Monday Morning Uni Watch

Screen shot 2010-09-13 at 7.33.47 AM.png

There was a lot of uni-notable football action this past weekend, but they saved the best for last: the Redskins’ long-rumored gold pants, which made their debut in last night’s game against Dallas. Even better, the pants were paired with magnificent striped socks. Add it up and all of a sudden the ’Skins have one of the best home looks in the league.

Incidentally, if those pants and socks look familiar, that’s because they’re exactly the same knickers and hose that were worn as part of Washington’s 70th-anniversary throwbacks in 2002. (Well, almost the same — the throwback pants had a little anniversary logo on the hip.) Interesting to see that they simply reprised

• I loved the Eagles’ throwbacks. But as several readers pointed out, the TV numbers weren’t the same font as the front and back numbers (it was most apparent with the numerals 2 and 7). Interestingly, they’re showing it that way for the jerseys being sold at retail too. I haven’t had time to check, but maybe this dates back to the original 1960 uniforms that these throwback were patterned after..? Meanwhile, I loved the cheerleaders’ outfits.

• Speaking of TV numbers, my favorite observation of the day was submitted by Adam Pavlovich, who noticed that Brandon Jackson’s TV numbers were applied as patches. Never seen that before! If you look at his left shoulder (right side of the photo), it kinda looks like there’s another number under the patch, so this was probably a way of covering up a faulty set of numbers. Great, great catch by Adam.

• The Giants’ stadium-opening patch was, uh, subtle. Thankfully, it was just a one-game thing, so we won’t have to see it again.

• Something else I hope we never have to see again: a chain gang member with deficient pant-cuffing skills. (Thanks to David Pealing for the screen shot.)

• The Bears “honored” the Blackhawks by giving Brian Campbell a jersey with a misspelled NOB.

• Remember how the Vikings’ horn decals couldn’t cross the Rubicon of the vents on the Revo Speed helmet? Anthony Zogas notes, “Instead of cutting the logo, Lions players wearing the Revo Speed actually had the tail of the lion decal ‘bridge the vent.'”

• Timmy Brulia’s gonna be busy updating our “White at Home in the NFL” page, because there were a lot of ivory-clad home teams yesterday, including the Pats, Titans, Bears, Texans, and Bucs. All of those teams won, incidentally (as did the Saints, who wore white at home back on Thursday night).

Finally, it’s worth noting that several people e-mailed me to say that the Colts and Packers had some players “wearing weird jerseys.” I thought by now everyone knew about this, but apparently some people didn’t get the memo. If you’re one of them, you can re-read the memo here.

Meanwhile, there was plenty of uni-notable action in the collge ranks on Saturday:

• Louisville wore one seriously tacky helmet design.

• Air Force wore stars/stripes lightning bolts. And get this: They actually managed to include 13 stripes and 50 stars! And what are all those icons on the back of the helmet? Here’s a description: “The back of the helmet included four stickers. The first is a 9-11-01 sticker with the 11 being replicas of the World Trade Center twin towers and the word ‘Remember’ with a United States flag. There is a black outline around it in the shape of the Pentagon building. Underneath, going left to right, are the official logos of the New York City Police Department, the New York City Fire Department, and the Port Authority Police of New York–New Jersey.”

• Baylor wore camo-trimmed helmets, although it was hard to discern from a distance. (And here’s something you won’t often see: green-spatted cleats.)

• Virginia Tech wore solid white — helmet included — at home.

• Texas Tech’s athletic dept. had assured me that the team wouldn’t be wearing those white helmets this season. Guess someone was pulling my leg. This is the exact same helmet that was showing up in photos months ago and was later described as a rejected prototype. So much for that story.

• Terrelle Pryor wore white shoes and socks while his teammates wore black.

• Remember Dayne Crist’s seriously short sleeves from last week? Turns he isn’t the only Notre Dame QB to go that route.

• Speaking of Notre Dame, several readers noted that their front uni numbers appear to be bigger than their rear uni numbers. Odd.

• Surprising sight in Utah, where the Utes went red over white, instead of their usual solid red. Kinda heartening to see a team opting for the traditional look, no?

• An additional FBS change we all missed until now: Tennessee has changed its nose bumpers from “Vols” to the team’s main helmet logo. (Thanks to Jon Caraccilo for pointing that one out.)

Not a bad start to the season. But if every football weekend is this uni-active, they’re gonna have to scrape me off the floor on Monday mornings.

Uni Watch News Ticker: Interesting story in the soccer world, as Nike is attempting to bootleg the bootleggers (with thanks to Stephen Wong). … Steve Wojtowicz took a stab at colorizing that great Kansas photo from last week. Very nice, although I doubt the jersey was black back in the day. … Kevin Durant sent a sneaker-driven message to Russia during the recent USA/Russia FIBA game (with thanks to Matthew Bohman). … Who knew the Marx Bros. had a softball team? (Nice find by Ronnie Poore.) … Tons of wonderful 1970s Chicagoland game highlights, production animation, and commercials in this dynamite video clip (awesome find by John English). … Latest proof that Milwaukee’s where it’s at (with thanks to Michael A. Gargano). … The 1932 Cubs supposedly wore a pinstriped jersey with a script insignia featuring a red-filled C. But Mike Hersh has found a photo of John Moore in which the C looks white, not red-filled. Hmmm. … Last week I mentioned that Notre Dame QBs wear red caps on the sidelines. Now Dan Cichalski has found the explanation (lurking on this page): “The backup quarterbacks signal in the plays to starter Dayne Crist. They wear red, so they stand out on a sideline of blue and gold — so Crist can find them easily.” … New red line design for the Bruins. I really like that one (with thanks to Michael Kearney). … New center ice logo and red line design for the Sabres (with thanks to Eric Ando). … Houston backup QB Cotton Turner’s hair is so long it was sticking out of his earholes the other night (screen shot courtesy of Matt Cunningham). … Yet another reason not to go low-cuffed: A runner sliding into second can snag his spikes on your cuffs. That’s Nate Scherholtz getting tangled up in David Eckstein’s pant leg Friday night (great shot by Sean Robbins). … Also from Sean: “It’s pretty obvious that Brian Wilson was never meant to hit, because he was wearing recent call-up’s Ryan Rohlinger’s helmet on Friday.” … Not often that you see a football team that wears its helmet logo on the back. That’s Thomas More Prep-Marian High School in Hays, Kansas (as noted by David N. Steinle). … What have we here unbranded visor tabs?! And at a Nike school, too. Someone’s gonna get fired (with thanks to Sean Patton). … Small item at the bottom of this page indicates that Notre Dame may wear green jerseys for their game against Army, which is taking place at Yankee Stadium on November 20th (with thanks to David Magaña). … Aussie football news: New uniforms for the Gold Coast Suns (with thanks to Jeremy Brahm). … Here’s a video clip about Braden Holtby’s new mask (with thanks to Vince Serritella). … The Falcons will be wearing their throwbacks twice this season. … The Mariners may be bringing back teal alternate jerseys. Details at the bottom of this Q&A page. … While looking for something else, I found a photo of a Virginia Tech fan who showed up at one of last season’s games wearting the orange-sleeved disaster from 2005. … Might be time to trim those antennae chinstraps. “I don’t want to embarrass this kid or his school, so I’ll just ID him as a Vermont high school football player,” says Tris Wykes. … The SF Giants are planning an interesting promotion based on Buster Posey’s uniform number. For details, scroll down to the last item on this page (thanks, Brinke). … Another college team that wore those exterior-padded helmets back in the 1960s: Ohio University. Lots of additional photos here (big thanks to Larry Bodnovich). … Marty Hick‘s croquet league is now playing with DIY mallets made by one of the league’s members. “He made the heads into octagonal prisms, and three other guys and did the painting,” says Marty. … Indiana is running a contest to design this year’s IU basketball season ticket T-shirt (as noted by Jimbo Huening). … The Springville [Utah] High School Red Devils have a cool helmet concept: They’ve turned their center stripe into a pitchfork (neat find by Dom Lewis). … Meet Willem. He was manning the grill at a birthday party I attended yesterday afternoon. Always nice to see our nation’s youth bonding with meat at an early age. And as you can see below, he was pretty fucking adorable:


 

204 comments to Monday Morning Uni Watch

  • Ben | September 13, 2010 at 7:50 am |

    Redskins gold pants were beautiful, especially in hi-def. Should have made the change long ago. only 1 quibble and that’s that they should have made the pants striping match the jersey striping similar to the mock up that someone did recently. Now if the Chargers would only make the return to gold pants…

    • Ben | September 13, 2010 at 7:53 am |

      …oh and I hope they wear them with the white jersey too.

      • JTH | September 13, 2010 at 9:42 am |

        And I hope they don’t. (I did like the burgundy over gold look, though.)

        • Kevin Hastings | September 13, 2010 at 10:30 am |

          I actually would like to see them wear white over white on the road…

          http://upload.wikime...

          But I bet they’ll wear white jerseys and burgundy pants when they go to St. Louis in week 3.

    • ronnie poore | September 13, 2010 at 10:51 am |

      i DON’T think the Redskins should have made the pants stripes match the jersey stripes. they should change the jersey stripes. i never liked the jersey stripe pattern. it should at least match the helmet stripes.

  • The Jeff | September 13, 2010 at 7:57 am |

    Ok, first things first, the Redskins pants are NOT the same as the 2002 throwback. The 2002 versions is rather obviously more metallic in color.

    If anything, they’re the same as the 2007 throwback, pictured here: http://monkeyinmymin...

    • Russell | September 13, 2010 at 8:05 am |

      Definitely noticed this as well. It seems like the 2002 versions were more similar in color to the current 49ers pants, whereas these are more of a rich marigold color. I’m probably one of the only human beings on the planet who prefers the white pants to the new gold look, but they’re still incredibly sharp unis.

    • Tank | September 13, 2010 at 9:23 am |

      I was going to post the same thing. 2002’s were gold, yesterday’s were yellow. As awesome as the Redskins looked yesterday, it’s just an even bigger reminder that burgundy & gold is so much better than maroon & yellow. I hope that’s the next evolution.

      But even so, gigantic improvement. I hope they were the yellow pants with the white jerseys as well.

      • Tank | September 13, 2010 at 9:33 am |

        Wow, that is some embarrassing English on my part. Sorry.

    • Andy | September 13, 2010 at 9:23 am |

      The red color on the ’02 uniform (pants and socks included) was much darker as well. Closer to maroon if you ask me. These pants and socks are indeed from the ’07 throwback.

      The new look is decent, but I can’t say that just because they added stripes to the socks they all of a sudden have one of the best home looks in football. None of the stripes really coordinate with each other or any of the other design elements on the uniform. It kind of looks like they just played mix-n-match with their current uniform and an old throwback uniform. Oh wait, they did.

  • jdreyfuss | September 13, 2010 at 8:04 am |

    The Eagles’ throwback sideline gear had the old “Reebok” wordmark in the old font instead of the vector or the wordmark in the Arial clone they use now. THey should have put this on the uniforms. I know they didn’t have logo creep in 1960, but it would have added to the old-school feel a lot more than having vectors in the shoulders.
    http://product.image...

    • John Ekdahl | September 13, 2010 at 9:04 am |

      Reebok’s actually doing that with a lot of their hats now, not just throwbacks.

      • Andy | September 13, 2010 at 9:25 am |

        That’s the new wordmark on those Jags’ hats.

        • John Ekdahl | September 13, 2010 at 9:36 am |

          My bad. Thought he was talking about wordmark vs. vector logo, not new font vs. old font.

        • jdreyfuss | September 13, 2010 at 9:54 am |

          My bad, too. The wordmark on the commercial hats (the picture I posted) is the new one. The sideline hats actually had the rounder font they used to use.

        • Aaron | September 13, 2010 at 10:38 am |

          Everything Reebok – from the wordmark to the vector logo – is just so clunky. However, I’m not here to offer suggestions for improvement, just to complain.

  • Ray Barrington | September 13, 2010 at 8:09 am |

    Thanks for the screencaps showing the Fox Graphics. I can’t read them on my set.

  • Graf Zeppelin | September 13, 2010 at 8:22 am |

    Actually, I think the Redskins’ gold pants match the 1970s throwbacks (with the yellow Lombardi helmet) they wore a couple of years back. The 2002 throwbacks (spear helmet) look a bit more metallic and muted, with wider stripes.

    Either way, they looked fantastic.

  • Hank | September 13, 2010 at 8:34 am |

    Eagles throwbacks have the fonts correct. Here’s the Dutchman: http://farm5.static....

    • timmy b | September 13, 2010 at 9:35 am |

      Confirming what Hank said and also what I posted last night.

      The Eagles throwback is correct. They added the TV numbers in 1956 and kept the stripeless kelly green look through 1963.

      Refreshing to see some attention to detail on a throwback for a change.

    • Jimwa | September 13, 2010 at 10:02 am |

      Interestingly, the color of the green in that SI cover looks closer to the current uni-green than kelly green to me!

      • Ricko | September 13, 2010 at 11:51 am |

        bad scan. actual cover is undoubtedly kelly green.

        From Pete Pihos to Randall Cunningham and beyond, the Eagles wore kelly green. Let’s not let one bad scan lead us to think otherwise.

        Here’s the look that preceded the uni of 1960…
        http://www.redskinsc...

        In ’60 they changed the plain silver pants to white with two kelly stripes, and the home numbers from silver to white.

        —Ricko

        • timmy b | September 13, 2010 at 1:32 pm |

          Ricko,

          I seem to think that for a few years prior to 1960 (1957-1959 or so), the Eagles played switcheroo between silver pants and the white pants.

  • Hank | September 13, 2010 at 8:42 am |

    Nice technique used by Willem for the burger flip. Obviously a product of good-parenting.

  • John Ekdahl | September 13, 2010 at 8:42 am |

    Does defense really win championships? Here’s a good analysis of it over at The Wall Street Journal today.

    • The Jeff | September 13, 2010 at 9:05 am |

      I would really love to know how he came up with his numbers for “expected points”.

      Regardless, it seems rather obvious that, statistically speaking, offense is more important to winning. Even the best defenses aren’t going to score very often. That’s just how the game is.

      • Ricardo Leonor | September 13, 2010 at 10:43 am |

        I think it’s a chicken-egg situation regarding offense and defense in all sports not just football…

        The purpose of the game is to score MORE points/runs/goals than the opposition….but it can be said you also win when the opposition scores LESS points/runs/goals than you.

        I think its harder to score than to keep the opposition from scoring anyway..so I guess offense is more important.

        All that being said…the Giants outplayed the Panthers on defense and offense, but the game was closer than it should have been because the G-Men ABSOLUTELY SUCKED on all facets of special teams….

        • Jimwa | September 13, 2010 at 12:26 pm |

          Paraphrasing a quote from my HS locker room:

          If you always score, you might always win.
          If the other team never scores, you will never lose.

  • Donald | September 13, 2010 at 8:44 am |

    What have we here unbranded visor tabs?! And at a Nike school, too.

    Miami LB Spence was wearing an unbranded visor as well. I assumed it may have just been a cover up but now not so sure.

  • Tony Lutz | September 13, 2010 at 8:49 am |

    University of Northern Iowa (UNI) new home uni’s. Got rid of ugly black pants. Helmets the same as past seasons.

    UNI has to be your favorite team

  • John Ekdahl | September 13, 2010 at 8:50 am |

    Here’s an article which features the Redskins players discussing the crazy ending to the game last night. Just kidding, they’re talking about the gold pants.

  • Derek | September 13, 2010 at 8:55 am |

    love the redskins gold pants and socks. eagles throwbacks were nice especially the center field logo. and of course virginia tech loses wearing white helmets. its the white helmet jinx! every team that wears a white helmet that originally wears a different color loses in it.

    • Andy | September 13, 2010 at 9:28 am |

      Ohio State beat Michigan in a white helmet last season.

      • LI Phil | September 13, 2010 at 3:25 pm |

        didn’t everyone beat michigan last season?

  • Hoolie | September 13, 2010 at 8:56 am |

    Too bad the Redskins blew it by keeping the bright yellow facemasks. Those things absolutely RUIN the look. AND, I see the Nike machine will never go away. The cleats are joke. Everyone has a different color combo in the pic Paul posted. The cleats ARE part of the uni and not one team gets this. Pathetic. Redskins go to a grey facemask and black cleats with white laces and THEN they have one of the best unis in pro football.

    • The Jeff | September 13, 2010 at 9:12 am |

      I’ll agree on the shoes… but gray facemasks are just flat out wrong. WRONG.

      • LI Phil | September 13, 2010 at 9:26 am |

        if by “WRONG” you mean perfect, then indeed

        really…there is nothing wrong with a gray facemask

        • Andy | September 13, 2010 at 9:29 am |

          Agreed. And white laces on black shoes? No thanks. White laces (and white shoes) look dingy after one game.

        • The Jeff | September 13, 2010 at 9:35 am |

          Obviously we’re back in our proper universes now.

          No, when I say wrong, I mean wrong. They wore gray because they had no choice at the time. Doing it now is just “retro” for it’s own sake. While it may not look bad, it sure as hell isn’t an improvement.

        • jdreyfuss | September 13, 2010 at 10:10 am |

          Second The Jeff. Exact words I would have used. Gray looks good on some teams. Against the burgundy, it looks dingy.

        • Joe | September 13, 2010 at 10:30 am |

          Did you notice that in that photo of Sonny handing off, not one player (QB or linemen) is wearing the same pair of socks?

        • Ricardo Leonor | September 13, 2010 at 10:47 am |

          Yeah I noticed they are wearing different socks and some wear black shoes instead of burgundy…I always thought that was a new thing….wearing different color shoes…

        • LI Phil | September 13, 2010 at 11:41 am |

          Did you notice that in that photo of Sonny handing off, not one player (QB or linemen) is wearing the same pair of socks?

          actually, they’re all wearing the same socks…just some are pulled up higher than others and some have their white oversocks pulled up so as to obscure the striping patterns…but all the stirrup undersocks are the same…they’re just all wearing them at differing heights and with high whites higher in some cases than others

      • interlockingtc | September 13, 2010 at 10:48 am |

        Sorry, The Jeff. With all due respect, you are wrong.

        • The Jeff | September 13, 2010 at 11:53 am |

          You know, sometimes I wish I could go back in time and make the original facemasks of the 50’s bright fucking pink or maybe neon green, just to see if you guys would want to see that coming back now.

          Gray’s OK as a neutral color – if every team has a gray mask, fine. Whatever. But it’s a horrible choice as an intentional design. Helmets are no longer *just* safety equipment. They identify the team and should be made to match the uniform. Having a gray facemask on a uniform with no other gray is either poor design (Arizona Cardinals) or it’s retro/throwback purely for the sake of being retro (Colts, 49ers). As neutral colors go, white would actually be a better choice, since every team in the league does have white somewhere else on their uniform, even if it’s only the socks. Or if you don’t want the facemask to stand out – then make it the same color as the helmet. Intentionally making it a color that you don’t wear… I just can’t understand why you’d want to do that.

        • LI Phil | September 13, 2010 at 12:10 pm |

          this may come as a shock to you jeff, but not everyone here has a helmet or shoe fetish…there was a time when helmets were solely used as a safety device and shoes were any color you wanted, as long as they were black

          that being said, obviously the helmet is much more of a canvas now, and i’ll agree with you that teams like the cardinals, who have a ridiculously modern uniform, look dumb when pairing the classic helmet with it — but that doesn’t mean they should modernize the helmet; rather, they should dump the bumperstickers and monochrome

          i don’t have as much of a problem as you’d think with teams wanting to “modernize” their look — but when that look is just videogamer fantasy/dressup like a soldier crap, i happen not to like that look

          and i honestly thought some of the new pro combat looks are better than what the teams are currently wearing…from a purely aesthetic standpoint

          but, getting back to the original point … there is a certain look and feel to a rather non-descript helmet and shoes that weren’t all two-toned, bright & shiny and “look at me”…obviously you don’t like that look but many of us do

          it’s just a difference of opinion — there is no “wrong” or “right” look…well, there is, but it differs with each person

        • Ricko | September 13, 2010 at 12:11 pm |

          But there is no history of pink or neon green facemasks.

          Just because shoemakers can do any color possible these days, doesn’t mean the Packers look horrible wearing black cleats.

          There’s the uniform, and the are pieces of equipment.

          Guess it comes down to whether we call the facemask equipment or part of the uniform.

          If you were around when gray facemasks were common, it’s no big deal. If you rail against it now it’s like saying because automobiles once were available only in black, it is now dumb to choose a black one.

          —Ricko

        • The Jeff | September 13, 2010 at 1:05 pm |

          Phil, wouldn’t switching to a gray mask now, after having worn a colored one for over 30 years be just as much of a “look at me” move? There’s nothing nondescript about a gray mask in modern context. Like I said, when the entire league is using gray masks, it’s fine. When most of the league isn’t – it stands out. Yes, the Redskins yellow mask also stands out – as it’s designed to. If they want a mask that doesn’t stand out, burgundy works far better than gray.

          Ricko, it hasn’t been “just equipment” since the mid 70’s, when the WFL and the Chargers started using colored ones. It IS part of the uniform now. If the Broncos started wearing red facemasks, they’d get ripped apart. Any team wearing a facemask of a color that isn’t a team color is going to be drilled for it on here…unless it’s gray, then it’s “traditional” and everything’s cool again – and that bothers the hell out of me.

        • Ricko | September 13, 2010 at 1:10 pm |

          “It IS part of the uniform now.”

          Didn’t say it wasn’t. Said it depends on how we choose to regard it.
          There was, as you pointed out, a time when it was just equipment, and it came in one color, like shoes did.

          —Ricko

        • Ricko | September 13, 2010 at 1:14 pm |

          So it IS traditional, in an old school frame of reference.

          You hate white chin straps, too?

          ‘Cuz I hate the colored ones. Looks like someone’s trying to hard…
          “Ooo, let’s make everything MATCH. And then after home room we’ll listen to some CDs.”

          —Ricko

        • Jimwa | September 13, 2010 at 1:22 pm |

          For argument’s sake: If one player on a team had a grey face mask, another had gold, another burgandy, would that be acceptable? If not, I’d call the face mask part of the uniform and should stick to the color scheme of the team. If you see that as OK, then it’s equipment and should adhere to other non-uniform-related equipment standards.

          … now I will try to resist posing the question of how to treat NFL jerseys and their “NFL Equipment” tags ….

        • S. Bennett | September 13, 2010 at 1:30 pm |

          The Washingtons won three Super Bowls with yellow facemasks. Yellow is fine by me.

          SB

        • Ricko | September 13, 2010 at 1:31 pm |

          Enough. Of course the team’s facemasks should all match (way back, they didn’t always, but usually were white or gray). All I said was it ONCE was considered equipment.

          This really is a circular, almost stupid, debate.

          By the mid-’60s (or so) pretty much all facemasks WERE gray.

          If a team now chooses to wear gray facemasks for the “old school” of it, fine.
          It isn’t wrong, just “old school” (for those aware there actually was pro football before the Super Bowl, of course).

          —Ricko

        • The Jeff | September 13, 2010 at 1:38 pm |

          Just so we’re all on the same page then… OSFOSS is ok, but BFBS is bad.

          /I’m done now

        • StLMarty | September 13, 2010 at 5:23 pm |

          yes.

      • =bg= | September 13, 2010 at 2:44 pm |

        Gray are perfect for the old line classic teams. The Niners look is better with gray.

        They’re still a horrible team- but the helmets look better.

      • Ricko | September 13, 2010 at 3:14 pm |

        They’re not even a valid comparison; they start from different points of view.

        Old School elements are based on looks that were common to the game, and spring from some knowledge of the general history—and the uni history—of the game.

        BFBS is an affection with no relevance whatsoever, other than the designer’s desire to include it…often advocated those who apparently don’t know a Louisville Slugger from a swizzle stick. But pretend they do.

        —Ricko

  • Thomas Clark | September 13, 2010 at 9:04 am |

    All 3 Notre Dame QBs that played wore those sleeves. Is this a Brain Kelly thing? Did he do it at Cincinnati, CMU, and GVSU?

  • Chris Holder | September 13, 2010 at 9:08 am |

    The Eagles are absolute idiots if they don’t change back to those uniforms, pronto. The kelly greens are gorgeous and so much better than their current uni set it ain’t even funny.

    Good look for the ‘Skins. It’s nice to see a contrasting color that isn’t white.

    • Hank | September 13, 2010 at 9:47 am |

      Absolutely agree. From the Kelly greens, to the silver wings, to the mid-field logo to even the end zone graphic. Wonderful. Then, unfortunately, the game started. Ugh!

  • Adam | September 13, 2010 at 9:17 am |

    Redskins’ 2010 season opening pants were not “exactly the same knickers and hose that were worn as part of (their) 70th-anniversary throwbacks…” That color palette included a much more muted and metallic gold…a completely different shade of gold. They were far more comparable to 2007’s throwbacks with block “R” helmet.

    Last night marked the first time (outside of those throwback occassions) that Redskins have worn gold pants since 1978.

    I loved them…but hope they wear burgundy pants with white jerseys. That just represents the Redskins to me more so than any other uni combo they havve. Plus, there’s always been something I haven’t liked when Steelers and Packers are in white jerseys and gold pants.

  • Alex Zeese | September 13, 2010 at 9:37 am |

    As a skins fan I have been waiting for the team to wear this exact look for 10 years. That said, they do need to match up the striping on the Jersey with the pants and helmet a bit more. But the team has said in the past something like, “this is the furtherest the NFL lets them get away with it this year,” as a new uniform requires full league approval, so by keeping the same jersey they comply I guess.

    I am gonna call it now, the skins will fix the striping and stuff for 2011. But for now welcome back to the house of the BURGUNDY AND GOLD!

  • DJK | September 13, 2010 at 9:41 am |

    LOVED the Redskins look with the burgundy over old, but I really hope they still wear the Burgundy pants with the white jersys. Steelers, USC, Michigan, etc, always look really good color over yellow/gold, but not so great white over yellow.

  • Geeman | September 13, 2010 at 9:45 am |

    Are the Skins going to wear the gold pants all the time now, home and away?

    And wasn’t that the first time, other than a throwback game, that they’ve worn gold pants in about 30 years? Or was this a throwback effort?

    • Kevin Hastings | September 13, 2010 at 10:47 am |

      Apparently Bruce Allen (Skins new GM) has put together some sort retired players group to decide what uniforms the team wears (yeah, seriously). Allen has been hinting all year that the gold pants/burgundy jersey could be coming back – to conjure up memories of his father’s teams of the 70s. And it’s all part of a wider effort by the ownership and front office to sort of re-charge the loyal fan base after hitting rock bottom last year.

      So I don’t know if Allen/former players/current players will opt to keep the gold pants at home all season (I hope so) or if this was a one off. It wasn’t a planned/marketed throwback occasion, so I don’t think there’s anything stopping them from making burgundy/gold the main home uni.

      • Geeman | September 13, 2010 at 11:29 am |

        It looks good, but a lot of us remember when the Redskins used to wear that, and that’s one reason we like it, whereas many fans who came of age during their Super Bowl championship era think of their traditional uniform as white and burgundy and probably prefer that.

        In any case, they should not wear white at home just because the Cowboys prefer to wear white. What the Cowboys, or any other teams, prefer should be of no consequence.

  • Ranagan | September 13, 2010 at 9:55 am |

    Very much fun to watch the Skins win while wearing the golds. Couldn’t even remember what color they used to wear!

    Here’s the Lions’ tail ‘bridging the vent’ http://scores.espn.g...

    • Paul Lukas | September 13, 2010 at 10:01 am |

      Ah, excellent find on the Lions helmet. I’ll add that to the main text now.

  • J-Dub | September 13, 2010 at 10:29 am |

    Can’t imagine how
    this managed to escape our scrutiny

  • Flip | September 13, 2010 at 10:33 am |

    Missed most of the football yesterday. The Redskins and Eagles made definite upgrades, but I have to agree with Paul. Those stripes on those Philly cheerleaders are the cat’s meow. http://assets.philad...

    • frankenslade | September 13, 2010 at 2:02 pm |

      I haven’t been so proud to be a Philadelphian since the Phils won the 2008 World Series.

  • Son of Sonny Jergenson's son | September 13, 2010 at 10:38 am |

    I loved the gold pants! This is the traditional look that I remember. Previous comments that white on burgundy is the skins traditional look make me feel old. I guess it’s all prespective. Burgundy pants still feels like a bad 80s idea to me.

  • Dave R | September 13, 2010 at 10:44 am |

    Nice little close to the ticker with Willem. But geez Paul, very bad judgment in using the f-word in describing a youngster.

    • Anthony | September 13, 2010 at 12:13 pm |

      Why? Is Willem reading this post? And are Willem’s parents concerned about him hearing or reading that word?
      “Fuck” is just a word, folks. Yes, it’s considered profane and coarse in our society, but that’s a societal construct, not necessarily the absolute nature of the word.
      If Willem doesn’t know he’s being called “fucking” adorable, and most of us reading the site are adults who can handle hearing the word without tittering or being offended, who cares?

      • Jimwa | September 13, 2010 at 1:27 pm |

        me

      • Jim Vilk | September 13, 2010 at 1:47 pm |

        Gotta side with Dave on this one.

        Technically, it’s “just a word,” but humans are more than technical people. There is a strong connotation with that word that can’t be denied. I normally don’t care what people say on this site, but yeah, that usage made me a little uncomfortable. And it’s a reminder of why I don’t let my boy read this.

        Try using “it’s just a word” as a defense if you use the N-word. Just sayin’…

        • The Jeff | September 13, 2010 at 2:06 pm |

          The episode of Penn & Teller’s Bullshit dealing with profanity should be mandatory viewing for all.

          It is just a word.

        • Jim Vilk | September 13, 2010 at 2:11 pm |

          Again, use the N-word in, say, Compton, and tell me if you still feel that way.

        • LI Phil | September 13, 2010 at 2:25 pm |

          Try using “it’s just a word” as a defense if you use the N-word. Just sayin’…

          im guessing the response in compton would be different than the response in the vilk household

          but jim, baby…apples to oranges

          not supporting or opposing the word “fuck” but clearly one is, however vulgar one may consider it, not a racial epithet

          and im not saying the use of either should be condoned, but there is clearly … CLEARLY … a huge difference between a “curse” word and a racial epithet

        • The Jeff | September 13, 2010 at 2:29 pm |

          Context Jim, context.

          The N-word and the F-word aren’t even in the same league, and you know it. No one shouts the N-word if they hit their thumb with a hammer.

        • Jim Vilk | September 13, 2010 at 2:32 pm |

          More like red apples vs. yellow apples.

          Both are strong words that can get a strong response. Not saying the intent of the words are the same – not at all – but the end result can be.

          Again, it doesn’t bug me, but if it were my son on there and he asked, “Hey, can I read that?” I’d have to decline. Just sayin’ there’s a time and a place for everything.

      • Kevin Hastings | September 13, 2010 at 1:49 pm |

        If Willem was a loyal UniWatch reader, that would be fucking adorable too.

        • Paul Lukas | September 13, 2010 at 4:13 pm |

          Have you all gotten this out of your systems yet?

          Good.

          Now here’s a thought: Maybe — just maybe — I know Willem, his parents, and their sensibilities better than you do.

          And yes, he is fucking adorable.

    • pk | September 13, 2010 at 2:20 pm |

      [sarcasm]…did the spatula say “fuck face” on it?…then I’d understand…[sarcasm]

    • Adam | September 13, 2010 at 7:10 pm |

      Agree 100% Dave. Unnecessary and unprofessional.

      • Paul Lukas | September 13, 2010 at 8:38 pm |

        So true. Because if there’s one thing we all demand when it comes to photos of kids flipping burgers, it’s professionalism.

        • Rob Ullman | September 14, 2010 at 11:30 am |

          Try as we might, my wife and I couldn’t help ourselves from constantly describing our daughter as “so fuckin’ cute” when she was >1 year old. What can I say? We’re vulgarians. Course, now that she’s three, we do try to curb it, so she doesn’t pick it up. Not sure what the lesson is there.

  • Ricardo Leonor | September 13, 2010 at 10:55 am |

    I think if the Redskins wore yellow numbers on the burgundy jersey, when they wore yellow pants, it would be a better look. To me atleast, the white numbers throws it off a little..

    Nice look by the Eagles cheerleaders….but I think Redskin cheerleaders have taken the lead and are now better look than the Cowboys’

    http://behindblondie...

    Too bad the Maras were always to “old school” for cheerleaders……or maybe that’s a good thing….

    • The Jeff | September 13, 2010 at 11:35 am |

      There is a sort of symmetry in having numbers the same color as the pants. It did work well for the Chargers at one point.

      I don’t really have a preference here though, I think it works either way. My main issue with the uniform, should the yellow pants become permanent, is fixing the inconsistencies in the stripe patterns.

    • Kevin Hastings | September 13, 2010 at 12:25 pm |

      “I think if the Redskins wore yellow numbers on the burgundy jersey, when they wore yellow pants, it would be a better look.”

      I think you’d like 1994 throwbacks (honored the ’37 team). Burgundy jerseys with gold numbers and gold pants. I like the solid burgundy helmets too…

      http://www.heritages...

      1937 Team pic

      http://farm4.static....

      • Andy | September 13, 2010 at 4:04 pm |

        If they had gotten the helmets to match the dark maroon jerseys, those 1994 throwbacks would have been great. Maybe slide the sleeve logo up to the helmet and throw some this gold stripes on the sleeves and socks, amybe a maroon stripe on the pants. Money.

  • StLMarty | September 13, 2010 at 10:57 am |

    The gold pants are nice. However, how can a team go with four different stripe patterns?

  • Miles | September 13, 2010 at 11:00 am |

    re: The Visors

    Is it a possible that either the stickers simply fell off or the player is wearing a different visor (ie Prescription). Also was wondering if perhaps WVU still has a deal with Oakley (or another company) as far as eyewear is concerned. Anybody know?

  • Alec Rogers | September 13, 2010 at 11:02 am |

    Nothing wrong re the 1932 Cubs – if you look at the photo, he’s wearing the ALT home uni (Cubs written in script). The standard home uni had a red filled C on the cap, but he ALT uni had the white filled.

  • Evan | September 13, 2010 at 11:04 am |

    As far as the numbers on the Notre Dame jersey, they are actually the same size front and back. I have several of the gamers from last design and the numbers they use now are identical.

    It is odd because most football jerseys use smaller numbers on the front compared with the back and the font proportions are usually slightly different. ND just uses the same size and proportions for the front and back.

    • Will S | September 13, 2010 at 2:21 pm |

      Since ND doesn’t use NOB but there’s still a sizable space where the NOB would be, I think the high ratio of empty space to number makes it seem like the numbers are smaller.

  • Mike Engle | September 13, 2010 at 11:07 am |

    I read the Verducci article before it came out on the Ticker. To me, it doesn’t sound like any special promotion on the Giants’ part. I interpreted it as a “Buster Posey jersey-t-shirt giveaway,” and Posey happens to be #28. From there, I think it’s all Verducci geeking out over numerology.

    • subway | September 13, 2010 at 12:59 pm |

      Thought the same thing. But as a uni number geek, it did make me think of what the most famous 28 in MLB was. Was it Blyleven, Sparky Lyle, or……Anyone else?

      Bueller? Bueller?

      • Jimwa | September 13, 2010 at 1:31 pm |

        I suppose Mitch Williams (as a Cub) probably wouldn’t match up with the others, eh?

      • Jeremy | September 13, 2010 at 2:57 pm |

        if you go by jerseys worn in the crowd at Citizens Bank Park- Jayson Werth’s pretty famous

  • MPowers1634 | September 13, 2010 at 11:10 am |

    Hello, UW. I’ve missed you.

    I’ve been away awhile so I may have missed this…but I noticed that Army is going with a new template this year.

    http://image.cdnl3.x...

    A definite downgrade from what they had been wearing, which their JV squad had been handed down.

    http://graphics.fans...

    • Andy | September 13, 2010 at 4:06 pm |

      I dislike colored sleeves on a football jersey now that there really are no sleeves on a football jersey. Honestly, I don’t know that I ever liked it.

      • NickV | September 14, 2010 at 1:26 am |

        Absolutely right on all counts.

        1.) Army with colored sleeves loos horroble as it is a “modern” colored sleeve look, on a team that was and should always be traditinal. If the Old Gray Line can’t be traditional, then the hell with it….

        2.) For years, Army wore Old Gold and resisted the siren cal to go to the Vegas Gold weak-looking douchebaggery that has proliferated the four corners of the sport-uni universe. Then, Five years ago, the caved in and adopted Vegas Gold. Blech!

        But this is even worse, as Army has the weakest, lightest Vegas Gold I have seen in awhile. It looks even worse with colored sleeves. It look even more worse with vegas Gold numerals over Black jerseys with no trim. And it Loks even more worse because it is Army, the VERY LAST FOOTBALL PROGRAM to EVER DO SUCH A THING!

        3.) In a related move, Hawaii has upgraded to White Pants, both home and way. This is god. This looks pretty good. This is an improvement.

        The World is now a tiny bit better ……

  • Jeremy | September 13, 2010 at 11:12 am |

    Sevilla’s Julien Escude is wearing SQD for his NOB…
    http://www.offthepos...

  • Dave Mac | September 13, 2010 at 11:23 am |

    Redskins should wear that look at home under this regime. Then the white with burgundy pants look on the road.

  • LI Phil | September 13, 2010 at 11:30 am |

    just a question for the readership regarding the return of the gold pants

    show of hands: did any of you who like the burgundy pants actually see the team wearing the burgundy and gold as their main home set, or are your memories only of the gibbs era and later?

    i only ask because many times our earliest impressions of a team’s “look” are formed when we are young and we associate that look with what they “should” be wearing

    sadly, im old enough to remember the washington team wore this beautiful outfit against the dolfish in the super bowl…THAT is their look (to me) and not this one that many of us associate with winning washington football

    not saying either is better…but to me, the burgundy over gold just “looks” more right…that white at home over dark pants is a more recent look — definitely not as “old school” as one might think

    • Ricardo Leonor | September 13, 2010 at 11:40 am |

      It’s interesting that you linked that John Riggins pic, because as I was reading your note I was going to reply that to me, I will always think of the “John Riggins Redskins” as how the team should look.

      Not old enough to really remember them in anything else. I always think of the white over burgundy as their winning look…..

    • jdreyfuss | September 13, 2010 at 12:06 pm |

      That’s probably why I will always think the Indians should wear navy over white with red socks.

    • Dan | September 13, 2010 at 12:24 pm |

      I remember the gold pants with burgundy, and I really hope that’s what they stick with at home. If they wear the white jerseys/burgundy pants on the road, that should satisfy both groups as both of those looks will be represented. I just never liked that we rarely go to see the burgundy jerseys with the white at home scenario.

      Any word on if the gold pants are a permanent change?

    • Son of Sonny Jergenson's son | September 13, 2010 at 12:36 pm |

      I think you’re on to something. There is a similar debate whenever the Pats go to the red throwbacks. Old schoolers love it, while those who’ve grown up with the blue “flying Elvis” don’t like it.

    • Hank | September 13, 2010 at 1:41 pm |

      Agree that the gold pants should be the standard. That’s how I always remembered them from the early 70s.

    • M.Princip | September 13, 2010 at 1:46 pm |

      I have to say, I absolutely love the early 70s Redskins look, and prefer it much more than their Super Bowl winning attire.

      Thought the socks they wore yesterday, and the yellow facemask a nice twist in the overall look.

    • Kevin Hastings | September 13, 2010 at 1:54 pm |

      I was born during the gold pants era but raised in the white trousered Gibbs years. Both have importance to me, but I prefer the gold pants look.

      Skins have a few different looks – I think of those separate eras as equally “them”

    • frankenslade | September 13, 2010 at 2:07 pm |

      Count me in on the “old enough” group that remembers the Jurgenson-Kilmer-George Allen early ’70s teams and unis. I dig the return of the gold pants.

    • Alex Zeese | September 13, 2010 at 2:47 pm |

      I was born in 83, so Gibbs I era. all I know as a skins fan is the 2 strip pants white/burgundy look. But I love the gold pants so much more. I like the traditional 3 strips look too. I wouldn’t mind them switching back and forth between white and gold pants at home, just like in the away uniforms I don’t mind going back and forth between white and burgundy.

      • interlockingtc | September 13, 2010 at 8:48 pm |

        I go as far back as the R helmet…but, honestly, all I can think about with that team is that nickname. I like the George Allen era uniforms, but that name…

        (if this hijacks the thread, sorry, but it’s an honest answer from a long-time uni obsessive)

    • TA | September 13, 2010 at 11:55 pm |

      The first Super Bowl I watched in full was XVII, so I’m right in the era of people used to the white/burgundy look, but I like the gold pants. I did see the Super Bowl VII film at a young age and always liked the burgundy/gold look. The thing that’s harder to get used to is them not being an always white at home team.

      The looks I grew up with aren’t necessarily what I want to see. I grew up watching baseball with powder blues and sansabelts, and those couldn’t go away fast enough for me.

      I still can’t deal with the Patriots’ and Broncos’ big changes from what I grew up watching them wear, though.

  • Ricardo Leonor | September 13, 2010 at 11:31 am |

    Since I know you were all wondering….here’s what tickets to the first game at New Giants..ooops I mean New Meadowlands Stadium looked liked…..but seriously scroll back on some of those pics and see how horribly that new jersey cut ruins such a classic football uni look. I know they say it has some type of function…but to me it just looks bad…

    http://newyork.cbslo...

  • LI Phil | September 13, 2010 at 11:34 am |

    oh…and i think we can all agree they should never…ever…EVER wear this again

    • Geeman | September 13, 2010 at 11:42 am |

      This from the guy who spent all summer putting baseball teams in monochrome? :)

      Anyway — agreed.

    • Ricko | September 13, 2010 at 12:18 pm |

      Different paradigms for different sports.
      That’s pretty much a given, isn’t it.
      For example, contrasting jerseys and pants all over the place in hockey. Not so in basketball.

      —Ricko

      • Geeman | September 13, 2010 at 1:10 pm |

        True. And thank goodness for that in hoops. I just don’t like monochrome in football and baseball, and I guess it’s because few teams had it when I started watching, so the “correct” look was set for me then.

  • Giancarlo | September 13, 2010 at 12:00 pm |

    One of the earliest indications I had a uni-fixation was the day in September 1979 that the Skins took the field wearing white pants. My initial confusion turned to a vague kind of anger… “Where are their gold pants? Did they get held up in the laundry? Don’t they realize that’s not a good look???” It’s funny how 30 years of the Skins wearing the white pants has not made me think of that as their “correct” look.

    • Ricko | September 13, 2010 at 12:20 pm |

      I was gonna say, “C’mon, gang, this current Redskins look has been around since 1979. That’s a helluva long time to say they’ve had it wrong.”

      —Ricko

  • James Craven | September 13, 2010 at 12:11 pm |

    That Sabres logo is in fact the franchise’s 40th Anniversary logo, hence the split “19 – 70″ inside.

  • UmpLou | September 13, 2010 at 12:13 pm |

    Just to get picky, it was a BASEBALL team the Marx Brothers had, as the pic dates from when they were in vaudeville in the late 1910’s/early 1920’s, and softball was still a distant invention.

    Many of the larger vaudeville troupes of the day had ball teams to pass the time in between shows/dates.

  • Dan | September 13, 2010 at 12:32 pm |

    In re: the return of the gold pants, Diesel Hog over on Extremeskins.com has pointed something else out, and provided evidence for it:

    The jerseys were darker:

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

    After:
    http://farm5.static....

    Thoughts?

    • Kevin Hastings | September 13, 2010 at 12:45 pm |

      Could be, could be. Though I’m always confused as to whether the burgundy jerseys are going progressively darker or not. My theory, they’ve always looked darker during night games…

      Day
      http://assets.nydail...

      Night
      http://img.thesun.co...

      • Chance Michaels | September 13, 2010 at 1:12 pm |

        I think you’re right.

        Colors respond differently to lighting conditions. Not to mention live v. on television v. HD v. film stock.

        I’m always very hesitant to draw conclusions about colors from photographs taken under different conditions and with different equipment. Too many variables.

    • Ricko | September 13, 2010 at 1:06 pm |

      Gee, what are the chances it would look darker in a night game, and with the players strongly backlit?

      Hmmm….

      • Dan | September 13, 2010 at 1:36 pm |

        I disagree on them being backlit, but I get your point.

      • Ricko | September 13, 2010 at 3:20 pm |

        Okay, you got me. Shoulda said “top lit”.
        The light source certainly isn’t on the ground in front of them. :)

        —Ricko

  • BrianC | September 13, 2010 at 12:34 pm |

    The NFL (and NHL for that matter) throwbacks show that uniforms without six or seven colors, abstract numbers, secondary logos, tertiary logos, quadrary logos, quaternary logos, quinary logos, word marks, apron strings, random and unnecessary stripes or harlequin patches look much better than 90% of the clown outfits the Reebok marketing department can come up with.

    • Hank | September 13, 2010 at 1:44 pm |

      Right on. From the school of just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

    • Geeman | September 13, 2010 at 1:47 pm |

      Of course. Which is it is it amusing that whenever teams come out with throwbacks and fans gush, teams still create horns-laden garbage for regular wear (college and pro) and keep the throwbacks in the closet except for one or two games a year.

      • Geeman | September 13, 2010 at 1:48 pm |

        Should have been “which is why it is amusing.” Sorry for the fat fingers.

  • Giancarlo | September 13, 2010 at 12:35 pm |

    Phil talks about our “earliest impressions” of a team’s look cementing how we visualize that team forever. But I’ve noticed that often there’s an exception where a given team’s discarded looks from BEFORE our earliest impressions seem OK as well. Had the ’79 Skins come out in their late ’60s Sonny Jurgensen duds or in their early ’60s look with the feather on the crown of the helmet I think I would’ve been fine with that. Even with no memories of seeing those ’60s teams in action (bar the odd NFL Films production). Likewise, in baseball I loved the A’s and Braves modernistic early ’70s unis – the first I remember – but if those teams had continued wearing their late ’60s unis I’m sure I would’ve approved. So I suspect each uni-watcher has his or her own personal timeline with a point on it beyond which most uni updates are questionable at best. I don’t know how this mechanism would work vis-a-vis memories, early impressions etc.

    • Geeman | September 13, 2010 at 1:08 pm |

      When I started watching sports, I liked when teams updated their uniforms, because to me, at that time, uniforms from before my era were “old,” from the black-and-white era, or worse yet my grandfather’s or father’s generations. It’s only as we get more time under our belts that we appreciate classic designs irrespective of our favored eras.

      Hence, those 1977 Pirates looked great to me and the 1971 Pirates did not, whereas now it would be just the reverse (the gold jersey excepted, as I have always loved that one). Only in recent years have I developed a love for Alabama’s football uniforms — too boring, I thought for years — but now it’s among my favorites and a thing of beauty.

      So I understand how kids like the jazzed-up new unis, but they’ll soon grow out of that bubble-gum phase, I think.

      • LarryB | September 13, 2010 at 8:00 pm |

        I would not say I love Alabama uniforms but they are crisp and clean. Some may like Penn State’s but I do not care for them especially the all whites. White to me is not an attractive color.

        The color Alabama has is a nice color.

    • Ricardo Leonor | September 13, 2010 at 1:12 pm |

      I guess there really are two ways to look at. Your earliest memories of the team being good..or a uni look that even though was way before your time, just looks great.

      I was not old enough to remember this:

      http://i.cdn.turner....

      My earliest memory and the team being good, was this:

      http://www.boston.co...

      But I immediately fell in love with this:

      http://www.football-...

      And hated this:

      http://static.nfl.co...

      Even though there was a historical precedent:
      http://www.baseball-...

      • Geeman | September 13, 2010 at 1:34 pm |

        I initially didn’t like it when the Giants switched to their current set, but quickly changed my mind and now I love them — BUT those uniforms need to be played by teams on GRASS FIELDS. How else are they going to get old-school muddy?

        • Ricardo Leonor | September 13, 2010 at 2:42 pm |

          I didn’t like the road version when they first changed:

          http://www.layoutloc...

          But I liked the road right away..and even though the current home has a lot of red, I do like it..

      • =bg= | September 13, 2010 at 5:00 pm |

        And hated this:

        http://static.nfl.co

        It looks like Romo hated it, too.

        • =bg= | September 13, 2010 at 5:01 pm |

          well, let’s try that again.

          http://static.nfl.co...

          Watching Nadal @ the Open, so I’m distracted.

  • Jeremy | September 13, 2010 at 12:53 pm |

    Omaha Royals announce 24 finalists for rename the team contest- from Creamer’s twitter feed.
    http://www.planbbran...

    • Chance Michaels | September 13, 2010 at 1:02 pm |

      Glad to see that “Royals” is among the choices.

      But “Omaha Diamond Dogs”? Really? Must be big Bowie fans.

    • Flip | September 13, 2010 at 1:31 pm |

      This was on Minda Haas’ Twitter feed, She has it right. @minda33, Why vote #Royals? Part I: http://mindahaas.net... Lovingly illustrated in Microsoft Paint.

    • jdreyfuss | September 13, 2010 at 1:47 pm |

      I like Cattlemen, but I’ll bet it goes to something stupid, like Prairie Thunder.

    • Komet17 | September 13, 2010 at 10:51 pm |

      What…they didn’t include “Omaha Steaks” as a finalist?

  • Paul | September 13, 2010 at 12:54 pm |

    Those Eagles cheerleader outfits are just begging to be reproduced in a Rob Ullman illo.

    • Flip | September 13, 2010 at 1:32 pm |

      I’ll second that motion.

      • Hank | September 13, 2010 at 1:45 pm |

        Motion carries.

    • jdreyfuss | September 13, 2010 at 1:50 pm |

      I’m pretty sure those outfits are what Rob Ullman would do with the actual jerseys. He takes the jerseys and makes them sexy; he doesn’t take a sexy outfit and make a pinup out of it.

    • Rob Ullman | September 14, 2010 at 11:37 am |

      Actually, you’re kinda all right…I usually go for the long jersey which covers her bottom half, leaving you to ponder what’s going on under there. Socks are dead-on, though.

      Either way…yowza!!

  • Chance Michaels | September 13, 2010 at 12:58 pm |

    Wow, Adam – that’s an amazing catch!

    I’ve asked around some people I know, see if any of us can get an answer from the Packers as to why Jackson was wearing the patch job.

    • Jimwa | September 13, 2010 at 1:37 pm |

      The natural next question is: What number what on there before? My best guess is 27, but I want to see if anyone else sees something different.

      • jdreyfuss | September 13, 2010 at 1:51 pm |

        It definitely started with a 2. I guessed 23, just because that made the most sense as far as how they would make a mistake about that.

        • Jimwa | September 13, 2010 at 2:41 pm |

          23 would make the most sense, though the angle of what appears to be the second number sure makes me think “7” (and would match the style of 7 worn by the Packers).

  • Jeremy | September 13, 2010 at 1:34 pm |

    David Beckham’s (very) tight jersey
    http://www.soccerbyi...

  • Jimwa | September 13, 2010 at 1:44 pm |

    Since this site is about athletic aesthetics, I want to see what others think of Fox’s new Foxbox.

    Personally, I thought that when they moved to the overhead banner is was a great improvement over any other version of permenant scoreboard I’d seen on any network. There was no mental disruption to my view of the field. It was just like another level to the letterbox aspect on my already outdated television. Yesterday I felt like I was trying to “peek around” the box to get the full image.

    I also wasn’t a big fan of the 1980s looking zoom circle used on the early game. Nice idea copying the technology from SportsCenter, but it was presented in manner that made me think an intern just suggested the concept 10 minutes before kickoff and that was the best they could do. Fortunately, Fox didn’t feel the St. Louis/Arizona crowd was ready for such excitement, and that technology wasn’t used during that game (that I saw, at least – they just just the old fashioned telestrator).

    • Giancarlo | September 13, 2010 at 2:54 pm |

      I couldn’t read the scores on Fox, they were too blurry – maybe partly due to my low-def pixelvision throwback-style TV. Until the end of the game I thought the Lions were beating the Bears 14-13, among other misconceptions. Also I take it a dot next to a team’s name indicates they currently have possession, but why does the dot remain there after the game is over? It doesn’t seem to indicate the game-winning team. I felt like Mr. Magoo yesterday…

      • LI Phil | September 13, 2010 at 3:05 pm |

        good point

        i was actually under the misimpression that the lions actually won the game

    • Mark K | September 13, 2010 at 4:21 pm |

      The new Fox Box looked clunky to me. Agree with the possession idicator being too much like a “this team won” indicator.

      Those points aside, it is WAY easier to get caught up on the scores on Fox vs. CBS. On CBS they give a score at the bottom then a bunch of fantasy crap before they go on to the next game.

      They also show the current ball position, down, distance, team, I think, but this apparently requires an advanced degree because I still can’t figure out what the hell’s going on.

  • M.Princip | September 13, 2010 at 1:56 pm |

    One thing that I’ve noticed, and I haven’t seen any mention of this yet. At the back of the helmets, very visible in the Giants game, at the lower neck pads the helmet manufacture names were omnipresent. I believe it’s because it is very difficult to get a decal to adhere to the embossed manufacturer name on the pad? Thus, they abandoned the wordmark decal they usually apply over the Schutt helmets. Just strange to see the Schutt name so often in an NFL game.

  • =bg= | September 13, 2010 at 2:41 pm |

    1) why was the font on the Eagles sleeve different than the chest?

    2) is there a link to the new Fall 2010 Majestic Dugout jacket? The current version has been used for a few years now, and it was discounted on the MLB site and is now MIA. Hence a new design looms, and my BD is in a couple of months. perfect timing.

    3) i cannot even believe how the cowboys lost last night.

    that’s all for now.

    • Jeremy | September 13, 2010 at 3:02 pm |

      the font was correct from the original jerseys- from the comments this morning http://farm5.static....

      • Chance Michaels | September 13, 2010 at 4:03 pm |

        That was fairly common back in the day – even now, teams like the Packers and Bears, which still wear unifom styles dating back to the 1960s, have slightly different fonts for the TV numbers.

    • Ricardo Leonor | September 13, 2010 at 3:56 pm |

      ANY way that the Cowboys lose is GOOD way!!

      • =bg= | September 13, 2010 at 8:00 pm |

        Respectfully DISagree on that.

        • LI Phil | September 13, 2010 at 8:04 pm |

          no no…he’s right

    • Chris from Carver | September 13, 2010 at 4:08 pm |

      New jackets: http://tinyurl.com/2...
      New BP jerseys: http://tinyurl.com/2...

      • =bg= | September 13, 2010 at 4:58 pm |

        Is that the Dugout jacket, the one players wear?

        • Chris from Carver | September 13, 2010 at 6:49 pm |

          I’d imagine because later on in the catalog it shows the current model and there’s a bubble that says “close out item”.

  • Jason Clark | September 13, 2010 at 3:42 pm |

    New Vanderbilt Basketball Unis coming: http://vucommodores....

  • Eric Cash | September 13, 2010 at 4:07 pm |

    The Arkansas Razorbacks got rid of the horrid “Razorbacks” script on the pants that they played with the first game. They replaced it with the generic “swirl-stripe”… but anything looked better than what they had.

    http://www.arkansasr...
    http://www.arkansasr...

  • Lose R | September 13, 2010 at 4:36 pm |

    Looks like Wal*Mart has W/M issues

    http://consumerist.c...

  • Jennifer | September 13, 2010 at 5:13 pm |

    Don’t know if anyone submitted this – but it was interesting to me….It’s from an article about Bears’ QB Bobby Douglass:

    Bears management thought up wilder schemes; they considered making Douglass a tight end (presaging a similar idea which they tried, and failed, with a future QB who also wore #10, Kordell Stewart). They actually considered changing their helmet color to orange, so Douglass could better spot his receivers. That didn’t happen, but it was during Douglass’ tenure at QB when the Bears put the orange “C” within the white “C” that had been the helmet logo before the early 1970’s.

    link: http://chicago.sbnat...

  • pflava | September 13, 2010 at 5:42 pm |

    Regarding the Redskins striping inconsistencies with the addition of the glorious new gold pants, seems to me an easy way to simplify this is… remove the “sleeve” stripes from the jersey altogether. At least that way you’d have only 3 different stripe patterns instead of 4. And I wouldn’t change a thing about the stripes on the helmet, pants or socks.

  • Graf Zeppelin | September 13, 2010 at 6:47 pm |

    Not happy to see the Jets in white tonight, although it is good to see the white over white pants. With any luck, Fat Bastard will eschew the green pants entirely this season.

    • LI Phil | September 13, 2010 at 7:28 pm |

      what’s up with the jets in white?

      it’s obviously not a heat issue…

      /hope you’re right about the green trou, jay

      //they’re still wearing the wrong socks

      • mmwatkin | September 13, 2010 at 9:00 pm |

        Because they want to piss me off by wearing a white jersey and an off white helmet

  • LarryB | September 13, 2010 at 7:46 pm |

    Looks like a pretty good overall Monday rendition here. I just now am able to look over some of the goodies.

    For some reason I have always liked the Redskins color combo, I was not a big fan of the yellowish gold helmet from the early 70’s I think it was. But they have had some cool helmets. The current one less so than the spear and feather on back.

  • The Jeff | September 13, 2010 at 9:10 pm |

    Is this the shortest time between two pro games in one stadium?

    • The Jeff | September 13, 2010 at 9:16 pm |

      Nevermind, I’m not fully awake yet. This is what happens when you work nights and watch one of sunday’s games on monday morning.

    • LI Phil | September 13, 2010 at 9:18 pm |

      im pretty sure the jets/gints have played back to back days before; both of them (if they were sat/sun) would have been day games

      • Graf Zeppelin | September 14, 2010 at 10:42 am |

        They both had home playoff games in the wild-card round in ’85. If memory serves, Giants beat SF on Saturday, Jets lost to NE on Sunday.

  • Kris McInnis | September 13, 2010 at 10:31 pm |

    Haven’t been around in a while, and I am shamelessly shilling, but for all the Auburn folk out there the Sportscrack.com guys have accepted one of my designs for a Cam Newton shirt. It can be found here. It was tweaked a slight bit from my original, bare-bones render, but I’m happy/grateful with what they did. …though it might be weird when I return to campus Saturday for the Clemson game and perhaps seeing someone wearing what I created and when I tell them they don’t believe me. Awkward.

  • LI Phil | September 13, 2010 at 10:32 pm |

    is dustin keller blind?

    • traxel | September 13, 2010 at 10:58 pm |

      Go Chiefs.

      • The Jeff | September 13, 2010 at 11:14 pm |

        Go TIE!

        /hate both teams :D

  • traxel | September 13, 2010 at 11:22 pm |

    Earlier today I typed a nice dissertation that covered the last few days and while attaching links, it all dissa friggin peared. *arrrrrggghhh* Lets try it again.

    MLB Jersey contest: Congrats Brandi and whoever that guy was. First Seahawks, now Mariners. I know who I’m tweaking for the next one. Hass, you need a hug brotha.

    Saturday’s 9-11 post: Glad I was busy.

    5 & 1 & jimvilk: Correcto on that Clemson/Presbo game. I don’t mind either one, but together that makes some nasty soup.

    JTH and Self Promotion: That was some funny schitt. I think I got one of those flyers on my windshield wipers at the church bazaar a coupla Sundays ago. And it was for some muddy grayish green color White Sox submittal. Strange.

    Now for the Skins and Yellow: Don’t get all the love. I really like those throwbacks from several years ago, both the white and burgandy jerseys. But on yesterday’s, I sure as hell didn’t. It just didn’t go with something. Coulda been the helmet, or maybe it was that jersey only looks good with white pants and the double stripe. I always liked that look. Thought it looked clean and sharp. Before the late 70’s change I liked that too, especially with the yellow helmet. Actually the helmet has always looked good. But yesterday was just trying to go yellow panted without thinking of the whole gettup. Yeah, people were tired of the current look. The current look is good though, just been around a while. The yellows need to be tweaked and they would be much much better. Yesterday wasn’t it. Swing again.

    And keep the name forever. Yep.

    • LI Phil | September 14, 2010 at 12:11 am |

      i rescued this from the spam folder?

      i shoulda read it first and just left it there

      good thing this wasn’t musings, because you would have accomplished your life’s work goal of pissing me off

      • traxel | September 14, 2010 at 12:29 am |

        Okay LipHil. Take your YFYS pants and return to mediocrity. Because that is exactly what they are. There was no attempt at making a UNIFORM. A UNIFORM should have a concept. Designed cohesion from top to bottom. Those yellow pants were like a camaro with the front fenders in sanded bondo.

        Oh, and the name stays.

        • LI Phil | September 14, 2010 at 12:41 am |

          those pants are 10,000x better than those stupid fat striped numbers they’ve been trotting out since you were a mere lad…you want to talk about a good lookin’ uni…start with proper pants stripes

          now then, boothill…i agree that the overall warshington uni could be improved…i think we all do…they can start with a new helmet and work down

          and to think i was rooting for teh chiefs tonight…now im pulling for a bolts comeback

  • traxel | September 13, 2010 at 11:32 pm |

    Awaiting moderation? At this time of night?

  • Aaron Newman | September 13, 2010 at 11:57 pm |

    I don’t know if this a coincidence or the start of a trend, but like the Tennessee Vols the Houston Cougars have also replaced the wordmark on their nosebumpers with a school logo.

    2009: http://img.photobuck...

    2010: [IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v72/gocoogs/996517204_118258.jpg[/IMG]

  • Aaron Newman | September 13, 2010 at 11:58 pm |
  • Chris | September 14, 2010 at 1:26 am |

    Has anyone else heard the rumors about the University of Washington wearing black this Saturday vs. Nebraska? It is mentioned in a Huskies blog in the Seattle Times. Here is the link: http://seattletimes....

    It’s about halfway down, first thing mentioned in the “here are some other notes from the radio show”.

  • NickV | September 14, 2010 at 1:56 am |

    REDSKINS….

    Sunday’s Athletic Yellow (athletic)Gold pants over the Burgundy jerseys are an upgrade, and a needed change. The Redskins White over Burgundy “Double Stripe 80’s” pants look is now over 30 years old. The Double Stripe 80s look for pants and sleeves are as dated as the Astros Tequila Sunrise look – it was hot when it was hot, and now it is well past it’s use. Save it for the Throwback games.

    The Redskins should wear Burgundy Pants with their White jerseys because it is a better look with the current jerseys. If they were to wear the George Allen/Kilmer/Larry Brown White jerseys with multi stripes, then the Yellow Gold pants would work. But they won’t, so the “current” Gibbs-era Burgundy pants will look better with the current White jerseys. The association with three Super Bowl wins don’t hurt either.

    If I were running their show, I would keep the Burgundy pants but update the stripes to a yellow Gold/White/Yellow Gold three-stripe look. That would be better. And I would add Gray facemasks.

    Gray facemasks would look better – it would tone down the helmet which already has too much Yellow Gold in it.
    Consider the choices:
    Burgundy facemasks = Too Dark.
    Yellow Gold facemasks = Too Loud.
    White facemasks = Too Weak, inconsistent with uni pants.
    Gray facemasks = Best choice of the four possibilities.

    It would not surprise me to see these choices adopted in the coming years.

    • The Jeff | September 14, 2010 at 2:27 am |

      *scream of rage*

      Why not a nice columbia blue facemask? It’d be almost as dark as gray and it wouldn’t match anything either.

      I do not understand your logic at all. If white doesn’t work because it’s inconsistent – then gray is even worse. At least they actually have white in the numbers and stripe pattern. There ain’t no gray anywhere.

      And no, Phil, it isn’t about being look-at-me or flashy or whatever other things you want to label me with. It’s about consistency and good design. For a single throwback game, gray is perfectly fine because it’s accurate. For a full time uniform change, it’s stupid. A gray facemask on a uniform with no gray is every bit as dumb as a black jersey for a team whose colors are supposedly green & yellow.

  • Adam | September 14, 2010 at 2:37 am |

    I’m confused as to why Louisville’s 9-11 helmet design is considered ‘tacky’ while the helmet design of Air Force is celebrated. The Air Force Academy’s status as a branch of the military does not diminish or disqualify Louisville’s right to pay tribute. Both helmets are subtle yet visible reminders of a day that certainly deserves it. I agree completely that a manufacturer using that tragic day to sell merchandise is terrible, but surely a helmet design does not fall into that category. As far as I know the helmets were not sold for profit; if anything they were the purest form of tribute compared to the hats, shirts, knit caps, etc. I think both schools looked great.

    • jdreyfuss | September 14, 2010 at 7:46 am |

      Because Air Force’s lightning bolt is a simple shape. Superimposing a pattern over a simple design with one color still looks clean. Superimposing a pattern over a complicated design or one that has several colors looks messy and makes the design difficult to make out. It’s visually confusing and thus tacky.

  • hgmercury09 | September 14, 2010 at 9:48 am |

    As a die hard Redskins fan, I am so glad that the gold pants were brought back even though the striping pattern does not match with the current jersey, including the striped socks. The Redskins can get by with this combination this year and hopefully next year they will update the jersey so it combines with the gold pants and the socks.

  • Snyder Daniella | September 16, 2010 at 11:56 pm |

    The SpongeBob Redskins unis sucked.