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

Monday Morning Uni Watch

sea.jpg

Very odd scene yesterday in Seattle, where the Seahawks wore blue jerseys and blue pants but were not monochromatic. Instead of wearing their usual scuba-blue pants, they wore the dark-navy pants we first saw with their neon-snot jerseys. The result was very odd — dark-on-dark, but not solid dark. I wouldn’t go so far as to say they looked good (here’s a simple reality check), but this was an interesting change of pace.

In other developments yesterday:

• Jim Mora (and, I assume, the rest of the coaching staff) wore Lakewood Police baseball caps in tribute to the four cops who were gunned down at a local coffee shop.

• We’ve all seen players store their mouthguards in their facemasks. But yesterday Ahmad Bradshaw stuck his in one of his helmet’s vent holes. He also had a broken helmet decal. (Screen shots courtesy of Aaron Wiens.)

• Ya think maybe today’s jerseys are just a tad too stretchy?

• More Reebok logo problems for the Giants, which is A-OK with me.

• Here’s a hosiery format I hadn’t seen before: Chris Johnson was wearing some sort of tape or leggings or something that created a band of white right below his knees (additional views here, here, and here). Some very quick photo research indicates that he’s occasionally done this before, but not always, and the white bands have typically been smaller than they were yesterday. Anyone know more about this?

• And look, Andre Johnson of the Texans appears to have the same thing going on.

• If you have cement your fall from powerhouse to middling, this is definitely the uniform to do it in. Frankly, it’s the best uniform for doing just about anything.

• Hunter Hillenmeyer appeared to tear a seam near the base of his right pant leg, accentuating his double sock stripes.

• Danny Amendola was running around with his belt unbuckled, a habit that apparently dates back to his college days.

Not my favorite look.

• Ditto.

• Were the Falcons’ cheerleaders wearing “NFC” socks?

• Speaking of cheerleaders, the ones in KC had JDOB — job description on back.

Raffle Reminder: Today’s the last day for the SoccerPro.com $100 gift certificate raffle. For details, look here. I’ll announce the winner tomorrow.

Uni Watch News Ticker: Next season’s batting practice caps are slowly coming to light. More info here (big thanks to C. Trent Rosencrans). … The latest black-for-black’s-sake trend: a girls’ hoops team with black fingernails (with thanks to Steve Johnston). … Carlos Fenny collects old tickets and recently discovered that the Cubs’ 2006 season ticket design featured various uniforms from Cubbie history. … Austin Gillis found lots of interesting photos in a book called Baseball in America. Among the highlights: ribbon stirrups worn under the cleats; a batting helmet with the team name on the side; a women’s team from 1876 (love those sashes!); a red, white, and blue satin uni worn by the American Association all-stars in 1938; an amazing Japanese banner featuring Lefty Gomez; Eddie Mathews with really big NOB typography (or maybe just a really small uni number); Satchel Paige in a Braves uni; and Jericho the Miracle Dog. … Ever wondered why you never see a Bears player and a Blackhawks player together? Okay, so you probably haven’t, but here’s the reason anyway (with thanks to Brian Sandalow). … When you live in Brooklyn and are into package design, people are always sending you packs of this Italian chewing gum. But I didn’t know about this cycling jersey until Diego Juan Guitiérez showed it to me. … Latest “Support the Troops” initiative: All U. of Vermont teams will start wearing a Green Mountain Battle Flag on their uniforms (with thanks to Dave Montegari). … How did Joe Montana end up in a Jets uni? Check out this short NFL 95 commercial for the answer (nice find by Andrew Weaver). … And as an aside, here’s another video game commercial that finds Montana wearing an Indians cap. … Whoa, never seen a football helmet like this one before (big thanks to new reader Brian Fitterman). … Great video of Canadiens old-timers celebrating the team’s centennial on the ice and in uniform here (with thanks to Andreas Papadopoulos). … Having completely ruined Oregon, Nike is now turning its attention to Oregon State (with thanks to Aaron O’Donnell). … Kevin Love returned to action on Friday night after being sidelined with a broken hand, and he was wearing a fingerless padded glove (good spot by Steven Wyder). … You can see all of the upcoming Olympic hockey jerseys in this slideshow (very useful find by Dane Drutis). … Good article about AFL Legacy merchandising here (with thanks to Tom Mulgrew). … Also from Tom: Fordham is retiring the jersey of a pioneering women’s hoops player. … The Jazz debuted their green throwbacks on Friday night. Video footage, including good views of the warm-up outfits, here (with thanks to Brett Crane for the video link). … Two good contributions from Daniel Dingerson: First, he sent along pics of this hockey-themed pinball game. Note how the backglass shows Bobby Orr as a Blackhawk against a generic Canadian team. And second, Daniel pointed me toward this excellent article, which describes Michigan’s deal with Nike in 1995 — the deal that, in many ways, changed college sports uniforms NCAA-wide. Highly recommended reading. … Here’s what Miami (Ohio)’s throwback hockey jersey ended up looking like (with thanks to Adam Hainsfurther). … Brendon Browne was watching a 1985 episode of the British TV show Are You Being Served and spotted a character wearing a jersey with the Seahawks logo on the sleeves. “The prop guy probably just bought a random jersey, but I wondered if there was any reason this particular jersey was used, or what kind of jersey it was, or perhaps it was a British ripoff of the logo, etc.,” says Brendon. Anyone..? … Tige Hutcheson notes that the Minnesota State hockey team has 40th-anniversary uniforms and a commemorative patch. … The Tiger Woods saga is all about “the crafting of an icon and the takeover of sports by corporate advertising.” That statement, with which I largely agree, comes from this column (with thanks to Brinke Guthrie). … Also from Brinke: Never seen this BP jersey before. Anyone know the story behind it? Arizona Fall League, maybe..? … Bob Andrews reports that Brazoswood (TX) High has been wearing the initials of their late coach L.Z. Bryan on one side of their helmets this year (and yes, the other side is a Bucs ripoff, whatever). Further details here. … Good tip from Mason Biggs, who writes: “My friend’s father knows a Grand Rapids artist named Jon Post, who makes paintings of original 1950s and ’60s Topps baseball cards of players like Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle [and Joe Garagiola]. He’s done some for old ballplayers, and he’s gotten commissions from people like Spike Lee, who had him paint a Jackie Robinson card. For a Grand Rapids art show, he even went so far as to make a giant baseball card wrapper with gum included. Super-cool.” Post’s web site is here, and you can see a great video showing his working process here. … Jeremy Brahm notes that the ball being used in the women’s Team Handball World Championships in China appears to have been patterned after the Chinese flag. … Still more old baseball photos from Austin Gillis, including an action shot of the Cardinals’ 1956 uni (the one year they didn’t wear the birds on the bat); Del Crandall with “Thou Shalt Not Steal” printed on his chest protector; and the Boston Braves wearing Indian-head jackets. … Not sports-related, but there are some really wonderful charts and graphs here (great find by Justine DeCotis).

 

168 comments to Monday Morning Uni Watch

  • JoseLJ2K | December 7, 2009 at 8:03 am |

    Regarding the Falcons’ cheerleaders. I believe they are wearing “AFC” socks, as in Atlanta Falcons Cheerleaders.

  • The Hemogoblin | December 7, 2009 at 8:06 am |

    It’s Andre Johnson, and he’s the Texan in the photo.

  • Aaron | December 7, 2009 at 8:07 am |

    Paul,

    I’m getting confused about the AFL throwback program. Yesterday (much to your approval) the Patriots wore their throwbacks against the Dolphins, who were not one of the original eight AFL teams. On the same day the Chiefs and Broncos played and did not wear their throwbacks despite both being original teams. I was really looking forward to vertically striped socks. Have teams already given up on the program?

    Aaron

  • Paul Lukas | December 7, 2009 at 8:08 am |

    [quote comment=”365528″]It’s Andre Johnson, and he’s the Texan in the photo.[/quote]

    Duh — I knew that. Bad typo. Now fixed.

  • Paul Lukas | December 7, 2009 at 8:10 am |

    [quote comment=”365529″]Paul,

    I’m getting confused about the AFL throwback program. Yesterday (much to your approval) the Patriots wore their throwbacks against the Dolphins, who were not one of the original eight AFL teams. On the same day the Chiefs and Broncos played and did not wear their throwbacks despite both being original teams. I was really looking forward to vertically striped socks. Have teams already given up on the program?

    Aaron[/quote]

    The AFL throwback schedule has always been public, and they’ve stuck to it:
    http://sports.espn.g...

  • The Hemogoblin | December 7, 2009 at 8:13 am |

    One last thing before I go to bed/a comment I posted last night:

    Seattle’s white pants are underused and underrated. I really wish that they would bust them out more. That being said, I hold the dark blue pants and the lighter blue pants at the same level of apathy. The striping pattern on the dark one just seems so weird, and the light ones give a nasty monochrome. Just rock the white pants, Seattle, like you were supposed to from the beginning.

  • The Hemogoblin | December 7, 2009 at 8:15 am |

    [quote comment=”365530″][quote comment=”365528″]It’s Andre Johnson, and he’s the Texan in the photo.[/quote]

    Duh — I knew that. Bad typo. Now fixed.[/quote]

    You forgot the Texan part. You still have him up there as a Jaguar.

  • Hott Rodd | December 7, 2009 at 8:40 am |

    [quote comment=”365527″]Regarding the Falcons’ cheerleaders. I believe they are wearing “AFC” socks, as in Atlanta Falcons Cheerleaders.[/quote]

    This is what I was thinking.

  • Joe Barrie | December 7, 2009 at 8:46 am |

    The guys with the Indian heads on the backs of their jackets are BOSTON Braves.

    The picture was taken at Braves Field in either 1946 or 1947, after which the the socks featured a two white and one red stripe design.

  • Matt Brosseau | December 7, 2009 at 8:47 am |

    I would have thought Bucco Bruce or even Pat Patriot would have been more of Mr. Humphries’ style, but who knows.

  • RS Rogers | December 7, 2009 at 9:06 am |

    Latest “Support the Troops” initiative: All U. of Vermont teams will start wearing a Green Mountain Battle Flag on their uniforms

    Now that is how you do Support the Troops (STT). The U.S. Flag Code specifically defines putting the American flag in any form on an athletic uniform as a form of desecration. Obvious, really: sports unis get dragged in the mud, ripped, and trampled. The American flag should never be dragged in the mud, ripped, or trampled.

    But there’s no such protocol about other national symbols or battle flags or militia emblems. So an old Revolutionary War battle flag is perfect. So would be an eagle, or the Great Seal, or a V-for-Victory patch, or a yellow ribbon, or the Statue of Liberty, or specific military unit or state Guard patch, or, really, anything but an American flag. If you put an American flag on a sports uniform, you are committing flag desecration, and you cannot “honor” or “support” the troops by desecrating the American flag.

  • Geeman | December 7, 2009 at 9:08 am |

    Watching the Vikes last night, I realized that they had one of the best road uniforms in the league and trashed them.

    And all this talk about these new fabric uniforms improving play is a lot of bull. You could Larry Fitzgerald out there in a pair of old cotton sweats and he’d still tear up the league.

  • Greg V. | December 7, 2009 at 9:09 am |

    Have the Vikings worn the purple pants at all this season? I don’t think they have. If not, does anyone know why?

  • Charles | December 7, 2009 at 9:13 am |

    THE RETURN OF VICK TO ATLANTA

    Why is his Eagle sleeve logo smaller than his team mates?

  • JTH | December 7, 2009 at 9:14 am |

    [quote comment=”365532″]One last thing before I go to bed/a comment I posted last night:

    Seattle’s white pants are underused and underrated. I really wish that they would bust them out more. That being said, I hold the dark blue pants and the lighter blue pants at the same level of apathy. The striping pattern on the dark one just seems so weird, and the light ones give a nasty monochrome. Just rock the white pants, Seattle, like you were supposed to from the beginning.[/quote]
    Going with the navy pants as opposed to their usual gunmetal blue was a lateral move at best. It may have even been a downgrade.

    Some properly stripèd socks would have made a big difference. Hell, solid neon green-topped socks would probably have looked better.

  • Ricko | December 7, 2009 at 9:24 am |

    [quote comment=”365539″]Have the Vikings worn the purple pants at all this season? I don’t think they have. If not, does anyone know why?[/quote]

    Don’t believe they wore them last year, either.
    Why? The players and the coaching staff don’t like the look.

    At all.

    (That’s the word around here, anyway).

    —Ricko

  • tosaman | December 7, 2009 at 9:33 am |

    Why is the link for the Oregon cheerleaders ticker item for peopleofwalmart.com? I don’t get it (not TM).

  • Jeremy Brahm | December 7, 2009 at 9:33 am |

    “an amazing Japanese banner featuring Lefty Grove”

    It is Lefty Gomez, not Grove.

  • Alec | December 7, 2009 at 9:33 am |

    Cards are now 2-0 in the red unitards, get used to the look.

  • Ricko | December 7, 2009 at 9:34 am |

    The white knees?

    Probably more than a 90 percent chance those are nothing more than white tights (can see the inside seam in a number of the photos). Why players change to white instead of customary navy (or whatever) late in season, as they seem to do, is anybody’s guess. Mine would be that they like the “layered” look when it starts to get colder.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | December 7, 2009 at 9:37 am |

    [quote comment=”365545″]Cards are now 2-0 in the red unitards, get used to the look.[/quote]

    Must…post…this…every…time.
    Must…post…this…
    http://farm4.static....

  • M.Princip | December 7, 2009 at 9:42 am |

    [quote comment=”365532″]One last thing before I go to bed/a comment I posted last night:

    Seattle’s white pants are underused and underrated. I really wish that they would bust them out more. That being said, I hold the dark blue pants and the lighter blue pants at the same level of apathy. The striping pattern on the dark one just seems so weird, and the light ones give a nasty monochrome. Just rock the white pants, Seattle, like you were supposed to from the beginning.[/quote]

    I would have to, respectfully, disagree with you here. The Seahawks have been “rockin” the white pants for too long since 2002, and should be rockin’ gray/silver pants like they’re supposed to. Why the Seahawks completely abandoned silver is beyond me.

    Oh, and they looked great in the dark navy blue pants yesterday. A nice win at that.

    Nice!

  • Ricko | December 7, 2009 at 9:43 am |

    [quote comment=”365542″][quote comment=”365539″]Have the Vikings worn the purple pants at all this season? I don’t think they have. If not, does anyone know why?[/quote]

    Don’t believe they wore them last year, either.
    Why? The players and the coaching staff don’t like the look.

    At all.

    (That’s the word around here, anyway).

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Self-correcting: Believe they did wear them last year, maybe once, maybe twice.

    Anyway, wouldn’t be surprised if they broke them out now. They were playing so well sticking with the whites they might not want to have screw around with fate. Having played the way they did last night, that mindset may go.

    —Ricko

  • JL | December 7, 2009 at 9:47 am |

    “Ever wondered why you never see a Bears player and a Blackhawks player together? Okay, so you probably haven’t, but here’s the reason anyway”

    As a Bears fan, I remember reading about this marketing plan a few months ago in the Chicago Tribune online…

    Living in Columbus, Ohio, I’ve heard of marketing campaigns that began getting publicized last summer with the NHL’s Columbus Blue Jackets and both the MLB’s Cincinnati Reds and Cleveland Indians.

    I know Blue Jackets’ goalie Steve Mason visited an Indians game with the 2009 Colder Trophy (Rookie of the Year) and threw out the first pitch, while defenseman Mike Commodore took BP and threw out the first pitch at a Reds game. The connection between the three is that the Blue Jackets and Reds both appear on Fox Sports Net-Ohio, where as the Indians’ triple-A affiliate is now housed in Columbus.

    However, I’ll admit I attend Blue Jackets games pretty regularly and keep up with news and promos about as much as I can, and I’ve never heard any more about the combined marketing plans in regards to one of the Ohio baseball organizations being present at a Blue Jackets game. So come to think of it, maybe that got fizzled somehow by the other major professional sports leagues…I’ll guess I’ll have to look into it a little bit more.

    Sorry for the long post.

  • Jon S. | December 7, 2009 at 9:49 am |

    Speaking of cheerleaders, the ones in KC had JDOB

    It would be too easy to say they had CIQOB (Combined Intelligence Quotient on Back), so I won’t do that. ;^)

  • interlockingtc | December 7, 2009 at 9:56 am |

    If the Jazz switched to those green uniforms full-time they would go from comletely forgettable to one of the best looks in thre NBA.

    Or…is that just a Seattlite seeing the Sonics there?

  • Neil | December 7, 2009 at 9:57 am |

    The Bobby Orr pinball machine is great except that Bobby was a left handed shot and the image on the machine shows him as a righty.

  • Paul Lukas | December 7, 2009 at 10:00 am |

    [quote comment=”365535″]The guys with the Indian heads on the backs of their jackets are BOSTON Braves.

    The picture was taken at Braves Field in either 1946 or 1947, after which the the socks featured a two white and one red stripe design.[/quote]

    Thanks. Now fixed.

    [quote comment=”365544″]”an amazing Japanese banner featuring Lefty Grove”

    It is Lefty Gomez, not Grove.[/quote]

    Thanks. Now fixed.

    [quote comment=”365543″]Why is the link for the Oregon cheerleaders ticker item for peopleofwalmart.com? I don’t get it (not TM).[/quote]

    That page showed an Oregon-related photo, but now the page appears to have been purged. I’ve deleted that Ticker item.

  • The Jeff | December 7, 2009 at 10:05 am |

    [quote comment=”365548″][quote comment=”365532″]One last thing before I go to bed/a comment I posted last night:

    Seattle’s white pants are underused and underrated. I really wish that they would bust them out more. That being said, I hold the dark blue pants and the lighter blue pants at the same level of apathy. The striping pattern on the dark one just seems so weird, and the light ones give a nasty monochrome. Just rock the white pants, Seattle, like you were supposed to from the beginning.[/quote]

    I would have to, respectfully, disagree with you here. The Seahawks have been “rockin” the white pants for too long since 2002, and should be rockin’ gray/silver pants like they’re supposed to. Why the Seahawks completely abandoned silver is beyond me.

    Oh, and they looked great in the dark navy blue pants yesterday. A nice win at that.

    Nice![/quote]

    There’s just something weird about a non-white matching helmet & jersey being paired with darker pants. It’s not bad, but it’s different. I’d rather see them use their regular blue pants and try a navy jersey.

  • Geeman | December 7, 2009 at 10:13 am |

    http://portlandtribu...

    This explains a lot. “We don’t like the school colors because 17-year-old potential recruits think they’re too bright. So we’ll change a hundred years of tradition by fiat and ditch your school colors, at least for athletics and at least while we have the contract.”

    Look, the “O” design is great. But keep the school colors, and leave the dog-fighting outfits in the closet. What they wore the other night was excellent.

  • Alec | December 7, 2009 at 10:18 am |

    [quote comment=”365556″]http://portlandtribune.com/sports/story.php?story_id=125979134533394200

    This explains a lot. “We don’t like the school colors because 17-year-old potential recruits think they’re too bright. So we’ll change a hundred years of tradition by fiat and ditch your school colors, at least for athletics and at least while we have the contract.”
    [/quote]

    What do you expect from a guy named Tinker?

  • LI Phil | December 7, 2009 at 10:23 am |

    from the OSU article…a quote from tinker on the ducks uniforms before nike “fixed” them:

    “Our feeling was, Oregon’s colors were too bright”

    ah…now it all makes sense

  • M.Princip | December 7, 2009 at 10:29 am |

    [quote comment=”365558″]from the OSU article…a quote from tinker on the ducks uniforms before nike “fixed” them:

    “Our feeling was, Oregon’s colors were too bright”

    ah…now it all makes sense[/quote]

    “I’m a closet Beaver fan, I guess you could say,” Tinker says.

    Whaaaaa?!?!

  • Geeman | December 7, 2009 at 10:29 am |

    [quote comment=”365558″]from the OSU article…a quote from tinker on the ducks uniforms before nike “fixed” them:

    “Our feeling was, Oregon’s colors were too bright”

    ah…now it all makes sense[/quote]

    So, Tink: why did they wear those gorgeous bright unis the other night?

  • Geeman | December 7, 2009 at 10:34 am |

    From the article:

    “The Nike group felt Oregon didn’t have a strong sense of athletic tradition.” So now they do?

    “Our feeling was, Oregon’s colors were too bright,” Hatfield says. So they were not too bright on Thursday?

    “Though some of us in the Willamette Valley think they’re cool, if you’re talking to a recruit from Los Angeles, he is going to think they’re cartoon colors.” Cartoons not good, but superheroes okay?

    “Bright green, bright yellow, and you have a Duck as a mascot. The interlocking U of O logo was old-fashioned. So the idea was, let’s reset the U of O and talk about it as a brand and an institution that’s all about the future.”

    Tink is paddling in circles here.

  • TC Mark | December 7, 2009 at 10:37 am |

    [quote comment=”365558″]from the OSU article…a quote from tinker on the ducks uniforms before nike “fixed” them:

    “Our feeling was, Oregon’s colors were too bright”

    ah…now it all makes sense[/quote]

    Maybe as a future project Nike could take on the American flag. That red, white and blue combo might be a little “too bright”….maybe they can improve on it? Just a thought…

  • MPowers1634 | December 7, 2009 at 10:40 am |

    I thought that the Jass throwback was a half-hearted attempt.
    I am partial to the New Orleans version, complete with purple, green, and yellow.
    I am debating whether to make that my next DIY.
    What is making the debate difficult is my love for the nickname of Cajuns that was also proposed for the New Orleans franchise.

    As for Chris and Andre Johnson: I believe that they are wearing either Nike Pro of Under Armour tights under their pants.
    Their socks, in no way, can cover all of the real estate rreated by their bike shorts, so to avoid the wrath of the NFL uni police, they cover up…I would do the same thing.

  • Jim Walaitis | December 7, 2009 at 10:41 am |

    http://newsblogs.chi...

    Would it have been THAT hard to not crop the picture in so far as to cut off Jonathan Toews’, well, toes. So, how did they deal with skates on the turf? Even with blade guards, I can’t imagine they’d be very easy to walk through grass on.

  • leon | December 7, 2009 at 10:47 am |

    http://portlandtribu...

    I have no dog in this fight. I live in the East, am not exposed to much Oregon football and hold a mild dislike for Nike that goes back many years and is not about many of the criticisms that are brought up on this site. That being said, I found myself shaking my head ruefully as I read this article. I’m sure it wasn’t the intention of the Nike dude to do anything but pat himself on the back, but I now can more fully understand the vitriol hurled Nike’s way.

    Oh yes, and congratulations to Oregon State for garnering Tier 1 status in Nike’s eyes. Whatever symbol of achievement that accompanies this honor should dwarf any Rose Bowl trophies and Nobel Prize proclamations associated with the institution.

  • Ricko | December 7, 2009 at 10:53 am |

    [quote comment=”365563″]I thought that the Jass throwback was a half-hearted attempt.
    I am partial to the New Orleans version, complete with purple, green, and yellow.
    I am debating whether to make that my next DIY.
    What is making the debate difficult is my love for the nickname of Cajuns that was also proposed for the New Orleans franchise.

    As for Chris and Andre Johnson: I believe that they are wearing either Nike Pro of Under Armour tights under their pants.
    Their socks, in no way, can cover all of the real estate rreated by their bike shorts, so to avoid the wrath of the NFL uni police, they cover up…I would do the same thing.[/quote]

    Many, many, many players wear tights all season. Usually, though, they’re the same color as the top of the high socks so we don’t notice. No news there. Those sure aren’t SOCKS covering Al Harris’ or Frank Gore’s knees in their biker shorts. How’d they make ’em stay up, thumb tacks? Garter belts?

    What seems to be the “fashion” (now and in recent years, if we go back and check) is for some to switch to white tights late in the season. As I said earlier, the only reason I can imagine is that they like looking all “layered up” when it gets colder.

    —Ricko

  • Richard | December 7, 2009 at 10:57 am |

    1) In the Nike-Oregon article it says Nike designed and copyrighted the O logo. Does Oregon not own the copyright of the most positive thing Nike did for them?

    2) I like the Vermont patches. Local twist beats camo jerseys or yellow ribbon patches.

  • mmwatkin | December 7, 2009 at 11:01 am |

    “There were four of us called in to brainstorm about what we could do to help Oregon,” Hatfield recalls. “We decided to get them more serviceable products, but we also talked about what we could do to help them recruit better student-athletes.”

    Oh…to be a fly on the wall for that meeting. I wonder if they just go around the circle and each person adds an unnecessary element to the uniforms until they run out of ideas.

  • Ricko | December 7, 2009 at 11:09 am |

    “but we also talked about what we could do to help them recruit better student-athletes.”

    And that led them to figuring what would be big in Compton?

    —Ricko

  • MPowers1634 | December 7, 2009 at 11:14 am |

    [quote comment=”365566″][quote comment=”365563″]
    As for Chris and Andre Johnson: I believe that they are wearing either Nike Pro of Under Armour tights under their pants.
    Their socks, in no way, can cover all of the real estate rreated by their bike shorts, so to avoid the wrath of the NFL uni police, they cover up…I would do the same thing.[/quote]

    Many, many, many players wear tights all season. Usually, though, they’re the same color as the top of the high socks so we don’t notice. No news there. Those sure aren’t SOCKS covering Al Harris’ or Frank Gore’s knees in their biker shorts. How’d they make ’em stay up, thumb tacks? Garter belts?

    What seems to be the “fashion” (now and in recent years, if we go back and check) is for some to switch to white tights late in the season. As I said earlier, the only reason I can imagine is that they like looking all “layered up” when it gets colder.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    The difference is that I would wear tights that match the top of the socks.

    I do that for refereein and it seems to work well.

  • Ricko | December 7, 2009 at 11:15 am |

    [quote comment=”365569″]”but we also talked about what we could do to help them recruit better student-athletes.”

    And that led them to figuring what would be big in Compton?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Could just show ’em this: CHICKS LOVE DUCKS.
    http://www.jockweb.c...

  • MPowers1634 | December 7, 2009 at 11:15 am |

    [quote comment=”365568″]“There were four of us called in to brainstorm about what we could do to help Oregon,” Hatfield recalls. “We decided to get them more serviceable products, but we also talked about what we could do to help them recruit better student-athletes.”

    Oh…to be a fly on the wall for that meeting. I wonder if they just go around the circle and each person adds an unnecessary element to the uniforms until they run out of ideas.[/quote]

    I actually liked the diamond plating but am very curious as to how that ended up on a football uniform.

  • Ricko | December 7, 2009 at 11:17 am |

    [quote comment=”365570″][quote comment=”365566″][quote comment=”365563″]
    As for Chris and Andre Johnson: I believe that they are wearing either Nike Pro of Under Armour tights under their pants.
    Their socks, in no way, can cover all of the real estate rreated by their bike shorts, so to avoid the wrath of the NFL uni police, they cover up…I would do the same thing.[/quote]

    Many, many, many players wear tights all season. Usually, though, they’re the same color as the top of the high socks so we don’t notice. No news there. Those sure aren’t SOCKS covering Al Harris’ or Frank Gore’s knees in their biker shorts. How’d they make ’em stay up, thumb tacks? Garter belts?

    What seems to be the “fashion” (now and in recent years, if we go back and check) is for some to switch to white tights late in the season. As I said earlier, the only reason I can imagine is that they like looking all “layered up” when it gets colder.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    The difference is that I would wear tights that match the top of the socks.

    I do that for refereein and it seems to work well.[/quote]

    And most do. That’s what I said. But a few seem to switch to white late in the season…for reasons of their own.

  • Beardface | December 7, 2009 at 11:23 am |

    [quote comment=”365556″]http://portlandtribune.com/sports/story.php?story_id=125979134533394200

    This explains a lot. “We don’t like the school colors because 17-year-old potential recruits think they’re too bright. So we’ll change a hundred years of tradition by fiat and ditch your school colors, at least for athletics and at least while we have the contract.”

    Look, the “O” design is great. But keep the school colors, and leave the dog-fighting outfits in the closet. What they wore the other night was excellent.[/quote]
    Yeah, they really toned it down with the redesign

  • LI Phil | December 7, 2009 at 11:24 am |

    [quote comment=”365572″]I actually liked the diamond plating but am very curious as to how that ended up on a football uniform.[/quote]

    i think you just answered your own inquiry

  • brubby | December 7, 2009 at 11:31 am |

    Paul – tried the Baileys recipe over the weekend – SUPER SCORE.

    Highly recommended although I think next time I’ll add a little something to cut it just a tad – mine turned out REALLY thick.

  • Broadway Connie | December 7, 2009 at 11:32 am |

    [quote comment=”365537″]Latest “Support the Troops” initiative: All U. of Vermont teams will start wearing a Green Mountain Battle Flag on their uniforms

    Now that is how you do Support the Troops (STT). The U.S. Flag Code specifically defines putting the American flag in any form on an athletic uniform as a form of desecration. Obvious, really: sports unis get dragged in the mud, ripped, and trampled. The American flag should never be dragged in the mud, ripped, or trampled.

    But there’s no such protocol about other national symbols or battle flags or militia emblems. So an old Revolutionary War battle flag is perfect. So would be an eagle, or the Great Seal, or a V-for-Victory patch, or a yellow ribbon, or the Statue of Liberty, or specific military unit or state Guard patch, or, really, anything but an American flag. If you put an American flag on a sports uniform, you are committing flag desecration, and you cannot “honor” or “support” the troops by desecrating the American flag.[/quote]

    It is good to hear from someone who knows flag protocol, and your point is well taken. I have another, more threshold kind of problem. I don’t think sports uniforms are a proper vehicle for “patriotic” emblems of any sort. What is it about sports that prompt so many people to think that their outfits are appropriately used as billboards for nationalism? Do we put Liberty Bells or Minutemen or (shudder) screaming Bald Eagles on schoolchildren uniforms or nurses’ collars or any other civl society get-ups? Does it mean we DON’T support the troops if we keep our regalia free of military/nationalist icons? Come on! And what kind of support is really being offered? Anybody volunteering at a VA hospital, counseling bereaved service families, or even just donating to the USO is a gold-star citizen as far as I’m concerned, but I rather doubt that many of the jock-gear boosters are supportive in anything but their emblem fetishes.

  • Buster McDouglas | December 7, 2009 at 11:33 am |

    I vote in favor of the Seahawks’ navy pants. I also like the Wizards old gold jersey/navy pants combo. I guess I’m consistent in that I like to see different color tops and bottoms even if it’s subtle.

  • Blake | December 7, 2009 at 11:39 am |

    Nike sure do make some ugly hockey jerseys. As much as I dislike a good portion of the Reebok Edge jerseys which are on the ice in the NHL I sure am glad Nike didn’t get the contract. Olympic jerseys are among the worst designed each year – yes they are so bad that they carry over for the three years after each olympics. Why do they insist on abruptly stopping stripes on the jersey? Just have them good around the whole sleeve? What is the problem with a little continuity? But I must say, that Switzerland jersey is one of the best I’ve ever seen (apart from the stupid half sleeve stripes).

  • Geeman | December 7, 2009 at 11:46 am |

    [quote comment=”365571″][quote comment=”365569″]”but we also talked about what we could do to help them recruit better student-athletes.”

    And that led them to figuring what would be big in Compton?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Could just show ’em this: CHICKS LOVE DUCKS.
    http://www.jockweb.c...

    Oregon is Tier 1 quality when it comes to cheerleaders, right up there with UCLA and USC.

  • Paul Lukas | December 7, 2009 at 11:47 am |

    [quote comment=”365576″]Paul – tried the Baileys recipe over the weekend – SUPER SCORE.

    Highly recommended although I think next time I’ll add a little something to cut it just a tad – mine turned out REALLY thick.[/quote]

    It’s supposed to be thick! Anyway, glad you liked. A surefire crowd-pleaser.

  • RC | December 7, 2009 at 11:52 am |

    [quote comment=”365531″][quote comment=”365529″]Paul,

    I’m getting confused about the AFL throwback program. Yesterday (much to your approval) the Patriots wore their throwbacks against the Dolphins, who were not one of the original eight AFL teams. On the same day the Chiefs and Broncos played and did not wear their throwbacks despite both being original teams. I was really looking forward to vertically striped socks. Have teams already given up on the program?

    Aaron[/quote]

    The AFL throwback schedule has always been public, and they’ve stuck to it:
    http://sports.espn.g...

    Can you explain to me how yesterday’s Patriots at Dolphins game was a “Legacy” game, as it says in this link? Weren’t the Fins wearing their current unis? Wouldn’t they need to wear throwbacks while NE wore their throwbacks in order for it to be a Legacy game? Call me confused…

  • Ricko | December 7, 2009 at 11:53 am |

    [quote comment=”365577″][quote comment=”365537″]Latest “Support the Troops” initiative: All U. of Vermont teams will start wearing a Green Mountain Battle Flag on their uniforms

    Now that is how you do Support the Troops (STT). The U.S. Flag Code specifically defines putting the American flag in any form on an athletic uniform as a form of desecration. Obvious, really: sports unis get dragged in the mud, ripped, and trampled. The American flag should never be dragged in the mud, ripped, or trampled.

    But there’s no such protocol about other national symbols or battle flags or militia emblems. So an old Revolutionary War battle flag is perfect. So would be an eagle, or the Great Seal, or a V-for-Victory patch, or a yellow ribbon, or the Statue of Liberty, or specific military unit or state Guard patch, or, really, anything but an American flag. If you put an American flag on a sports uniform, you are committing flag desecration, and you cannot “honor” or “support” the troops by desecrating the American flag.[/quote]

    It is good to hear from someone who knows flag protocol, and your point is well taken. I have another, more threshold kind of problem. I don’t think sports uniforms are a proper vehicle for “patriotic” emblems of any sort. What is it about sports that prompt so many people to think that their outfits are appropriately used as billboards for nationalism? Do we put Liberty Bells or Minutemen or (shudder) screaming Bald Eagles on schoolchildren uniforms or nurses’ collars or any other civl society get-ups? Does it mean we DON’T support the troops if we keep our regalia free of military/nationalist icons? Come on! And what kind of support is really being offered? Anybody volunteering at a VA hospital, counseling bereaved service families, or even just donating to the USO is a gold-star citizen as far as I’m concerned, but I rather doubt that many of the jock-gear boosters are supportive in anything but their emblem fetishes.[/quote]

    A lot of it goes back to WWII (appropriate this comes up on Dec. 7, I imagine).

    As you know, in the months following the attack on Pearl Harbor there was much discussion about whether Major League Baseball would continue during the war. Then came the famous FDR “Green Light” letter telling MLB to play on. It was during WWI that the playing of the National Anthem was introduced at games. Wasn’t done before that.

    The association between games and nationalism grew from there.

    Recently, there was the “yellow ribbon” Super Bowl, for one.

    And It certainly came up again in the days following 9/11. Sports stopped for a time and, as one British columnist wrote, the attackers should be alarmed because “When Americans put down their games, it is time for them to take up arms.”

    Then, of course, when President W (like him or loathe him) took the mound and threw a solid strike from the mound, you’d have to be unconscious not to understand the symbolism. It seemed to remind America and the world that we’re weren’t down yet.

    Right or wrong, the two elements seem to be forever joined in the American consciousness. Don’t expect it to go away.

    —Ricko

  • Geeman | December 7, 2009 at 12:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”365583″][quote comment=”365577″][quote comment=”365537″]Latest “Support the Troops” initiative: All U. of Vermont teams will start wearing a Green Mountain Battle Flag on their uniforms

    Now that is how you do Support the Troops (STT). The U.S. Flag Code specifically defines putting the American flag in any form on an athletic uniform as a form of desecration. Obvious, really: sports unis get dragged in the mud, ripped, and trampled. The American flag should never be dragged in the mud, ripped, or trampled.

    But there’s no such protocol about other national symbols or battle flags or militia emblems. So an old Revolutionary War battle flag is perfect. So would be an eagle, or the Great Seal, or a V-for-Victory patch, or a yellow ribbon, or the Statue of Liberty, or specific military unit or state Guard patch, or, really, anything but an American flag. If you put an American flag on a sports uniform, you are committing flag desecration, and you cannot “honor” or “support” the troops by desecrating the American flag.[/quote]

    It is good to hear from someone who knows flag protocol, and your point is well taken. I have another, more threshold kind of problem. I don’t think sports uniforms are a proper vehicle for “patriotic” emblems of any sort. What is it about sports that prompt so many people to think that their outfits are appropriately used as billboards for nationalism? Do we put Liberty Bells or Minutemen or (shudder) screaming Bald Eagles on schoolchildren uniforms or nurses’ collars or any other civl society get-ups? Does it mean we DON’T support the troops if we keep our regalia free of military/nationalist icons? Come on! And what kind of support is really being offered? Anybody volunteering at a VA hospital, counseling bereaved service families, or even just donating to the USO is a gold-star citizen as far as I’m concerned, but I rather doubt that many of the jock-gear boosters are supportive in anything but their emblem fetishes.[/quote]

    A lot of it goes back to WWII (appropriate this comes up on Dec. 7, I imagine).

    As you know, in the months following the attack on Pearl Harbor there was much discussion about whether Major League Baseball would continue during the war. Then came the famous FDR “Green Light” letter telling MLB to play on. It was during WWI that the playing of the National Anthem was introduced at games. Wasn’t done before that.

    The association between games and nationalism grew from there.

    Recently, there was the “yellow ribbon” Super Bowl, for one.

    And It certainly came up again in the days following 9/11. Sports stopped for a time and, as one British columnist wrote, the attackers should be alarmed because “When Americans put down their games, it is time for them to take up arms.”

    Then, of course, when President W (like him or loathe him) took the mound and threw a solid strike from the mound, you’d have to be unconscious not to understand the symbolism. It seemed to remind America and the world that we’re weren’t down yet.

    Right or wrong, the two elements seem to be forever joined in the American consciousness. Don’t expect it to go away.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Don’t forget the American flag patches on college basketball uniforms during the Gulf War in 1991. First time I saw them was on Duke’s team (coached by a West Point grad).

  • Kenny Jacobson | December 7, 2009 at 12:05 pm |

    If the Seahawks are gonna use those navy pants – which they should – they should either a) make the helmet navy too or b) ditch the gunmetal and go back to silver. There just isn’t quite enough contrast between the navy and gunmetal to make those 2 colors work together.

  • Ricko | December 7, 2009 at 12:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”365583″][quote comment=”365577″][quote comment=”365537″]Latest “Support the Troops” initiative: All U. of Vermont teams will start wearing a Green Mountain Battle Flag on their uniforms

    Now that is how you do Support the Troops (STT). The U.S. Flag Code specifically defines putting the American flag in any form on an athletic uniform as a form of desecration. Obvious, really: sports unis get dragged in the mud, ripped, and trampled. The American flag should never be dragged in the mud, ripped, or trampled.

    But there’s no such protocol about other national symbols or battle flags or militia emblems. So an old Revolutionary War battle flag is perfect. So would be an eagle, or the Great Seal, or a V-for-Victory patch, or a yellow ribbon, or the Statue of Liberty, or specific military unit or state Guard patch, or, really, anything but an American flag. If you put an American flag on a sports uniform, you are committing flag desecration, and you cannot “honor” or “support” the troops by desecrating the American flag.[/quote]

    It is good to hear from someone who knows flag protocol, and your point is well taken. I have another, more threshold kind of problem. I don’t think sports uniforms are a proper vehicle for “patriotic” emblems of any sort. What is it about sports that prompt so many people to think that their outfits are appropriately used as billboards for nationalism? Do we put Liberty Bells or Minutemen or (shudder) screaming Bald Eagles on schoolchildren uniforms or nurses’ collars or any other civl society get-ups? Does it mean we DON’T support the troops if we keep our regalia free of military/nationalist icons? Come on! And what kind of support is really being offered? Anybody volunteering at a VA hospital, counseling bereaved service families, or even just donating to the USO is a gold-star citizen as far as I’m concerned, but I rather doubt that many of the jock-gear boosters are supportive in anything but their emblem fetishes.[/quote]

    A lot of it goes back to WWII (appropriate this comes up on Dec. 7, I imagine).

    As you know, in the months following the attack on Pearl Harbor there was much discussion about whether Major League Baseball would continue during the war. Then came the famous FDR “Green Light” letter telling MLB to play on. It was during WWI that the playing of the National Anthem was introduced at games. Wasn’t done before that.

    The association between games and nationalism grew from there.

    Recently, there was the “yellow ribbon” Super Bowl, for one.

    And It certainly came up again in the days following 9/11. Sports stopped for a time and, as one British columnist wrote, the attackers should be alarmed because “When Americans put down their games, it is time for them to take up arms.”

    Then, of course, when President W (like him or loathe him) took the mound and threw a solid strike from the mound, you’d have to be unconscious not to understand the symbolism. It seemed to remind America and the world that we’re weren’t down yet.

    Right or wrong, the two elements seem to be forever joined in the American consciousness. Don’t expect it to go away.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Okay, that being said, it doesn’t mean stuff should be plastered all over the unis.

    But so much of sport these days, ESPECIALLY football, is about shallow theatrics.

    Really tired of teams walking slowly out of the tunnel, elbows interlocked. Oh, Christ, we get it, you saw TROY and THE 300. Just run out of the damn tunnel like your focus is playing football and not making some cornball “statement”.

    And, oh, yes, how dramatic, you’re wearing the number of your teammate who had knee surgery. We share your angst over such a life shattering event. You gonna be okay? Wanna talk to the team therapist/grief counselor?

    Finally. I’ll defend Tebow’s eye black, but I’d pound on Urban Meyer until he tells his kids, “No. No more. You’re amazing players, but your religious beliefs have nothing to do with this football team.”

    —Ricko

  • Jeremy Brahm | December 7, 2009 at 12:12 pm |

    When you look at the Ducks and Beavers from the 1960s into the 1980s, there were very few wins on the football field for either school. There was a reason the 0-0 1983 Civil War game was called the Toilet Bowl. Horrible weather, two horrible teams and no offense. Basically could have summed up the programs during that time frame.

    The Beavers were better at basketball and the Ducks were obviously leaders in track and field during that time.

    The “rebranding” of both schools have seen the schools reach higher levels. BCS bowls and Pac-10 championships. And that does not even include Elite Eight runs in basketball for the Ducks and 2 baseball championships for the Beavers.

    Nike has been a longtime benefactor to the Ducks, but Nike has realized that these two programs in this state are important to the company because they are willing muses. It also helps that they are successful as well.

    Without Nike’s help, I doubt that the Ducks are where they are now. The Beavers are a little different, because they have worked harder to get where they are.

    I would agree with the statement that Oregon is a little futuristic in their design (Nikefied), while the Beavers are conservative (semi-Nikefied) with their look (excluding the sport bra).

  • Paul Lukas | December 7, 2009 at 12:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”365583″]A lot of it goes back to WWII (appropriate this comes up on Dec. 7, I imagine).

    As you know, in the months following the attack on Pearl Harbor there was much discussion about whether Major League Baseball would continue during the war. Then came the famous FDR “Green Light” letter telling MLB to play on. It was during WWI that the playing of the National Anthem was introduced at games. Wasn’t done before that.[/quote]

    It actually goes back at least as far as WWI. In the 1917 World Series, the White Sox wore an American flag patch and red/white/blue stirrups. The following season, the Yankees wore a red/white/blue armband:
    http://exhibits.base...

    And the Cubs wore red/white/blue stockings:
    http://exhibits.base...

    As for ‘The Star Spangled Banner,’ here’s an excerpt from a piece I wrote eight years ago:

    The tradition of “The Star-Spangled Banner” being played prior to every game may seem eternal, but keep in mind that the tune wasn’t even officially adopted as the national anthem until the 1930s. According to James Charlton’s *The Baseball Chronology,* the first instance of the song being played at a ballgame was on May 15th, 1862 — during the Civil War — at Union Grounds in Brooklyn. Over 50 years later, during World War I, a military band played the tune during the 7th-inning stretch of a 1918 World Series game. “From then on,” reports the *Chronology,* “the song [was] played at every World Series game, every season opener, and, whenever a band [was] present to play it.”

    Playing the anthem didn’t become more the rule than the exception until World War II, when public-address systems — which were installed at stadiums in part for civil defense reasons during the war — became sufficiently widespread to enable recorded versions to be played. Even then, there were some holdouts — as late as the mid-1960s, the Cubs only played the anthem on special holidays like Memorial Day and the Fourth of July, because team owner P.K. Wrigley felt that playing the song at each game effectively trivialized it. And Royals owner Ewing Kaufman cited a similar rationale in 1972, when he ordered that the anthem only be played “on Sundays and special occasions,” because it “was not receiving the respect it deserved.” Public reaction, however, was highly negative, and Kaufman quickly relented.

  • EricRomain | December 7, 2009 at 12:13 pm |

    It’s been said in today’s comments, but wow Nike has an executive named “Tinker”? You can’t write this stuff.

    I also thought it was really strange to see Patrick Roy in Reebok pads.

  • LI Phil | December 7, 2009 at 12:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”365586″]I’ll defend Tebow’s eye black, but I’d pound on Urban Meyer until he tells his kids, “No. No more. You’re amazing players, but your religious beliefs have nothing to do with this football team.”[/quote]

    how can you defend his eyeblack AND oppose it at the same time?

  • Ricko | December 7, 2009 at 12:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”365588″][quote comment=”365583″]A lot of it goes back to WWII (appropriate this comes up on Dec. 7, I imagine).

    As you know, in the months following the attack on Pearl Harbor there was much discussion about whether Major League Baseball would continue during the war. Then came the famous FDR “Green Light” letter telling MLB to play on. It was during WWI that the playing of the National Anthem was introduced at games. Wasn’t done before that.[/quote]

    It actually goes back at least as far as WWI. In the 1917 World Series, the White Sox wore an American flag patch and red/white/blue stirrups. The following season, the Yankees wore a red/white/blue armband:
    http://exhibits.base...

    And the Cubs wore red/white/blue stockings:
    http://exhibits.base...

    As for ‘The Star Spangled Banner,’ here’s an excerpt from a piece I wrote eight years ago:

    The tradition of “The Star-Spangled Banner” being played prior to every game may seem eternal, but keep in mind that the tune wasn’t even officially adopted as the national anthem until the 1930s. According to James Charlton’s *The Baseball Chronology,* the first instance of the song being played at a ballgame was on May 15th, 1862 — during the Civil War — at Union Grounds in Brooklyn. Over 50 years later, during World War I, a military band played the tune during the 7th-inning stretch of a 1918 World Series game. “From then on,” reports the *Chronology,* “the song [was] played at every World Series game, every season opener, and, whenever a band [was] present to play it.”

    Playing the anthem didn’t become more the rule than the exception until World War II, when public-address systems — which were installed at stadiums in part for civil defense reasons during the war — became sufficiently widespread to enable recorded versions to be played. Even then, there were some holdouts — as late as the mid-1960s, the Cubs only played the anthem on special holidays like Memorial Day and the Fourth of July, because team owner P.K. Wrigley felt that playing the song at each game effectively trivialized it. And Royals owner Ewing Kaufman cited a similar rationale in 1972, when he ordered that the anthem only be played “on Sundays and special occasions,” because it “was not receiving the respect it deserved.” Public reaction, however, was highly negative, and Kaufman quickly relented.

    [/quote]

    My bad. Should have said wasn’t played as an “almost universal automatic” until WWII. Didn’t mean had never been played until then.

  • leon | December 7, 2009 at 12:28 pm |

    “never seen a football helmet like this one before”
    http://farm3.static....

    :)

    http://upload.wikime...

  • Steve Naismith | December 7, 2009 at 12:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”365591″][/quote]

    Wow… a quote that extends further than the entire height of my 1280×1024 window.

    Seriously, why is it necessary to quote an entire message, and reply, over and over? Trying to read these comments is headache-inducing.

  • Ricko | December 7, 2009 at 12:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”365590″][quote comment=”365586″]I’ll defend Tebow’s eye black, but I’d pound on Urban Meyer until he tells his kids, “No. No more. You’re amazing players, but your religious beliefs have nothing to do with this football team.”[/quote]

    how can you defend his eyeblack AND oppose it at the same time?[/quote]

    Okay, okay, I’ll FIX it.
    “I’ll defend Tebow’s decision to express something ON his eyeblack.”

    Because if the coach lets you do it, you don’t deserve all the blame. That was my point.

    Maybe Tebow should realize that on his own. Or maybe someone who’s been around (I dunno, some kind of father figure; a coach maybe?) would tell him what’s appropriate and what’s not.

    If nothing else, explain, “Tim, if we let you do that, then’d we’d probably have to let someone paint a swastika on his forearm. Understand?”

    Kids don’t inherently know how to behave in a restaurant. Someone teaches them.

    —Ricko

  • hugh.c.mcbride | December 7, 2009 at 12:36 pm |

    I found this to be the most interesting/irritating excerpt from the Nike-O-OSU article:

    “One of our teams designed the ‘sports bra’ uniforms, and quite simply, made a mistake in the line art,” Hatfield says. “The uniforms looked pretty good in drawing form, but there was something weird about them. Oregon State was just happy to be (at Tier I) and was a little reluctant to criticize the design.”

    Inevitably, when PL & others criticize the latest Nike abomination, someone comments that “it’s not like Nike forced the school to wear the unis.” And though this quote doesn’t imply that anyone was “forced” to do anything, it does bear witness to the dynamics at play when a school partners up with our shoe-making friends.

  • bill | December 7, 2009 at 12:43 pm |

    Wasn’t Ted “Double Duty” Radcliffe the first catcher to have Thou Shalt Not Steal written on his chest protector?

  • M.Princip | December 7, 2009 at 12:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”365585″]If the Seahawks are gonna use those navy pants – which they should – they should either a) make the helmet navy too or b) ditch the gunmetal and go back to silver. There just isn’t quite enough contrast between the navy and gunmetal to make those 2 colors work together.[/quote]

    First off, I agree they need to go back to silver. The helmets would be awesome in silver w/matte gray pants. Secondly, if you made the helmets Navy(dark blue) you might as well use gunmetal, because that’s what it would look like. My understanding is gunmetal = gray/black mix.

  • M.Princip | December 7, 2009 at 1:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”365597″][quote comment=”365585″]If the Seahawks are gonna use those navy pants – which they should – they should either a) make the helmet navy too or b) ditch the gunmetal and go back to silver. There just isn’t quite enough contrast between the navy and gunmetal to make those 2 colors work together.[/quote]

    First off, I agree they need to go back to silver. The helmets would be awesome in silver w/matte gray pants. Secondly, if you made the helmets Navy(dark blue) you might as well use gunmetal, because that’s what it would look like. My understanding is gunmetal = gray/black mix.[/quote]

    Have to add, no way that I would want them to go to a navy blue, or, gunmetal helmet.

  • Brian | December 7, 2009 at 1:02 pm |

    This was printed in a comment last night regarding Northwestern going to the Outback Bowl.

    http://nusports.cstv...

    Can I just say that I hate sports shows, anchors, t-shirts, whatever, referring to the city as “Tampa Bay?” There are two cities here: Tampa and St. Petersburg. The Bucs and Lightning play in Tampa, and the Rays play in St. Petersburg. Nobody plays in Tampa Bay, because they’d be playing underwater.

  • LI Phil | December 7, 2009 at 1:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”365599″]Can I just say that I hate sports shows, anchors, t-shirts, whatever, referring to the city as “Tampa Bay?” There are two cities here: Tampa and St. Petersburg. The Bucs and Lightning play in Tampa, and the Rays play in St. Petersburg. Nobody plays in Tampa Bay, because they’d be playing underwater.[/quote]

    that’s a great point…but shouldn’t the blame lie, i donno, with the teams who call themselves “tampa bay”?

  • Teebz | December 7, 2009 at 1:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”365600″][quote comment=”365599″]Can I just say that I hate sports shows, anchors, t-shirts, whatever, referring to the city as “Tampa Bay?” There are two cities here: Tampa and St. Petersburg. The Bucs and Lightning play in Tampa, and the Rays play in St. Petersburg. Nobody plays in Tampa Bay, because they’d be playing underwater.[/quote]

    that’s a great point…but shouldn’t the blame lie, i donno, with the teams who call themselves “tampa bay”?[/quote]

    Considering they use the entire area as one market, there is nothing wrong with “Tampa Bay” as a place for a team.

    Places that have a close affinity – Wilkes-Barre/Scranton for example – are grouped together as one market for simplicity.

  • JimV19 | December 7, 2009 at 1:47 pm |

    [quote comment=”365552″]If the Jazz switched to those green uniforms full-time they would go from comletely forgettable to one of the best looks in thre NBA.

    Or…is that just a Seattlite seeing the Sonics there?[/quote]

    Nope, go with your first thought. I think the Jazz look SO much better in those greens.

  • JimV19 | December 7, 2009 at 1:52 pm |

    [quote comment=”365571″][quote comment=”365569″]”but we also talked about what we could do to help them recruit better student-athletes.”

    And that led them to figuring what would be big in Compton?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Could just show ’em this: CHICKS LOVE DUCKS.
    http://www.jockweb.c...

    That picture makes me wonder…how about orange facemasks, socks and shoes for the Ducks?

  • leon | December 7, 2009 at 1:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”365603″][quote comment=”365571″][quote comment=”365569″]”but we also talked about what we could do to help them recruit better student-athletes.”

    And that led them to figuring what would be big in Compton?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Could just show ’em this: CHICKS LOVE DUCKS.
    http://www.jockweb.c...

    That picture makes me wonder…how about orange facemasks, socks and shoes for the Ducks?[/quote]
    I was wondering something else.

  • Geeman | December 7, 2009 at 1:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”365602″][quote comment=”365552″]If the Jazz switched to those green uniforms full-time they would go from comletely forgettable to one of the best looks in thre NBA.

    Or…is that just a Seattlite seeing the Sonics there?[/quote]

    Nope, go with your first thought. I think the Jazz look SO much better in those greens.[/quote]

    Did the Jazz ever wear green? I thought it was only purple.

  • JimV19 | December 7, 2009 at 1:58 pm |

    [quote comment=”365592″]”never seen a football helmet like this one before”
    http://farm3.static....

    :)

    http://upload.wikime...

    Good one. I was thinking he was wearing a ring of sausages until I saw your photo.

  • JimV19 | December 7, 2009 at 1:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”365604″][quote comment=”365603″][quote comment=”365571″][quote comment=”365569″]”but we also talked about what we could do to help them recruit better student-athletes.”

    And that led them to figuring what would be big in Compton?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Could just show ’em this: CHICKS LOVE DUCKS.
    http://www.jockweb.c...

    That picture makes me wonder…how about orange facemasks, socks and shoes for the Ducks?[/quote]
    I was wondering something else.[/quote]

    Well, yeah….me too…

  • JimV19 | December 7, 2009 at 2:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”365605″][quote comment=”365602″][quote comment=”365552″]If the Jazz switched to those green uniforms full-time they would go from comletely forgettable to one of the best looks in thre NBA.

    Or…is that just a Seattlite seeing the Sonics there?[/quote]

    Nope, go with your first thought. I think the Jazz look SO much better in those greens.[/quote]

    Did the Jazz ever wear green? I thought it was only purple.[/quote]

    Back in the days of Adrian Dantley they wore green: http://www.nba.com/m...

  • LI Phil | December 7, 2009 at 2:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”365605″][quote comment=”365602″][quote comment=”365552″]If the Jazz switched to those green uniforms full-time they would go from comletely forgettable to one of the best looks in thre NBA.

    Or…is that just a Seattlite seeing the Sonics there?[/quote]

    Nope, go with your first thought. I think the Jazz look SO much better in those greens.[/quote]

    Did the Jazz ever wear green? I thought it was only purple.[/quote]

    think this was posted before

    nice rundown of the jazz’ unis in utah

  • JimV19 | December 7, 2009 at 2:09 pm |

    I think the navy pants looked better on the Seahawks yesterday. When they wore them with the neon jerseys, it ruined the whole look. I’d rather they had worn the dreary blue pants with the neon instead.

    In either case, I’d prefer white socks instead of navy.

  • Craig Costello | December 7, 2009 at 2:10 pm |

    Seems as though the Jags are also having issues with their RBK shoulder logos (no bad thing) – Link.

    Can’t help much with the faux Seahawks jersey. There was a fairly prominent British American Football League (then known as the Budweisier League) team around at the same time called Southampton Seahawks, but all indicationas are that they played in red – LINK

  • mmwatkin | December 7, 2009 at 2:14 pm |

    [quote comment=\”365599\”]
    Can I just say that I hate sports shows, anchors, t-shirts, whatever, referring to the city as \”Tampa Bay?\” There are two cities here: Tampa and St. Petersburg. The Bucs and Lightning play in Tampa, and the Rays play in St. Petersburg. Nobody plays in Tampa Bay, because they\’d be playing underwater.[/quote]

    I have no problem with it. “Tampa Bay” is considered a region as well as a body of water. I don’t see it as any different than Twin Cities, Bay Area, New England, ect.

  • Geeman | December 7, 2009 at 2:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”365609″][quote comment=”365605″][quote comment=”365602″][quote comment=”365552″]If the Jazz switched to those green uniforms full-time they would go from comletely forgettable to one of the best looks in thre NBA.

    Or…is that just a Seattlite seeing the Sonics there?[/quote]

    Nope, go with your first thought. I think the Jazz look SO much better in those greens.[/quote]

    Did the Jazz ever wear green? I thought it was only purple.[/quote]

    think this was posted before

    nice rundown of the jazz’ unis in utah[/quote]

    Was it an alternate? (Adrian Dantley back in green and gold, like he wore for the Irish.) Because they had the same purple in New Orleans and purple in Utah (even if the shades of pants and tops didn’t match, as was the case with the Lakers on occasion).

  • Kaptain K | December 7, 2009 at 2:15 pm |

    Re: Bears/Blackhawks scrapped ad

    The best line in there is the Blackhawk exec stating that “the Chicago Bears are an iconic international brand”.

    Is he trying to tell us that the whole world knows how bad the dancing Bears are??

    While I’m not a huge NFL fan, I’m pretty sure that if the “skate” were on the other foot then the NHL would just as quickly shut that ad down as well.

  • Steven | December 7, 2009 at 2:15 pm |

    Regarding the NFL latest’s No Fun edict, I’d be certain that if they administered the NHL the first thing they’d do would be to ban paintjobs on goalie masks.

    You couldn’t have cartoon yetis and the like polluting the brand for goodness sake. People will be confused! Won’t someone please think of the children?

  • JimV19 | December 7, 2009 at 2:17 pm |

    I’d forgotten about that Joe Montana commercial until the last line when he said, “But I just bought a house!” That was funny.

  • Mickel Yantz | December 7, 2009 at 2:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”365548″] The Seahawks have been “rockin” the white pants for too long since 2002, and should be rockin’ gray/silver pants like they’re supposed to. Why the Seahawks completely abandoned silver is beyond me.

    Nice![/quote]

    Completely Agree. They would look great with the gray/silver pants and helmet. Burn the green jerseys

  • JimV19 | December 7, 2009 at 2:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”365613″][quote comment=”365609″][quote comment=”365605″][quote comment=”365602″][quote comment=”365552″]If the Jazz switched to those green uniforms full-time they would go from comletely forgettable to one of the best looks in thre NBA.

    Or…is that just a Seattlite seeing the Sonics there?[/quote]

    Nope, go with your first thought. I think the Jazz look SO much better in those greens.[/quote]

    Did the Jazz ever wear green? I thought it was only purple.[/quote]

    think this was posted before

    nice rundown of the jazz’ unis in utah[/quote]

    Was it an alternate? (Adrian Dantley back in green and gold, like he wore for the Irish.) Because they had the same purple in New Orleans and purple in Utah (even if the shades of pants and tops didn’t match, as was the case with the Lakers on occasion).[/quote]

    I’m pretty sure they started in Utah with the green unis, then went back to the purple ones. Don’t think there was an overlapping time where they had alts.

  • Pigeon | December 7, 2009 at 2:21 pm |

    I think the Seahawks word the navy blue pants as a way to honor of the Lakewood Police Officers.

    The local news stations are asking residents to wear navy blue to work tomorrow as a way to honor them. The memorial is also tomorrow.

    No proof– just a hunch

  • Wes | December 7, 2009 at 2:22 pm |

    Forgive me if this has been mentioned already (didn’t read through the comments over the weekend), but the T-Wolves debuted their 1989-90 throwbacks on Saturday night. I don’t miss those pre-KG T-Wolves teams, but the old jerseys look better than anything they’ve worn since. One of the morning show guys on the sports radio talk station here in the Twin Cities (and one of about 5 hard core Wolves fans left on the planet) was lobbying this morning for a full-time switch to the throwbacks. I wouldn’t argue with that.

    A few videos here…

    http://www.nba.com/g...

  • Wes | December 7, 2009 at 2:25 pm |

    By the way, the Wolves are now 1-0 in the throwbacks; 2-17 in anything else. Just another reason to support a full time switch :)

  • Ricko | December 7, 2009 at 2:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”365617″][quote comment=”365548″] The Seahawks have been “rockin” the white pants for too long since 2002, and should be rockin’ gray/silver pants like they’re supposed to. Why the Seahawks completely abandoned silver is beyond me.

    Nice![/quote]

    Completely Agree. They would look great with the gray/silver pants and helmet. Burn the green jerseys[/quote]

    First time I saw the new Seahawks design was the road jersey. Remember thinking the change to navy and lime was really interesting, and that it was going to look really great with the silver pants and helmets.

    Never did get to see that, though, did we.

    —Ricko

  • LI Phil | December 7, 2009 at 2:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”365613″][quote comment=”365609″][quote comment=”365605″][quote comment=”365602″][quote comment=”365552″]If the Jazz switched to those green uniforms full-time they would go from comletely forgettable to one of the best looks in thre NBA.

    Or…is that just a Seattlite seeing the Sonics there?[/quote]

    Nope, go with your first thought. I think the Jazz look SO much better in those greens.[/quote]

    Did the Jazz ever wear green? I thought it was only purple.[/quote]

    think this was posted before

    nice rundown of the jazz’ unis in utah[/quote]

    Was it an alternate? (Adrian Dantley back in green and gold, like he wore for the Irish.) Because they had the same purple in New Orleans and purple in Utah (even if the shades of pants and tops didn’t match, as was the case with the Lakers on occasion).[/quote]

    im not real good on nba uni history, but i believe the jazz wore these unis from circa 1974-1978 and these unis from 79 till they moved to utah

  • The Jeff | December 7, 2009 at 2:40 pm |

    [quote comment=”365622″][quote comment=”365617″][quote comment=”365548″] The Seahawks have been “rockin” the white pants for too long since 2002, and should be rockin’ gray/silver pants like they’re supposed to. Why the Seahawks completely abandoned silver is beyond me.

    Nice![/quote]

    Completely Agree. They would look great with the gray/silver pants and helmet. Burn the green jerseys[/quote]

    First time I saw the new Seahawks design was the road jersey. Remember thinking the change to navy and lime was really interesting, and that it was going to look really great with the silver pants and helmets.

    Never did get to see that, though, did we.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    A silver helmet existed. But they never even attempted silver pants with the new colors. I’d say that’s probably why the blue helmet won the fan vote (assuming that vote wasn’t rigged from the start). The silver helmet with blue jersey and white pants just looked strange.

  • Geeman | December 7, 2009 at 2:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”365623″][quote comment=”365613″][quote comment=”365609″][quote comment=”365605″][quote comment=”365602″][quote comment=”365552″]If the Jazz switched to those green uniforms full-time they would go from comletely forgettable to one of the best looks in thre NBA.

    Or…is that just a Seattlite seeing the Sonics there?[/quote]

    Nope, go with your first thought. I think the Jazz look SO much better in those greens.[/quote]

    Did the Jazz ever wear green? I thought it was only purple.[/quote]

    think this was posted before

    nice rundown of the jazz’ unis in utah[/quote]

    Was it an alternate? (Adrian Dantley back in green and gold, like he wore for the Irish.) Because they had the same purple in New Orleans and purple in Utah (even if the shades of pants and tops didn’t match, as was the case with the Lakers on occasion).[/quote]

    im not real good on nba uni history, but i believe the jazz wore these unis from circa 1974-1978 and these unis from 79 till they moved to utah[/quote]

    Love that tri-color stripe. The New Orleans Hornets wore it until two years ago. Notre Dame wore it (only with blue, instead of purple) in the 1970s when they went to the Final Four. They had sweatbands to match the uniform stripes, and their Adidas shoes had matching stripes too.

  • The Hemogoblin | December 7, 2009 at 2:44 pm |

    [quote comment=”365548″][quote comment=”365532″]One last thing before I go to bed/a comment I posted last night:

    Seattle’s white pants are underused and underrated. I really wish that they would bust them out more. That being said, I hold the dark blue pants and the lighter blue pants at the same level of apathy. The striping pattern on the dark one just seems so weird, and the light ones give a nasty monochrome. Just rock the white pants, Seattle, like you were supposed to from the beginning.[/quote]

    I would have to, respectfully, disagree with you here. The Seahawks have been “rockin” the white pants for too long since 2002, and should be rockin’ gray/silver pants like they’re supposed to. Why the Seahawks completely abandoned silver is beyond me.

    Oh, and they looked great in the dark navy blue pants yesterday. A nice win at that.

    Nice![/quote]

    Well, yeah. I meant out of the current options. I still much prefer the royal blue uniforms. Those were beautiful. Of course, the team sucked ass then, so I can understand the ditching of them.

  • The Hemogoblin | December 7, 2009 at 2:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”365624″][quote comment=”365622″][quote comment=”365617″][quote comment=”365548″] The Seahawks have been “rockin” the white pants for too long since 2002, and should be rockin’ gray/silver pants like they’re supposed to. Why the Seahawks completely abandoned silver is beyond me.

    Nice![/quote]

    Completely Agree. They would look great with the gray/silver pants and helmet. Burn the green jerseys[/quote]

    First time I saw the new Seahawks design was the road jersey. Remember thinking the change to navy and lime was really interesting, and that it was going to look really great with the silver pants and helmets.

    Never did get to see that, though, did we.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    A silver helmet existed. But they never even attempted silver pants with the new colors. I’d say that’s probably why the blue helmet won the fan vote (assuming that vote wasn’t rigged from the start). The silver helmet with blue jersey and white pants just looked strange.[/quote]

    Initially, the Seahawks were going to try to have two helmets. It got nixed by the NFL, so they had to choose.

    (So goes the story)

  • Mickel Yantz | December 7, 2009 at 2:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”365626″][quote comment=”365548″][quote comment=”365532″]One last thing before I go to bed/a comment I posted last night:

    Seattle’s white pants are underused and underrated. I really wish that they would bust them out more. That being said, I hold the dark blue pants and the lighter blue pants at the same level of apathy. The striping pattern on the dark one just seems so weird, and the light ones give a nasty monochrome. Just rock the white pants, Seattle, like you were supposed to from the beginning.[/quote]

    I would have to, respectfully, disagree with you here. The Seahawks have been “rockin” the white pants for too long since 2002, and should be rockin’ gray/silver pants like they’re supposed to. Why the Seahawks completely abandoned silver is beyond me.

    Oh, and they looked great in the dark navy blue pants yesterday. A nice win at that.

    Nice![/quote]

    Well, yeah. I meant out of the current options. I still much prefer the royal blue uniforms. Those were beautiful. Of course, the team sucked ass then, so I can understand the ditching of them.[/quote]

    Since the Seahawks are overall 20-27 in white pants and 51-34 in blue pants (1-1 in Dk Blue) might be why they have preferred the blue bottoms. I dont think the silver/gray pants was a reflection on their record, but maybe the people in admin thought so when they were designing the new threads.

  • Ry Co 40 | December 7, 2009 at 2:55 pm |

    i’m excited to say, i got the wheels moving on my next 2 DIY projects!!! i think you all will really enjoy these! should be finished up right after christmas…

  • dudebrotherman | December 7, 2009 at 3:03 pm |

    That Chest protector is one of the coolest things I’ve seen in a while!

    http://farm3.static....

  • LI Phil | December 7, 2009 at 3:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”365628″]

    Since the Seahawks are overall 20-27 in white pants and 51-34 in blue pants (1-1 in Dk Blue) might be why they have preferred the blue bottoms. I dont think the silver/gray pants was a reflection on their record, but maybe the people in admin thought so when they were designing the new threads.[/quote]

    so…they’ve played 47 games in white pants (are all those with white over white?) but 85 games in blue pants (most of which i would also assume are suicide blue mono)…that seems like an awfully strange ratio — assuming they play all their home games in (at least for the past what, seven years) mono-blue, and i’d assume, 3/4ths of their road games are in white/white…wasn’t this year the first time in like 5 or more years they went with white jerseys over blue pants?

    i guess what im saying is: if they play 50% of their games on the road (excluding playoffs), and 50% at home; and until this year and for the past several years they always wore either all white or all blue; wouldn’t they have worn the white pants closer to 50% of the time? sure, there’d be some road games where they wore blue/blue, but 85 games in dark pants versus only 47 in white?

    not questioning the numbers, just shocked to see the disparity, for a team who seemed to always wear white/white or blue/blue

    thanks for the stats

  • dudebrotherman | December 7, 2009 at 3:12 pm |

    Hey Ll Phil can you talk to the Vilkster and see if he can to a top five of the week for college hoops? Here is my vote for a top fiver this week so far:

    http://www2.kusports...

  • dudebrotherman | December 7, 2009 at 3:16 pm |

    Meant to type “do” instead of to. Lo siento.

    Anyway, this was on Saturday, so don’t know if it could count as this week, but…

    http://www.theglobea...

  • Mickel Yantz | December 7, 2009 at 3:19 pm |

    Don’t know if it was mentioned, but I Just noticed Seattle University upgraded their athletics logo. NEW – http://www.goseattle...
    OLD – http://tess2.uspto.g...

  • whiteray | December 7, 2009 at 3:25 pm |

    My nitpick of the day: Being a proud alumus of St. Cloud State University, I get a little annoyed when folks refer to St. Cloud’s brother school in Mankato as Minnesota State. It’s actually “Minnesota State University, Mankato.” To my mind that’s a whole lot more awkward than the school’s previous name of “Mankato State University,” which was ditched when the folks in Mankato evidently decided that the old name didn’t sound important enough. (Moorhead State did the same thing, but I’ve heard that it’s switching back.) Minnesota State University, Mankato, is a fine school, but it ain’t Minnesota State. Except in reruns of “Coach,” there is no such school.

  • Mickel Yantz | December 7, 2009 at 3:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”365631″][quote comment=”365628″]

    Since the Seahawks are overall 20-27 in white pants and 51-34 in blue pants (1-1 in Dk Blue) might be why they have preferred the blue bottoms. I dont think the silver/gray pants was a reflection on their record, but maybe the people in admin thought so when they were designing the new threads.[/quote]

    Phil, You are right. They have played all home games (since 2002) except one, with blue mono. The Seahawks are the only team to never wear white tops at home. They have played a lot of away games also in the mono blue. The numbers include post season with 7 games in blue mono and 3 games in white mono.

    Check the bottom of my site for a year to year breakdown. http://www.mickelyan...
    so…they’ve played 47 games in white pants (are all those with white over white?) but 85 games in blue pants (most of which i would also assume are suicide blue mono)…that seems like an awfully strange ratio — assuming they play all their home games in (at least for the past what, seven years) mono-blue, and i’d assume, 3/4ths of their road games are in white/white…wasn’t this year the first time in like 5 or more years they went with white jerseys over blue pants?

    i guess what im saying is: if they play 50% of their games on the road (excluding playoffs), and 50% at home; and until this year and for the past several years they always wore either all white or all blue; wouldn’t they have worn the white pants closer to 50% of the time? sure, there’d be some road games where they wore blue/blue, but 85 games in dark pants versus only 47 in white?

    not questioning the numbers, just shocked to see the disparity, for a team who seemed to always wear white/white or blue/blue

    thanks for the stats[/quote]

  • Mickel Yantz | December 7, 2009 at 3:37 pm |

    Sorry messed up the quote above:

    Phil, You are right. They have played all home games (since 2002) except one, with blue mono. The Seahawks are the only team to never wear white tops at home. They have played a lot of away games also in the mono blue. The numbers include post season with 7 games in blue mono and 3 games in white mono.

    Check the bottom of my site for a year to year breakdown. http://www.mickelyan...

  • LI Phil | December 7, 2009 at 3:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”365636″]

    Phil, You are right. They have played all home games (since 2002) except one, with blue mono. The Seahawks are the only team to never wear white tops at home. They have played a lot of away games also in the mono blue. The numbers include post season with 7 games in blue mono and 3 games in white mono.

    Check the bottom of my site for a year to year breakdown. http://www.mickelyan...

    oh wow, mickel

    i didn’t realize that was YOUR site (i know i’ve referenced it on many an occasion)…great board!

    awesome job too … i LOVE stuff like that

    (which reminds me, gotta get everyone’s baseball uni tracking uploaded to this site…)

  • craig ackers | December 7, 2009 at 3:41 pm |

    Hi guys, i am not sure if it has been mentioned on here (i guess it probably has) but the Reebok logo “ghosting” issue that the Giants had has spread to other teams. The Reebok logo was “ghosted” on the Jaguars jersey on Sunday against the Texans. I’m sure I remember a post saying the Giants were using a new fabric this year I wonder if The Jaguars new jerseys are the same fabic and this is causing the problem.

    As an aside new pro cycling jeresy story here.

    http://www.cyclingne...

    All the best

    Craig

  • Geeman | December 7, 2009 at 3:47 pm |

    [quote comment=”365632″]Hey Ll Phil can you talk to the Vilkster and see if he can to a top five of the week for college hoops? Here is my vote for a top fiver this week so far:

    http://www2.kusports...

    That’s No. 1 in any league, anytime (the high white socks excepting).

  • LarryB | December 7, 2009 at 3:52 pm |

    Nike going to get more involved with Oregon State uniforms. Is that a good thing? I can live with Oregon. I like most of the Oregon combos. But all these changes lately I do not think is a good thing. Look at Florida and those helmets vs Alabama.

    That was a funny line about Oregon’s colors being too bright.

    I found an old book that said Oregon’s colors were lemon yellow and emerald green.

  • Mickel Yantz | December 7, 2009 at 3:52 pm |

    Thanks Phil! Scares me how much time I have spent on it. I blame M. Princip for the support too. lol

  • M.Princip | December 7, 2009 at 4:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”365642″]Thanks Phil! Scares me how much time I have spent on it. I blame M. Princip for the support too. lol[/quote]

    The recent updates are superb! Keep on, keepin’ on.

  • M.Princip | December 7, 2009 at 4:40 pm |

    [quote comment=”365624″][quote comment=”365622″][quote comment=”365617″][quote comment=”365548″] The Seahawks have been “rockin” the white pants for too long since 2002, and should be rockin’ gray/silver pants like they’re supposed to. Why the Seahawks completely abandoned silver is beyond me.

    Nice![/quote]

    Completely Agree. They would look great with the gray/silver pants and helmet. Burn the green jerseys[/quote]

    First time I saw the new Seahawks design was the road jersey. Remember thinking the change to navy and lime was really interesting, and that it was going to look really great with the silver pants and helmets.

    Never did get to see that, though, did we.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    A silver helmet existed. But they never even attempted silver pants with the new colors. I’d say that’s probably why the blue helmet won the fan vote (assuming that vote wasn’t rigged from the start). The silver helmet with blue jersey and white pants just looked strange.[/quote]

    Excellent observation Jeff. Pairing the silver helmet with gray/silver pants could have changed a lot of opinions.

  • JimV19 | December 7, 2009 at 4:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”365640″][quote comment=”365632″]Hey Ll Phil can you talk to the Vilkster and see if he can to a top five of the week for college hoops? Here is my vote for a top fiver this week so far:

    http://www2.kusports...

    That’s No. 1 in any league, anytime (the high white socks excepting).[/quote]

    Au contraire, Geeman, the socks aren’t high, the shorts are too long.

    A Top 5 for hoops? Ooooh, that’s a LOT of schools to cover. Although any SoD school would be eliminated, so that narrows it down a bit…

    Up to Phil, but maybe we could do something. Perhaps a weekly poll to get the readers involved? Maybe a few “men (or women) on the street” to cover different regions (I call the Big East and the Patriot League!)? Interesting idea, Mr. BrotherMan.

  • M.Princip | December 7, 2009 at 4:46 pm |

    [quote comment=”365626″][quote comment=”365548″][quote comment=”365532″]One last thing before I go to bed/a comment I posted last night:

    Seattle’s white pants are underused and underrated. I really wish that they would bust them out more. That being said, I hold the dark blue pants and the lighter blue pants at the same level of apathy. The striping pattern on the dark one just seems so weird, and the light ones give a nasty monochrome. Just rock the white pants, Seattle, like you were supposed to from the beginning.[/quote]

    I would have to, respectfully, disagree with you here. The Seahawks have been “rockin” the white pants for too long since 2002, and should be rockin’ gray/silver pants like they’re supposed to. Why the Seahawks completely abandoned silver is beyond me.

    Oh, and they looked great in the dark navy blue pants yesterday. A nice win at that.

    Nice![/quote]

    Well, yeah. I meant out of the current options. I still much prefer the royal blue uniforms. Those were beautiful. Of course, the team sucked ass then, so I can understand the ditching of them.[/quote]

    Well, I am a big fan of the late 70s/early 80s royal blue unis(Good Seahawks teams within that timeframe). Let’s also be specific, they sucked ass in the early 90s; Tom Flores era. Perennial .500 team for the rest of the 90s under Dennis Erickson.

  • M.Princip | December 7, 2009 at 4:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”365619″]I think the Seahawks word the navy blue pants as a way to honor of the Lakewood Police Officers.

    The local news stations are asking residents to wear navy blue to work tomorrow as a way to honor them. The memorial is also tomorrow.

    No proof– just a hunch[/quote]

    Good hunch right there.

  • JTH | December 7, 2009 at 5:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”365563″]I thought that the Jass throwback was a half-hearted attempt.[/quote]
    Hugh can say that again.

  • Geeman | December 7, 2009 at 5:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”365645″][quote comment=”365640″][quote comment=”365632″]Hey Ll Phil can you talk to the Vilkster and see if he can to a top five of the week for college hoops? Here is my vote for a top fiver this week so far:

    http://www2.kusports...

    That’s No. 1 in any league, anytime (the high white socks excepting).[/quote]

    Au contraire, Geeman, the socks aren’t high, the shorts are too long.

    A Top 5 for hoops? Ooooh, that’s a LOT of schools to cover. Although any SoD school would be eliminated, so that narrows it down a bit…

    Up to Phil, but maybe we could do something. Perhaps a weekly poll to get the readers involved? Maybe a few “men (or women) on the street” to cover different regions (I call the Big East and the Patriot League!)? Interesting idea, Mr. BrotherMan.[/quote]

    That one guy’s ocks are too high AND all the shorts are too long. But UCLA has the best uniforms in basketball, and Kansas is not far behind (even including the red ones).

    I know they were long and baggy for their time, but the Fab 5 would actually look good today by comparison. Shorts a little above the knee and low-cut white socks with black shoes. Just right.

  • LI Phil | December 7, 2009 at 5:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”365648″][quote comment=”365563″]I thought that the Jass throwback was a half-hearted attempt.[/quote]
    Hugh can say that again.[/quote]

    based on his soon-to-be-released DIY

  • JimV19 | December 7, 2009 at 5:12 pm |

    Just saw a pic of the Junior College football national championship:

    http://espn-i.starwa...

    “Blinn’s Chad Froechtenicht, left, returns a punt against Fort Scott during the first half of the NJCAA national championship football game in Pittsburg, Kan., on Sunday, Dec. 6, 2009. Blinn won 31-26.”

    Nice unis, Blinn.

  • JimV19 | December 7, 2009 at 5:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”365649″][quote comment=”365645″][quote comment=”365640″][quote comment=”365632″]Hey Ll Phil can you talk to the Vilkster and see if he can to a top five of the week for college hoops? Here is my vote for a top fiver this week so far:

    http://www2.kusports...

    That’s No. 1 in any league, anytime (the high white socks excepting).[/quote]

    Au contraire, Geeman, the socks aren’t high, the shorts are too long.

    A Top 5 for hoops? Ooooh, that’s a LOT of schools to cover. Although any SoD school would be eliminated, so that narrows it down a bit…

    Up to Phil, but maybe we could do something. Perhaps a weekly poll to get the readers involved? Maybe a few “men (or women) on the street” to cover different regions (I call the Big East and the Patriot League!)? Interesting idea, Mr. BrotherMan.[/quote]

    That one guy’s ocks are too high AND all the shorts are too long. But UCLA has the best uniforms in basketball, and Kansas is not far behind (even including the red ones).

    I know they were long and baggy for their time, but the Fab 5 would actually look good today by comparison. Shorts a little above the knee and low-cut white socks with black shoes. Just right.[/quote]

    My formative years were in the 70s and 80s, so THIS http://www.detroitps... is just right. Right on.

  • leon | December 7, 2009 at 5:18 pm |

    Nice site Mickel Yantz.

  • Mickel Yantz | December 7, 2009 at 5:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”365646″][quote comment=”365626″][quote comment=”365548″][quote comment=”365532″]One last thing before I go to bed/a comment I posted last night:

    Seattle’s white pants are underused and underrated. I really wish that they would bust them out more. That being said, I hold the dark blue pants and the lighter blue pants at the same level of apathy. The striping pattern on the dark one just seems so weird, and the light ones give a nasty monochrome. Just rock the white pants, Seattle, like you were supposed to from the beginning.[/quote]

    I would have to, respectfully, disagree with you here. The Seahawks have been “rockin” the white pants for too long since 2002, and should be rockin’ gray/silver pants like they’re supposed to. Why the Seahawks completely abandoned silver is beyond me.

    Oh, and they looked great in the dark navy blue pants yesterday. A nice win at that.

    Nice![/quote]

    Well, yeah. I meant out of the current options. I still much prefer the royal blue uniforms. Those were beautiful. Of course, the team sucked ass then, so I can understand the ditching of them.[/quote]

    Well, I am a big fan of the late 70s/early 80s royal blue unis(Good Seahawks teams within that timeframe). Let’s also be specific, they sucked ass in the early 90s; Tom Flores era. Perennial .500 team for the rest of the 90s under Dennis Erickson.[/quote]

    I blame the ownership. Suckass Behring: 1988-1996 was 61-83 w/ 1 division championship to Paul Allen: 1997-Present at 107-97 with 5 division and 1 conference championship

    Thanks Leon!

  • Johnny O | December 7, 2009 at 5:39 pm |

    Not that anybody asked, but I am going to mention it anyways. If anyone is watching ESPN right now, they will notice on the :20 updates at Lambeau Field that the tarp is going crazy on the field. It isn’t windy in Green Bay, but the grounds crew found that when they put the tarp on, and then heat the field, this created condensation because the warm ground mixed with the cool air trapped in between the tarp and ground.

    Here is a pic from the NFC Champ. game a few years back (I was there) and you can see in the end zones the frost and ice on the field.
    http://cache3.asset-...

    The field crew were embarrassed by this and got the idea to blow hot blowers under the tarp even though the field was heated to keep the air in between the field and tarp heated. This worked like a charm the next year, and it has been done every since.

    Sorry for the tangent, but I love this stuff.

  • Geeman | December 7, 2009 at 6:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”365652″][quote comment=”365649″][quote comment=”365645″][quote comment=”365640″][quote comment=”365632″]Hey Ll Phil can you talk to the Vilkster and see if he can to a top five of the week for college hoops? Here is my vote for a top fiver this week so far:

    http://www2.kusports...

    That’s No. 1 in any league, anytime (the high white socks excepting).[/quote]

    Au contraire, Geeman, the socks aren’t high, the shorts are too long.

    A Top 5 for hoops? Ooooh, that’s a LOT of schools to cover. Although any SoD school would be eliminated, so that narrows it down a bit…

    Up to Phil, but maybe we could do something. Perhaps a weekly poll to get the readers involved? Maybe a few “men (or women) on the street” to cover different regions (I call the Big East and the Patriot League!)? Interesting idea, Mr. BrotherMan.[/quote]

    That one guy’s ocks are too high AND all the shorts are too long. But UCLA has the best uniforms in basketball, and Kansas is not far behind (even including the red ones).

    I know they were long and baggy for their time, but the Fab 5 would actually look good today by comparison. Shorts a little above the knee and low-cut white socks with black shoes. Just right.[/quote]

    My formative years were in the 70s and 80s, so THIS http://www.detroitps... is just right. Right on.[/quote]

    Yikes! But you’re probably fundamentally sound and a great shot on the court.

  • dudebrotherman | December 7, 2009 at 6:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”365645″][quote comment=”365640″][quote comment=”365632″]Hey Ll Phil can you talk to the Vilkster and see if he can to a top five of the week for college hoops? Here is my vote for a top fiver this week so far:

    http://www2.kusports...

    That’s No. 1 in any league, anytime (the high white socks excepting).[/quote]

    Au contraire, Geeman, the socks aren’t high, the shorts are too long.

    A Top 5 for hoops? Ooooh, that’s a LOT of schools to cover. Although any SoD school would be eliminated, so that narrows it down a bit…

    Up to Phil, but maybe we could do something. Perhaps a weekly poll to get the readers involved? Maybe a few “men (or women) on the street” to cover different regions (I call the Big East and the Patriot League!)? Interesting idea, Mr. BrotherMan.[/quote]

    Ok, Dude, I’m willing to take the Big 12 and Big Ten.

  • BurghFan | December 7, 2009 at 6:19 pm |

    Carlos Fenny collects old tickets and recently discovered that the Cubs’ 2006 season ticket design featured various uniforms from Cubbie history.

    The Steelers did something similar in 1994.

  • LI Phil | December 7, 2009 at 6:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”365657″][quote comment=”365645″][quote comment=”365640″][quote comment=”365632″]Hey Ll Phil can you talk to the Vilkster and see if he can to a top five of the week for college hoops? Here is my vote for a top fiver this week so far:

    http://www2.kusports...

    That’s No. 1 in any league, anytime (the high white socks excepting).[/quote]

    Au contraire, Geeman, the socks aren’t high, the shorts are too long.

    A Top 5 for hoops? Ooooh, that’s a LOT of schools to cover. Although any SoD school would be eliminated, so that narrows it down a bit…

    Up to Phil, but maybe we could do something. Perhaps a weekly poll to get the readers involved? Maybe a few “men (or women) on the street” to cover different regions (I call the Big East and the Patriot League!)? Interesting idea, Mr. BrotherMan.[/quote]

    Ok, Dude, I’m willing to take the Big 12 and Big Ten.[/quote]

    yeah, um…no

    appreciate the thought and all, but the 5 & 1 is limited to the college football

    however, i am thinking of some sort of replacement for the 5 & 1, and once it is decided upon, we’ll let you know

    if you’re interested or have other ideas, drop me a line

  • Josh | December 7, 2009 at 7:19 pm |

    Humorous charts on NCAA football

    http://www.everydays...

  • interlockingtc | December 7, 2009 at 8:19 pm |

    The graph and chart link from Justine DeCotis is superb. A treat for the eyes and mind.

  • MPowers1634 | December 7, 2009 at 8:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”365557″][quote comment=”365556″]http://portlandtribune.com/sports/story.php?story_id=125979134533394200

    This explains a lot. “We don’t like the school colors because 17-year-old potential recruits think they’re too bright. So we’ll change a hundred years of tradition by fiat and ditch your school colors, at least for athletics and at least while we have the contract.”
    [/quote]

    What do you expect from a guy named Tinker?[/quote]

    Blasphemy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Eddie | December 7, 2009 at 8:59 pm |

    If it weren’t for the Ravens’ black pants and socks it would be a great uni match up tonight. Teams should not wear the same color pants and socks.

  • MPowers1634 | December 7, 2009 at 9:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”365650″][quote comment=”365648″][quote comment=”365563″]I thought that the Jass throwback was a half-hearted attempt.[/quote]
    Hugh can say that again.[/quote]

    based on his soon-to-be-released DIY[/quote]

    Jasshole

  • Morris | December 7, 2009 at 9:12 pm |

    (1) “Carlos Fenny collects old tickets and recently discovered that the Cubs’ 2006 season ticket design featured various uniforms from Cubbie history.”

    These followed the Cubs’ 2004 jersey giveaway (ESPN story here
    ) which they continued in 2005 and 2006. Those 2006 tix all feature Mitchell & Ness Cubs jerseys that had been part of the promotion.

    (2) “You can see all of the upcoming Olympic hockey jerseys in this slideshow (very useful find by Dane Drutis)”

    Did anyone else see this quote from the link, including this note on the symbols in the U.S. jersey: “and a bleeding heart representing Hispanic culture.”

    I’m glad to know that Nike and U.S. hockey doesn’t take themselves too seriously.

  • mike 2 | December 7, 2009 at 9:17 pm |

    There was a ticker item a couple of months ago on this – the Raptors have now officially unveiled their “Huskies” throwbacks:

    http://images.tsn.ca...

    They wear them for the first time tomorrow against Minnesota, and five more times through the season.

    I said it before, I’d be perfectly happy if they abandoned everything having to do with the Raptors colours and brand and took up “Huskies” in blue and white full-time.

  • LI Phil | December 7, 2009 at 9:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”365666″]There was a ticker item a couple of months ago on this – the Raptors have now officially unveiled their “Huskies” throwbacks:

    http://images.tsn.ca...

    They wear them for the first time tomorrow against Minnesota, and five more times through the season.

    I said it before, I’d be perfectly happy if they abandoned everything having to do with the Raptors colours and brand and took up “Huskies” in blue and white full-time.[/quote]

    is it time to declare the “fake belt loop built into the shorts” played out?

  • LI Phil | December 7, 2009 at 9:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”365559″]“I’m a closet Beaver fan, I guess you could say,” Tinker says.

    Whaaaaa?!?![/quote]

    NTTAWWT

  • mike 2 | December 7, 2009 at 9:47 pm |

    [quote comment=”365667″][quote comment=”365666″]There was a ticker item a couple of months ago on this – the Raptors have now officially unveiled their “Huskies” throwbacks:

    http://images.tsn.ca...

    They wear them for the first time tomorrow against Minnesota, and five more times through the season.

    I said it before, I’d be perfectly happy if they abandoned everything having to do with the Raptors colours and brand and took up “Huskies” in blue and white full-time.[/quote]

    is it time to declare the “fake belt loop built into the shorts” played out?[/quote]

    Why? Where else have we seen it other than the Huskies throwbacks?

  • LI Phil | December 7, 2009 at 9:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”365669″][quote comment=”365667″][quote comment=”365666″]There was a ticker item a couple of months ago on this – the Raptors have now officially unveiled their “Huskies” throwbacks:

    http://images.tsn.ca...

    They wear them for the first time tomorrow against Minnesota, and five more times through the season.

    I said it before, I’d be perfectly happy if they abandoned everything having to do with the Raptors colours and brand and took up “Huskies” in blue and white full-time.[/quote]

    is it time to declare the “fake belt loop built into the shorts” played out?[/quote]

    Why? Where else have we seen it other than the Huskies throwbacks?[/quote]

    hmmmm…i guess that is where we saw it…but seeing it, i donno…on the actual players (and you know those shorts are gonna reach their knees)…im just not liking it

    however, as far as the rest of the uni (and especially in comparison to what they currently wear)…spot on…and if you asked me to vote on that versus the current (even with the fake belt), i’d vote yea

    i wonder how difficult it would have actually been to put a real belt on those trou, and if they did…would the players complain it was too heavy?

  • Mike Engle | December 7, 2009 at 9:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”365669″][quote comment=”365667″][quote comment=”365666″]There was a ticker item a couple of months ago on this – the Raptors have now officially unveiled their “Huskies” throwbacks:

    http://images.tsn.ca...

    They wear them for the first time tomorrow against Minnesota, and five more times through the season.

    I said it before, I’d be perfectly happy if they abandoned everything having to do with the Raptors colours and brand and took up “Huskies” in blue and white full-time.[/quote]

    is it time to declare the “fake belt loop built into the shorts” played out?[/quote]

    Why? Where else have we seen it other than the Huskies throwbacks?[/quote]
    Anybody have pictures of the real things the Raptors-as-Huskies are throwing back to? In a vacuum, I don’t like the HUSKIES font (but the belt mirage is kind of cool), but since it’s a throwback, better to get it right than to “improve on it.”

  • JimV19 | December 7, 2009 at 9:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”365656″][quote comment=”365652″][quote comment=”365649″][quote comment=”365645″][quote comment=”365640″][quote comment=”365632″]Hey Ll Phil can you talk to the Vilkster and see if he can to a top five of the week for college hoops? Here is my vote for a top fiver this week so far:

    http://www2.kusports...

    That’s No. 1 in any league, anytime (the high white socks excepting).[/quote]

    Au contraire, Geeman, the socks aren’t high, the shorts are too long.

    A Top 5 for hoops? Ooooh, that’s a LOT of schools to cover. Although any SoD school would be eliminated, so that narrows it down a bit…

    Up to Phil, but maybe we could do something. Perhaps a weekly poll to get the readers involved? Maybe a few “men (or women) on the street” to cover different regions (I call the Big East and the Patriot League!)? Interesting idea, Mr. BrotherMan.[/quote]

    That one guy’s ocks are too high AND all the shorts are too long. But UCLA has the best uniforms in basketball, and Kansas is not far behind (even including the red ones).

    I know they were long and baggy for their time, but the Fab 5 would actually look good today by comparison. Shorts a little above the knee and low-cut white socks with black shoes. Just right.[/quote]

    My formative years were in the 70s and 80s, so THIS http://www.detroitps... is just right. Right on.[/quote]

    Yikes! But you’re probably fundamentally sound and a great shot on the court.[/quote]

    When I’m on, I can drain a pretty smooth three. When I’m really on, I can throw up some stuff that shouldn’t go in but does. When I’m off, I pass like Scott Skiles even when I’m wide open. On D, my feet my be slow, but my gorilla-length arms are fast and have swiped the rock from quite a few unsuspecting ballers.

    And yes, I wear short shorts when I play. Don’t get to do so as much these days, though.

  • LI Phil | December 7, 2009 at 9:59 pm |

    maybe it’s just that derosan looks so unhappy in the uni, and well, hedo…looks a little too happy

  • Eric | December 7, 2009 at 10:01 pm |

    Is anyone else noticing the NFL Shield logo inconsistencies with the Packers tonight? Aaron Rogers’s is linked to his collar stripes, while Donald Driver’s is it’s own thing, not connected to the collar stripes.

  • JimV19 | December 7, 2009 at 10:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”365671″][quote comment=”365669″][quote comment=”365667″][quote comment=”365666″]There was a ticker item a couple of months ago on this – the Raptors have now officially unveiled their “Huskies” throwbacks:

    http://images.tsn.ca...

    They wear them for the first time tomorrow against Minnesota, and five more times through the season.

    I said it before, I’d be perfectly happy if they abandoned everything having to do with the Raptors colours and brand and took up “Huskies” in blue and white full-time.[/quote]

    is it time to declare the “fake belt loop built into the shorts” played out?[/quote]

    Why? Where else have we seen it other than the Huskies throwbacks?[/quote]
    Anybody have pictures of the real things the Raptors-as-Huskies are throwing back to? In a vacuum, I don’t like the HUSKIES font (but the belt mirage is kind of cool), but since it’s a throwback, better to get it right than to “improve on it.”[/quote]

    I like the font – got a real 50s-60s TV show feel to it. And Phil, you know if they wanted a real belt buckle, the swoosh guys could always loan some of those Pro Combat buckles to them.

  • QualityStarts | December 7, 2009 at 10:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”365669″][quote comment=”365667″][quote comment=”365666″]There was a ticker item a couple of months ago on this – the Raptors have now officially unveiled their “Huskies” throwbacks:

    http://images.tsn.ca...

    They wear them for the first time tomorrow against Minnesota, and five more times through the season.

    I said it before, I’d be perfectly happy if they abandoned everything having to do with the Raptors colours and brand and took up “Huskies” in blue and white full-time.[/quote]

    is it time to declare the “fake belt loop built into the shorts” played out?[/quote]

    Why? Where else have we seen it other than the Huskies throwbacks?[/quote]

    Haha, yeah. I think the fake belt loops look dumb (either make real belt loops or don’t) but I certainly wouldn’t call them played out.

  • Hibbsy | December 7, 2009 at 10:31 pm |

    I was watching a little of Michigan State vs. The Citadel tonight. I noticed that The Citadel goes with School Initial on Back. Has this been the case for a while. If so, ignore this comment.

  • duckfan | December 7, 2009 at 10:44 pm |

    All these comments about the Oregon redesign and the “bright colors” are kind of wrong. The pre-nikeified ducks did wear a very bright and old-school uni ( http://www.nikeblog.... ). When they redesigned the unis they opted for a much darker color scheme that they used for the first several years of the nike era. The colors changed to brighter tones as the input from athletes changed, which was the point of the unis, constantly shifting designs that appealed to the players who were wearing them. And make fun of Tinker Hatfield all you want, but the man is the Da Vinci of sneaker design.

    Also the comments about “dogfighting outfits” and “whats popular in compton” come off as vaguely racist.

  • duckfan | December 7, 2009 at 10:47 pm |

    Pre-first Change: http://a.espncdn.com...

    First Redesign ( http://media.photobu... )

  • mike 2 | December 7, 2009 at 10:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”365671″][quote comment=”365669″][quote comment=”365667″][quote comment=”365666″]There was a ticker item a couple of months ago on this – the Raptors have now officially unveiled their “Huskies” throwbacks:

    http://images.tsn.ca...

    They wear them for the first time tomorrow against Minnesota, and five more times through the season.

    I said it before, I’d be perfectly happy if they abandoned everything having to do with the Raptors colours and brand and took up “Huskies” in blue and white full-time.[/quote]

    is it time to declare the “fake belt loop built into the shorts” played out?[/quote]

    Why? Where else have we seen it other than the Huskies throwbacks?[/quote]
    Anybody have pictures of the real things the Raptors-as-Huskies are throwing back to? In a vacuum, I don’t like the HUSKIES font (but the belt mirage is kind of cool), but since it’s a throwback, better to get it right than to “improve on it.”[/quote]

    I looked once and didn’t find any, which isn’t to say that there aren’t any out there.

    Best I could do: 1946 Philadelphia Warriors (also with belts)

    http://www.blogcdn.c...

  • Brian | December 7, 2009 at 11:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”365655″]Not that anybody asked, but I am going to mention it anyways. If anyone is watching ESPN right now, they will notice on the :20 updates at Lambeau Field that the tarp is going crazy on the field. It isn’t windy in Green Bay, but the grounds crew found that when they put the tarp on, and then heat the field, this created condensation because the warm ground mixed with the cool air trapped in between the tarp and ground.

    Here is a pic from the NFC Champ. game a few years back (I was there) and you can see in the end zones the frost and ice on the field.
    http://cache3.asset-...

    The field crew were embarrassed by this and got the idea to blow hot blowers under the tarp even though the field was heated to keep the air in between the field and tarp heated. This worked like a charm the next year, and it has been done every since.

    Sorry for the tangent, but I love this stuff.[/quote]
    For a team with a stadium touted as “the Frozen Tundra,” you would think they would like seeing the field like that. Yeah, they can throw around the “playing conditions need to be good” excuse, but this is football, not baseball. Let the guys earn their money by living up to their rough, tough image.

  • LI Phil | December 7, 2009 at 11:31 pm |

    still say this looks better when it’s NOT on a player

    here’s a nifty page devoted to the huskies

    /poor picture quality, but apparently the 46 uni on there

  • LI Phil | December 7, 2009 at 11:36 pm |

    and here’s a mockup of the husky uni

  • mike 2 | December 8, 2009 at 12:10 am |

    [quote comment=”365683″]still say this looks better when it’s NOT on a player

    here’s a nifty page devoted to the huskies

    /poor picture quality, but apparently the 46 uni on there[/quote]

    I found that web site and that ad is out there in a bunch of places, but as the ad is for the first game the Huskies ever played (and the first BAA game ever played) I wouldn’t assume its accurate.

  • Mike Engle | December 8, 2009 at 12:12 am |

    Watching TSN SportsCentre and could have sworn I saw someone (not a goalie) in a full cage, in the Edmonton vs Florida highlights. ESPN doesn’t have any pictures. Help or confirmation, anybody?

  • Matt English | December 8, 2009 at 12:21 am |

    Check out this uni moment from the 1991 All Star Game: http://www.youtube.c... (Actually, watch the whole thing, it’s pure gold)

    Around 0:27, look at how the big, circular All-Star patch was put above the big, circular Cubs patch on the right sleeve, making for patch action going all the way up past the shoulder line. I’ve never seen that much stuff on one sleeve

  • dudebrotherman | December 8, 2009 at 12:31 am |

    [quote comment=”365659″][quote comment=”365657″][quote comment=”365645″][quote comment=”365640″][quote comment=”365632″]Hey Ll Phil can you talk to the Vilkster and see if he can to a top five of the week for college hoops? Here is my vote for a top fiver this week so far:

    http://www2.kusports...

    That’s No. 1 in any league, anytime (the high white socks excepting).[/quote]

    Au contraire, Geeman, the socks aren’t high, the shorts are too long.

    A Top 5 for hoops? Ooooh, that’s a LOT of schools to cover. Although any SoD school would be eliminated, so that narrows it down a bit…

    Up to Phil, but maybe we could do something. Perhaps a weekly poll to get the readers involved? Maybe a few “men (or women) on the street” to cover different regions (I call the Big East and the Patriot League!)? Interesting idea, Mr. BrotherMan.[/quote]

    Ok, Dude, I’m willing to take the Big 12 and Big Ten.[/quote]

    yeah, um…no

    appreciate the thought and all, but the 5 & 1 is limited to the college football

    however, i am thinking of some sort of replacement for the 5 & 1, and once it is decided upon, we’ll let you know

    if you’re interested or have other ideas, drop me a line[/quote]

    I like that “ya, um… no”

    That is perfect for times like when my girlfriend wants me to rent a movie out of the Romantic Comedy section or when she wants me to go have brunch with her cousin and her friend, or when she wants me to go to the jewelry art fair.

    Can’t wait to mix that in!

  • dudebrotherman | December 8, 2009 at 12:33 am |

    [quote comment=”365684″]and here’s a mockup of the husky uni[/quote]

    That waistband rocks!

  • DT | December 8, 2009 at 4:52 am |

    That San Francisco Giants BP jersey was used in 2000, the first year at what was then Pac Bell Park. They had a gray road BP and a cream home BP. I don’t know if they used them all year, but they’re pretty rare now.

  • Geeman | December 8, 2009 at 8:56 am |

    [quote comment=”365679″]All these comments about the Oregon redesign and the “bright colors” are kind of wrong. The pre-nikeified ducks did wear a very bright and old-school uni ( http://www.nikeblog.... ). When they redesigned the unis they opted for a much darker color scheme that they used for the first several years of the nike era. The colors changed to brighter tones as the input from athletes changed, which was the point of the unis, constantly shifting designs that appealed to the players who were wearing them. And make fun of Tinker Hatfield all you want, but the man is the Da Vinci of sneaker design.

    Also the comments about “dogfighting outfits” and “whats popular in compton” come off as vaguely racist.[/quote]

    The point is the school’s colors shouldn’t shift at the whim of players. Those old-school unis are spledid.

    Apologize if the comments seem vaguely racist. Was thinking more of Eminem videos.

  • JimV19 | December 8, 2009 at 1:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”365703″][quote comment=”365679″]All these comments about the Oregon redesign and the “bright colors” are kind of wrong. The pre-nikeified ducks did wear a very bright and old-school uni ( http://www.nikeblog.... ). When they redesigned the unis they opted for a much darker color scheme that they used for the first several years of the nike era. The colors changed to brighter tones as the input from athletes changed, which was the point of the unis, constantly shifting designs that appealed to the players who were wearing them. And make fun of Tinker Hatfield all you want, but the man is the Da Vinci of sneaker design.

    Also the comments about “dogfighting outfits” and “whats popular in compton” come off as vaguely racist.[/quote]

    The point is the school’s colors shouldn’t shift at the whim of players. Those old-school unis are spledid.

    Apologize if the comments seem vaguely racist. Was thinking more of Eminem videos.[/quote]

    Yeah, I didn’t see them as racist either. We, collectively, need to use a better term than “racist” in some instances. “Culturalist,” “classist,” maybe, but to say “racist” implies that dofighting is strictly a black phenomenon. That in itself could be construed as racist.

    Not saying anyone here on either side of the discussion is a racist. Not at all. Just offering one bit of advice – if something can be construed as “vaguely” racist, give people the benefit of the doubt.

  • duckfan | December 8, 2009 at 3:05 pm |

    Yeah, I usually do try to give than benefit of the doubt, but those two comments are hard to justify. Compton is probably the most known majority-black ghetto in the united states, and is almost always used as an example of “thugs”. And unless I just completely overshot it, dogfighting was referring Michael Vick, if it wasn’t please explain, because I don’t really see the point of it without that reference.

    As for the opinion “The point is the school’s colors shouldn’t shift at the whim of players. Those old-school unis are spledid.”. It seems to be based on the notion that tradition should be important and a team should stick with it. That may be fine for a team that has a history of excellence with one uni, like texas or tOSU, but a team like oregon isn’t really in the same boat as them. Sans a few successful seasons over the years, Oregon’s prominence has really happened since 2000, with all 5 of it;s 10-win seasons happening this decade. Oregon is creating it’s dynasty and legacy now, and that tradition includes this philosophy on uniforms. Even though there constantly changing, doesn’t mean they don’t mean anything to fans. I am a lifelong duck fan who spent the majority of his fandom during the this era of oregon football, and the constantly changing uniforms actually create a cool new type of affection and attachment. Every uniform holds a different great memory for me. The first redesigns(http://sportsmed.sta...) evoke the first bcs bowl win for the ducks, the diamondplates remind me of the worst feeling ive ever felt during a football game(Dixon’s torn acl/tears on sideline) and these new ones can be seen doing the same thing right now with the rosebowl berth. If you don’t like the designs or look of the jerseys thats one thing, but don’t bash solely on tradition.

  • Andy | December 8, 2009 at 8:20 pm |

    Related to the fact that the Seahawks pants and shirts weren’t exactly the same color, did anyone notice that the Cardinals shirts and pants weren’t exactly the same color either? Slightly darker and a different fabric maybe….= Perhaps because I’m an artist I notice these things, but either way it was the worst uniform matchup of the week.

  • JimV19 | December 8, 2009 at 9:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”365824″]Yeah, I usually do try to give than benefit of the doubt, but those two comments are hard to justify. Compton is probably the most known majority-black ghetto in the united states, and is almost always used as an example of “thugs”. And unless I just completely overshot it, dogfighting was referring Michael Vick, if it wasn’t please explain, because I don’t really see the point of it without that reference.[/quote]

    Not to put words in Geeman’s mouth, but even if the dogfighting comment was referring to Vick, it was becasue he was actually into dogfighting. The fact that he happens to be black as well shouldn’t qualify the statement as racist. I see where you’re coming from, but I also see where Geeman’s coming from.