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

Three For The Show

three for the show hed

By Phil Hecken

Three NBA franchises introduced their new uniforms for the 2010-11 season yesterday, on the first day the NBA allowed teams to officially break them out. The Minnesota Timberwolves, the Utah Jazz, and the Los Angeles Clippers were the first of (at least) five teams to introduce new threads, with the Cleveland Cavaliers expected to break out theirs today, with the Dallas Mavericks soon to follow (the Warriors have unofficially unveiled their new uniforms already).

Let’s take a look at the Wolves, Jazz & Clips.

~~~

Minnesota Timberwolves: Nothing too dramatic for the T-Wolves this time around (they had introduced new uniforms a scant two years ago).

Most dramatic of the changes is the removal of all green from the old uniform, which has now been replaced with white or black. Silver has also been added. This is, quite frankly, inexplicably stupid, since the green was necessary to depict the trees on the uni. Now? Black and white trees? What is this, a Charlie Brown Christmas? One of the very cool things about the Wolves uni is how the trees intersected with the “nighttime” to create the illusion of an “M” and a “W” on the uni. You’ll still have that with the black trees at home and the white trees on the roads, but the distinction isn’t nearly so clear. Bad move, IMHO.

Other changes are for the better and are more cosmetic. The neckline has also lost the green trees (which were hard to discern anyway) and the font has been cleaned up substantially. I know the original funky font (and subsequent iterations) and the treelined collar and waist were sort-of “trademarks” of the Wolves, but the new numbers and collar is a cleaner look.

Overall Impression: Totally unnecessary and a downgrade, except for the easier-to-read numbers. Grade C-.

~~~

Los Angeles Clippers: Like the Wolves, the Clippers have small, although significant, changes. Both the home and road uniforms remain white and red, respectively, but the new unis have new side piping. On the homes, the Clippers wordmark has gone from red to blue, while on the roads, “Los Angeles” replaces “Clippers” (in the same script as the old “alternate” blue jersey, which also said “Los Angeles“). The numeral font is narrower and more of an “assembly” font, versus the previous “university block.”

Other changes are small, but noticeable. On the primary logo, the orientation of the basketball has changed. The secondary logo has added a gray dropshadow, and the “C” has undergone serif-reduction surgery.

Some photos from the unveiling can be found here, here, here, and here. Those road jerseys are red, by the way — just really bad color from those pics.

Overall Impression: Like the Wolves, I’m not sure this redesign was necessary, although I do like the subtle upgrades. I prefer “Los Angeles” on the primary road jersey, and the new fonts are more ‘unique’ to LA’s second team. I’m not a fan of the new side panel stripes, but the wide blue stripe they had previously was no picnic either. Grade: C+.

~~~

Utah Jazz: OK! Now we’re talking. Earlier this year, the Jazz released both their new primary and secondary wordmarks. They ditched the “sky blue” and purple from the primary logo (and sky blue from the secondary) replacing them with a throwback-ish navy-green-yellow colorscheme (harking back to the first wordmark they had in Utah and which they had brought with them from New Orleans).

The Jazz have gone from this and this (which was not a bad uni) to this and this. Gorgeous.

The home whites have the navy-green-gold wordmark with green numbers, while the roads have a white-green-gold wordmark with gold numbers. So, in graphic form, they’ve gone from this to this. They have dumped the “Utah” from the roads (not such a big deal, but necessary, I suppose), and have gone retro while staying fresh. They incorporated the old wordmark with new colors, adding much more attractive side panels at the same time. It’s not quite Pistol’s Jazz, but it has that feel. A nice combination of old and new neatly wrapped up into one package.

Additional photos of the unveiling can be seen here, here and here

Overall Impression: A fantastic upgrade to an already pretty good uniform. Blends old and new seamlessly. Grade A.

~~~

Well, there you have it — the first three official unveilings. Two of them unnecessary and not really an improvement, and the third a charm. What say you?

~~~~~~~~~~

diyDIY Corner

Today’s DIY comes from Bryan Justman, who actually has two DIY shirts: a Minnesota Twins T-shirt and a Milwaukee Braves Jersey.

Here’s Bryan to explain:

My two latest baseball shirts have rolled off the assembly line. This time, it’s 1965, which was a good and bad year in ball for my two favorite cities.

Both came from blank cotton jersies. For historical jersies, I prefer the 100% cotton.

Twins lettering, as always, made with felt. The sleeve patch came from ebay.

For my Milwaukee Braves (the presence of the hat is supposed to clarify that it’s the MILWAUKEE Braves), I used single-fold bias tape for the piping and felt for the numbers. I found a script patch for a jacket on ebay and altered it to fit the jersey. The sleeve patch also came from ebay.

Great job on those Bryan!

~~~~~~~~~~

ticker 2Uni Watch News Ticker Starting off today is Bill Kellick who has this great home movie of 1983 Mets Banner Day. … Resident UW Golf Pro and Cream City resident Johnny Okray (who had some choice words over the officiating at the past weekend’s PGA), noticed all the TaylorMade staff members have a cool logo on their bag and other apparel this weekend. Pretty sweet eh? Article about the logo is here. Turns out TaylorMade does this for a lot of stuff. “Digging a little deeper, I found that one of the links I sent you actually had a link to TM’s facebook page which has every commemorative logo, and the descriptions of them.” … Gil Garcia has lived Jim Vilk’s dream — and everyone else’s nightmare. He explains, “I was playing Madden NFL 11 and aparently there is an option when u get to the Super Bowl, where you could still choose any uniform (throwback or alt) and it still includes the falic Super Bowl logo! So I was playing the Seahawks and here is a pic of the snot unis WITH the Silver Penis Super patch!” … Pretty cool promotion from the Richmond Flying Squirrels “Last Saturday night with a domino theme. The jerseys had in place of numbers on the back. There was also a little face on the right shoulder, but I can’t make out who it is from this crappy photo I shot off my TV.” (Big thanks to Rob Ullman). … Ken Singer says, “When I saw the new Man U keeper jersey I could have sworn I have seen that before. Yes, I have.” … Davidson College has some new logos and wordmarks, notes Jamie Hall. Also from Jamie: This picture is from Carolina Panthers training camp. “It seems that Dwayne Jarrett (#80) is wearing a red wristwatch while practicing,” says Jamie. “Odd to say the least.” … Kenn Tomasch found this on a weekend trip to a small town in Northern Arizona: the 1920 Jerome (AZ) baseball team. … Neat find from Adam Trielser, who “had this pennant for quite some time, as you can probably imagine its very old. I guess I never really paid any attention to it. I finally noticed a couple days ago that the skater is wearing a blue helmet, something they had never worn until 2007.” … Changes to Auburn football unis? Maybe not. (thanks to Jeff McClendon). … Colin Wasiloff just noticed EMU’s new football helmet decal, and looks like they are going with a darker green and white face mask instead of black like the past few years. “Kind of odd being that the color combo of the mask and helmet along with the solid white decal mirrors MSU closer now than ever. Helmet bumpers now read ‘EAGLES’ instead of Pride.” Even better evidence here. … Greg Bringhurst says these belong to Maui’s independent Golden League team. “While somewhat loud, I think they actually do a pretty good job of incorporating Maui’s heritage into the design. I especially like the treatment of the islands on the back shoulder.” … Interesting find from Bobby Hill who came across this logo in a blog post on this Chicago-themed site. Says Bobby, “I don’t think there is any other sports seating group that has it’s own logo.” … Michael Becker reports the University of Iowa is selling the throwback football jerseys that will be worn for the Sept. 25th game vs. Ball State. (Also noted by Cody Dannen) … “You thought UCF had it bad,” says Jordan Guthmann, this is “not the kind of publicity USF had in mind.” … Check out the traveling attire for the Tampa Bay Rays this week, nice and plaid (thanks to Mike Edgerley). … Two pics from Jared Camden: “First picture is of Chris Johnson last year with what looks to be arm ties on his sleeves, dont remember seeing that last year or ever. Second is the new “2” on the New Gia-ets or Je-iants or whatever field, seems to be missing its back side.” … The ‘out of state’ tag parade continues, thanks to Alan Borock who notes New York has out of state plates for Indiana University, Notre Dame, and Penn State. … Michael Orr brings us the kit match-ups from the first weekend of the 2010/11 Premier League season. … And finally, to close down the show, Uni Watch Prexy Paul Lukas brings us this reason not to wear a cap at a presser.

~~~~~~~~~~

There is nothing wrong with dedication and goals, but if you focus on yourself, all the lights fade away and you become a fleeting moment in life. — Pete Maravich

 

152 comments to Three For The Show

  • John Saiz | August 17, 2010 at 7:20 am |

    The Clippers’ new home jersey looks like what would happen if Nike ever got a contract “sprucing up” the Dodgers jersey.

    Think I just gave myself tonight’s nightmares.

  • tomasher | August 17, 2010 at 7:21 am |

    I thought the nameplates on the Giants’ uniforms looked terribly inconsistent. I thought I saw Manning with the tight font and everyone else with what appeared to be floating letters on their backs.

  • Aaron | August 17, 2010 at 7:41 am |

    The NFL must do something about improperly-fitting helmets. There is no reason for Eli’s helmet to have popped off like it did last night, in my opinion. What’s going to happen when a helmet comes off in a Jahvid Best situation in the Cal game last year?

  • DJ | August 17, 2010 at 7:48 am |

    Says Bobby, “I don’t think there is any other sports seating group that has it’s own logo.”

    It isn’t a “seating group” such as the Dog Pound in Cleveland. It is the logo of a commercial enterprise that provides rooftop seats (and other ameneties) on top of a particular building in the Lakeview neighborhood that gives you a view of Cub games at Wrigley Field.

    • jdreyfuss | August 17, 2010 at 8:47 am |

      Plus, the Dawg Pound has a logo anyway:
      http://www.logoshak....

      Another seating group near to my heart (as you can probably tell from the photo) is Rice basketball’s Autry Army:
      http://farm3.static....

      • Jimwa | August 17, 2010 at 10:26 am |

        Outdated NFL logo alert!

      • EddieAtari | August 17, 2010 at 11:32 am |

        The Bleacher Creatures have their own logo, and it looks like a tattoo that Kenny Powers would get…

        http://www.section20...

    • jdreyfuss | August 17, 2010 at 8:47 am |

      Meant to say another one with a logo.

    • RS Rogers | August 17, 2010 at 9:31 am |

      Here in DC, we have the Screaming Eagles, with two logos (an older shield and a more recent interlocking SE insignia):

      http://screaming-eag...

  • Bob A | August 17, 2010 at 7:59 am |

    I like it when teams use their city on roadies so I would have liked to have seen the Jazz incorporate the ‘jazz note’ into ‘Utah’ somehow and go that way. I had a few ideas but neither the time nor skills to do a refurb of their new refurb. ;-)

    • concealed78 | August 17, 2010 at 11:57 am |

      A quick job and play on which way you want the font to go:

      http://a.imageshack....

      Either way, it looks a bit less “Jazz” like.

      • The Jeff | August 17, 2010 at 12:19 pm |

        That…really doesn’t work.

        Better?

        http://img194.images...

        /doesn’t really work either

        • concealed78 | August 17, 2010 at 12:56 pm |

          Thought about using the middle & top part of the note to create a T, but it was just too clunky:

          http://a.imageshack....

        • The Jeff | August 17, 2010 at 1:06 pm |

          Yeah… the letters in UTAH just don’t lend themselves to musical note-ification very well.

          I think the only way to put UTAH on that jersey is to write it in blue letters in the top part of the note, and then it’s not really going to be readable from a distance.

        • Ricko | August 17, 2010 at 2:25 pm |

          Can’t mess with it here at work, but…

          Try just extending both strokes of the the “U” upward significantly.
          Won’t have any music context, but it would give greater weight to that side of the logo, which would make it, in that sense, generally more similar to “Jazz.”

          Just TOL (thinking out loud).

          —Ricko

        • interlockingtc | August 17, 2010 at 3:50 pm |

          You know, I think is one of those cases where the home and road scripts just won’t/can’t match. Put a nice old-timey cursive “Utah” on the road and call it a day.

        • concealed78 | August 17, 2010 at 6:07 pm |

          One with the raised U and one with a retro script, tho I don’t think it’s the right kind of retro to go with that set.

          http://a.imageshack....

          I’m all for the Jazz wordmark on the roads.

        • concealed78 | August 17, 2010 at 7:12 pm |

          One more time, maybe closer to the font:

          http://a.imageshack....

        • interlockingtc | August 17, 2010 at 7:59 pm |

          concealed, that last one actually looks right. Nicely done.

        • concealed78 | August 17, 2010 at 9:33 pm |

          Thanks, TC! Did you notice something the Jazz still didn’t add to their jersey? Still no diagonal accent added to the lower left right side of the A. None on the lower right side of the 2nd Z, either. Strange font concept.

        • Jim Vilk | August 17, 2010 at 10:35 pm |

          Good work, Mr. 78!

        • concealed78 | August 19, 2010 at 5:36 pm |

          Thanks, Jim!

  • BigTime TimmyJim | August 17, 2010 at 8:22 am |

    The Wolves uniforms are meh, at best. I was hoping they’d introduce the black alternate, but that’ll have to wait til January, I’m afraid.

    • jdreyfuss | August 17, 2010 at 8:50 am |

      The only good thing about that change was the removal of the triangle pattern from the collar. I liked the old numeral style; it was unique without losing legibility. The new collar still doesn’t look good though. I hate that notch thing at the bottom of the neckline.

    • Ricko | August 17, 2010 at 8:52 am |

      Put the former bright green back in there instead of the gray and that Wolves uni ain’t bad. The new one is nice if you want to be invisible.

      Come to think of it, that might be what they’re after.

      —Ricko

    • concealed78 | August 17, 2010 at 11:00 am |

      The Timberwolves unis seem to be getting more and more generic with each generation. And they still did nothing about that common shade of blue, which seems to be rampant all over the NBA (I’d like to see a side-by-side swatch of all these blues), while royal blue gets neglected once again. As for the side panels, I actually like the white snow-covered tree on the roads, but the home’s version should have stayed green, -er if it mattered at all.

    • Wes | August 17, 2010 at 11:16 am |

      I’ll defend the Wolves new unis. I’m not sure I like the idea of dropping green, which has been a part of every other uni in team history. However, setting aside the bias of the team’s uni history, I think the new color scheme looks sharper. More modern, although that’s not usually considered a compliment on this site.

      They could have come out with purple and pink unis and they still would have been an upgrade just by getting rid of those weird, indefensible necklines – those always bothered me. And I never really liked the old font, even in the KG heyday – it just seemed gimmicky. So overall, I actually like the changes.

      • Ivan | August 17, 2010 at 11:47 am |

        Agreed. I imagine the goal was to make the uni cleaner and less busy, and that goal was certainly accomplished. The gray doesn’t make much sense to me, as they’ve essentially replaced that tertiary green with a tertiary gray (that third color is often what makes NBA unis too busy). Otherwise, big improvement.

        • SnowDan | August 17, 2010 at 1:22 pm |

          Getting rid of Green is a big mistake. They look like the Magic’s Uni. Swap all the black out with Green, lessen the gray and they look very nice.

  • RS Rogers | August 17, 2010 at 8:51 am |

    Oh, man, are the Rays the awesomest team in baseball or what? The BRayser clinches it: I finally have a team in the AL East to root for.

    • marc | August 17, 2010 at 10:36 am |

      Diggin’ the BRayser… tho it’s name reminds me of this:

      http://www.youtube.c...

      • RS Rogers | August 17, 2010 at 2:06 pm |

        My mind went straight from the BRayser to the Manzier:

        http://www.youtube.c...

  • ScottyM | August 17, 2010 at 9:18 am |

    Not in agreement with the uni grades.

    1. The LAC set is a VAST improvement. That thick line down the side (previously) was atrocious. The new style is a great improvement. Also, the lettering is an improvement (the previous Clippers with the dead whitespace for the “C” was criminally juvenile work.

    My only complaint is the hack work they did to the LAC secondary icon by adding the gray drop shadow … I guess they had to maintain some form of pathetic middle school-esque work in their overall design.

    Not great, overall, but understated changes made a big difference. A big-time improvement.

    2. Jazz. What happens to the Jazz icon on the road jersey? Why, it gets lost because of the color scheme! Probably needed to rethink that application.

    Also, loose the heavy stripes down the side. They clutter up an otherwise clean look, with the retro logo and single color numbers. Probably would’ve been wise to just include 2 or 3 color thin piping around the armholes, legs, etc., rather than the gaudy side panels.

    Overall improvement, sure, but seems to be lacking. In no way does it deserve an A, more like a B.

    • B-Rich | August 17, 2010 at 11:12 am |

      Scotty, I agree whole-heartedly with your aesthetic analysis of the Jazz changes.
      Growing up in New Orleans in the 70s, I always thought that while the old New Orleans Jazz had one of the best lloks at home, the away look left much to be desired. That is still the case. There’s something that gets lost in that sharp, clean logo when you transpose the purple-on-white to white-on-purple (or even as was done int he 70s, to gold on purple).

      I also agree with the negative assessment of the large side panels , and that if they wnet with the three-MArdi Gras color piping around the edges and belt elastic as was done in the 70s, it would look better.

      Finally, I’d give it a much worse grade than a A, because it is an obvious upgrade than what the Jazz have had immediately before, this look is an abomination to me, a mish-mash of the old logo, a variant of the old color scheme and new elements. Rather than look to the past and a logo developed while they were intheir original city, it’s well past time for this franchise to be bold and drop the “Jazz” moniker and develop something else. Just because the old 70’s New Orleans LOGO is brillant and great doesn’t make its use in Utah RIGHT or GOOD.

  • Bert Echo | August 17, 2010 at 9:20 am |

    The Mavs are changing their uniforms? Is it a third jersey change or a full makeover?

    • LI Phil | August 17, 2010 at 9:29 am |

      more like a tweak…definitely not a “full makeover”

      • Bert Echo | August 17, 2010 at 9:32 am |

        Cool thanks. I really like the set that they have worn for the past 10 or so years, a classy look.

        • Mitch | August 17, 2010 at 2:10 pm |

          Check out the new Mavs road jerseys. Here is a rookie photo shoot with Mavs rookie Dominique Jones sporting the new blue road look.

          http://twitpic.com/2...

        • interlockingtc | August 17, 2010 at 4:04 pm |

          Looking at that Rookies photo, I must now confirm what I have suspected– that the new Warriors uniform looks… pathetic, really. Their previous identity was abysmal, but this is just a sad, half-hearted, poorly executed, timid attempt to go retro. It looks like some corporate logo on a letterhead.

          And look at all that blue among those kids….geesh. The Celtics really stand out. And I maintain that the Rockets have one of the best, most interesting and original looks in the league right now.

          The Jazz have succeeded in bringing back a good look, but that uniform and nickname really needs to be in New Orleans.

        • Bert Echo | August 17, 2010 at 4:29 pm |

          Thanks for the link Mitch.

          There is waayyy too much of that shade of blue on those new Mav unis. Yuck.

  • Todd Peak | August 17, 2010 at 9:35 am |

    Ha, I didn’t see any of the unveilings, so when I saw the Jazz one, I thought it was a UniWatch themed prank, like Paul was just filling out his Christmas wish list or something. That green and mustard was a little surprising from the just differing shades of blue on the old uniforms.

    Hey, Jazz, throw in some mandatory striped socks and you might have a new season ticket holder…

  • Kub | August 17, 2010 at 9:42 am |

    are the Jazz unis Navy blue? They look purple to me

    • LI Phil | August 17, 2010 at 10:32 am |

      i s’pose that depends on your definition of purple — perhaps they aren’t truly “navy” … but they are blue (at least to my eye)

      • EddieAtari | August 17, 2010 at 11:55 am |

        These new Jazz uni’s are like a wedding gown… Something old, something new, something borrowed, something (navy) blue…

        • Andy | August 17, 2010 at 2:00 pm |

          The Jazz use the same navy blue as the Cowboys.

      • The Jeff | August 17, 2010 at 12:03 pm |

        Oh it’s definitely navy. It’s just your brain wanting it to be purple because of the history/nostalgia factor.

        Assuming that color is accurate…which, since it comes from the team itself, we’ll assume it is, it has an RGB value of 4,29,69.

        The Dallas Cowboys “navy” according to ColorWerx aka SSUR has an RGB of 0,34,68.

        I think that’s close enough to be considered the same color for practical purposes, especially when you factor in JPG compression and the variances that’ll occur depending on whether you’re looking at a jersey or a logo printed on a ticket or whatever.

  • EB | August 17, 2010 at 10:13 am |

    Seeing the “retro” style Jazz unis makes me even more mad that they kept the Jazz nickname in Utah. It belongs in NOLA. Jazz in Utah is ridiculous.

    • dwight | August 17, 2010 at 10:16 am |

      I agree.

      Signed, Los Angeles LAKERS.

      • marc | August 17, 2010 at 11:01 am |

        Seconded!

        Signed, Memphis GRIZZLIES

        • Ricardo Leonor | August 17, 2010 at 11:46 am |

          Not signed by the OKC Sonics!

  • EMD | August 17, 2010 at 10:30 am |

    Just wanted to say I love the addition of the quotes at the tail of each post.

  • jean | August 17, 2010 at 10:43 am |

    is this the new cavs jersey?

    http://cdn3.sbnation...

    • marc | August 17, 2010 at 10:57 am |

      Story at cleveland.com

      http://www.cleveland...

    • Jeremy | August 17, 2010 at 11:03 am |

      New Mavericks jersey?
      http://store.nba.com...

      • Christopher | August 17, 2010 at 12:12 pm |

        Looks like it. Check out this pic of the home tweak, as well as a shot of rookie Dominique Jones wearing the blue road uni:

        http://dallasbasketb...

  • union jack | August 17, 2010 at 10:44 am |

    “Second is the new “2″ on the New Gia-ets or Je-iants or whatever field, seems to be missing its back side.”

    Despite the feeble protestations from jets followers, it’s Giants Stadium and always will be.

    • Ricardo Leonor | August 17, 2010 at 11:28 am |

      Indeed, will ALWAYS be Giants Stadium…

      • Ricardo Leonor | August 17, 2010 at 11:47 am |

        And only one “LT”…..even with all his troubles…

    • subway | August 17, 2010 at 11:48 am |

      That’s right, I’m always calling it GIANTS Stadium, home of the New York GIANTS. (And the New Jersey Jets of New York as well).

  • jowen | August 17, 2010 at 10:55 am |

    I think it has been established that every state has a variety of out-of-state college license plates. Is this really news every single day?

    • Skott | August 17, 2010 at 11:51 am |

      Thank you.

      • Sean | August 17, 2010 at 3:07 pm |

        Totally agree. Thought this was odd to begin with. Been seeing these in every state for 20 years

  • rhdii | August 17, 2010 at 11:11 am |

    Is there any buzz on the Mavericks redesign? I’ve not heard anything about it. I can’t think of much they can do to improve upon them, except maybe go with the light blue as their permanent road uniform and go back to the green alt. PLEASE NO BLACK ALT!

    • Christopher | August 17, 2010 at 12:14 pm |

      Here’s a link to the home and away versions, as well as a shot of rookie Dominique Jones wearing the road blues:

      http://dallasbasketb...

  • yeti | August 17, 2010 at 11:47 am |

    the utah jazz now join the 76ers as nba teams who use totally a totally generic number font that you’d get from your local sporting goods shop who heat presses numbers on t-shirts for your summer league hoops team.

    whatever happened to traditional block numbering with a nice outline? the jazz and sixers now have (essentially) their uni from late 80’s… now wise up and use that number font too.

  • Ricardo Leonor | August 17, 2010 at 11:54 am |

    I wonder if the new GIANTS STADIUM will have some of the quirks as the old one. Not sure about the wind, since now the field is oriented in a different direction.

    A lot of folks complained, but it is obvious why the stadium had to be “grey”. The old stadium looked great for Giant games with all the blue and red, but had to be walls had to be covered in green baggies for Jet games.

    I think it highlights the difference between football and baseball. With the exception of weather conditions and crowd noise, football stadiums pretty much “play the same”. Due to the nature of the sport fields are exactly the same, size wise. The building itself, I believe plays much less of a role in the game….even in watching the game on TV.

  • Skott | August 17, 2010 at 11:55 am |

    I have always loved those throwback Steel-, I mean Iowa jerseys. Is it just me, or does the Big 10 have, by far, the best football unis in all of college? No other conference comes close.

    • Gusto44 | August 17, 2010 at 1:08 pm |

      No, I don’t think the Big 10 has the best uniforms in college football, certainly they do have a few schools with traditional looks, a.k.a. Ohio State and Penn State. Michigan needlessly added yellow stripes to their road jerseys a few years back.

      Always felt like Iowa and Wisconsin were a little too conservative in their uniform choices. Purdue, Minnesota, Michigan State, Illinois, Northwestern, and Indiana all seem to have mediocre uniforms. I think all the schools I mentioned in this paragraph would have been better off using elements of their retro uniforms. For example, the 1984 Illinois uniform is far superior to what they were today. Iowa should return to a yellow helmet, and change the striping pattern on their jersey/pants.

      • Gusto44 | August 17, 2010 at 1:09 pm |

        Oops, should have said “wear”, and not “were”

    • Jim Vilk | August 17, 2010 at 1:59 pm |

      The SEC has better unis. Adding Nebraska helps the Big 10…11…12…whatever, but they still fall short.

  • Kyle | August 17, 2010 at 12:02 pm |

    The people from First Take on ESPN had a segment at the end of the show today talking (very briefly) about bad uniforms, mentioning how the Browns ditched the brown pants for white, and I believe it was Jay Crawford who said the White Sox wearing shorts in the 70s was the worst look.

  • Pretty Boy Paulie | August 17, 2010 at 12:11 pm |

    Hmmmmm anybody notice the new fabric being featured on all these new unis? It looks like the laser cut “hypercool” fabric Nike is using on all their new basketball unis.

    I think the new Timberwolves uni is an improvement on their old one. I would’ve preferred that they would keep the green on there but it still looks good. The simpler collar is soooooooo much better, I’m ecstatic they improved on that. The old funky number typeface never bothered me, actually I was quite fond of it. But the simpler typeface looks good too.

    The Clippers new duds…..OI VEY! What a cluster cuss! The graphic mock-up of the new uni looks so much better than the actual thing. What is up with the primary logo under the collar?!?! Terrible! The ONLY element I like is the script wordmark on the home and roadies.

    Now I TOTALLY agree with you Phil on the Jazz new unis…..a thing of BEAUTY! Now I would have liked to have seen a thinner side stripe but I’m still happy with what we got. A job well done Utah, a job well done indeed.

  • Paul Lukas | August 17, 2010 at 1:17 pm |

    My two cents on the new NBA designs:
    http://espn.go.com/e...

    • Jim Vilk | August 17, 2010 at 1:36 pm |

      “Ah, the Clippers. Are they still in the league? Does anyone care? This is a team that could really benefit from a complete redesign — new colors, new logos, new everything.”

      Amen. They were once one of my favorite teams. I took pity upon them for some reason and kept rooting for them to do well. I don’t care anymore, since their owner seems to be content to sit back and watch his investment grow while he does little to improve the team. A new owner and a new redesign might make me a fan again.

      • Skott | August 17, 2010 at 7:27 pm |

        I completely agree. I was saying this during the LeBron sweepstakes. If the Clips would update their image (a la the Cavs 7 years ago), they would increase their fanbase exponentially. I mean, Pirate ships were Clipper ships, you have a built in logo right there. I’ve been working on a Clips uni tweak for a little bit now.

  • pflava | August 17, 2010 at 1:21 pm |

    I am loving the green numbers on the new Jazz home uni! Nitpicks aside, this is a fantastic upgrade for Utah. I’d put those in the top 5 in the league now, along with Boston, the Lakers, Chicago and the Spurs.

    The Timberwolves managed to clean up a bit and also look more generic. So…congrats?

    The Clippers change was completely unnecessary. I kind of liked the old thick blue side piping.

    And I was really hoping the Mavericks would do more of an overhaul – they don’t look bad, but I hate their font and would like to see them dump one of the blues for green.

  • Jason | August 17, 2010 at 1:25 pm |

    Regarding the “2”s on the field at New Giants Stadium. Agreed…they look like they’ve been cut off, however, they are the same “2”s that were used at original Giants Stadium. Apparently they didn’t see a need to use a new template. Sure wish they had!

  • Jim Vilk | August 17, 2010 at 1:26 pm |

    yeti | August 17, 2010 at 11:47 am |
    “the utah jazz now join the 76ers as nba teams who use totally a totally generic number font that you’d get from your local sporting goods shop who heat presses numbers on t-shirts for your summer league hoops team.”

    But I like that font…

    And I love those Jazz unis! I agree the side panels could be a little smaller, but definitely in “I’d wear that” territory.

    As for the Clips, the unis are an improvement. Not as good as their days in Buffalo or San Diego, but an improvement.

    T-Wolves? As they say on the court after a blocked shot, “Get that weak stuff outta here!” Ditching the green just lumps you in with Orlando and Dallas now. And while the lettering and numbers look better, unfortunately they added that annoying butt lettering http://www.nba.com/t... which looks goofy on womens shorts, and looks even stupider on mens shorts.
    Seriously, what was so wrong with these http://cdn.bleacherr... that you ever had to change them? The blue/green was your look, it could have been a classic.

    • yeti | August 17, 2010 at 2:41 pm |

      that font might pass on an intramural hoops shirt.
      it might work, but it doesnt work with the jersey logo.
      it works with the bulls because its outlined.
      at least clean it up with an outline to make it look less cheap and pedestrian. its as though the sixers and jazz took all their money and put it into the design of their shorts and jersey and had no money left over for numbers, so they just took the free stock numbers from the mom and pop sporting goods shop down the block.

  • Jim Vilk | August 17, 2010 at 1:31 pm |

    And if these are the new Cavs unis,
    http://cdn3.sbnation...
    color me impressed.

    I love the old tiled look from the past,
    http://imgs.inkfrog....
    but I think since the Cavs have worn all kinds of throwbacks recently, perhaps they wanted to go with something a certain former shooting guard had never worn before.

    I’d wear that new one…might even get me an inexpensive replica.

    • Andy | August 17, 2010 at 2:10 pm |

      The best thing is that the Cavs are now one of the few teams whose replica jersey is visually identical to the authentic, except for the doublewide shoulders.

    • Dan King | August 17, 2010 at 4:19 pm |

      To me those jerseys will fit in perfectly with the team this year: boring. I understand getting new jerseys since they are starting a new era, but I think they could’ve done a lot better. There’s simple, and then there’s too simple, and these are the latter to me.

    • BurghFan | August 17, 2010 at 5:44 pm |

      Have you seen this?

  • scott | August 17, 2010 at 1:35 pm |

    Is that really a “face” on the domino Flying Squirrels jersey, or is it just the team’s acorn logo? The acorn logo is roundish, has an “R” over a baseball and has what might look like hair at the top.

    • Ricardo | August 17, 2010 at 4:27 pm |

      I went to the Flying Squirrels (Double A affiliate of the SF Giants) game on Sunday. They wore the domino-themed jerseys on Saturday to honor an executive/owner (?) of the club whose last name is… Domino or Dominic or something to that effect. There was a concession dude in my section selling raffle tickets to win a signed (by the team) jersey from the previous night’s game (which he was wearing). It was not a pretty sight. The jersey, that is…

      And, by the way, for those who like sweet hosiery, the Flying Squirrels have a great set of socks- simple black with three red stripes and most of the players show them off and don’t go pj style. It’s very refreshing to see. Oh, and the mascot, Nutzy, is beloved by all of the kids at the game like I’ve never seen before, mascot-speaking.

      • scott | August 17, 2010 at 9:51 pm |

        That would be Chuck Domino.

        The Squirrels are wearing the same striped socks/ stirrups that all Giants affiliates have this year.

        • Ricardo | August 18, 2010 at 9:12 am |

          Thanks! The Flying Squirrels did so well with their uniform design- I was worried when they announced the name…

  • Jim Vilk | August 17, 2010 at 1:53 pm |

    After looking at the pics from Week 1 of the Premier League, this burgundy/sky blue bonanza leaped out at me:
    http://www2.pictures...

    Very nice. Now, let’s get an NBA, MLB or NFL team to use those colors. I nominate the Nets (since they’re applying for a name change), Hawks, Nuggets or Grizzlies for hoops. For baseball, maybe the Twins or D-backs. And for the NFL, Carolina or Tennessee.

    • Jordan Sogn | August 17, 2010 at 2:07 pm |

      I was sold that the OKC Thunder were going with these colors a few years ago…oh well.

    • RS Rogers | August 17, 2010 at 2:12 pm |

      Twins? Never! Burgundy/sky should be all over the Phillies. Judging by the jersey, t-shirt, and cap choices of the 25,000 Philadelphians who attend every Phillies game in Washington, DC, burgundy and sky are already the Phillies’ phans prephered colors.

      In the AL, I’d go with Cleveland; something’s gotta be done to differentiate between the Twins and the Tribe.

      • Jim Vilk | August 17, 2010 at 2:25 pm |

        Indians could work. I just picked the Twins, as they are one of the many red/blue teams. For some reason the Phils slipped my mind. Time to fill up my coffee mug…

      • Ricko | August 17, 2010 at 2:33 pm |

        Agreed. Not the Twins. Not likely.
        Only the Cardinals and Red Sox have been wearing Navy and Red longer than the Senators/Twins.
        Angels since ’61.
        Braves returned to it in ’89(?) after essentially spending the ’70s and ’80s using royal.
        Nationals went to Navy & Red after move from Montreal.
        That’s it. Only six MLB teams wear Nayv & Red.

        —Ricko

        • Ricko | August 17, 2010 at 2:33 pm |

          Whoops.
          Seven.
          Indians, too.

        • RS Rogers | August 17, 2010 at 3:11 pm |

          Actually, I’d put the Nats up on the block for potential burgundy/blue use, if the Phils insist on continuing to wear their current pink unis. The burgundy would tie in with the Redskins, and the sky blue would keep it within the realm of flag-inspired coloring. Heck, the Wizards could just as well wear burgundy and sky too, and the Caps could go for burgundy and navy, and DC could be burgundy town.

          (Though the Nats switching to red and gold remains my first choice with regard to the whole more-DC-teams-matching-each-other thing.)

        • Ricko | August 17, 2010 at 3:33 pm |

          “DC could be burgundy town.”

          And the Redskins already have blazed the trail with their Wine Bottle Look (mono burgundy).

          Although I guess I did call it “Merlot” last year.

          “Was ’09 a good year?”

          —Ricko

  • Eagles-88 | August 17, 2010 at 1:59 pm |

    Dwayne Jarrett needs to get a gold watch, a la Reggie Roby.

  • Tank | August 17, 2010 at 3:14 pm |

    Wizards putting Photoshop to use:

    http://www.truthabou...

  • K. McInnis | August 17, 2010 at 3:36 pm |

    Response to the Auburn ticker article: They have worn worn white cleats a handful of times within recent memory before the Outback Bowl starting in ’08, but usually to accommodate the road whites. Auburn wore blue in Bloomin’ Onion game, but meh, looks better with all-white. One thing they have changed (at least for the spring game) was the midfield logo. The top and bottom of the over-layed AU has been lengthened from hash to hash now, where before it rested a yard or two short, perfectly square from 45 to 45. Yet for some inexplicable reason, the sides of the logo have been stretched beyond the 45s and nearly to the 40s on either side. Sorry, no picture, but but the end result looks like some one sat on the logo and squished it or made pancakes on top of it. Hopefully a ‘change’ that will be remedied by Sept. 4.

  • Aaron R. | August 17, 2010 at 3:36 pm |

    http://www.hokiespor...

    Nike’s at it again. More new pro-combat unis for this upcoming season. Looks like they’re unveiling them before the season starts this year.

  • Ricko | August 17, 2010 at 4:06 pm |

    Favre in purple one more time.

    Ryan Longwell, Jared Allen and Steve Hutchinson were not at practice today.
    His three best friends on the club.

    Now reported they flew to Hattiesburg, and they are bringing him back.
    Plane either on ground here or about to land.

    That’s all I know.

    —Ricko

    • LI Phil | August 17, 2010 at 4:11 pm |

      for another “retirement” conference?

      • Ricko | August 17, 2010 at 4:18 pm |

        Makes the season a whole lot more fun around here, that’s for sure.

        Makes sense. too, from his viewpoint.
        Assuming a lockout in 2011 (and that’s a really good assumption), that makes the final final decision for him.
        Take one more run at it ’10, and let the situation relieve you of all the “will you or won’t you?”

        No way someone 41 or 42 can sit out an entire season.
        Just collect that 60% of pay (or whatever it is) during the lockout and settle back in Mississippi and, among other things, enjoy being Grandpa.

        —Ricko

      • Chance Michaels | August 17, 2010 at 4:22 pm |

        Must be – he wouldn’t come back with pre-season games yet to be played, when he can hold out another couple weeks and skip camp altogether.

        • Ricko | August 17, 2010 at 4:30 pm |

          His teammates don’t seem to mind a bit.
          And, frankly, that’s all that matters.
          (Hell, most of ’em probably would do the same thing if that had the status he has; who WANTS to go to training camp).
          Everyone else’s opinion on it is, frankly, doodly squat.
          Favre on a good team, anywhere, is good for the NFL at this point.
          I just happen to live where that team is located…so I get a good view of it all.
          And it DOES make the season more fun around here, no doubt about that.

          —Ricko

        • Ricko | August 17, 2010 at 4:34 pm |

          Today is, btw, the “anniversary” of when he showed up last year.
          Tuesday after first preseason game.
          Get the media circus out of the way before the second preseason game, not the third, which when the regulars usually the play the longest, the one real “tune up” game for the regular season, and prep time for that game needs to be a little more focused.

          See, people like NFL coaches and players, they think about that kind of stuff.

          —Ricko

        • Chance Michaels | August 17, 2010 at 5:15 pm |

          Of course he has that right. Never stated otherwise. I’m just glad my Packers are off that particular merry-go-round.

        • Ricko | August 17, 2010 at 8:12 pm |

          That’s cuz Pack did a far superior job of being ready, with Aaron Rodgers around.

          Vikings are still stuck with Chilly’s “I’m gonna prove my point” project: Tarvaris Jackson.

          —Ricko

  • Chuck | August 17, 2010 at 4:33 pm |

    Will the San Fransisco Giants do something to honor the passing of Bobby Thomson?

    • Ricko | August 17, 2010 at 4:35 pm |

      That’s sad.
      You’d hope so. Who else would there be to do it.
      One of the truly great moments in sport history.

      • Gusto44 | August 17, 2010 at 5:04 pm |

        Hopefully, yes. I think a small gesture would be appropriate, the Giants don’t want to go overboard on this one. While that historic home run was a great moment in the New York Giants baseball history, it has much less relevance for the fans in San Francisco. Thomson was out of baseball years before the franchise moved west, and the exploits of the New York Giants aren’t well known by many of the fans in San Francisco today.

        By contrast, when a hall of famer like Bill Mazeroski or Stan Musial passes away, you’ll see a much larger tribute in Pittsburgh and St. Louis. Baseball is a sport of tradition and generations, so franchises which don’t relocate have that advantage.

        It will be interesting to see what happens in San Francisco when Barry Bonds passes away. Unfortunately, we may see premature deaths from the 1990s drug era of baseball.

        • Gusto44 | August 17, 2010 at 5:06 pm |

          Oops, have to correct myself. Thomson was out of the game after 1960 with Baltimore, while the Giants moved to San Fran in 1958

    • LI Phil | August 17, 2010 at 5:12 pm |

      shouldn’t the city of new york honor him?

      since…ya know…the shot heard round the world happened in the polo grounds

      who cares if the giant franchise moved away 50+ years ago, thompson’s exploit belong in new york, not san fran…after all, it’s not right for san franciscans to celebrate something that didn’t happen in their city

      right?

      • Chuck | August 17, 2010 at 5:25 pm |

        My guess is that Bobby Thomson will be mentioned for a moment of silence before every MLB game tonight. Will the Mets do something when they return home? We shall see.

      • Ricko | August 17, 2010 at 5:37 pm |

        How ’bout both places? Could honor him at Citi, but not on the Met’ players themselves.

        Why not? Because the Mets aren’t the Giants. It’s NY history, but it isn’t METS history. Anyone gonna try to claim Bobby Thomson hit the “Shot Heard ‘Round the World’ for the Mets? The TEAM he hit it for is in SF now, and I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that baseball history IS relevant to at least some SF fans. The knowledgeable ones, at any rate.

        Anyone who doesn’t think it was a BFD that “The freakin’ GIANTS are moving here!!!” to SF fans in 1958 was either unconscious or unborn at the time.

        Oh, wait, I forgot. If you don’t remember it, you get to minimize it. Or rewrite it to suit your needs, based on your personal definition of how it was.

        —Ricko

        • Gusto44 | August 17, 2010 at 6:03 pm |

          Agreed, Thomson’s homer should carry a little more significance to San Francisco fans, since it’s part of the overall Giants history. They should recognize the achievement, understanding it didn’t actually take place in San Francisco. The problem is, when you take it farther, it tends to detract from the San Francisco baseball history.

          Some older San Fran fans should remember Thomson, but the younger set of Giants fans just have minimal memories of those New York Giants. It’s just the way it is. When a franchise moves, it literally starts over in the new city.

        • LI Phil | August 17, 2010 at 6:04 pm |

          When a franchise moves, it literally starts over in the new city.

          wait…what?

          /i was playing devil’s advocate

        • Gusto44 | August 17, 2010 at 6:40 pm |

          Yes, when a franchise moves it does literally start over in the new city. No question about that. The franchise is new to that different city, so a fan base must be established, etc. When that team begins playing in the new city, that’s when the memories begin for those fans, good or bad. Before that team arrived, you had a microscopic percentage of fans who actually followed that particular team. It was true in 1958 with the Giants, true with the Oilers/Titans, and it’ll be true the next time a franchise moves.

        • Komet17 | August 17, 2010 at 6:50 pm |

          I read somewhere, sometime, that at one point it was likely that the Dodgers were going to move to SF and the Giants to LA, rather than what actually happened. “Los Angeles Giants” and “San Francisco Dodgers”? Hmmmmm…

        • Gusto44 | August 17, 2010 at 7:07 pm |

          That’s interesting, I hadn’t heard that before. Looking back, in a perfect world, the Brooklyn Dodgers would have become the LA Angels, and the New York Giants would have become the San Francisco Seals. The Angels and Seals were the PCL clubs in LA and San Fran, so it would have been a natural transition. I’m sure it was salt on the wound for diehard Dodger and Giant fans to not only lose their teams, but continue to hear those nicknames used in the ensuing years.

        • Ricko | August 17, 2010 at 7:40 pm |

          A franchise “starts over” in a new town only when the fans are so provincial and geo-centric that they make it so…or the club is so out of whack they believe that’s how it is. “We are not the Expos,” says some exec from the Nationals? Well, yeah, they want a new identity and all, but isn’t that also a little like a woman who’s given birth to a couple kids declaring she’s a virgin?

          Oh, and being young is not an excuse for not knowing about, and having some appreciation for, the history of your local club…even before it moved to your town.

          Any Laker fan who doesn’t get the significance of George Mikan to that franchise evidently doesn’t care much about NBA history, or basketball history in general, beyond the end of his nose.

          Of course, that’s assuming anyone pays enough attention to understand the concept of a “franchise”.

          —Ricko

        • LI Phil | August 17, 2010 at 7:53 pm |

          when a franchise moves it does literally start over in the new city. No question about that. The franchise is new to that different city, so a fan base must be established, etc. When that team begins playing in the new city, that’s when the memories begin for those fans, good or bad.

          absolutely NOT

          i don’t want to get into the “who should wear throwbacks” argument, because that’s a completely different story, but a franchise does NOT…repeat NOT…belong to a city, although we may become so attached to it that it seems that way — a franchise is a moveable beast, to be bought, sold and moved as it’s owners see fit…that’s fact

          there are some good arguments to be made for a team changing names and seeking a “new identity” upon moving, to be sure, but there is also a distinct and precious VALUE in a franchise, whether it’s the racine, chicago, st. louis, phoenix or arizona CARDINALS — that franchise has been in existance for 100 years, through many cities…but they’re still the CARDINALS

          does it rip out the heart of someone who has grown up with that franchise, who lives and dies and breathes with it…to then have that franchise just leave town? absolutely, but the city doesn’t OWN the team (packers excluded, and even then, it’s not the city of green bay or milwaukee or anywhere else)

          but those san francisco giants, nee new york, are the franchise with whom bobby thompson is most associated, they have the right to honor him and retire his number — no one else — not the mets, not the yankees, and not the city of new york

          now, should the SF giants wear NY giants throwbacks, or should the mets? that’s an entirely different animal…but the giants as a franchise, a corporation, if you will — wherever it’s located, and whether the memories made by thompson were in new york or elsewhere…should have the right to honor him as they see fit

        • Ricko | August 17, 2010 at 7:58 pm |

          I sincerely doubt O’Malley would have even pondered the smaller San Francisco market, therby leaving the monster of LA to someone else.

          Granted, I was only 11 at the time, and I never heard such a thing then, and have never seen it mentioned anywhere in the histories I’ve encountered since.

          Failing to get his stadium built in Brooklyn, O’Malley by all accounts looked immediately to the huge L.A. market.

          Oh, and no way either team was going to change its nickname. In the context of 1958, MLB finally having teams west of Missouri was huge. I mean HUGE. The fact the Giants and Dodgers were coming to town was just too big NOT to market. Same for the Lakers.

          The nicknames “Angels” and “Seals” belonged to someone else. They weren’t there simply to be appropriated. The PCL was LOT bigger deal than most people today realize. Many considered it a de facto third major league.

          Senators changing to Twins was another story. Baseball wanted to placate the hell out of Congress by keeping the Washington Senators playing, uninterrupted, to remove any threat to its anti-trust exemption.

          —Ricko

    • TA | August 17, 2010 at 10:39 pm |

      The Giants undoubtedly will do something to honor Thomson. There already is a “Remember ’51” placard in the stadium, installed at the 50th anniversary celebration, near the retired numbers. The Giants like to talk up how they celebrate their entire history, though for the most part their treatment of the New York history boils down to two events, Thomson’s home run and Mays’ catch. That and the retired numbers of 4 New York-only players (Bill Terry, Mel Ott, Carl Hubbell, and Monte Irvin) as well as numberless placards for John McGraw and Christy Mathewson.

      They won’t retire Thomson’s number, since they reserve that honor to Hall of Famers who played a plurality of their career for the club.

  • Beats in Buffalo | August 17, 2010 at 5:19 pm |

    The talk of the Clippers new uniform and the New Meadowlands Stadium in the same post got me thinking about something I have always wondered, who in LA is a Clippers fan? What is there target demographic?

    Let me explain my question a little. I am by no means an expert on sports marketing but from my understanding a teams primary area of influence is in the region surrounding its home city, by that I mean the majority of Buffalo Bills fan would be found in the area surrounding Buffalo. Of course large cities can and do have multiple teams within the same pro league, Mets/Yankees, Cubs/White Sox, Jets/Giants etc. It seems to me that those teams then draw not only from the large population pool of the city but also from the smaller area surrounding the area where the team is based, North Side Chicago fans supporting the Cubs etc. but of course not exclusively. Playing in separate stadiums within a city would help in my mind solidify a fan base.

    Of course beyond that the multiple teams in one city are generally if not exclusively play in separate leagues/conferences within the league which have there own unique histories allowing teams that do share stadiums to differentiate themselves and draw a different audience.

    The Lakers and Clippers share a stadium so the population pool they would seemingly draw from would be exactly the same. They play not only in the same conference but the same division so that doesn’t allow any distinctions to be made. The Lakers preceded the Clippers by 24 years so it would be an uphill battle to convert fans, and all the Clippers have done in that period is have a horrible owner and loose, while all the Lakers have done is win.

    So after that long rant I ask again are there any Clippers fans or those in attendance NBA fans who couldn’t get tickets to Lakers games? Not bashing any Clippers fans out there just wondering what brings someone in LA’s allegiance to the Clippers over the Lakers.

    • Chance Michaels | August 17, 2010 at 5:25 pm |

      Well, there will always be those who reflexively root against the overdog. We see it in New York with the Mets – people move to town, or pick up baseball for the first time, and decide that they’d rather follow the fortunes of a more “relatable” team.

      If the Clippers could only carve out a niche as lovable blue-collar scrappers, they might do well.

      • Gusto44 | August 17, 2010 at 6:21 pm |

        Good point, the underdog does have appeal in the world of sports. Of course the biggest factor is something you touched on in your post. Losing. I think the Clippers have something like one playoff appearance in team history. Mind you, it’s easier to make the playoffs in the NBA as opposed to MLB and NFL. Other losing teams in different sports at least have won world titles in the past, so you have generations of fans who remember the good times, and that equals loyalty.

        Some time ago, there was talk of moving the Clips back to San Diego, it just seems they are in a hopeless situation.

      • Ricardo Leonor | August 17, 2010 at 9:19 pm |

        The problem with comparing the Mets to the clippers is that the Mets have actually won titles and are usually at least competitive. They have and have always had some recognizable names and big time players. I would dare to say that New York is really a Met town….( I am a Yankee fan btw ).

        The clippers on the other hand……..are well…the clippers…

        They will never ever be able to compete with the LAKERS..maybe they should consider a move…

        • Paul Lee | August 19, 2010 at 12:20 am |

          Good luck convincing taxpayers or private investors to put up funds to build the Clips a new arena in their city. Unless it’s in another city =P

          Love the Clips, but they seem doomed to fail with the current ownership. Maybe they’ll move back to New York as Brooklyn’s co-tenants since that way Sterling will be able to save money instead of building their own place in Buffalo. Sounds like the ONLY way to move the team.

          I wish them the best here in LA, but Clipper fans suffer way more than the Cubbies, pre-2004 BoSox, Detroit Tigers and Lions. Clips haven’t been in existence as long as those teams, nor had a drought that lasted nearly as long, but having never won a title is something that’s regretable. It’s hard to win a title, but still, never even winning your own division? A move won’t help, but if you’re going to lose, at least you’re losing in sunny Los Angeles :)

          And that’s why, win or lose, the Donald (the Sterling one, not the “fired” one) will never move.

    • Ricardo Leonor | August 17, 2010 at 9:29 pm |

      I think up to certain extent even when teams play in the same stadium, there is still usually a historical geographical difference.

      For the most part. Giant fans come form New Jersey, Rockland, Westchester, Connecticut and the Bronx. Jet fans come from Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens, Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Manhattan doesn’t really factor in either way.

      That is of course only a rough division, there are fans of every team everywhere. But the Jets and Giants didnt always share a stadium. Before the Meadowlands the Giants played at the Polo Grounds, Yankee Stadium and even Yale Bowl in CT. The Jets used to play at Shea. That created a rough geographical fan base.

      Although the Giants have had more success than the Jets, that has not factored into the creation of either fan base.

  • Patrick Campbell | August 17, 2010 at 5:22 pm |

    What would have made the Jazz uni’s a homerun for me would have been the use of trim on the shorts, much like the green throwbacks. I guess the side stripes trumped that concept as I don’t see the possibility of having both. Also, having a “belt” would have been great as well.

    And btw, as a jazz musician living in Utah I apologize for Utah keeping the Jazz name. It should have stayed in NOLA. Maybe we could trade the Hornets? Or the Saints?

  • StLMarty | August 17, 2010 at 6:49 pm |

    Coincidence?
    As soon as I saw the thing about the reporter wearing an enemy hat at a press conference, I thought about the time that Elaine Benes wore her Orioles hat in the owner’s box at Yankee Stadium.
    I just checked my guide and that episode is on TBS at 6:00 CST.

  • JAson | August 17, 2010 at 7:11 pm |

    Cavs new look…

    http://www.nba.com/c...

    I dig ’em. They’re very simple, but they work.

    • Oakville Endive | August 17, 2010 at 7:15 pm |

      Big thumbs up – a much under-ulitilized colour scheme – simple is better.

      • Jim Vilk | August 17, 2010 at 7:40 pm |

        I agree. I gave it an unofficial “I’d wear that” before, but now it’s official.

    • concealed78 | August 17, 2010 at 7:31 pm |

      Yeah, definitely better than before (and what should had been done in the first place) but a nice, clean look with retro elements. Bold move on the triple/double piping.

    • ab | August 17, 2010 at 9:01 pm |

      Pretty nice change. The letter/number font gives it a bit of a modern touch, but the rest of the set is pure classic.

      The rear neckline thing is kinda hokey, but it’s original on the pro level, so it’s kinda cool. Probably a moot point because it’s a part of the uniform not seen during game action.

      And hey, a team adopting a striped waistband on a non-throwback!

      It’s too simple and straightforward for them to ditch. I hope it lasts a long time.

  • Shane | August 17, 2010 at 8:30 pm |

    Absolutely amazing Nike soccer commercial here.
    An extended “Write the Futre” advertisement.
    Seems like the Netherlands are wearing their kits from the 2006 World Cup.

    http://www.youtube.c...

  • Joel | August 17, 2010 at 8:55 pm |

    What is the new fabric that adidas is using on the NBA uniforms this year?

  • Ricardo Leonor | August 17, 2010 at 9:14 pm |

    You would think ESPN would catch something like this….but can anyone else spot the glaring mistake on this page:

    http://espn.go.com/m...

    • Jim Vilk | August 17, 2010 at 11:55 pm |

      I could see ESPN mistakenly putting the Yanks and Sox on there from force of habit, but man, that’s some goof-up.

  • Gusto44 | August 17, 2010 at 9:22 pm |

    Getting back to the franchise issue, I would agree, in a technical, business sense, sports franchises aren’t owned by the cities they play in. I’ve never suggested as such, obviously, rich business people run these teams. But we have to remember, without the fans, the value of these franchises is absolutely zero. And the experiences of those fans, in those cities, will always be tied to the teams they are watching. The fans power everything, from merchandise sales to websites like this one.

    While a franchise like the Cardinals has value, that value is divided into the three cities they played in. I can personally guarantee few Arizona fans can name Chicago Cardinal players. Nothing against those Arizona fans, it’s just the reality of the situation. There’s a good reason why you see Arizona before the nickname Cardinals, all because of the power of the fans in that area.

    A good example of what I’m talking about is the 1980 USA Hockey team, it will always mean more to people in this country as opposed to people watching the game in foreign countries. All because it happened here, this country, everything we were experiencing at this time. Fans like me were at least watching that team before the Olympics. That’s the difference.

    The experiences of fans watching their home team over generations is the reason any franchise has any value at all. So to NFL fans in Indianapolis, that team was born in 1984 after moving from Baltimore. Prior to that, there were probably only a few Colts fans in Indianapolis. If you quizzed Indy fans right now about detailed Baltimore Colts history they’d fail. Not because they aren’t good fans, but they weren’t able to witness the history in Baltimore.

    So Bobby Thomson should be recognized in San Francisco, but it has limited impact since his moment never occurred in that city. No amount of hype or ceremony can change that fact. Same reason the city of San Francisco could have cared less in 1951 about that home run-it didn’t happened in that city. Conversely, few fans in Houston were rooting for the Titans in the 2000 super bowl for the exact same reason.

    • LI Phil | August 17, 2010 at 10:14 pm |

      first off, i don’t think you give nearly enough credit to the fans…knowledgable ones know the history of the franchise, both before and after the team played in their cities

      especially today, with the internet, mass media of all types, and television, as well as player movement, there is definitely much less devotion to a team of a particular city as their once was; people, like teams, move…when someone moves, sure he or she will likely “adopt” their “new” hometown team, but they won’t give up ties to their old one…in many cases, they never do — i highly doubt everyone in houston suddenly gave up caring about the oilers/titans as soon as bud adams packed them up for tennessee…in fact, i’d bet there are still a good many oilers/titans fans in houston and who could give a rats ass about the texans…

      now, are there a lot of new york giants fans still around/alive? probably not…but that doesn’t mean there weren’t and they probably followed their team, by any means they could, when they moved out west

      i asked my pop, who’s in the hospital again, tonight about the dodgers (he was telling me the story of how he was ‘up on a ladder listening to the giants/dodgers 51 broadcast on the radio when thompson took branca deep — said he “nearly fell off the damn ladder”)…when the dodgers went to LA, it hurt, but he followed them through the papers, and once the mets got a franchise, (and half the team seemed to be washed up old dodgers), whenever the dodgers came to town, he went to see them at the polo grounds– partially because he knew some of the guys who were still playing, but also because of the laundry

      to this day, if the mets aren’t playing the dodgers, he roots for them

      so you see, the team doesn’t belong to any city — it belongs to the fans who grew up with them, even if the team moved — if those dodgers had changed names and identities upon leaving town, that may have hurt old dodger fans even more than the team leaving

      maybe it’s different for fans of smaller markets and cities like cleveland, pittsburgh and baltimore…but i doubt it … just because a team leaves, you can detest the owner, but how can you just turn your back on the team? it’s still YOUR team, whereever they play; and you do your best to keep up with them after they are gone

      there’s no reason two cities (or three) can’t all share in the joys and successess of the cardinals (ok…there were no successes, except for 25 and 47), but still…

      how many world series victories do the giants have? according to you, NONE…but just because they never won the world series in san francisco doesn’t mean the franchise hasn’t won five titles…

      bobby thompson should absolutely be honored and recognized by the GIANTS, whether they are in san fran or not

      • interlockingtc | August 18, 2010 at 12:37 am |

        I don’t know.

        I grew up in Minnesota loving the North Stars. Loving them. But when they up and left for Dallas, my association with that business franchise was over; not the memories of the franchise’s time in Minnesota, oh no, but any further interest in the franchise effectively ended upon them leaving. I actually wanted them to do poorly in Dallas. Even when Dallas won the Cup, it didn’t register with me. That team in Dallas could’ve been Atlanta or Philadelphia or San Jose. Interchangeable. If anything, I was slightly annoyed they won the Cup.

        I’ve been in Seattle since the mid ’80’s and adopted the Sonics as my favorite NBA team (having never had a club in Minnesota (and I was too young to glam on to the ABA Muskies and Pipers). When the team left Seattle after 41 seasons, my future association with that business franchise was over, just like the North Stars in Minnesota. The Oklahoma City Thunder? They mean nothing to me…a team playing somewhere in the Southwest with a bad nickname in bad uniforms. I was glad they lost handily to the Lakers in the playoffs.

        When Calvin Griffith always threatened to move the Twins to…wherever…I know that my association with them would’ve ended as well, had he pulled the trigger. Some of us just can’t get over the anger and disappointment. For better or worse.

        I think Gusto44 and Phil make valid points. No right or wrong here. Just different experiences for different people.

        And I sure respect that. I was touched by your dad’s remembrances, Phil. I hope he gets well soon.

        jim

        • Gusto44 | August 18, 2010 at 2:22 am |

          Agreed, there will always be a small percentage of fans who continue to follow their home team even after it or they leave their respective home cities. So yes, those fans have every right to root for and celebrate those teams in the future.

          However, my point didn’t address those small percentage of fans, and those people are free to count titles however they want. But it doesn’t alter the fundamental reality the fans who grew up with those teams could only do so in those home cities. If cities were irrelavant, they wouldn’t be included in the names of these franchises.

          Tradition, history, and cities are forever linked, and nothing can change that reality. Generations of fans make it so. Bobby Thomson didn’t hit that home run in San Francisco, who didn’t care about the Giants in 1951. And the Indianapolis Colts have one world title, along with the Atlanta Braves. We can’t change history, even if we want to. The good fans in San Francisco are still waiting for their first world title, and that’s a separate issue apart from the franchise total.

      • BurghFan | August 18, 2010 at 2:06 am |

        First, best wishes to your Pop.

        Second, while you’re exactly right that “the team doesn’t belong to any city — it belongs to the fans who grew up with them,” I’m not sure about the “even if the team moved” you added. When the Oilers left Houston, I’m sure there were more fans who felt abandoned than who were excited about continuing to follow the team in Tennessee. I’m equally sure that when the Texans came along, most fans in Houston started to follow them. That doesn’t mean that those fans forgot about the Oilers – while the franchise that lost those two AFC Championships in Pittsburgh is now in Nashville, the fans who feel passion about Mike Renfro’s non-touchdown were/are in Houston. And I guess the point of this discussion is that that passion doesn’t move with the franchise, nor does the passion over subsequent events that develops in the new home radiate back to the original city.

  • Adam | August 17, 2010 at 9:47 pm |

    I get a little bit of a Houston Rockets vibe from the new Cavs jersey.

  • Brendan Burke | August 17, 2010 at 10:29 pm |

    Looks like Cleveland ditching the brown pants is confirmed. Madden got it wrong again, what a surprise.

    • The Jeff | August 17, 2010 at 11:39 pm |

      How exactly is EA supposed to know anyway? The brown pants showed up in the style guide at the same time that the team switched to gray facemasks. They ended up in the game because that’s what the team said they’d wear. Then, they didn’t. Finally, EA takes the brown pants out – and that same year, the Browns decide to actually wear the dumb things. So now they’re the default option because it’s what the team has been using… and they went and changed their minds again. I blame Cleveland as much as EA.

      The all-white uniform is still in the game anyway, so it’s really not a big deal.

    • LI Phil | August 17, 2010 at 11:44 pm |

      it’s true that mangenius has pretty much said “we won’t wear brown pants in 2010” (thankfully), but like THE jeff said, i believe they’re still an official part of the uniform — the team isn’t required to wear them, so madden isn’t wrong to put them in as an option

      not sure how recent or accurate the wiki is, but it still has the brown pants as an option…and i believe they still are

  • rob | August 17, 2010 at 10:52 pm |

    Another shot of the new Notre Dame jersey: http://i35.twitgoo.c...

  • Dave R | August 17, 2010 at 10:55 pm |

    Is the mention of the Maui uniforms an inside joke? Or maybe a bug?
    This is the third time the link has been posted in the Ticker since February.