album…

    http://www.myspace.c...

  • Kyle@IU | November 11, 2009 at 12:14 pm |

    What’s more offensive: the name “redskins”, or the team’s play? In retrospect, “offensive” may not be the right word to describe their play — that would indicate the presence of some sort of offense.

    Can someone list the teams in the “riflery” uni pic from left to right? I’ve been having trouble figuring out some…I can’t figure out who #68 third-from-left is (OK State maybe?), and I thought the guy next to him was Alabama…am I wrong there too? In any case, all of those uniforms are jokes (especially Miami). I am totally cheering for Michigan to beat Ohio State on 11/21 just so I never have to see that uniform again.

  • Graham | November 11, 2009 at 12:18 pm |

    besides being the lead on hot clicks on si.com, they also had a link to more info on the new nike uniforms. breaks them down with the slogan and tries to be funny.
    http://friendsofthep...

  • JTH | November 11, 2009 at 12:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”359783″][quote comment=”359739″][quote comment=”359728″]When between 75% and 90% of the Native population doesn’t care and isn’t offended, why should anyone else be?[/quote]
    So the other 10 to 25 percent are offended? I guess it’s OK to ignore them because they’re the minority, right?

    What if three-fifths of them were offended?[/quote]
    What about the minority group that finds all of pro sports offensive? should we ignore them too?[/quote]
    Is this a serious question?

  • Bob Loblaw | November 11, 2009 at 12:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”359709″]Just to pile on to the three helmet designs.

    The Pats helmet looks like it came out of 1970’s movie where the couldn’t get the rights to use real NFL stuff (or that Keanu Reeves movie).

    The Bucs helmet looks WLAF. It’s just too…something. Though something good could evolve from it.

    The Washington helmet is the best of the three. But it also needs refinement. Maybe ditch the stripe. Or change the stripe to colored feathers. But anything’s better than the current decapitated head logo.[/quote]
    good shout–it conjured memories of ‘any given sunday’. Not good.

  • Kyle@IU | November 11, 2009 at 12:21 pm |

    ohh, Graham conveniently answered my question about the unis. I forgot about VA Tech. And the fact that they’ve so totally butchered Oklahoma’s visual identity makes my brain hurt. Aren’t we due for some sort of volcano to go off near nike headquarters and rid us of this faff?

  • Bob Loblaw | November 11, 2009 at 12:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”359720″]The ‘skins helmet is a huge winner. Too bad they wouldn’t adopt it. NOT to mention finally changing that shameful nickname for a team—in the US Capitol, no less. Considering there on field woes—maybe a rebranding would generate much needed fan energy. I’ve said it before & it is verifiable: that word ” redskin ” was the equivalent of the N-word, at its inception. It currently is the same as another N word—NUMBSKULLS.[/quote]

    hmmm… does that mean that Univ of Nebraska football should be looking to ‘rebrand’?

  • JimV19 | November 11, 2009 at 12:25 pm |

    Well what do you know…Robert Marshall and I discussed this yesterday, and now here’s an article: http://online.wsj.co...

    This excerpt pretty much answers what I asked: “One of the strongest arguments for banning helmets comes from the Australian Football League. While it’s a similarly rough game, the AFL never added any of the body armor Americans wear. When comparing AFL research studies and official NFL injury reports, AFL players appear to get hurt more often on the whole with things like shoulder injuries and tweaked knees. But when it comes to head injuries, the helmeted NFL players are about 25% more likely to sustain one.”

    One of the first things that drew me to football as a kid was the aesthtetics of the helmets, but if it proves to actually make things worse, I say ditch ’em. Aerican and Canadian football could very easily adjust and still be a very exciting sport to watch.

  • EricRomain | November 11, 2009 at 12:26 pm |

    i actually really liked that article and the helmet redesigns. Well i didn’t like the Buccaneer redesign. The Pats helmet might not be handled well by today’s NFL fan, but i think it looks classic,in the same way i like the old New York Americans hockey sweaters. It’s so rare to see a patriotic design that actually used the flag’s colors these days.
    Now the Redskins helmet is great! That look just makes sense to me.

    All in all it’s nice to see some redesigns that don’t look like they were done by Reebok or Under Armour.

    As for the Indian mascot debate: Does anyone really think of native americans as savages these days? No? Does anyone still think western greeks are still wearing Trojan/Spartan armor and attempting to barbarically take over populations? No? It’s the SAME thing! The Indian mascots are a nod to history (albeit more recent) in the same manor that schools have choosen Trojan/Spartan mascots. Let’s move forward and stop walking on eggshells start understanding rather than being offended.

  • Kyle@IU | November 11, 2009 at 12:29 pm |

    Oh…and I thought the violet-and-gold uni was Washington…are you serious Nike?! Seriously…how can Nike and the schools conspire to destroy their own visual identities like that?! Gah…I hope ALL of these teams lose the games in which they wear these uniforms.

  • pflava | November 11, 2009 at 12:33 pm |

    Anyone else notice that “why are we even included in this?” Mizzou and TCU have (IMO) the most out-there, superhero uniforms of all the riflery teams?

  • Bob Loblaw | November 11, 2009 at 12:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”359769″]This was before my time, but my Dad told me that Syracuse’s mascot used to be the Saltine Warrior. There’s still a really cool statue of the Saltine Warrior on campus. That sounds like a cool mascot to me because it’s based on local elements. Saltine references Syracuse’s nickname as the Salt City because of it’s salty marshes which led to salt production becoming one of the city’s early major industries (there are many businesses in Syracuse that still use Salt City in their name). And Syracuse is in Onondaga County, named after the Onondaga Nation of Iroquois Indians. While the name “Saltine Warrior” comes from a now debunked archaeological discovery, as far as I can tell it was adopted in a sense of pride in the heritage of the region’s Native Americans.

    After the Saltine Warrior was ditched, a Roman gladiator was adopted for a short time before being abandoned due to it’s unpopularity with fans. My mom’s whole side of the family is Italian (3 of her 4 grandparents were born in Italy). Should I, who am likely a decedent of citizens of the Roman Empire, be offended? What about Orangemen (the school recently dropped the men part)? I’m Catholic (as is a significant proportion of Central New Yorkers), should I be offended by the name because a group with the same name still puts on anti-Catholic parades in the United Kingdom to this day?

    It seems to me that the Saltine Warrior is a much better mascot for a Syracuse team than a fruit which doesn’t grow in the city’s climate. (As a side note, if I were starting my own team in Syracuse I’d name them the Salt City Warriors but I’d use American military imagery rather than Indian imagery for the team).[/quote]
    true about the status — sits right on the quad and makes an infinitely better mascot than that moronic Otto. I’d say SU has bigger fish to fry right now considering our dormant football program and the hoopsters getting beaten by Lemoine! that was stunning!

  • pflava | November 11, 2009 at 12:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”359800″]Anyone else notice that “why are we even included in this?” Mizzou and TCU have (IMO) the most out-there, superhero uniforms of all the riflery teams?[/quote]

    Well, I’d throw FSU in there as well.

  • Brooks | November 11, 2009 at 12:40 pm |

    Good to meet you Sunday at the Bell House.

    Not even digging the Redskin’s helmet. Unless they want to change their name to the “Washington Show Girls”.

    Where are the Beef Steak Photos!?

  • Dane | November 11, 2009 at 12:43 pm |

    [quote comment=”359776″][quote comment=”359771″]Sort of surprised no one has mentioned the beatiful sweaters The Montreal Canadiens wore last night. The entire kit was mouthwateringly gorgeous. Here’s the clearest pick I could find of the front. They brought out the brown gloves and everything. Wonderful.[/quote]
    Besides Quote #6, that they are on a 4 game losing streak with them.[/quote]

    Here’s the slideshow from the Canadiens website:
    http://canadiens.nhl...

  • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2009 at 12:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”359798″]Does anyone really think of native americans as savages these days? No? Does anyone still think western greeks are still wearing Trojan/Spartan armor and attempting to barbarically take over populations? No? It’s the SAME thing![/quote]

    Except we didn’t steal a continent from the western Greeks.

    Maybe that’s just a teeny little difference.

  • mike 2 | November 11, 2009 at 12:48 pm |

    The first thing the Patriots helmet reminded me of was Captain America (Jack Nicholson) in Easy Rider.

    The Bucs helmet could be improved by putting the sword in the skull’s mouth and making him wink. Sort of a zombie Bucco Bruce.

  • LI Phil | November 11, 2009 at 12:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”359790″]Can someone list the teams in the “riflery” uni pic from left to right? I’ve been having trouble figuring out some…I can’t figure out who #68 third-from-left is (OK State maybe?), and I thought the guy next to him was Alabama…am I wrong there too? In any case, all of those uniforms are jokes (especially Miami). I am totally cheering for Michigan to beat Ohio State on 11/21 just so I never have to see that uniform again.[/quote]

    heh…

    i made this up yesterday before every website started posting the same pics…didn’t think it would come in handy…

    until now

  • Drew Hunziker | November 11, 2009 at 12:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”359761″][quote comment=”359758″][quote comment=”359756″][quote comment=”359753″]I vaguely remember several years ago the Chiefs displaying a helmet prototype that used the feather headdress idea that spanned from earhole to earhole. Any remember this as well and/or have an image?[/quote]

    The Chiefs prototype is one of the great Uni Watch holy grails. Many readers have told me they recall seeing the prototype displayed in the broadcast booth during a game, I think in the 1990s. But nobody has ever produced an image….[/quote]

    Would you by chance know what team the Chiefs were playing when this supposedly occurred?[/quote]

    Nope. Never been able to narrow it down to a specific game, or even a specific season.[/quote]

    I’m almost positive that I remember seing it during a Chiefs-Oilers game in the late 80’s. I remember a roomful of groans, and I was the only one who liked it at the time.

  • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2009 at 12:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”359806″]The Bucs helmet could be improved by putting the sword in the skull’s mouth and making him wink. Sort of a zombie Bucco Bruce.[/quote]

    I *love* that!

  • Ricko | November 11, 2009 at 12:58 pm |

    One thought for today…(and you, of course, can feel free to rip it to shreds)….

    That “group photo” of the Nike Combat unis leaves little doubt that Nike believes football is, or at least is best promoted as, a real-life video game. Or possibly that they think STARSHIP TROOPERS’ football was someone’s spot-on vision of the future.

    The flaw in Nike’s logic is thinking that “Kids like video games; so football should look like one” (iow, Give ’em what they want).

    Someone needs to remind them that Chrysler did the same sort of thing with outlandish automobile fins in the ’50s…and they don’t look at all “perceptive” or “forward-thinking” now. Just silly and wrong-headed.

    Rarely do manufacturers truly anticipate or create the direction of society’s future esthetics, or a culture-changing phenomenon. Not intentionally, anyway. More often than not, such things happen by accident. One notable exception, of course: Henry Ford offering vehicles in a color other than black.

    It works far better if someone creative does what they think will work, independent of a perception of “trendiness.”

    To wit, prior to the release of STAR WARS in 1977, film studios were NOT being flooded with requests for “some movies with droids in them.”

    —Ricko

  • LI Phil | November 11, 2009 at 12:58 pm |

    [quote comment=”359721″]In actuality, less than 18% of Native Americans are offended by Indian Mascots in pro sports. In a March 4, 2002 Sports Illustrated 7 page editorial entitled “The Indian Wars”, a poll was conducted amongst Native Americans. Surprisingly, the following information was gathered

    “Asked if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames, 81% of Native American respondents said no. As for pro sports, 83% of Native American respondents said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters and symbols.”[/quote]

    samuel clemens said (paraphrasing here): “there are lies, damn lies, and there are statistics”

    basically, what he was saying was you can use statistics to basically prove any point…you and others who defend the washington team’s use of this offensive and racist term keep digging up THIS poll and others to make yourselves feel better about how “native americans” feel about the use of “indian mascots” and such

    for about the 1,000th time, i think MOST of us on here have no problem with (or are not offended by) terms such as “indians” “braves” “warriors” or “fighting sioux” and such…these terms are either NEUTRAL or positive towards a particular race

    “REDSKINS” however, is NOT like the others…if you were to ask those same native indians who don’t find “native american names” offensive whether they find “REDSKINS” offensive, i GUARANTEE you a majority would

    but i can see arguing with you over this will be akin to both of us banging our heads against a brick wall…perhaps it wouldn’t harm you, but i’d like to keep the few brain cells i have left in tact

  • leon | November 11, 2009 at 1:08 pm |

    “i’d like to keep the few brain cells i have left in tact”

    dock ellis and i have some advice for you

  • JTH | November 11, 2009 at 1:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”359809″][quote comment=”359806″]The Bucs helmet could be improved by putting the sword in the skull’s mouth and making him wink. Sort of a zombie Bucco Bruce.[/quote]

    I *love* that![/quote]
    I do, too. But I’m having a hard time trying to figure out how to make a skull look like it’s winking.

    Maybe put some kind of jewel (a ruby might work, given the team colors) in one of the eye sockets and leave the other one empty?

  • Kyle | November 11, 2009 at 1:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”359807″][quote comment=”359790″]Can someone list the teams in the “riflery” uni pic from left to right? I’ve been having trouble figuring out some…I can’t figure out who #68 third-from-left is (OK State maybe?), and I thought the guy next to him was Alabama…am I wrong there too? In any case, all of those uniforms are jokes (especially Miami). I am totally cheering for Michigan to beat Ohio State on 11/21 just so I never have to see that uniform again.[/quote]

    heh…

    i made this up yesterday before every website started posting the same pics…didn’t think it would come in handy…

    until now[/quote]

    Anyone else notice that the only teams outside of Dixie are Ohio State and Mizzou?

    3 Big 12
    3 ACC
    2 SEC
    1 Mountain West
    1 Big Ten

    0 Big East or Pac-10

  • Ricko | November 11, 2009 at 1:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”359814″][quote comment=”359807″][quote comment=”359790″]Can someone list the teams in the “riflery” uni pic from left to right? I’ve been having trouble figuring out some…I can’t figure out who #68 third-from-left is (OK State maybe?), and I thought the guy next to him was Alabama…am I wrong there too? In any case, all of those uniforms are jokes (especially Miami). I am totally cheering for Michigan to beat Ohio State on 11/21 just so I never have to see that uniform again.[/quote]

    heh…

    i made this up yesterday before every website started posting the same pics…didn’t think it would come in handy…

    until now[/quote]

    Anyone else notice that the only teams outside of Dixie are Ohio State and Mizzou?

    3 Big 12
    3 ACC
    2 SEC
    1 Mountain West
    1 Big Ten

    0 Big East or Pac-10[/quote]

    Well, it’s a look that works well with the “My Name is Earl” crowd, what can I say.

    Cuz, y’know, you may not always have cable hooked up to your trailer, but you don’t need it to play video games.

    —Ricko

  • JimV19 | November 11, 2009 at 1:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”359809″][quote comment=”359806″]The Bucs helmet could be improved by putting the sword in the skull’s mouth and making him wink. Sort of a zombie Bucco Bruce.[/quote]

    I *love* that![/quote]

    I’d love a creamsicle zombie Bucco Bruce…

  • Bernard | November 11, 2009 at 1:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”359769″]This was before my time, but my Dad told me that Syracuse’s mascot used to be the Saltine Warrior. There’s still a really cool statue of the Saltine Warrior on campus. That sounds like a cool mascot to me because it’s based on local elements. Saltine references Syracuse’s nickname as the Salt City because of it’s salty marshes which led to salt production becoming one of the city’s early major industries (there are many businesses in Syracuse that still use Salt City in their name). And Syracuse is in Onondaga County, named after the Onondaga Nation of Iroquois Indians. While the name “Saltine Warrior” comes from a now debunked archaeological discovery, as far as I can tell it was adopted in a sense of pride in the heritage of the region’s Native Americans.

    After the Saltine Warrior was ditched, a Roman gladiator was adopted for a short time before being abandoned due to it’s unpopularity with fans. My mom’s whole side of the family is Italian (3 of her 4 grandparents were born in Italy). Should I, who am likely a decedent of citizens of the Roman Empire, be offended? What about Orangemen (the school recently dropped the men part)? I’m Catholic (as is a significant proportion of Central New Yorkers), should I be offended by the name because a group with the same name still puts on anti-Catholic parades in the United Kingdom to this day?

    It seems to me that the Saltine Warrior is a much better mascot for a Syracuse team than a fruit which doesn’t grow in the city’s climate. (As a side note, if I were starting my own team in Syracuse I’d name them the Salt City Warriors but I’d use American military imagery rather than Indian imagery for the team).[/quote]

    Hmmm… let me see if I can connect the dots for you. You’re Italian, right? So, you’re not offended by Roman soldier imagery, since it is (at least typically) a positive depiction. Maybe even the team name “Romans” would work for you.

    How would you feel about the “Wops” or “Degos”?

    That’s exactly what “Redskin” is – an ethnic slur. It was when it started, and it is today. And if that doesn’t make sense, to anybody on this board, I don’t know what else to tell you.

  • hugh.c.mcbride | November 11, 2009 at 1:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”359739″][quote comment=”359728″]

    What if three-fifths of them were offended?[/quote]

    QOTD (Question of the Day) award *gots* to go to JTH for this one.

    For purposes of illumination: http://en.wikipedia....

  • Brian | November 11, 2009 at 1:28 pm |

    I’m somewhat surprised that nobody mentioned the serious breach of flag etiquette that the Pats’ helmet design creates. I know that doesn’t count for much in an era when we have specialty MLB flag caps and flag patches on a lot of uniforms, but that has to be out of bounds for a pro sports uniform.

  • hugh.c.mcbride | November 11, 2009 at 1:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”359818″][quote comment=”359739″][quote comment=”359728″]

    What if three-fifths of them were offended?[/quote]

    QOTD (Question of the Day) award *gots* to go to JTH for this one.

    For purposes of illumination: http://en.wikipedia....

  • hugh.c.mcbride | November 11, 2009 at 1:31 pm |

    Yeah, I’m apparently incapable of mastering all these shiny buttons this morning …

    To summarize (hopefully sans italics):

    * Props to JTH for “three-fifths” question.
    * To be illuminated re: historical allusion in three-fifths question: http://en.wikipedia....

    OK, now ‘scuse me whilst I go shopping for an “HTML Tags 4 Dummiez” book.

  • Brian | November 11, 2009 at 1:32 pm |

    And as for the other big topic of discussion today, I don’t even like to talk about D.C.’s NFL team. I’ll go out of my way to avoid using the team name when I can. It’s just one of those things that feels wrong to me to say.

  • Jim Walaitis | November 11, 2009 at 1:33 pm |

    What are you people doing??? Don’t you realize that this discussion should be left to professional civil rights lawyers? You’re cheapening the product they provide Americans … wait … is it offensive to call us Americans? I mean, the name comes from an Italian, and we all know what happens if you tick off an Italian … I’d better delete this all before I accidently po

  • leon | November 11, 2009 at 1:37 pm |

    “Buck” was an ethnic slur applied to black men in the bad old days. And where I come from “Yankee” is considered a pejorative term.

  • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2009 at 1:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”359824″]where I come from “Yankee” is considered a pejorative term.[/quote]

    In my house too, believe me!

  • Casey (Davis, CA) | November 11, 2009 at 1:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”359768″][quote comment=”359733″]So Carey Price of the Montreal Canadiens now has a THIRD new mask. It’s a mask for Veteran’s Day:

    http://www.habsinsid...

    Has any other goalie worn 3 different masks in a matter of 20 games? (not including goalies who are traded/minor league call-ups, etc)[/quote]

    Actually he has a 4th mask which he has yet to wear. I really doubt there ever been a goalie who wore 4 different masks in a season.[/quote]

    Ah, good point. Forgot about the 4th mask.

  • Casey (Davis, CA) | November 11, 2009 at 1:44 pm |

    [quote comment=”359771″]Sort of surprised no one has mentioned the beatiful sweaters The Montreal Canadiens wore last night. The entire kit was mouthwateringly gorgeous. Here’s the clearest pick I could find of the front. They brought out the brown gloves and everything. Wonderful.[/quote]

    The uniforms were pretty sharp, but they were half-assed and wore a green shell over their blue pants, which looked like shite.

    http://www.tsn.ca/nh...

  • Robert | November 11, 2009 at 1:45 pm |

    I don’t think there’s any question “Redskin” was an ethnic slur and was used as such. What I think is in debate is if it still is. While you can certainly find references to other slurs online, a quick search of Google finds the first entry is the Washington Redskins.

    Words are just words but they have ascribed meaning to them. Sometimes those meanins change. “Gay” meant happy until it meant something else. I think you could make an argument the predominant ascribed meaning to the term “Redskins” is now the football team, not an ethnic slur.

  • Ricko | November 11, 2009 at 1:47 pm |

    [quote comment=”359824″]”Buck” was an ethnic slur applied to black men in the bad old days. And where I come from “Yankee” is considered a pejorative term.[/quote]

    “Buck” used same way toward Native American men.

    “What you saw was a buck wearin’ Lucy’s dress.”
    —-Ethan Edwards (John Wayne) in THE SEARCHERS.

    —Ricko

  • LI Phil | November 11, 2009 at 1:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”359828″]I don’t think there’s any question “Redskin” was an ethnic slur and was used as such.

    I think you could make an argument the predominant ascribed meaning to the term “Redskins” is now the football team, not an ethnic slur.[/quote]

    so, by that logic, if people of color refer to each other as “nigga” or a derivative, does that mean the term is no longer offensive? does it mean that now we can name a team that? clearly, it’s use has evolved over time…

    google “nigga” and see what you find…

    some of the top “hits” (shockingly, wiki is first) say “limited to black to black usage” and the like…

    so if “native americans” don’t have a problem with the term “redskin” (which i still don’t believe is true) and people of color can use “nigga” to refer to one another, then i guess i can too, right? i mean…”they” don’t mind so why should i, right?

    i seriously doubt redskin is somehow less offensive in 2009 than it was in the past

  • JimV19 | November 11, 2009 at 2:00 pm |

    So should middle-aged women be offended by the University of Houston’s mascot?

    Seriously, while if you dig deeply enough you can find any nickname to be offensive, some are so easy. Just call the Redskins the Washington Federals or the Washington Warriors and be done with it.

    Here’s an idea, how about the Washington Riggins? It sounds like Redskins, it honors a great player (I know Mr. Snyder won’t like the idea, though) and think of the logo possibilities: http://www.drunkard....
    http://www.kusports....

  • Pretty Boy Paulie | November 11, 2009 at 2:03 pm |

    I’m sure I’m in the minority that digs the “Flying Elvis.” That Redskins helmet redesign is SUPERB and the Bucs version is sweet (regardless of how “Raider-ish” it is).

    The designers at Adidas are on CRACK! Mexico’s World Cup uni is TERRIBLE!

    I did really like these, which was like 2-3 years ago.
    http://i14.photobuck...

    This one is my fave Mexico jersey ever! (you can barely see the Aztec artwork featured in the white chevron)

    http://www.soccernuc...

  • Robert | November 11, 2009 at 2:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”359830″][quote comment=”359828″]I don’t think there’s any question “Redskin” was an ethnic slur and was used as such.

    I think you could make an argument the predominant ascribed meaning to the term “Redskins” is now the football team, not an ethnic slur.[/quote]

    so, by that logic, if people of color refer to each other as “nigga” or a derivative, does that mean the term is no longer offensive? does it mean that now we can name a team that? clearly, it’s use has evolved over time…

    google “nigga” and see what you find…

    some of the top “hits” (shockingly, wiki is first) say “limited to black to black usage” and the like…

    so if “native americans” don’t have a problem with the term “redskin” (which i still don’t believe is true) and people of color can use “nigga” to refer to one another, then i guess i can too, right? i mean…”they” don’t mind so why should i, right?

    i seriously doubt redskin is somehow less offensive in 2009 than it was in the past[/quote]

    I can’t speak for every Native American or Indian or tribe, but I can speak for this member of the Cherokee Tribe and tell you I’m not offended by the term “Redskin”. When I hear Redskins I think football because that’s the predominant meaning in our culture today. Are you hearing “Redskin” in music, movies, Al Sharpton protests?

    I have heard the term “Redskin” at the occasional pow wow but it just doesn’t have the same reputation or power the N word does.

  • Brad | November 11, 2009 at 2:09 pm |

    I vaguely remember several years ago the Chiefs displaying a helmet prototype that used the feather headdress idea that spanned from earhole to earhole. Any remember this as well and/or have an image?[/quote]

    The Chiefs prototype is one of the great Uni Watch holy grails. Many readers have told me they recall seeing the prototype displayed in the broadcast booth during a game, I think in the 1990s. But nobody has ever produced an image….[/quote]

    Would you by chance know what team the Chiefs were playing when this supposedly occurred?[/quote]

    Nope. Never been able to narrow it down to a specific game, or even a specific season.[/quote]

    Damn. I’ve recently found a source for a few old broadcasts with a scattering of games from the 90’s available, but I really don’t want to try to search through that many Chiefs games looking for something which may not have even happened.[/quote]

    I have been looking for that Chiefs helmet for years. I, like the many others Paul mentioned, remember seeing the headress helmet on a televised game. I do think it was much earlier than the 90’s. It was probably closer to the early 80’s right after the Bengals unveiled the tiger stripes. I remember talking to some college buddies about the helmet and I was in college in 87-91.

    Another friend of mine told me that the helmet was in the Chiefs offices for years at Arrowhead. But I have never seen it after that broadcast.

  • Ricko | November 11, 2009 at 2:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”359831″]So should middle-aged women be offended by the University of Houston’s mascot?

    Seriously, while if you dig deeply enough you can find any nickname to be offensive, some are so easy. Just call the Redskins the Washington Federals or the Washington Warriors and be done with it.

    Here’s an idea, how about the Washington Riggins? It sounds like Redskins, it honors a great player (I know Mr. Snyder won’t like the idea, though) and think of the logo possibilities: http://www.drunkard....
    http://www.kusports....

    Washington Snyders.
    And, when they get shut out (which seems all too likely these days), Washington Schneidereds.

    —Ricko

  • Brad | November 11, 2009 at 2:13 pm |

    Sorry I am new to posting and I totally screwed up the quoting thing. Here was what I wrote.

    I have been looking for that Chiefs helmet for years. I, like the many others Paul mentioned, remember seeing the headress helmet on a televised game. I do think it was much earlier than the 90’s. It was probably closer to the early 80’s right after the Bengals unveiled the tiger stripes. I remember talking to some college buddies about the helmet and I was in college in 87-91.

    Another friend of mine told me that the helmet was in the Chiefs offices for years at Arrowhead. But I have never seen it after that broadcast.

  • Brian Walden | November 11, 2009 at 2:14 pm |

    JTH wrote:

    Brian Walden said:

    You may be right about the Redskins, but you sound like the type PC-activist who’s offended by the word niggardly.

    What? Please clarify this statement. I see no connection.

    I was saying that the conclusion might be the correct one, but some of the arguments being used sounded like those being used by PC police who are professionally offended on behalf of other groups.

    I’m willing to buy the argument that Redskins shouldn’t be used, but we have no scientific method for measuring whether or not a term is too offensive to be used, so I’m personally not going to go crusading for one side or the other. (Are we still allowed to use the term crusading? Or is that un-PC nowadays?)

    Morally speaking, the question of whether or not Redskins depends on the intent of the user (unless the word is intrinsically offensive, but since words are symbols I’m not sure any word can be offensive in and of itself – it depends on the meaning behind it). An example of this might be the way the n-word is sometimes used by rappers with no ill intention against the party at which the word is being directed. Given that outside of cowboy movies the likes I’ve never heard anyone call Indians redskins, I doubt that many Redskins fans have an evil intent. George Preston Marshall made racist comments in his lifetime, if he choose the name with a racist intent that may invalidate it even for all those who use it with no ill intent. But I personally don’t know enough about about why he chose the name to say one way or the other, maybe he was slighting Indians or maybe he just wanted to correlate his team with the Red Sox when they moved to Fenway.

    But even if Redskins isn’t being used in a morally wrong way, it may still be pragmatically wrong. Pragmatically speaking, Redskins is too offensive to be used if it’s so offensive that it hurts the organizations ability to make money off it, or an authority forces them to change it, or it incites violence or civil discord, etc. For example, I think remember seeing a picture of an old women’s team who had a swastika on their uniforms (this was before the Nazi’s adopted it) – even though that team adopted the swastika with a moral intent, it would be pragmatically wrong for them to continue using it today.

    I’m sure there are other philosophical ways of looking at it to determine whether Redskins should be abrogated.

    BenA wrote:

    Language is social. And when you know that words or images offend others, it often makes sense to politely use different words or images. And it’s silly to complain when one uses predictably offensive words and images that others are offended by them. That’s a choice that the user of offensive imagery and language has made.

    I respect your decision to not use objectively inoffensive words such as niggardly so as not to offend others, and I respect others opinions of being offended even though the logic behind their feelings doesn’t add up. But I strongly disagree with the way that people who have innocently used a word like niggardly have been made pariahs for doing so. Yes, language changes overtime and I’m OK with that, but it should be organic and not political. I’m strongly against the way minorities in the PC movement have forced the change in language (another example is the way the grammatical norm of using the masculine when refering Man in general or a singular person whose sex is unknown is being pushed out of the English language).

    Paul Lukas said (in reference to the word Savages):

    Except we didn’t steal a continent from the western Greeks.

    I was born in 1980 and I’ve never heard anyone refer to Indians as savages. I don’t know of any American Indian tribe that can be rightfully be called savages (and it was probably used incorrectly much more often than not in the past). Lots of words have been used as slurs at some point in their history – if we automatically invalidated all of them then the Cincinnati Reds would be in trouble. I think most people would agree that naming a team Savages and using an Indian mascot is wrong, but there’s nothing wrong with taking the name Savages and using some other mascot (maybe a caveman or something).

    Here’s my proposal for the Redskins: Keep the name and change the mascot to a potato. That way everyone will be unhappy.

  • LI Phil | November 11, 2009 at 2:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”359833″]
    I can’t speak for every Native American or Indian or tribe, but I can speak for this member of the Cherokee Tribe and tell you I’m not offended by the term “Redskin”. When I hear Redskins I think football because that’s the predominant meaning in our culture today. Are you hearing “Redskin” in music, movies, Al Sharpton protests?

    I have heard the term “Redskin” at the occasional pow wow but it just doesn’t have the same reputation or power the N word does.[/quote]

    fair point…but like you said, you can’t speak for every native american (or member of the Cherokee tribe even)…just like, because i have germanic roots but wouldn’t be offended by the term “kraut” doesn’t mean it’s not offensive to some…we just don’t hear too many people protesting its use, but that doesn’t make it any less offensive

    lest anyone think i’m jumping on some PC bandwagon, i do believe this nation is going overboard in attempting to be “sensitive” in the use of language…i think it was a crock the washington bullets became the wizards, for example

    on the term redskin, however, i still stand my ground that the term is racist…even if you don’t feel that way, doesn’t mean i should change my belief on that

    /done now

  • leon | November 11, 2009 at 2:16 pm |

    I think it’s safe to say that none of us taking part in this forum was around in the 1930’s and that our frst exposure to Native Americans was via TV westerns, cartoons and movies. Presumably we have raised our consciousness through maturity, education and life experiences and now view those differently. So to say what was or wasn’t offensive when the team was named strikes me as presumptuous. They were originally the “Braves”, a moniker that has been deemed acceptable by many today. In fact, the name change came about with a move to Fenway Park (look it up) and logic would dictate that “Redskins” was deemed equivalent to “Braves” on some level. I can’t imagine giving a football club a name depicting something inferior or laughable.

  • M.Princip | November 11, 2009 at 2:17 pm |

    I will refrain from commenting on the proposed NFL helmet redesigns, since, I am Flickr fucked here at work. However, I have the perfect solution for the Redskins. Go back to Braves.

    Washington Braves sporting one of these lids.

  • rpm | November 11, 2009 at 2:20 pm |

    buh, thanks for that jim mothervilker. but i agree, if you look at the eyes and nose, we both have big glasses, and bulbs. but can we stop using the pixture that makes me look so “special”:)

    looking forward to ellis part 2. i had always heard he tried to throw at batters heads to see if they would explode like pumpkins would. wonder if that will be in there since i am taking this animation as unquestionable fact on the ellis matter.

  • Geeman | November 11, 2009 at 2:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”359810″]One thought for today…(and you, of course, can feel free to rip it to shreds)….

    That “group photo” of the Nike Combat unis leaves little doubt that Nike believes football is, or at least is best promoted as, a real-life video game. Or possibly that they think STARSHIP TROOPERS’ football was someone’s spot-on vision of the future.

    The flaw in Nike’s logic is thinking that “Kids like video games; so football should look like one” (iow, Give ’em what they want).

    Someone needs to remind them that Chrysler did the same sort of thing with outlandish automobile fins in the ’50s…and they don’t look at all “perceptive” or “forward-thinking” now. Just silly and wrong-headed.

    Rarely do manufacturers truly anticipate or create the direction of society’s future esthetics, or a culture-changing phenomenon. Not intentionally, anyway. More often than not, such things happen by accident. One notable exception, of course: Henry Ford offering vehicles in a color other than black.

    It works far better if someone creative does what they think will work, independent of a perception of “trendiness.”

    To wit, prior to the release of STAR WARS in 1977, film studios were NOT being flooded with requests for “some movies with droids in them.”

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Finally got a look at those uniforms. They are horrible (maybe akin to the Baseball Turn Ahead the Clock unis of 1999). They are the next step off the Oregon cliff. They are not uniforms anymore. If you don’t wear the same thing with regularity, in your school colors, you are not representing your school in a uniform any longer. It cheapens the game. Part of the beauty of watching LSU is seeing those white jerseys and bright gold pants on your TV and knowing it’s LSU and replaying all those great games in your mind over the years in those colors. Man, this is sad. I would even take the 2005 orange shoulders escapade over this debacle.

  • Lwiedy | November 11, 2009 at 2:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”359720″]…NOT to mention finally changing that shameful nickname for a team—in the US Capitol, no less. Considering there on field woes—maybe a rebranding would generate much needed fan energy. I’ve said it before & it is verifiable: that word ” redskin ” was the equivalent of the N-word, at its inception. It currently is the same as another N word—NUMBSKULLS.[/quote]

    Didn’t all this get covered just a couple weeks ago? Is any mention of this team going to include a disclaimer regarding how offended we are?

    BTW, the only thing more offensive about this guy’s name was his ERA: http://sports.yahoo....

    And for the record, I found the knitting patterns, Ricko bought ’em (which is really the most important part of the exercise).

  • Robert | November 11, 2009 at 2:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”359838″][quote comment=”359833″]
    I can’t speak for every Native American or Indian or tribe, but I can speak for this member of the Cherokee Tribe and tell you I’m not offended by the term “Redskin”. When I hear Redskins I think football because that’s the predominant meaning in our culture today. Are you hearing “Redskin” in music, movies, Al Sharpton protests?

    I have heard the term “Redskin” at the occasional pow wow but it just doesn’t have the same reputation or power the N word does.[/quote]

    fair point…but like you said, you can’t speak for every native american (or member of the Cherokee tribe even)…just like, because i have germanic roots but wouldn’t be offended by the term “kraut” doesn’t mean it’s not offensive to some…we just don’t hear too many people protesting its use, but that doesn’t make it any less offensive

    lest anyone think i’m jumping on some PC bandwagon, i do believe this nation is going overboard in attempting to be “sensitive” in the use of language…i think it was a crock the washington bullets became the wizards, for example

    on the term redskin, however, i still stand my ground that the term is racist…even if you don’t feel that way, doesn’t mean i should change my belief on that

    /done now[/quote]

    I’m not arguing a word is either racist or it’s not and I’m not arguing it’s not a racist word. Some certainly think it is. I just think there are gradients and my point is in the case of the word “Redskin”, I think it’s changing into a brand and not a slur.

    To bring this topic back to the purpose of our board, McMurry University in Abilene, TX was the Indians. Protests occurred, the school decided to drop the nickname but not adopt another one. I noticed an informal nickname given them last time I was out there. It’s “Nation”.

    Their helmets still have a Native American tilt without actually being definitively Native American. Cool stuff McMurry Nation.

    http://www.reportern...

  • mtjaws | November 11, 2009 at 2:36 pm |

    -I love the Bengals helmet because it is a simple representation of their team name. I hope they never change it.

    -The University of Florida chose orange and blue in 1910 to represent the two schools that merged to form it. “Gators” became the mascot in 1911.
    http://www.ufl.edu/h...

    -I am very glad the new Florida Panthers alt jersey is not powder blue as some rumors said. Navy, red, and gold have always been their three colors, and they shouldn’t deviate from those. But now this will give them two navy uniforms, one white, and zero red. Bad. But at least this one doesn’t have those pointless apron strings.

  • Kaptain K | November 11, 2009 at 2:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”359796″][quote comment=”359720″]The ‘skins helmet is a huge winner. Too bad they wouldn’t adopt it. NOT to mention finally changing that shameful nickname for a team—in the US Capitol, no less. Considering there on field woes—maybe a rebranding would generate much needed fan energy. I’ve said it before & it is verifiable: that word ” redskin ” was the equivalent of the N-word, at its inception. It currently is the same as another N word—NUMBSKULLS.[/quote]

    hmmm… does that mean that Univ of Nebraska football should be looking to ‘rebrand’?[/quote]

    The ‘N’ on Nebraska’s helmet stands for one thing and one thing only: NOWLEDGE!

  • AZSteve | November 11, 2009 at 2:41 pm |

    Paul Lukas Said:

    “EricRomain said:
    “Does anyone really think of native americans as savages these days? No? Does anyone still think western greeks are still wearing Trojan/Spartan armor and attempting to barbarically take over populations? No? It’s the SAME thing!”

    Except we didn’t steal a continent from the western Greeks.

    Maybe that’s just a teeny little difference.”

    Huh? So if the Native Americans had given/sold us the land we’d be OK to consider indian team names the same as Spartans/Trojans? Your argument makes no sense, even ignoring the ‘stole’ line. (Greeks stole land from others, Native Americans stole land from other Native Americans, Europeans stole land from Native Americans, and so on. Human nature, it hardly has any bearing on whether or not we should consider Spartans differently, historically or otherwise, than Native Americans)

    As for the main story today: I like both the Redskins and Buccaneers helmet designs. BOTH are improvements over the current ones. The Patriots, not so much. :)

  • TBDRO | November 11, 2009 at 2:51 pm |

    [quote]The Florida Panthers will finally unveil their alternate jersey on November 23rd. If you believe the folks on the Chris Creamer site, it will look something like this.[/quote]

    Believe the folks on the Chris Creamer site – this came directly from a Flash animation on the Florida Panthers website.

  • SWC Susan (aka Tex) | November 11, 2009 at 2:57 pm |

    Thanks Phil for the beautiful Worlds Fair Patch Photos…

    Dodgers

    More Dodgers

    Yankees Team

    Color Yankees Uni

    Giants

    Question is…. why were they wearing the patch in 1938 when the World\’s Fair (Trylon & Perisphere) was in 1939?

  • Ricko | November 11, 2009 at 3:03 pm |

    “And for the record, I found the knitting patterns, Ricko bought ‘em (which is really the most important part of the exercise).”

    ‘Tis true, he found ’em.
    And when he finds the NL version, someone else can buy ’em this time.

    LOL

  • JTH | November 11, 2009 at 3:09 pm |

    For some reason, I forgot to read the ticker until just now. This item jumped out at me.

    The Hornets are going to unveil a Mardi Gras-themed uniform a week from today. I’ve seen the design, and it’s the bomb

    Hmmm… if you like it, there can’t be much purple in it. But how can you have a Mardi Gras-themed uni without a decent amount or purple in it?

    I’m gonna give this one a FAIL sight unseen.

  • JTH | November 11, 2009 at 3:11 pm |

    Damn this upgrade. PAUL LUKAS said that, not me.

  • EddieAtari | November 11, 2009 at 3:11 pm |

    OK, who wants to bid on this?! The Feds are set to auction Bernie Madoff’s NY Mets Satin Jacket among other items…

  • rpm | November 11, 2009 at 3:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”359852″]”And for the record, I found the knitting patterns, Ricko bought ‘em (which is really the most important part of the exercise).”

    ‘Tis true, he found ’em.
    And when he finds the NL version, someone else can buy ’em this time.

    LOL[/quote]

    and what sucker is going to take the time to…oh wait…d’oh!

  • Brian Walden | November 11, 2009 at 3:16 pm |

    How would you feel about the “Wops” or “Degos”?

    To be honest, other than eating some form of pasta at every meal at my grandma’s house (even Thanksgiving had a side of baked ziti), I don’t have too strong an emotional attachment to my Italian heritage. But I do identify strongly with my Catholicism. Let’s say a team with no particular association with the Catholic Church were called the Papists, a term which as far as I know has always been used in a derogatory manner. If it’s used way that highlights some positive aspect(s) of Catholicism I don’t have a problem with it. If it’s used to degrade Catholics I would be offended. In a related but different situation I’m not offended by the years that Syracuse called themselves the Orangemen, they had no intent of associating themselves with the anti-Catholic Orangemen.

    Plus, I was born in the 1980 in Upstate New York, well after the civil rights movement. I was raised in a culture that didn’t call people slurs. The idea of people in America walking around calling people wops or redskins just sounds silly to me. I have a hard time believing there’s more than a handful of people who are Redskins fans just so they can mock Indians. The thought that a team would form its identity around a people that they hate sounds so illogical that I have a hard time believing that’s what the Redskins are doing.

    That’s exactly what “Redskin” is – an ethnic slur. It was when it started, and it is today.

    I don’t know much about the etymology of the word redskin. Did it start in much the same way that black and white are used today, or did it begin as a slur? If it was used as a slur from the beginning I’ll join the change the Redskins name bandwagon. If it began being used innocently enough then seeing as how the Redskins logo doesn’t seem to be mocking Indians and I don’t know anyone who pejoratively calls Indians redskins today, I’ll probably remain ambivalent on the subject of the Redskins name for now.

  • Brian Walden | November 11, 2009 at 3:18 pm |

    Sorry, I messed up the quotes. The quotes in my last post were from Bernard and the double-indented part at the bottom is me.

  • Ricko | November 11, 2009 at 3:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”359845″]-I love the Bengals helmet because it is a simple representation of their team name. I hope they never change it.

    -The University of Florida chose orange and blue in 1910 to represent the two schools that merged to form it. “Gators” became the mascot in 1911.
    http://www.ufl.edu/h...

    -I am very glad the new Florida Panthers alt jersey is not powder blue as some rumors said. Navy, red, and gold have always been their three colors, and they shouldn’t deviate from those. But now this will give them two navy uniforms, one white, and zero red. Bad. But at least this one doesn’t have those pointless apron strings.[/quote]

    First time I saw the tiger-striped Bengals helmet I thought it looked like the wearer had head-butted a brick wall, and the wall had gotten the better of the deal.

    As iconic as the helmet has since become, it still kinda looks…splintered. Or sharded. Whatever.

    Not knocking it, just saying it does look a little like that.

    Now, as to today’s Redskins’ head dress mockup, see Birmingham Thunderbolts (XFL) for a similar design, in term of position, and how well that works, or doesn’t work, in real life…not just sitting on a desk.
    http://www.xflboard....

    Personally, i’d say the ‘Skins feather up the back, or the feathered lance on the side (later appropriated by FSU, and howcum they don’t get shit about that, btw?), were better, in terms of graphics whose shapes communicate quickly.

    —Ricko

  • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2009 at 3:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”359851″]Thanks Phil for the beautiful Worlds Fair Patch Photos…

    Dodgers

    More Dodgers

    Yankees Team

    Color Yankees Uni

    Giants

    Question is…. why were they wearing the patch in 1938 when the World\’s Fair (Trylon & Perisphere) was in 1939?[/quote]

    Pre-Fair promotion. Really!

  • SWC Susan (aka Tex) | November 11, 2009 at 3:42 pm |

    Finally found the decal the Longhorns wore last Saturday…

  • Sean | November 11, 2009 at 3:53 pm |

    Follow up on Arkansas’ helmet decals: After doing more research I found out that the purpose of hitting the rock with the sledgehammer after practice was that the team had to break a 3 ton rock with the sledgehammers to represent “chipping away at the SEC” — something at which they seem to be having some success in the 2009 season.

    Sean

  • concealed78 | November 11, 2009 at 4:06 pm |

    “NFL Washington Wildcats”. “NFL Washington RedHawks”. “NFL Washington Senators”. Change the color scheme to black, purple & silver. Is that better or worse? Would that shup up all these PC-thugs?

  • Lwiedy | November 11, 2009 at 4:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”359852″]”And for the record, I found the knitting patterns, Ricko bought ‘em (which is really the most important part of the exercise).”

    ‘Tis true, he found ’em.
    And when he finds the NL version, someone else can buy ’em this time.

    LOL[/quote]

    I am very good as suggesting what others can spend their money on. Just wondering if anyone here went heavy on the vintage Cubs stirrups from yesterday?

    One more thing, if anyone wants to make me the Royals sweater, I can compensate accordingly (whatever that might be).

  • LI Phil | November 11, 2009 at 4:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”359851″]Thanks Phil for the beautiful Worlds Fair Patch Photos…

    Dodgers

    More Dodgers

    Yankees Team

    Color Yankees Uni

    Giants

    Question is…. why were they wearing the patch in 1938 when the World\’s Fair (Trylon & Perisphere) was in 1939?[/quote]

    welcome, tex ma’am (forgive the blazing saddles reference ;) )

    anyway, as paul said…they broke it out the prior season to promote (what was then) a TREMENDOUS event…1939 40 world’s fair (that’s actually a crappy site, but google it and you’ll stumble on the motherlode of links and info on it…really was (from what i’ve heard, although i think ricko was there) an incredible event

    same site, incidentally, where the 1964 world’s fair took place (that’s the patch the mets wore during the 64 season — their first at shea, and which is basically located on the same grounds)…and the same site (it’s a BIG area) where a certain bunch of structure were built for that 1964 world’s fair

    so you see…the 1938 dodgers, yankees & giants uniform patch is about six degrees of separation from paul & kirsten

    sorta ;)

  • E-Rick | November 11, 2009 at 4:17 pm |

    Maybe the NFL helmets could start taking after goalie helmets in the NHL? They can get really creative there.

  • leon | November 11, 2009 at 4:18 pm |

    Bazooka Joe’s friend Mort must have been the inspiration for that Skins abomination.

  • LI Phil | November 11, 2009 at 4:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”359866″]Maybe the NFL helmets could start taking after goalie helmets in the NHL? They can get really creative there.[/quote]

    you say that like it’s a good thing

  • Chris | November 11, 2009 at 4:24 pm |

    Did anyone else make the connection between the alternate helmets and TATC with the emphasis on making logos unnecessarily large and the like?

  • E-Rick | November 11, 2009 at 4:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”359868″][quote comment=”359866″]Maybe the NFL helmets could start taking after goalie helmets in the NHL? They can get really creative there.[/quote]

    you say that like it’s a good thing[/quote]

    Well, yeah, some aren’t too good, but other helmets can make it happen at times.

  • Samuel | November 11, 2009 at 4:27 pm |

    A slideshow(bottom of page) of TCU’s new Nike football unis.

    http://www.examiner....

  • warren thompson | November 11, 2009 at 4:44 pm |

    [quote comment=”359759″]Who the hell is Savages offensive to? I don\’t know of any group in the US today who would classify as savages. Better outlaw barbarians while we\’re at it, there are so many Barbarian Americans who might be offended. Savages or Barbarians could be used in an offensive manner if applied to a specific ethnic group in a derogatory way, but I don\’t see any problem with a team using those words in and of themselves.

    You may be right about the Redskins, but you sound like the type PC-activist who\’s offended by the word niggardly.

    Funny side note, I looked at the Redskins Wikipedia entry to see if it had information on why the team originally chose the name and someone changed the entry to say: \”The Washington Redskins are a semi-professional American football team based in the Washington, D.C. area. The team attempts to play at FedExField in Landover, Maryland, which is in Prince George\’s County, Maryland.\” (emphasis mine).[/quote]

    I don’t have a dog in this cat fight … but there is (was?) a college in Oklahoma that billed itself as the “Savages.” (Are savages always to be seen as Native Americans? What about savage Parthians, savage Huns, savage Vandals and Ostrogoths? Savage New Yorkers?)

    The Redskins were the Redskins when they played in Boston before translating themselves to the District of Columbia (where they played far too many seasons without black players).

  • jdreyfuss | November 11, 2009 at 4:47 pm |

    [quote comment=”359741″]”A football team calling itself the Redskins or a college calling its sports teams the Savages is offensive in any context, even if the original intent was to evoke a proud or fierce perception of Native Americans.”

    So the Packers should change their name?[/quote]
    I never said the word Indian is always offensive. I’m a fan of the Indians and have used the same argument of context and connotation to defend the name. I said words like redskin or savage are pejoratives and so context doesn’t matter.

  • mike 2 | November 11, 2009 at 4:52 pm |

    Let me ask a design question: what influence does the presentation “polished digital versions” of the Fast Company helmets have on your perception of them?

    I’d like to think that a good design is a good design, that the substance is independent of the presentation itself. But are you influenced (or do you think team owners, managers, etc) are influenced by the quality of the presentation rather than just the substance of the design?

    Put another way, can a mediocre design be perceived as a great design just by getting put into a “polished digital presentation”.

  • jdreyfuss | November 11, 2009 at 5:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”359874″][quote comment=”359741″]”A football team calling itself the Redskins or a college calling its sports teams the Savages is offensive in any context, even if the original intent was to evoke a proud or fierce perception of Native Americans.”

    So the Packers should change their name?[/quote]
    I never said the word Indian is always offensive. I’m a fan of the Indians and have used the same argument of context and connotation to defend the name. I said words like redskin or savage are pejoratives and so context doesn’t matter.[/quote]
    Let me give a better illustration. If, 100 years ago, jews were defined in name by fierceness or prowess in battle, and the Cleveland Naps decided to rename the team the Jews, I wouldn’t necessarily be offended by that. If they renamed the team the Kikes I would. That’s the difference between Indians and Redskins.

    I forget which team, but there’s a college team that does or used to use Savages and an Indian theme for their teams. I don’t even think the Warriors would be remiss to go back to the imagery if it was tasteful, but that would never happen.

    And to those who keep putting words in my mouth: I know what niggardly means; I use it. Anyone who’s offended by it gets to learn what it means and its etymology. Political correctness isn’t a replacement for respect, since it still assumes that we can be categorized according to definitions that rarely apply.

  • Jake | November 11, 2009 at 5:14 pm |

    Dickinson State University in ND used to be called the Savages quite a while ago. They changed their name to the Bluehawks. Wahpeton High School, also in ND, changed their mascot from Wops to the Huskies as well. Alas, it seems that us crazy North Dakotans will once again, most likely anyway, change another name in the near future.

  • JohnnyO | November 11, 2009 at 5:17 pm |

    I am sorry for the non-uni post, but I think this is hilarious:
    http://sports.espn.g...

  • LI Phil | November 11, 2009 at 5:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”359877″]Dickinson State University in ND used to be called the Savages quite a while ago. They changed their name to the Bluehawks. Wahpeton High School, also in ND, changed their mascot from Wops to the Huskies as well. Alas, it seems that us crazy North Dakotans will once again, most likely anyway, change another name in the near future.[/quote]

    as long as your hockey team keeps wearing this uni…maybe without the logo…but those colors are effin PERFECT…black & green may be my favorite alltime combination

  • M.Princip | November 11, 2009 at 5:21 pm |

    Just saw the helmet redesigns over at the Sportsbybrooks site and must say they all are quite horrible. If you told me Karl Lagerfeld designed them, I wouldn’t be surprised. The Redskins helmet reminds me more of an African feathered headdress, than, north american indian.

  • jdreyfuss | November 11, 2009 at 5:29 pm |

    As long as we’re on the topic of questionable names, how about this:

    The murders Anthony Sowell committed here in Cleveland are called the Imperial Murders, after the street he lived on. So why isn’t he the Imperial Murderer? The only nickname I’ve heard for him is the Cleveland Cleaver, which to me sounds stupid and a little too much like a famous kink.

  • Mickel | November 11, 2009 at 5:31 pm |

    On the Redskin debate. If there is this much debate about it then there’s a problem. I work for a Federally recognized Native Nation. I can easily find a citizen who is offended by all Native based mascots and team names and then find a citizen who wears Redskin apparel. You can always find someone to support your point. I know right now there is concern about the upcoming draft. Sam Bradford is a Cherokee Nation citizen and has been a positive figure in their community with his success. Some draft boards have shown him possibly being drafted by the Redskins and this is not settling well with some of the citizens. To me this shows me there is a problem with the name. It shouldn’t be a matter of how many does it offend, but the fact that it offends somebody.

  • jdreyfuss | November 11, 2009 at 5:44 pm |

    [quote comment=”359882″]On the Redskin debate. If there is this much debate about it then there’s a problem. I work for a Federally recognized Native Nation. I can easily find a citizen who is offended by all Native based mascots and team names and then find a citizen who wears Redskin apparel. You can always find someone to support your point. I know right now there is concern about the upcoming draft. Sam Bradford is a Cherokee Nation citizen and has been a positive figure in their community with his success. Some draft boards have shown him possibly being drafted by the Redskins and this is not settling well with some of the citizens. To me this shows me there is a problem with the name. It shouldn’t be a matter of how many does it offend, but the fact that it offends somebody.[/quote]
    If you got rid of every team name or mascot that offended anyone at all, you’d be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You have to cater to a statistically significant minority, but oversensitivity leads to blandness.

    Things like the name ‘Redskins’ or Chief Wahoo as the Indians’ mascot need to go, because they’re offensive en facie. I seem to be taking a beating for that position, but I’ll stand by it. If you have to dig to find where something is offensive to people other than those suffering from white guilt, then it shouldn’t be a problem.

  • Brian Walden | November 11, 2009 at 5:45 pm |

    I said words like redskin or savage are pejoratives and so context doesn’t matter.”

    If a team wants an image of being ferocious, merciless, barbaric, etc. why shouldn’t they be able to call themselves the Savages (so long as their mascot isn’t an Indian)?

    I may be able to be convinced that redskin is always a pejorative if you show me the research on its origins, but to say that because some people in the past have pejoratively called Indians savages that the word can’t be used at all is ridiculous. According to Websters it originated well before the first American colony, so it’s original meaning obviously isn’t a slur against American Indians.

    Maybe I’m missing something. I’m under the impression that people stopped calling Indians savages before any of us were born. Am I wrong about this?

    By your logic because the word gay is used pejoratively as a synonym for lame (another pejorative!) in just about every high school in the country, that automatically makes it a pejorative in any context and many homosexuals should have to change the name by which they’ve chosen to identify themselves (not to mention all the rewriting of literature written before 1960 we’ll have to do).

  • jdreyfuss | November 11, 2009 at 5:46 pm |

    [quote comment=”359883″][quote comment=”359882″]On the Redskin debate. If there is this much debate about it then there’s a problem. I work for a Federally recognized Native Nation. I can easily find a citizen who is offended by all Native based mascots and team names and then find a citizen who wears Redskin apparel. You can always find someone to support your point. I know right now there is concern about the upcoming draft. Sam Bradford is a Cherokee Nation citizen and has been a positive figure in their community with his success. Some draft boards have shown him possibly being drafted by the Redskins and this is not settling well with some of the citizens. To me this shows me there is a problem with the name. It shouldn’t be a matter of how many does it offend, but the fact that it offends somebody.[/quote]
    If you got rid of every team name or mascot that offended anyone at all, you’d be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You have to cater to a statistically significant minority, but oversensitivity leads to blandness.

    Things like the name ‘Redskins’ or Chief Wahoo as the Indians’ mascot need to go, because they’re offensive en facie. I seem to be taking a beating for that position, but I’ll stand by it. If you have to dig to find where something is offensive to people other than those suffering from white guilt, then it shouldn’t be a problem.[/quote]
    Sorry, that should say ex facie, not en facie. I mix those up way too much.

  • Nick | November 11, 2009 at 5:47 pm |

    [quote comment=”359842″][quote comment=”359810″]One thought for today…(and you, of course, can feel free to rip it to shreds)….

    That “group photo” of the Nike Combat unis leaves little doubt that Nike believes football is, or at least is best promoted as, a real-life video game. Or possibly that they think STARSHIP TROOPERS’ football was someone’s spot-on vision of the future.

    The flaw in Nike’s logic is thinking that “Kids like video games; so football should look like one” (iow, Give ’em what they want).

    Someone needs to remind them that Chrysler did the same sort of thing with outlandish automobile fins in the ’50s…and they don’t look at all “perceptive” or “forward-thinking” now. Just silly and wrong-headed.

    Rarely do manufacturers truly anticipate or create the direction of society’s future esthetics, or a culture-changing phenomenon. Not intentionally, anyway. More often than not, such things happen by accident. One notable exception, of course: Henry Ford offering vehicles in a color other than black.

    It works far better if someone creative does what they think will work, independent of a perception of “trendiness.”

    To wit, prior to the release of STAR WARS in 1977, film studios were NOT being flooded with requests for “some movies with droids in them.”

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Finally got a look at those uniforms. They are horrible (maybe akin to the Baseball Turn Ahead the Clock unis of 1999). They are the next step off the Oregon cliff. They are not uniforms anymore. If you don’t wear the same thing with regularity, in your school colors, you are not representing your school in a uniform any longer. It cheapens the game. Part of the beauty of watching LSU is seeing those white jerseys and bright gold pants on your TV and knowing it’s LSU and replaying all those great games in your mind over the years in those colors. Man, this is sad. I would even take the 2005 orange shoulders escapade over this debacle.[/quote]

    Let’s be honest. These Nike “rivalry” unis exist only to promote Nike. Nothing more.

    Most of these unis have no point to them at all. They are not Throwbackks, they are not really “alternates” and they are not even novelties or improvements to anything – even for variety’s sake. They have no theme or logical relationship to anything whatsoever.

    White jerseys over White leotards on a bunch of these teams? Why? What does it have to offer?
    Is it really an improvement to have LSU look like UW? or have Oklahoma look like a thousand low-budget playground teams?

    A little imagination, perhaps a perusal of old yearbooks, and many of these “rivalry” unis could have been homeruns. Instead….DREK

    Let’s call it what it is, A lost opportunity for some needed variety and improvement, and simply more Nike DOUCHEBAGGERY for Douchebaggery’s sake.

  • RS Rogers | November 11, 2009 at 5:50 pm |

    The debate about the Redskins always mystifies me a bit. Was “Redskin” a necessarily derogatory slur at the time the name was adopted? Undeniably. Was the man who chose the name an open racial bigot? Undeniably — what’s more, he was undeniably one of the most notorious bigots in the history of American pro sports, and he flaunted his bigotry more openly and longer than just about any other pro team owner in the country. It literally took a federal order to force the man to integrate his team. Plus, growing up in Minnesota, I’ve actually heard “redskin” used outside of the context of the NFL, and in each case it has been used by white bigots as the functional equivalent of “nigger” toward Native Americans. It does happen, even today.

    In order to think that Redskins is a perfectly innocent name, one must be entirely ignorant of the history of the team, of the name, and of the word itself.

    But I’d always figured the best alternative would be the Washington Warriors. (Well, actually, my favorite is the Washington Federals, but damn the USFL for ruining that name forever.) I’d never thought of the Washington Senators before. That’s brilliant. Love it.

    Except that the District of Columbia will never spend dollar one to help a team named “Senators” build a stadium within city limits. A lot of Washingtonians find the name “Senators” more offensive than any Indian finds “Redskins,” what with the whole total disenfranchisement thing. So Warriors it is.

  • Aaron | November 11, 2009 at 5:51 pm |

    Is anyone else wondering what achievements warrant putting the buckeye leaf stickers on that car?

  • jdreyfuss | November 11, 2009 at 5:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”359884″]

    I said words like redskin or savage are pejoratives and so context doesn’t matter.”

    If a team wants an image of being ferocious, merciless, barbaric, etc. why shouldn’t they be able to call themselves the Savages (so long as their mascot isn’t an Indian)?

    I may be able to be convinced that redskin is always a pejorative if you show me the research on its origins, but to say that because some people in the past have pejoratively called Indians savages that the word can’t be used at all is ridiculous. According to Websters it originated well before the first American colony, so it’s original meaning obviously isn’t a slur against American Indians.

    Maybe I’m missing something. I’m under the impression that people stopped calling Indians savages before any of us were born. Am I wrong about this?

    By your logic because the word gay is used pejoratively as a synonym for lame (another pejorative!) in just about every high school in the country, that automatically makes it a pejorative in any context and many homosexuals should have to change the name by which they’ve chosen to identify themselves (not to mention all the rewriting of literature written before 1960 we’ll have to do).[/quote]
    You’re right, I should have been more specific about using ‘savages’ with Indian imagery. Of course, since you left out the part of that post where I implied that, it says something about your argument.

    The part about the word ‘gay’ assumes a lack of context, so it’s not my logic at all. ‘Gay’ isn’t a pejorative, because it does have other meanings. It’s like saying you shouldn’t use the word ‘bean’ around Mexicans.

  • Payton | November 11, 2009 at 5:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”359872″][quote comment=”359759″]Who the hell is Savages offensive to? I don\’t know of any group in the US today who would classify as savages. Better outlaw barbarians while we\’re at it, there are so many Barbarian Americans who might be offended. Savages or Barbarians could be used in an offensive manner if applied to a specific ethnic group in a derogatory way, but I don\’t see any problem with a team using those words in and of themselves.

    You may be right about the Redskins, but you sound like the type PC-activist who\’s offended by the word niggardly.

    Funny side note, I looked at the Redskins Wikipedia entry to see if it had information on why the team originally chose the name and someone changed the entry to say: \”The Washington Redskins are a semi-professional American football team based in the Washington, D.C. area. The team attempts to play at FedExField in Landover, Maryland, which is in Prince George\’s County, Maryland.\” (emphasis mine).[/quote]

    I don’t have a dog in this cat fight … but there is (was?) a college in Oklahoma that billed itself as the “Savages.” (Are savages always to be seen as Native Americans? What about savage Parthians, savage Huns, savage Vandals and Ostrogoths? Savage New Yorkers?)

    The Redskins were the Redskins when they played in Boston before translating themselves to the District of Columbia (where they played far too many seasons without black players).[/quote]
    Yes SOSU (Southeastern Oklahoma State University) used to be known as the Savages. That has been changed to the Savage Storm.

  • joe | November 11, 2009 at 5:53 pm |

    On the team naming issue, how about this: people grow a set and realize that no one has the right to *NOT* be offended. If someone is offended by redskins or drunken irish leprechauns, then those people don’t have to financially support it. They do not have the right to tell everyone else they can’t use it. If enough people don’t support it the name will change regardless of any vocal minority protests. Remember a few years ago some small college out west, I think in colorado, predominantly indian (no I won’t be PC and use the other term) nicknames a team teh fighting whities and had a very Drew Carey-esque logo? They did it to try to make white people get offended, turns out all it did was sell a ton of shirts since white people thought it was great, and they were *trying* to be offensive.

    http://en.wikipedia....
    now that have a shop: http://www.cafepress...

  • jdreyfuss | November 11, 2009 at 6:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”359892″]On the team naming issue, how about this: people grow a set and realize that no one has the right to *NOT* be offended. If someone is offended by redskins or drunken irish leprechauns, then those people don’t have to financially support it. They do not have the right to tell everyone else they can’t use it. If enough people don’t support it the name will change regardless of any vocal minority protests. Remember a few years ago some small college out west, I think in colorado, predominantly indian (no I won’t be PC and use the other term) nicknames a team teh fighting whities and had a very Drew Carey-esque logo? They did it to try to make white people get offended, turns out all it did was sell a ton of shirts since white people thought it was great, and they were *trying* to be offensive.

    http://en.wikipedia....
    now that have a shop: http://www.cafepress...
    That’s the great thing about this country. I have the right to find the Redskins offensive, and you have the right not to find them offensive, and we have the mutual right to present cogent and logical arguments both ways to each other.

    Love the Fighting Whities. I always thought the mascot looked like Dan Rather. I guess in the end, for everyone individually, this boils down to the pornography standard. We can’t define it, but we know what we find offensive when we see it.

  • Chris | November 11, 2009 at 6:07 pm |

    I can’t believe how some of you people think the relationship between Nike and the schools they outfit is. You act like agents of Nike storm the athletic department and hold guns to heads…’You’re going to change your uniforms NOW!!!’

    It’s a two way street, and one that is beneficial to both parties. Things aren’t done for the sake of doing things. Change for the sake of change. News flash. Nike knows what they are doing. There is a giant headquarters over there in Beaverton, OR that says that.

  • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2009 at 6:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”359883″][quote comment=”359882″]On the Redskin debate. If there is this much debate about it then there’s a problem. I work for a Federally recognized Native Nation. I can easily find a citizen who is offended by all Native based mascots and team names and then find a citizen who wears Redskin apparel. You can always find someone to support your point. I know right now there is concern about the upcoming draft. Sam Bradford is a Cherokee Nation citizen and has been a positive figure in their community with his success. Some draft boards have shown him possibly being drafted by the Redskins and this is not settling well with some of the citizens. To me this shows me there is a problem with the name. It shouldn’t be a matter of how many does it offend, but the fact that it offends somebody.[/quote]
    If you got rid of every team name or mascot that offended anyone at all, you’d be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You have to cater to a statistically significant minority, but oversensitivity leads to blandness.

    Things like the name ‘Redskins’ or Chief Wahoo as the Indians’ mascot need to go, because they’re offensive en facie. I seem to be taking a beating for that position, but I’ll stand by it. If you have to dig to find where something is offensive to people other than those suffering from white guilt, then it shouldn’t be a problem.[/quote]

    What is “white guilt,” how does one “suffer” from it, and how does it pertain to this discussion?

    Please be specific.

  • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2009 at 6:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”359892″]On the team naming issue, how about this: people grow a set and realize that no one has the right to *NOT* be offended.[/quote]

    And by “grow a set,” you’re referring to balls. Because of course only women and unmanly girlymen would ever be concerned with issues like this. That’s the great thing about this kind of discussion: You can insult an entire gender while simultaneously insulting an entire race.

    Nicely done.

  • Brian Walden | November 11, 2009 at 6:49 pm |

    You’re right, I should have been more specific about using ’savages’ with Indian imagery. Of course, since you left out the part of that post where I implied that, it says something about your argument.

    When in one sentence you say “I’m a fan of the Indians and have used the same argument of context and connotation to defend the name,” and then in the next sentence you contrast it with “I said words like redskin or savage are pejoratives and so context doesn’t matter,” it’s quite easy for a reader to wrongly assume that you really meant the word savage is always a pejorative in any context.

    I apologize for not picking up on your intended meaning, but I think it’s a little presumptuous to assume I was purposely quoting you out of context. Ever since I responded to the first post about the word savages, my point has always been that there’s nothing wrong with the word so long as it’s not used to describe Indians.

    The part about the word ‘gay’ assumes a lack of context, so it’s not my logic at all. ‘Gay’ isn’t a pejorative, because it does have other meanings. It’s like saying you shouldn’t use the word ‘bean’ around Mexicans.

    I’m sorry, I don’t follow you. We agree that savage has other meanings besides being a slur against Indians, yet you said it’s a pejorative. I don’t see the distinction that you’re making. Is it that the word savages nearly always has a negative connotation (I don’t know of groups of people who value barbarism? Maybe the Nazi’s, the ancient Aztecs, etc.) making it a pejorative, but since gay has a positive meaning to some people and a negative to others it’s not a pejorative?

    Look, if people are going to agree whether or not the Redskins must change their name we need a common standard to judge by. In earlier posts I proposed two possible ones to use: a moral standard which as far as I can tell would depend on the intent of the people using the word; or, alternatively, a pragmatic standard which says if it starts costing the team money, or causes the government to step in, or causes civil unrest, etc. it should be changed. There’s also the PC standard by which if any minority group is offended the name must go – if this is the standard everyone agrees to use then the name must go.

    I think everyone here agrees that racist institutions harm society. Where we disagree is on the standard that should be used to deem the Redskins racist. So what’s your standard? Why do you think it should be the one that’s used? If you convince me of that, you’ll convince me that the Redskins must change their name.

  • Brian Walden | November 11, 2009 at 6:50 pm |

    gah, sorry about that quoting mess. I should be banned from the blockquote tag.

  • jdreyfuss | November 11, 2009 at 6:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”359895″][quote comment=”359883″][quote comment=”359882″]On the Redskin debate. If there is this much debate about it then there’s a problem. I work for a Federally recognized Native Nation. I can easily find a citizen who is offended by all Native based mascots and team names and then find a citizen who wears Redskin apparel. You can always find someone to support your point. I know right now there is concern about the upcoming draft. Sam Bradford is a Cherokee Nation citizen and has been a positive figure in their community with his success. Some draft boards have shown him possibly being drafted by the Redskins and this is not settling well with some of the citizens. To me this shows me there is a problem with the name. It shouldn’t be a matter of how many does it offend, but the fact that it offends somebody.[/quote]
    If you got rid of every team name or mascot that offended anyone at all, you’d be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You have to cater to a statistically significant minority, but oversensitivity leads to blandness.

    Things like the name ‘Redskins’ or Chief Wahoo as the Indians’ mascot need to go, because they’re offensive en facie. I seem to be taking a beating for that position, but I’ll stand by it. If you have to dig to find where something is offensive to people other than those suffering from white guilt, then it shouldn’t be a problem.[/quote]

    What is “white guilt,” how does one “suffer” from it, and how does it pertain to this discussion?

    Please be specific.[/quote]
    It doesn’t pertain to this discussion. I just don’t like being accused of being hypersensitive due to political correctness. I’ve always defined white guilt as the feeling some people have that they need to be hypersensitive to others who aren’t white out of a misplaced need to atone for the sins of their fathers. People should be respectful because of mutual respect.

  • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2009 at 7:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”359899″][quote comment=”359895″][quote comment=”359883″][quote comment=”359882″]On the Redskin debate. If there is this much debate about it then there’s a problem. I work for a Federally recognized Native Nation. I can easily find a citizen who is offended by all Native based mascots and team names and then find a citizen who wears Redskin apparel. You can always find someone to support your point. I know right now there is concern about the upcoming draft. Sam Bradford is a Cherokee Nation citizen and has been a positive figure in their community with his success. Some draft boards have shown him possibly being drafted by the Redskins and this is not settling well with some of the citizens. To me this shows me there is a problem with the name. It shouldn’t be a matter of how many does it offend, but the fact that it offends somebody.[/quote]
    If you got rid of every team name or mascot that offended anyone at all, you’d be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You have to cater to a statistically significant minority, but oversensitivity leads to blandness.

    Things like the name ‘Redskins’ or Chief Wahoo as the Indians’ mascot need to go, because they’re offensive en facie. I seem to be taking a beating for that position, but I’ll stand by it. If you have to dig to find where something is offensive to people other than those suffering from white guilt, then it shouldn’t be a problem.[/quote]

    What is “white guilt,” how does one “suffer” from it, and how does it pertain to this discussion?

    Please be specific.[/quote]
    It doesn’t pertain to this discussion. I just don’t like being accused of being hypersensitive due to political correctness. I’ve always defined white guilt as the feeling some people have that they need to be hypersensitive to others who aren’t white out of a misplaced need to atone for the sins of their fathers. People should be respectful because of mutual respect.[/quote]

    And what is “political correctness”? I’m not trying to be a hardass — I’m serious. These terms get tossed around, but most of them either don’t mean anything or else serve as linguistic cover for other words and meanings.

    In my experience, most things that get described as “politically correct” are simply correct. Or moral. Or the right thing to do. Politics has nothing to do with it.

  • Macca P. | November 11, 2009 at 7:03 pm |

    Remember a few years ago some small college out west, I think in colorado, predominantly indian (no I won’t be PC and use the other term) nicknames a team teh fighting whities and had a very Drew Carey-esque logo? They did it to try to make white people get offended, turns out all it did was sell a ton of shirts since white people thought it was great, and they were *trying* to be offensive.

    Can you really not grasp the difference between insulting an ethnic majority and an ethnic minority? The reason “white people thought it was great” is that Native Americans lack the political power or popular support to threaten the white majority. It was an absurd gesture. Reminds me of the year I spent at a black-majority elementary school. I got called “cracker” daily, but just couldn’t take the insult seriously. Why? Because my ethnic identity was positively reinforced by everything other aspect of society.

    Also, way to conflate “anti-PC” with “inaccurate.” These are Indians.

  • Macca P. | November 11, 2009 at 7:04 pm |

    Alright! My turn to screw up the blockquote!

  • jdreyfuss | November 11, 2009 at 7:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”359897″]

    You’re right, I should have been more specific about using ’savages’ with Indian imagery. Of course, since you left out the part of that post where I implied that, it says something about your argument.

    When in one sentence you say “I’m a fan of the Indians and have used the same argument of context and connotation to defend the name,” and then in the next sentence you contrast it with “I said words like redskin or savage are pejoratives and so context doesn’t matter,” it’s quite easy for a reader to wrongly assume that you really meant the word savage is always a pejorative in any context.

    I apologize for not picking up on your intended meaning, but I think it’s a little presumptuous to assume I was purposely quoting you out of context. Ever since I responded to the first post about the word savages, my point has always been that there’s nothing wrong with the word so long as it’s not used to describe Indians.

    The part about the word ‘gay’ assumes a lack of context, so it’s not my logic at all. ‘Gay’ isn’t a pejorative, because it does have other meanings. It’s like saying you shouldn’t use the word ‘bean’ around Mexicans.

    I’m sorry, I don’t follow you. We agree that savage has other meanings besides being a slur against Indians, yet you said it’s a pejorative. I don’t see the distinction that you’re making. Is it that the word savages nearly always has a negative connotation (I don’t know of groups of people who value barbarism? Maybe the Nazi’s, the ancient Aztecs, etc.) making it a pejorative, but since gay has a positive meaning to some people and a negative to others it’s not a pejorative?

    Look, if people are going to agree whether or not the Redskins must change their name we need a common standard to judge by. In earlier posts I proposed two possible ones to use: a moral standard which as far as I can tell would depend on the intent of the people using the word; or, alternatively, a pragmatic standard which says if it starts costing the team money, or causes the government to step in, or causes civil unrest, etc. it should be changed. There’s also the PC standard by which if any minority group is offended the name must go – if this is the standard everyone agrees to use then the name must go.

    I think everyone here agrees that racist institutions harm society. Where we disagree is on the standard that should be used to deem the Redskins racist. So what’s your standard? Why do you think it should be the one that’s used? If you convince me of that, you’ll convince me that the Redskins must change their name.[/quote]
    I should never have made that reference to the teams that used ‘savages.’ It never really worked and only hurt me. I’m sorry about that.

    My ultimate argument was that the word ‘redskin’ is a pejorative, that is to say a word that our society deems to be racist regardless of context or intent. It is also probably the one word in the English language whose nature as far as that goes is the most difficult to define. I consider it to be inherently offensive, but I know not everyone does.

    However, if a majority, or even a statistically significant minority, of people consider a word to be a pejorative then that word should not be used for a professional sports team. I don’t have data to say that a lot of people consider the word offensive, and as Paul quoted D’Israeli, statistics can easily lie, but that’s the closest we can come to an objective standard.

    Someone should do a study on this, but no one has done a true, scientific survey yet.

  • Thomas Clark | November 11, 2009 at 7:36 pm |

    I don’t have time to read all of the comments today (200+ and many are darn long) but I noticed some Native American talk on the board. Living near Mount Pleasant, MI I listen to the Central Michigan University student run radio station during my drive time. Well there’s a movement from the outside to convince the school that they need to change their “Chippewas” name. There was even an open forum on it last week, the really bad thing is that the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe and the School have a great working relationship, even the Tribe was upset when the NCAA first brought about their ruling about offensive mascots.

    If the Tribe is okay with the name and fully support and the school does all they can to be as PC as possible with the name, why do people have to find issue with it? Many years ago (early 90’s) Eastern Michigan University changed their name from “Hurons” to “Eagles” even though the few remaining members of the Huron tribe urged them to keep the “Hurons” moniker as it reflected their heritage well.

  • Ricko | November 11, 2009 at 7:37 pm |

    RE: The whole “Redskins” deal…

    The central question of any disussion of legal action regarding the appropriateness of “Redskins” is, How the heck do you get the courts or the government involved in legislating good taste? It’s just never worked.

    I mean, who is to say that, for example, “My Baby Does the Hanky Panky” is okay, but “Yummy, Yummy, Yummy, I Got Love In My Tummy” is too, um, specific?

    It’s like back when it was ruled that pornography should be determined by prevailing community standards, but also could be deemed acceptable if it had “redeeming social value.” Oh, and who was to decide that fine and pesky little point? And wouldn’t he need to read or view something potentially illegal (thereby violating the law) in order to MAKE that evalution?

    So unless the court rules that the team somehow cannot copyright its images, et al, and the change therefore is made out of financial necessity, about the only way the name is likely to disappear is if a new owner changes it almost immediately upon gaining control of the franchise.

    Were Daniel Snyder to simply up and change it now absent some kind of legal ruling, he would be in a lose-lose situation. He would look like he either, a) gave in to pressure (which would be true) or b) that he is a dolt (which he may be for other reasons) for not being perceptive and sensitive enough to have changed it long ago.

    Pending a surprising court decision, it’s likely “Redksins” will be around for a while.

    Or so it seems.

    —Ricko

  • jdreyfuss | November 11, 2009 at 7:40 pm |

    [quote comment=”359904″]I don’t have time to read all of the comments today (200+ and many are darn long) but I noticed some Native American talk on the board. Living near Mount Pleasant, MI I listen to the Central Michigan University student run radio station during my drive time. Well there’s a movement from the outside to convince the school that they need to change their “Chippewas” name. There was even an open forum on it last week, the really bad thing is that the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe and the School have a great working relationship, even the Tribe was upset when the NCAA first brought about their ruling about offensive mascots.

    If the Tribe is okay with the name and fully support and the school does all they can to be as PC as possible with the name, why do people have to find issue with it? Many years ago (early 90’s) Eastern Michigan University changed their name from “Hurons” to “Eagles” even though the few remaining members of the Huron tribe urged them to keep the “Hurons” moniker as it reflected their heritage well.[/quote]
    That’s a great example of an Indian team that isn’t offensive. They have a working relationship with the tribe and, though someone is always going to be offended, it’s not a statistically significant number of people.

    I think Eastern Michigan should change their teams to the Emus, but then my sense of humor can very generously be called quirky.

  • jdreyfuss | November 11, 2009 at 7:43 pm |

    [quote comment=”359905″]RE: The whole “Redskins” deal…

    The central question of any disussion of legal action regarding the appropriateness of “Redskins” is, How the heck do you get the courts or the government involved in legislating good taste? It’s just never worked.

    I mean, who is to say that, for example, “My Baby Does the Hanky Panky” is okay, but “Yummy, Yummy, Yummy, I Got Love In My Tummy” is too, um, specific?

    It’s like back when it was ruled that pornography should be determined by prevailing community standards, but also could be deemed acceptable if it had “redeeming social value.” Oh, and who was to decide that fine and pesky little point? And wouldn’t he need to read or view something potentially illegal (thereby violating the law) in order to MAKE that evalution?

    So unless the court rules that the team somehow cannot copyright its images, et al, and the change therefore is made out of financial necessity, about the only way the name is likely to disappear is if a new owner changes it almost immediately upon gaining control of the franchise.

    Were Daniel Snyder to simply up and change it now absent some kind of legal ruling, he would be in a lose-lose situation. He would look like he either, a) gave in to pressure (which would be true) or b) that he is a dolt (which he may be for other reasons) for not being perceptive and sensitive enough to have changed it long ago.

    Pending a surprising court decision, it’s likely “Redksins” will be around for a while.

    Or so it seems.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    The matter shouldn’t be decided in court. It’s a social matter and legality should always fall short of social mores. I don’t like the name, but I wouldn’t take Dan Snyder to court over it, because it’s the wrong forum.

  • jdreyfuss | November 11, 2009 at 7:48 pm |

    You know what? I’ve been in this flamewar since the beginning. Over the course of the day, I’ve been a troll and taken the bait of other trolls. While it has become a lot more civil, I don’t enjoy when that side of me comes out, so I’m done posting on this topic today.

    /clears throat, steps down from soapbox

    I like the Bucs helmet. I don’t think it looks like the Raiders’ logo, since it’s a death’s head and isn’t in a shield. They’re similar, but mostly because both are derived from Calico Jack’s Jolly Roger.

    I do like the idea someone had of connecting it to Bucco Bruce. I wouldn’t make him wink, but I would put the sword in his mouth and change the crossed swords to bones.

  • Liketheriver | November 11, 2009 at 7:49 pm |

    That NO MAS video should have the Todd Snider song about Doc Ellis to go with it! so so amazing!
    http://www.youtube.c...

  • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2009 at 7:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”359908″]You know what? I’ve been in this flamewar since the beginning. Over the course of the day, I’ve been a troll and taken the bait of other trolls. While it has become a lot more civil, I don’t enjoy when that side of me comes out, so I’m done posting on this topic today.[/quote]

    What he said.

  • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2009 at 7:58 pm |

    [quote comment=”359909″]That NO MAS video should have the Todd Snider song about Doc Ellis to go with it! so so amazing!
    http://www.youtube.c...

    Not sure if they wanted to use that song (I doubt it, actually, since the song basically tells the story that Dock himself tells much better in the animation), but I do know that negotiating the music rights clearances on these videos can be a major pain in the ass.

  • Ricko | November 11, 2009 at 8:07 pm |

    “You know what? I’ve been in this flamewar since the beginning. Over the course of the day, I’ve been a troll and taken the bait of other trolls. While it has become a lot more civil, I don’t enjoy when that side of me comes out, so I’m done posting on this topic today.”

    You do know we were saying the same thing, right? That other than “copyright” issues it isn’t a matter for the courts to decide.

    Just wanted to be clear on that.

    —Ricko

  • LI Phil | November 11, 2009 at 8:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”359905″]

    I mean, who is to say that, for example, “My Baby Does the Hanky Panky” is okay, but “Yummy, Yummy, Yummy, I Got Love In My Tummy” is too, um, specific?[/quote]

    if only monica lewinski performed the latter instead of the former, bill clinton never would have been impeached

  • jdreyfuss | November 11, 2009 at 8:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”359913″]”You know what? I’ve been in this flamewar since the beginning. Over the course of the day, I’ve been a troll and taken the bait of other trolls. While it has become a lot more civil, I don’t enjoy when that side of me comes out, so I’m done posting on this topic today.”

    You do know we were saying the same thing, right? That other than “copyright” issues it isn’t a matter for the courts to decide.

    Just wanted to be clear on that.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    I know, I was providing support and emphasis for your point. I wasn’t talking about my response to you with what I said in the next post.

    So how about that local sports team? They really make me feel ways about stuff. They really did something recently that gave me a strong opinion. ;P

  • Ricko | November 11, 2009 at 8:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”359914″][quote comment=”359905″]

    I mean, who is to say that, for example, “My Baby Does the Hanky Panky” is okay, but “Yummy, Yummy, Yummy, I Got Love In My Tummy” is too, um, specific?[/quote]

    if only monica lewinski performed the latter instead of the former, bill clinton never would have been impeached[/quote]

    “Devil with a blue dress,
    Devil with a blue dress…”
    (just staying in the song title mode)

    “And, appearing as Linda Tripp in his dramatic film debut, Meat Loaf”

    —Ricko

  • jdreyfuss | November 11, 2009 at 8:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”359916″]”And, appearing as Linda Tripp in his dramatic film debut, Meat Loaf”

    —Ricko[/quote]
    My name is Joe Dreyfuss, and I approve of this message.

  • Taxman | November 11, 2009 at 8:23 pm |

    To whom it may concern:
    Lighten up Francis.

    Today we salute the men and women who have fought the good fight to protect our rights to agree to disagree on issues such as these. In as blowharded or sanctimonious a manner as we feel is appropriate.

    God Bless America.

  • Ricko | November 11, 2009 at 8:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”359915″][quote comment=”359913″]”You know what? I’ve been in this flamewar since the beginning. Over the course of the day, I’ve been a troll and taken the bait of other trolls. While it has become a lot more civil, I don’t enjoy when that side of me comes out, so I’m done posting on this topic today.”

    You do know we were saying the same thing, right? That other than “copyright” issues it isn’t a matter for the courts to decide.

    Just wanted to be clear on that.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    I know, I was providing support and emphasis for your point. I wasn’t talking about my response to you with what I said in the next post.

    So how about that local sports team? They really make me feel ways about stuff. They really did something recently that gave me a strong opinion. ;P[/quote]

    Yeah, I sure hope they’ll be able to keep that Great Young Player they deveolped from signing with the Non-Locals, that team with all the money. Sure would be strange to see him in a Non-Locals uniform, huh.

    And that Another Young Coordinator Given An NFL Head Coaching Job sure is a) doing well or b) really a disaster, isn’t he?

    Write this down, btw…
    Part of the reason we aren’t likely to see anyone hire Bill Cowher or Mike Shanahan or any other big name, big salary coach until after the 2011 work stoppage is…Who wants to be paying a gazillion dollars to someone NOT to coach?

    Well, maybe the owner of the Washington Ethnics. He’d be that stupid (on account of he has been before, hasn’t he, Mr. Spurrier, Mr.
    Schottenheimer, Mr. Gibbs…)

    —Ricko

  • Taxman | November 11, 2009 at 8:39 pm |

    [quote comment=”359918″]To whom it may concern:
    Lighten up Francis.

    Today we salute the men and women who have fought the good fight to protect our rights to agree to disagree on issues such as these. In as blowharded or sanctimonious a manner as we feel is appropriate.
    [/quote]

    Or like Ricko, apply great wisdom, perspective and appropriate humor in his customary common sense manner.

  • Brian Walden | November 11, 2009 at 8:52 pm |

    I’ll join in the apologies for hijacking the thread. It’s the politically correct thing to do ;-)

    I’m sorry for all my incredibly long comments debating the Redskins name instead of sticking to uni-related content. I do, however, stand by my earlier opinions that the helmet designs all look cartoonish and it’s foolish to think that most teams should choose the colors of the mascot they’re named after.

  • Ricko | November 11, 2009 at 9:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”359921″]I’ll join in the apologies for hijacking the thread. It’s the politically correct thing to do ;-)

    I’m sorry for all my incredibly long comments debating the Redskins name instead of sticking to uni-related content. I do, however, stand by my earlier opinions that the helmet designs all look cartoonish and it’s foolish to think that most teams should choose the colors of the mascot they’re named after.[/quote]

    Yeah, there’d be a helluva lot of tan and brown teams, wouldn’t there. And look how good it looked on the Colorado Caribous (sic). Nicest thing about the Carbious fringed jerseys is the “fawn” colored base makes it look like a bare midriff.
    http://mirevolution....

    “Y…M…C…A…”

    —Ricko

    —Ricko

  • Steve | November 11, 2009 at 9:08 pm |

    Instead of the Redskins, how about the Washington Crackers?

    files.me.com/gmu599/krrvft

  • LI Phil | November 11, 2009 at 9:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”359922″]And look how good it looked on the Colorado Caribous (sic). Nicest thing about the Carbious fringed jerseys is the “fawn” colored base makes it look like a bare midriff.
    http://mirevolution....

    speaking of the caribou(s), don’t forget there’s still time to vote in the worst uni ever poll, of which the caribou(s) are a contestant

  • Ricko | November 11, 2009 at 9:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”359924″][quote comment=”359922″]And look how good it looked on the Colorado Caribous (sic). Nicest thing about the Carbious fringed jerseys is the “fawn” colored base makes it look like a bare midriff.
    http://mirevolution....

    speaking of the caribou(s), don’t forget there’s still time to vote in the worst uni ever poll, of which the caribou(s) are a contestant[/quote]

    Speaking of those Caribou unis, which (swear to god) I thought were for a women’s team the first time I saw a photo of the jersey….

    Anyone know if that (I think it was) Denver women’s rugby team is still around, the one called the Scarlet Harlots?

    What a great team name.

    —Ricko

  • ren | November 11, 2009 at 9:33 pm |
  • ren | November 11, 2009 at 9:35 pm |

    http://armchairgm.wi...…New_Uniforms%3F

  • JimV19 | November 11, 2009 at 9:44 pm |

    [quote comment=”359881″]As long as we’re on the topic of questionable names, how about this:

    The murders Anthony Sowell committed here in Cleveland are called the Imperial Murders, after the street he lived on. So why isn’t he the Imperial Murderer? The only nickname I’ve heard for him is the Cleveland Cleaver, which to me sounds stupid and a little too much like a famous kink.[/quote]

    Channel 19 come up with that nickname? That sounds like something they’d say…

  • Taxman | November 11, 2009 at 9:45 pm |

    I think the 3 helmet designs are in a word – spiffy!! Not sure I am in love with them, but this designer has explored some great concepts. If football helmet design does evolve beyond the comfort zone of us traditionalists, this type of design could be an interesting way to go.

    Somebody want to mock up a Ravens’ helmet with he creepy eyes right above the face mask??

  • Shaun | November 11, 2009 at 9:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”359926″]http://www.alright-hamilton.com/2009/04/say-what-twins-are-getting-new-uniforms.html[/quote]

    not gonna lie that went from real good to real bad real fast. but i sure hope they go with somethin like the ones near the top

  • Kerry P | November 11, 2009 at 9:58 pm |

    Paul,

    Regarding the Hornets new unis that will be revealed next Wednesday, are they going to be a true 3rd alternate or will they be worn only around Mardi Gras?

    The team sent out an e-mail to everyone on their “Bee-mail” list inviting them to the unveiling at Blain Kern’s Mardi Gras world to see the outfits.

  • Shaun | November 11, 2009 at 9:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”359929″]I think the 3 helmet designs are in a word – spiffy!! Not sure I am in love with them, but this designer has explored some great concepts. If football helmet design does evolve beyond the comfort zone of us traditionalists, this type of design could be an interesting way to go.

    Somebody want to mock up a Ravens’ helmet with he creepy eyes right above the face mask??[/quote]

    theyre not very creepy eyes just on their own… just like… yellow googly eyes

  • Taxman | November 11, 2009 at 10:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”359930″][quote comment=”359926″]http://www.alright-hamilton.com/2009/04/say-what-twins-are-getting-new-uniforms.html[/quote]

    not gonna lie that went from real good to real bad real fast. but i sure hope they go with somethin like the ones near the top[/quote]

    I hope the Twinkees go with the iconic TC cap logo full time in any event.

  • adam | November 11, 2009 at 10:04 pm |

    In a drunken eureka moment a few years back I developed the scheme where the native american casino tribes pool their cash and either buy the Redskins or the LA franchise and name them the White Devils or something.

  • jdreyfuss | November 11, 2009 at 10:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”359933″][quote comment=”359930″][quote comment=”359926″]http://www.alright-hamilton.com/2009/04/say-what-twins-are-getting-new-uniforms.html[/quote]

    not gonna lie that went from real good to real bad real fast. but i sure hope they go with somethin like the ones near the top[/quote]

    I hope the Twinkees go with the iconic TC cap logo full time in any event.[/quote]
    Not that anyone will see their stirrups, but they definitely did it right. Stripes with the grays and solids with the pinstripes is A-OK.

  • Shaun | November 11, 2009 at 10:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”359935″][quote comment=”359933″][quote comment=”359930″][quote comment=”359926″]http://www.alright-hamilton.com/2009/04/say-what-twins-are-getting-new-uniforms.html[/quote]

    not gonna lie that went from real good to real bad real fast. but i sure hope they go with somethin like the ones near the top[/quote]

    I hope the Twinkees go with the iconic TC cap logo full time in any event.[/quote]
    Not that anyone will see their stirrups, but they definitely did it right. Stripes with the grays and solids with the pinstripes is A-OK.[/quote]

    i absolutely love striped stirrups. and i bet im the first person on this site to ever say that!

  • Ricko | November 11, 2009 at 10:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”359930″][quote comment=”359926″]http://www.alright-hamilton.com/2009/04/say-what-twins-are-getting-new-uniforms.html[/quote]

    not gonna lie that went from real good to real bad real fast. but i sure hope they go with somethin like the ones near the top[/quote]

    I hope they keep the homes. Great looking uni that has never been seen in the sunshine. In the regular season anyway.

    —Ricko

  • JimV19 | November 11, 2009 at 10:10 pm |

    Ricko said:

    “Write this down, btw…
    Part of the reason we aren’t likely to see anyone hire Bill Cowher or Mike Shanahan or any other big name, big salary coach until after the 2011 work stoppage is…Who wants to be paying a gazillion dollars to someone NOT to coach?

    Well, maybe the owner of the Washington Ethnics. He’d be that stupid (on account of he has been before, hasn’t he, Mr. Spurrier, Mr.
    Schottenheimer, Mr. Gibbs…)”

    You sound as resigned to the fact that a stoppage is coming as I am. Hope it’s followed by the 2012 fan stoppage. Wouldn’t be the end of the world for me to say “Who needs you?” Just give me Aussie Rules and curling in its place.

  • Shaun | November 11, 2009 at 10:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”359937″][quote comment=”359930″][quote comment=”359926″]http://www.alright-hamilton.com/2009/04/say-what-twins-are-getting-new-uniforms.html[/quote]

    not gonna lie that went from real good to real bad real fast. but i sure hope they go with somethin like the ones near the top[/quote]

    I hope they keep the homes. Great looking uni that has never been seen in the sunshine. In the regular season anyway.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    being a lifelong braves fan, those uniforms do nothing but twist my stomach for reasons i need not explain… but i will say that any uniform looks better outdoors than in a dome

  • Shaun | November 11, 2009 at 10:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”359938″]Ricko said:

    “Write this down, btw…
    Part of the reason we aren’t likely to see anyone hire Bill Cowher or Mike Shanahan or any other big name, big salary coach until after the 2011 work stoppage is…Who wants to be paying a gazillion dollars to someone NOT to coach?

    Well, maybe the owner of the Washington Ethnics. He’d be that stupid (on account of he has been before, hasn’t he, Mr. Spurrier, Mr.
    Schottenheimer, Mr. Gibbs…)”

    You sound as resigned to the fact that a stoppage is coming as I am. Hope it’s followed by the 2012 fan stoppage. Wouldn’t be the end of the world for me to say “Who needs you?” Just give me Aussie Rules and curling in its place.[/quote]

    well it wont last long, whatever happens. world ends in 2012, rememeber!

    /sarcasm

  • Ricko | November 11, 2009 at 10:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”359938″]Ricko said:

    “Write this down, btw…
    Part of the reason we aren’t likely to see anyone hire Bill Cowher or Mike Shanahan or any other big name, big salary coach until after the 2011 work stoppage is…Who wants to be paying a gazillion dollars to someone NOT to coach?

    Well, maybe the owner of the Washington Ethnics. He’d be that stupid (on account of he has been before, hasn’t he, Mr. Spurrier, Mr.
    Schottenheimer, Mr. Gibbs…)”

    You sound as resigned to the fact that a stoppage is coming as I am. Hope it’s followed by the 2012 fan stoppage. Wouldn’t be the end of the world for me to say “Who needs you?” Just give me Aussie Rules and curling in its place.[/quote]

    I just think a lot of owners are playing things really close to the vest until they see what the new collective bargaining agreement brings.

    You know they want get rid of “slotting” for draft choices. Probabloy thinking about an 18-game season, and what that will do to payrolls. Cap changes, too. And they don’t wanna have to pay a coach big money (coaches are management; they keep getting paid) if team not playing.

    I honestly think some owners are preparing for possibly no football at all in 2011. Just a gut feeling I have.

    —Ricko

  • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2009 at 10:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”359931″]Paul,

    Regarding the Hornets new unis that will be revealed next Wednesday, are they going to be a true 3rd alternate or will they be worn only around Mardi Gras?

    The team sent out an e-mail to everyone on their “Bee-mail” list inviting them to the unveiling at Blain Kern’s Mardi Gras world to see the outfits.[/quote]

    My understanding is that they’ll only be worn around Mardi Gras.

  • Taxman | November 11, 2009 at 10:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”359938″]Ricko said:

    “Write this down, btw…
    …You sound as resigned to the fact that a stoppage is coming as I am. Hope it’s followed by the 2012 fan stoppage. Wouldn’t be the end of the world for me to say “Who needs you?” Just give me Aussie Rules and curling in its place.[/quote]
    Wouldn’t be the end of the world?? 2012?
    The Mayans are on line one Ricko

  • JimV19 | November 11, 2009 at 10:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”359928″][quote comment=”359881″]As long as we’re on the topic of questionable names, how about this:

    The murders Anthony Sowell committed here in Cleveland are called the Imperial Murders, after the street he lived on. So why isn’t he the Imperial Murderer? The only nickname I’ve heard for him is the Cleveland Cleaver, which to me sounds stupid and a little too much like a famous kink.[/quote]

    Channel 19 come up with that nickname? That sounds like something they’d say…[/quote]

    Speaking of Channel 19, just saw a couple of odd things on there.

    First, Channel 19’s sister station, Channel 43, is carrying the Cavaliers/Magic game. Channel 19 is a CBS affiliate, but 43’s using the feed from Fox Sports Ohio. As a result, I got to see an ad for Fox NFL Sunday and another ad for CBS 19’s newscast during the same game. Weird.

    Also, I don’t have a screen shot, but Cavs guard Daniel Gibson has a Houston Astros logo shaved on the side of his head. I believe he’s from Houston.

  • JimV19 | November 11, 2009 at 10:23 pm |

    2012 pun intended, by the way…

  • LI Phil | November 11, 2009 at 10:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”359944″]Cavs guard Daniel Gibson has a Houston Astros logo shaved on the side of his head. I believe he’s from Houston.[/quote]

    ya think?

  • Steve | November 11, 2009 at 10:24 pm |

    Ricko….are you a Skins fan too?

  • JTH | November 11, 2009 at 10:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”359936″][quote comment=”359935″][quote comment=”359933″][quote comment=”359930″][quote comment=”359926″]http://www.alright-hamilton.com/2009/04/say-what-twins-are-getting-new-uniforms.html[/quote]

    not gonna lie that went from real good to real bad real fast. but i sure hope they go with somethin like the ones near the top[/quote]

    I hope the Twinkees go with the iconic TC cap logo full time in any event.[/quote]
    Not that anyone will see their stirrups, but they definitely did it right. Stripes with the grays and solids with the pinstripes is A-OK.[/quote]

    i absolutely love striped stirrups. and i bet im the first person on this site to ever say that![/quote]
    First one tonight, at least.

    Nothing wrong with pinstripes and striped socks.

    Contrasting-color brims can and do work at times (A’s, Braves, Orioles, etc.) but never with pinstripes. And red crown/dark brim never looks good. It didn’t look good on the Red Sox; it doesn’t look good on the Reds; it damn sure doesn’t look good on the Twins.

  • JimV19 | November 11, 2009 at 10:30 pm |

    Ricko said:

    “You know they want get rid of “slotting” for draft choices. Probabloy thinking about an 18-game season, and what that will do to payrolls. Cap changes, too. And they don’t wanna have to pay a coach big money (coaches are management; they keep getting paid) if team not playing.

    I honestly think some owners are preparing for possibly no football at all in 2011. Just a gut feeling I have.”

    Hadn’t heard about the draft issue, but everything else. I agree some owners are preparing – that would explain the inordinate number of crappy teams right now. We all know Jerry Jones has cap issues, since he opened his mouth about that in the preseason. Reminds me of Trump more and more each day…

  • JimV19 | November 11, 2009 at 10:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”359946″][quote comment=”359944″]Cavs guard Daniel Gibson has a Houston Astros logo shaved on the side of his head. I believe he’s from Houston.[/quote]

    ya think?[/quote]

    Too late to think, buddy.

  • Ricko | November 11, 2009 at 10:36 pm |

    [quote comment=”359943″][quote comment=”359938″]Ricko said:

    “Write this down, btw…
    …You sound as resigned to the fact that a stoppage is coming as I am. Hope it’s followed by the 2012 fan stoppage. Wouldn’t be the end of the world for me to say “Who needs you?” Just give me Aussie Rules and curling in its place.[/quote]
    Wouldn’t be the end of the world?? 2012?
    The Mayans are on line one Ricko[/quote]

    I didn’t say the “end of the world” thing.
    Although I’m planning to find the headquarters of a group of women who want to have much sex as possible before December, 2012. They MUST have a headquarters somewhere. Mustn’t they? LOL

    —Ricko

  • JimV19 | November 11, 2009 at 10:39 pm |

    [quote comment=”359948″][quote comment=”359936″][quote comment=”359935″][quote comment=”359933″][quote comment=”359930″][quote comment=”359926″]http://www.alright-hamilton.com/2009/04/say-what-twins-are-getting-new-uniforms.html[/quote]

    not gonna lie that went from real good to real bad real fast. but i sure hope they go with somethin like the ones near the top[/quote]

    I hope the Twinkees go with the iconic TC cap logo full time in any event.[/quote]
    Not that anyone will see their stirrups, but they definitely did it right. Stripes with the grays and solids with the pinstripes is A-OK.[/quote]

    i absolutely love striped stirrups. and i bet im the first person on this site to ever say that![/quote]
    First one tonight, at least.

    Nothing wrong with pinstripes and striped socks.

    Contrasting-color brims can and do work at times (A’s, Braves, Orioles, etc.) but never with pinstripes. And red crown/dark brim never looks good. It didn’t look good on the Red Sox; it doesn’t look good on the Reds; it damn sure doesn’t look good on the Twins.[/quote]

    I don’t know…maybe because I grew up watching the mustard crown/black brim Pirates, but I like those Sox, Reds and Twins hats. Another that I really like (so much that I own one) is the old teal crown/black brim Marlins hat.

  • ren | November 11, 2009 at 10:45 pm |
  • LI Phil | November 11, 2009 at 10:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”359948″]Contrasting-color brims can and do work at times (A’s, Braves, Orioles, etc.) but never with pinstripes. And red crown/dark brim never looks good. It didn’t look good on the Red Sox; it doesn’t look good on the Reds; it damn sure doesn’t look good on the Twins.[/quote]

    like you say, depends on the team…black brims with non black caps (see: mets, reds, royals, for example) NEVER work either

  • LI Phil | November 11, 2009 at 10:49 pm |

    whoops…mets are black crown/royal brim…

    but that doesn’t work either

    nor did the marlins, although that was palatable

  • jdreyfuss | November 11, 2009 at 10:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”359944″][quote comment=”359928″][quote comment=”359881″]As long as we’re on the topic of questionable names, how about this:

    The murders Anthony Sowell committed here in Cleveland are called the Imperial Murders, after the street he lived on. So why isn’t he the Imperial Murderer? The only nickname I’ve heard for him is the Cleveland Cleaver, which to me sounds stupid and a little too much like a famous kink.[/quote]

    Channel 19 come up with that nickname? That sounds like something they’d say…[/quote]

    Speaking of Channel 19, just saw a couple of odd things on there.

    First, Channel 19’s sister station, Channel 43, is carrying the Cavaliers/Magic game. Channel 19 is a CBS affiliate, but 43’s using the feed from Fox Sports Ohio. As a result, I got to see an ad for Fox NFL Sunday and another ad for CBS 19’s newscast during the same game. Weird.

    Also, I don’t have a screen shot, but Cavs guard Daniel Gibson has a Houston Astros logo shaved on the side of his head. I believe he’s from Houston.[/quote]
    He’s had that shaved into his head for a while. It’s not an Astros logo, but close. It’s an outline of Texas with a small star on Houston. The closest Astros logo has a giant A-Star centered on the state. He is from Houston, though. Jones High School.

  • JimV19 | November 11, 2009 at 10:52 pm |

    Interesting Page 2 article about the UFL: http://sports.espn.g...
    He had me until he advocated getting rid of place kicking. Sure, take the foot out of football…then call it something else, okay? And let me know when the season’s over.

  • Bob Loblaw | November 11, 2009 at 10:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”359922″][quote comment=”359921″]I’ll join in the apologies for hijacking the thread. It’s the politically correct thing to do ;-)

    I’m sorry for all my incredibly long comments debating the Redskins name instead of sticking to uni-related content. I do, however, stand by my earlier opinions that the helmet designs all look cartoonish and it’s foolish to think that most teams should choose the colors of the mascot they’re named after.[/quote]

    Yeah, there’d be a helluva lot of tan and brown teams, wouldn’t there. And look how good it looked on the Colorado Caribous (sic). Nicest thing about the Carbious fringed jerseys is the “fawn” colored base makes it look like a bare midriff.
    http://mirevolution....

    “Y…M…C…A…”

    —Ricko

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I recall that ex Giants’ (amongst others) K Matt Bahr looked quite good (sic) in that bare midriff number.

  • jdreyfuss | November 11, 2009 at 10:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”359951″][quote comment=”359943″][quote comment=”359938″]Ricko said:

    “Write this down, btw…
    …You sound as resigned to the fact that a stoppage is coming as I am. Hope it’s followed by the 2012 fan stoppage. Wouldn’t be the end of the world for me to say “Who needs you?” Just give me Aussie Rules and curling in its place.[/quote]
    Wouldn’t be the end of the world?? 2012?
    The Mayans are on line one Ricko[/quote]

    I didn’t say the “end of the world” thing.
    Although I’m planning to find the headquarters of a group of women who want to have much sex as possible before December, 2012. They MUST have a headquarters somewhere. Mustn’t they? LOL

    —Ricko[/quote]
    I think there’s a hotline you can call.

  • JTH | November 11, 2009 at 10:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”359955″]whoops…mets are black crown/royal brim…

    but that doesn’t work either

    nor did the marlins, although that was palatable[/quote]
    I agree with Mr. Vilk about the Pirates. I actually liked that one (and the gold with black brim pillbox).

    But those black-brimmed Marlins caps did suck. I loved the all-teal.

    And I think you’ve stumbled on a way to make the Mets’ unis even worse.

  • jdreyfuss | November 11, 2009 at 10:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”359957″]Interesting Page 2 article about the UFL: http://sports.espn.g...
    He had me until he advocated getting rid of place kicking. Sure, take the foot out of football…then call it something else, okay? And let me know when the season’s over.[/quote]
    It’s called football because it’s played on foot instead of on a horse, not because you kick the ball. I love pulling that one out against soccer snobs. But yeah, punting will disappear before placekicking does. The ability to compromise on points too valuable to game strategy.

  • LI Phil | November 11, 2009 at 11:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”359960″]I think you’ve stumbled on a way to make the Mets’ unis even worse.[/quote]

    oh god, i did

    sorry i even mentioned it

  • jdreyfuss | November 11, 2009 at 11:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”359962″][quote comment=”359960″]I think you’ve stumbled on a way to make the Mets’ unis even worse.[/quote]

    oh god, i did

    sorry i even mentioned it[/quote]
    What if that was royal over a very dark blue, like midnight? would that be better or worse?

  • JimV19 | November 11, 2009 at 11:01 pm |

    Speaking of placekickers, the sports report just featured a 60-year-old placekicker for Austin College. Straight-on kicker, by the way.

    Here’s an article: http://www.kxii.com/...

  • JTH | November 11, 2009 at 11:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”359957″]Interesting Page 2 article about the UFL: http://sports.espn.g...
    He had me until he advocated getting rid of place kicking. Sure, take the foot out of football…then call it something else, okay? And let me know when the season’s over.[/quote]
    I like the power play idea.

    But trying to link directly to an image on Chris Creamer’s site? Rookie mistake, Mr. Gallo.

  • LI Phil | November 11, 2009 at 11:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”359963″][quote comment=”359962″][quote comment=”359960″]I think you’ve stumbled on a way to make the Mets’ unis even worse.[/quote]

    oh god, i did

    sorry i even mentioned it[/quote]
    What if that was royal over a very dark blue, like midnight? would that be better or worse?[/quote]

    this is as dark as i’m willing to go, but no, it doesn’t look as bad…in fact, it doesn’t look bad at all, but im quite happy with just a solid royal cap, tyvm

  • Bob Loblaw | November 11, 2009 at 11:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”359960″][quote comment=”359955″]whoops…mets are black crown/royal brim…

    but that doesn’t work either

    nor did the marlins, although that was palatable[/quote]
    I agree with Mr. Vilk about the Pirates. I actually liked that one (and the gold with black brim pillbox).

    But those black-brimmed Marlins caps did suck. I loved the all-teal.

    And I think you’ve stumbled on a way to make the Mets’ unis even worse.[/quote]

    I just purchased that mustard/black brimmed PIrates lid from 1970. When the Mets tanked in June, I decided to carry on this summer w/ my tribute to the Great Clemente.
    Sweet lid, that Lumber Co. was a tremendous team!

    w/ or w/o Dock Ellis, :)

  • jdreyfuss | November 11, 2009 at 11:09 pm |

    They were talking about how LeBron declared a moratorium on free agency talk. I’m sure that will last at least until tomorrow morning.

  • JimV19 | November 11, 2009 at 11:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”359961″][quote comment=”359957″]Interesting Page 2 article about the UFL: http://sports.espn.g...
    He had me until he advocated getting rid of place kicking. Sure, take the foot out of football…then call it something else, okay? And let me know when the season’s over.[/quote]
    It’s called football because it’s played on foot instead of on a horse, not because you kick the ball. I love pulling that one out against soccer snobs. But yeah, punting will disappear before placekicking does. The ability to compromise on points too valuable to game strategy.[/quote]

    One soccer magazine I read has a t-shirt ad showing a football with the word “Runball” above it. I don’t subscribe to the magazine, though, so I don’t consider myself a soccer snob. ;)

    Actually, the soccer snobs don’t like me because I thought indoor soccer coulda been a major sport…

  • LI Phil | November 11, 2009 at 11:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”359969″] soccer snobs don’t like me because I thought indoor soccer coulda been a major sport…[/quote]

    don’t be so hard on yourself, jim

    it’s not just soccer snobs

  • JimV19 | November 11, 2009 at 11:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”359966″][quote comment=”359963″][quote comment=”359962″][quote comment=”359960″]I think you’ve stumbled on a way to make the Mets’ unis even worse.[/quote]

    oh god, i did

    sorry i even mentioned it[/quote]
    What if that was royal over a very dark blue, like midnight? would that be better or worse?[/quote]

    this is as dark as i’m willing to go, but no, it doesn’t look as bad…in fact, it doesn’t look bad at all, but im quite happy with just a solid royal cap, tyvm[/quote]

    How ’bout an orange crown with a blue brim?

  • LI Phil | November 11, 2009 at 11:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”359971″]
    How ’bout an orange crown with a blue brim?[/quote]

    would you settle for the reverse? (props to alex rocklein for that mockup)

  • JimV19 | November 11, 2009 at 11:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”359972″][quote comment=”359971″]
    How ’bout an orange crown with a blue brim?[/quote]

    would you settle for the reverse? (props to alex rocklein for that mockup)[/quote]

    Not bad, but orange/blue or all orange would be cool.

  • Taxman | November 11, 2009 at 11:23 pm |

    I can’t follow the “he said/she said/who said” thing. Not sure who is saying what, but I’ll keep quoting.

  • jdreyfuss | November 11, 2009 at 11:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”359970″][quote comment=”359969″] soccer snobs don’t like me because I thought indoor soccer coulda been a major sport…[/quote]

    don’t be so hard on yourself, jim

    it’s not just soccer snobs[/quote]
    I wish it could have been a major sport. At least then we’d have a major championship in the last 45 years.

  • Ricko | November 11, 2009 at 11:40 pm |

    New stadium not a reason for new unis, unless you suck and are trying to usher in a new era. Twins have won division five times in last eight years, and came close to making it six.

    So maybe just remove the road pins and now screw around with anything else? Please?
    http://farm3.static....

    —Ricko

  • JimV19 | November 11, 2009 at 11:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”359975″][quote comment=”359970″][quote comment=”359969″] soccer snobs don’t like me because I thought indoor soccer coulda been a major sport…[/quote]

    don’t be so hard on yourself, jim

    it’s not just soccer snobs[/quote]
    I wish it could have been a major sport. At least then we’d have a major championship in the last 45 years.[/quote]

    Take what you can get…http://www.youtube.c...

  • JimV19 | November 11, 2009 at 11:46 pm |

    [quote comment=”359977″][quote comment=”359975″][quote comment=”359970″][quote comment=”359969″] soccer snobs don’t like me because I thought indoor soccer coulda been a major sport…[/quote]

    don’t be so hard on yourself, jim

    it’s not just soccer snobs[/quote]
    I wish it could have been a major sport. At least then we’d have a major championship in the last 45 years.[/quote]

    Take what you can get…http://www.youtube.c...

    http://www.youtube.c...

  • Traxel | November 11, 2009 at 11:46 pm |

    [quote comment=”359976″]New stadium not a reason for new unis, unless you suck and are trying to usher in a new era. Twins have won division five times in last eight years, and came close to making it six.

    So maybe just remove the road pins and now screw around with anything else? Please?
    http://farm3.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]
    That picture gives off a flannel vibe. A rich textured depth to the textile. Might be cozy in the great white north.

  • jdreyfuss | November 11, 2009 at 11:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”359978″][quote comment=”359977″][quote comment=”359975″][quote comment=”359970″][quote comment=”359969″] soccer snobs don’t like me because I thought indoor soccer coulda been a major sport…[/quote]

    don’t be so hard on yourself, jim

    it’s not just soccer snobs[/quote]
    I wish it could have been a major sport. At least then we’d have a major championship in the last 45 years.[/quote]

    Take what you can get…http://www.youtube.c...

    http://www.youtube.c...
    nice tie

  • Ricko | November 11, 2009 at 11:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”359979″][quote comment=”359976″]New stadium not a reason for new unis, unless you suck and are trying to usher in a new era. Twins have won division five times in last eight years, and came close to making it six.

    So maybe just remove the road pins and now screw around with anything else? Please?
    http://farm3.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]
    That picture gives off a flannel vibe. A rich textured depth to the textile. Might be cozy in the great white north.[/quote]

    Yeah. Noticed that “look” was emerging as I was taking out the pins. That’s the road, of course, want ’em to keep the home pins.

    —Ricko

  • LI Phil | November 11, 2009 at 11:53 pm |

    ah…sam wyche is still a douche

  • Traxel | November 11, 2009 at 11:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”359981″][quote comment=”359979″][quote comment=”359976″]New stadium not a reason for new unis, unless you suck and are trying to usher in a new era. Twins have won division five times in last eight years, and came close to making it six.

    So maybe just remove the road pins and now screw around with anything else? Please?
    http://farm3.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]
    That picture gives off a flannel vibe. A rich textured depth to the textile. Might be cozy in the great white north.[/quote]

    Yeah. Noticed that “look” was emerging as I was taking out the pins. That’s the road, of course, want ’em to keep the home pins.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Can we do away with the M hat? I don’t know why I’ve never liked it. Makes no sense. Still like the TC though.
    http://www.flickr.co...

  • Ricko | November 11, 2009 at 11:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”359983″][quote comment=”359981″][quote comment=”359979″][quote comment=”359976″]New stadium not a reason for new unis, unless you suck and are trying to usher in a new era. Twins have won division five times in last eight years, and came close to making it six.

    So maybe just remove the road pins and now screw around with anything else? Please?
    http://farm3.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]
    That picture gives off a flannel vibe. A rich textured depth to the textile. Might be cozy in the great white north.[/quote]

    Yeah. Noticed that “look” was emerging as I was taking out the pins. That’s the road, of course, want ’em to keep the home pins.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Can we do away with the M hat? I don’t know why I’ve never liked it. Makes no sense. Still like the TC though.
    http://www.flickr.co...

    I didn’t mess with the hat, but apparently the new Twins’ road lid is same as the home “TC”…but with a red visor. That’s the rumor, anyway.

    —Ricko

  • Traxel | November 12, 2009 at 12:04 am |

    [quote comment=”359984″][quote comment=”359983″][quote comment=”359981″][quote comment=”359979″][quote comment=”359976″]New stadium not a reason for new unis, unless you suck and are trying to usher in a new era. Twins have won division five times in last eight years, and came close to making it six.

    So maybe just remove the road pins and now screw around with anything else? Please?
    http://farm3.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]
    That picture gives off a flannel vibe. A rich textured depth to the textile. Might be cozy in the great white north.[/quote]

    Yeah. Noticed that “look” was emerging as I was taking out the pins. That’s the road, of course, want ’em to keep the home pins.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Can we do away with the M hat? I don’t know why I’ve never liked it. Makes no sense. Still like the TC though.
    http://www.flickr.co...

    I didn’t mess with the hat, but apparently the new Twins’ road lid is same as the home “TC”…but with a red visor. That’s the rumor, anyway.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Rod Carew would never have looked right in the M hat.

    I think I’ve narrowed it down to the short style short sleeves of the 60’s as to why I like those home pins better than todays.

  • Traxel | November 12, 2009 at 12:09 am |

    [quote comment=”359985″][quote comment=”359984″][quote comment=”359983″][quote comment=”359981″][quote comment=”359979″][quote comment=”359976″]New stadium not a reason for new unis, unless you suck and are trying to usher in a new era. Twins have won division five times in last eight years, and came close to making it six.

    So maybe just remove the road pins and now screw around with anything else? Please?
    http://farm3.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]
    That picture gives off a flannel vibe. A rich textured depth to the textile. Might be cozy in the great white north.[/quote]

    Yeah. Noticed that “look” was emerging as I was taking out the pins. That’s the road, of course, want ’em to keep the home pins.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Can we do away with the M hat? I don’t know why I’ve never liked it. Makes no sense. Still like the TC though.
    http://www.flickr.co...

    I didn’t mess with the hat, but apparently the new Twins’ road lid is same as the home “TC”…but with a red visor. That’s the rumor, anyway.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Rod Carew would never have looked right in the M hat.

    I think I’ve narrowed it down to the short style short sleeves of the 60’s as to why I like those home pins better than todays.[/quote]
    This is cool.
    http://www.videosurf...

  • Matt English | November 12, 2009 at 12:52 am |

    I saw Paul’s list of helmet designs in need of a shake-up, so I thought I’d take a stab at one of them, despite the torment which usually gets aimed at amateur design jobs.

    Here’s my version of a Bills helmet, using newish and oldish elements, I originally had an all-red thing but at the last minute I decided I’d do a color flip, what do you think?

    http://img35.imagesh...

  • KB | November 12, 2009 at 1:41 am |

    [quote comment=”359821″]Yeah, I’m apparently incapable of mastering all these shiny buttons this morning …

    To summarize (hopefully sans italics):

    * Props to JTH for “three-fifths” question.
    * To be illuminated re: historical allusion in three-fifths question: http://en.wikipedia....

    OK, now ‘scuse me whilst I go shopping for an “HTML Tags 4 Dummiez” book.[/quote]

    Phwew!

    Thank you.

    I was beginning to think I was the only person reading these comments who made the 3/5 and minority connection.

    On a semi-related note, I think the D.C. team should simply change their name to Blackskins, Slanteyes or Jewnoses. Nothing offensive about those names, right?

    Wetbacks, on the other hand, might be an offensive nickname outside of New Orleans.

  • The Jeff | November 12, 2009 at 8:42 am |

    Gonna repost this whenever today’s blog goes up, but anyways…

    Someone wanted a “zombie bucco bruce” with the skull having a sword in it’s mouth… here ya go:

    http://img443.images...

  • RS Rogers | November 12, 2009 at 9:09 am |

    [quote comment=”359976″]New stadium not a reason for new unis, unless you suck and are trying to usher in a new era. Twins have won division five times in last eight years, and came close to making it six.

    So maybe just remove the road pins and now screw around with anything else? Please?
    http://farm3.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Sorry, man, but that’s just wrong. The Twins have one of the few instantly recognizable looks in baseball: Pinstripes, red script, navy cap. (Setting aside the crapfest of alts the team wears.) As long as the Twins keep that basic formula — pinstripes, red script, blue cap — they’ll be fine.

    Ditching the road pinstripes deviates from that formula, so that would be a mistake on its face. It’s like saying, “Hey, Yankees, drop the home pinstripes!” Bad move. Plus, the Twins first wore road pins at the same time that the Yankees first wore home pins. It’s irrational to oppose the one but favor the other, especially since road pins, by darkening the uniform, actually make road uniforms fulfill their actual function of differentiating teams better than unstriped road grays.

    Also a bad move: the more-than-rumored red-billed road cap. It not only breaks the Twins core visual identity, it closely resembles the distinctive blue crown, red bill caps worn by the division rival Cleveland Indians.

    If the Twins drop the road pins and wear the Cleveland caps, it would be exactly analogous to the Yankees dropping the home pinstripes and making their cap logo red with a white outline. If a Yanks fan wanted to root for a team that looked like that, he’d move to Boston. Likewise with the Twins: If I want to root for a team that looks like that, I’d already be an Indians fan.

  • joe | November 12, 2009 at 9:24 am |

    [quote comment=”359896″][quote comment=”359892″]On the team naming issue, how about this: people grow a set and realize that no one has the right to *NOT* be offended.[/quote]

    And by “grow a set,” you’re referring to balls. Because of course only women and unmanly girlymen would ever be concerned with issues like this. That’s the great thing about this kind of discussion: You can insult an entire gender while simultaneously insulting an entire race.

    Nicely done.[/quote]
    yup, I dislike everyone equally, except red wings fans, they are a lower form of life.

  • Ricko | November 12, 2009 at 9:25 am |

    [quote comment=”359993″][quote comment=”359976″]New stadium not a reason for new unis, unless you suck and are trying to usher in a new era. Twins have won division five times in last eight years, and came close to making it six.

    So maybe just remove the road pins and now screw around with anything else? Please?
    http://farm3.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Sorry, man, but that’s just wrong. The Twins have one of the few instantly recognizable looks in baseball: Pinstripes, red script, navy cap. (Setting aside the crapfest of alts the team wears.) As long as the Twins keep that basic formula — pinstripes, red script, blue cap — they’ll be fine.

    Ditching the road pinstripes deviates from that formula, so that would be a mistake on its face. It’s like saying, “Hey, Yankees, drop the home pinstripes!” Bad move. Plus, the Twins first wore road pins at the same time that the Yankees first wore home pins. It’s irrational to oppose the one but favor the other, especially since road pins, by darkening the uniform, actually make road uniforms fulfill their actual function of differentiating teams better than unstriped road grays.

    Also a bad move: the more-than-rumored red-billed road cap. It not only breaks the Twins core visual identity, it closely resembles the distinctive blue crown, red bill caps worn by the division rival Cleveland Indians.

    If the Twins drop the road pins and wear the Cleveland caps, it would be exactly analogous to the Yankees dropping the home pinstripes and making their cap logo red with a white outline. If a Yanks fan wanted to root for a team that looked like that, he’d move to Boston. Likewise with the Twins: If I want to root for a team that looks like that, I’d already be an Indians fan.[/quote]

    I agree with you. I like the road pins, largely because the Twins reintroduced road pins, and several other imitated it.

    I only took them off to placate some who hate them, and to see what it might look like. And you’re right, while it turned out to be an elegant look, it’s also WAY too homogenized. Ditto for the red bill road cap.

    I dont’ want them to change a damn thing…but I’m afraid they’re going to.

    Well, actually, they could wear the blue alts less often. That would be okay with me.

    —Ricko

  • joe | November 12, 2009 at 9:27 am |

    [quote comment=”359901″]

    Remember a few years ago some small college out west, I think in colorado, predominantly indian (no I won’t be PC and use the other term) nicknames a team teh fighting whities and had a very Drew Carey-esque logo? They did it to try to make white people get offended, turns out all it did was sell a ton of shirts since white people thought it was great, and they were *trying* to be offensive.

    Can you really not grasp the difference between insulting an ethnic majority and an ethnic minority? The reason “white people thought it was great” is that Native Americans lack the political power or popular support to threaten the white majority. It was an absurd gesture. Reminds me of the year I spent at a black-majority elementary school. I got called “cracker” daily, but just couldn’t take the insult seriously. Why? Because my ethnic identity was positively reinforced by everything other aspect of society.

    Also, way to conflate “anti-PC” with “inaccurate.” These are Indians.[/quote]
    and so are the people who were in North America when it was found by Europeans, not that it was lost it just wasn’t known to them, but wen euro’s arrived they called them indians thinking they were somewhere else, they could have called them chairs, its just the word that was used.

  • MSTI | November 12, 2009 at 9:32 am |

    re: Jed Hoyer needing new team logos. Looks like that’s from the Red Sox offices, not San Diego’s, just based on the fact that I can still see Brad Penny being listed as a Red Sox.

  • joe | November 12, 2009 at 11:39 am |

    [quote comment=”359896″][quote comment=”359892″]On the team naming issue, how about this: people grow a set and realize that no one has the right to *NOT* be offended.[/quote]

    And by “grow a set,” you’re referring to balls. Because of course only women and unmanly girlymen would ever be concerned with issues like this. That’s the great thing about this kind of discussion: You can insult an entire gender while simultaneously insulting an entire race.

    Nicely done.[/quote]
    and theres nothing that says grow a set can’t be referring to females getting a set set of boobs when they grow up and stop acting like children. The “Someone does not like it, it bust be banned” thing is childish, its the equivalent of “if I don’t get my way I’m going home and taking the ball”.

  • teenchy | November 12, 2009 at 1:52 pm |

    [quote comment=”359748″]The Skins helmet is a terrific idea, though most of the black in the feathers should probably be yellow, in order to make it visibly contrasty. However, I still prefer the 1960-64 feather helmets. Tweak/update the color scheme, and that’d be the best helmet in the NFL. The great thing about either design is that the team could change its name to the Warriors and retain the feather helmets.

    On the Patriots, I’d go with something a bit more abstract: Throw a thick white line around the helmet to make a tricorn hat like both Pat and Elvis wear. Could even make it a bit more literal with a Revolutionary-era cockade on one side.[/quote]

    I like it – a lot. Would most fans get it?

  • Bruce | November 12, 2009 at 10:01 pm |

    The Bucs helmet reminds me of the No Fear energy drink logo.

  • Dr. Zeus | November 15, 2009 at 5:07 pm |

    All three helmet redesigns are great. I\’ve had the same thought about the Redskins\’ helmet for many years. Just didn\’t know how to execute it myself.

    Big disagreement on some of the subset you\’d like to redesign. Hands off the Bengals and Lions (Panthers and Titans are weak, and the Bills need to go back to their original look).

    The strength of the Bengals design is that it looks like the thing they are named after. Remember their original helmet? They looked like a construction sign.

    Bad as they\’ve been for 15 years the Bengals at least have an identifible look that makes sense. Same (in every respect) for the Lions. Oddly, the only one I\’d consider putting ahead of the Bengals are the Rams, who have been just as bad, for the most part.

    If you want to do a redesign, how about the Steelers (corporate), Falcons (fascist), Jets (weak), Giants (dull), or, for pete\’s sake, the Raiders (more silly than scary).