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

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

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

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

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]

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?

redskins helmet looks like fuck

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

Still no Beefsteak pics?

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?

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?

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

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.

the German kit is a thing of beauty.

[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.

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

[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: link

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.

[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.

[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 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 link.

And it has link.

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

link

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)

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.

[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.

[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?

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

link

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.

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!

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).

[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 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 link. It’s been that way link…

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?

Whoops…

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

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.

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).

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!

[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.

Now this is offensive…

link

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 link 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).

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

[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.

[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 link 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 link like both Pat and Elvis wear. Could even make it a bit more literal with a Revolutionary-era link 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.

[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!

[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?

link

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

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

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.

[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?

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?

Well what do you know…Robert Marshall and I discussed this yesterday, and now here’s an article: link

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.

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.

[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 link 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!

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!?

[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 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

[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?

[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 link 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

[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 link 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.

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.

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: link

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

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

[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. link 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.

link

[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

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: link
link

[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…

link 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.

[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: link
link

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

—Ricko

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.

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.

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.

[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: link

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

-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.
link

-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.

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. :)

Thanks Phil for the beautiful Worlds Fair Patch Photos…

link

link

link

link

link

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

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.

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

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.

[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.
link

-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.
link

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

Finally link the link the Longhorns link last Saturday…

“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?

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

link

link

link

link

link

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

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

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

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

link

[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 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.

I am sorry for the non-uni post, but I think this is hilarious:
link

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.

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.

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 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.

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

[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.

[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.

link
now that have a shop: link
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.

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 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.

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.” link are Indians.

[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.

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 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.

That NO MAS video should have the Todd Snider song about Doc Ellis to go with it! so so amazing!
link

[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 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

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.

[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.

[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.
link

“Y…M…C…A…”

—Ricko

—Ricko

[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.
link

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

link

[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 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 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

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.

[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 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 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

[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 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 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.

link with link.

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 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.

[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.

link with link.

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.

[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

[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.

[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.
link

“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.

[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 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

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: link

[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]

link

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

They were talking about how LeBron declared a moratorium on free agency talk. I’m sure that will last at least until tomorrow morning.

[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 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)

I can’t follow the “he said/she said/who said” thing. Not sure who is saying what, but I’ll keep quoting.

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?
link

—Ricko

[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…link

link

[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…link

link
nice tie

ah…sam wyche is still a douche

[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?
link

—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.
link

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 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?
link

—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.
link

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.
link

[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: link

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.

[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?
link

—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 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?
link

—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

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.

[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 link 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 link like both Pat and Elvis wear. Could even make it a bit more literal with a Revolutionary-era link on one side.[/quote]

I like it – a lot. Would most fans get it?

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).