These Go To Eleven

jersey contest finalists

By Phil Hecken

It’s time to get down to brass tacks. We’ve spent the past two weekends looking at Round One and Round Two of the “NFL Design-A-Uniform” contest, brought to us by Classic Old School Gear and their prexy, Alain Nana Sinkam.

We considered all your comments and suggestions, and we thank you for them. We hemmed and hawed, almost coming to blows on several occasions, trying to narrow the selections down to what follows. But the usual suspects in conjunction with Alain have finally agreed upon the eleven.

Now, you’ll be asked to take a look at the jerseys one last time, and to cast your vote for the one. You can only vote once, so … choose wisely.

Here, then, are your eleven finalists:

1. John Baranowski: New England Patriots

2. Brandon Bowker: Philadelphia Eagles

3. Kevin Gaffney: Baltimore Ravens

4. “Hungry Hungry Hipster”: Arizona Cardinals

5. Bob Jones: Denver Broncos

6. Christopher Kane: Philadelphia Eagles

7. Anthony McGuire: New Orleans Saints

8. Brad McPelican: Seattle Seahawks

9. Chance Michaels: Green Bay Packers

10. Amos Miller: Detroit Lions

11. Adam Wood: New York Giants

Take a good look at each one (if you need additional reference or the contestant’s write up, please refer back to the links at the top of the page — Amos Miller’s full submission can be found at the end of this article). Then, directly below…cast your vote.

Special thanks, as always, go out to UW Pollster Justin Tolerable Homerism for his assistance with the poll.

To everyone who participated, we thank you and appreciate the supreme effort. To the remaining eleven: GOOD LUCK!

~~~

~~~~~~~~~~

squiddie files 2From The Squiddie Files: Three words: GO GO SOX. That’s all the setup you need from Lance Smith as he brings us yet another wonderful trip through the Life archives. Go. Go. Sox. Here’s Lance:

~~~

The 1959 World Series between the Go-Go White Sox and the now Los Angeles Dodgers is notable for a number of reasons. It was the first World Series since 1948 when neither team was from New York. It was the first World Series to take place at least in part on the west coast. Game Five in Los Angeles had an official attendance of 92,706, a single game World Series record that is unlikely to be broken until Jerry Jones decides to get into baseball.

Let’s look at some photos.

The 1959 World Series also had three things beloved by UniWatch readers, Bill Veeck, Ted Kluszewski and those white World Series stirrups worn by Chicago.

Bill Veeck walks by the Comiskey Park scoreboard and signs programs.

In Game 1, ushers handed out roses to the ladies. A classic Veeckian ploy.

Casey Stengel was there and he talked with Al Lopez and Walter Alston

Big Klu, running out one of his two home runs in Game 1, passes Gil Hodges.
Games 3, 4 and 5 were held in The Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. Gene Autry, Burt Lancaster, Joe Dimaggio and Edward G. Robinson were all there. So was this woman.

White stirrups and no sleeves? Check. Big Klu in LA.

Take a look at this crowd photo. There are a significant number of fans who are wearing Dodgers caps. (There’s also someone wearing a Hollywood Stars cap and at least one Yankee fan.) In Chicago, the closest thing to fans wearing a White Sox cap were these. Under the California sun you need a hat, even if it’s like this.

Walter O’Malley helps set up the folding chairs for the VIPs. Is she wearing the first alternative color fashion cap?

It’s the Drysdale vs. Klu match-up in Game 3. Drysdale gave up 11 hits and only 1 run. Dick Donovan took the loss.

Billy Goodman is injured on a play and has to be taken off the field. Compare the batting helmet logo with the cap. Not bad.

Is there something wrong with Sandy Koufax’s belt loops? Koufax gave up one earned run, but lost Game 5 when three Sox pitchers blanked the Dodgers and the White Sox abandoned the white stirrups. (That’s Nellie Fox scoring the lone run.)

See #23? Who knew that Don Zimmer was ever so svelte? He came in as a PINCH RUNNER in game 5!

In the final in Game 6, the Sox wore their usual stirrups and lost the Series 4 games to 2. Didn’t stop Big Klu from getting his third home run of the series off Johnny Podres. (I’m guessing 98 is a bat boy.)

Lopez shakes Alston’s hand and we’re done.

OK. White Stirrup Recap.
Yes: Game 1, Game 2, Game 3 and Game 4.
No: Game 5 and Game 6

~~~

Thanks, as always, Squiddie. The fall classic may still be months away and the boys of summer have yet to toil, but the fact that they’re playing in Florida and Arizona now means spring is right around the corner. And I’d give my right leg to see an owner as colorful as Bill Veeck again.

~~~~~~~~~~

scoreboardGuess The Game From The Scoreboard: More baseball today, of course, as we inch closer to Opening Day (which should replace Presidents’ Day as a national holiday, by the way). This one may prove very difficult, and it’s brought to us from reader Steve Presser. Ready? Guess The Game From The Scoreboard. Date, location and final score, please, and be sure to link to your answer. And, as always, if you enjoy the game, please send me some new scoreboards! Drop me a line. Thanks!

~~~~~~~~~~

uni template 2Back again with more Uniform Tweaks, Concepts and Revisions today. Since we’re running the NFL Contest today, we’ll skip the football tweaks for now; but if you have a tweak, change or concept for any sport, send them my way.

~~~

Kicking off today’s show is James Hayden, who has a blue look for the Washington Nationals:

Hey,

This time I’m switching sports in anticipation of spring, I give you “Blue Dominant” Washington Nationals (see attached)

Basically, prior to 1968, the American League team in DC – either the one that moved to Minnesota or their replacements who moved to Texas – had Navy Blue as their “primary color” – and pinstriped home unis at that! Only under Bob Short’s ownership were the colors changed to, primarily, Red.

The current National League team simply adopted modern versions of the 1971 Senators’ caps (which had in effect been an icon of the “Baseball in DC” movement) and Red dominant unis (albeit with different lettering fonts, etc.) to hearken back to DC’s “lost” franchise(s).

Having been a small child during the Short era and having read “Kiss it Goodbye” by Shelby Whitfield as a teen, I’ve always wondered exactly why any DC baseball fan would have any interest in remembering the short-lived Short-era.

So, long story, erm, short (and before I make another nauseating pun) – here’s what I think the Nat’s should be wearing as their Home Pinstripes and Blue Alternates.

The Home Pinstripes have, of course, Navy Pinstripes and a script “Nationals” logo with no number on the front (Ala’ the Yanks and Red Sox). I’ve shown a Navy cap with a Red brim with this uni.

The “Blues” are basically a navy version of the current Red Sunday/Alt, with a DC flag patch on one sleeve, and a Nats version of the old Senators patch on the other. Another Navy cap – w/Navy brim and Red “Pretzel W” outlined in White is shown with this (very similar to the former “road” cap, but a bit more colorful – i.e. closer to the cap they wore in the mid-60′s w/o the trim).

Have a better one!

James Hayden

~~~

Next up is Joseph Obermeier, who takes on the NHL’s Islanders with a neat twist:

Hi Phil,

Here’s an idea I had for tweaking the uniform of my once-beloved Islanders. I started with the road jersey (though white jerseys still say ‘home team’ to me) that the Islanders will go full time with next season. I love the retro look and laces, but continuing to use the old team logo just reminds me how long it has been since the days of the cups. I hashed together a new logo using pieces from the Islanders’ earlier attempts at redesign, and I don’t think it looks half bad. The old logo still has its place –- I’ve relegated it to the shoulders, where the Sabres wore theirs for many years. I’d love to ditch the orange altogether, and go with a color scheme like the Boston Breakers of the USFL, but that will have to wait for another day when I have more time.

Thanks.

Joe Obermaier

~~~

The penultimate of the tweaks today is Patrick Lange, who takes a new look at the new vest for the new look Twins:

This is my tweak for the Twins vest uniform. Their current “vest” just has the sleeves cut off of their primary. I think that vests look best with a logo on the chest rather than a team name across the front. I added the stripes to the sleeves and stirrups to give the uniform an old time feel and also removed the NOB.

Closing down the show is Mike Engle, who wasn’t 100% satisfied with this year’s Olympic duds for the hockey fellas, so…he fixed ‘em. Mike really puts his crayolas where his bouche is with these:

For your enjoyment, perusal, entertainment, or all of the above, I present to you uniform design overhauls for my two least favorite hockey jerseys from last Olympics. (Though, in this context, you can’t overhaul anything. Colors basically have to stay the same to match the flag, and tradition is paramount. So overhaul or tweak, whatever, here we go.)

Here’s a new white and blue set for Finland. The 2010 Olympic jerseys had too many line segments going in too many directions. Made no sense to me, and just came across as a blue blob. Sort of reminded me of Italy’s 2006 World Cup soccer jerseys. This is a good thing…for me to headbutt to the ground and refuse to apologize about it. Colors here are white, royal blue, and sky blue, with incidental red and gold on the coat of arms. Traditional socks and pants stripes, but the signature element is the sleeves. Does it evoke anything to you? Well it should. It’s the flag. I personally like my white jersey more than the blue jersey here, simply because of the flag factor. I actually couldn’t decide whether to make the blue jersey on a sky or royal base. I settled on sky because we don’t need another royal-based country.

And here’s a new set for Norway, with a red top (which I like a lot), and a white change (which I don’t quite like as much). Norway’s jerseys from last Olympics were just too plain. The designers really mailed those in, especially with the Rangers word mark. I, however, have something better. You see, Norway’s hockey team just isn’t that good, and their hockey is not at all memorable. Their curling pants, on the other hand, are unforgettable. I couldn’t resist throwing the diamond pattern onto the yoke and the sleeve stripes. I opted for quasi-Blackhawks hem stripes and sock stripes to slightly off-set the radical curling pattern with some conservative old-time hockey flavor. Finally, the new word mark. I messed with the N in NORGE, and had it go SW to NE; this way, the word mark mimics the shape of the country. If you don’t see it, don’t look so hard. Meaning that the captain’s C is now on the right shoulder above the word mark, just like how Svalbard is above mainland Norway. Colors are red, white, and royal, with a touch of gray found only in the curling diamond pattern.

After I overhauled the hockey uniforms for Norway and Finland, I realized my patriotic pride and silver medal buzz were clouding my judgment. My beloved Americans also need new uniforms. I don’t care that their navy may be too dark, but I DO stand by the fact that the USA in VAL across the front doesn’t make a hockey uniform. It makes a basketball jersey with long sleeves. The USA diagonal à la NYR is barely passable–it loses points because USA is only three letters long. It’s fine for the Squaw Valley throwbacks if they stay, but I didn’t want to recreate those.

Oh say can you see THESE hockey jerseys? In white and blue. Please, no red alternate. 204 years before we beat the Red Army, we had to beat the Red Coats. If the USA wears a red hockey jersey, I’m rooting for Canada.) In the end, I made the USA a real crest, which will be a nice and wide target to shoot the puck right into Ryan Miller’s chest for the easy save. The crest itself has two gold stars for Squaw Valley 1960 and Lake Placid 1980. Hopefully, in my lifetime, we can add another gold star. The shoulder stars are an element from the Lake Placid jerseys, carried over, and I made sure the socks have 13 stripes, just like the crest. Nothing else has any intentional symbolism, aside from “I like it and it’s my design, so here you go.” And just in case Nike decides to put a patriotic slogan on the jersey, I’ve relegated it to the inside of the neck. I strongly suggest “E Pluribus Unum.” It doesn’t get more appropriate for a hockey team: it’s Latin for, “Out of many, one.” It’s money.

~~~

That’s it for the tweak show today. Back with more next time.

~~~~~~~~~~

triviaRicko’s Trivia Question: Got a trivia question from the one and only Rick Pearson yesterday, which he thought might be good to pose to the board. So here goes (it’s a two-parter):

(1) What state can claim the most seasons with more than one MLB team?

(2) And also, at this point, the state with the current longest unbroken string of seasons with more than one team?

Interesting…and not as easy as you might think. Give it a shot.

~~~~~~~~~~

oscar

OSCAR OSCAR!

And finally, your 82nd Academy Awards Predictions:

Don’t know if any of you care, but I’m usually pretty spot-on when it comes to this sort of thing. See if you can’t take me down.

First one to nail all six (unless I get them all right) wins a free Uni Watch Membership on me.

If you already have a UW membership (and you know you should)…I’ll give you another prize. Take your best shot. Here’s my picks:

Best Picture: The Hurt Locker
Best Actor: Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
Best Actress: Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz, Inglorious Basterds
Best Supporting Actress: Mo’Nique, Precious
Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker

~~~~~~~~~~

Okie dokie, kiddies. That’s all for this fine Sunday. Have yourselves a great day.

 

158 comments to These Go To Eleven

  • Kenny | March 7, 2010 at 7:16 am |

    Best Picture- The Hurt Locker
    Best Actor- Jeff Bridges
    Best Actress- Sandra Bullock
    Best Supporting Actor- Christoph Waltz
    Best Supporting Actress- Mo’Nique
    Best Director- James Cameron

  • The Jeff | March 7, 2010 at 7:20 am |

    I’m rather disappointed in the top 11. Only 1 of my top 3 choices made it. That one would be Brad McPelican’s Seahawks jersey.

  • Blah | March 7, 2010 at 7:41 am |

    I see several other people’s work get way more props than many of the final ones posted here. Clearly, our feedback didn’t mean anything.

    Or did the DIYer making the winning jersey decide to pass on the ones that were beyond his abilities?

    Either way, you got 11 crappy finalists.

  • JTH | March 7, 2010 at 7:43 am |

    I’m going to guess that the answer to both parts of the trivia question is Pennsylvania.

  • Dave Delisle | March 7, 2010 at 7:53 am |

    Way more people showed love for my entry and Rocky’s Eagles entry than…Bowker’s– who got only one positive endorsement.

    Fail, Uni-Watch, Fail.

  • The Jeff | March 7, 2010 at 8:17 am |

    [quote comment="380725"]I’m going to guess that the answer to both parts of the trivia question is Pennsylvania.[/quote]

    I’m thinking Illinois

  • Harry | March 7, 2010 at 8:22 am |

    The Packers jersey’s inspired. Takes into account vestigial sleeves and I dig the font. Other than that MAYBE the Giants but slim pickings afterwards. God bless them all for submitting though.

  • JTH | March 7, 2010 at 8:32 am |

    [quote comment="380727"][quote comment="380725"]I’m going to guess that the answer to both parts of the trivia question is Pennsylvania.[/quote]

    I’m thinking Illinois[/quote]
    That was my first thought. Ohio was my second. But the Indians and White Sox have “only” been around (as Major League teams) since 1901. The Pirates and Phillies both go back to the 1880s.

  • Megan | March 7, 2010 at 8:33 am |

    Ravens submission looks like a knock-off mix between the Oregon Ducks & Eagles.
    Broncos=the Bears
    Cardinals=eyesore
    Saints is okay but it’s missing something. Maybe it’s just the size of the font I don’t like. I also do not love white NFL jerseys…
    I voted for the Giants because simple is always better.

    Hurt Locker or District 9 better win best picture…

  • Oakville Endive | March 7, 2010 at 8:34 am |

    Uni watch is coming under some heavy criticism for the final 11 (why 11?). My view the picks are geared to make the Green Bay the winner as it’s competing against very few traditional looks, and as the uni-watch readers are by and large traditionalists – it should be a slam dunk – . However – I picked the Lions.

    The Giants diddy – would appear to pay home to the Habs.

  • Harry | March 7, 2010 at 8:36 am |

    Oh, and I’m thinking Pennsylvania as well. They even had the original A’s.

  • JTH | March 7, 2010 at 8:39 am |

    [quote comment="380729"][quote comment="380727"][quote comment="380725"]I’m going to guess that the answer to both parts of the trivia question is Pennsylvania.[/quote]

    I’m thinking Illinois[/quote]
    That was my first thought. Ohio was my second. But the Indians and White Sox have “only” been around (as Major League teams) since 1901. The Pirates and Phillies both go back to the 1880s.[/quote]
    I’m amending my answer. Part 1 is Ohio. Part 2 is Pennslyvania.

  • Mike | March 7, 2010 at 8:48 am |

    I feel bad for the guys who entered the Eagles and Ravens winged jerseys; they’re so similar that I think they’re going to split a lot of votes. Too bad, because I think they’re both in the top 3 of designs submitted.

    But in an effort to make sure something I like wins, I’m voting for the Giants jersey.

  • FormerDirtDart | March 7, 2010 at 8:58 am |

    Damn, Oscar time already? I am reminded I haven’t gone to see a movie since “Return of the King”, and that I have a Netflix offering sitting on a shelf for the last 6 months.

    As for the jersey contest, I must vote for Adam Woods throwbacky Giants. The Hipsters drug induced Cardinals is a close second though

  • Dave | March 7, 2010 at 9:04 am |

    I’m not sure how a few of those made the final 11, but most of these 11 (and a few others that didn’t make the final 11) blew away my design. My vote is for the Seahawks uni, in my mind it is the best tweak I’ve seen on here in a long time.

  • FormerDirtDart | March 7, 2010 at 9:15 am |

    [quote comment="380731"]Uni watch is coming under some heavy criticism for the final 11 (why 11?). My view the picks are geared to make the Green Bay the winner as it’s competing against very few traditional looks, and as the uni-watch readers are by and large traditionalists – it should be a slam dunk – . However – I picked the Lions.

    The Giants diddy – would appear to pay home to the Habs.[/quote]
    Hmmmm…how might the number 11 be related to football???
    the “Giants diddy” pays homage to ’33 Giants

  • Dan King | March 7, 2010 at 9:19 am |

    [quote comment="380733"][quote comment="380729"][quote comment="380727"][quote comment="380725"]I’m going to guess that the answer to both parts of the trivia question is Pennsylvania.[/quote]

    I’m thinking Illinois[/quote]
    That was my first thought. Ohio was my second. But the Indians and White Sox have “only” been around (as Major League teams) since 1901. The Pirates and Phillies both go back to the 1880s.[/quote]
    I’m amending my answer. Part 1 is Ohio. Part 2 is Pennslyvania.[/quote]

    but there have were multiple teams in cleveland before the indians, such as the spiders. not sure if they were consecutive though.

  • Ricko | March 7, 2010 at 9:25 am |

    [quote comment="380730"]Ravens submission looks like a knock-off mix between the Oregon Ducks & Eagles.
    Broncos=the Bears
    Cardinals=eyesore
    Saints is okay but it’s missing something. Maybe it’s just the size of the font I don’t like. I also do not love white NFL jerseys…
    I voted for the Giants because simple is always better.

    Hurt Locker or District 9 better win best picture…[/quote]

    Not lobbying for any particular jersey, just offering a bit historical perspective that evidently is being overlooked here.

    “Broncos=Bears”?

    Hardly. This is the Broncos’ second set of orange unis (mid ’60s) after changing team colors to orange and blue from gold and brown…
    http://farm5.static....

    —Ricko

  • JTH | March 7, 2010 at 9:31 am |

    [quote comment="380738"][quote comment="380733"][quote comment="380729"][quote comment="380727"][quote comment="380725"]I’m going to guess that the answer to both parts of the trivia question is Pennsylvania.[/quote]

    I’m thinking Illinois[/quote]
    That was my first thought. Ohio was my second. But the Indians and White Sox have “only” been around (as Major League teams) since 1901. The Pirates and Phillies both go back to the 1880s.[/quote]
    I’m amending my answer. Part 1 is Ohio. Part 2 is Pennslyvania.[/quote]

    but there have were multiple teams in cleveland before the indians, such as the spiders. not sure if they were consecutive though.[/quote]
    I could certainly be mistaken, but to the best of my knowledge, there was only one major league team in Ohio in 1900, and that would be the Reds. The American Association wasn’t around anymore and there was an American League team in Cleveland that year, but the AL was not considered a major league.

  • Juke Early | March 7, 2010 at 9:41 am |

    The 1959 WS was the first World Series since 1948 when neither team was from New York. Oddly, only a few years before, one was. . ..

    I never pick who will win OSCARS – I say who should.

    Best Pic – The Hurt Locker
    Best Actor-Jeff Bridges (for his excellent career – otherwise Colin Firth)
    Best Actress – Carey Mulligan (I’ve seen her in 3 other things)
    Supporting actor – Woody Harrelson
    Supporting Actress -Vera Farmiga ( it is ACTING not attitude + smoking)
    Best Dir – Bigelow (total milf too)

  • Ricko | March 7, 2010 at 9:44 am |

    That’s Roy Campanella, of course…
    http://www.gstatic.c...

    Yikes. Flashed on Prince Fielder there for a second…
    http://www.gstatic.c...
    (Don’t get me wrong. Loved Klu.)

    —Ricko

  • Matt | March 7, 2010 at 9:51 am |

    Best Picture- Up in the Air
    Best Actor- Jeff Bridges
    Best Actress- Sandra Bullock
    Best Supporting Actor- Christoph Waltz
    Best Supporting Actress- Mo’Nique
    Best Director- Kathryn Bigerlow

  • The Tank | March 7, 2010 at 9:52 am |

    Okay…must be family members commenting on that Giant’s jersey. That jersey is the 2nd ugliest jesey on this list of 11. Number one U-G-L-Y being that Cardinals “flag” jersey.

  • Goalie007 | March 7, 2010 at 9:54 am |

    I’m going to guess the answer’s to Ricko’s questions are both Ohio, with the Indians and Reds.

  • ToasterPoodle | March 7, 2010 at 9:54 am |

    Best Picture- Avatar
    Best Actor- Jeff Bridges
    Best Actress- Sandra Bullock
    Best Supporting Actor- Christoph Waltz
    Best Supporting Actress- Mo’Nique
    Best Director- Kathryn Bigerlow

  • Goalie007 | March 7, 2010 at 9:56 am |

    Apostrophe misplaced on purpose!

  • M. Sullivan | March 7, 2010 at 10:01 am |

    As a contestant, I don’t believe that I have right to say that my uni tweak should have made the top 11. I do have the right to say that those are the wrong choices. Just off the top, 2 of my favorites, Nicolaides’s Eagles and Lommel’s Bills were 2 definites in my mind.

  • concealed78 | March 7, 2010 at 10:02 am |

    [quote comment="380723"]I’m rather disappointed in the top 11. Only 1 of my top 3 choices made it. That one would be Brad McPelican’s Seahawks jersey.[/quote]

    There were two I really liked & had a difficult time picking between them, including that Seahawks jersey.

  • M.Princip | March 7, 2010 at 10:07 am |

    You got my vote Mr.Pelican. I voted simply because I love the new take on the Seahawks logo. I really like the side jersey stripes, yet, not so sure how it would look without seeing how it transitions to the pants? If the pants have the same stripes, could be stripe overkill. Thus, I would suggest plain matte gray pants, or, at least stripeless. Maybe simply some cool stitch lines on the pants?

    Honorable mention goes to Amos Miller for his Lions take, and Phil Hecken for the awesome poll box w/graphics.

  • Oakville Endive | March 7, 2010 at 10:09 am |

    [quote comment="380737"][quote comment="380731"]Uni watch is coming under some heavy criticism for the final 11 (why 11?). My view the picks are geared to make the Green Bay the winner as it’s competing against very few traditional looks, and as the uni-watch readers are by and large traditionalists – it should be a slam dunk – . However – I picked the Lions.

    The Giants diddy – would appear to pay home to the Habs.[/quote]
    Hmmmm…how might the number 11 be related to football???
    the “Giants diddy” pays homage to ’33 Giants[/quote]

    I’m bad, how could I have not known that – that it pays homage to a uni that’s 77 years old? . I think anyone who would see it, who isn’t a uniform historian – would think Habs.

  • The Jeff | March 7, 2010 at 10:14 am |

    [quote comment="380750"]You got my vote Mr.Pelican. I voted simply because I love the new take on the Seahawks logo. I really like the side jersey stripes, yet, not so sure how it would look without seeing how it transitions to the pants? If the pants have the same stripes, could be stripe overkill. Thus, I would suggest plain matte gray pants, or, at least stripeless. Maybe simply some cool stitch lines on the pants?

    Honorable mention goes to Amos Miller for his Lions take, and Phil Hecken for the awesome poll box w/graphics.[/quote]

    I’m really glad you posted about the poll box graphics… I’ve got the NoScript firefox plugin and had no idea there was actually a vote box there. I thought the “vote down below” thing meant the comments. Oy.

    Now I’ve voted.

  • M.Princip | March 7, 2010 at 10:16 am |

    [quote comment="380750"]You got my vote Mr.Pelican. I voted simply because I love the new take on the Seahawks logo. I really like the side jersey stripes, yet, not so sure how it would look without seeing how it transitions to the pants? If the pants have the same stripes, could be stripe overkill. Thus, I would suggest plain matte gray pants, or, at least stripeless. Maybe simply some cool stitch lines on the pants?

    Honorable mention goes to Amos Miller for his Lions take, and Phil Hecken for the awesome poll box w/graphics.[/quote]

    My bad, that’s you got my vote Mr.McPelican. ;o/

  • timmy b | March 7, 2010 at 10:16 am |

    The Giants wore that jersey in 1932 as well as 1933. Haven’t checked into 1931, but for sure it was worn in 1932 and 1933. Giants had some nice jerseys in the 1934-1936 era, too. Then they went generic on us for decades starting in 1937.

  • Diego Lobo Diecinueve | March 7, 2010 at 10:20 am |

    Curious as to how TJ’s Eagles design (which got a lot of good comments) lost out to Brandon’s Eagles (which is similar to Kevin’s Ravens), but on the whole it’s a decent enough list.

    I had a favorite going into today, but the more I looked at Amos Miller’s Lions, I have decided that is the jersey I’d like to see made. Muy bueno, Amos.

  • M.Princip | March 7, 2010 at 10:25 am |

    [quote comment="380754"]The Giants wore that jersey in 1932 as well as 1933. Haven’t checked into 1931, but for sure it was worn in 1932 and 1933. Giants had some nice jerseys in the 1934-1936 era, too. Then they went generic on us for decades starting in 1937.[/quote]

    I agree about the nice jerseys,<a href="sorta rugby like.“>

  • Lloyd Davis | March 7, 2010 at 10:25 am |

    Hmm, I don’t think that photo of Big Klu really shows him running out one of his two homers — unless he made a habit of batting while wearing a first baseman’s mitt, which would make his .298 career batting average all the more remarkable.

    And that certainly looks like the Dodgers’ first base coach in the box.

  • Lloyd Davis | March 7, 2010 at 10:27 am |

    [quote comment="380757"]Hmm, I don’t think that photo of Big Klu really shows him running out one of his two homers — unless he made a habit of batting while wearing a first baseman’s mitt, which would make his .298 career batting average all the more remarkable.

    And that certainly looks like the Dodgers’ first base coach in the box.[/quote]

  • Ricko | March 7, 2010 at 10:29 am |

    This…
    http://farm3.static....
    …is a really great design, especially as a hybrid of a number of previous “attitudes”.

    Modern but not so far “out there” that it’s goofy.
    Incorporates the “wave” notion without making some reach for their dramamine.
    Re-imagines the “fisherman” in a dynamic way that’s more mindful of Long Island…as opposed to the helmsman figure that probably made people conjure images of points farther up the Eastern Seaboard.

    Good thinking.

    But will it work in Kansas City? (eyeroll) Sadly, not. At least not the logo.

    —Ricko

  • Lloyd Davis | March 7, 2010 at 10:29 am |

    [quote comment="380757"]Hmm, I don’t think that photo of Big Klu really shows him running out one of his two homers — unless he made a habit of batting while wearing a first baseman’s mitt, which would make his .298 career batting average all the more remarkable.

    And that certainly looks like the Dodgers’ first base coach in the box.[/quote]

    Oops. As Emily Litella used to say, “Never mind.” Hadn’t clicked on the second link to the photo of Kluszewski passing Hodges. (Sound of palm slapping forehead.)

  • Jacques Loup Dix-Neuf | March 7, 2010 at 10:40 am |

    Very solid set of uni-tweaks today.

    James, I still like the Nats in red, but your set is impressive.

    Joseph, if you put a tiny Gorton’s fisherman peaking out of the lighthouse window, your jersey would be perfect.

    Patrick, your Twins uni is my favorite of the day. Very very nice.

    Mike, glad to see you giving the curling team some love in your Norge hockey unis. Good job on all your stuff.

  • interlockingtc | March 7, 2010 at 10:43 am |

    Patrick Lange’s Twins vest is a thing of beauty.

    And I loved those ’59 Series photos. Thanks.

  • Tape | March 7, 2010 at 10:46 am |

    The answer to part 2 of the trivia question has got to be Pennslyvania. With both the Pirates and Phillies in the National League since the 1880s, no dual-team state with an AL team can even hope to match that.

    As for part 1… I think this could depend on how you count “seasons”. Are you counting seasons in the sense that one state has more than one team in 1976, so 1976 one season… or that e.g. New York has 3 teams in 1920 so 1920 counts for 3 seasons. Because if it’s the latter, New York slaughters everyone else since there’s 58 or so seasons of having 3 teams, and most every other year since the NY Giants (as the Gothams) and Brooklyn Dogdgers (as the Athletics) formed has had at least 2 teams (excepting 1959-61, and remember that the Buffalo Bisons were an NL team in the early 1880s when the Giants/Dodgers started up).

    If it’s being judged the other way, I think it still might be Pennsylvania, but I can see how Ohio might edge PA out by a year or two given the Cleveland Blues and Spiders. Though now that I think about it, wasn’t there also an NL team in Syracuse in maybe the late 1870s-early 1880s? So maybe this is New York either way.

    I’m going to say Part 1 is New York. Part 2 is definitely Pennsylvania.

  • Tape | March 7, 2010 at 10:50 am |

    oh plus there was an NL team in Troy (yes, Troy) for probably 4-5 years in the early 1880s while the Buffalo Bisons were around, and I think they folded the same off-season that the Giants and Dodgers were starting up.

    New York has got to have Part 1 by a longshot, I think.

  • Giacomo Lupo Diciannove | March 7, 2010 at 10:50 am |

    Just a wonderful surreal shot of baseball at the LA Coliseum.
    http://www.gstatic.c...
    Wonder what the view was like from the field level seats under the scoreboard.

  • FormerDirtDart | March 7, 2010 at 10:52 am |

    [quote comment="380759"]This…
    http://farm3.static....
    …is a really great design, especially as a hybrid of a number of previous “attitudes”.

    Modern but not so far “out there” that it’s goofy.
    Incorporates the “wave” notion without making some reach for their dramamine.
    Re-imagines the “fisherman” in a dynamic way that’s more mindful of Long Island…as opposed to the helmsman figure that probably made people conjure images of points farther up the Eastern Seaboard.

    Good thinking.

    But will it work in Kansas City? (eyeroll) Sadly, not. At least not the logo.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    I immediately thought of these Islander concepts, from back in Dec. http://www.flickr.co...

  • MPowers1634 | March 7, 2010 at 11:02 am |

    [quote comment="380722"]Best Picture- The Hurt Locker
    Best Actor- Jeff Bridges
    Best Actress- Sandra Bullock
    Best Supporting Actor- Christoph Waltz
    Best Supporting Actress- Mo’Nique
    Best Director- James Cameron[/quote]

    I have to agree with Phil’s predictions.
    Christopher Waltz was GENIUS as “The Jew Hunter”.

    Hurt Locker was Intense and Sandra Bullock has NEVER looked so good.

    I only hope that when they announce Bridges the winner of Best Actor, they call up “The Dude”.

    Nonetheless, it doesn’t matter because my cable provider pulled ABC off of the air last night!

  • Eric | March 7, 2010 at 11:02 am |

    Trying to answer the two questions posed by Ricko, I think it may depend on whether or not the National Association (NA) from 1871-1875 is considered a “major league.” If so, then my answers are…

    (1) New York, with, as of the end of the 2009 season, 132 seasons with at least 2 major league teams (1871-1875, 1879-1957, 1962-present).

    (2) Pennsylvania, who will enter the 2010 season with 129 consecutive seasons of more than one team in the majors (1882-present).

    If the NA isn’t considered a major league, then I’ll just say Pennsylvania for both questions.

  • MPowers1634 | March 7, 2010 at 11:05 am |

    [quote comment="380742"]That’s Roy Campanella, of course…
    http://www.gstatic.c...

    Yikes. Flashed on Prince Fielder there for a second…
    http://www.gstatic.c...
    (Don’t get me wrong. Loved Klu.)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I can’t help but think of Alex Karras as Mongo whenever I see Klu.

    http://farm4.static....

  • abbado | March 7, 2010 at 11:07 am |

    No offense to anyone who designed the final 11 jerseys, but I have to disagree with the jerseys selected. We have two that look like knockoffs of the Oregon Ducks, we have a couple with mindless piping or Bibs, we have a few more with pointless contrasting side panels. If any team in the NFL even thought about switching to these designs, everyone on here would have an absolute fit.

    I understand that they are just “what-if” tweaks, but the last two weekends have shown us several, much more complete and realistic designs that were actual upgrades.

    I am somewhat confused about how these were even selected, I went back and looked at the comments and I really don’t see how these were selected over some of the others.

    I did select the Giants one as top 3 last weekend for the fact that it made me wonder what it would look like on the field. At this point I think we should have voted for the winners of the first 22, then the next 5, then 2, ect.

  • James | March 7, 2010 at 11:20 am |

    OK, really? That’s the top eleven? I can handle losing, but losing to the fanciful delusions of a clearly colorblind and mentally deficient populous is unacceptable. Not to bitch about the rules like Ricko, but if the contest was meant to be Design a Ridiculous Uniform That Would NEVER EVER Be Made In Real Life… well, I probably wouldn’t have entered in the first place. My vote goes to none of the above, and I suggest everyone else’s should, too.

  • Hodges14 | March 7, 2010 at 11:27 am |

    Best picture: Avatar (though I hate the kill smurfs theme)
    Best director: Quentin Tarantino (gotta love those Red Apple Cigs and the Nazi killers)
    Best actor: Morgan Freeman (he is probably the best black actor in the world, even better than Samuel Jackson)
    Best actress: Sandra Bullock (obviously)
    Best Sactor: Chris Waltz
    Best Sactress: Mo’Nique

  • MPowers1634 | March 7, 2010 at 11:31 am |

    [quote comment="380770"]No offense to anyone who designed the final 11 jerseys, but I have to disagree with the jerseys selected. We have two that look like knockoffs of the Oregon Ducks, we have a couple with mindless piping or Bibs, we have a few more with pointless contrasting side panels. If any team in the NFL even thought about switching to these designs, everyone on here would have an absolute fit.

    I understand that they are just “what-if” tweaks, but the last two weekends have shown us several, much more complete and realistic designs that were actual upgrades.

    I am somewhat confused about how these were even selected, I went back and looked at the comments and I really don’t see how these were selected over some of the others.

    I did select the Giants one as top 3 last weekend for the fact that it made me wonder what it would look like on the field. At this point I think we should have voted for the winners of the first 22, then the next 5, then 2, ect.[/quote]

    I was also a bit underwhelmed.

  • Chance Michaels | March 7, 2010 at 11:31 am |

    I posted this earlier, but it seems to have been gobbled up by the post monster (guess I can’t comment from my phone, even in regular view).

    In the spirit of the Oscars, it’s an honor just to be nominated. ;)

    Phil, what’s the timeline for the contest? When do the polls close?

  • The Jeff | March 7, 2010 at 11:37 am |

    [quote comment="380772"]Best picture: Avatar (though I hate the kill smurfs theme)
    Best director: Quentin Tarantino (gotta love those Red Apple Cigs and the Nazi killers)
    Best actor: Morgan Freeman (he is probably the best black actor in the world, even better than Samuel Jackson)
    Best actress: Sandra Bullock (obviously)
    Best Sactor: Chris Waltz
    Best Sactress: Mo’Nique[/quote]

    Avatar sucked. Yeah, the visuals were great, but the story was so blatantly predictable it wasn’t worth watching. Ugh. Not to mention “unobtainium”.

  • Hibbsy | March 7, 2010 at 11:39 am |

    Are those colored pencils on Engle’s designs? I don’t think they’re crayons. Either way, I like that. Computers are great and all, but markers, pens, etc., are cooler.

    Just seeing Sandra Bullock get mentioned reaffirms my disdain for the Oscars.

  • MPowers1634 | March 7, 2010 at 11:41 am |

    [quote comment="380775"][quote comment="380772"]Best picture: Avatar (though I hate the kill smurfs theme)
    Best director: Quentin Tarantino (gotta love those Red Apple Cigs and the Nazi killers)
    Best actor: Morgan Freeman (he is probably the best black actor in the world, even better than Samuel Jackson)
    Best actress: Sandra Bullock (obviously)
    Best Sactor: Chris Waltz
    Best Sactress: Mo’Nique[/quote]

    Avatar sucked. Yeah, the visuals were great, but the story was so blatantly predictable it wasn’t worth watching. Ugh. Not to mention “unobtainium”.[/quote]

    Avatar deserves every technical award there is, however I have to agree somewhat with The Jeff.
    It was basically Pocahantas on an alien planet.

    If you want to watch an equally visually stunning yet actual Pocahantas film, rent “The New World”.

  • FormerDirtDart | March 7, 2010 at 11:47 am |

    “Morgan Freeman (he is probably the best black actor in the world, even better than Samuel Jackson)”

    The man some how convinced millions of Americans to watch penguins for 90 minutes
    nuff said

  • Hibbsy | March 7, 2010 at 11:55 am |

    The man some how convinced millions of Americans to watch penguins for 90 minutes
    nuff said

    He had me at “Electric Company”.

  • mtjaws | March 7, 2010 at 11:55 am |

    Of these 11 tweaks, I didn’t really like any of them. So, I voted for the Saints one. Good font and stripes.

    Phil stole my exact Oscar picks, so to beat him, I’ll change a few.

    Best Picture: Avatar
    Best Actor: Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
    Best Actress: Meryl Streep, Julie & Julia
    Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz, Inglorious Basterds
    Best Supporting Actress: Mo’Nique, Precious
    Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker

  • Alec | March 7, 2010 at 11:55 am |

    The new voting system for best picture really should throw people for a loop. The movie that is on number 2 or 3 on most lists is the likely winner.

  • Rich | March 7, 2010 at 12:04 pm |

    Best Picture: Avatar
    Best Actor: Jeff Bridges
    Best Actress: Meryl Streep
    Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz
    Best Supporting Actress: Mo’Nique
    Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow

  • mmwatkin | March 7, 2010 at 12:07 pm |

    At least there was a “none of the above” choice.

    I commend all of the participants who took time and effort to not only conceptualize their look, but also take the time to make an actual picture of it. It is a lot more time consuming than most would think.

    Still, I am a little surprised that there wasn’t an entry that really WOWED me. Seems that with the bitching that breaks out around here every time a team has a redesign, we would have someone who stepped up and produced a uniform that blew the doors off the place.

    Maybe this designing thing is kinda tough, no?

  • Ricko | March 7, 2010 at 12:08 pm |

    The “Panel” was submitted a fairly vast number of jerseys to evaluate….then asked for vote for their top 10, with the top 11 vote-getters being the ones to show up today.

    And it was based ONLY on the jersey. Because as originally consituted it was Design a Jersey of an NFL Team contest.

    Several applied the criteria, “Might the team in question actually wear the jersey in 2010?” (or some form of that thinking).

    That meant anything that changed a team’s colors or introduced an altered logo, or a new logo entirely, ended up being downgraded, no matter how orginal or inventive the design it might have been.

    Many panel members did not vote for some of jerseys that made it to today. But these are Top 11, based on the combined votes.

  • Ricko | March 7, 2010 at 12:15 pm |

    Interesting note on the contest.
    There were, I believe, four teams for which no offered a new jersey.

    Think it was Bucs, Texans, Titans and Falcons (but don’t quote me on that).

  • timmy b | March 7, 2010 at 12:28 pm |

    [quote comment="380756"][quote comment="380754"]The Giants wore that jersey in 1932 as well as 1933. Haven’t checked into 1931, but for sure it was worn in 1932 and 1933. Giants had some nice jerseys in the 1934-1936 era, too. Then they went generic on us for decades starting in 1937.[/quote]

    I agree about the nice jerseys,<a href="sorta rugby like.“>[/quote]

    The link is the perfect example of the way red is darker that blue in the b/w pic. good catch.

  • Dan P. | March 7, 2010 at 12:33 pm |

    I’m voting for Adam Wood. Nothing else floats my boat. Anthony McGuire’s Sanits comes close, but I’m not a fan of white jerseys.

    I’m thinking the back of John Baranowski’s jersey look a little too much like this. Blasphemy!

  • KevinW | March 7, 2010 at 12:35 pm |

    For those who care about such things, the longest NOB in sports just got into the game for Hull City vs. Everton

    http://www2.pictures...

  • Amos Miller | March 7, 2010 at 12:39 pm |

    [quote comment="380770"]No offense to anyone who designed the final 11 jerseys, but I have to disagree with the jerseys selected. We have two that look like knockoffs of the Oregon Ducks, we have a couple with mindless piping or Bibs, we have a few more with pointless contrasting side panels. If any team in the NFL even thought about switching to these designs, everyone on here would have an absolute fit.

    I understand that they are just “what-if” tweaks, but the last two weekends have shown us several, much more complete and realistic designs that were actual upgrades.

    I am somewhat confused about how these were even selected, I went back and looked at the comments and I really don’t see how these were selected over some of the others.

    I did select the Giants one as top 3 last weekend for the fact that it made me wonder what it would look like on the field. At this point I think we should have voted for the winners of the first 22, then the next 5, then 2, ect.[/quote]

    My Lions design was based off an old 50′s lions logo with the new logo incorporated in. I just felt I had to say something as your statement about the “mindless” elements of these jerseys tweaked me a bit.

    Good luck to everyone competing

  • EddieAtari | March 7, 2010 at 12:39 pm |

    Is Jose Reyes rockin’ an official MLB doo rag? Interesting…

  • Rich | March 7, 2010 at 12:43 pm |

    [quote comment="380782"]Best Picture: Avatar
    Best Actor: Jeff Bridges
    Best Actress: Meryl Streep
    Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz
    Best Supporting Actress: Mo’Nique
    Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow[/quote]

    Should have looked at post 59. Do change Director from Bigelow to Cameron.

  • Chris from Carver | March 7, 2010 at 12:44 pm |
  • Ricko | March 7, 2010 at 1:03 pm |

    [quote comment="380789"][quote comment="380770"]No offense to anyone who designed the final 11 jerseys, but I have to disagree with the jerseys selected. We have two that look like knockoffs of the Oregon Ducks, we have a couple with mindless piping or Bibs, we have a few more with pointless contrasting side panels. If any team in the NFL even thought about switching to these designs, everyone on here would have an absolute fit.

    I understand that they are just “what-if” tweaks, but the last two weekends have shown us several, much more complete and realistic designs that were actual upgrades.

    I am somewhat confused about how these were even selected, I went back and looked at the comments and I really don’t see how these were selected over some of the others.

    I did select the Giants one as top 3 last weekend for the fact that it made me wonder what it would look like on the field. At this point I think we should have voted for the winners of the first 22, then the next 5, then 2, ect.[/quote]

    My Lions design was based off an old 50′s lions logo with the new logo incorporated in. I just felt I had to say something as your statement about the “mindless” elements of these jerseys tweaked me a bit.

    Good luck to everyone competing[/quote]

    Stripe pattern comes from this, yes?
    http://www.sportslog...

  • Andy | March 7, 2010 at 1:06 pm |

    [quote comment="380786"][quote comment="380756"][quote comment="380754"]The Giants wore that jersey in 1932 as well as 1933. Haven’t checked into 1931, but for sure it was worn in 1932 and 1933. Giants had some nice jerseys in the 1934-1936 era, too. Then they went generic on us for decades starting in 1937.[/quote]

    I agree about the nice jerseys,<a href="sorta rugby like.“>[/quote]

    The link is the perfect example of the way red is darker that blue in the b/w pic. good catch.[/quote]

    Did you ever figure anything out about the white shoulder yoke in that pic, though, Tim. It def. should be a blue yoke if it’s the same jersey. (the one at the HOF is that way, at least).

  • Squiddie | March 7, 2010 at 1:09 pm |

    [quote comment="380788"]For those who care about such things, the longest NOB in sports just got into the game for Hull City vs. Everton

    http://www2.pictures...
    I wonder how much that would cost to put on the back of your custom jersey? Hull driven into administration by their tragic “Any player/One low price!” special shirt offer.

    No wonder Kaka and Pele are more popular.

  • Taxman | March 7, 2010 at 1:12 pm |

    [quote comment="380783"]At least there was a “none of the above” choice.

    I commend all of the participants who took time and effort to not only conceptualize their look, but also take the time to make an actual picture of it. It is a lot more time consuming than most would think.

    Still, I am a little surprised that there wasn’t an entry that really WOWED me. Seems that with the bitching that breaks out around here every time a team has a redesign, we would have someone who stepped up and produced a uniform that blew the doors off the place.

    Maybe this designing thing is kinda tough, no?[/quote]
    Very well said.

  • Thomas Clark | March 7, 2010 at 1:15 pm |

    Love, love, LOVE that Islanders tweak. Did I mention that it’s fantastic?

    I like the idea of the Finnish jerseys, I think the White top has potential, I’m not sold on the mock up of the blue.

    The Norwegian sweater bugs me, it comes off very Croatian rather than very Norwegian. But kudos for trying something different and putting some thought into it!

    As for the football tweaks:

    I really like the idea behind the Eagles and Ravens, I’m not sure how it would look in person but it’s a fun idea that is different from the norm.

  • BT | March 7, 2010 at 1:20 pm |

    That Seahawks design NEEDS to happen, good Lord…

  • Squiddie | March 7, 2010 at 1:22 pm |

    [quote comment="380760"][quote comment="380757"]Hmm, I don’t think that photo of Big Klu really shows him running out one of his two homers — unless he made a habit of batting while wearing a first baseman’s mitt, which would make his .298 career batting average all the more remarkable.

    And that certainly looks like the Dodgers’ first base coach in the box.[/quote]

    Oops. As Emily Litella used to say, “Never mind.” Hadn’t clicked on the second link to the photo of Kluszewski passing Hodges. (Sound of palm slapping forehead.)[/quote]

    I think I originally had a link to a different photo but swapped in the one of Kluszewski at first because his arms looked especially big.

    There are photos of Big Klu running by Jim Gilliam, Maury Wills and into the dugout.

    Speaking of Alex Karras, he kinda looked like Al Franken when he was younger.

  • Ricko | March 7, 2010 at 1:27 pm |

    Wish I’d entered this one. As an Alt only. Forgot about it cuz done one Saturday night a long time ago.

    Worn once a season (first day game after Autumnal Equinox, to celebrate long history of Packer football in the fall in Wisconsin). Huston-era inspired, but not a true throwback. Vintage sleeve logo. Yoke high enough in back so NOB is white letters on forest. TVs white to not visually break up the yoke too much.
    http://farm3.static....

    —Ricko

  • Draft King | March 7, 2010 at 1:31 pm |

    I didn’t care for many of the uniform tweaks, but that’s in part because I’m a fan of the standard fonts for names and numbers. I voted for the Broncos in the poll, though I also liked the Patriots red prototype.

    Best Picture: The Hurt Locker
    Best Actor: Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
    Best Actress: Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
    Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz, Inglorious Basterds
    Best Supporting Actress: Mo’Nique, Precious
    Best Director: Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds

  • Dave Delisle | March 7, 2010 at 1:39 pm |

    No one else is ticked that the final 11 wasn’t decided by the people? It was supposed to be based on the feedback made on the comments! I counted 9 people who liked mine (thanks guys) while the crayon entry only got one endorsement.

    Seriously, if someone took the time to count votes we’d have a very different top 11.

    I am ticked because everyone’s taste was rather sound. If I got zero mentions I’d be perfectly fine with not being in the final 11. Instead, we get this random lot.

  • LarryB | March 7, 2010 at 1:43 pm |

    [quote comment="380754"]The Giants wore that jersey in 1932 as well as 1933. Haven’t checked into 1931, but for sure it was worn in 1932 and 1933. Giants had some nice jerseys in the 1934-1936 era, too. Then they went generic on us for decades starting in 1937.[/quote]

    That is why I chose that one. It did remind me of the Giants 30′s era.

  • andy | March 7, 2010 at 1:47 pm |

    Of the tweaks in the poll, I think I dig the Broncos and the back-to-basics Seahawks concepts myself.

    Y’know, maybe someone needs to petition the NFL to consider something like the Arizona-flag concept for the Cards, maybe for a game or two at home, considering 2012 is coming up. Think about what Arizona might want to celebrate in 2012 (no, not the end of the world).

  • The Jeff | March 7, 2010 at 1:52 pm |

    [quote comment="380805"]Of the tweaks in the poll, I think I dig the Broncos and the back-to-basics Seahawks concepts myself.

    Y’know, maybe someone needs to petition the NFL to consider something like the Arizona-flag concept for the Cards, maybe for a game or two at home, considering 2012 is coming up. Think about what Arizona might want to celebrate in 2012 (no, not the end of the world).[/quote]

    War of 1812?

  • FormerDirtDart | March 7, 2010 at 2:07 pm |

    [quote comment="380806"][quote comment="380805"]Of the tweaks in the poll, I think I dig the Broncos and the back-to-basics Seahawks concepts myself.

    Y’know, maybe someone needs to petition the NFL to consider something like the Arizona-flag concept for the Cards, maybe for a game or two at home, considering 2012 is coming up. Think about what Arizona might want to celebrate in 2012 (no, not the end of the world).[/quote]

    War of 1812?[/quote]
    Admitted to the Union in 1912 as the 48th state

  • Zach | March 7, 2010 at 2:26 pm |

    Wasn’t able to catch a screen grab but while watching the red wings v. blackhawks game they were just showing christobal huet who was pulled from the game the ballcap he’s wearing is from the ’09 playoffs with a patch

  • Alex | March 7, 2010 at 2:33 pm |

    Wow. Can I vote for “none” because they’re all pretty crappy.

  • LI Phil | March 7, 2010 at 2:35 pm |

    [quote comment="380774"]Phil, what’s the timeline for the contest? When do the polls close?[/quote]

    oh dammit…sorry…um…

    the polls close FRIDAY, 19 MARCH

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    and apologies to those who may care about such things, but i had a bit of a family emergency this morning and am just getting to the comments now

    sometimes there are more important things in life than whether your jersey got nominated for a UW contest, and today was one of those times

    apologies to all who didn’t make the cut — trust me, the final 11 dont include very many of my personal choices, but this was done in what we thought was the most democratic manner possible — we said your comments would count but the final decisions would be made by a panel of judges…

    perhaps that was the first mistake

    /good luck to those who predicted the oscars; like powers, i have a cable system who’s fighting with ABC so as of now ABC now refuses to allow my system to broadcast them, so i won’t even be able to watch them this evening

    can this day get any worse

  • Alex | March 7, 2010 at 2:38 pm |

    Okay, my vote is “none”. Amazing contest.

  • Mike Engle | March 7, 2010 at 2:46 pm |

    [quote comment="380776"]Are those colored pencils on Engle’s designs? I don’t think they’re crayons. Either way, I like that. Computers are great and all, but markers, pens, etc., are cooler.

    Just seeing Sandra Bullock get mentioned reaffirms my disdain for the Oscars.[/quote]
    I can confirm, I use colored pencils on a hand drawn template (which I drew with a #2 pencil on normal copy paper, and scanned into my computer). And technically, not Crayola brand colored pencils either. They’re no-names from Zellers.
    Here’s my process: 1) Print out a copy of the blank template; 2) Do everything EXCEPT coloring in, in pencil; 3) Copy the B&W team-specific template (I now have two identical templates for one team); 4) Color them both in: one mostly white; the other in team color.
    It takes a long time, but I don’t have Photoshop, so it’s more important for me to draw what I want to portray. Then, if I ever needed to do so, I could give these to a Photoshop expert and hire them to “do this.” Or, buy Photoshop, learn it, and do it myself.

  • LarryB | March 7, 2010 at 2:51 pm |

    http://lh3.ggpht.com...

    1933 Giants figure with blue yoke

  • teenchy | March 7, 2010 at 2:51 pm |

    James Hayden wrote:

    Having been a small child during the Short era and having read “Kiss it Goodbye” by Shelby Whitfield as a teen, I’ve always wondered exactly why any DC baseball fan would have any interest in remembering the short-lived Short-era.

    My guess would be because the ’69 club provided the only winning record since 1952. FWIW I still have a wool fitted red Senators cap (American Needle, bought in the mid-1970s at a souvenir shop in the District); on the rare occasion I wear it, people ask me if it’s a Nationals cap and, if so, why it doesn’t have a MLB logo on the back.

    Anyway, nice effort on the tweak. I liked the ’63-67 AL Nats unis except for the Cub Scout piping on the caps. I’d be fine with the current unis if only the home jerseys would use the same font for “Nationals” as the roads do for “Washington.”

  • Andy | March 7, 2010 at 3:19 pm |

    [quote comment="380814"]http://lh3.ggpht.com/_bQ-9YGBlBzs/S1YsrLjEbII/AAAAAAAAU_A/7K_EvvoygJM/33%20NY%20Giants.jpg

    1933 Giants figure with blue yoke[/quote]

    Correct. It is confirmed that the red jersey with blue yoke and blue chest band trimmed in white (like the one in the contest today) existed as such in the early 30s. They have an actual specimen at the HOF in Canton.

    The problem occurs in that I’ve found multiple photos, like the one posted by Tim earlier today, that show this style jersey with what, to me, is clearly a white yoke. Now, we know that old B&W photos can not be used to reliably determine red vs. blue, so without having an actual specimen to reference, I’d have to guess that they were red jerseys with a white yoke and a blue band, trimmed in white, across the chest. Basically the same jersey but with a different color yoke sewn in. Don’t know when that version would have been worn, though. Maybe 1931?

  • KevinW | March 7, 2010 at 3:20 pm |

    [quote comment="380810"][quote comment="380774"]Phil, what’s the timeline for the contest? When do the polls close?[/quote]

    oh dammit…sorry…um…

    the polls close FRIDAY, 19 MARCH

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    and apologies to those who may care about such things, but i had a bit of a family emergency this morning and am just getting to the comments now

    sometimes there are more important things in life than whether your jersey got nominated for a UW contest, and today was one of those times

    apologies to all who didn’t make the cut — trust me, the final 11 dont include very many of my personal choices, but this was done in what we thought was the most democratic manner possible — we said your comments would count but the final decisions would be made by a panel of judges…

    perhaps that was the first mistake

    /good luck to those who predicted the oscars; like powers, i have a cable system who’s fighting with ABC so as of now ABC now refuses to allow my system to broadcast them, so i won’t even be able to watch them this evening

    can this day get any worse[/quote]

    Is it possible to still use an antenna for those networks?

  • Jeff P | March 7, 2010 at 3:30 pm |

    [quote comment="380817"][quote comment="380810"][quote comment="380774"]Phil, what’s the timeline for the contest? When do the polls close?[/quote]

    oh dammit…sorry…um…

    the polls close FRIDAY, 19 MARCH

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    and apologies to those who may care about such things, but i had a bit of a family emergency this morning and am just getting to the comments now

    sometimes there are more important things in life than whether your jersey got nominated for a UW contest, and today was one of those times

    apologies to all who didn’t make the cut — trust me, the final 11 dont include very many of my personal choices, but this was done in what we thought was the most democratic manner possible — we said your comments would count but the final decisions would be made by a panel of judges…

    perhaps that was the first mistake

    /good luck to those who predicted the oscars; like powers, i have a cable system who’s fighting with ABC so as of now ABC now refuses to allow my system to broadcast them, so i won’t even be able to watch them this evening

    can this day get any worse[/quote]

    Is it possible to still use an antenna for those networks?[/quote]
    Yup, but if your TV can’t handle a digital input, you have to buy a converter box.

    But really, I don’t give much of a shit about the oscars, I’ve watched them all of once, when Jon Stewart was hosting. His bits were good, but there was too much crap between them.

    “I’d like to thank my family….” Yeah, we got it. Everybody says it.

    I might watch the red carpet to laugh at what we Americans laughably call “tuxedos” though.

  • LI Phil | March 7, 2010 at 3:52 pm |

    [quote comment="380817"]
    Is it possible to still use an antenna for those networks?[/quote]

    apparently i have 3 options

    go to a “consumer electronics store” and get a “free digital converter box”…whatever the hell that is

    or hope it’s on hulu or abc.com

    or…

    like the entire year my cable company wouldn’t broadcast the yankees (granted, i’d have been pissed if it were the mets, but still)…

    (gasp) not watch

    i somehow survived

    /eff ABC and cable…

  • Traxel | March 7, 2010 at 4:04 pm |

    [quote comment="380810"][quote comment="380774"]Phil, what’s the timeline for the contest? When do the polls close?[/quote]

    oh dammit…sorry…um…

    the polls close FRIDAY, 19 MARCH

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    and apologies to those who may care about such things, but i had a bit of a family emergency this morning and am just getting to the comments now

    sometimes there are more important things in life than whether your jersey got nominated for a UW contest, and today was one of those times

    apologies to all who didn’t make the cut — trust me, the final 11 dont include very many of my personal choices, but this was done in what we thought was the most democratic manner possible — we said your comments would count but the final decisions would be made by a panel of judges…

    perhaps that was the first mistake

    /good luck to those who predicted the oscars; like powers, i have a cable system who’s fighting with ABC so as of now ABC now refuses to allow my system to broadcast them, so i won’t even be able to watch them this evening

    can this day get any worse[/quote]
    I better not hear any bitchin about cable…

  • rpm | March 7, 2010 at 4:06 pm |

    what a bunch of babies we are showing ourselves to be today.

    first, everyone who helped compile the list came into it with a different idea of what should or should not make it based on their own biases, and to say there was some heated debate about the choices is an understatement. was there something perhaps left off that i liked, or someone else liked, sure, but the list does show a decent range of the submissions that are strong in different areas based on a variety of criteria. it was much like an nfl hall of fame debate, where yes, some qualified players don’t get in, better luck next time. but to cry because you didn’t make it while bad mouthing those who did under a name like “blah” is in poor taste and very laim, i am glad we didn’t put you in whomever you are. or even if you didn’t submit, to say that all the choices are garbage is a garbage statement too. if all 11 of these are not worthy, i wonder what 11 are. clearly, any 11 was going to make #12 and 13 unhappy, and clearly any 11 was going to inspire people to criticize.

    dave deslile~ while i disagree with counting positive comments as a means of validating your design, i credit you for making your comments under your name, it shows the type of guts that few people here have, and that is owning your words. i can tell you this, you were in my original top 10 before we started pairing down, ultimately, as everyone put in their two cents, you were put behind another bengal, and there were others i felt the need to fight for. as the list became the list, you were on the outside looking in, as were some other qualified designs which were in until the last possible second. yes, your design was strong, but ultimately just didn’t make the cut, it does not mean your design wasn’t good, or in some ways couldn’t be considered better then some of those that did make it based on some criteria, but maybe not based on others. we all get turned away from time to time when we show our work, it does not mean our work is not valid, it just means we keep trying. if i was bitter or gave up working every time i didn’t make someone’s cut, i wouldn’t be making work at all. to you and anyone else who didn’t make it, better luck next time, vote for the one you liked the best, and be happy for them.

  • Chance Michaels | March 7, 2010 at 4:07 pm |

    Ah, so you’re a Cablevision man?

    I was really hoping I could dump Time Warner when we move to Brooklyn next month, but it seems that Cablevision is our only other provider, and I refuse to give one cent to those scumbag Dolans.

    I even stopped going to games at the Garden, even though it’s walking distance from my apartment. I can’t see writing them a check every month, even if it would save me from Time Warner’s laughable notion of “customer service.”

  • Chance Michaels | March 7, 2010 at 4:08 pm |

    Sorry to hear about your family emergency – best wishes, hope everything’s okay.

  • The Hemogoblin | March 7, 2010 at 4:10 pm |

    I voted for the Seahawks redesign, that one looks sharp.

    Also, I have good news for all of you:

    MY PAPER IS COMPLETE!

    Thank you, Uni Watch Community for helping me to finish it.

  • Mike Engle | March 7, 2010 at 4:15 pm |

    [quote comment="380824"]I voted for the Seahawks redesign, that one looks sharp.

    Also, I have good news for all of you:

    MY PAPER IS COMPLETE!

    Thank you, Uni Watch Community for helping me to finish it.[/quote]
    From one undergrad to another, congrats.
    I’ll buy you a beer…but since you’re on the Pacific coast, I’ll have to legally drink it for you. “Sorry.”

  • LI Phil | March 7, 2010 at 4:25 pm |

    [quote comment="380823"]Sorry to hear about your family emergency – best wishes, hope everything’s okay.[/quote]
    [quote comment="380824"]I voted for the Seahawks redesign, that one looks sharp.

    Also, I have good news for all of you:

    MY PAPER IS COMPLETE!

    Thank you, Uni Watch Community for helping me to finish it.[/quote]

    to chance: thanks, NOW everything is ok…this morning, no so much

    to kenny: see…unlike the 95 earlier comments, THIS is what UW is about…seriously

    ~~~~~~~~

    and in re: rpm’s sentiments…this was pretty much what picking the eleven was like (at least the portion of that pic with he and i)

    it shows to go you that opinions are like assholes…you know the rest

    maybe setting up the contest this particular way wasn’t the best, but there’s a lot more to take into consideration than personal opinion…we could have submitted all 70 designs to a vote, but c’mon…even 11 is an awful lot of choices

    like robert said, each of the people who picked a favorite jersey in the comments and each of the crackhead panel who came up with the final 11 has their own opinion as to what is the “best”

    some on the panel even used different judging criteria than others…i personally spent more time on this contest (between setting it up, flickring and editing all the submissions, trying to make you guys keep your descriptions to 50 or less words, despite the fact that many did not)…HOURS i don’t mind devoting to UW, but hours i could be spending with family or studying …

    honestly…it makes me wonder if it’s even worth it sometimes…a good number of those first 90+ comments made me just want to say “fuck it” — these are a bunch of spoiled children and have no appreciation for the amount of effort that goes into paul running this fine board

    but then we get comments like chance and kenny’s and it reminds me why i love UW so much

    criticism and critiques are fine — hell, it’s what we do…

    being a bunch of ungrateful bastards is not

    /rant over

  • timmy b | March 7, 2010 at 4:29 pm |

    [quote comment="380816"][quote comment="380814"]http://lh3.ggpht.com/_bQ-9YGBlBzs/S1YsrLjEbII/AAAAAAAAU_A/7K_EvvoygJM/33%20NY%20Giants.jpg

    1933 Giants figure with blue yoke[/quote]

    Correct. It is confirmed that the red jersey with blue yoke and blue chest band trimmed in white (like the one in the contest today) existed as such in the early 30s. They have an actual specimen at the HOF in Canton.

    The problem occurs in that I’ve found multiple photos, like the one posted by Tim earlier today, that show this style jersey with what, to me, is clearly a white yoke. Now, we know that old B&W photos can not be used to reliably determine red vs. blue, so without having an actual specimen to reference, I’d have to guess that they were red jerseys with a white yoke and a blue band, trimmed in white, across the chest. Basically the same jersey but with a different color yoke sewn in. Don’t know when that version would have been worn, though. Maybe 1931?[/quote]

    Andy,
    I really think that that is a blue yoke instead of white. Blue would have a tendency to look that light in some of those old old b/w shots. I am going to see if I can find any 1931 Giants shots from the NY Times archives this week.

  • Hubert Jameson | March 7, 2010 at 4:44 pm |

    Brad McPelican has truly designed a masterwork. Though I enjoy the Packers concept, it is too plain for this jersey contest. I would like to see Classic Oldschool Gear create something more than a straight green uniform.

  • Dave Delisle | March 7, 2010 at 4:51 pm |

    @rpm

    I didn’t make the rules. Uni-Watch stated – and asked for – the Uni-Watch membership to leave feedback that would serve as the basis for selection.

    “What we need from you, now, is to talk up the submissions — let us know which ones you like — because we’ll definitely take those comments into consideration once we begin narrowing the field down for a vote. Love it? Hate it? Think it’s just about perfect? Let’s hear from you!”

    Fair enough. But when the final 11 appeared it became apparent that feedback was summarily dismissed, and you guys just picked and chose whatever you felt. If you had said at the outset “We’ll pick what we want” then fine, I leave it into your hands.

    I’d also like to say, I’m not upset that I didn’t make the cut. I’ve seen many others get plenty of praise, more so than me. I rather expected to be beat out by 11 amazing entries. What upsets me is that feedback was not a factor at all. The consensus of hundreds was apparently not taken into consideration. And there is no better uni design litmus test than the Uni-Watch readers.

    The end result was the dubious selections of a few, instead of the top of the crop influenced by a large consensus.

    I may come off as whiny, but Artists take the time to enter, and it takes thought and effort. All feedback – good or bad – is appreciated, and when your entry gets a lot of feedback from those who take the time to write a review, then it is a vindication of your work.

    When their opinion is ignored, then why ask for it to begin with?

    All in all, something that was supposed to be fun has been plagued by error and execution that seems nothing more than an after-thought.

  • Mike Engle | March 7, 2010 at 4:54 pm |

    I voted for Bob Jones’ Broncos. Nice job of bringing back the old template, modernizing it with the helmet navy, and designing it in a way that won’t have its integrity ruined by modern tailoring.
    Ricko’s thinking, “but it doesn’t work with the helmet and pants.” I think it should be fine, because the pants and helmet would both still have the swoop (for a lack of a better term). Of course, it would have to be the navy-with-orange-outline swoop all the time on the white pants, or (eek!) the navy pants with the orange swoop. (The other one, the orange swoop on the white pants, would have to die.) A little disjointed as a whole set, but it’s my favorite jersey that works well enough with everything else.

  • Mike Engle | March 7, 2010 at 5:04 pm |

    And by the way, Phil, back to fonts in the article…
    You’re at it again today, and I can pinpoint exactly what I don’t like. (Once again, on Firefox 3.6 on a Mac.)
    1) Switching from non-serifs to serifs is jarring. I hate that the most.
    2) The main article has a smaller font than everything else. It would probably make more sense if it were reversed.
    3) I actually LIKE this change: the different colors reserved for names of fellow contributing readers. Sets it apart from section headers, which are good old bold. I suggest blue, if only because I was always raised to submit handwritten essays in black or dark blue ink. Seeing red in the essay looks like a correction.

  • Traxel | March 7, 2010 at 5:07 pm |

    [quote comment="380826"]honestly…it makes me wonder if it’s even worth it sometimes…a good number of those first 90+ comments made me just want to say “fuck it” — these are a bunch of spoiled children and have no appreciation for the amount of effort that goes into paul running this fine board
    [/quote]

    I just thought you guys were thinking mine was so good let’s not include it and give some other people a chance. :) I’ll stick with that to make myself feel good.

    And….it is a fine board. A niche that no one else has hit on that obviously has a HUGE number of passionate (we’ll call them that instead of inglorious bastards) followers. I wonder every day why you guys spend so much time putting it together, but am greatly appreciative every minute. I could (and do) spend lots of time keeping up with political and philanthropical topics but this is the place that makes me smile the most. Keep up the revolution Brooklyn Paul and Long Island Phillip! You’ve got me hooked line and sinker. Joy to the World…

    BTW, that pic of the panel sure was some quality photography.

  • Hibbsy | March 7, 2010 at 5:31 pm |

    A twist of lemon in a little Crow on the rocks. Dee-lish!
    As far as the contest people being in an uproar? You should have never submitted. Part of being in a contest means being disappointed. It’s almost 100% guaranteed.

  • rpm | March 7, 2010 at 5:31 pm |

    fair enough dave, but your perception isn’t 100% accurate, some people did get some heavier consideration because of comments, others were left off because of comments, but you are right, in the end it was not the end all beat all of the decision. also, consider this, we gave consideration to what we remembered from previous comments too, not just the last couple weeks.

    i did not originally accuse you in particular of crying, but there were some who did cry. i gave you props for owning your words, and went out of my way to say i considered yours in my top 10, did i do that for anyone else? and i think i might have some idea of the time it takes to complete a project my friend. as for afterthought, on top of compiling and looking at each one of these and making notes, and all that bullshit, we spent no less then an entire day going back and fourth on the choices, i wasted an entire day of my all to short life debating these, so don’t tell me it was an afterthought, and for sure don’t claim that about phil, who clearly did not consider this an afterthought in the least. you are soooo far off base here it is downright mind blowing.

  • LI Phil | March 7, 2010 at 5:40 pm |

    hey mike engle

    something like this for finland aways?

    (sorry for the small template…tried to do it somewhat quick-like)

    and as far as the fonts…i did the main article in one point size larger, but unfortunately, that looked too large

    appreciate the feedback…just trying (and maybe failing, maybe not) something different

    if you like the reader names in dark blue to make them stand out more, i can certainly keep that…let me know if you have any other suggestions

  • Mike Engle | March 7, 2010 at 5:51 pm |

    [quote comment="380835"]hey mike engle

    something like this for finland aways?

    (sorry for the small template…tried to do it somewhat quick-like)

    and as far as the fonts…i did the main article in one point size larger, but unfortunately, that looked too large

    appreciate the feedback…just trying (and maybe failing, maybe not) something different

    if you like the reader names in dark blue to make them stand out more, i can certainly keep that…let me know if you have any other suggestions[/quote]
    [quote comment="380835"]hey mike engle

    something like this for finland aways?

    (sorry for the small template…tried to do it somewhat quick-like)

    and as far as the fonts…i did the main article in one point size larger, but unfortunately, that looked too large

    appreciate the feedback…just trying (and maybe failing, maybe not) something different

    if you like the reader names in dark blue to make them stand out more, i can certainly keep that…let me know if you have any other suggestions[/quote]
    Holy crap, that’s TOTALLY it on the Finland aways. That’s my design, minus the sloppy hand coloring and the pencil guidelines that won’t go away. Approved!
    As for other aesthetic suggestions, none for the moment. I can only see differences and react to them. Has anybody else had an opinion on this? Shouldn’t be a one-man design board.

  • TRSwan | March 7, 2010 at 5:54 pm |

    Ricko if you would have entered in that one, you would have had a few votes. Love it.

  • JTH | March 7, 2010 at 6:00 pm |

    [quote comment="380819"][quote comment="380817"]
    Is it possible to still use an antenna for those networks?[/quote]

    apparently i have 3 options

    go to a “consumer electronics store” and get a “free digital converter box”…whatever the hell that is[/quote]
    Hey, don’t you have a hi-def set? You should be able to get all the digital channels without a converter box. Well, at least my TV works that way.

    If not, and the converter box is indeed free, then why not just pick one up?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Glad to hear things are OK now.

  • LI Phil | March 7, 2010 at 6:07 pm |

    [quote comment="380838"]
    Hey, don’t you have a hi-def set? You should be able to get all the digital channels without a converter box. Well, at least my TV works that way.

    If not, and the converter box is indeed free, then why not just pick one up?[/quote]

    doesn’t matter whether my TV is hi-def (it is)…the cable company isn’t getting permission to broadcast the signal

    so i’d need to perform an end around

    if you care, here’s the deal

    a bunch of spoiled children, the lot of them

    im no fan of cable (or, by extension, the dolans, who own cable, the garden, the rangers and the knicks)…

    but abc is bullshit as well because they won’t submit to binding arbitration

    apparently, it’s their way or the highway…guess they’re afraid a court might actually rule that raping people for millions, due to their own fiscal mismanagement (and which cable would just pass along to me, in the form of a rate increase anyway)…might not fly

    to hell with both of them

  • LarryB | March 7, 2010 at 6:10 pm |

    [quote comment="380816"][quote comment="380814"]http://lh3.ggpht.com/_bQ-9YGBlBzs/S1YsrLjEbII/AAAAAAAAU_A/7K_EvvoygJM/33%20NY%20Giants.jpg

    1933 Giants figure with blue yoke[/quote]

    Correct. It is confirmed that the red jersey with blue yoke and blue chest band trimmed in white (like the one in the contest today) existed as such in the early 30s. They have an actual specimen at the HOF in Canton.

    The problem occurs in that I’ve found multiple photos, like the one posted by Tim earlier today, that show this style jersey with what, to me, is clearly a white yoke. Now, we know that old B&W photos can not be used to reliably determine red vs. blue, so without having an actual specimen to reference, I’d have to guess that they were red jerseys with a white yoke and a blue band, trimmed in white, across the chest. Basically the same jersey but with a different color yoke sewn in. Don’t know when that version would have been worn, though. Maybe 1931?[/quote]

    Again the interesting red blue b&w picture fun.
    To me that was a cool Giants jersey.

  • Dave Delisle | March 7, 2010 at 6:12 pm |

    @rpm

    How would you deem a contest that missed entries and posted them in hindsight? Created a debate on what was supposed to be in the entries? Asked for opinions and then ignored them? Would you not get the perception this wasn’t planned properly, hence an afterthought? Despite the time you guys invested, it is just not evident in the execution. I feel bad for you guys and those who submitted.

    The two weekends spent displaying entries in the end were for naught, and a waste of everyone’s time. It now looks like an unnecessary step. Hindsight says you guys should have just posted the finalists, a la the Cooperstown Hawkeyes contest.

    Thanks for going to bat with my entry. I appreciate and respect the subjective process you guys undertook to make your selections. I just take issue with soliciting opinions that eventually carried no weight. You made Uni-Watchers unknowingly irrelevant to the process, and that taints the whole thing.

  • JTH | March 7, 2010 at 6:20 pm |

    [quote comment="380839"]
    doesn’t matter whether my TV is hi-def (it is)…the cable company isn’t getting permission to broadcast the signal[/quote]
    Yes it does matter, because unless it’s just a monitor, it’s already got a built-in digital tuner and YOU DON’T NEED CABLE to see ABC. You can just hook up an antenna.

    And you live close enough to the city that you probably don’t even need a great antenna.

  • LI Phil | March 7, 2010 at 6:34 pm |

    [quote comment="380841"]How would you deem a contest that missed entries and posted them in hindsight? Created a debate on what was supposed to be in the entries? Asked for opinions and then ignored them? Would you not get the perception this wasn’t planned properly, hence an afterthought? Despite the time you guys invested, it is just not evident in the execution. I feel bad for you guys and those who submitted.[/quote]

    my turn

    first of all…

    “missed entries”: out of 70, i missed (maybe) two…while i shouldn’t have “missed” any, i made sure to double and triple check my email (including the spam filter, where a lot of your entries end up)…i know i’ve sent email to others that they didn’t receive, so it’s entirely possible that happened here…i went over a MONTH of email (i don’t ever delete any except stuff i know is worthless, and nothing regarding UW is ever deleted)…neither of those two emails were found…but I OWNED UP TO MISSING them, whether in fact, they were my fault or not

    and i went out of my way to make sure those two readers got their props…i could simply have ignored them and no one would be the wiser…but that’s not how i do things

    “created a debate”: the instructions were plenty clear…i’m not going to name WHO created the debate, but clearly some people involved with the contest didn’t read the rules and later decided upon what was and was not an “appropriate” submission…unfortunately, the crack panel was comprised of those who didn’t read the rules and then later interpreted them as to how they should be applied

    there were some who felt that anyone who submitted more than one jersey, or who changed team colors or who otherwise violated some unwritten rule should be eliminated…

    i did not

    there were some who felt anyone who went over 50 words in describing their creation should be eliminated automatically…

    i did not

    “asked for opinions and ignored them”: i wrote down every vote for every jersey from the readers and these were used in coming up with my selections, plus i added a couple i personally liked…but i wasn’t the only one judging the contest…

    the several people who made up the panel, in the end, were asked to submit their top ten choices and to USE READER COMMENTS AS A GUIDE…everyone’s 10 choices were then put to another vote to come up with the final 11…

    apparently, not everyone on the panel felt the reader comments were a worthy guide in making their selections, instead deciding to pick their 10 favorites…

    that was my first mistake…but there was no malicious intent by anyone on the panel to purposely ignore reader comments

    also…i received a number of emails from people who DON’T LIKE TO POST…and not all of their choices were the same as those in the comments section…so don’t assume that ONLY THE COMMENTS count…

    “perception this wasn’t planned properly”: well, perception is reality, isn’t it

    obviously, just a waste of everyone’s time, including yours

    could this have been “planned” better? you betcha…i already spoke to paul about this and the next contest will be handled very differently

    ~~~~~

    i tried to make this as open and fair as possible

    i could have just let alain pick the design he liked best and been done with it

    then no one would have had anything to complain about…but because UW readers are important, we opened it up to you all

    so…by my bending over backwards for this, issuing “mea culpa’s” that may not have been necessary (or even my fault) and letting the readers both into the process and to complain, praise, critique and be heard…i’m a bumbling boob who cares nothing about the opinions of the readers…when nothing could be further from the truth

    thanks

  • Dave Delisle | March 7, 2010 at 7:24 pm |

    My argument tried to address the apparent chasm between what the readers endorsed and the unveiled final 11. The selection process, or wording thereof, appears flawed.

    Emails aren’t exactly transparent. It would seem like the implied/intended forum to leave feedback is the comments section.

    I’ll try not to prolong this any further, we ‘agree to disagree’ so to speak. I’m glad there will be reform for future contests– these are beneficial for artists and uni-lovers.

  • MPowers1634 | March 7, 2010 at 7:51 pm |

    If memory serves, Manny has been wearing MLB/New Era du rags for some time:

    http://smokingwithha...

    http://theghostofmoo...

    http://bostonbrat.ne...

    So have Ronnie Belliard:
    http://lh4.ggpht.com...

    and Dimitri Young

  • Dan O'Connell | March 7, 2010 at 7:54 pm |

    Best picture: District 9
    Best Actor: Jeff Bridges
    Best Supporting Actor: Christopher Waltz
    Best Actress: Sandra Bullock
    Best Supporting Actress: Anna Kendrick
    Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow

  • LI Phil | March 7, 2010 at 8:43 pm |

    so yeah…

    if anyone wants to be so kind as to post the best supportings, actor/actress, director & pixture…

    tha’d be great, seeing as how i aint getting no abc tonight

  • LI Phil | March 7, 2010 at 8:44 pm |

    WAIT….

    no sooner did i post that than it JUST CAME ON

    well well well

  • kf | March 7, 2010 at 8:50 pm |

    Twins uni was awesome.

    The Hurt Locker better not win. The movie is not authentic and all veterans hate it.

  • FormerDirtDart | March 7, 2010 at 9:20 pm |

    Phil,
    In an act of solidarity, I am not watching the Oscars.

    OK, I’m full of crap, I’m just not watching.

    However, I do appreciate your effort in the Jersey Contest. You are basically in a no-win situation, at the mercy of your “crack panel” and the disgruntled “artisans”

    Can’t wait for the next one…lol

  • M.Princip | March 7, 2010 at 9:20 pm |

    [quote comment="380849"]Twins uni was awesome.

    The Hurt Locker better not win. The movie is not authentic and all veterans hate it.[/quote]

    Why does it have to be authentic, can’t it simply be a story about this one fictional bomb defuser? I mean, don’t they usually embellish these things in Hollywood? Plus, I’ve heard from some who did serve, say they could relate to a lot of what was in the movie.

  • LI Phil | March 7, 2010 at 9:32 pm |

    effin sweet!

    logorama, the only movie i’ve seen this year…

    just took home oscar

  • Hibbsy | March 7, 2010 at 9:35 pm |

    Some where.
    Some way.
    Redemske is making fun of some kids.
    And I’m lovin every minute of it.

  • Jakob Wolf Neunzehn | March 7, 2010 at 9:51 pm |

    Ugly game yesterday between WVU and Villanova, but ‘Nova’s ’85 throwback unis were very VERY nice:
    http://espn-i.starwa...

    Also yesterday, Rutgers and Pitt did a color vs. color game:
    http://espn-i.starwa...

  • Chance Michaels | March 7, 2010 at 11:03 pm |

    [quote comment="380851"][quote comment="380849"]Twins uni was awesome.

    The Hurt Locker better not win. The movie is not authentic and all veterans hate it.[/quote]

    Why does it have to be authentic, can’t it simply be a story about this one fictional bomb defuser? I mean, don’t they usually embellish these things in Hollywood? Plus, I’ve heard from some who did serve, say they could relate to a lot of what was in the movie.[/quote]
    Bingo. It ain’t a documentary, it’s a piece of narrative fiction. It must be judged on one criterion – is it a good tale well told?

  • Metropoliben | March 7, 2010 at 11:30 pm |

    Logorama the most ingenious 16 minutes of logocreep you’ll ever witness.

  • Chance Michaels | March 7, 2010 at 11:33 pm |

    [quote comment="380844"]My argument tried to address the apparent chasm between what the readers endorsed and the unveiled final 11. The selection process, or wording thereof, appears flawed.

    Emails aren’t exactly transparent. It would seem like the implied/intended forum to leave feedback is the comments section.

    I’ll try not to prolong this any further, we ‘agree to disagree’ so to speak. I’m glad there will be reform for future contests– these are beneficial for artists and uni-lovers.[/quote]
    Dave,

    I’ll agree to disagree. But I just have to address one major point in your argument (been waiting to post all day, but can only read comments on my phone). You keep insisting that they “summarily dismissed” the comments, they “ignored” the comments. I just don’t see it.

    There seems to be a disconnect between what you were expecting and what was promised. in terms of the reader feedback. Who ever said that the finalists would be “decided by the people”? Nobody. What was said was:

    “What we need from you, now, is to talk up the submissions — let us know which ones you like — because we’ll definitely take those comments into consideration once we begin narrowing the field down for a vote. Love it? Hate it? Think it’s just about perfect? Let’s hear from you!”

    Did he say that it would be a factor? Sure. But an important factor? The most important factor? Or a tie-breaker? That was never specified. So we got exactly what we were promised; the comments were taken into consideration by the judges, to whatever various degree each felt appropriate.

    Did Phil run this contest the way I would have? Not at all. Personally, I would have given everybody a two- or three-word grace period in their description, then automatically disqualified anyone who went over. That’s more or less what I do with program bios in my theatre – submit it to the proper length or I will cut it down. But then again, if I ran the contest it wouldn’t have been much fun. You’re right – this kind of contest should be fun.

    And it was fun, formulating a concept I’ve had kicking around in my head for a while. I got a concept out of it, I got a blog post out of it, I got feedback out of it, and I got some great conversations out of it. I had a great deal of fun. And when I win, I’ll have fun wearing my new jersey around town. ;)

    Seriously, creating and overseeing a contest like this seems easy, but there are so many factors at work, so much to balance, so many decisions to make. And this is what they’re doing in what passes for their spare time. Don’t doubt that it’ll get smoother the next time, but until then they deserve our thanks, not our scorn.

    And with that, I’ll stop sucking up. :D

  • Will Morris | March 7, 2010 at 11:58 pm |

    This is probably a wrong answer, but I’m going to go with Yankees 10, Brewers 2, on 9/11/1975 at Shea Stadium.

    http://www.retroshee...

  • LI Phil | March 8, 2010 at 12:00 am |

    6 for 6

    sorry…no UW membership on me

    but thanks to all for playing

    /and thanks for sucking up chance…won’t help your chances at winning that jersey, but i appreciate it nonetheless

  • MPowers1634 | March 8, 2010 at 12:16 am |

    [quote comment="380859"]6 for 6

    sorry…no UW membership on me

    but thanks to all for playing

    /and thanks for sucking up chance…won’t help your chances at winning that jersey, but i appreciate it nonetheless[/quote]

    Not only did Cameron NOT win for Director or Best Picture, He had to sit behind his Hot as Hell EX-WIFE who DID win both categories.

  • MPowers1634 | March 8, 2010 at 12:17 am |

    [quote comment="380852"]effin sweet!

    logorama, the only movie i’ve seen this year…

    just took home oscar[/quote]

    We need to all spring for Phil’s membership card…to his local library.

    Either that or driect him to a RedBox!

  • rpm | March 8, 2010 at 12:19 am |

    blew a T on some bastard tonight with such a boyhood zest for grandiosity that i shattered my whistle.

  • Chance Michaels | March 8, 2010 at 12:25 am |

    [quote comment="380859"]
    /and thanks for sucking up chance…won’t help your chances at winning that jersey, but i appreciate it nonetheless[/quote]

    Aw, hell. I take it all back. ;)

  • The Tank | March 8, 2010 at 12:27 am |

    I think the contest was set up JUST fine. Ya know…they don’t HAVE TO do this. This was set up for our enjoyment…it’s just a dorky little game….and it WAS enjoyable.

    As far as trusting all the reader comments…well…you can’t do that. I for one used about ten different alias to post comments on my own entry.
    OKAY! So I cheated a little!! But I had to make my jersey look more like a fan favorite….right??

    It didn’t work. I did’nt make the top 11. So I guess the “crack” staff did a good job weeding out the garbage posts :)

    SOOO everybody envolved with providing us this FUN contest…THANKS :)

  • Daniel | March 8, 2010 at 1:07 am |

    6 for six, good going

  • KevinW | March 8, 2010 at 1:49 am |

    [quote comment="380862"]blew a T on some bastard tonight with such a boyhood zest for grandiosity that i shattered my whistle.[/quote]

    Robert Marshall, you get more out of one sentence than most people do out of a book. And after that 6 for 6 I do believe Phil should be doing my bracket for me next week.

  • hoker | March 8, 2010 at 3:22 am |

    Not to be a whiner, I think the choices are fine. Whatever.

    One thing though (and it may have been commented the first time we saw the submission, but I’m too lazy to read all the posts to find out), the Seahawks jersey has to be eliminated because of the “possibly wearing in 2010″ stipulation.

    There’s not one single chance in the world that jersey would be produced right now. Not for the official one at least. NFL jerseys=REEBOK. Tell me those ARE NOT ADIDAS stripes and I will show you a blind man.

    Just sayin, even if I like it and the Lions ones best.

  • KevinW | March 8, 2010 at 3:57 am |

    [quote comment="380867"]Not to be a whiner, I think the choices are fine. Whatever.

    One thing though (and it may have been commented the first time we saw the submission, but I’m too lazy to read all the posts to find out), the Seahawks jersey has to be eliminated because of the “possibly wearing in 2010″ stipulation.

    There’s not one single chance in the world that jersey would be produced right now. Not for the official one at least. NFL jerseys=REEBOK. Tell me those ARE NOT ADIDAS stripes and I will show you a blind man.

    Just sayin, even if I like it and the Lions ones best.[/quote]

    I would agree with you about the stripes that go from the armpit to the waist, but the stripes going around the sleeves are a good continuation of the logo and I think would be ok.

  • JTH | March 8, 2010 at 6:31 am |

    1) there was no stipulation that the jersey must have a realistic shot at being worn by an NFL team.

    2) Are these Adidas stripes? How ’bout these?

  • Brendan | March 8, 2010 at 10:40 am |

    As for the trivia question:

    Most years, total: New York
    Most years, consecutive: Pennsylvania

  • Adam Wood | March 8, 2010 at 12:24 pm |

    [quote comment="380744"]Okay…must be family members commenting on that Giant’s jersey. That jersey is the 2nd ugliest jesey on this list of 11. Number one U-G-L-Y being that Cardinals “flag” jersey.[/quote]

    I appreciate any criticism, even if it’s mearly calling something ugly. However, that’s a fairly childish way to go about it. And if you must know, most of my family is computer illiterate, and i know none of them have commented or voted on here.

    With that said, I’m honored to even be considered in the final 11, and I want to thank everyone who commented and voted, even if it wasn’t for me. This definately has been a blast.

  • Jason | March 8, 2010 at 12:46 pm |

    [quote comment="380723"]I’m rather disappointed in the top 11. Only 1 of my top 3 choices made it. That one would be Brad McPelican’s Seahawks jersey.[/quote]

    Yep, I thought the top 11 were extremely disappointing. I mean, do most of you even have eyes???

  • Dave | March 8, 2010 at 1:01 pm |

    Wow. I’m really super surprised at the final 11 picked for the uni contest. None of them were even in my top 30. Where was Todd Eizikowitz Giants design (by far my favorite), or Daniel Finocchio Bengals design, or Dave Delise Dolphins design. These were so much better conceptually then any of the 11 picked. Just my opinion.

  • CSfan | March 8, 2010 at 4:16 pm |

    [quote comment="380926"][quote comment="380744"]Okay…must be family members commenting on that Giant’s jersey. That jersey is the 2nd ugliest jesey on this list of 11. Number one U-G-L-Y being that Cardinals “flag” jersey.[/quote]

    I appreciate any criticism, even if it’s mearly calling something ugly. However, that’s a fairly childish way to go about it. And if you must know, most of my family is computer illiterate, and i know none of them have commented or voted on here. [/quote]

    And the guy running the contest calling people ‘Ungrateful Bastards’ is not childish? The final 11 sucked, many people say so, that is not the opinion of one. Clearly they f—ed up, and should have listened to feedback more. They only take our comments seriously when they are being criticized. They assumed they had superior taste, and decided to go against popular opinion.

  • Adam Wood | March 8, 2010 at 5:53 pm |

    [quote comment="380950"][quote comment="380926"][quote comment="380744"]Okay…must be family members commenting on that Giant’s jersey. That jersey is the 2nd ugliest jesey on this list of 11. Number one U-G-L-Y being that Cardinals “flag” jersey.[/quote]

    I appreciate any criticism, even if it’s mearly calling something ugly. However, that’s a fairly childish way to go about it. And if you must know, most of my family is computer illiterate, and i know none of them have commented or voted on here. [/quote]

    And the guy running the contest calling people ‘Ungrateful Bastards’ is not childish? The final 11 sucked, many people say so, that is not the opinion of one. Clearly they f—ed up, and should have listened to feedback more. They only take our comments seriously when they are being criticized. They assumed they had superior taste, and decided to go against popular opinion.[/quote]

    I never said it wasn’t. Just because someone else resorts to those kinds of comments doesn’t mean you should. My personal favorite and one that seemed to get a lot of support didn’t make it as well. With that said, I believe from the start it was made clear that the feedback would be taken into consideration. Not be the only or even main determining factor.

  • Kevin Z. | March 8, 2010 at 5:57 pm |

    This is a few days late so he might not see it, but I just wanted to say that Joseph Obermeier’s Islanders tweak is outstanding. Team would look great with that logo and jersey.

  • GilGarcia | March 8, 2010 at 11:31 pm |

    I just want to thank everyone who thought my Rams submission was the best. I appreciate all the positive feedback. Unfortunately all the Teambuilders got snubbed, particularly cause we’re not Photoshop Literate lol, but thanks for posting and showing my tweak. I am glad people enjoyed it and that was the best prize for me.

    But as for the top 11, there were at least 2 that i really disagree with. But what’s done is done. Thanks anyways guys.

  • Adam Wood | March 9, 2010 at 7:06 pm |

    Oh man just got the whole “This Goes to Eleven” Spinal Tap reference. Derrr.

  • CoolRacer | March 11, 2010 at 10:03 pm |

    The Giants jersey is ugly….sorry. The Broncos jersey is the only one doesn’t look silly.

  • Francis Kamau | March 12, 2010 at 6:51 am |

    The pictures are significantly different, making it easy to vote. Thanks for the good job.