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

And They Lost Again Anyway

horns.jpg

As if the Longhorns didn’t have enough problems on the court lately, last night they became the latest college hoops team to wear one Nike’s sublimated rear-jersey designs. If you can’t quite see the details of the design there, that’s okay — Nike helpfully did a media blitz earlier in the day, so these photos were bouncing around all over the web. (Note that the text at the top of the page says Nike is claiming that this uniform is “70 percent lighter” than other uniforms. Now think about that. Seventy percent is, like, a lot. And you know the previous uni was billed as being 30 or 40 percent lighter than its predecessor. I’m assuming we’re now down to a uniform that weighs about half a gram.)

Although the sublimated design is going to get all the attention, this uniform has other details worth mentioning, especially the new insignia font. Not bad on its own terms, but it totally doesn’t work with the block uni numbers. Compare the team’s standard SoD uni and it’s clear which lettering/numbering pairing looks better. They should either go back to block lettering or else change the number font to match the insignia.

Also, see those dots on the sides of the shorts? Someone on the Chris Creamer board who had courtside seats for the game says the dots are actually little holes that “show the color of the spandex underneath.” I guess that’s how you make a uniform that’s 70 percent lighter — shoot it full of holes.

Screen shot 2010-02-08 at 10.26.04 AM.png

Who’s got the ball?: Giants equipment manager and all-around swell guy Joe Skiba recently sent me two boxes of game-used NFL “Duke” footballs. Each one is stamped with “Giants” and most of them also have a handwritten official’s mark.

Joe sent me a dozen of these balls. I’m keeping one for myself and giving one to Phil, which leaves 10 balls to give away to the rest of you. To be eligible to win one of them, send a blank e-mail with your name in the subject line to this address by this Friday, February 12th, 7pm eastern. Only one entry per person (remember, Uni Watch Membership Program enrollees are no longer eligible for bonus entries). I’ll announce the 10 winners next Monday.

Big thanks to Skeebs for generously providing the Dukes!

Attention DIYers: Stephen Andon is a doctoral student in the Communication Dept. at Florida State, and he’d like your help with his dissertation. Here, I’ll let him explain:

I’m writing a dissertation on sports memorabilia in all of its many forms — from game-worn stuff to packaged dirt. Seeing as much of that is out of my price range, the DIY movement has always been intriguing to me. As a result, one chapter of my dissertation will be dedicated to sports fans making/creating their own stuff. I’m interested in e-mailing and/or talking with anybody who’s willing to share their thoughts.

Steve interviewed me yesterday, and I can attest that he’s a sharp fella, so I encourage all you DIYers — or even anyone who just has thoughts to share about the DIY phenomenon, positive or negative — to make contact with him. You can e-mail him here.

By the way, Stephen, your membership card is mailing out today.

krakowski.png

Speaking of which: A handful of other cards are mailing out today (including Dave Rakowski’s vintage Packers helmet treatment, shown at right), but about two dozen of you have been awaiting your cards for several weeks now — and I’m sorry to say you’ll have to wait a bit longer. As I mentioned on the site last week, Scott Turner is in the process of moving to Seattle — he’s going by car and left Brooklyn three days ago. In the run-up to his departure, he wasn’t able to finish all the card designs in the hopper, and it’ll probably be another week or two before he gets settled enough to catch up with everything. He and I both apologize for the delay and thank you in advance for your patience.

Uni Watch News Ticker: Let’s begin with some follow-ups from yesterday. (1) I mentioned that it might be fun to see a colorized version of this photo. Larry Bodnovich took me up on it. So did Steven Wojtowicz, who added a bit of commentary. (2) I asked what the patch on Willie’s jacket was for, and Paul Wiederecht promptly informed me that it was for the 75th anniversary of NYC’s incorporation. “The mets were the only NYC team to wear it, and only on heir jackets,” says Paul. “It shows up mostly in photos from Willie Mays Night and the ’73 Series.” (3) I also asked about the right-sleeve patch that the Red Wings were wearing in this shot (not the V — the other sleeve). Teebz quickly identified it as a war bonds patch. … Super Bowl stat I hadn’t heard until yesterday: The NFC has now won the coin toss 13 straight times! … Here’s something you don’t often see: Dave Stewart as a Phillie (good find by Andy Chalifour). … Sharp observation by Logan Light, who writes: “I know we’ve seen a lot of NBA players do different things with their mouthguards — stick them in their socks, behind their ears, in their headband. But Rajon Rondo spits his mouthguard into his jersey. It stays there because the jersey is tucked in. Then he reaches in and pulls it out when he needs it next (sorry, the angle’s a bit off on that shot). Odd.” … The White Sox are un-retiring Luis Aparacio’s number for newly acquired Omar Vizquel (with thanks to my longtime Chicago buddy Tim Adams). … On man, some tremendous stuff available in this 1938 NHL scrapbook. Be sure to click on the photo and then click through all the other images — amazing stuff (awesome find by Mike Hersh). … A Virginia newspaper accidentally reversed the Super Bowl score in yesterday’s editions. … Here’s a fun little item about Joe McCarthy’s sleeves (with thanks to Mark Sullivan). … Cool article + video on the loading of the Indians’ spring equipment truck here (with thanks to Eric Bunnell). … And here’s a similar article about the White Sox. … Reprinted from yesterday’s comments: Check out these awesome Bears sweatshirts. … Penn State wore throwbacks the other night. For photos, go here and click on the Feb. 6 game. Note that there was no maker’s mark on the shorts. … Douchebaggery alert: Saints LB Scott Fujita kept a Super Bowl diary, in which he revealed that Nike dropped him for spatting over his swoosh (with thanks to Brad Denny). … An Orix Buffaloes player recently committed suicide, and players wore black ribbons at his memorial service. “No word on whether they’ll wear them in the regular season,” says Jeremy Brahm. … Here’s a weird one: a Super Bowl patch album. Of course, the early Super Bowls didn’t feature any jersey patches — and if you look at the photos, you’ll see that the patches from more recent seasons aren’t the same ones that were worn in the games. Were these patches created specifically for this album or what? … Is this a new Minnesota police badge? Nope — it’s the logo of a new soccer team (with thanks to Nathan Haas). … I’m spending today with my Mom, so Phil is minding the store — treat him right. I’ll see you tomorrow.

 

185 comments to And They Lost Again Anyway

  • LI Phil | February 9, 2010 at 8:49 am |

    is it just me, or did anyone happen to see a rather distinctive design element within that rear jersey pattern, reminiscent of something else?

  • Hott Rodd | February 9, 2010 at 8:59 am |

    [quote]Super Bowl stat I hadn’t heard until yesterday: The NFC has now won the coin toss 13 straight times![/quote]

    Also, I believe that White Jerseys have now won 6 straight SBs.

    in other news, i’m grabbing horseshoes, rabbit’s feet, 4 leaf clovers, knocking on wood, whatever I’ve gotta do to try to win this raffle.

  • Philly Al in NoCal | February 9, 2010 at 9:03 am |

    Cool, you can see Charlie Whitman with his rifle in the tower.

  • jesse | February 9, 2010 at 9:10 am |

    in the super bowl patch album, they seem to have nice attention to detail except super bowl 42 (giants-pats), they use the old giants \”giants\” helmet, not the \”NY.\” even stranger since they have it right for the giants-ravens super bowl a few years earlier.

  • Joe Barrie | February 9, 2010 at 9:11 am |

    A doctoral dissertation on sports memorabilia at Florida State, you say?

    Perhaps it is like art appreciation, but I don’t think so.

    What’s next? Perhaps ballparks.

  • FormerDirtDart | February 9, 2010 at 9:13 am |

    I have to wonder if the patches from the “Super Bowl patch album” might have been the genesis for the NFL’s decision to place the Lombardi trophy on all further patches. And, might it also show us how a “reagionalized” look might appear, contrary to the panicked disgust about standardized SB patches.

  • Chris Doran | February 9, 2010 at 9:13 am |

    [quote comment=”376957″]in the super bowl patch album, they seem to have nice attention to detail except super bowl 42 (giants-pats), they use the old giants \”giants\” helmet, not the \”NY.\” even stranger since they have it right for the giants-ravens super bowl a few years earlier.[/quote]

    A friend of mine at work has this exact album. He brought it in, and aside from me saying the patches were not offically worn, I also noted the wrong Giants helmet. It appears the Cards helmet from last year is wrong also.

  • Ry Co 40 | February 9, 2010 at 9:18 am |

    [quote comment=”376954″]is it just me, or did anyone happen to see a rather distinctive design element within that rear jersey pattern, reminiscent of something else?[/quote]

    yeah, but isn’t that the main building on campus? (i honestly don’t know much about the university). it would be like pitt using the cathedral

    http://www.wpic.pitt...

  • Kek | February 9, 2010 at 9:21 am |

    A few random thoughts on today’s post:

    1. I wish M.X. safe travels cross country, and if that’s the membership card he’s going out on before he gets cracking again, wow….just outstanding.

    2. I have that patch collection from Willowbee and Ward. It’s one of those companies you see in the Sunday ads like Franklin Mint, with collectibles. I’m a big Super Bowl history buff (love watching all the old highlight packages each year) and although, yes, the patches and some of the logos are inaccurate, they come on a cardstock of information both front and back regarding the game. They are a great keepsake. And this reminds me that I’ll be getting a new patch soon!

    3. I’m not sure I agree with the corporate douchebaggery claim on Nike with Fujita (a.k.a. a muscular John Krasinski). First of all, the link you provide says he was warned several times. Second, as a paid endorser, I think you have to have more sense than that (just tape your ankles under your sock or wear a brace).

    Put a white bar over your ads and see what kind of reaction you get from your advertisers.

  • Sean | February 9, 2010 at 9:23 am |

    The Rays new powder blue alt was briefly on the MLB Shop page yesterday. This site caught the images.

    Notice that the logo on the front it much larger than the other versions and this is the first Rays jeresy without the fish sleeve patch.

    Tampa Bay Rays Powder Blue Alt]</

  • ScottyM | February 9, 2010 at 9:25 am |

    I disagree wholeheartedly with Paul about the Texas lettering. Sure, the numerals could use a tweak.

    But we should commend Nike for finally putting a little thought into their type treatments … rather than the bland, basic lettering seen on 95% of all Nike-made jerseys.

    All hail Nike for exhibiting a wee bit of EFFORT!

  • LI Phil | February 9, 2010 at 9:25 am |

    [quote comment=”376961″][quote comment=”376954″]is it just me, or did anyone happen to see a rather distinctive design element within that rear jersey pattern, reminiscent of something else?[/quote]

    yeah, but isn’t that the main building on campus? (i honestly don’t know much about the university). it would be like pitt using the cathedral

    http://www.wpic.pitt...

    oh, i know exactly what it is, i just find the ‘imagery’ interesting…

    considering it is some people’s contention (not mine) that nike PURPOSELY avoids any use (where possible) of straight lines in their designs (and prefers, shall we say…swooshy elements)

    to use that particular element (graphic depiction of the main building/tower)…i just thought nike might wish to avoid such imagery…especially THREE *straight* lines

  • Ry Co 40 | February 9, 2010 at 9:29 am |

    [quote comment=”376965″][quote comment=”376961″][quote comment=”376954″]is it just me, or did anyone happen to see a rather distinctive design element within that rear jersey pattern, reminiscent of something else?[/quote]

    yeah, but isn’t that the main building on campus? (i honestly don’t know much about the university). it would be like pitt using the cathedral

    http://www.wpic.pitt...

    oh, i know exactly what it is, i just find the ‘imagery’ interesting…

    considering it is some people’s contention (not mine) that nike PURPOSELY avoids any use (where possible) of straight lines in their designs (and prefers, shall we say…swooshy elements)

    to use that particular element (graphic depiction of the main building/tower)…i just thought nike might wish to avoid such imagery…especially THREE *straight* lines[/quote]

    oh! i totally gotcha now!!! i was wondering where you were going with that. great point though!

  • Kek | February 9, 2010 at 9:30 am |

    [quote comment=”376965″][quote comment=”376961″][quote comment=”376954″]is it just me, or did anyone happen to see a rather distinctive design element within that rear jersey pattern, reminiscent of something else?[/quote]

    yeah, but isn’t that the main building on campus? (i honestly don’t know much about the university). it would be like pitt using the cathedral

    http://www.wpic.pitt...

    oh, i know exactly what it is, i just find the ‘imagery’ interesting…

    considering it is some people’s contention (not mine) that nike PURPOSELY avoids any use (where possible) of straight lines in their designs (and prefers, shall we say…swooshy elements)

    to use that particular element (graphic depiction of the main building/tower)…i just thought nike might wish to avoid such imagery…especially THREE *straight* lines[/quote]
    That would be cool if Pitt incorporated the Cathedral in their unis somehow.

    I’ll work on that, right after I convince them to switch to that pro combat concept for football!

  • leon | February 9, 2010 at 9:31 am |

    [quote comment=”376956″]Cool, you can see Charlie Whitman with his rifle in the tower.[/quote]

    I know it’s just wrong, but this made me laugh.

  • scott | February 9, 2010 at 9:37 am |

    [quote comment=”376964″]I disagree wholeheartedly with Paul about the Texas lettering. Sure, the numerals could use a tweak.

    [/quote]

    I agree. I think the lettering on the new uniforms looks better than it does on the SoD uniforms.

  • Chip | February 9, 2010 at 9:44 am |

    Didn’t players used to draw the logo over top of the tape. Is that no longer allowed?

  • WONG WONG | February 9, 2010 at 9:54 am |

    Regarding the Texas Longhorns “dots”, Nike is also incorporating them into their new National Team football kits for the World Cup:

    http://www.blog.wong...

  • James Hayden | February 9, 2010 at 9:54 am |

    [quote comment=”376956″]Cool, you can see Charlie Whitman with his rifle in the tower.[/quote]

    Some were dying, some were weeping,
    Some were studying, some were sleeping,
    Some were shouting “Texas # 1!”
    Some were running, some were falling,
    Some were screaming, some were bawling,
    Some thought the revolution had begun.

    more here: http://www.mp3lyrics...

  • Bob Loblaw | February 9, 2010 at 9:56 am |

    My best to Momma Luka, Paul! enjoy the day w/ her.

    I was in the first five to jump on J. Skiba’s football offer… hopefully that will translate into a winning kharma!!

    All I can say about that Bruins 1938-’39 scrapbook: Toe Blake!!!!!!! old time hockey.

  • Josh | February 9, 2010 at 10:02 am |

    New changes to Shea Stadium

    http://www.nydailyne...

  • Juke Early | February 9, 2010 at 10:03 am |

    Holy smokes is that great colorization on the Pirates unis. Larry’s with fading built in yet! A+++ work fellas

    Regarding numbers v. font size on new Longhorns hoops unis – you do understand, it’s only a small % of humans, in this case UW readers, who can even perceive that kind of imbalance? And , of course you’re correct.

  • Broadway Connie | February 9, 2010 at 10:05 am |

    [quote comment=”376968″][quote comment=”376956″]Cool, you can see Charlie Whitman with his rifle in the tower.[/quote]

    I know it’s just wrong, but this made me laugh.[/quote]

    Me,too.

  • Ricko | February 9, 2010 at 10:06 am |

    Hey, LarryB…

    Could you colorize a photo of the current White Sox unis for us?

    —Ricko
    (THAT oughta get a good argument started)

  • interlockingtc | February 9, 2010 at 10:09 am |

    Scott Fujita puts tape on his shoes and Nike drops him.

    Couldn’t they have come to some kind of compromise?

    Maybe Mr. Fujita could have written, in Sharpie, “I love Nike!” on the tape. Or…”There is a Nike swoosh under this tape.”

  • concealed78 | February 9, 2010 at 10:10 am |

    [quote comment=”376974″]New changes to Shea Stadium

    http://www.nydailyne...

    Well that sucks. Just can’t give ANYTHING for the pitchers, eh? Maybe some of us like low scoring pitching duels.

  • Len Frazer | February 9, 2010 at 10:24 am |

    Whatever happened with the NFL tweaks contest??

  • Ryan | February 9, 2010 at 10:24 am |

    Also, note the inconsistencies in facemask changes over time. For XII, they changed from the old 2-bar mask to a late ’70’s Bradshaw-esque look. Then for XX, they change to a more modern version of a RB/QB mask….until XXIII, when the Bengals and Niners apparently went retro w/ the Bradshaw look. Then back to modern…until XXX, when the Steelers took the time machine back to the late 70’s. Of course, everyone recalls how the Giants went with their retro logo in XLII, right?
    Also, as has been mentioned, these patches aren’t the ones that were worn in SB’s…even the latter SB’s. For instance, the Giants’ patch from XLII is completely without the ‘minivan door’ a/k/a Arizona outline in the backdrop.

  • bourbon soaked idiot | February 9, 2010 at 10:24 am |

    [quote comment=”376978″]Scott Fujita puts tape on his shoes and Nike drops him.

    Couldn’t they have come to some kind of compromise?

    Maybe Mr. Fujita could have written, in Sharpie, “I love Nike!” on the tape. Or…”There is a Nike swoosh under this tape.”[/quote]

    What compromise? Fujita was paid to display the Nike swoosh while he played. He didn’t do that so he’s the one who broke the agreement. If he was going to spat his shoes, he shouldn’t have signed on with Nike.

  • Ryan | February 9, 2010 at 10:25 am |

    #28 = Quote Fail. Whoops.

  • Hott Rodd | February 9, 2010 at 10:30 am |

    Meanwhile, an average of 1.60 homers per game were hit at Citi Field last season, more than at five other NL ballparks – San Diego (1.59), San Francisco (1.59), Los Angeles (1.57), Atlanta (1.52) and St. Louis (1.48). And visiting teams actually hit two more homers at Citi Field last season than they did at Shea Stadium in ’08.

    Ummm.. You still play 81 games a season at home right? That didn’t change last year?

    Those stats sound like a talent problem, not so much a stadium problem.

  • Hott Rodd | February 9, 2010 at 10:30 am |

    damn. html fail.

  • The Jeff | February 9, 2010 at 10:32 am |

    [quote comment=”376977″]Hey, LarryB…

    Could you colorize a photo of the current White Sox unis for us?

    —Ricko
    (THAT oughta get a good argument started)[/quote]

    Yeah, because if there’s anything baseball needs it’s another team wearing a combination of blue and red.

  • Ricko | February 9, 2010 at 10:42 am |

    [quote comment=”376986″][quote comment=”376977″]Hey, LarryB…

    Could you colorize a photo of the current White Sox unis for us?

    —Ricko
    (THAT oughta get a good argument started)[/quote]

    Yeah, because if there’s anything baseball needs it’s another team wearing a combination of blue and red.[/quote]

    White Sox wear black.
    (I know, I know…you knew that. I’m just seeing what it feels like to be nit picker. Not aimed at you, The Jeff, just a generic experience.)

  • Markus Kamp | February 9, 2010 at 10:45 am |

    In the sixth photo from that (GREAT!) ’38-’39 NHL scrapbook, Turk Broda and Gordon Drillon both have red lettering on their Maple Leafs logos. Anyone know if that color every actually appeared on the Leafs logo? Or is it just a function of sloppy colorization of the photos?

  • concealed78 | February 9, 2010 at 10:47 am |

    [quote comment=”376986″][quote comment=”376977″]Hey, LarryB…

    Could you colorize a photo of the current White Sox unis for us?

    —Ricko
    (THAT oughta get a good argument started)[/quote]

    Yeah, because if there’s anything baseball needs it’s another team wearing a combination of blue and red.[/quote]

    And what’s wrong with blue & red? I wish the White Sox would go back to navy & red. So sick of the black, it makes such boring gear. The real problem in MLB is maroon, kelly & brown being completely ignored while other colors like orange, royal, Athletic Gold, forest green and until recently powder blue barely being used at all. But there’s also the fact that there’s only so many color schemes out there. Tampa could had been maroon & Athletic Gold, but instead choose to be Yankees wannabes. I don’t know why Houston is brick, coal & sand, or San Diego is navy & sand, or the White Sox in black & silver, or the Brewers in dark blue & gold. A few tweeks and it wouldn’t be so bad.

  • Big Matt | February 9, 2010 at 10:59 am |

    [quote comment=”376962″]A few random thoughts on today’s post:

    3. I’m not sure I agree with the corporate douchebaggery claim on Nike with Fujita (a.k.a. a muscular John Krasinski). First of all, the link you provide says he was warned several times. Second, as a paid endorser, I think you have to have more sense than that (just tape your ankles under your sock or wear a brace).

    Put a white bar over your ads and see what kind of reaction you get from your advertisers.[/quote]

    I think everyone needs to re-read this comment. Put aside your blind hatred of NIKE and just think about it. Kek is 100% correct.

  • Jordan Sogn | February 9, 2010 at 11:00 am |

    1. I totally dig the sublimated designs on the back of the Nike unis but, I think it looks better if it’s the whole back of the jersey (Duke, Sparty, etc.) & not rounded off like Texas’ last night.
    2. The new shorts looked “saturated” or gray to me on tv.

  • JTH | February 9, 2010 at 11:00 am |

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Hardly a day goes by here that I don’t learn something (aside from the obvious uni-related stuff).

    I had no idea until that Staten Island was once known officially as Borough of Richmond.

  • pk | February 9, 2010 at 11:09 am |

    [quote comment=”376990″][quote comment=”376962″]A few random thoughts on today’s post:

    3. I’m not sure I agree with the corporate douchebaggery claim on Nike with Fujita (a.k.a. a muscular John Krasinski). First of all, the link you provide says he was warned several times. Second, as a paid endorser, I think you have to have more sense than that (just tape your ankles under your sock or wear a brace).

    Put a white bar over your ads and see what kind of reaction you get from your advertisers.[/quote]

    I think everyone needs to re-read this comment. Put aside your blind hatred of NIKE and just think about it. Kek is 100% correct.[/quote]

    There’s a huge difference, though KEK is correct, Paul also chooses his advertisers. It wasn’t too long ago Paul dropped one (I won’t name them) because they had offensive products.

    Being branded by Nike is not a choice…so I would have done them same, just a piece of tape.

  • chance michaels | February 9, 2010 at 11:11 am |

    [quote comment=”376992″]I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Hardly a day goes by here that I don’t learn something (aside from the obvious uni-related stuff).

    I had no idea until that Staten Island was once known officially as Borough of Richmond.[/quote]
    The name lives on – Staten Island is still Richmond County.

  • LI Phil | February 9, 2010 at 11:14 am |

    [quote comment=”376992″]I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Hardly a day goes by here that I don’t learn something (aside from the obvious uni-related stuff).

    I had no idea until that Staten Island was once known officially as Borough of Richmond.[/quote]

    it still is, although it’s actually a “county” in legal parlance

    three of the 5 ‘boros’ are different counties than what we “know” them as: bronx is bronx county and queens is queens county, but staten island is richmond county, manhattan is new york county and paul’s home boro of brooklyn is kings county

  • Matt B | February 9, 2010 at 11:14 am |

    Well that sucks. Just can’t give ANYTHING for the pitchers, eh? Maybe some of us like low scoring pitching duels.

    Doesn’t hurt the pitchers, to first order. What were doubles are now homers. They’re still not outs.

  • Adam | February 9, 2010 at 11:15 am |

    RE: Penn State throwbacks

    Note the navy keystone on the side of the shorts.

  • Nick | February 9, 2010 at 11:18 am |

    UNRETIRED NUMBERS ….. (Cont’d)

    What other numbers have been un-retired?

    Off the top of my head:

    • When Jerry Rice was briefly with the Seahawks, he got Steve Largent’s permission to wear No. 80.

    • Didn’t the White Sox retire Hal Baines’s number after his first stint with the team and then end up un-retiring it when he came back for a second tour of duty?

    • MLB, No. 42, every April 15th.

    I’m sure there are others….

    __________________

    The Saints Doug Atkins’ #81 was retired by the Saints for many years, then un-retired for use by pretty-much no-name WR’s in the early 1990’s prior to the NFL allowing #’s 10-19 to be used by WR’s – as the Saints had run out of numbers in the 80’s at that time.

    I believe that other teams had similar situations at that time.

  • JTH | February 9, 2010 at 11:21 am |

    [quote comment=”376995″][quote comment=”376992″]I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Hardly a day goes by here that I don’t learn something (aside from the obvious uni-related stuff).

    I had no idea until that Staten Island was once known officially as Borough of Richmond.[/quote]

    it still is, although it’s actually a “county” in legal parlance

    three of the 5 ‘boros’ are different counties than what we “know” them as: bronx is bronx county and queens is queens county, but staten island is richmond county, manhattan is new york county and paul’s home boro of brooklyn is kings county[/quote]
    Yeah. I knew all that. I just didn’t know that SI’s official designation was “Borough of Richmond” until 1975 until I saw that graphic and looked it up.

  • JTH | February 9, 2010 at 11:23 am |

    Well, this was poorly worded:

    “…until 1975 until I saw that graphic …”

    Better?

    “Until I saw that graphic and looked it up, I just didn’t know that SI’s official designation was “Borough of Richmond” up through 1975.”

  • Stoops | February 9, 2010 at 11:23 am |

    Larry B-
    nice job on coloring that photo!
    hope the stickers worked out!

    here is some of my art work!
    take a look uni watch people.

    http://www.paintings...

    -Stoops

  • concealed78 | February 9, 2010 at 11:24 am |

    [quote comment=”376996″]Well that sucks. Just can’t give ANYTHING for the pitchers, eh? Maybe some of us like low scoring pitching duels.

    Doesn’t hurt the pitchers, to first order. What were doubles are now homers. They’re still not outs.[/quote]

    I know. But there’s always the psychological aspect to hitters that “oh now this park is a bit easier to jack it out of the park”. It’s frustrating and annoying to see batters fail inning after inning trying to break a tie game with a rare homer instead of manufacturing runs on the bases. But still I’d rather see that ball restricted to a double than a homer.

  • JTH | February 9, 2010 at 11:34 am |

    [quote comment=”377002″][quote comment=”376996″]Well that sucks. Just can’t give ANYTHING for the pitchers, eh? Maybe some of us like low scoring pitching duels.

    Doesn’t hurt the pitchers, to first order. What were doubles are now homers. They’re still not outs.[/quote]

    I know. But there’s always the psychological aspect to hitters that “oh now this park is a bit easier to jack it out of the park”. It’s frustrating and annoying to see batters fail inning after inning trying to break a tie game with a rare homer instead of manufacturing runs on the bases. But still I’d rather see that ball restricted to a double than a homer.[/quote]
    There’s always the possibility of turning that double into an out. With the fence lowered maybe an outfielder can catch a potential home run ball rather than just conceding the double and playing it off the wall.

  • Kek | February 9, 2010 at 11:40 am |

    [quote comment=”376993″][quote comment=”376990″][quote comment=”376962″]A few random thoughts on today’s post:

    3. I’m not sure I agree with the corporate douchebaggery claim on Nike with Fujita (a.k.a. a muscular John Krasinski). First of all, the link you provide says he was warned several times. Second, as a paid endorser, I think you have to have more sense than that (just tape your ankles under your sock or wear a brace).

    Put a white bar over your ads and see what kind of reaction you get from your advertisers.[/quote]

    I think everyone needs to re-read this comment. Put aside your blind hatred of NIKE and just think about it. Kek is 100% correct.[/quote]

    There’s a huge difference, though KEK is correct, Paul also chooses his advertisers. It wasn’t too long ago Paul dropped one (I won’t name them) because they had offensive products.

    Being branded by Nike is not a choice…so I would have done them same, just a piece of tape.[/quote]
    Are you saying the player has no choice of what shoe they go with? That’s news to me.

  • The Jeff | February 9, 2010 at 11:45 am |

    [quote comment=”376989″][quote comment=”376986″][quote comment=”376977″]Hey, LarryB…

    Could you colorize a photo of the current White Sox unis for us?

    —Ricko
    (THAT oughta get a good argument started)[/quote]

    Yeah, because if there’s anything baseball needs it’s another team wearing a combination of blue and red.[/quote]

    And what’s wrong with blue & red? I wish the White Sox would go back to navy & red. So sick of the black, it makes such boring gear. The real problem in MLB is maroon, kelly & brown being completely ignored while other colors like orange, royal, Athletic Gold, forest green and until recently powder blue barely being used at all. But there’s also the fact that there’s only so many color schemes out there. Tampa could had been maroon & Athletic Gold, but instead choose to be Yankees wannabes. I don’t know why Houston is brick, coal & sand, or San Diego is navy & sand, or the White Sox in black & silver, or the Brewers in dark blue & gold. A few tweeks and it wouldn’t be so bad.[/quote]

    Well, Ricko wanted to start an argument…

    What’s wrong with blue & red? Half the league wears blue hats. That’s what’s wrong with putting another team in one.

    You said yourself that there’s too many underused colors.

  • Hott Rodd | February 9, 2010 at 11:45 am |

    [quote comment=”377003″][quote comment=”377002″][quote comment=”376996″]Well that sucks. Just can’t give ANYTHING for the pitchers, eh? Maybe some of us like low scoring pitching duels.

    Doesn’t hurt the pitchers, to first order. What were doubles are now homers. They’re still not outs.[/quote]

    I know. But there’s always the psychological aspect to hitters that “oh now this park is a bit easier to jack it out of the park”. It’s frustrating and annoying to see batters fail inning after inning trying to break a tie game with a rare homer instead of manufacturing runs on the bases. But still I’d rather see that ball restricted to a double than a homer.[/quote]
    There’s always the possibility of turning that double into an out. With the fence lowered maybe an outfielder can catch a potential home run ball rather than just conceding the double and playing it off the wall.[/quote]

    Well considering that their All-Star Slugger and Face of the Franchise hit just 10 HR last year, they should probably concentrate on playing small ball regardless.

  • The Jeff | February 9, 2010 at 11:47 am |

    [quote comment=”376993″]

    Being branded by Nike is not a choice…[/quote]

    *blink*

    What?

  • LI Phil | February 9, 2010 at 11:49 am |

    [quote comment=”377004″][quote comment=”376993″]

    Being branded by Nike is not a choice…so I would have done them same, just a piece of tape.[/quote]
    Are you saying the player has no choice of what shoe they go with? That’s news to me.[/quote]

    wait…what? (to pk’s comment)

    i bust on nike when they deserve it, but they totally do NOT deserve a douchebag label here

    player was warned…player repeated said violation…player gets dropped

    player now free to wear some other shoe brand, but why should nike PAY HIM to wear their shoe if he’s not going to show their logo?

    player=SOL
    nike=not douchebags here

  • Dante | February 9, 2010 at 11:52 am |

    Completely agree with Kek. The only person at fault in the dropping of Fujita, is Fujita himself. Nike is known to write the No Spat stipulation in their contracts and agreements. If you can’t agree with this, then don’t sign on with them. Odds are, he wasn’t paying for his shoes, they were being provided to him. If you’re willing to violate a contract, you should be willing to be penalized.

    To claim “corporate douchebaggery” is asinine. Let’s turn off the blinders for a second and call it what it really is… a business move.

  • Mike D | February 9, 2010 at 11:54 am |

    I took this pic with my cell phone at a local restaurant called Friendly’s. It’s there 1957 baseball team.

    http://i142.photobuc...

  • Hott Rodd | February 9, 2010 at 11:56 am |

    [quote comment=”377008″][quote comment=”377004″][quote comment=”376993″]

    Being branded by Nike is not a choice…so I would have done them same, just a piece of tape.[/quote]
    Are you saying the player has no choice of what shoe they go with? That’s news to me.[/quote]

    wait…what? (to pk’s comment)

    i bust on nike when they deserve it, but they totally do NOT deserve a douchebag label here

    player was warned…player repeated said violation…player gets dropped

    player now free to wear some other shoe brand, but why should nike PAY HIM to wear their shoe if he’s not going to show their logo?

    player=SOL
    nike=not douchebags here[/quote]

    Wait! It just says douchebaggery alert! maybe Paul was referring to Fujita for breaching the contract. yeah that’s it. no? no?

    Hey does anyone know what that green dot is on the back of Kyle Boller’s helmet?

  • Kek | February 9, 2010 at 11:57 am |

    color-on-color in progress with a rare 11:05AM start time in the ECHL. Johnstown at Wheeling. The Nailers, a Pens’ affiliate, are in powder blue while the Chiefs have on their black sweaters.

  • Josh | February 9, 2010 at 11:58 am |
  • Hott Rodd | February 9, 2010 at 12:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”377013″]color-on-color in progress with a rare 11:05AM start time in the ECHL. Johnstown at Wheeling. The Nailers, a Pens’ affiliate, are in powder blue while the Chiefs have on their black sweaters.[/quote]

    Those jerseys are blue on my copy… damn digitally remastered dvds.

  • scott | February 9, 2010 at 12:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”377011″]I took this pic with my cell phone at a local restaurant called Friendly’s. It’s there 1957 baseball team.

    http://i142.photobuc...

    Isn’t Friendly’s a chain of restaurants?

  • Mike D | February 9, 2010 at 12:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”377016″][quote comment=”377011″]I took this pic with my cell phone at a local restaurant called Friendly’s. It’s there 1957 baseball team.

    http://i142.photobuc...

    Isn’t Friendly’s a chain of restaurants?[/quote]

    Yea, I believe they only have restaurants in the northeast, maybe only New England.

  • JTH | February 9, 2010 at 12:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”377017″][quote comment=”377016″][quote comment=”377011″]I took this pic with my cell phone at a local restaurant called Friendly’s. It’s there 1957 baseball team.

    http://i142.photobuc...

    Isn’t Friendly’s a chain of restaurants?[/quote]

    Yea, I believe they only have restaurants in the northeast, maybe only New England.[/quote]
    And I often wonder why they haven’t gone nationwide yet.

  • Kek | February 9, 2010 at 12:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”377015″][quote comment=”377013″]color-on-color in progress with a rare 11:05AM start time in the ECHL. Johnstown at Wheeling. The Nailers, a Pens’ affiliate, are in powder blue while the Chiefs have on their black sweaters.[/quote]

    Those jerseys are blue on my copy… damn digitally remastered dvds.[/quote]
    at least you’ve finally watched the movie!

  • Jet | February 9, 2010 at 12:17 pm |

    some sweet-lookin’ hose on that Friendly’s team!!

  • pk | February 9, 2010 at 12:17 pm |

    AHL is playing an outdoor game:

    http://www.syracusec...

  • LI Phil | February 9, 2010 at 12:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”377018″]
    And I often wonder why they haven’t gone nationwide yet.[/quote]

    mind like a steel trap, that one has

  • Bob Loblaw | February 9, 2010 at 12:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”377018″][quote comment=”377017″][quote comment=”377016″][quote comment=”377011″]I took this pic with my cell phone at a local restaurant called Friendly’s. It’s there 1957 baseball team.

    http://i142.photobuc...

    Isn’t Friendly’s a chain of restaurants?[/quote]

    Yea, I believe they only have restaurants in the northeast, maybe only New England.[/quote]
    And I often wonder why they haven’t gone nationwide yet.[/quote]

    And free, to boot~! You can’t beat that. (groan: sorry, that was unintentional).

    Still, how can they get away w/ giving that away??? unless it ‘s part of a bundled service?

  • Teebz | February 9, 2010 at 12:30 pm |

    For any historians out there, today marks the day that the NHL doubled the number of teams it had playing in 1966. The “Next Six” joined the Original Six in their own division – the West Division – as the NHL looked to expand west to gain more television money and to try to topple a rival league that was beginning to take shape.

    The six new NHL teams were:
    —The California Seals (later the Golden Seals).
    —The Los Angeles Kings.
    —The Minnesota North Stars.
    —The Philadelphia Flyers.
    —The Pittsburgh Penguins.
    —The St. Louis Blues.

  • Schmeltzer | February 9, 2010 at 12:33 pm |

    O.M.God. As a high school football official, I want one of those Giants footballs with the officials mark so freaking bad.

    Thanks again, Skiba.

  • Giancarlo | February 9, 2010 at 12:40 pm |

    [quote comment=”377024″]For any historians out there, today marks the day that the NHL doubled the number of teams it had playing in 1966. The “Next Six” joined the Original Six in their own division – the West Division – as the NHL looked to expand west to gain more television money and to try to topple a rival league that was beginning to take shape.
    [/quote]
    Which was a uni revolution, as the NHL had been strictly primary-colored for decades and these teams introduced secondary colors: Green (Seals & North Stars); Purple (Kings); and Orange (Flyers)… with Baby Blue (Penguins) as a bonus.

  • Hott Rodd | February 9, 2010 at 12:46 pm |

    I think the raffle should be kept to just those of us that responded to Skeebz’s original post.
    yeah, that’s the ticket.

    heh, just kidding, well not really, but yeah.

    :-D

  • Teebz | February 9, 2010 at 12:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”377027″]I think the raffle should be kept to just those of us that responded to Skeebz’s original post.
    yeah, that’s the ticket.

    heh, just kidding, well not really, but yeah.

    :-D[/quote]

    Skeebz and Teebz. We got football and hockey covered.

    Sounds like a pretty good promo for a radio show. Anyone needing a sports-themed show hosted by one professional and one goofball? LOL

  • Steve May | February 9, 2010 at 12:59 pm |

    My favourite un-retired number story.

    The CFL’s BC Lions retired Joe Kapp’s #22 (yes – he wore 22 up here) after he moved on to the Vikings.

    In the early 90’s he became the General Manager of the Lions, and signed Doug Flutie. He unretired his own number to give it to Flutie.

    Problem was – he was such a lousy GM, and left on such bad terms, that the Lions never bothered to “re-retire” his number, after his firing – so RB Jon Volpe got it for a few years.

    The Lions eventually “re-retired” 22 – but it was interesting.

  • Kek | February 9, 2010 at 1:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”377024″]For any historians out there, today marks the day that the NHL doubled the number of teams it had playing in 1966. The “Next Six” joined the Original Six in their own division – the West Division – as the NHL looked to expand west to gain more television money and to try to topple a rival league that was beginning to take shape.

    The six new NHL teams were:
    —The California Seals (later the Golden Seals).
    —The Los Angeles Kings.
    —The Minnesota North Stars.
    —The Philadelphia Flyers.
    —The Pittsburgh Penguins.
    —The St. Louis Blues.[/quote]
    Class of ’67 baby! I have the hat they sold a few years ago to commemorate this.

    It looks like this http://www.cupstuff.... but obviously says ’67 and has the six logos of the teams that came in that year

  • Johnny O | February 9, 2010 at 1:10 pm |

    Tee Milwaukee Brewers have just unveiled a list of their promotions this year:

    http://milwaukee.bre...

    Highlights include:

    – Bernie Brewer bobble
    – 1970’s retro pennant featuring the Barrel Man Logo
    – Negro League tribute: As part of the Brewers/New York Mets game, the Brewers will wear reproductions of uniforms worn by the Milwaukee Bears, the city’s 1923 representative in the Negro National League. (Will the Mets get in on this? I hope so)
    – Cerveceros day
    – Italian sausage bobble
    – Miller Lite Beer Vendor bobble

  • Ry Co 40 | February 9, 2010 at 1:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”377028″][quote comment=”377027″]I think the raffle should be kept to just those of us that responded to Skeebz’s original post.
    yeah, that’s the ticket.

    heh, just kidding, well not really, but yeah.

    :-D[/quote]

    Skeebz and Teebz. We got football and hockey covered.

    Sounds like a pretty good promo for a radio show. Anyone needing a sports-themed show hosted by one professional and one goofball? LOL[/quote]

    you callin’ skeebz a goofball?!?! haha. kidding, of course!

  • leon | February 9, 2010 at 1:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”377031″]Tee Milwaukee Brewers have just unveiled a list of their promotions this year:

    http://milwaukee.bre...

    Highlights include:

    – Bernie Brewer bobble
    – 1970’s retro pennant featuring the Barrel Man Logo
    – Negro League tribute: As part of the Brewers/New York Mets game, the Brewers will wear reproductions of uniforms worn by the Milwaukee Bears, the city’s 1923 representative in the Negro National League. (Will the Mets get in on this? I hope so)
    – Cerveceros day
    – Italian sausage bobble
    – Miller Lite Beer Vendor bobble[/quote]
    Nothing for Laverne and Shirley?

  • Kek | February 9, 2010 at 1:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”377029″]My favourite un-retired number story.

    The CFL’s BC Lions retired Joe Kapp’s #22 (yes – he wore 22 up here) after he moved on to the Vikings.

    In the early 90’s he became the General Manager of the Lions, and signed Doug Flutie. He unretired his own number to give it to Flutie.

    Problem was – he was such a lousy GM, and left on such bad terms, that the Lions never bothered to “re-retire” his number, after his firing – so RB Jon Volpe got it for a few years.

    The Lions eventually “re-retired” 22 – but it was interesting.[/quote]
    More BC stuff, Geroy Simon sported a #30 Jim Young in pregame before the game when he broke one of Young’s franchis records.

    I know, not the same thing, but still, it was a cool moment.

  • JimV19 | February 9, 2010 at 1:19 pm |

    Stephen Andon said:
    “I’m writing a dissertation on sports memorabilia in all of its many forms — from game-worn stuff to packaged dirt.”

    Funny, I actually have some packaged dirt. My cousin took a field trip to Three Rivers Stadium back in the mid 70s and he scooped up some of the warning track for me.

  • Michael Kinney | February 9, 2010 at 1:26 pm |

    Apparently Kentucky is getting the same kind of uniform for the Feb 13th game as well.

    pictures can be found on the Rupp Rafters message board on Catspause.com

  • Bob Loblaw | February 9, 2010 at 1:26 pm |

    Man…..

    what I’d do for a Italian Sausage bobble from Miller Field!!!! :)

  • LarryB | February 9, 2010 at 1:29 pm |

    Thanks for the kind words about the colorization.

    That was a fun one to do.I grew up a Pirate fan so as a kid I knew a lot of the older names of past Pirate greats.

  • ken | February 9, 2010 at 1:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”376998″]UNRETIRED NUMBERS ….. (Cont’d)

    What other numbers have been un-retired?

    Off the top of my head:

    • When Jerry Rice was briefly with the Seahawks, he got Steve Largent’s permission to wear No. 80.

    • Didn’t the White Sox retire Hal Baines’s number after his first stint with the team and then end up un-retiring it when he came back for a second tour of duty?

    • MLB, No. 42, every April 15th.

    I’m sure there are others….

    __________________

    The Saints Doug Atkins’ #81 was retired by the Saints for many years, then un-retired for use by pretty-much no-name WR’s in the early 1990’s prior to the NFL allowing #’s 10-19 to be used by WR’s – as the Saints had run out of numbers in the 80’s at that time.

    I believe that other teams had similar situations at that time.[/quote]

    When Mario Lemieux (Pittsburgh Penguins) came out of retirement they made a big deal about taking his jersey down from the rafters.

  • concealed78 | February 9, 2010 at 1:31 pm |

    [quote comment=”377005″][quote comment=”376989″][quote comment=”376986″][quote comment=”376977″]Hey, LarryB…

    Could you colorize a photo of the current White Sox unis for us?

    —Ricko
    (THAT oughta get a good argument started)[/quote]

    Yeah, because if there’s anything baseball needs it’s another team wearing a combination of blue and red.[/quote]

    And what’s wrong with blue & red? I wish the White Sox would go back to navy & red. So sick of the black, it makes such boring gear. The real problem in MLB is maroon, kelly & brown being completely ignored while other colors like orange, royal, Athletic Gold, forest green and until recently powder blue barely being used at all. But there’s also the fact that there’s only so many color schemes out there. Tampa could had been maroon & Athletic Gold, but instead choose to be Yankees wannabes. I don’t know why Houston is brick, coal & sand, or San Diego is navy & sand, or the White Sox in black & silver, or the Brewers in dark blue & gold. A few tweeks and it wouldn’t be so bad.[/quote]

    Well, Ricko wanted to start an argument…

    What’s wrong with blue & red? Half the league wears blue hats. That’s what’s wrong with putting another team in one.

    You said yourself that there’s too many underused colors.[/quote]

    Yeah there may be too many red & blue teams, but I wouldn’t mind my team being in those colors again. What teams would you nominate to get rid of the red &/or blue?

    Navy & red: Red Sox, Twins, Indians, Braves, Nationals road, Cardinals road
    Navy & orange: Tigers road
    Navy & gold/sand: Brewers, Padres
    Navy & Northwest green: Mariners
    Navy & powder blue: Rays
    Navy: Yankees, Tigers home
    Red & navy: Angels, Nationals home, Cardinals home
    Red & royal: Phillies
    Red & black: Reds
    Royal & red: Rangers, Dodgers, Cubs
    Royal & gold: Royals
    Forest green: A’s
    Black & etc: Orioles, White Sox, Pirates, Giants, Mets, Marlins, Astros, D-Backs, Rockies, Blue Jays

    The problem is you got 12 teams in navy & 10 in black which is too much darkness. There’s at least 5 teams in black that should change to an obvious different color scheme.

  • Mike Engle | February 9, 2010 at 1:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”377039″][quote comment=”376998″]UNRETIRED NUMBERS ….. (Cont’d)

    What other numbers have been un-retired?

    Off the top of my head:

    • When Jerry Rice was briefly with the Seahawks, he got Steve Largent’s permission to wear No. 80.

    • Didn’t the White Sox retire Hal Baines’s number after his first stint with the team and then end up un-retiring it when he came back for a second tour of duty?

    • MLB, No. 42, every April 15th.

    I’m sure there are others….

    __________________

    The Saints Doug Atkins’ #81 was retired by the Saints for many years, then un-retired for use by pretty-much no-name WR’s in the early 1990’s prior to the NFL allowing #’s 10-19 to be used by WR’s – as the Saints had run out of numbers in the 80’s at that time.

    I believe that other teams had similar situations at that time.[/quote]

    When Mario Lemieux (Pittsburgh Penguins) came out of retirement they made a big deal about taking his jersey down from the rafters.[/quote]
    Are we considering unofficially retired numbers as well? If so…
    The Vancouver Canucks have mothballed #11 for Wayne Maki after his passing, only to reappear for Mark Messier.
    Tradition-unaware Steve Spurrier allowed some numbers to come back. Danny Wuerffel and Shane Matthews briefly wore #7 and 9; both quickly switched to 17 and 6, respectively. I think #49 actually saw regular season action, under honoree Bobby Mitchell’s watch. (And a quick Wikipedia search suggests Sam Huff’s #70 came back for Leonard Marshall.)
    I always thought the Saints retired #51 for Sam Mills. Apparently not, because of Jonathan Vilma.
    And of course, the Mets #24. Not worn after Willie Mays, except for Kelvin Torver (until the equipment manager was cured from his brain cramp) and for the slightly more notable Rickey Henderson.

  • Flip | February 9, 2010 at 1:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”377040″][quote comment=”377005″][quote comment=”376989″][quote comment=”376986″][quote comment=”376977″]Hey, LarryB…

    Could you colorize a photo of the current White Sox unis for us?

    —Ricko
    (THAT oughta get a good argument started)[/quote]

    Yeah, because if there’s anything baseball needs it’s another team wearing a combination of blue and red.[/quote]

    And what’s wrong with blue & red? I wish the White Sox would go back to navy & red. So sick of the black, it makes such boring gear. The real problem in MLB is maroon, kelly & brown being completely ignored while other colors like orange, royal, Athletic Gold, forest green and until recently powder blue barely being used at all. But there’s also the fact that there’s only so many color schemes out there. Tampa could had been maroon & Athletic Gold, but instead choose to be Yankees wannabes. I don’t know why Houston is brick, coal & sand, or San Diego is navy & sand, or the White Sox in black & silver, or the Brewers in dark blue & gold. A few tweeks and it wouldn’t be so bad.[/quote]

    Well, Ricko wanted to start an argument…

    What’s wrong with blue & red? Half the league wears blue hats. That’s what’s wrong with putting another team in one.

    You said yourself that there’s too many underused colors.[/quote]

    Yeah there may be too many red & blue teams, but I wouldn’t mind my team being in those colors again. What teams would you nominate to get rid of the red &/or blue?

    Navy & red: Red Sox, Twins, Indians, Braves, Nationals road, Cardinals road
    Navy & orange: Tigers road
    Navy & gold/sand: Brewers, Padres
    Navy & Northwest green: Mariners
    Navy & powder blue: Rays
    Navy: Yankees, Tigers home
    Red & navy: Angels, Nationals home, Cardinals home
    Red & royal: Phillies
    Red & black: Reds
    Royal & red: Rangers, Dodgers, Cubs
    Royal & gold: Royals
    Forest green: A’s
    Black & etc: Orioles, White Sox, Pirates, Giants, Mets, Marlins, Astros, D-Backs, Rockies, Blue Jays

    The problem is you got 12 teams in navy & 10 in black which is too much darkness. There’s at least 5 teams in black that should change to an obvious different color scheme.[/quote]

    I’d nominate the Astros going back to predominantly orange (with navy). And bring back the H on the Star caps.

  • Ry Co 40 | February 9, 2010 at 1:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”377039″][quote comment=”376998″]UNRETIRED NUMBERS ….. (Cont’d)

    What other numbers have been un-retired?

    Off the top of my head:

    • When Jerry Rice was briefly with the Seahawks, he got Steve Largent’s permission to wear No. 80.

    • Didn’t the White Sox retire Hal Baines’s number after his first stint with the team and then end up un-retiring it when he came back for a second tour of duty?

    • MLB, No. 42, every April 15th.

    I’m sure there are others….

    __________________

    The Saints Doug Atkins’ #81 was retired by the Saints for many years, then un-retired for use by pretty-much no-name WR’s in the early 1990’s prior to the NFL allowing #’s 10-19 to be used by WR’s – as the Saints had run out of numbers in the 80’s at that time.

    I believe that other teams had similar situations at that time.[/quote]

    When Mario Lemieux (Pittsburgh Penguins) came out of retirement they made a big deal about taking his jersey down from the rafters.[/quote]

    lol. who made a big deal?

  • mike 2 | February 9, 2010 at 1:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”377044″][quote comment=”377039″][quote comment=”376998″]UNRETIRED NUMBERS ….. (Cont’d)

    What other numbers have been un-retired?

    Off the top of my head:

    • When Jerry Rice was briefly with the Seahawks, he got Steve Largent’s permission to wear No. 80.

    • Didn’t the White Sox retire Hal Baines’s number after his first stint with the team and then end up un-retiring it when he came back for a second tour of duty?

    • MLB, No. 42, every April 15th.

    I’m sure there are others….

    __________________

    The Saints Doug Atkins’ #81 was retired by the Saints for many years, then un-retired for use by pretty-much no-name WR’s in the early 1990’s prior to the NFL allowing #’s 10-19 to be used by WR’s – as the Saints had run out of numbers in the 80’s at that time.

    I believe that other teams had similar situations at that time.[/quote]

    When Mario Lemieux (Pittsburgh Penguins) came out of retirement they made a big deal about taking his jersey down from the rafters.[/quote]

    lol. who made a big deal?[/quote]

    The Penguins did. I even remember them having a ceremony where they lowered the retired number from the arena roof.

  • Mike Engle | February 9, 2010 at 1:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”377043″][quote comment=”377040″][quote comment=”377005″][quote comment=”376989″][quote comment=”376986″][quote comment=”376977″]Hey, LarryB…

    Could you colorize a photo of the current White Sox unis for us?

    —Ricko
    (THAT oughta get a good argument started)[/quote]

    Yeah, because if there’s anything baseball needs it’s another team wearing a combination of blue and red.[/quote]

    And what’s wrong with blue & red? I wish the White Sox would go back to navy & red. So sick of the black, it makes such boring gear. The real problem in MLB is maroon, kelly & brown being completely ignored while other colors like orange, royal, Athletic Gold, forest green and until recently powder blue barely being used at all. But there’s also the fact that there’s only so many color schemes out there. Tampa could had been maroon & Athletic Gold, but instead choose to be Yankees wannabes. I don’t know why Houston is brick, coal & sand, or San Diego is navy & sand, or the White Sox in black & silver, or the Brewers in dark blue & gold. A few tweeks and it wouldn’t be so bad.[/quote]

    Well, Ricko wanted to start an argument…

    What’s wrong with blue & red? Half the league wears blue hats. That’s what’s wrong with putting another team in one.

    You said yourself that there’s too many underused colors.[/quote]

    Yeah there may be too many red & blue teams, but I wouldn’t mind my team being in those colors again. What teams would you nominate to get rid of the red &/or blue?

    Navy & red: Red Sox, Twins, Indians, Braves, Nationals road, Cardinals road
    Navy & orange: Tigers road
    Navy & gold/sand: Brewers, Padres
    Navy & Northwest green: Mariners
    Navy & powder blue: Rays
    Navy: Yankees, Tigers home
    Red & navy: Angels, Nationals home, Cardinals home
    Red & royal: Phillies
    Red & black: Reds
    Royal & red: Rangers, Dodgers, Cubs
    Royal & gold: Royals
    Forest green: A’s
    Black & etc: Orioles, White Sox, Pirates, Giants, Mets, Marlins, Astros, D-Backs, Rockies, Blue Jays

    The problem is you got 12 teams in navy & 10 in black which is too much darkness. There’s at least 5 teams in black that should change to an obvious different color scheme.[/quote]

    I’d nominate the Astros going back to predominantly orange (with navy). And bring back the H on the Star caps.[/quote]
    Mets can go back to orange and blue immediately. Blue Jays can stop being the Black Jays. Marlins could use a little more teal. And the DBacks look more I-think-they-call-it-“Sedona” red than black to me, but truth is, they have a superfluous black set which I wouldn’t miss.
    That’s four. Now if certain teams (esp. the Brewers and A’s) could lighten up their shades, the Majors would look better already.

  • Ry Co 40 | February 9, 2010 at 1:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”377045″][quote comment=”377044″][quote comment=”377039″][quote comment=”376998″]UNRETIRED NUMBERS ….. (Cont’d)

    What other numbers have been un-retired?

    Off the top of my head:

    • When Jerry Rice was briefly with the Seahawks, he got Steve Largent’s permission to wear No. 80.

    • Didn’t the White Sox retire Hal Baines’s number after his first stint with the team and then end up un-retiring it when he came back for a second tour of duty?

    • MLB, No. 42, every April 15th.

    I’m sure there are others….

    __________________

    The Saints Doug Atkins’ #81 was retired by the Saints for many years, then un-retired for use by pretty-much no-name WR’s in the early 1990’s prior to the NFL allowing #’s 10-19 to be used by WR’s – as the Saints had run out of numbers in the 80’s at that time.

    I believe that other teams had similar situations at that time.[/quote]

    When Mario Lemieux (Pittsburgh Penguins) came out of retirement they made a big deal about taking his jersey down from the rafters.[/quote]

    lol. who made a big deal?[/quote]

    The Penguins did. I even remember them having a ceremony where they lowered the retired number from the arena roof.[/quote]

    oh, in that way, yes they did. also, they replaced the old retired number/jersey banner with an updated version.

  • mike 2 | February 9, 2010 at 1:51 pm |

    One more retired number – I don’t have any evidence of this, but I assume that when Jim Palmer made his short comeback in 1991, he wore his own (retired) number.

  • Brendan Burke | February 9, 2010 at 1:51 pm |

    Something about the NFL patch album you all missed: Old NFL logo! Keep in mind it was made after the switch…

  • JimV19 | February 9, 2010 at 1:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”376997″]RE: Penn State throwbacks

    Note the navy keystone on the side of the shorts.[/quote]

    Oh yeah, I’d wear that!

  • Mike Engle | February 9, 2010 at 1:52 pm |

    [quote comment=”377045″][quote comment=”377044″][quote comment=”377039″][quote comment=”376998″]UNRETIRED NUMBERS ….. (Cont’d)

    What other numbers have been un-retired?

    Off the top of my head:

    • When Jerry Rice was briefly with the Seahawks, he got Steve Largent’s permission to wear No. 80.

    • Didn’t the White Sox retire Hal Baines’s number after his first stint with the team and then end up un-retiring it when he came back for a second tour of duty?

    • MLB, No. 42, every April 15th.

    I’m sure there are others….

    __________________

    The Saints Doug Atkins’ #81 was retired by the Saints for many years, then un-retired for use by pretty-much no-name WR’s in the early 1990’s prior to the NFL allowing #’s 10-19 to be used by WR’s – as the Saints had run out of numbers in the 80’s at that time.

    I believe that other teams had similar situations at that time.[/quote]

    When Mario Lemieux (Pittsburgh Penguins) came out of retirement they made a big deal about taking his jersey down from the rafters.[/quote]

    lol. who made a big deal?[/quote]

    The Penguins did. I even remember them having a ceremony where they lowered the retired number from the arena roof.[/quote]
    And they had a light shining on the exterior roof of the Igloo, so you could see “He’s Back 66” or “Mario 66” from a bird’s eye view.

  • JTH | February 9, 2010 at 1:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”377042″]
    I always thought the Saints retired #51 for Sam Mills. Apparently not, because of Jonathan Vilma.
    [/quote]
    I thought it was retired, too. Apparently not, according to NFL.com

    But #31 is on that list of retired numbers for the Saints, yet it’s being worn by Pierson Prioleau.

  • Mike Engle | February 9, 2010 at 1:56 pm |

    And potentially one more example of a number coming out of retirement.
    http://prod.static.s...
    Really, Seattle? Jim Zorn’s the best quarterback you’ve ever had, responsible for a good portion of Steve Largent’s touchdowns, and you give it to the kicker? Maybe Zorn’s #10 was never retired or given the special mothball treatment, in which case I’ll take back this statement, but be surprised.

  • Mike Engle | February 9, 2010 at 1:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”377052″][quote comment=”377042″]
    I always thought the Saints retired #51 for Sam Mills. Apparently not, because of Jonathan Vilma.
    [/quote]
    I thought it was retired, too. Apparently not, according to NFL.com

    But #31 is on that list of retired numbers for the Saints, yet it’s being worn by Pierson Prioleau.[/quote]
    Well, despite its omission from that list, thus “clearly not retired,” good to see Archie’s #8 not in circulation.

  • Mike Engle | February 9, 2010 at 2:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”377053″]And potentially one more example of a number coming out of retirement.
    http://prod.static.s...
    Really, Seattle? Jim Zorn’s the best quarterback you’ve ever had, responsible for a good portion of Steve Largent’s touchdowns, and you give it to the kicker? Maybe Zorn’s #10 was never retired or given the special mothball treatment, in which case I’ll take back this statement, but be surprised.[/quote]
    Picture here

  • The Jeff | February 9, 2010 at 2:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”377040″]

    Yeah there may be too many red & blue teams, but I wouldn’t mind my team being in those colors again. What teams would you nominate to get rid of the red &/or blue?

    Navy & red: Red Sox, Twins, Indians, Braves, Nationals road, Cardinals road
    Navy & orange: Tigers road
    Navy & gold/sand: Brewers, Padres
    Navy & Northwest green: Mariners
    Navy & powder blue: Rays
    Navy: Yankees, Tigers home
    Red & navy: Angels, Nationals home, Cardinals home
    Red & royal: Phillies
    Red & black: Reds
    Royal & red: Rangers, Dodgers, Cubs
    Royal & gold: Royals
    Forest green: A’s
    Black & etc: Orioles, White Sox, Pirates, Giants, Mets, Marlins, Astros, D-Backs, Rockies, Blue Jays

    The problem is you got 12 teams in navy & 10 in black which is too much darkness. There’s at least 5 teams in black that should change to an obvious different color scheme.[/quote]

    Easiest solution without totally screwing around with all of the teams – just switch primary & secondary colors for a few teams. The Tigers could use orange(tigers are orange after-all), the Brewers could use gold (the color of beer), the Rays could wear the powder blue, etc. I don’t think the Cardinals should wear blue at all. …and I’m sure a couple teams could get away with white or gray hats without changing any other part of their uniforms.

  • Jake | February 9, 2010 at 2:08 pm |

    Hey Uni Watchers!

    I’m looking for a link to the site that Paul spoke about last winter/spring. The site sold custom-made uniform frames to be sold as keepsakes and such. Tried searching, but just can’t think of the name.

    Thanks!

  • leon | February 9, 2010 at 2:08 pm |

    Smmy Baugh’s “33” is the only “officially” number retired by Washington, although there are several unofficial retirees. Clueless Spurrier had wuerfell and matthews wearing 7 and 9, but it didn’t get past training camp. Mitchell’s “49” however was worn during the season and was part of the reason he says he retired the following year after decades as a player and front office member. another reason to criticize snyder (as if any more were needed).

  • Mike Engle | February 9, 2010 at 2:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”377057″]Hey Uni Watchers!

    I’m looking for a link to the site that Paul spoke about last winter/spring. The site sold custom-made uniform frames to be sold as keepsakes and such. Tried searching, but just can’t think of the name.

    Thanks![/quote]
    Jersey Name Frame?
    It’s fellow Uni Watcher Joe Hilseberg’s little business.

  • LI Phil | February 9, 2010 at 2:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”377057″]Hey Uni Watchers!

    I’m looking for a link to the site that Paul spoke about last winter/spring. The site sold custom-made uniform frames to be sold as keepsakes and such. Tried searching, but just can’t think of the name.

    Thanks![/quote]

    this?

  • Hott Rodd | February 9, 2010 at 2:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”377057″]Hey Uni Watchers!

    I’m looking for a link to the site that Paul spoke about last winter/spring. The site sold custom-made uniform frames to be sold as keepsakes and such. Tried searching, but just can’t think of the name.

    Thanks![/quote]

    Make sure to tell Joe that Large Marge sent ya.

  • JimV19 | February 9, 2010 at 2:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”377055″][quote comment=”377053″]And potentially one more example of a number coming out of retirement.
    http://prod.static.s...
    Really, Seattle? Jim Zorn’s the best quarterback you’ve ever had, responsible for a good portion of Steve Largent’s touchdowns, and you give it to the kicker? Maybe Zorn’s #10 was never retired or given the special mothball treatment, in which case I’ll take back this statement, but be surprised.[/quote]
    Picture here[/quote]

    Now if you’re going to picture him, use the best uni you can…
    http://eyeonthehawks...

    And easy on the kickers…after all, they put the foot in football.

    By the way, only the numbers 12 and 80 are retired by the Seahawks.

  • LI Phil | February 9, 2010 at 2:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”377062″]
    By the way, only the numbers 12 and 80 are retired by the Seahawks.[/quote]

    80–that’s for jerry rice, yes?

  • Kek | February 9, 2010 at 2:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”377035″]Stephen Andon said:
    “I’m writing a dissertation on sports memorabilia in all of its many forms — from game-worn stuff to packaged dirt.”

    Funny, I actually have some packaged dirt. My cousin took a field trip to Three Rivers Stadium back in the mid 70s and he scooped up some of the warning track for me.[/quote]
    From the warning track? I always thought that was just brown astroturf.

  • JTH | February 9, 2010 at 2:39 pm |

    The guys at MyDomz really want to let me know that the IU hat actually does have stripes on it. In addition to the e-mail I mentioned last night, I got this one today:


    Hi James,

    Yes, the Indiana hat does have the 2 stripes we just have not updated the pics on the web.

    Please go ahead and make your purchase and I will send the striped Indiana hat out to you.

    Best regards,

    J. Dhillon

    MyDomz

  • M.Princip | February 9, 2010 at 2:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”377055″][quote comment=”377053″]And potentially one more example of a number coming out of retirement.
    http://prod.static.s...
    Really, Seattle? Jim Zorn’s the best quarterback you’ve ever had, responsible for a good portion of Steve Largent’s touchdowns, and you give it to the kicker? Maybe Zorn’s #10 was never retired or given the special mothball treatment, in which case I’ll take back this statement, but be surprised.[/quote]
    Picture here[/quote]

    A lot of people would argue about him being the best the team ever had, however, he was the first star qb the team ever had, he’s literally been there since day one of the franchise, and he was Matt Hasselbeck’s coach for the team’s first Super Bowl. His number should be retired by the Seahawks right now. I respect Olindo Mare, however, his number should be 3, 6,or, 9.

    Oh, and this is also fucked up, Dan McGwire! Pleeez?!?!

  • JTH | February 9, 2010 at 2:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”377065″]The guys at MyDomz really want to let me know that the IU hat actually does have stripes on it. In addition to the e-mail I mentioned last night, I got this one today:


    Hi James,

    Yes, the Indiana hat does have the 2 stripes we just have not updated the pics on the web.

    Please go ahead and make your purchase and I will send the striped Indiana hat out to you.

    Best regards,

    J. Dhillon

    MyDomz[/quote]
    And I’m 2 for my last 2 on screwing up the italics.

  • Hott Rodd | February 9, 2010 at 2:46 pm |

    [quote comment=”377063″][quote comment=”377062″]
    By the way, only the numbers 12 and 80 are retired by the Seahawks.[/quote]

    80–that’s for jerry rice, yes?[/quote]

    isn’t 12 for franco harris?

  • Jake | February 9, 2010 at 2:47 pm |

    Holy help, thanks guys. Plenty of right answers… it’s Jersey Name Frame. I knew it was something like that, but couldn’t put my finger on it.

    Thanks!

  • aflfan | February 9, 2010 at 2:55 pm |

    The Red Wings have not retired number 6 for Larry Aurie but it is out of circulation and no one has wore it since Cumming Burton in 58-59.

    I think some probably already been mention so forgive me if it has (I have been sick since Sunday) but the Lions unretired Joe Schmidt’s 56 (with his blessing) when they signed that useless lump Pat Swilling.

  • Bob from Akron | February 9, 2010 at 2:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”377031″]Tee Milwaukee Brewers have just unveiled a list of their promotions this year:

    http://milwaukee.bre...

    Highlights include:

    – Bernie Brewer bobble
    – 1970’s retro pennant featuring the Barrel Man Logo
    – Negro League tribute: As part of the Brewers/New York Mets game, the Brewers will wear reproductions of uniforms worn by the Milwaukee Bears, the city’s 1923 representative in the Negro National League. (Will the Mets get in on this? I hope so)
    – Cerveceros day
    – Italian sausage bobble
    – Miller Lite Beer Vendor bobble[/quote]

    Will Randall Simon be there for the Italian sausage bobble giveaway?

  • Bob from Akron | February 9, 2010 at 3:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”377068″][quote comment=”377063″][quote comment=”377062″]
    By the way, only the numbers 12 and 80 are retired by the Seahawks.[/quote]

    80–that’s for jerry rice, yes?[/quote]

    isn’t 12 for franco harris?[/quote]

    12 is for the “Twelfth Man” (the Seahawks fans)
    Franco wore 34.

  • Bob from Akron | February 9, 2010 at 3:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”377072″][quote comment=”377068″][quote comment=”377063″][quote comment=”377062″]
    By the way, only the numbers 12 and 80 are retired by the Seahawks.[/quote]

    80–that’s for jerry rice, yes?[/quote]

    isn’t 12 for franco harris?[/quote]

    12 is for the “Twelfth Man” (the Seahawks fans)
    Franco wore 34.[/quote]

    Franco’s Seahawks Jersey

  • Hott Rodd | February 9, 2010 at 3:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”377073″][quote comment=”377072″][quote comment=”377068″][quote comment=”377063″][quote comment=”377062″]
    By the way, only the numbers 12 and 80 are retired by the Seahawks.[/quote]

    80–that’s for jerry rice, yes?[/quote]

    isn’t 12 for franco harris?[/quote]

    12 is for the “Twelfth Man” (the Seahawks fans)
    Franco wore 34.[/quote]

    Franco’s Seahawks Jersey[/quote]

    I meant because he was only a shell of his former self..

  • Josh | February 9, 2010 at 3:40 pm |

    Update on the Shea Stadium Wall Changes. Evidently, for aesthetic purposes. The author doesn’t agree. (from Newsday—which requires a log-in—so just copied here)

    “Wary of the perception of any change to their second-year ballpark, the Mets insisted today that shortening the 16-foot wall in front of the Home Run Apple will be done for “aesthetic” purposes and not to increase longball totals at Citi Field.

    The team’s explanation does seem to make sense in this case. That wall is 408 feet from home plate anyway, so it’s not like there were dozens of deep drives that were kept inside the park by the oversized cutout. After the cosmetic change, the centerfield wall will have a more uniform height of eight feet before it stretches to the taller boundaries in right and left field. The distances from the plate will remain the same.”

  • Bruce Genther | February 9, 2010 at 3:43 pm |

    I am seeking a detailed photo or illustration of the Northern League Aberdeen Pheasants logo that was worn on the uniform sleeve circa 1955-1963 (?) when the team was an affiliate of the Baltimore Orioles. Any information would be greatly appreciated.

    BruceGenther@aol.com

  • rufus | February 9, 2010 at 3:47 pm |

    Obviously MJ wore his retired 23 when he came back. But not right away. He wore 45 for a while.

    Also I don’t think the Red Wings officially retired 16 for Vlad Konstantinov but no one has wore it since the accident.

  • Bob Loblaw | February 9, 2010 at 3:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”377065″]The guys at MyDomz really want to let me know that the IU hat actually does have stripes on it. In addition to the e-mail I mentioned last night, I got this one today:


    Hi James,

    Yes, the Indiana hat does have the 2 stripes we just have not updated the pics on the web.

    Please go ahead and make your purchase and I will send the striped Indiana hat out to you.

    Best regards,

    J. Dhillon

    MyDomz[/quote]

    Translation:

    Buy the damned hat, already!!!!!

    ;)

  • Big Matt | February 9, 2010 at 3:55 pm |

    Why do they need “lighter” uniforms? I mean really, if you have ever held a team issue jersey or pair of shorts, they don’t feel heavy at all.
    Nike has already done away with the inside liner on the team issue shorts, heck, you can even see through the white ones a little! Do they want the uniforms so light that the players feel naked?
    On a personal note, I like the feel of “heavier” or lined, shorts. The heft gives them a good ‘swing’ when you are playing.

  • GoTerriers | February 9, 2010 at 3:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”377011″]I took this pic with my cell phone at a local restaurant called Friendly’s. It’s there 1957 baseball team.

    http://i142.photobuc...

    I’ve seen that picture . . .Plymouth, MA??

  • Bob Loblaw | February 9, 2010 at 3:59 pm |

    Off to see the John Mayall show in the city tonight….. killer snowstorm be damned!!!

  • JimV19 | February 9, 2010 at 4:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”377043″][quote comment=”377040″]The problem is you got 12 teams in navy & 10 in black which is too much darkness. There’s at least 5 teams in black that should change to an obvious different color scheme.[/quote]

    I’d nominate the Astros going back to predominantly orange (with navy). And bring back the H on the Star caps.[/quote]

    Yes, please bring back the orange.

    I’m not one of the “must wear white at home and gray on the road” guys, but I could be turned if the hats and trim had more variety. Orange Astros hats, teal Marlins hats, gold Pirates hats, orange Mets hats (just seeing if you’re awake, Phil), etc.

  • JTH | February 9, 2010 at 4:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”377078″]Obviously MJ wore his retired 23 when he came back. But not right away. He wore 45 for a while.[/quote]
    And they definitely did not make a big deal out of unretiring the 23. He just kinda put it back on for a playoff game (vs. the Magic, maybe?) and didn’t say a word.

  • JimV19 | February 9, 2010 at 4:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”377063″][quote comment=”377062″]
    By the way, only the numbers 12 and 80 are retired by the Seahawks.[/quote]

    80–that’s for jerry rice, yes?[/quote]

    He may be the best receiver ever, but he wasn’t the best Seahawks receiver ever.

    /just sayin’

  • leon | February 9, 2010 at 4:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”377082″]Off to see the John Mayall show in the city tonight….. killer snowstorm be damned!!![/quote]
    Leave yourself room to move.

  • JimV19 | February 9, 2010 at 4:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”377064″][quote comment=”377035″]Stephen Andon said:
    “I’m writing a dissertation on sports memorabilia in all of its many forms — from game-worn stuff to packaged dirt.”

    Funny, I actually have some packaged dirt. My cousin took a field trip to Three Rivers Stadium back in the mid 70s and he scooped up some of the warning track for me.[/quote]
    From the warning track? I always thought that was just brown astroturf.[/quote]

    It’s more like hardened clay bits. Maybe towards the end they put in a rubberized track, but this stuff definitely isn’t rubber. He might have gotten it from the dugout area or something.

  • Hott Rodd | February 9, 2010 at 4:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”377085″][quote comment=”377063″][quote comment=”377062″]
    By the way, only the numbers 12 and 80 are retired by the Seahawks.[/quote]

    80–that’s for jerry rice, yes?[/quote]

    He may be the best receiver ever, but he wasn’t the best Seahawks receiver ever.

    /just sayin'[/quote]

    Best receiver to ever play for Seattle?

    Tomorrow in Fun with Semantical Syntax..

  • JimV19 | February 9, 2010 at 4:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”377080″]Why do they need “lighter” uniforms? I mean really, if you have ever held a team issue jersey or pair of shorts, they don’t feel heavy at all.
    Nike has already done away with the inside liner on the team issue shorts, heck, you can even see through the white ones a little! Do they want the uniforms so light that the players feel naked?
    On a personal note, I like the feel of “heavier” or lined, shorts. The heft gives them a good ‘swing’ when you are playing.[/quote]

    If you wear your shorts right, http://www.detroitps... there shouldn’t be any swing at all…

  • JTH | February 9, 2010 at 4:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”377087″][quote comment=”377064″][quote comment=”377035″]Stephen Andon said:
    “I’m writing a dissertation on sports memorabilia in all of its many forms — from game-worn stuff to packaged dirt.”

    Funny, I actually have some packaged dirt. My cousin took a field trip to Three Rivers Stadium back in the mid 70s and he scooped up some of the warning track for me.[/quote]
    From the warning track? I always thought that was just brown astroturf.[/quote]

    It’s more like hardened clay bits. Maybe towards the end they put in a rubberized track, but this stuff definitely isn’t rubber. He might have gotten it from the dugout area or something.[/quote]
    I did the same thing at Wrigley. My dad and I just sort of wandered in on an off day (back in the early 80s — I’m guessing that place is locked up a little tighter nowadays). One of the things I did was grab a handful of dirt from the home plate area and shoved it in my pocket. When I got home, I put it in a baggie and it sat in my sock drawer for years.

  • JTH | February 9, 2010 at 4:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”377089″][quote comment=”377080″]Why do they need “lighter” uniforms? I mean really, if you have ever held a team issue jersey or pair of shorts, they don’t feel heavy at all.
    Nike has already done away with the inside liner on the team issue shorts, heck, you can even see through the white ones a little! Do they want the uniforms so light that the players feel naked?
    On a personal note, I like the feel of “heavier” or lined, shorts. The heft gives them a good ‘swing’ when you are playing.[/quote]

    If you wear your shorts right, http://www.detroitps... there shouldn’t be any swing at all…[/quote]
    And you wonder why there are some folks here who think you’re in your 80s.

  • Flip | February 9, 2010 at 4:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”377089″][quote comment=”377080″]Why do they need “lighter” uniforms? I mean really, if you have ever held a team issue jersey or pair of shorts, they don’t feel heavy at all.
    Nike has already done away with the inside liner on the team issue shorts, heck, you can even see through the white ones a little! Do they want the uniforms so light that the players feel naked?
    On a personal note, I like the feel of “heavier” or lined, shorts. The heft gives them a good ‘swing’ when you are playing.[/quote]

    If you wear your shorts right, http://www.detroitps... there shouldn’t be any swing at all…[/quote]

    I liked the Spurs’ western stitching on the back of their shorts, which I believe Gervin is wearing.

  • Big Matt | February 9, 2010 at 4:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”377089″][quote comment=”377080″]Why do they need “lighter” uniforms? I mean really, if you have ever held a team issue jersey or pair of shorts, they don’t feel heavy at all.
    Nike has already done away with the inside liner on the team issue shorts, heck, you can even see through the white ones a little! Do they want the uniforms so light that the players feel naked?
    On a personal note, I like the feel of “heavier” or lined, shorts. The heft gives them a good ‘swing’ when you are playing.[/quote]

    If you wear your shorts right, http://www.detroitps... there shouldn’t be any swing at all…[/quote]
    Oh I wore them like that back in the day….and believe me, the less of my legs you see, the better!

  • JimV19 | February 9, 2010 at 4:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”377092″][quote comment=”377089″][quote comment=”377080″]Why do they need “lighter” uniforms? I mean really, if you have ever held a team issue jersey or pair of shorts, they don’t feel heavy at all.
    Nike has already done away with the inside liner on the team issue shorts, heck, you can even see through the white ones a little! Do they want the uniforms so light that the players feel naked?
    On a personal note, I like the feel of “heavier” or lined, shorts. The heft gives them a good ‘swing’ when you are playing.[/quote]

    If you wear your shorts right, http://www.detroitps... there shouldn’t be any swing at all…[/quote]

    I liked the Spurs’ western stitching on the back of their shorts, which I believe Gervin is wearing.[/quote]

    It didn’t look as good on the warmups, though.
    http://3.media.tumbl...

  • LI Phil | February 9, 2010 at 4:46 pm |

    [quote comment=”377090″] One of the things I did was grab a handful of dirt from the home plate area and shoved it in my pocket. When I got home, I put it in a baggie and it sat in my sock drawer for years.[/quote]

    that’s what i told my old man it was too, when he discovered a baggie full of stuff in my sock drawer

  • Mickel Yantz | February 9, 2010 at 4:48 pm |

    Oklahoma City to get AHL team. Name the Team contest coming soon http://newsok.com/ok...

  • Teebz | February 9, 2010 at 4:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”377095″][quote comment=”377090″] One of the things I did was grab a handful of dirt from the home plate area and shoved it in my pocket. When I got home, I put it in a baggie and it sat in my sock drawer for years.[/quote]

    that’s what i told my old man it was too, when he discovered a baggie full of stuff in my sock drawer[/quote]

    That’s where the plan fell apart.

    Phil: “I got it at Wrigley!”
    Phil’s dad: “We’ve never been to Wrigley, son.”
    Phil: “Are you sure?”

  • leon | February 9, 2010 at 4:53 pm |

    can someone shed light on the start time of todays devils/flyers game? (it’s on now)

  • Teebz | February 9, 2010 at 4:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”377098″]can someone shed light on the start time of todays devils/flyers game? (it’s on now)[/quote]

    That’s last night’s game on replay, Leon. I can ruin the ending for you if you like.

  • LI Phil | February 9, 2010 at 4:58 pm |

    [quote comment=”377099″][quote comment=”377098″]can someone shed light on the start time of todays devils/flyers game? (it’s on now)[/quote]

    That’s last night’s game on replay, Leon. I can ruin the ending for you if you like.[/quote]

    i think leon’s been in my sock drawer

  • Stephen | February 9, 2010 at 5:04 pm |

    Hey everybody, this is Stephen the dissertation guy from Paul’s post. I just wanted to thank everyone for getting in touch with me and promise I will touch base with you all. Since I’ve gotten a couple of questions about it already, I wanted to inform you that I will be sharing my work when it’s all said and done in a couple months. Thanks again!

  • Mickel Yantz | February 9, 2010 at 5:07 pm |

    The Seahawks have a tradition of renting greats WAY past their prime. Carl Eller, Franco Harris, Jerry Rice, John Randle, Warren Moon…

  • leon | February 9, 2010 at 5:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”377100″][quote comment=”377099″][quote comment=”377098″]can someone shed light on the start time of todays devils/flyers game? (it’s on now)[/quote]

    That’s last night’s game on replay, Leon. I can ruin the ending for you if you like.[/quote]

    i think leon’s been in my sock drawer[/quote]
    LOL
    Next you’ll be telling me there’s a way to change channels w/o getting out of one’s seat. I thought the first intermission flew by. Going to check my sock drawer now. If anyone wants to know, it’s 2-0 devils right now.

  • Jeff P | February 9, 2010 at 5:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”376988″]In the sixth photo from that (GREAT!) ’38-’39 NHL scrapbook, Turk Broda and Gordon Drillon both have red lettering on their Maple Leafs logos. Anyone know if that color every actually appeared on the Leafs logo? Or is it just a function of sloppy colorization of the photos?[/quote]
    It sure did.

    45-48 Per NHL uniforms, which means the e-bay auction is wrong about it being from a single season or NHL uniforms is wrong about when they used the red.

    Here’s a pic from the ’46 season, which would seem to confirm NHL uniforms’ take on things.

  • Teebz | February 9, 2010 at 5:46 pm |

    [quote comment=”377104″][quote comment=”376988″]In the sixth photo from that (GREAT!) ’38-’39 NHL scrapbook, Turk Broda and Gordon Drillon both have red lettering on their Maple Leafs logos. Anyone know if that color every actually appeared on the Leafs logo? Or is it just a function of sloppy colorization of the photos?[/quote]
    It sure did.

    45-48 Per NHL uniforms, which means the e-bay auction is wrong about it being from a single season or NHL uniforms is wrong about when they used the red.

    Here’s a pic from the ’46 season, which would seem to confirm NHL uniforms’ take on things.[/quote]

    If you look closely, it is a scrapbook of various articles and pictures from various eras of newspapers. It’s not even NHL-endorsed. Someone is fleecing someone else on eBay (I know… a shock!).

    To be honest, it’s a nice scrapbook, but the execution is, quite frankly, horrible.

  • JTH | February 9, 2010 at 5:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”377097″][quote comment=”377095″][quote comment=”377090″] One of the things I did was grab a handful of dirt from the home plate area and shoved it in my pocket. When I got home, I put it in a baggie and it sat in my sock drawer for years.[/quote]

    that’s what i told my old man it was too, when he discovered a baggie full of stuff in my sock drawer[/quote]

    That’s where the plan fell apart.

    Phil: “I got it at Wrigley!”
    Phil’s dad: “We’ve never been to Wrigley, son.”
    Phil: “Are you sure?”[/quote]
    Funny. My mom did pull the bag out of the drawer one day and ask me what the hell it was. When I told her, I think she was more disappointed than if it had been the sort of thing a normal teenager would keep in a baggie. (Mom’s a Sox fan.)

  • Jeff P | February 9, 2010 at 6:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”377105″][quote comment=”377104″][quote comment=”376988″]In the sixth photo from that (GREAT!) ’38-’39 NHL scrapbook, Turk Broda and Gordon Drillon both have red lettering on their Maple Leafs logos. Anyone know if that color every actually appeared on the Leafs logo? Or is it just a function of sloppy colorization of the photos?[/quote]
    It sure did.

    45-48 Per NHL uniforms, which means the e-bay auction is wrong about it being from a single season or NHL uniforms is wrong about when they used the red.

    Here’s a pic from the ’46 season, which would seem to confirm NHL uniforms’ take on things.[/quote]

    If you look closely, it is a scrapbook of various articles and pictures from various eras of newspapers. It’s not even NHL-endorsed. Someone is fleecing someone else on eBay (I know… a shock!).

    To be honest, it’s a nice scrapbook, but the execution is, quite frankly, horrible.[/quote]

    That’s what I suspected. But it’s still a bunch of cool old hockey photos.

  • JimV19 | February 9, 2010 at 7:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”377106″][quote comment=”377097″][quote comment=”377095″][quote comment=”377090″] One of the things I did was grab a handful of dirt from the home plate area and shoved it in my pocket. When I got home, I put it in a baggie and it sat in my sock drawer for years.[/quote]

    that’s what i told my old man it was too, when he discovered a baggie full of stuff in my sock drawer[/quote]

    That’s where the plan fell apart.

    Phil: “I got it at Wrigley!”
    Phil’s dad: “We’ve never been to Wrigley, son.”
    Phil: “Are you sure?”[/quote]
    Funny. My mom did pull the bag out of the drawer one day and ask me what the hell it was. When I told her, I think she was more disappointed than if it had been the sort of thing a normal teenager would keep in a baggie. (Mom’s a Sox fan.)[/quote]

    Ah, the son of a mixed marriage. That explains this:
    http://farm5.static....

  • Hibbsy | February 9, 2010 at 7:33 pm |

    I just watched that Doc Ellis video again. I have no clue how many times that is now for me. I’ve been trying to share it with everyone I know.
    If for some reason you have yet to watch it for the fifth or sixth time, I recommend that you do so.

  • LI Phil | February 9, 2010 at 7:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”377109″]That explains this:
    http://farm5.static....

    nothing explains that

  • interlockingtc | February 9, 2010 at 8:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”376982″][quote comment=”376978″]Scott Fujita puts tape on his shoes and Nike drops him.

    Couldn’t they have come to some kind of compromise?

    Maybe Mr. Fujita could have written, in Sharpie, “I love Nike!” on the tape. Or…”There is a Nike swoosh under this tape.”[/quote]

    What compromise? Fujita was paid to display the Nike swoosh while he played. He didn’t do that so he’s the one who broke the agreement. If he was going to spat his shoes, he shouldn’t have signed on with Nike.[/quote]

    I responded without knowing any details of the…uh…violation. There probably is some very specific stipulation in the contract regarding the obscuring of the logo on the shoe. Fujita probably did violate the terms of his contract and was released accordingly.

    That said. It’s the spirit of the dispute which bothers me. Nike wants it all, they want now, and they will not be stopped. Yes, they are within their legal rights and it is the American way and all…but.

    It’s one guy’s frickin football shoes.

    Look outside your window right now and you’ll probably see the Nike swoosh on something…a little kid’s school backpack…the grocery clerk’s shirt…the homeless guy under the bridge is wearing a Nike baseball hat….Grandma’s sweater….every piece of equipment on every damn college team…high school team…little league team…and on and on and on.

    Nike has succeeded!

    Congratulations to the corporation. You are onmipresent.

  • Benjamin | February 9, 2010 at 8:19 pm |

    Bradley University is wearing black alternate uniforms at home for the “blackout” game against rival Illinois St. tonight.

  • Kek | February 9, 2010 at 8:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”377112″][quote comment=”376982″][quote comment=”376978″]Scott Fujita puts tape on his shoes and Nike drops him.

    Couldn’t they have come to some kind of compromise?

    Maybe Mr. Fujita could have written, in Sharpie, “I love Nike!” on the tape. Or…”There is a Nike swoosh under this tape.”[/quote]

    What compromise? Fujita was paid to display the Nike swoosh while he played. He didn’t do that so he’s the one who broke the agreement. If he was going to spat his shoes, he shouldn’t have signed on with Nike.[/quote]

    I responded without knowing any details of the…uh…violation. There probably is some very specific stipulation in the contract regarding the obscuring of the logo on the shoe. Fujita probably did violate the terms of his contract and was released accordingly.

    That said. It’s the spirit of the dispute which bothers me. Nike wants it all, they want now, and they will not be stopped. Yes, they are within their legal rights and it is the American way and all…but.

    It’s one guy’s frickin football shoes.

    Look outside your window right now and you’ll probably see the Nike swoosh on something…a little kid’s school backpack…the grocery clerk’s shirt…the homeless guy under the bridge is wearing a Nike baseball hat….Grandma’s sweater….every piece of equipment on every damn college team…high school team…little league team…and on and on and on.

    Nike has succeeded!

    Congratulations to the corporation. You are onmipresent.[/quote]
    Let me get this straight, ABC Corporation has a written agreement with Player #1. ABC Corporation agrees to not only give Player #1 money, but free product. In return, all Player #1 has to do is display the logo of said product.

    Player #1 covers up the logo not once, not twice, not thrice, not four times, not five times, not six times but seven times. Despite being warned by ABC Corporation that he should not cover the logo of their product, Player #1 goes ahead and decides to yet again cover the logo of ABC Corporation’s product. Not only does he cover the logo but does it on the biggest stage of the game (not to mention the largest television audience of all time).

    Sorry, but the only douchebag in this situation is Fujita. You’re just not going to convince me otherwise.

  • Hibbsy | February 9, 2010 at 8:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”377114″][quote comment=”377112″][quote comment=”376982″][quote comment=”376978″]Scott Fujita puts tape on his shoes and Nike drops him.

    Couldn’t they have come to some kind of compromise?

    Maybe Mr. Fujita could have written, in Sharpie, “I love Nike!” on the tape. Or…”There is a Nike swoosh under this tape.”[/quote]

    What compromise? Fujita was paid to display the Nike swoosh while he played. He didn’t do that so he’s the one who broke the agreement. If he was going to spat his shoes, he shouldn’t have signed on with Nike.[/quote]

    I responded without knowing any details of the…uh…violation. There probably is some very specific stipulation in the contract regarding the obscuring of the logo on the shoe. Fujita probably did violate the terms of his contract and was released accordingly.

    That said. It’s the spirit of the dispute which bothers me. Nike wants it all, they want now, and they will not be stopped. Yes, they are within their legal rights and it is the American way and all…but.

    It’s one guy’s frickin football shoes.

    Look outside your window right now and you’ll probably see the Nike swoosh on something…a little kid’s school backpack…the grocery clerk’s shirt…the homeless guy under the bridge is wearing a Nike baseball hat….Grandma’s sweater….every piece of equipment on every damn college team…high school team…little league team…and on and on and on.

    Nike has succeeded!

    Congratulations to the corporation. You are onmipresent.[/quote]
    Let me get this straight, ABC Corporation has a written agreement with Player #1. ABC Corporation agrees to not only give Player #1 money, but free product. In return, all Player #1 has to do is display the logo of said product.

    Player #1 covers up the logo not once, not twice, not thrice, not four times, not five times, not six times but seven times. Despite being warned by ABC Corporation that he should not cover the logo of their product, Player #1 goes ahead and decides to yet again cover the logo of ABC Corporation’s product. Not only does he cover the logo but does it on the biggest stage of the game (not to mention the largest television audience of all time).

    Sorry, but the only douchebag in this situation is Fujita. You’re just not going to convince me otherwise.[/quote]
    Can’t you see? They’re all douchebags.

  • interlockingtc | February 9, 2010 at 9:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”377114″][quote comment=”377112″][quote comment=”376982″][quote comment=”376978″]Scott Fujita puts tape on his shoes and Nike drops him.

    Couldn’t they have come to some kind of compromise?

    Maybe Mr. Fujita could have written, in Sharpie, “I love Nike!” on the tape. Or…”There is a Nike swoosh under this tape.”[/quote]

    What compromise? Fujita was paid to display the Nike swoosh while he played. He didn’t do that so he’s the one who broke the agreement. If he was going to spat his shoes, he shouldn’t have signed on with Nike.[/quote]

    I responded without knowing any details of the…uh…violation. There probably is some very specific stipulation in the contract regarding the obscuring of the logo on the shoe. Fujita probably did violate the terms of his contract and was released accordingly.

    That said. It’s the spirit of the dispute which bothers me. Nike wants it all, they want now, and they will not be stopped. Yes, they are within their legal rights and it is the American way and all…but.

    It’s one guy’s frickin football shoes.

    Look outside your window right now and you’ll probably see the Nike swoosh on something…a little kid’s school backpack…the grocery clerk’s shirt…the homeless guy under the bridge is wearing a Nike baseball hat….Grandma’s sweater….every piece of equipment on every damn college team…high school team…little league team…and on and on and on.

    Nike has succeeded!

    Congratulations to the corporation. You are onmipresent.[/quote]
    Let me get this straight, ABC Corporation has a written agreement with Player #1. ABC Corporation agrees to not only give Player #1 money, but free product. In return, all Player #1 has to do is display the logo of said product.

    Player #1 covers up the logo not once, not twice, not thrice, not four times, not five times, not six times but seven times. Despite being warned by ABC Corporation that he should not cover the logo of their product, Player #1 goes ahead and decides to yet again cover the logo of ABC Corporation’s product. Not only does he cover the logo but does it on the biggest stage of the game (not to mention the largest television audience of all time).

    Sorry, but the only douchebag in this situation is Fujita. You’re just not going to convince me otherwise.[/quote]

    Fujita saw the green Nike offered and jumped at the opportunity. Then he went and violated the contract. He was wrong to do so. I have no argument. I am not defending Fujita.

    I did not describe Nike as… “douchebag.” I tried to convey them as a corporation looking to take over the world. Is there anything wrong or illegal about that? No. Distasteful and depressing? In my opinion, yes. Was Nike wrong to drop Fujita? No. Do they have my sympathies?

  • LI Phil | February 9, 2010 at 9:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”377115″]
    Can’t you see? They’re all douchebags.[/quote]

    um…no

    nike is not the douchebag this time

  • JTH | February 9, 2010 at 9:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”377117″][quote comment=”377115″]
    Can’t you see? They’re all douchebags.[/quote]

    um…no

    nike is not the douchebag this time[/quote]
    You can’t prove that.

  • Paul Lukas | February 9, 2010 at 9:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”377112″][quote comment=”376982″][quote comment=”376978″]Scott Fujita puts tape on his shoes and Nike drops him.

    Couldn’t they have come to some kind of compromise?

    Maybe Mr. Fujita could have written, in Sharpie, “I love Nike!” on the tape. Or…”There is a Nike swoosh under this tape.”[/quote]

    What compromise? Fujita was paid to display the Nike swoosh while he played. He didn’t do that so he’s the one who broke the agreement. If he was going to spat his shoes, he shouldn’t have signed on with Nike.[/quote]

    I responded without knowing any details of the…uh…violation. There probably is some very specific stipulation in the contract regarding the obscuring of the logo on the shoe. Fujita probably did violate the terms of his contract and was released accordingly.

    That said. It’s the spirit of the dispute which bothers me. Nike wants it all, they want now, and they will not be stopped. Yes, they are within their legal rights and it is the American way and all…but.

    It’s one guy’s frickin football shoes.

    Look outside your window right now and you’ll probably see the Nike swoosh on something…a little kid’s school backpack…the grocery clerk’s shirt…the homeless guy under the bridge is wearing a Nike baseball hat….Grandma’s sweater….every piece of equipment on every damn college team…high school team…little league team…and on and on and on.

    Nike has succeeded!

    Congratulations to the corporation. You are onmipresent.[/quote]

    And congratulations to Jim, for saying it better than I could. Thanks, buddy.

  • Hibbsy | February 9, 2010 at 9:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”377117″][quote comment=”377115″]
    Can’t you see? They’re all douchebags.[/quote]

    um…no

    nike is not the douchebag this time[/quote]
    No.
    It’s everyone. Fujita douched it up pretty good.
    Nike knows of no other way.

    To Fujitas’s credit, he did show a surprising amount of support for gay people after Larry Johnson’s comments on Twitter.
    Maybe that’s the real reason Nike dropped him. Yeah. I’m pretty sure that’s it.

  • LI Phil | February 9, 2010 at 9:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”377118″][quote comment=”377117″][quote comment=”377115″]
    Can’t you see? They’re all douchebags.[/quote]

    um…no

    nike is not the douchebag this time[/quote]
    You can’t prove that.[/quote]

    no…no i can’t prove that

    and there are three sides to every story

    but i do know this…

    this isn’t jordan or some nike tool covering up the 3 stripes with a piece of tape or some poor bastid on a college team being FORCED to wear nikes when they are too narrow for his feet

    this is a professional athlete who signed a contract to wear nike product, for which i am sure he is paid, and with that contract comes a stipulation that the nike logo be shown…he covers it up MULTIPLE times and each time he is told DON’T DO THAT

    nike makes shoes that he could spat (where the logo is down by the toes, which i frikkin hate) but he insists on violating his contract by covering up the logo…not once, not twice, but many times

    now, i don’t know whether nike approached him with an alternate plan or shoe or whether he was presented with other options — but apparently neither he nor nike was willing to explore mutually acceptable alternatives or were able to come to a mutually acceptable agreement (the three sides)

    but i really don’t think nike is the douchebag here; if he violated the terms of his contract they should be within their rights to terminate said contract

    that’s not being douchebaggish

    hate nike all you want, and you have every reason to — the singlehandly almost ruined college football tradition this year…but in this instance, i gotta side with the swoosh…

    unless you can prove me wrong (and in this case, i’d like to be proven wrong)

  • Kek | February 9, 2010 at 9:40 pm |

    [quote comment=”377119″][quote comment=”377112″][quote comment=”376982″][quote comment=”376978″]Scott Fujita puts tape on his shoes and Nike drops him.

    Couldn’t they have come to some kind of compromise?

    Maybe Mr. Fujita could have written, in Sharpie, “I love Nike!” on the tape. Or…”There is a Nike swoosh under this tape.”[/quote]

    What compromise? Fujita was paid to display the Nike swoosh while he played. He didn’t do that so he’s the one who broke the agreement. If he was going to spat his shoes, he shouldn’t have signed on with Nike.[/quote]

    I responded without knowing any details of the…uh…violation. There probably is some very specific stipulation in the contract regarding the obscuring of the logo on the shoe. Fujita probably did violate the terms of his contract and was released accordingly.

    That said. It’s the spirit of the dispute which bothers me. Nike wants it all, they want now, and they will not be stopped. Yes, they are within their legal rights and it is the American way and all…but.

    It’s one guy’s frickin football shoes.

    Look outside your window right now and you’ll probably see the Nike swoosh on something…a little kid’s school backpack…the grocery clerk’s shirt…the homeless guy under the bridge is wearing a Nike baseball hat….Grandma’s sweater….every piece of equipment on every damn college team…high school team…little league team…and on and on and on.

    Nike has succeeded!

    Congratulations to the corporation. You are onmipresent.[/quote]

    And congratulations to Jim, for saying it better than I could. Thanks, buddy.[/quote]
    grrrrrrr….

    I think it’s a safe assumption that the two parties here, Nike and Fujita, have a written agreement. In the United States, I believe that’s also known as a contract.

    You know what else is a contract? Rental agreements and mortgages. Let’s all stop paying our rent or mortgage because our landlord or the bank are “douches”.

    I’ll wait here and see how that works out.

  • Alex | February 9, 2010 at 9:49 pm |

    Miami lets us know here who else is participating in the Nike HyperElite unveiling along with Texas.

    http://hurricanespor...

    We’ll see them this month on Miami, Gonzaga, Kentucky, Michigan State, St. John’s, Syracuse, Texas and UConn.

  • Hibbsy | February 9, 2010 at 9:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”377122″][quote comment=”377119″][quote comment=”377112″][quote comment=”376982″][quote comment=”376978″]Scott Fujita puts tape on his shoes and Nike drops him.

    Couldn’t they have come to some kind of compromise?

    Maybe Mr. Fujita could have written, in Sharpie, “I love Nike!” on the tape. Or…”There is a Nike swoosh under this tape.”[/quote]

    What compromise? Fujita was paid to display the Nike swoosh while he played. He didn’t do that so he’s the one who broke the agreement. If he was going to spat his shoes, he shouldn’t have signed on with Nike.[/quote]

    I responded without knowing any details of the…uh…violation. There probably is some very specific stipulation in the contract regarding the obscuring of the logo on the shoe. Fujita probably did violate the terms of his contract and was released accordingly.

    That said. It’s the spirit of the dispute which bothers me. Nike wants it all, they want now, and they will not be stopped. Yes, they are within their legal rights and it is the American way and all…but.

    It’s one guy’s frickin football shoes.

    Look outside your window right now and you’ll probably see the Nike swoosh on something…a little kid’s school backpack…the grocery clerk’s shirt…the homeless guy under the bridge is wearing a Nike baseball hat….Grandma’s sweater….every piece of equipment on every damn college team…high school team…little league team…and on and on and on.

    Nike has succeeded!

    Congratulations to the corporation. You are onmipresent.[/quote]

    And congratulations to Jim, for saying it better than I could. Thanks, buddy.[/quote]
    grrrrrrr….

    I think it’s a safe assumption that the two parties here, Nike and Fujita, have a written agreement. In the United States, I believe that’s also known as a contract.

    You know what else is a contract? Rental agreements and mortgages. Let’s all stop paying our rent or mortgage because our landlord or the bank are “douches”.

    I’ll wait here and see how that works out.[/quote]
    Don’t do it, people! Those douchebags will throw you out on the street.

  • Chris | February 9, 2010 at 9:55 pm |

    Besides Duke, and now Texas are there any other schools wearing jerseys with these Nike designs on them?

    And if anyone knows the answer…as a Duke fan, if I go online and buy a jersey from say Eastbay or Nike.com, etc. does it come with that design in the jersey holes or is it just some bland replica with nothing on it?

  • Kek | February 9, 2010 at 9:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”377121″][quote comment=”377118″][quote comment=”377117″][quote comment=”377115″]
    Can’t you see? They’re all douchebags.[/quote]

    um…no

    nike is not the douchebag this time[/quote]
    You can’t prove that.[/quote]

    no…no i can’t prove that

    and there are three sides to every story

    but i do know this…

    this isn’t jordan or some nike tool covering up the 3 stripes with a piece of tape or some poor bastid on a college team being FORCED to wear nikes when they are too narrow for his feet

    this is a professional athlete who signed a contract to wear nike product, for which i am sure he is paid, and with that contract comes a stipulation that the nike logo be shown…he covers it up MULTIPLE times and each time he is told DON’T DO THAT

    nike makes shoes that he could spat (where the logo is down by the toes, which i frikkin hate) but he insists on violating his contract by covering up the logo…not once, not twice, but many times

    now, i don’t know whether nike approached him with an alternate plan or shoe or whether he was presented with other options — but apparently neither he nor nike was willing to explore mutually acceptable alternatives or were able to come to a mutually acceptable agreement (the three sides)

    but i really don’t think nike is the douchebag here; if he violated the terms of his contract they should be within their rights to terminate said contract

    that’s not being douchebaggish

    hate nike all you want, and you have every reason to — the singlehandly almost ruined college football tradition this year…but in this instance, i gotta side with the swoosh…

    unless you can prove me wrong (and in this case, i’d like to be proven wrong)[/quote]
    well said Phil, you articulated that way better than me, thanks!

  • ATLShaun | February 9, 2010 at 9:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”377122″][quote comment=”377119″][quote comment=”377112″][quote comment=”376982″][quote comment=”376978″]Scott Fujita puts tape on his shoes and Nike drops him.

    Couldn’t they have come to some kind of compromise?

    Maybe Mr. Fujita could have written, in Sharpie, “I love Nike!” on the tape. Or…”There is a Nike swoosh under this tape.”[/quote]

    What compromise? Fujita was paid to display the Nike swoosh while he played. He didn’t do that so he’s the one who broke the agreement. If he was going to spat his shoes, he shouldn’t have signed on with Nike.[/quote]

    I responded without knowing any details of the…uh…violation. There probably is some very specific stipulation in the contract regarding the obscuring of the logo on the shoe. Fujita probably did violate the terms of his contract and was released accordingly.

    That said. It’s the spirit of the dispute which bothers me. Nike wants it all, they want now, and they will not be stopped. Yes, they are within their legal rights and it is the American way and all…but.

    It’s one guy’s frickin football shoes.

    Look outside your window right now and you’ll probably see the Nike swoosh on something…a little kid’s school backpack…the grocery clerk’s shirt…the homeless guy under the bridge is wearing a Nike baseball hat….Grandma’s sweater….every piece of equipment on every damn college team…high school team…little league team…and on and on and on.

    Nike has succeeded!

    Congratulations to the corporation. You are onmipresent.[/quote]

    And congratulations to Jim, for saying it better than I could. Thanks, buddy.[/quote]
    grrrrrrr….

    I think it’s a safe assumption that the two parties here, Nike and Fujita, have a written agreement. In the United States, I believe that’s also known as a contract.

    You know what else is a contract? Rental agreements and mortgages. Let’s all stop paying our rent or mortgage because our landlord or the bank are “douches”.

    I’ll wait here and see how that works out.[/quote]

    i think pretty simple. the overall way that nike operates, slapping their logo all over the place is very douchebag, and i think everyone here can agree with that, right? this one incident, however, is a simple case of a contract being broken. No, nike should not make a big deal about one player spatting his cleats, but their policy is what it is. they follow their contracts very strictly.

  • Benjamin | February 9, 2010 at 10:10 pm |

    Have only found one photo of the Bradley black unis. It has a hyphenated NOB as well

    http://www.pjstar.co...

  • Taxman | February 9, 2010 at 10:22 pm |

    [quote comment=”377102″]The Seahawks have a tradition of renting greats WAY past their prime. Carl Eller, Franco Harris, Jerry Rice, John Randle, Warren Moon…[/quote]

    Wow – hadn’t thought about what a bunch of rent-a-superstars the’hawks have had. Do they brag on them as “Seahawks Hall of Famers”?

  • Mike D | February 9, 2010 at 10:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”377081″][quote comment=”377011″]I took this pic with my cell phone at a local restaurant called Friendly’s. It’s there 1957 baseball team.

    http://i142.photobuc...

    I’ve seen that picture . . .Plymouth, MA??[/quote]

    North Haven, CT

  • Paul Lukas | February 9, 2010 at 11:03 pm |

    [quote comment=”377110″]I just watched that Doc Ellis video again. I have no clue how many times that is now for me. I’ve been trying to share it with everyone I know.
    If for some reason you have yet to watch it for the fifth or sixth time, I recommend that you do so.[/quote]

    At the No Mas Super Bowl party, they showed the video at halftime, on a big-ass theater-size screen. Looked SOOOO good! Everyone cracked up…

  • JTH | February 9, 2010 at 11:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”377121″]
    hate nike all you want, and you have every reason to — the singlehandly almost ruined college football tradition this year…but in this instance, i gotta side with the swoosh…

    unless you can prove me wrong (and in this case, i’d like to be proven wrong)[/quote]
    Ain’t no time to hate.
    Barely time to wait.

    Dude, all I’m saying is that you can’t absolve Nike of complicity here because you don’t know all the facts.

    I’m not saying Fujita isn’t in the wrong here. I’m not saying Nike isn’t in the right. And really, I don’t give a shit one way or the other.

  • LI Phil | February 9, 2010 at 11:19 pm |

    fair enough

    anyone who can insert a UJB reference is aight with me

  • ATLShaun | February 9, 2010 at 11:42 pm |

    Chris Dodd just brought up logo creep in a way on the Colbert Report, they were talking about corporations backing politicians, Dodd said something along the lines of “eventually we’d have senators with logos all over their shirts, like in nascar” he gets it, kinda

  • LI Phil | February 9, 2010 at 11:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”377134″]Chris Dodd just brought up logo creep in a way on the Colbert Report, they were talking about corporations backing politicians, Dodd said something along the lines of “eventually we’d have senators with logos all over their shirts, like in nascar”

    he gets it, kinda[/quote]

    he wasn’t wearing a countrywide t-shirt, was he?

  • ATLShaun | February 10, 2010 at 12:07 am |

    [quote comment=”377135″][quote comment=”377134″]Chris Dodd just brought up logo creep in a way on the Colbert Report, they were talking about corporations backing politicians, Dodd said something along the lines of “eventually we’d have senators with logos all over their shirts, like in nascar”

    he gets it, kinda[/quote]

    he wasn’t wearing a countrywide t-shirt, was he?[/quote]

    no sir.

    not sure bout that story

  • Chris | February 10, 2010 at 2:42 am |

    I find it funny how some people on here react to Nike, but don’t raise the same fuss about other companies. I hate to break it to you, but Nike isn’t the only company thinking about the bottom line. They aren’t the only company that is strict about their branding. They aren’t the only company that partakes in what we call ‘logo creep.’

    All this talk about Fujita…were you criticizing and slamming Reebok, for example, when they were trying to force Marcin Gortat to cover up his Jordan tattoo. A tattoo by the way he had BEFORE Reebok gave him a deal. So which company is really the one deserving of our ill words…the one that just wanted someone to live up to a contract? Yes, a very, probably unnecessarily strict contract…but both sides did agree to it. OR the company that signed someone up without knowing they had a rivals logo tattooed on his leg, then tried to make him cover it up without anything to back up their attempts to force him to do so?

    This too me just reeks of bashing Nike because its Nike. Easier to do that since they are the big dog on the athletic company block.

  • Hott Rodd | February 10, 2010 at 8:33 am |

    [quote comment=”377138″]
    All this talk about Fujita…were you criticizing and slamming Reebok, for example, when they were trying to force Marcin Gortat to cover up his Jordan tattoo. A tattoo by the way he had BEFORE Reebok gave him a deal. So which company is really the one deserving of our ill words…the one that just wanted someone to live up to a contract? Yes, a very, probably unnecessarily strict contract…but both sides did agree to it. OR the company that signed someone up without knowing they had a rivals logo tattooed on his leg, then tried to make him cover it up without anything to back up their attempts to force him to do so?[/quote]

    The amazing thing is…

    Yes Reebok WAS criticized, heavily, for that act. And the same for reason Reebok deserved to be criticized in that instance, Nike really doesn’t deserve to be criticized here.

  • Bob Loblaw | February 10, 2010 at 10:57 am |

    [quote comment=”377094″][quote comment=”377092″][quote comment=”377089″][quote comment=”377080″]Why do they need “lighter” uniforms? I mean really, if you have ever held a team issue jersey or pair of shorts, they don’t feel heavy at all.
    Nike has already done away with the inside liner on the team issue shorts, heck, you can even see through the white ones a little! Do they want the uniforms so light that the players feel naked?
    On a personal note, I like the feel of “heavier” or lined, shorts. The heft gives them a good ‘swing’ when you are playing.[/quote]

    If you wear your shorts right, http://www.detroitps... there shouldn’t be any swing at all…[/quote]

    I liked the Spurs’ western stitching on the back of their shorts, which I believe Gervin is wearing.[/quote]

    It didn’t look as good on the warmups, though.
    http://3.media.tumbl...
    What an awesome picture of the IceMan… is that anyone on this MB? What a wonderful memento!

  • Bob Loblaw | February 10, 2010 at 11:00 am |

    [quote comment=”377100″][quote comment=”377099″][quote comment=”377098″]can someone shed light on the start time of todays devils/flyers game? (it’s on now)[/quote]

    That’s last night’s game on replay, Leon. I can ruin the ending for you if you like.[/quote]

    i think leon’s been in my sock drawer[/quote]
    Post of the day!

  • Bob Loblaw | February 10, 2010 at 11:01 am |

    [quote comment=”377102″]The Seahawks have a tradition of renting greats WAY past their prime. Carl Eller, Franco Harris, Jerry Rice, John Randle, Warren Moon…[/quote]

    Yes, they follow the NY Rangers’ model of successful team building.

  • JimV19 | February 10, 2010 at 11:34 am |

    [quote comment=”377178″][quote comment=”377094″][quote comment=”377092″][quote comment=”377089″]If you wear your shorts right, http://www.detroitps... there shouldn’t be any swing at all…[/quote]

    I liked the Spurs’ western stitching on the back of their shorts, which I believe Gervin is wearing.[/quote]

    It didn’t look as good on the warmups, though.
    http://3.media.tumbl...
    What an awesome picture of the IceMan… is that anyone on this MB? What a wonderful memento![/quote]

    Nah, I just found that picture online. Never noticed the fake pockets on those warmups, but I remember the western “stitching” on the hind quarters of the shorts.