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

If This Keeps Up, I May Have to Start Paying Attention to College Baseball

IMG_8296.JPG

Okay, so I know Phil devoted a lot of space to baseball hosiery yesterday, but we’re gonna spend a little more time on that topic today, because this past weekend featured some of the most aesthetically pleasing diamond match-ups in recent memory.

First, some quick background: As I’ve been steadily noting in the Ticker over the past few weeks, lots of college teams have been going high-cuffed this season. Not sure if this is really a new groundswell of old-schoolitude or if there are just more photos floating around the web and/or more readers noticing those photos and sending them my way, but we’re definitely approaching critical high-cuffed mass here.

Example No. 1: Slippery Rock U. in Pennsylvania is sporting these beauties. Even better, over the weekend they played Gannon U., creating a classic hosiery hoedown. Is that a cure for what ails ya or what? The problem, of course, is that only some of the Rock’s players are going high-cuffed. Still, a stripe-obsessed fella like myself can’t help but see this as a very encouraging sign.

Example No. 2: Texas A&M hosted Mizzou for a game on Friday. Now, the Aggies have been going high-cuffed for at least a season or two now, so it’s no surprise to see them looking my-t-fine. The real revelation was Missouri — yabba dabba do! Not only do the socks feature some killer stripes (okay, so they’re not stirrups, but I think trading ’rups for striped socks is an equitable deal), but the uni fabric has a very flannel-like look. And who makes this marvelous uniform? Wow, who’da thunk! Nice to know they can make a nice uni if they want to (or if the school insists on one).

Anyway, put these two designs together and you have baseball the way it’s supposed to look. (Lots more photos from this game here.)

Example No. 3: A&M and Mizzou played again the next day. This time the Aggies wore their pinstriped vest uni — nice (except for some unfortunate pinstripus interruptus). Meanwhile, the Tigers stuck with the same road grays from the day before — nothing new, but I’d have to say this is in the running for all-time Uni Watch money shot. Look, even bunting looks kickass when you’re wearing striped hose, to say nothing of a stretch at first base. (More photos from this game here.)

One question about all this lower-leg action: Is it actually counter-productive, at least in terms of achieving a high-cuffed revolution at the MLB level? My concern is that if players are required to expose their socks in college and/or in the minors, they’ll start thinking of the high-cuffed look as something annoying that the Man makes them do. Then when they make the bigs, they’ll say, “Screw that — I’m not wearing my pants up high anymore, just like I’m not gonna wear a double-flap helmet either.” And if they don’t decide that on their own, peer pressure will help make the decision for them, since many of their veteran teammates will say, “Hey, kid, you’re in the majors now — wear your pants down, like a pro!”

There are way more minor league and college players than MLBers, of course. Given how many teams require the high-cuffed look throughout their minor league systems, there may actually be more high-cuffed professional players in America right now than pajama-pantsed players. But the MLB players get the most exposure, and have the biggest influence on Little Leaguers and such — they set the tone for everyone else. So I’m wondering if all these high-cuffed college teams might actually be setting up a backlash in the majors.

Then again, if there were no high-cuffed college or minor league teams, that wouldn’t be helpful either. Revolution, apparently, is a complicated business.

(Special thanks to Zack Tanner and Ryan Levy for sounding the alert on this one.)

Uni Watch News Ticker: Reprinted from Friday’s comments: Gotta love this awesome Yankee Stadium vendor’s cap. … Jim Vilk was nice enough to send me some oversized football cards. Love that John Jefferson shot. … The football Giants have struck an apparel deal with menswear designer Joseph Abboud (with thanks to Tom Turner). … Hideki Matsui’s been wearing some pretty groovy wristbands. … After wearing “LW” on his cap as a memorial to a fallen friend, Troy Tulowitzki has now moved on to eye black. … Jason Heyward, the non-roster invitee who’s made the Braves’ Opening Day roster, now has a new uni number to go along with his new status (with thanks to Britton Thomas). … Was at a party a few nights ago and saw this dude wearing a shirt with awesome sleeve striping. He said it was a 1920s football jersey. … Jenny Sweet recently scored this vintage Bills jersey on eBay. “When she bid on it, she didn’t realize it still had its original NFL SuperPro Club tag attached,” writes her boyfriend, Jason Bernard. “Evidently, the SuperPro Club was some kind of NFL fan club for kids. As you can see from the back of the tag, membership kits were slated to be mailed September 1, 1982. Wouldn’t it be amazing to get your hands on one of those kits?” Indeed. I’d never heard of the SuperPro Club. Anyone else? … Thomas Courtman was watching the 1990 film Problem Child and noticed a cap-logo inconsistency. … Interesting illustrated timeline of Delta Airlines stewardess uniforms through the years, beginning with the propeller era and continuing to the jet age. … Coupla Braves observations from Shaun Tunick: First base coach Glenn Hubbard has been wearing Brian McCann’s All-Star Game catching helmet and Omar Infante has been wearing mismatched batting gloves. The black glove is padded, to protect the hand he broke a while back. … The Danish Creamery was a butter manufacturer in Fresno, and here’s their 1937 baseball team. Gotta love those caps, and I’d give anything for one of the jerseys (great find by John English). … Yikes. That’s Steve Austin wearing the Biblical note on his jersey, and what looks like kinesio tape on his hands (with thanks to Chris Flinn). … What the hell is going on here? Jeremy Brahm explains: “Japanese model Sayaka Isoyama participated in the ceremonial first pitch before the Chiba Lotte Marines game on Saturday — not as a pitcher, but as a catcher, in a wedding dress. The pitch was thrown by outfielder Takashi Ogino.” … Giants catcher Steve Holm wore his home jersey to a road game the other day — on purpose. Details in the last section on this page (with thanks to Tremaine Eto). … Pretty odd poster design here. Ya think maybe they should’ve devoted a little more space to the helmet images and less to the team names? (As found by Brinke Guthrie.) … Janssen McCormick forwarded some cool pics of the DCU Center ice being prepped for the Northeast Regional. … Some tweaks reportedly in the offing for the Cavs. … Keith Olbermann made a big fuss about Twins prospect Chris Cates wearing the S100 helmet. But Cates is a minor leaguer — he’s already been assigned to Minnesota’s high-A affiliate — and Olbermann apparently doesn’t realize that all minor leaguers are required to wear the S100 this year (Brinke Guthrie again). … The 2012 Olympics logo is still prompting negative critiques.

 

159 comments to If This Keeps Up, I May Have to Start Paying Attention to College Baseball

  • Vincent A. Cipollone | March 29, 2010 at 8:11 am |

    The reason Stone Cold Steve Austin is wearing 3:16 on his jersey is because one of his old WWF catchphrases was “Austin 3:16 says I just whipped your ass” after defeating “bible thumper” Jake the Snake Roberts at King of the Ring 1996.

  • Stephan Frischkorn | March 29, 2010 at 8:25 am |

    Actually, those oversized football cards are undersized poster reproductions from the early ’80s. I had the Jack Lambert and Walter Payton posters in my room as a kid.

  • JSS | March 29, 2010 at 8:41 am |

    Random Question:

    Does anyone know what font that Pitt used for their Script Pitt?

  • Stephan Frischkorn | March 29, 2010 at 8:42 am |

    This proves I should read the entire post before commenting. I was a member of the Super-Pro Club and I remember not liking the t-shirt but loving the standings chart they gave out complete with playoff grids so that I could follow along during the season and start taking statistics. I guess I was a stat head even then in junior high.

  • Richard | March 29, 2010 at 8:43 am |

    College baseball teams and/or players have routinely been going high cuffed for so long it is barely worth noting. A lot of it is about players wanting to look old-school.

    The exception of course is Clemson, whose players are required to go low-cuffed, but not baggy pants.

    Basically high-cuffed is as defining a feature of college baseball’s look as the multitude of uniforms power teams have.

  • WFY | March 29, 2010 at 8:43 am |

    I was in the NFL Super Pro Club when I was 7 or 8. You got an NFL Super Pro Club iron-on, a static cling standings poster, the NFL Fun Book, a small cardboard poster from your favorite team and probably some other stuff.

  • Bernard | March 29, 2010 at 8:45 am |

    BoyFIEND? Haha, I’ll take it.

  • rick f | March 29, 2010 at 9:06 am |

    I noticed that the Texas A&M betting helmets have a matte finish. Are alot of teams starting to do this now?

  • LI Phil | March 29, 2010 at 9:07 am |

    while i don’t disagree that there must be some peer pressure in the show to ‘dress like a major leaguer,’ i cannot but think the display of hosiery at any level is anything but beneficial

    just like eric davis, baroid and junior successfully trended the low pant look to a new low…all it will take is for some of the younger guys who want to “rebel” against the old men and their “old man pajamas” to complete the reversal back to visible hose…and hopefully, the rup

    if albert pujols suddenly found a reason to display the fantastic st. louis stripage, or ryan howard wanted to show off the liberty bell, this might even occur quicker, but im thinking guys like that are already too far gone…but aroid started wearing his pants high a few years ago, so there’s hope

    i think the best new sign may be the giants new team-issued socks…those, im guessing, will see more light of day because of their simple beauty…hopefully other teams will follow suit

    my only fear is the players will start wearing their pants like bicycle shorts…since the stripes on the socks are too high in that version

    but that’s easily remedied

  • =bg= | March 29, 2010 at 9:07 am |

    [quote comment=”383198″]Actually, those oversized football cards are undersized poster reproductions from the early ’80s. I had the Jack Lambert and Walter Payton posters in my room as a kid.[/quote]

    Yeah those were from SI.com.

  • Jeremy Brahm | March 29, 2010 at 9:08 am |

    Super-Pro Club, yes I was a member of it as well.

  • JB Early | March 29, 2010 at 9:14 am |

    Somebody needs to explain to some MLB players what the definition of the word uniform is. If you don’t enjoy the high paid privilege enough to wear the uniform in a uniform manner – get out. Some flex? absolutely. Dragging your pants under spikes, shirt out, gangsta/Banana Republic styling? And jewelry of any kind makes no sense while playing. Off the field they can wear a dress & their bfff boxers on their heads. On? snap to it.

  • traxel | March 29, 2010 at 9:42 am |

    Football cards – I have a whole set of 50. Paul put them in the ticker a year or so ago. Also, chalk me up for a Superpro club member with the poster and clingy helmets too. That was definately my favorite item from the party bag.

    And those Mizzou unis – wow! I’ve been lobbying for quite some time to get a “texture” into the flat grays of today. And, while a staunch supporter and original member of the E Plaribuses Unum Stirrupticious Hosery Whatever party, I really don’t mind the solid socks as long as they have stripes. Those look great! I always liked the White Sox sox circa late 70s.

  • Todd Peak | March 29, 2010 at 9:42 am |

    I think that you might be overlooking the superstitious side of baseball, too, Paul. If some young kid is coming up from the minors and he goes pajama legged and 0-fer in the big leagues, he might just hike them right back up. So, if more players make it into the pros going high-cuffed for their already successful minor league careers, the trend could just stick out of familiarity and superstition.

  • PL4 | March 29, 2010 at 9:44 am |

    The Music City Bowl has a new logo and a new ridiculous name.

    http://www.facebook....

  • Bouj | March 29, 2010 at 9:44 am |

    It would take more than one A-level star to get the high-cuff look back in the majors regularly. Roy Oswalt, Lance Berkman, and David Wright all go high cuff from time to time and it doesn’t even change their teammates minds. Alex Rodriguez is always high-cuff. You’d probably need a whole team (preferably a contender) to do it to get the trend going.

  • Don | March 29, 2010 at 9:46 am |

    Count me as a member to. I think I still have the standings poster somewhere, but don’t remember. I do have the pocket schedules that came with it back in 1982. There was a “card” for each team with the roster on one side and a schedule on the other. There was also a card with referee signals on one side and rule changes on the other. It came in a handy pocket holder.

  • Geeman | March 29, 2010 at 9:54 am |

    [quote comment=”383206″]while i don’t disagree that there must be some peer pressure in the show to ‘dress like a major leaguer,’ i cannot but think the display of hosiery at any level is anything but beneficial

    just like eric davis, baroid and junior successfully trended the low pant look to a new low…all it will take is for some of the younger guys who want to “rebel” against the old men and their “old man pajamas” to complete the reversal back to visible hose…and hopefully, the rup

    if albert pujols suddenly found a reason to display the fantastic st. louis stripage, or ryan howard wanted to show off the liberty bell, this might even occur quicker, but im thinking guys like that are already too far gone…but aroid started wearing his pants high a few years ago, so there’s hope

    i think the best new sign may be the giants new team-issued socks…those, im guessing, will see more light of day because of their simple beauty…hopefully other teams will follow suit

    my only fear is the players will start wearing their pants like bicycle shorts…since the stripes on the socks are too high in that version

    but that’s easily remedied[/quote]

    Please may your theory take hold in college basketball and we see a return to sensible lengths for shorts. The uniforms are absurdly sloppy. It is paintful to watch John Wall et. al. run around with clam diggers, especially when you comopare the lengths of Kentucky from, say, 1992, or even the Fab Five in 1992 (a length that was long then but by no means absurd and which I would gladly take now).

  • Ry Co 40 | March 29, 2010 at 9:55 am |

    wow, couldn’t have picked a better day to wear these beauts:

    http://picasaweb.goo...

    …course, i wear them a lot

  • Broadway Connie | March 29, 2010 at 9:55 am |

    “…The 2012 Olympics logo is still prompting negative critiques…”

    ** And for good reason. Yeccch.

    “… Was at a party a few nights ago and saw this dude wearing a shirt with awesome sleeve striping. He said it was a 1920s football jersey. …”

    **That boy is way too cool for school. A lot of thought – not to mention copious hair, thin waist, and a charge account at the tattoo parlor – went into that good look of his. Since you got up close, Paul, what did his knuckle tattoos spell out? Is that L-O on one hand? Hence LOVE? And on the other hamd, what? H-A-T-E? P-E-A-C-E?

  • JTH | March 29, 2010 at 9:55 am |

    [quote comment=”383197″]The reason Stone Cold Steve Austin is wearing 3:16 on his jersey is because one of his old WWF catchphrases was “Austin 3:16 says I just whipped your ass” after defeating “bible thumper” Jake the Snake Roberts at King of the Ring 1996.[/quote]
    And that’s the bottom line

  • JTH | March 29, 2010 at 9:58 am |

    [quote comment=”383219″][quote comment=”383197″]The reason Stone Cold Steve Austin is wearing 3:16 on his jersey is because one of his old WWF catchphrases was “Austin 3:16 says I just whipped your ass” after defeating “bible thumper” Jake the Snake Roberts at King of the Ring 1996.[/quote]
    And that’s the bottom line…[/quote]
    Oh, and isn’t that kinesio tape on the wrong fingers?

  • chance michaels | March 29, 2010 at 10:02 am |

    Did somebody say NFL SuperPro?

  • JTH | March 29, 2010 at 10:03 am |

    [quote comment=”383207″][quote comment=”383198″]Actually, those oversized football cards are undersized poster reproductions from the early ’80s. I had the Jack Lambert and Walter Payton posters in my room as a kid.[/quote]

    Yeah those were from SI.com.[/quote]
    Say what?

  • Rick | March 29, 2010 at 10:06 am |

    Wow someone admitted to watching Problem Child this weekend? I’m guessing that guy is single?

  • Ricko | March 29, 2010 at 10:08 am |

    [quote comment=”383202″]College baseball teams and/or players have routinely been going high cuffed for so long it is barely worth noting. A lot of it is about players wanting to look old-school.

    The exception of course is Clemson, whose players are required to go low-cuffed, but not baggy pants.

    Basically high-cuffed is as defining a feature of college baseball’s look as the multitude of uniforms power teams have.[/quote]

    Clemson pretty much introduced the ankle length look, as I recall. Was team-wide, their basis uniform. With white cleats. In mid 80s’, perhaps?

    —Ricko

  • LI Phil | March 29, 2010 at 10:09 am |

    [quote comment=”383222″][quote comment=”383207″][quote comment=”383198″]Actually, those oversized football cards are undersized poster reproductions from the early ’80s. I had the Jack Lambert and Walter Payton posters in my room as a kid.[/quote]

    Yeah those were from SI.com.[/quote]
    Say what?[/quote]

    thought that too…but im thinking it was just worded (the response) improperly

    the poster were from the early 80’s…the repro’s were from si.com

    or something

  • ClubMedSux | March 29, 2010 at 10:09 am |

    I’m ashamed to say that I actually knew that Steve Austin’s jersey is not actually a reference to John 3:16, but I would be far more ashamed if I had admitted (especially in a public forum) to having watched Problem Child over the weekend.

  • Ricko | March 29, 2010 at 10:11 am |

    [quote comment=”383209″]Somebody needs to explain to some MLB players what the definition of the word uniform is. If you don’t enjoy the high paid privilege enough to wear the uniform in a uniform manner – get out. Some flex? absolutely. Dragging your pants under spikes, shirt out, gangsta/Banana Republic styling? And jewelry of any kind makes no sense while playing. Off the field they can wear a dress & their bfff boxers on their heads. On? snap to it.[/quote]

    MLB doesn’t exactly appear to be fighting the long pants look. Pretty sure the current rule says pants cannot extend so long as to go under the heel. That’s a de facto acceptance of pants-over-shoe tops, to be sure.

    —Ricko

  • JTH | March 29, 2010 at 10:18 am |

    Attention Problem Child-bashers: get over yourselves.

    Did it ever occur to you that he might have been watching the movie with his kids? Or maybe he was a fan as a kid and it happened to be on, so he tuned in for old times’ sake? Or maybe he actually likes the fucking movie and doesn’t really give a shit what anyone else thinks?

    And no, I did not submit that ticker item under an assumed name.

  • Big Matt | March 29, 2010 at 10:19 am |

    [quote comment=”383209″]Somebody needs to explain to some MLB players what the definition of the word uniform is. If you don’t enjoy the high paid privilege enough to wear the uniform in a uniform manner – get out. Some flex? absolutely. Dragging your pants under spikes, shirt out, gangsta/Banana Republic styling? And jewelry of any kind makes no sense while playing. Off the field they can wear a dress & their bfff boxers on their heads. On? snap to it.[/quote]
    Bitter?

  • scott | March 29, 2010 at 10:20 am |

    Paul wrote: “Look, even bunting looks kickass when you’re wearing striped hose,”

    Yeah, but too bad they still use aluminum bats in college, which not only look awful, they sound awful.

  • Ricko | March 29, 2010 at 10:22 am |

    Someone needs to explain to the Missouri baseball equipment folks the difference between soccer socks and baseball socks.

    I know, I know, it’s a “one-world” look, where great sports merge. Oh, riiiiiiight. Pul-leeze.

    Love the textured “flannel” look, though. Been hoping someone would create that in double knit.

    Now, see, had the Twins done THAT with their new roads they might at least generate an “oh, really” on the Interesting Meter.

    —Ricko

  • Broadway Connie | March 29, 2010 at 10:28 am |

    [quote comment=”383221″]Did somebody say NFL SuperPro?[/quote]

    You are (among) the greatest, Chase.

  • Broadway Connie | March 29, 2010 at 10:29 am |

    [quote comment=”383233″][quote comment=”383221″]Did somebody say NFL SuperPro?[/quote]

    You are (among) the greatest, Chase.[/quote]

    I mean Chonce.

  • JTH | March 29, 2010 at 10:31 am |

    [quote comment=”383231″]Someone needs to explain to the Missouri baseball equipment folks the difference between soccer socks and baseball socks.[/quote]
    I really don’t see how you can look at this and think soccer.

  • FormerDirtDart | March 29, 2010 at 10:36 am |

    [quote comment=”383235″][quote comment=”383231″]Someone needs to explain to the Missouri baseball equipment folks the difference between soccer socks and baseball socks.[/quote]
    I really don’t see how you can look at this and think soccer.[/quote]
    Good lord, did you really have to walk across Ricko’s lawn? You could have just walked on by, on the sidewalk, like the rest of us…lol

  • LI Phil | March 29, 2010 at 10:40 am |

    [quote comment=”383234″][quote comment=”383233″]

    You are (among) the greatest, Chase.[/quote]

    I mean Chonce.[/quote]

    chonce favors the prepared mind

  • Andy | March 29, 2010 at 10:52 am |

    [quote comment=”383235″][quote comment=”383231″]Someone needs to explain to the Missouri baseball equipment folks the difference between soccer socks and baseball socks.[/quote]
    I really don’t see how you can look at this and think soccer.[/quote]

    Agreed. That is the perfect placement for a set of stripes around a leg (in baseball, particularly, but for me, I like them there for any sport).

  • The Jeff | March 29, 2010 at 10:56 am |

    [quote comment=”383231″]Someone needs to explain to the Missouri baseball equipment folks the difference between soccer socks and baseball socks.

    I know, I know, it’s a “one-world” look, where great sports merge. Oh, riiiiiiight. Pul-leeze.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Socks are socks. Besides, had they not been afraid of dye poisoning, they’d have used solid socks 100 years ago too. If anything, this is a case of technology finally allowing the originally intended look.

    *runs away*

  • Flip | March 29, 2010 at 10:57 am |

    Agree completely with the comments regarding baseball hosiery. I’ve always loved stripes, loved the BoSox patriot stripes, etc.

    One problem, though, is the LOOK AT ME shoe designs that have proliferated over the past 10 years. The simple swoosh and other design elements have gone over the top and clash with overall look. I’m thinking the busy shoes have helped contribute to the one-color sock or long-pants look.

    The identifying stripes and swooshes aren’t going away. Just wish shoemakers would tone it down.

    Oh, and I believe in the tooth fairy.

  • mtjaws | March 29, 2010 at 11:00 am |

    I saw this shirt in the NFL shop, and think it needs about 4 more bumper stickers to fill in those few empty spaces! Jeepers, talk about design overkill.

  • Ricko | March 29, 2010 at 11:04 am |

    [quote comment=”383235″][quote comment=”383231″]Someone needs to explain to the Missouri baseball equipment folks the difference between soccer socks and baseball socks.[/quote]
    I really don’t see how you can look at this and think soccer.[/quote]

    Ah, that guy’s wearing his decently. That works. Would prefer stirrups, sure. But that looks okay/passable.

    Other shots I looked at the stripes were way high up around the calf, with a huge expanse of black extending to the shoe…which it, wait for it, soccer.

    —Ricko

  • The Jeff | March 29, 2010 at 11:06 am |

    [quote comment=”383241″]I saw this shirt in the NFL shop, and think it needs about 4 more bumper stickers to fill in those few empty spaces! Jeepers, talk about design overkill.[/quote]

    Yeah those things are hideous. The only way something that cluttered could even potentially work is if it was maybe a team superbowl history shirt and all the stuff other than the main logo were different superbowl logos… and that’d still be ugly as hell.

  • JamesP. | March 29, 2010 at 11:07 am |

    [quote comment=”383221″]Did somebody say NFL SuperPro?[/quote]

    So I am not the only one who remembers Marvel’s Super Pro! I bet I am one of the few that still have the first issue…

  • interlockingtc | March 29, 2010 at 11:10 am |

    Holy hell…I had that poster!

    http://cgi.ebay.com/...

    39 years ago! I cut the individual team panels and put masking tape on the back of each and used them as standings markers on my bedroom wall.

  • JTH | March 29, 2010 at 11:10 am |

    [quote comment=”383242″][quote comment=”383235″][quote comment=”383231″]Someone needs to explain to the Missouri baseball equipment folks the difference between soccer socks and baseball socks.[/quote]
    I really don’t see how you can look at this and think soccer.[/quote]

    Ah, that guy’s wearing his decently. That works. Would prefer stirrups, sure. But that looks okay/passable.

    Other shots I looked at the stripes were way high up around the calf, with a huge expanse of black extending to the shoe…which it, wait for it, soccer.

    —Ricko[/quote]Maybe the guy all the way to the right?

    Other than that, they all seem to have the stripes somewhere in the neighborhood of halfway between ankle and knee.

  • Matt Dunn | March 29, 2010 at 11:16 am |

    “You talk about your Psalms. You talk about your John 3:16. Austin 3:16 says I just whooped your ass.”

    I want that jersey.

  • Peter | March 29, 2010 at 11:23 am |

    Re: Logo Creep in the wrong places…

    Since I’ve been reading this site, I’ve been conditioned to find logo creep in any & all places.

    I went to the Bodies exhibit down in the city over the weekend (which was amazing!!)…but the very 1st “Body” you come across is a football player and it’s holding a Nike football…(no pics are allowed)

    I pointed this out to my g/f who then replied “does everything have to relate to UniWatch”…I said “Yes…yes it does”.

  • Ricko | March 29, 2010 at 11:25 am |

    [quote comment=”383239″][quote comment=”383231″]Someone needs to explain to the Missouri baseball equipment folks the difference between soccer socks and baseball socks.

    I know, I know, it’s a “one-world” look, where great sports merge. Oh, riiiiiiight. Pul-leeze.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Socks are socks. Besides, had they not been afraid of dye poisoning, they’d have used solid socks 100 years ago too. If anything, this is a case of technology finally allowing the originally intended look.

    *runs away*[/quote]

    So you’re saying the true traditional look is what they WOULD have worn, not what really HAS been worn?

    Interesting concept.

    Then I guess we can depict Lincoln in cargo shorts and Nikes because, being a Midwestern kid a heart, Abe would have found them to be really great…had, y’know, guys worn shorts and kicks in 1861. Which they of course would have if those thing had been around for them to know how comfortable and cool looking they were.

    —Ricko

  • rpm | March 29, 2010 at 11:27 am |

    totally understand the angle, but the more people that dress right proper the better. besides, could pajamas be any more pervasive in the bigs?

  • Ricko | March 29, 2010 at 11:29 am |

    [quote comment=”383246″][quote comment=”383242″][quote comment=”383235″][quote comment=”383231″]Someone needs to explain to the Missouri baseball equipment folks the difference between soccer socks and baseball socks.[/quote]
    I really don’t see how you can look at this and think soccer.[/quote]

    Ah, that guy’s wearing his decently. That works. Would prefer stirrups, sure. But that looks okay/passable.

    Other shots I looked at the stripes were way high up around the calf, with a huge expanse of black extending to the shoe…which it, wait for it, soccer.

    —Ricko[/quote]Maybe the guy all the way to the right?

    Other than that, they all seem to have the stripes somewhere in the neighborhood of halfway between ankle and knee.[/quote]

    Ah…now given more visual evidence, I RETRACT MY COMPLAINT re: Missouri. They’re doin’ it pretty well. Based on only the first few photos, it looked too “soccerish”. Turns out that’s not the case.

    Sure lovin’ that gray “flannel” doubleknit.

    —Ricko

  • JTH | March 29, 2010 at 11:34 am |

    [quote comment=”383251″]
    Sure lovin’ that gray “flannel” doubleknit.
    [/quote]
    Indeed. And I hope someone from Majestic is paying attention.

  • Dank | March 29, 2010 at 11:35 am |

    So with Duke winning yesterday and remaining the highest seed left, I suppose we get to see the “It’s not a school color but it’s so damn tough” West Virginia black unis again next Saturday?

  • concealed78 | March 29, 2010 at 11:41 am |

    [quote comment=”383209″]Somebody needs to explain to some MLB players what the definition of the word uniform is. If you don’t enjoy the high paid privilege enough to wear the uniform in a uniform manner – get out. Some flex? absolutely. Dragging your pants under spikes, shirt out, gangsta/Banana Republic styling? And jewelry of any kind makes no sense while playing. Off the field they can wear a dress & their bfff boxers on their heads. On? snap to it.[/quote]

    Part of the problem today is some ballplayers are more athletes than fans or historians of the game. There’s been past examples of management trying to enforce uni rules but found it just wasn’t worth the fight or effort for something so pedestrian & there’s also people like Barry Bonds who are just plain assholes in general – nothing that hasn’t been repeated here many times. Maybe the manager doesn’t command the respect, or maybe he just doesn’t care how players wear their socks.

  • LI Phil | March 29, 2010 at 11:41 am |

    [quote comment=”383253″]So with Duke winning yesterday and remaining the highest seed left, I suppose we get to see the “It’s not a school color but it’s so damn tough” West Virginia black unis again next Saturday?[/quote]

    it could be worse…we could see dook in black

  • The Jeff | March 29, 2010 at 11:42 am |

    [quote comment=”383249″][quote comment=”383239″][quote comment=”383231″]Someone needs to explain to the Missouri baseball equipment folks the difference between soccer socks and baseball socks.

    I know, I know, it’s a “one-world” look, where great sports merge. Oh, riiiiiiight. Pul-leeze.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Socks are socks. Besides, had they not been afraid of dye poisoning, they’d have used solid socks 100 years ago too. If anything, this is a case of technology finally allowing the originally intended look.

    *runs away*[/quote]

    So you’re saying the true traditional look is what they WOULD have worn, not what really HAS been worn?

    Interesting concept.

    Then I guess we can depict Lincoln in cargo shorts and Nikes because, being a Midwestern kid a heart, Abe would have found them to be really great…had, y’know, guys worn shorts and kicks in 1861. Which they of course would have if those thing had been around for them to know how comfortable and cool looking they were.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    You are way too easy to get riled up, you know.

    It’s a modern take on an old style. I never used the T word. Call it whatever you want, it looks far better than long pants, right? That’s the important thing.

  • Dank | March 29, 2010 at 11:45 am |

    [quote comment=”383255″][quote comment=”383253″]So with Duke winning yesterday and remaining the highest seed left, I suppose we get to see the “It’s not a school color but it’s so damn tough” West Virginia black unis again next Saturday?[/quote]

    it could be worse…we could see dook in black[/quote]

    At least black is a Duke trim color. West Virgina needed black because, you know, navy isn’t quite dark enough to be tough or some such thing.

    Man, I may have to cheer for Duke.

  • Rob | March 29, 2010 at 11:54 am |

    [quote comment=”383200″]Random Question:

    Does anyone know what font that Pitt used for their Script Pitt?[/quote]

    I would venture to guess it is proprietary art and not an off the shelf script. You could use a font identity software to get something close.

    Using whatthefont I came up with this. It is pretty close. You can get it dead on adjusting the characters in Illustrator.

    http://bit.ly/9RQeYT

  • JimV19 | March 29, 2010 at 11:56 am |

    Enjoyed the stirrup-palooza the last couple of days, but I have to agree with Paul: “I think trading ’rups for striped socks is an equitable deal.” Y’all can skewer me for saying it, but I won’t see the responses until later.

    Glad to see Slippery Rock’s unis are as classic as the football unis. Wonder why they only went with an “S” logo instead of an interlocking “SR” design. Nice campus, by the way, if you ever want to go see a college baseball game. I’ve only seen football there, but I’d go back for baseball.

    Heard of the Super Pro Club, but never joined. Was waiting in vain for the USFL Kids Club…

    As a former souvenir vendor, I can’t believe the Yanks used to add 2 cents tax to the price of their goodies:
    http://cgi.ebay.com/...
    Our stuff was all priced so you didn’t need pennies to make change. Of course, a penny meant a lot more in those days, so I won’t begrudge them too much. Now I know why people used to ask me if there was tax – they must have been from NY.

    And finally, count me in as a fan of the propeller age versus the jet age, at least when it came to unis. The 80s were okay, but that 60s and 70s stuff makes the current business casual look seem great by comparison.

    Rob Ullman should do a pinup of this propeller-age classic:
    http://www.deltamuse...

  • Ricko | March 29, 2010 at 11:56 am |

    [quote comment=”383256″][quote comment=”383249″][quote comment=”383239″][quote comment=”383231″]Someone needs to explain to the Missouri baseball equipment folks the difference between soccer socks and baseball socks.

    I know, I know, it’s a “one-world” look, where great sports merge. Oh, riiiiiiight. Pul-leeze.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Socks are socks. Besides, had they not been afraid of dye poisoning, they’d have used solid socks 100 years ago too. If anything, this is a case of technology finally allowing the originally intended look.

    *runs away*[/quote]

    So you’re saying the true traditional look is what they WOULD have worn, not what really HAS been worn?

    Interesting concept.

    Then I guess we can depict Lincoln in cargo shorts and Nikes because, being a Midwestern kid a heart, Abe would have found them to be really great…had, y’know, guys worn shorts and kicks in 1861. Which they of course would have if those thing had been around for them to know how comfortable and cool looking they were.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    You are way too easy to get riled up, you know.

    It’s a modern take on an old style. I never used the T word. Call it whatever you want, it looks far better than long pants, right? That’s the important thing.[/quote]

    Not even close to riled up. Just pointing something a little diagonal in your logic. ;)

    And I don’t know that something done badly or inaccurately—even if it’s something I kinda wanted to see—is automatically an improvement.

    “Socks are socks”??? You trying to excommUWicated? Stirrups and tubes are the same thing?

    I know, I know…not what you meant. But, oy, such a notion to blurt out here of all places.

    —Ricko

  • chance michaels | March 29, 2010 at 12:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”383231″]Love the textured “flannel” look, though. Been hoping someone would create that in double knit.
    [/quote]

    That caught my eye as well – I love it. The texture is so much more interesting than the flat double-knit.

    Would that Majestic could do something like that for the bigs.

  • JimV19 | March 29, 2010 at 12:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”383256″][quote comment=”383249″][quote comment=”383239″][quote comment=”383231″]Someone needs to explain to the Missouri baseball equipment folks the difference between soccer socks and baseball socks.

    I know, I know, it’s a “one-world” look, where great sports merge. Oh, riiiiiiight. Pul-leeze.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Socks are socks. Besides, had they not been afraid of dye poisoning, they’d have used solid socks 100 years ago too. If anything, this is a case of technology finally allowing the originally intended look.

    *runs away*[/quote]

    So you’re saying the true traditional look is what they WOULD have worn, not what really HAS been worn?

    Interesting concept.

    Then I guess we can depict Lincoln in cargo shorts and Nikes because, being a Midwestern kid a heart, Abe would have found them to be really great…had, y’know, guys worn shorts and kicks in 1861. Which they of course would have if those thing had been around for them to know how comfortable and cool looking they were.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    You are way too easy to get riled up, you know.

    It’s a modern take on an old style. I never used the T word. Call it whatever you want, it looks far better than long pants, right? That’s the important thing.[/quote]

    Steve Austin vs. Jake the Snake would pale in comparison to Ricko vs. The Jeff, I’m sure.

  • yeltrab | March 29, 2010 at 12:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”383224″][quote comment=”383202″]College baseball teams and/or players have routinely been going high cuffed for so long it is barely worth noting. A lot of it is about players wanting to look old-school.

    The exception of course is Clemson, whose players are required to go low-cuffed, but not baggy pants.

    Basically high-cuffed is as defining a feature of college baseball’s look as the multitude of uniforms power teams have.[/quote]

    Clemson pretty much introduced the ankle length look, as I recall. Was team-wide, their basis uniform. With white cleats. In mid 80s’, perhaps?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Clemson had them when we (Miami University-OH) played ’em in ’88. My recollection also has them NOT getting colored team socks issued of any type as well! They had white sani’s on under the pants. They also, had no colored waistband on the pants – the colored three stripe “waistband” was actually the hem of their v-neck pull-over jerseys! It was quite a sight, I’ll tell you. I chatted up a few of their guys during pre-game and they universally hated the unis (with good reason). I think they had a long time coach who had these strange uniform preferences…

  • RS Rogers | March 29, 2010 at 12:02 pm |

    Mets 3:16 – “Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of almost making the Washington Nationals look like contenders, I will fear no Phillie, for the Yankees will make the playoffs and they’ll probably beat Philadelphia in the end.”

  • Ricko | March 29, 2010 at 12:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”383257″][quote comment=”383255″][quote comment=”383253″]So with Duke winning yesterday and remaining the highest seed left, I suppose we get to see the “It’s not a school color but it’s so damn tough” West Virginia black unis again next Saturday?[/quote]

    it could be worse…we could see dook in black[/quote]

    At least black is a Duke trim color. West Virgina needed black because, you know, navy isn’t quite dark enough to be tough or some such thing.

    Man, I may have to cheer for Duke.[/quote]

    Duke is BFBS. School colors are Royal Blue & White. Adding a color for trim doesn’t make it a school color, no matter how long you’re worn it.

    By that measure, black has become a school color at Ohio State (although I believe only the football team uses it on its unis).

    —Ricko

  • pflava | March 29, 2010 at 12:10 pm |

    Regarding Duke-WVU, the only bright spot uniform-wise is that neither will be wearing black in the championship game against a 5 seed. Let’s hope that’s against Butler, both for the sake of interest and decent uniforms.

    http://adambutcherhd...

    Those Mizzou “flannel” grays are fantastic! They look so good I don’t even mind the UA logo on the chest. What is it going to take to get a MLB team to adopt that look?

  • MPowers1634 | March 29, 2010 at 12:13 pm |

    Alright. I’ve been AWOL for awhile.
    Lemme catch y’all up…I was about to make a load of money in the NCAA pool until Michigan State f@#$ed everything up last night.

    Oh and BTW…I’m going on the ultimate Uni-Watching experience today. We are taking my daughters and 10 of their friends to NYC for a birthday tea party at the American Girl Store!

    http://www.americang...

    Ruh Roh!

  • JSS | March 29, 2010 at 12:14 pm |

    Thanks Rob.

  • JimV19 | March 29, 2010 at 12:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”383266″]Regarding Duke-WVU, the only bright spot uniform-wise is that neither will be wearing black in the championship game against a 5 seed. Let’s hope that’s against Butler, both for the sake of interest and decent uniforms.

    http://adambutcherhd...

    Aren’t they wearing black as well?

  • James Craven | March 29, 2010 at 12:15 pm |

    And the most evil amount of douchebaggery has happened:

    The entire Final Four is outfitted by Nike.

  • LI Phil | March 29, 2010 at 12:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”383257″]
    Man, I may have to cheer for Duke.[/quote]

    i sometimes feel that way myself, when it comes to the yankees playing (insert any team but detroit) in their softball tops…

    but then i snap out of it

  • JTH | March 29, 2010 at 12:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”383269″][quote comment=”383266″]Regarding Duke-WVU, the only bright spot uniform-wise is that neither will be wearing black in the championship game against a 5 seed. Let’s hope that’s against Butler, both for the sake of interest and decent uniforms.

    http://adambutcherhd...

    Aren’t they wearing black as well?[/quote]
    Yep. Do those unis even have any blue trim?

  • pflava | March 29, 2010 at 12:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”383269″][quote comment=”383266″]Regarding Duke-WVU, the only bright spot uniform-wise is that neither will be wearing black in the championship game against a 5 seed. Let’s hope that’s against Butler, both for the sake of interest and decent uniforms.

    http://adambutcherhd...

    Aren’t they wearing black as well?[/quote]

    Butler wears dark blue.

  • pflava | March 29, 2010 at 12:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”383272″][quote comment=”383269″][quote comment=”383266″]Regarding Duke-WVU, the only bright spot uniform-wise is that neither will be wearing black in the championship game against a 5 seed. Let’s hope that’s against Butler, both for the sake of interest and decent uniforms.

    http://adambutcherhd...

    Aren’t they wearing black as well?[/quote]
    Yep. Do those unis even have any blue trim?[/quote]

    Shit, are those black? I thought they were navy blue. If they are black, the hell with what I said before.

  • timmy b | March 29, 2010 at 12:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”383248″]Re: Logo Creep in the wrong places…

    Since I’ve been reading this site, I’ve been conditioned to find logo creep in any & all places.

    I went to the Bodies exhibit down in the city over the weekend (which was amazing!!)…but the very 1st “Body” you come across is a football player and it’s holding a Nike football…(no pics are allowed)

    I pointed this out to my g/f who then replied “does everything have to relate to UniWatch”…I said “Yes…yes it does”.[/quote]

    Hmm. My wife and kids don’t even know about the UW. When I was helping out with the b/w in color segment a couple of weeks ago, I told my wife I was on a website “project”. She said, “I hope they like it.” “I said, oh some people will.”

    As for my offspring, UW bores them.

    Ignorance can be bliss sometimes!

  • Tom | March 29, 2010 at 12:30 pm |

    “hosiery hoedown”….I love the way you described the game between Slippery Rock U. vs. Gannon U.

  • Ricko | March 29, 2010 at 12:31 pm |

    There is, of course, a HUGE downside to the “gray flannel” road concept.

    With “pajama pants” they could look like…
    a) ratty old sweat pants
    or…
    b) trousers from one of the outdated salt & pepper suits Ronald Reagan was still wearing when he was governor of California.

    —Ricko

  • Dank | March 29, 2010 at 12:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”383265″][quote comment=”383257″][quote comment=”383255″][quote comment=”383253″]So with Duke winning yesterday and remaining the highest seed left, I suppose we get to see the “It’s not a school color but it’s so damn tough” West Virginia black unis again next Saturday?[/quote]

    it could be worse…we could see dook in black[/quote]

    At least black is a Duke trim color. West Virgina needed black because, you know, navy isn’t quite dark enough to be tough or some such thing.

    Man, I may have to cheer for Duke.[/quote]

    Duke is BFBS. School colors are Royal Blue & White. Adding a color for trim doesn’t make it a school color, no matter how long you’re worn it.

    By that measure, black has become a school color at Ohio State (although I believe only the football team uses it on its unis).

    —Ricko[/quote]

    For me growing up, it seemed like teams always had three colors, white-team color-trim color. Every high school around me seemed to follow that code for the most part. I know this isn’t true in pro sports, (Yanks, Colts, etc.), but for some reason I don’t have a problem adding black to a 2 color team as much as adding it to a team that already has 3 or more colors. Guess just some odd uni-rule on my part. I actually LIKE the black trim on Duke’s whiet unis (think it makes them pop), though I hate the black Duke threads. It’s when teams like Miami, West Virginia, Florida St. et. all add black to a perfectly fine 3 color palate that it totally offends my sensibilites!

  • Dank | March 29, 2010 at 12:36 pm |

    [quote comment=”383273″][quote comment=”383269″][quote comment=”383266″]Regarding Duke-WVU, the only bright spot uniform-wise is that neither will be wearing black in the championship game against a 5 seed. Let’s hope that’s against Butler, both for the sake of interest and decent uniforms.

    http://adambutcherhd...

    Aren’t they wearing black as well?[/quote]

    Butler wears dark blue.[/quote]

    I believe they are black, and even referenced as black on the graphic to start a tourney game. Their warmups are royal blue and white I think.

  • JTH | March 29, 2010 at 12:39 pm |

    [quote comment=”383274″][quote comment=”383272″][quote comment=”383269″][quote comment=”383266″]Regarding Duke-WVU, the only bright spot uniform-wise is that neither will be wearing black in the championship game against a 5 seed. Let’s hope that’s against Butler, both for the sake of interest and decent uniforms.

    http://adambutcherhd...

    Aren’t they wearing black as well?[/quote]
    Yep. Do those unis even have any blue trim?[/quote]

    Shit, are those black? I thought they were navy blue. If they are black, the hell with what I said before.[/quote]Yep. There is some blue on them if you look closely.

  • LI Phil | March 29, 2010 at 12:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”383279″][quote comment=”383273″][quote comment=”383269″][quote comment=”383266″]Regarding Duke-WVU, the only bright spot uniform-wise is that neither will be wearing black in the championship game against a 5 seed. Let’s hope that’s against Butler, both for the sake of interest and decent uniforms.

    http://adambutcherhd...

    Aren’t they wearing black as well?[/quote]

    Butler wears dark blue.[/quote]

    I believe they are black, and even referenced as black on the graphic to start a tourney game. Their warmups are royal blue and white I think.[/quote]

    black AND blue???

  • Geeman | March 29, 2010 at 12:44 pm |

    [quote comment=”383257″][quote comment=”383255″][quote comment=”383253″]So with Duke winning yesterday and remaining the highest seed left, I suppose we get to see the “It’s not a school color but it’s so damn tough” West Virginia black unis again next Saturday?[/quote]

    it could be worse…we could see dook in black[/quote]

    At least black is a Duke trim color. West Virgina needed black because, you know, navy isn’t quite dark enough to be tough or some such thing.

    Man, I may have to cheer for Duke.[/quote]

    Happy for W. Va. to make the Final Four, but how sad it was for school history that they didn’t even wear their school colors in doing so. You have two great road uniforms — gold and blue, the school colors, coincidentally, which have stood the test of time for years — and you wear black for the biggest game in years?

  • Geeman | March 29, 2010 at 12:47 pm |

    [quote comment=”383278″][quote comment=”383265″][quote comment=”383257″][quote comment=”383255″][quote comment=”383253″]So with Duke winning yesterday and remaining the highest seed left, I suppose we get to see the “It’s not a school color but it’s so damn tough” West Virginia black unis again next Saturday?[/quote]

    it could be worse…we could see dook in black[/quote]

    At least black is a Duke trim color. West Virgina needed black because, you know, navy isn’t quite dark enough to be tough or some such thing.

    Man, I may have to cheer for Duke.[/quote]

    Duke is BFBS. School colors are Royal Blue & White. Adding a color for trim doesn’t make it a school color, no matter how long you’re worn it.

    By that measure, black has become a school color at Ohio State (although I believe only the football team uses it on its unis).

    —Ricko[/quote]

    For me growing up, it seemed like teams always had three colors, white-team color-trim color. Every high school around me seemed to follow that code for the most part. I know this isn’t true in pro sports, (Yanks, Colts, etc.), but for some reason I don’t have a problem adding black to a 2 color team as much as adding it to a team that already has 3 or more colors. Guess just some odd uni-rule on my part. I actually LIKE the black trim on Duke’s whiet unis (think it makes them pop), though I hate the black Duke threads. It’s when teams like Miami, West Virginia, Florida St. et. all add black to a perfectly fine 3 color palate that it totally offends my sensibilites![/quote]

    You are correct. Black is acceptable as an alternate color at Duke only because it has only two colors — blue and white. Same with dark blue as an alternate color at Carolina, whose colors are light blue and white.

    Woody was wearing a black cap at Ohio State for years. Wouldn’t want to see OSU in black, but it would make more sense than Washington, Miami, Florida State, or West Virginia.

  • The Ol Goaler | March 29, 2010 at 12:47 pm |

    As a Mizzou alum, what I liked best about those striped socks is… they’re the actual school colors of Black and Old Gold!

  • Geeman | March 29, 2010 at 12:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”383263″][quote comment=”383224″][quote comment=”383202″]College baseball teams and/or players have routinely been going high cuffed for so long it is barely worth noting. A lot of it is about players wanting to look old-school.

    The exception of course is Clemson, whose players are required to go low-cuffed, but not baggy pants.

    Basically high-cuffed is as defining a feature of college baseball’s look as the multitude of uniforms power teams have.[/quote]

    Clemson pretty much introduced the ankle length look, as I recall. Was team-wide, their basis uniform. With white cleats. In mid 80s’, perhaps?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Clemson had them when we (Miami University-OH) played ’em in ’88. My recollection also has them NOT getting colored team socks issued of any type as well! They had white sani’s on under the pants. They also, had no colored waistband on the pants – the colored three stripe “waistband” was actually the hem of their v-neck pull-over jerseys! It was quite a sight, I’ll tell you. I chatted up a few of their guys during pre-game and they universally hated the unis (with good reason). I think they had a long time coach who had these strange uniform preferences…[/quote]

    Clemson’s stirrup-less uniforms go back at least to the late 1970s.

  • chance michaels | March 29, 2010 at 12:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”383278″]
    For me growing up, it seemed like teams always had three colors, white-team color-trim color. Every high school around me seemed to follow that code for the most part. I know this isn’t true in pro sports, (Yanks, Colts, etc.), but for some reason I don’t have a problem adding black to a 2 color team as much as adding it to a team that already has 3 or more colors. Guess just some odd uni-rule on my part. I actually LIKE the black trim on Duke’s whiet unis (think it makes them pop), though I hate the black Duke threads. It’s when teams like Miami, West Virginia, Florida St. et. all add black to a perfectly fine 3 color palate that it totally offends my sensibilites![/quote]

    I’d tend to agree, although maybe this is just me wishing to give my alma mater a pass.

    Then again, Wisconsin has been using black in its logos since the 40s, so maybe

  • Fabio | March 29, 2010 at 12:50 pm |

    Paul – that Steve Austin picture was taken on a very important day. He threw out the first pitch before what we Met fans call the “Matt Franco Game”, when he got hit a two-run pinch hit single off Mariano Rivera to beat the Yankees 9-8 in July, 1999. I have the stub signed br Franco somewhere.

  • Ricko | March 29, 2010 at 12:52 pm |

    [quote comment=”383278″][quote comment=”383265″][quote comment=”383257″][quote comment=”383255″][quote comment=”383253″]So with Duke winning yesterday and remaining the highest seed left, I suppose we get to see the “It’s not a school color but it’s so damn tough” West Virginia black unis again next Saturday?[/quote]

    it could be worse…we could see dook in black[/quote]

    At least black is a Duke trim color. West Virgina needed black because, you know, navy isn’t quite dark enough to be tough or some such thing.

    Man, I may have to cheer for Duke.[/quote]

    Duke is BFBS. School colors are Royal Blue & White. Adding a color for trim doesn’t make it a school color, no matter how long you’re worn it.

    By that measure, black has become a school color at Ohio State (although I believe only the football team uses it on its unis).

    —Ricko[/quote]

    For me growing up, it seemed like teams always had three colors, white-team color-trim color. Every high school around me seemed to follow that code for the most part. I know this isn’t true in pro sports, (Yanks, Colts, etc.), but for some reason I don’t have a problem adding black to a 2 color team as much as adding it to a team that already has 3 or more colors. Guess just some odd uni-rule on my part. I actually LIKE the black trim on Duke’s whiet unis (think it makes them pop), though I hate the black Duke threads. It’s when teams like Miami, West Virginia, Florida St. et. all add black to a perfectly fine 3 color palate that it totally offends my sensibilites![/quote]

    Hey, I have no problem with black as a trim color, if it’s used sparingly, as in to define the shape of something or to provide detail. But because a team has used it as a trim color doesn’t justify it being the color of a garment.

    So I think we’re pretty much saying the same thing.

    White, however (as I’ve said many, many time before), is a de facto additional color for everyone because generally they’re required by rule to wear a white jersey once in a while. No such “part of the game” edict regarding black. Black’s a choice, a fashion statement. Doesn’t come from the game itself. Don’t really see how anyone could claim it does.

    —Ricko

  • JimWa | March 29, 2010 at 12:57 pm |

    Personally, I think Paul has no worried about the recent college baseball trend. I think he was just trying to … never mind. I just can’t do it.

  • JimWa | March 29, 2010 at 12:59 pm |

    Read, then post, or post, then read?

    Always tough to decide. Guess I went the wrong way.

    Again.

  • Ricko | March 29, 2010 at 12:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”383289″]Personally, I think Paul has no worried about the recent college baseball trend. I think he was just trying to … never mind. I just can’t do it.[/quote]

    A whiff of “Laugh-In” wafting through the air there, perhaps?

  • Geeman | March 29, 2010 at 1:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”383283″][quote comment=”383278″][quote comment=”383265″][quote comment=”383257″][quote comment=”383255″][quote comment=”383253″]So with Duke winning yesterday and remaining the highest seed left, I suppose we get to see the “It’s not a school color but it’s so damn tough” West Virginia black unis again next Saturday?[/quote]

    it could be worse…we could see dook in black[/quote]

    At least black is a Duke trim color. West Virgina needed black because, you know, navy isn’t quite dark enough to be tough or some such thing.

    Man, I may have to cheer for Duke.[/quote]

    Duke is BFBS. School colors are Royal Blue & White. Adding a color for trim doesn’t make it a school color, no matter how long you’re worn it.

    By that measure, black has become a school color at Ohio State (although I believe only the football team uses it on its unis).

    —Ricko[/quote]

    For me growing up, it seemed like teams always had three colors, white-team color-trim color. Every high school around me seemed to follow that code for the most part. I know this isn’t true in pro sports, (Yanks, Colts, etc.), but for some reason I don’t have a problem adding black to a 2 color team as much as adding it to a team that already has 3 or more colors. Guess just some odd uni-rule on my part. I actually LIKE the black trim on Duke’s whiet unis (think it makes them pop), though I hate the black Duke threads. It’s when teams like Miami, West Virginia, Florida St. et. all add black to a perfectly fine 3 color palate that it totally offends my sensibilites![/quote]

    You are correct. Black is acceptable as an alternate color at Duke only because it has only two colors — blue and white. Same with dark blue as an alternate color at Carolina, whose colors are light blue and white.

    Woody was wearing a black cap at Ohio State for years. Wouldn’t want to see OSU in black, but it would make more sense than Washington, Miami, Florida State, or West Virginia.[/quote]

    And, like I said last week, teams that are wearing black are losing their identities. School colors are designed to create an identity. When everyone is wearing black, that identity is lost. I didn’t know who was playing when Vermont (green and gold school colors) was wearing black. I wonder who is playing when Miami (green and orange) and Florida State (garnet and gold) show up in black. Same with Washington (purple and gold). This is what happens when fashion trends trump history and tradition.

  • KT | March 29, 2010 at 1:13 pm |

    RE: that Bills jersey

    That was an early, mid-70s consumer-grade quasi-jersey when replica jerseys were still not as ubiquitous as they are today.

    I had a white Buccaneers #76 one for Dave Pear, who was one of the Bucs’ few early stars. I think I had, for some reason, a Lawrence McCutcheon Rams #30 as well. Lots of my friends had them, too. Were they Rawlings?

  • KT | March 29, 2010 at 1:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”383254″]Part of the problem today is some ballplayers are more athletes than fans or historians of the game. There’s been past examples of management trying to enforce uni rules but found it just wasn’t worth the fight or effort for something so pedestrian & there’s also people like Barry Bonds who are just plain assholes in general – nothing that hasn’t been repeated here many times. Maybe the manager doesn’t command the respect, or maybe he just doesn’t care how players wear their socks.[/quote]

    And part of the problem is that major league baseball is a game played by people with high school educations.

  • JTH | March 29, 2010 at 1:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”383294″][quote comment=”383254″]Part of the problem today is some ballplayers are more athletes than fans or historians of the game. There’s been past examples of management trying to enforce uni rules but found it just wasn’t worth the fight or effort for something so pedestrian & there’s also people like Barry Bonds who are just plain assholes in general – nothing that hasn’t been repeated here many times. Maybe the manager doesn’t command the respect, or maybe he just doesn’t care how players wear their socks.[/quote]

    And part of the problem is that major league baseball is a game played by people with high school educations.[/quote]I guess we need more Ivy Leaguers to set an example.

  • LI Phil | March 29, 2010 at 1:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”383294″]
    And part of the problem is that major league baseball is a game played by people with high school educations.[/quote]

    not trying to be a dick, but what has that got to do with it? you only become a fan or historian of the game if you go to college?

    and as juke opined above…why can’t teams institute some form of on-field dress code? if the yanks can ban beards and the big red machine of the 1970’s had certain dress codes, why can’t others today? i’ve never heard of a player not wanting to come to the yanks because “i gotta shave? fuck that”…i doubt they’d really complain about a dress code if the winning follows
    i’d wager that if pro football or basketball had a viable minor league system like MLB, most, if not all, NFL/NBAers wouldn’t have any college education either…in fact, the NCAA in those sports is the de facto minor leagues, except they don’t have to actually pay the players

    i don’t think the lack of a college education has anything to do players not being fans or historians of the game…but i do fault the player development/teams/coaches for not instilling some sense of history in the players from the get go

  • Bob Loblaw | March 29, 2010 at 1:37 pm |

    Oh man!!!!
    Doesn’t this
    http://farm5.static....

    look like this?? http://farm3.static....

  • Geeman | March 29, 2010 at 1:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”383296″][quote comment=”383294″]
    And part of the problem is that major league baseball is a game played by people with high school educations.[/quote]

    not trying to be a dick, but what has that got to do with it? you only become a fan or historian of the game if you go to college?

    and as juke opined above…why can’t teams institute some form of on-field dress code? if the yanks can ban beards and the big red machine of the 1970’s had certain dress codes, why can’t others today? i’ve never heard of a player not wanting to come to the yanks because “i gotta shave? fuck that”…i doubt they’d really complain about a dress code if the winning follows
    i’d wager that if pro football or basketball had a viable minor league system like MLB, most, if not all, NFL/NBAers wouldn’t have any college education either…in fact, the NCAA in those sports is the de facto minor leagues, except they don’t have to actually pay the players

    i don’t think the lack of a college education has anything to do players not being fans or historians of the game…but i do fault the player development/teams/coaches for not instilling some sense of history in the players from the get go[/quote]

    Well said.

  • Dave | March 29, 2010 at 1:41 pm |

    I’m Calling It Tradition Field

  • Bob Loblaw | March 29, 2010 at 1:43 pm |

    [quote comment=”383226″]I’m ashamed to say that I actually knew that Steve Austin’s jersey is not actually a reference to John 3:16, but I would be far more ashamed if I had admitted (especially in a public forum) to having watched Problem Child over the weekend.[/quote]
    Well…. I’d never admit to watching that-publicly. However, i did watch a few dozen episodes of Pocoyo…. so i’ll just tidy up my glass house.

  • Bob Loblaw | March 29, 2010 at 1:46 pm |

    [quote comment=”383241″]I saw this shirt in the NFL shop, and think it needs about 4 more bumper stickers to fill in those few empty spaces! Jeepers, talk about design overkill.[/quote]
    IT’s the NASCAR pitcrew look. Barf.

  • Bernard | March 29, 2010 at 1:47 pm |

    In my world, everyone gets two colors (old gold and blue, black and gold, red and black, green and white) plus white. However, if you choose white as one of your two colors, you don’t get to pick up black as a “trim” color. “X” and white works just fine (Colts, Yankees, Sooners), which is why when teams with white as one of their colors adopts black (to make things “pop” or add definition), I find it particularly offensive. I’m looking straight at Duke and the Celtics.

  • JimWa | March 29, 2010 at 1:49 pm |

    “… the NCAA in those sports is the de facto minor leagues, except they don’t have to actually pay the players”

    It’s not that they DON’T pay the players …. they just don’t have to. Intelligently worded!

  • Ricko | March 29, 2010 at 1:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”383294″][quote comment=”383254″]Part of the problem today is some ballplayers are more athletes than fans or historians of the game. There’s been past examples of management trying to enforce uni rules but found it just wasn’t worth the fight or effort for something so pedestrian & there’s also people like Barry Bonds who are just plain assholes in general – nothing that hasn’t been repeated here many times. Maybe the manager doesn’t command the respect, or maybe he just doesn’t care how players wear their socks.[/quote]

    And part of the problem is that major league baseball is a game played by people with high school educations.[/quote]

    With a good chunk of the marketing effort aimed at people who don’t yet HAVE their high school educations.
    (Basketball even moreso, I’m afraid).

    —Ricko

  • Bob Loblaw | March 29, 2010 at 1:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”383293″]RE: that Bills jersey

    That was an early, mid-70s consumer-grade quasi-jersey when replica jerseys were still not as ubiquitous as they are today.

    I had a white Buccaneers #76 one for Dave Pear, who was one of the Bucs’ few early stars. I think I had, for some reason, a Lawrence McCutcheon Rams #30 as well. Lots of my friends had them, too. Were they Rawlings?[/quote]

    Sold at Sears’ IIRC. Paul had a mid 70’s Sears’ catalog in which those cheesey shirts had a prominent feature

  • traxel | March 29, 2010 at 1:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”383296″][quote comment=”383294″]
    And part of the problem is that major league baseball is a game played by people with high school educations.[/quote]

    not trying to be a dick, but what has that got to do with it? you only become a fan or historian of the game if you go to college?

    and as juke opined above…why can’t teams institute some form of on-field dress code? if the yanks can ban beards and the big red machine of the 1970’s had certain dress codes, why can’t others today? i’ve never heard of a player not wanting to come to the yanks because “i gotta shave? fuck that”…i doubt they’d really complain about a dress code if the winning follows
    i’d wager that if pro football or basketball had a viable minor league system like MLB, most, if not all, NFL/NBAers wouldn’t have any college education either…in fact, the NCAA in those sports is the de facto minor leagues, except they don’t have to actually pay the players

    i don’t think the lack of a college education has anything to do players not being fans or historians of the game…but i do fault the player development/teams/coaches for not instilling some sense of history in the players from the get go[/quote]
    Maybe he meant – as opposed to high school dropouts. Intended as a compliment. Yep. Definately a compliment where I’m from.

  • Ricko | March 29, 2010 at 1:58 pm |

    LI Phil said…

    “…but i do fault the player development/teams/coaches for not instilling some sense of history in the players from the get go”

    Another angle on that is big part of why I always respected the 49ers of the Bill Walsh era. Don’t know if it’s still Niners’ policy today, but back then they didn’t fart around with making rookies stand on their chairs in the training camp dining hall and sing their school fight songs, etc.

    Their attitude was…”If you’re here, and for as long as you’re here, you’re a 49er, a professional. You will act like one, and you will be treated like one.”

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | March 29, 2010 at 2:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”383307″]LI Phil said…

    “…but i do fault the player development/teams/coaches for not instilling some sense of history in the players from the get go”

    Another angle on that is big part of why I always respected the 49ers of the Bill Walsh era. Don’t know if it’s still Niners’ policy today, but back then they didn’t fart around with making rookies stand on their chairs in the training camp dining hall and sing their school fight songs, etc.

    Their attitude was…”If you’re here, and for as long as you’re here, you’re a 49er, a professional. You will act like one, and you will be treated like one.”

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I might add…Weren’t very many members of those great Niner teams who ever had run-ins with the law, or the court system, or that matter.

  • Dane | March 29, 2010 at 2:03 pm |

    I have been amused all day with this old hockey card:

    http://farm5.static....

  • dudebrotherman | March 29, 2010 at 2:09 pm |

    The Missouri “flannel” look is so great! Been waiting for that for over a decade. Ever since I saw a 1969 Mitchell & Ness retro San Francisco road jersey in 1996. It had that great texture!

    Hopefully, this will be the start of something big on that front. Interesting that Under Armor is the first company to do it. Also interesting that Missouri is a nike school. So much so that their football team was part of the combat promotion in the fall. Wonder why every sport isn’t nike.

  • Geeman | March 29, 2010 at 2:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”383302″]In my world, everyone gets two colors (old gold and blue, black and gold, red and black, green and white) plus white. However, if you choose white as one of your two colors, you don’t get to pick up black as a “trim” color. “X” and white works just fine (Colts, Yankees, Sooners), which is why when teams with white as one of their colors adopts black (to make things “pop” or add definition), I find it particularly offensive. I’m looking straight at Duke and the Celtics.[/quote]

    The Celtics? Didn’t know they had black.

    I don’t like BFBS, but I don’t mind Duke’ use of black, if it’s sparingly used. That said, I despie the Mets’ use of black (and it tilts too heavily toward the one of the old N.L. teams — the Giants — whereas their original colors of blue and orange were supposed to represent a color of each team, the Giants and Dodgers).

    Just like I think it makes sense for Carolina to use dark blue to go with its light blue, if used sparingly. You’ve always seen a lot of dark blue CAROLINA sweatshirts with light blue lettering around Chapel Hill.

  • Bernard | March 29, 2010 at 2:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”383311″][quote comment=”383302″]In my world, everyone gets two colors (old gold and blue, black and gold, red and black, green and white) plus white. However, if you choose white as one of your two colors, you don’t get to pick up black as a “trim” color. “X” and white works just fine (Colts, Yankees, Sooners), which is why when teams with white as one of their colors adopts black (to make things “pop” or add definition), I find it particularly offensive. I’m looking straight at Duke and the Celtics.[/quote]

    The Celtics? Didn’t know they had black.

    I don’t like BFBS, but I don’t mind Duke’ use of black, if it’s sparingly used. That said, I despie the Mets’ use of black (and it tilts too heavily toward the one of the old N.L. teams — the Giants — whereas their original colors of blue and orange were supposed to represent a color of each team, the Giants and Dodgers).

    Just like I think it makes sense for Carolina to use dark blue to go with its light blue, if used sparingly. You’ve always seen a lot of dark blue CAROLINA sweatshirts with light blue lettering around Chapel Hill.[/quote]

    These monstrosities:

    http://www.bballvide...

  • Geeman | March 29, 2010 at 2:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”383312″][quote comment=”383311″][quote comment=”383302″]In my world, everyone gets two colors (old gold and blue, black and gold, red and black, green and white) plus white. However, if you choose white as one of your two colors, you don’t get to pick up black as a “trim” color. “X” and white works just fine (Colts, Yankees, Sooners), which is why when teams with white as one of their colors adopts black (to make things “pop” or add definition), I find it particularly offensive. I’m looking straight at Duke and the Celtics.[/quote]

    The Celtics? Didn’t know they had black.

    I don’t like BFBS, but I don’t mind Duke’ use of black, if it’s sparingly used. That said, I despie the Mets’ use of black (and it tilts too heavily toward the one of the old N.L. teams — the Giants — whereas their original colors of blue and orange were supposed to represent a color of each team, the Giants and Dodgers).

    Just like I think it makes sense for Carolina to use dark blue to go with its light blue, if used sparingly. You’ve always seen a lot of dark blue CAROLINA sweatshirts with light blue lettering around Chapel Hill.[/quote]

    These monstrosities:

    http://www.bballvide...

    Oh, you’re right. I was thinking their alternate was the one with gold letters.

  • Bernard | March 29, 2010 at 2:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”383305″][quote comment=”383293″]RE: that Bills jersey

    That was an early, mid-70s consumer-grade quasi-jersey when replica jerseys were still not as ubiquitous as they are today.

    I had a white Buccaneers #76 one for Dave Pear, who was one of the Bucs’ few early stars. I think I had, for some reason, a Lawrence McCutcheon Rams #30 as well. Lots of my friends had them, too. Were they Rawlings?[/quote]

    Sold at Sears’ IIRC. Paul had a mid 70’s Sears’ catalog in which those cheesey shirts had a prominent feature[/quote]

    They are Rawlings. In Jenny’s case, they’re youth jerseys. If you’re going for vintage football gear with a classic look, for someone small like her, they’re tough to beat.

  • Bob from Akron | March 29, 2010 at 2:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”383309″]I have been amused all day with this old hockey card:

    http://farm5.static....

    Looks like the head doesn’t match the body…kinda reminds me of this

  • Bob from Akron | March 29, 2010 at 2:22 pm |

    [quote comment=”383316″][quote comment=”383309″]I have been amused all day with this old hockey card:

    http://farm5.static....

    Looks like the head doesn’t match the body…kinda reminds me of this[/quote]

    oops…like this

  • Ricko | March 29, 2010 at 2:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”383312″][quote comment=”383311″][quote comment=”383302″]In my world, everyone gets two colors (old gold and blue, black and gold, red and black, green and white) plus white. However, if you choose white as one of your two colors, you don’t get to pick up black as a “trim” color. “X” and white works just fine (Colts, Yankees, Sooners), which is why when teams with white as one of their colors adopts black (to make things “pop” or add definition), I find it particularly offensive. I’m looking straight at Duke and the Celtics.[/quote]

    The Celtics? Didn’t know they had black.

    I don’t like BFBS, but I don’t mind Duke’ use of black, if it’s sparingly used. That said, I despie the Mets’ use of black (and it tilts too heavily toward the one of the old N.L. teams — the Giants — whereas their original colors of blue and orange were supposed to represent a color of each team, the Giants and Dodgers).

    Just like I think it makes sense for Carolina to use dark blue to go with its light blue, if used sparingly. You’ve always seen a lot of dark blue CAROLINA sweatshirts with light blue lettering around Chapel Hill.[/quote]

    These monstrosities:

    http://www.bballvide...

    “monstrosities”? Golly, you make it sound like the Celtics had some kind of tradition of championship basketball that their kelly-and-white unis symbolized or something, something that, y’know, you thought should have been immune to a trendy fashion statement.

    C’mon, dude, get in step with unquestioned rightness of 21st marketing and the ever-important quest to keep the Sesame Street generation from being bored.

    (And, no, The Jeff, I’m not riled up. Just tweaking a nose here and there…and maybe pointing out that CHANGE in and of itself isn’t the Holy Grail). ;)

    —Ricko

  • BigFan | March 29, 2010 at 2:53 pm |

    Here’s a link to an old Boys’ Life ad for the NFL SuperPro Club. Be sure to scroll down one page for a great sock ad, too.

    http://tinyurl.com/y...

  • Ry Co 40 | March 29, 2010 at 2:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”383316″][quote comment=”383309″]I have been amused all day with this old hockey card:

    http://farm5.static....

    Looks like the head doesn’t match the body…kinda reminds me of this[/quote]

    ahhh… my old high school defensive coach! great guy! i’ve seen him maybe 5 times in the past 10 years and he still remembers my name… always impressed by that!

  • Geeman | March 29, 2010 at 3:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”383312″][quote comment=”383311″][quote comment=”383302″]In my world, everyone gets two colors (old gold and blue, black and gold, red and black, green and white) plus white. However, if you choose white as one of your two colors, you don’t get to pick up black as a “trim” color. “X” and white works just fine (Colts, Yankees, Sooners), which is why when teams with white as one of their colors adopts black (to make things “pop” or add definition), I find it particularly offensive. I’m looking straight at Duke and the Celtics.[/quote]

    The Celtics? Didn’t know they had black.

    I don’t like BFBS, but I don’t mind Duke’ use of black, if it’s sparingly used. That said, I despie the Mets’ use of black (and it tilts too heavily toward the one of the old N.L. teams — the Giants — whereas their original colors of blue and orange were supposed to represent a color of each team, the Giants and Dodgers).

    Just like I think it makes sense for Carolina to use dark blue to go with its light blue, if used sparingly. You’ve always seen a lot of dark blue CAROLINA sweatshirts with light blue lettering around Chapel Hill.[/quote]

    These monstrosities:

    http://www.bballvide...

    If they just used a little black trim around the letters and numbers of their current green uniforms, that would not be bad. But those uniforms are not good.

  • Ricko | March 29, 2010 at 3:16 pm |

    Ya gotta love a sense of community-wide excitement and anticipation. Makes for the sense of a fun summer, even if the team should end up struggling a bit.

    47 of the Twins’ 81 home games this year already are sold out.

    24,000 season tickets, too, most in team history.

    —Ricko

  • Bernard | March 29, 2010 at 3:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”383318″][quote comment=”383312″][quote comment=”383311″][quote comment=”383302″]In my world, everyone gets two colors (old gold and blue, black and gold, red and black, green and white) plus white. However, if you choose white as one of your two colors, you don’t get to pick up black as a “trim” color. “X” and white works just fine (Colts, Yankees, Sooners), which is why when teams with white as one of their colors adopts black (to make things “pop” or add definition), I find it particularly offensive. I’m looking straight at Duke and the Celtics.[/quote]

    The Celtics? Didn’t know they had black.

    I don’t like BFBS, but I don’t mind Duke’ use of black, if it’s sparingly used. That said, I despie the Mets’ use of black (and it tilts too heavily toward the one of the old N.L. teams — the Giants — whereas their original colors of blue and orange were supposed to represent a color of each team, the Giants and Dodgers).

    Just like I think it makes sense for Carolina to use dark blue to go with its light blue, if used sparingly. You’ve always seen a lot of dark blue CAROLINA sweatshirts with light blue lettering around Chapel Hill.[/quote]

    These monstrosities:

    http://www.bballvide...

    “monstrosities”? Golly, you make it sound like the Celtics had some kind of tradition of championship basketball that their kelly-and-white unis symbolized or something, something that, y’know, you thought should have been immune to a trendy fashion statement.

    C’mon, dude, get in step with unquestioned rightness of 21st marketing and the ever-important quest to keep the Sesame Street generation from being bored.

    (And, no, The Jeff, I’m not riled up. Just tweaking a nose here and there…and maybe pointing out that CHANGE in and of itself isn’t the Holy Grail).

    ;)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Sesame Street generation? Ricko, you’re not trying to make this an old guy/young guy thing, are you? ;)

    C is for chain-stitch. That’s good enough for me.

  • concealed78 | March 29, 2010 at 3:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”383251″]

    Sure lovin’ that gray “flannel” doubleknit.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Me too! That should be the new standard for all gray & sand roads. Leaps and bounds improvement. I’ve been wondering why something like that hasn’t been invented yet; or why this is the first I’m hearing of it.

  • Andy | March 29, 2010 at 3:46 pm |

    [quote comment=”383249″][quote comment=”383239″][quote comment=”383231″]Someone needs to explain to the Missouri baseball equipment folks the difference between soccer socks and baseball socks.

    I know, I know, it’s a “one-world” look, where great sports merge. Oh, riiiiiiight. Pul-leeze.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Socks are socks. Besides, had they not been afraid of dye poisoning, they’d have used solid socks 100 years ago too. If anything, this is a case of technology finally allowing the originally intended look.

    *runs away*[/quote]

    So you’re saying the true traditional look is what they WOULD have worn, not what really HAS been worn?

    Interesting concept.

    Then I guess we can depict Lincoln in cargo shorts and Nikes because, being a Midwestern kid a heart, Abe would have found them to be really great…had, y’know, guys worn shorts and kicks in 1861. Which they of course would have if those thing had been around for them to know how comfortable and cool looking they were.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I hope you realize how completely different those two arguments are.

    Cargo shorts v. wool trousers is not a valid argument when you’re comparing them to socks v. stirrups in this context. There’s the span of eras represented by the two garments, for one, and then there’s the fact that they lay on opposite ends of the aesthetic spectrum, for another.

    Not only did full socks and stirrups coexist in popular culture during the era when baseball took root, the look of a full sock was not drastically different from that of a stirrup.

    You have implied many times that the reason the stirrup/sanitary combo was created and adopted in favor of the full sock was so the dyes of the stocking would not infect open wounds.

    Picture me evaluating the merits of the original iPod against those of the newest iPod nano.

    “I think that if the technology had feasibly existed when the original iPod hit the market, it, too would have featured a color screen and video recording/playback.”

    Then you come over and sarcastically butt in with, “Well, why don’t we just update all our classic turntables with digital data readers and laser etched plastic discs for the music, because if they had the technology, that’s how they would have done it in the first place.”

    It’s just sort of a facetious comparison, because it doesn’t really relate on a one-to-one level is all. :-)

  • Kevin Z. | March 29, 2010 at 4:03 pm |

    Since the stirrups talk continued today, I still don’t get why players assumed that wearing white sanitary socks underneath dyed colored socks would protect them from perceived infections. If they get spiked and it breaks skin, its not only ripping the stirrup, it’s ripping the sanitary too. The dye still had a pretty good chance of entering a wound even with another layer of sock there since that layer was also ripped in the process.

  • KT | March 29, 2010 at 4:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”383296″][quote comment=”383294″]
    And part of the problem is that major league baseball is a game played by people with high school educations.[/quote]

    not trying to be a dick, but what has that got to do with it? you only become a fan or historian of the game if you go to college?[/quote]

    No, only if you give a sh**.

    Major League Baseball players, by and large, are arrested-development narcissists. If you DO go to college, at least you grow up a bit.

    And you stop wearing those moronic bicycle-lock necklaces, pulling your back pants pockets out when you run the bases, not bending the brim of your cap, or dressing like Nyjer Morgan.

    That’s what I meant. MLB players are largely self-centered idiots.

    I know. I checked.

  • KT | March 29, 2010 at 4:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”383322″]Ya gotta love a sense of community-wide excitement and anticipation. Makes for the sense of a fun summer, even if the team should end up struggling a bit.

    47 of the Twins’ 81 home games this year already are sold out.

    24,000 season tickets, too, most in team history.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    New ballpark wouldn’t have anything to do with it, would it?

  • JimV19 | March 29, 2010 at 4:15 pm |

    Soccer fans, some of you may have been aware of Dave Morrison’s fine site for NASL jerseys:
    http://www.nasljerse...

    Well, recently he’s added a separate site for MISL jerseys:
    http://www.nasljerse...

    Very VERY informative. I was a big MISL fan, but I learned quite a bit looking through the photos, rosters and other info.

    One question, though – maybe some Baltimore people can help:
    The 1983-84 Blast are shown wearing this uniform, http://www.nasljerse...
    http://www.nasljerse...
    but I never saw them in those before. I worked the Cleveland Force games, and I saw them in these: http://www.nasljerse...
    Plus in that year’s playoffs they wore those and these home unis: http://www.nasljerse...

    Those are Umbro unis, which they wore before and after that year. The first ones I posted were Nike unis. I’m wondering if they weren’t league approved and they had to go back to the Umbros? Dave and I are curious as to how long they wore the Nikes. Anyone know?

  • LI Phil | March 29, 2010 at 4:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”383328″]

    New ballpark wouldn’t have anything to do with it, would it?[/quote]

    hey it worked for the mets

    wait…

  • Bill K. | March 29, 2010 at 4:22 pm |

    I was a proud SuperPro Club member!!!! I still have club items in my mother’s basement I’ll have to dig out next time I’m home. I remember they sent some good stuff for a 14-year-old football fanatic.

  • casey | March 29, 2010 at 4:31 pm |

    This may have been discussed before, but my 5-year old son is playing tee-ball for the first time this year. and the only pants i can find for him are long (PJ) style pants. do I just hike em up like knickers to show some sock??

    or is there some DIY work I need to do to his pants in order to show that our family \”Gets It\”??

  • Chris from Carver | March 29, 2010 at 4:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”383332″]This may have been discussed before, but my 5-year old son is playing tee-ball for the first time this year. and the only pants i can find for him are long (PJ) style pants. do I just hike em up like knickers to show some sock??

    or is there some DIY work I need to do to his pants in order to show that our family \”Gets It\”??[/quote]
    As long as they have the elastic in them, you can knicker-ize them. I had to do that when I played baseball last year.

  • JTH | March 29, 2010 at 4:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”383333″][quote comment=”383332″]This may have been discussed before, but my 5-year old son is playing tee-ball for the first time this year. and the only pants i can find for him are long (PJ) style pants. do I just hike em up like knickers to show some sock??

    or is there some DIY work I need to do to his pants in order to show that our family \”Gets It\”??[/quote]
    As long as they have the elastic in them, you can knicker-ize them. I had to do that when I played baseball last year.[/quote]
    I’ll back that statement up because I can say with absolute certainty that the pants on the kid shown in both this pic and this one would have gone down to his shoetops if he had wanted them to.

  • JTH | March 29, 2010 at 5:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”383334″][quote comment=”383333″][quote comment=”383332″]This may have been discussed before, but my 5-year old son is playing tee-ball for the first time this year. and the only pants i can find for him are long (PJ) style pants. do I just hike em up like knickers to show some sock??

    or is there some DIY work I need to do to his pants in order to show that our family \”Gets It\”??[/quote]
    As long as they have the elastic in them, you can knicker-ize them. I had to do that when I played baseball last year.[/quote]
    I’ll back that statement up because I can say with absolute certainty that the pants on the kid shown in both this pic and this one would have gone down to his shoetops if he had wanted them to.[/quote]
    Or you could always just order a pair of these.

  • Andy | March 29, 2010 at 5:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”383332″]This may have been discussed before, but my 5-year old son is playing tee-ball for the first time this year. and the only pants i can find for him are long (PJ) style pants. do I just hike em up like knickers to show some sock??

    or is there some DIY work I need to do to his pants in order to show that our family \”Gets It\”??[/quote]

    Check out Ricko’s diagram from the weekend post. Shows a neat little trick for folding the elastic underneath to create the perfect blouse.

  • Ricko | March 29, 2010 at 5:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”383325″][quote comment=”383249″][quote comment=”383239″][quote comment=”383231″]Someone needs to explain to the Missouri baseball equipment folks the difference between soccer socks and baseball socks.

    I know, I know, it’s a “one-world” look, where great sports merge. Oh, riiiiiiight. Pul-leeze.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Socks are socks. Besides, had they not been afraid of dye poisoning, they’d have used solid socks 100 years ago too. If anything, this is a case of technology finally allowing the originally intended look.

    *runs away*[/quote]

    So you’re saying the true traditional look is what they WOULD have worn, not what really HAS been worn?

    Interesting concept.

    Then I guess we can depict Lincoln in cargo shorts and Nikes because, being a Midwestern kid a heart, Abe would have found them to be really great…had, y’know, guys worn shorts and kicks in 1861. Which they of course would have if those thing had been around for them to know how comfortable and cool looking they were.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I hope you realize how completely different those two arguments are.

    Cargo shorts v. wool trousers is not a valid argument when you’re comparing them to socks v. stirrups in this context. There’s the span of eras represented by the two garments, for one, and then there’s the fact that they lay on opposite ends of the aesthetic spectrum, for another.

    Not only did full socks and stirrups coexist in popular culture during the era when baseball took root, the look of a full sock was not drastically different from that of a stirrup.

    You have implied many times that the reason the stirrup/sanitary combo was created and adopted in favor of the full sock was so the dyes of the stocking would not infect open wounds.

    Picture me evaluating the merits of the original iPod against those of the newest iPod nano.

    “I think that if the technology had feasibly existed when the original iPod hit the market, it, too would have featured a color screen and video recording/playback.”

    Then you come over and sarcastically butt in with, “Well, why don’t we just update all our classic turntables with digital data readers and laser etched plastic discs for the music, because if they had the technology, that’s how they would have done it in the first place.”

    It’s just sort of a facetious comparison, because it doesn’t really relate on a one-to-one level is all. :-)[/quote]

    A facetious comparison to make a point?

    Hmmm…I’ll have to try that some time. ;)

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | March 29, 2010 at 5:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”383333″][quote comment=”383332″]This may have been discussed before, but my 5-year old son is playing tee-ball for the first time this year. and the only pants i can find for him are long (PJ) style pants. do I just hike em up like knickers to show some sock??

    or is there some DIY work I need to do to his pants in order to show that our family \”Gets It\”??[/quote]
    As long as they have the elastic in them, you can knicker-ize them. I had to do that when I played baseball last year.[/quote]

    Or cut them off and use blousing rubbers.
    http://www.rangerjoe...
    (disussed a bit here yesterday)

    —Ricko

  • Andy | March 29, 2010 at 5:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”383326″]Since the stirrups talk continued today, I still don’t get why players assumed that wearing white sanitary socks underneath dyed colored socks would protect them from perceived infections. If they get spiked and it breaks skin, its not only ripping the stirrup, it’s ripping the sanitary too. The dye still had a pretty good chance of entering a wound even with another layer of sock there since that layer was also ripped in the process.[/quote]

    You’re right, it probably wouldn’t be an end all-be all, but if you had a blister (more common than being spiked through your stockings) the sanitary would do it’s job just fine. Glad we don’t have to worry about that stuff now.

  • Andy | March 29, 2010 at 5:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”383337″][quote comment=”383325″][quote comment=”383249″][quote comment=”383239″][quote comment=”383231″]Someone needs to explain to the Missouri baseball equipment folks the difference between soccer socks and baseball socks.

    I know, I know, it’s a “one-world” look, where great sports merge. Oh, riiiiiiight. Pul-leeze.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Socks are socks. Besides, had they not been afraid of dye poisoning, they’d have used solid socks 100 years ago too. If anything, this is a case of technology finally allowing the originally intended look.

    *runs away*[/quote]

    So you’re saying the true traditional look is what they WOULD have worn, not what really HAS been worn?

    Interesting concept.

    Then I guess we can depict Lincoln in cargo shorts and Nikes because, being a Midwestern kid a heart, Abe would have found them to be really great…had, y’know, guys worn shorts and kicks in 1861. Which they of course would have if those thing had been around for them to know how comfortable and cool looking they were.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I hope you realize how completely different those two arguments are.

    Cargo shorts v. wool trousers is not a valid argument when you’re comparing them to socks v. stirrups in this context. There’s the span of eras represented by the two garments, for one, and then there’s the fact that they lay on opposite ends of the aesthetic spectrum, for another.

    Not only did full socks and stirrups coexist in popular culture during the era when baseball took root, the look of a full sock was not drastically different from that of a stirrup.

    You have implied many times that the reason the stirrup/sanitary combo was created and adopted in favor of the full sock was so the dyes of the stocking would not infect open wounds.

    Picture me evaluating the merits of the original iPod against those of the newest iPod nano.

    “I think that if the technology had feasibly existed when the original iPod hit the market, it, too would have featured a color screen and video recording/playback.”

    Then you come over and sarcastically butt in with, “Well, why don’t we just update all our classic turntables with digital data readers and laser etched plastic discs for the music, because if they had the technology, that’s how they would have done it in the first place.”

    It’s just sort of a facetious comparison, because it doesn’t really relate on a one-to-one level is all. :-)[/quote]

    A facetious comparison to make a point?

    Hmmm…I’ll have to try that some time. ;)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I don’t agree that there’s much of a point there, but I won’t argue your crown of facetiousness.

  • Ricko | March 29, 2010 at 5:15 pm |

    okay, serious response.

    You said…“I think that if the technology had feasibly existed when the original iPod hit the market, it, too would have featured a color screen and video recording/playback.”

    Which, of course, is true.

    But…

    if you were trying to recreate the feel of an orignial iPod would you include color screen and video recording/playback because “they would have included it if they could have.”

    —Ricko

  • JTH | March 29, 2010 at 5:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”383338″][quote comment=”383333″][quote comment=”383332″]This may have been discussed before, but my 5-year old son is playing tee-ball for the first time this year. and the only pants i can find for him are long (PJ) style pants. do I just hike em up like knickers to show some sock??

    or is there some DIY work I need to do to his pants in order to show that our family \”Gets It\”??[/quote]
    As long as they have the elastic in them, you can knicker-ize them. I had to do that when I played baseball last year.[/quote]

    Or cut them off and use blousing rubbers.
    http://www.rangerjoe...
    (disussed a bit here yesterday)

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Speaking from recent experience, I would not recommend going that route with a 5-year-old.

  • odessa steps magazin | March 29, 2010 at 6:39 pm |

    Comics and pro wrestling showing up in the ticker. It’s like Paul let me write it today.

    This is probably nothing new but I was in the mall today getting my glasses fixed and while i was waiting, I was window-shopping at the Lidz store across the hallway. I know about “non-traditional colored” hats, but I was amazed to see a display of all the MLB hats done in “black and white” style (black hat, white logo).

  • MPowers1634 | March 29, 2010 at 6:41 pm |

    FDR Drive, rush hour, uw is keeping me sane!

  • MPowers1634 | March 29, 2010 at 6:47 pm |

    Odessa, black and white is pretty tame, unfortunately.
    Google New Era Twisted and you’ll see what I mean

  • Jeremiah M. | March 29, 2010 at 6:50 pm |

    Was browsing the NAIA website, checking to see if the national rankings for baseball had been posted yet, and I ran across this logo for Kansas City, MO aka “The City of Fountains.” A quick check of the official website has a different logo. Hmmmm, I wonder why the “original” changed?

  • LI Phil | March 29, 2010 at 7:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”383343″]I was amazed to see a display of all the MLB hats done in “black and white” style (black hat, white logo).[/quote]

    how did chicago (AL), colorado, toronto & florida look?

  • Ricko | March 29, 2010 at 9:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”383328″][quote comment=”383322″]Ya gotta love a sense of community-wide excitement and anticipation. Makes for the sense of a fun summer, even if the team should end up struggling a bit.

    47 of the Twins’ 81 home games this year already are sold out.

    24,000 season tickets, too, most in team history.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    New ballpark wouldn’t have anything to do with it, would it?[/quote]

    Of course it does. It was, I thought, the obvious point.

  • Ricko | March 29, 2010 at 9:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”383346″]Was browsing the NAIA website, checking to see if the national rankings for baseball had been posted yet, and I ran across this logo for Kansas City, MO aka “The City of Fountains.” A quick check of the official website has a different logo. Hmmmm, I wonder why the “original” changed?[/quote]

    Because the original looks a bit like blue broccoli, maybe?

  • AgRyan04 | March 29, 2010 at 9:55 pm |

    rick f asked:

    “I noticed that the Texas A&M betting helmets have a matte finish. Are alot of teams starting to do this now?”

    I noticed A&M wearing them early in the season but I hadn’t seen any of our opponents wearing them….but then this weekend I caught two SEC games and saw that South Carolina and LSU are both wearing the matte finish helmets too.

    I think they’re pretty sweet.

  • traxel | March 29, 2010 at 10:22 pm |

    [quote comment=”383348″][quote comment=”383328″][quote comment=”383322″]Ya gotta love a sense of community-wide excitement and anticipation. Makes for the sense of a fun summer, even if the team should end up struggling a bit.

    47 of the Twins’ 81 home games this year already are sold out.

    24,000 season tickets, too, most in team history.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    New ballpark wouldn’t have anything to do with it, would it?[/quote]

    Of course it does. It was, I thought, the obvious point.[/quote]
    I thought it was because they added a new alt to their already too large collection of alts. We’ll call it their alt alt. Or is it an alt alt alt?

  • Dante | March 29, 2010 at 10:27 pm |

    In response to the Matte Finish, a lot of the Easton schools have this as the helmet introduced by Easton this year, the Easton Stealth Grip, is made that way. All in all, it is an interesting helmet. As for the Nike or Wilson or TPX schools, I don’t know what helmets they’re wearing.

  • Egg Roll | March 29, 2010 at 10:28 pm |

    Andy “Dr.” Katz was talking about Oregon wooing Tom Izzo on Esspenn today. He referred to them as “Nike U and all their money.”

  • Nick | March 29, 2010 at 11:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”383307″]LI Phil said…

    “…but i do fault the player development/teams/coaches for not instilling some sense of history in the players from the get go”

    Another angle on that is big part of why I always respected the 49ers of the Bill Walsh era. Don’t know if it’s still Niners’ policy today, but back then they didn’t fart around with making rookies stand on their chairs in the training camp dining hall and sing their school fight songs, etc.

    Their attitude was…”If you’re here, and for as long as you’re here, you’re a 49er, a professional. You will act like one, and you will be treated like one.”

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Totally Agree. As a Saints lifer fan I had to watch my guys go up against the Bill Walsh/ Eddie DeBartolo – owned 49ers twice a year – usually with (football level) tragic results. The 49ers in that era spared no expense or courtesy on player and coach comforts – single rooms, the best hotels, the best food, the best transportation, etc. They are the only NFL team that I have ever heard of that the ownership took the ENTIRE TEAM and THEIR FAMILIES on a vacation to Hawaii to celebrate a Super Bowl victory.

    After Eddie DeBartolo was deposed (ironically by involving himself in a Louisiana political corruption scandal/snare), his sister and brother-in-law (the Yorks) took over the 49ers, and they treat the team like serfs. One new 49er was quoted as saying that the WLAF team that he played for before the 49ers had better hotels, food, training camp, etc., than the NFL 49ers.

    To quote the late columnist Dick Young,
    Heaven isn’t what it used to be.

  • The Jeff | March 29, 2010 at 11:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”383341″]okay, serious response.

    You said…“I think that if the technology had feasibly existed when the original iPod hit the market, it, too would have featured a color screen and video recording/playback.”

    Which, of course, is true.

    But…

    if you were trying to recreate the feel of an orignial iPod would you include color screen and video recording/playback because “they would have included it if they could have.”

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Because it’s not about trying to recreate the original. It’s about overcoming a technical limitation and doing what was originally intended.

    “We wanted to do A but X was a problem so we had to do B instead.”

    *flash forward a few years*

    “We’ve solved X, so now we’re doing A.”

    Whether A is better than B is entirely subjective and not the point.

  • Paul Lukas | March 29, 2010 at 11:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”383287″]Paul – that Steve Austin picture was taken on a very important day. He threw out the first pitch before what we Met fans call the “Matt Franco Game”, when he got hit a two-run pinch hit single off Mariano Rivera to beat the Yankees 9-8 in July, 1999. I have the stub signed br Franco somewhere.[/quote]

    I know exactly where I was for that game. A fine day indeed.

  • The Hemogoblin | March 30, 2010 at 3:11 am |

    [quote comment=”383328″][quote comment=”383322″]Ya gotta love a sense of community-wide excitement and anticipation. Makes for the sense of a fun summer, even if the team should end up struggling a bit.

    47 of the Twins’ 81 home games this year already are sold out.

    24,000 season tickets, too, most in team history.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    New ballpark wouldn’t have anything to do with it, would it?[/quote]

    My annoyingly exhaustive research paper says:

    A little, for a short period of time, with practically no benefit to the on-field success of the team in the long run.

  • The Hemogoblin | March 30, 2010 at 3:13 am |

    [quote comment=”383356″]Andy “Dr.” Katz was talking about Oregon wooing Tom Izzo on Esspenn today. He referred to them as “Nike U and all their money.”[/quote]

    And this is where I jump in and say “Whatever pays the bills…”

  • Chris | March 30, 2010 at 4:17 am |

    I thought Missouri was a Nike school. Did their contract run out, or are these uniform contracts by sport, so like their football team can be Nike, baseball Under Armour, soccer team Adidas and so on and so forth?