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

Monday Morning Uni Watch

I think I speak for everyone here when I say nothing says “breast cancer awareness” like focusing attention directly on your crotch. That’s Shawn Abuhoff of Dartmouth two days ago, taking the pink thing to new, uh, heights. I’m sure cancer patients everywhere are breathlessly waiting to learn what color jockstrap he wears. (Major thanks to Tris Wykes for the photo.) For reasons not worth going into here, I’ve had to take down today’s lead photo. Grrrrr.

I didn’t catch any gridiron action over the past two days because I was checking out the foliage in Pennsylvania all weekend, so please forgive the rather abbreviated nature of today’s Monday-morning roundup (I promise to make up for it with something pretty special tomorrow):

• The Steelers wore their throwbacks, but Ben Roethlisberger’s return was marred by a font inconsistency. As you can see, the “7” on the back of his jersey didn’t match the one worn by his teammates (look at the upper-right portion of the numeral).

• Danny Woodhead’s helmet decal was partially covering one of his helmet vents.

• The good news about Notre Dame’s new super-stretchy jerseys is that Dayne Crist is no longer wearing those tiny cap sleeves that left his shoulder pads exposed. The bad news is that he’s joined the armpit brigade. I’ll have more to say about football sleeves in general, and Notre Dame’s QB sleeves in particular, later this week on ESPN. (Meanwhile, did any other thoughts about the super-stretchies?)

• Taylor Stockemer’s NOB appeared to be a bit off-center.

(Big thanks to everyone who contributed observations, photo, and screen shots, including Justin Bates, Aaron McHargue, Jay Laisne,

Uni Watch News Ticker: Someone has created a font of hockey dingbats (big thanks to Mike Hersh). … Whoa, that’s a whole lotta striped shorts. And here are some more in blue and gold. … I did a radio spot with a Buffalo radio station last Thursday evening. You can listen to the archived audio here. … I know some of you really hate initials on NOBs, but maybe you’d make an exception in this case with thanks to Kevin Mueller). … On Friday I mentioned that this photo supposedly showed Jim Thorpe in 1917 but that I had my doubts about that. Now Bruce Menard has informed me that the photo is actually from the the World Tour that the Giants and White Sox took in 1913 and ’14. Here’s Matty wearing the same Giants uni Thorpe was wearing, and here are the Sox in Japan. … And for good measure, Bruce sent me an amazing panoramic shot from the first-ever old-timers’ game, held in 1921 to celebrate the city of Cleveland’s 125th anniversary. … New hoops uniforms for Boise State (with thanks to Aaron Bernstein). … Look at this: uniform thread — literally. … Just what the world needs: camo pants being worn by a high school team. That’s Island Coast High School, out of Naples Florida (as reported by Nick Hanson). … JetBlue is embracing Gang Green (as noted by Matthew Porges). … Several readers have noted that Rangers skipper Ron Washington appears to have swoosh-branded eyeglass frames (screen shot courtesy of Joshua Brisco). … The Penguins have released their third jersey schedule (with thanks to Brian Pettit). … I’d like to think that even those of you who have no problem with Chief Wahoo or other Native American-themed sports imagery might see why this bobblehead was just a wee bit inappropriate (thanks, Brinke). … That rule about goalies not being allowed to be captains apparently doesn’t apply to field hockey. That’s Yale goalie Katie Bolling (with thanks to Tris Wykes). … Erick Yohe came across some old Washington Diplomats photos that he took back on Photo Day in 1979, when he was eight years old. … Check this out: Two team uniforms plus a third team’s center court logo, all in one photo. “It was the second game of a ‘doubleheader’ at the Staples Center on Saturday,” explains Matthew Algeo. “The Lakers played the Nuggets earlier in the day, and they didn’t bother to change the court for the Jazz/Clippers game.” … Who’s that in the massive “El Paso” lettering? It’s actor Kurt Russell, from his minor league days in the 1970s (nice find by Paul Wiederecht). … Also from Paul: That’s one packed jersey front. … Excellent catch by Hans Krake, who noticed Paul Hornung wearing one regular shoe and one square-toed kicking shoe in this 1960 photo. … Here’s a slideshow of the ugliest sneakers of all time (with thanks to Aaron McHargue). … Also from Aaron: “The Home Depot does a free kids workshop each month. September featured a football stand. So for my two-year-old daughter, Lovenia, I used the Home Depot’s official Glidden team colors paint to paint the stand like a Tennessee Titans jersey.” … Two years ago I was blown away by all the tremendous neon signage in Portland. Those signs are now the subject of this excellent photo essay (big thanks to Phil Amaya). … Lots of notable NFL hairdos on display in this slideshow. … Very interesting uni here. That’s the University of Pacific from 1940 (with thanks to Larry Bodnovich). … Vincent Barone recently dug out his old NHL goalie lapel pin collection. “They were given to me as a full set when I was five, in a framed case,” he says. “After staring at them on my shelf for a few years, I wanted to take them to class for show and tell, so I pinned them onto a hilariously unbecoming bucket hat and wore them to school. The hat remained in my closet until recently, when I happened to find it while doing some cleaning. Sadly, a few of the pins are scratched. Even more tragically, the Nordiques pin has vanished, so I am one pin away from a complete set.” … Sad news about Freddy Sez. Dan Cichalski suggests that the Yankees could add one more memorial patch for him, like so. … Here’s the best look yet at Maryland’s new hoops uniforms, along with a black alternate. … The Washington Huskies will go BFBS for their final game of the season, at least according to this Facebook post (with thanks to Brian Terreson).

 

196 comments to Monday Morning Uni Watch

  • Keith | October 18, 2010 at 8:23 am |

    In reference to an entry on Friday, why does the guy on the left have a new head superimposed over the original one? Is it even the same person? So many questions!

    http://farm5.static....

    • LarryB | October 18, 2010 at 5:50 pm |

      Ricko or somebody else explained those type of photos a few weeks ago. I am not good at explaining somebodies explanation though

  • Dick Trickle | October 18, 2010 at 8:36 am |

    Texas A&M’s strechy uni’s had some issues. The Texas A&M lettering on the front was stretched in weird ways for some players.

  • Ricardo Leonor | October 18, 2010 at 8:39 am |

    I hope that they do not have any type of patch for Freddy. Freddy was ours ( the fans ) and he should remain so. I know that he was “sponsored” by Modells eventually…but in the end Freddy was a fan like most of us.

    We will keep him in hearts and will always think of him when we hear a pot banging. I hope tonight they have a short moment of silence and maybe a video montage at the stadium…but nothing more.

  • Ricardo Leonor | October 18, 2010 at 8:41 am |

    So this school is wearing Boise State unis with Seahawk logos?

    http://cmsimg.news-p...

    • Ricardo Leonor | October 18, 2010 at 8:45 am |
      • Jim Vilk | October 18, 2010 at 2:21 pm |

        Hmmm…

        • Dave Bloomquist | October 18, 2010 at 3:29 pm |

          Old Seahawks logo, no less!

    • NickV | October 18, 2010 at 4:58 pm |

      How about the HIDEOUSITY of their opponents’ unis! EGAD!

    • StLMarty | October 18, 2010 at 8:49 pm |

      It’s more like a blue and orange version of Mizzou’s uniform… with the old Seahawks logo.

  • josh's twin | October 18, 2010 at 8:44 am |

    There sure are a lot of johnsons on that field.

    • Terry Proctor | October 18, 2010 at 8:50 am |

      But ya doesn’t has ta call me Johnson!

      • UmpLou | October 18, 2010 at 11:36 am |

        …you can call me Ray….You can call me Jay…..

  • Geeman | October 18, 2010 at 8:44 am |

    Maryland’s school colors are red, white, black, and gold. They were wearing black basketball uniforms in the early 1980s. So, while that particular uniform is ghastly, it’s not BFBS.

    • Paul Lukas | October 18, 2010 at 9:04 am |

      Fair enough. Will adjust text now.

  • BirdForBrains | October 18, 2010 at 8:57 am |

    PINK CAUSES HIM TO PLUNK:

    David Akers started yesterday’s Eagles vs. Falcons game wearing a “breast cancer awareness” pink shoe on his kicking foot. After missing consecutive field goals (a career low for Akers) in the game, he eventually changed back to his regular kicking shoe–with which he successfully nailed a field goal. See 8th and last photos in this gallery:

    http://www.philadelp...

  • Jimwa | October 18, 2010 at 8:59 am |

    Surely its just the lighting, but the logo on Big Ben’s helmet really looks three-dimensional:

    http://farm5.static....

    • Jimwa | October 18, 2010 at 9:00 am |

      Whoops … that’s Wallace’s helmet …

  • Brad | October 18, 2010 at 9:02 am |

    Colts-Redskins was the best-looking game of the NFL season so far.

    • Geeman | October 18, 2010 at 9:19 am |

      It did look good. Someone posted yesterday that if a team can wear gold pants (that is, if it’s in the color scheme), it probably should. It’s a pretty good rule, with exceptions, of course, and in the Redskins’ case they sure look good.

      • The Jeff | October 18, 2010 at 9:56 am |

        It shouldn’t be a rule. If it were to become a rule, you end up with the Chargers, Chiefs, Vikings & Ravens also qualifying as teams that should wear yellow pants. I think we can all agree that it’d be really bad for those last 3, and the Chargers are a bit iffy.

        Chargers: http://img201.images...

        It kinda works… but, meh.

        • Geeman | October 18, 2010 at 10:41 am |

          As I said, it’s a good rule, with exceptions. I’d make the Chargers and Vikings an exception. But I like the look with LSU and Cal. Go figure.

        • The Jeff | October 18, 2010 at 10:56 am |

          Yeah, I just wanted to post that picture.

          All of us have our own ideas about uniform rules, and I’d bet that every single rule we come up with will have multiple exceptions. Humans are like that.

      • Boomer | October 18, 2010 at 12:02 pm |

        And anyone else notice an amazing lack of the color pink in that game? Anyone know why? Other NFL games this weekend still had the pink apocolypse going on…

    • pflava | October 18, 2010 at 12:13 pm |

      I was the one who posted that yesterday -if you can wear gold pants, you probably should. Not a rule, per se…more of a rule of thumb.

  • Terry Proctor | October 18, 2010 at 9:03 am |

    The person that described those striped shorts obviously doesn’t know sh*t from shinola (BTW-Shinola shoe polish was made in Rochester, NY)about athletic wear. When they referred to the cloth as “stain” instead of “satin” on the black shorts I figured it was a typo. But then they did it again on the blue set. It’s S-A-T-I-N, got it?

    And the side inserts aren’t “elastic.” They’re knit material, probably Rayon or Rayon/Cotton. The hip pads could have been used for roller derby, but ALL basketball pants had hip pads in those days.

    Finally, what’s up with Boise State’s b-ball jerseys? I thought the new look was a skin-tight jersey coupled with baggy pantaloons. Oh wait, that’s the reetard/oddydas design template. Boise State wears swooshies. Now I get it.

    • Paul Lukas | October 18, 2010 at 9:13 am |

      Easy, Terry. If we slammed all the eBay sellers who didn’t know what the hell they were selling (and/or who didn’t know how to spell, punctuate, etc.), we’d basically be slamming 80% of eBay. Just enjoy the shorts!

    • Andy | October 18, 2010 at 9:46 am |

      No, I’m pretty sure Nike pioneered the tight jersey/huge shorts look in college basketball. ‘Reetard’ doesn’t really make basketball uniforms, and ‘the uniforms from ‘oddydas’ have the more traditional cut.

      • Terry Proctor | October 18, 2010 at 9:59 am |

        Whatever. All basketball uniforms look like crap nowadays, no matter who makes them.

        • Geeman | October 18, 2010 at 10:41 am |

          No doubt, sir.

    • Bernard | October 18, 2010 at 1:08 pm |

      Also, the term “reetard” should be removed from your message board vocabulary posthaste. I think you’re probably better than that.

      • Terry Proctor | October 18, 2010 at 2:04 pm |

        Is “reetread” better? I don’t mean to denegrate anyone, but Reebok, nike, adidas, et al are ruining sports uniforms. I’m in my 44th year of selling uniforms and frankly I can’t stand what’s been done to uniforms. My less-than-flattering usage of the names of the above-mentiond mega-companies is purely out of my disgust with their uniform designs and how they have caused havoc in an industry that I love.

        • Bernard | October 18, 2010 at 2:27 pm |

          Yes Terry, “reetread” is better.

          I don’t doubt your passion or enthusiasm for uniforms, and I applaud your 40+ years of experience in the industry. But the term “retard”, or even “reetard”, can be offensive to people with special needs or disabilities, and/or their friends and loved ones.

          “reetread”, “reeject”, “reediculous”, “reepulsive”… I think you have options.

        • Geeman | October 18, 2010 at 3:59 pm |

          Terry, what teams in football and baseball would you rate as the best uniforms right now?

          And could you give us your two cents on colored football pants vs. white? (See discussion below.)

        • Jim Vilk | October 18, 2010 at 7:24 pm |

          I’d like to see a Terry Proctor 5&1 list sometime. How ’bout it?

        • StLMarty | October 18, 2010 at 8:54 pm |

          Now that the term “mentally retarded” is no longer used as a diagnosis, perhaps it will become socially acceptable to dis people with such a word.

  • Jet | October 18, 2010 at 9:12 am |

    That color pic of 1940 football guys:
    http://lh3.ggpht.com...
    …could they have picked a worse color for the pants? I daresay that from a distance it would appear the team is running around the field wearing only shirts…

    -Jet

    • Andy | October 18, 2010 at 9:47 am |

      All football pants were some shade of khaki at one point.

      • The Jeff | October 18, 2010 at 10:03 am |

        True… but hadn’t that point had come and gone by 1940? That shot honestly looks more like the mid 1920’s to me. The Detroit Lions were wearing silver in 1933, there’s no reason that I’m aware of for a team to still be forced to use khaki pants by the 40’s.

        • Ricko | October 18, 2010 at 11:32 am |

          Budget sometimes kinda did force them. Colors such as white and silver most often still were “special order” during that era…which meant they cost more. Many, many schools opted not to spend the money, going with “off the rack” standard khakis.

          College football (or ANY football, for that matter) hasn’t always taken in the kind of money it does today. Was a whole different world before television.

          —Ricko

    • Ricko | October 18, 2010 at 11:11 am |

      Photo’s a tad overexposed, which makes all the colors look brighter than they actually were. The pants are quite likely the typical khaki color of the day…or perhaps among the early “special order” metallic gold.

      Whatever they were, they weren’t that light on the Color Value scale. Not in reality.

      —Ricko

      • timmy b | October 18, 2010 at 1:27 pm |

        That swell young lass looks pretty good no matter what era!

        • LarryB | October 18, 2010 at 5:43 pm |

          And look she seems to have some kind of orange and black pom pom. So that is orange.

      • LarryB | October 18, 2010 at 5:47 pm |

        I just messed around with saturation of that picture and warmifying it too. You can get sort of different looks but the jersey does not end up bright orange at all. Barely a tinge of orange. But then the gals outfit gets super blue.

    • Terry Proctor | October 18, 2010 at 3:35 pm |

      And aren’t University of the Pacific’s colors Orange & Black and their nickname is “Tigers”? U of P is known as “The Princeton of the West.”

      If that color in the photo is Orange it looks pretty faded.

      • LarryB | October 18, 2010 at 4:45 pm |

        I wondered that too. But I do know that many teams over the years wore colors that you would not guess would be for their college.

        Michigan State wore gold and black for a while in the 30’s
        Indiana wore black often. Even in b&w pics you can tell some teams wore colors that were not school colors. Even UCLA had dark blue for a while. The picture is from 1940. Color film for pictures and film such as movies and even college highlights were more in color around 1939 and 40 then the rest of the decade. Possibly WW2 influenced that.

        • LarryB | October 18, 2010 at 5:36 pm |

          Here is a b&w picture of the University of Pacific team with Amos Alonzo Stagg as coach

          http://lh5.ggpht.com...

      • NickV | October 18, 2010 at 5:06 pm |

        Could the picture be colorized? Maybe that accounts for the color mismatch?

        Also, I believe that in 1940 the College of Pacific was coached by Amoss Alonze Stagg – after his unceremonious dumping by the University of Chicago. That may account for the “friction strip” side panels on those 1940 Pacific jerseys, as “friction strip” panels had essentially dissapperared by 1940. As I understand it, Stagg was an early proponent if not inventor of “friction strips” (They were rubberized additions to the jerseys that were thought to assist ball carriers in preventing fumbles after hard hits), so that may account for a 1940 team wearing them.

        That, or a VERY tight budget.

  • Schmeltzer | October 18, 2010 at 9:14 am |

    I was enjoying the fall colors in my home town of Marquette, MI and stopped in to Superior View, a store full of historic photos.

    I came across this amazing baseball photo from 1904. Introducing the Red Jacket Fat Men’s Base Ball Team.
    http://www.flickr.co...

    I didn’t buy it, but I had to take a pic of it for you all. But then just now, I noticed that Superior View has a bunch of their photos available online. They are in a small format, but there’s some great stuff. Enjoy!
    http://www.viewsofth...

    • Schmeltzer | October 18, 2010 at 9:16 am |

      Ok, I have to point this one out. I did buy this one in 8×10. This is the little league team from Ontonagon, MI. So many great things happening here:
      http://www.viewsofth...

    • RS Rogers | October 18, 2010 at 1:29 pm |

      Fantastic galleries! Thanks for the link.

    • LarryB | October 18, 2010 at 5:52 pm |

      Great stuff there, Thank you.

      • LarryB | October 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm |

        http://www.viewsofth...

        This was a good one, guy kissing the babe with the ball

        • Schmeltzer | October 19, 2010 at 8:26 am |

          Upon leaving, I saw this one in the window of the store. Hand-written on the bottom of the photo was “Interference”. I almost went back in and bought that one too.

  • Jet | October 18, 2010 at 9:17 am |

    I don’t think it’s possible to be more nattily-attired than the ChiSox in this old pic:
    http://farm5.static....
    The striped hat…the high collar with stripe…striped BELT…high striped socks…and that unusual flag graphic…(the unis are also pinstriped too? Hard to tell from the pic)

    folks, it doesn’t get much better than that.

    -Jet

  • UniFetishGuy | October 18, 2010 at 9:30 am |

    Rbk EDGE epic fail:

    See photo number 22 in this gallery:

    http://flyers.nhl.co...

    • Jet | October 18, 2010 at 11:04 am |

      Good one! I’m wondering how the Pens player lost his helmet
      -Jet

      • StLMarty | October 18, 2010 at 8:57 pm |

        He probably plays in the NFL.

    • mtjaws | October 18, 2010 at 11:13 am |

      Instead of scrolling thru the whole gallery, here is the direct link. (I found it by looking for the actual link on the page source info. Use Control-U to get to that.)

      http://cdn.nhl.com/f...

    • Mike Engle | October 18, 2010 at 3:01 pm |

      Plus the shot of the guy’s head IN BETWEEN THE BACK NUMBERS after a fight…

  • Justin | October 18, 2010 at 9:37 am |

    I think the 7 issue with the Steelers was just a victim of camera angle. http://static.nfl.co...

    The 7 looks the same from this angle

    • Paul Lukas | October 18, 2010 at 9:41 am |

      No — I’m referring to the numerals on the BACK of the jersey only. Not the front.

    • Andy | October 18, 2010 at 9:49 am |

      Yes, the length of the little downward stroke (upper left portion) in the two 7s is different as well. On the back of the jersey only.

      • Andrew Dixon | October 18, 2010 at 12:04 pm |

        I see that, but I think any difference in the angle at which the upper right portion of the “7” is cut is a camera-angle illusion.

  • DRR | October 18, 2010 at 9:47 am |

    Regarding Ron Washington’s glasses, the fact is that if you go into an eyeglass shop you may be hard pressed these days to find many glasses without a logo somewhere. The shop I go to have a lot of Nike glasses and they all have the swoosh somewhere. I am currently wearing glasses that have “Diesel” imprinted on the part that goes behind my ear and my last pair was made buy a company (I forget the name off the top of my head) that put the logo on the nose pads.

    It is another case of logo’s taking over, which is its own issue, but I don’t think that Washington is likely any different that a regular guy who wears glasses made by Nike.

    • Andy | October 18, 2010 at 9:51 am |

      I don’t know who started it, but I think Ray-Ban has been putting their script logo on the temple bars (or the upper corner of the lens for wire frames) for years.

    • Paul Lukas | October 18, 2010 at 9:56 am |

      >>It is another case of logo’s taking over, which is its own issue, but I don’t think that Washington is likely any different that a regular guy who wears glasses made by Nike.>>

      Agreed — and I didn’t suggest otherwise. I wasn’t trying to read anything into it; it’s just interesting.

    • jdreyfuss | October 18, 2010 at 6:17 pm |

      I usually wear contacts, but my glasses have Oakley frames. The O is built into the temples, but it’s the same color as the frame and very subtle. It’s one of the reasons I chose that design. The other is that the glasses have straight temples, since I have a big head.

    • Brian | October 19, 2010 at 12:37 am |

      That’s why I love the glasses I have now. All black, no logos.
      http://sphotos.ak.fb...

  • Andy | October 18, 2010 at 9:58 am |

    Paul. Your bowling shirt special was a hit. You got quip’d by Armin at UnderConsideration. Here is the link.

    • Paul Lukas | October 18, 2010 at 10:10 am |

      Oooh, cool — thanks for letting me know.

  • interlockingtc | October 18, 2010 at 10:06 am |

    Not a fan of the softball top, of course, but the size of the font (and the font itself) look so good to me…

    http://i878.photobuc...

    The Portland neon collection is something to behold. Exquisite.

    I really, really don’t understand the system of dress stuff. Boise State looks ridiculous. If I was a kid or a teen would I love it? I suppose, cause it’s contemporary. But there’s no fluidity in those things, no point of view, no grace, no character. Why bother?

    • Jim Vilk | October 18, 2010 at 2:27 pm |

      Uninspiring was the first word that came to mind for Boise, but I like your description.

  • JTH | October 18, 2010 at 10:32 am |

    Amazing

    …that someone here besides me was watching that game.

  • JTH | October 18, 2010 at 10:51 am |

    I don’t share the opinion that ALL basketball unis look like crap nowadays, but this certainly does look like crap.

    • Aaron | October 18, 2010 at 11:40 am |

      They actually made me cringe. What ever happened to Boise at the top, the number in the middle, and State at the bottom? No need to reinvent the wheel.

      • JTH | October 18, 2010 at 12:54 pm |

        Is this the start of a trend?

        But the Boise State jerseys are even worse. The amount of white space between the wordmark and the collar is ridiculous.

  • Ricko | October 18, 2010 at 11:19 am |

    RE; Today’s lead photo.
    Got enough elements above the front number there, guys?
    Same theory as Manuel Noriega’s dress uniform, apparently.
    http://manuel-norieg...

    —Ricko

  • Ed from Dallas | October 18, 2010 at 11:20 am |

    I see Paul mentioned the other day that the Rangers lost all three games they wore the reds…I guess somebody got the memo!

  • Shane | October 18, 2010 at 11:29 am |

    Thanks Paul/Erick for those Diplomats pics. I’ve been eying a Johan Cruyff throwback on Toffs and those pics pretty much made up my mind.

    • Jim Vilk | October 18, 2010 at 2:29 pm |

      I used to think Dips was a goofy nickname, but I kinda like it. I’d wear those unis, too.

  • Ricko | October 18, 2010 at 11:39 am |

    LET”S TAKE A LITTLE SURVEY….

    I mentioned in a comment higher up that college football hasn’t always taken in the kind of money it takes in today.

    And it occurred to me that well into the 1980s, the stadia for most college teams did not have lights. Places like LSU were far, far more the exception than that rule (also one of the reasons the NFL opted to play in baseball parks…they had lights).

    So here’s the question (and I ask because I honestly don’t know)…

    How many of the, say, BCS schools have lights at their home field, and how many still rely on the networks to bring them in?

    What’s the status at Michigan, or Notre Dame, or Ohio State, or USC, or Oregon…and plenty of others? How many of those stadia have lighting installed? Hell, I dont’ even know if the new Minnesota stadium has lights.

    —Ricko

    • JGoodrich | October 18, 2010 at 12:10 pm |

      ND added lights when the stadium was expanded in 1997, but there haven’t been any night games there for several years. The lights are still frequently needed, though, as all of the games now start at 2:30 or 3:30 and run way too long.

    • David | October 18, 2010 at 12:15 pm |

      West Virginia University has lights, and I’m pretty sure they were installed when the stadium opened in 1980.

    • JTH | October 18, 2010 at 12:42 pm |

      I’m pretty sure Memorial Stadium in Bloomington didn’t have lights until like 1988. And I don’t think those were “night game” lights but rather were put in for late afternoon games and the TV networks would have to bring in supplemental lighting equipment for games that went past sunset.

      I want to say the lighting system was upgraded about 7 years ago.

      Wait. Something about that photo I linked doesn’t look right. THIS is more like it.

      • JTH | October 18, 2010 at 12:44 pm |

        Retrying that second link.

      • Tim | October 18, 2010 at 1:06 pm |

        That first picture is a great view of the OSU game, aka the only game where the rock is filled with people wearing red and white.

        • Aaron | October 18, 2010 at 4:25 pm |

          Ross-Ade (Purdue) has permanent lights, but I’m not sure when they were put in. They have at least one night game a year there.

          Division III, I know, is a little different. Lights are pretty rare there for most sports.

        • zhm5 | October 19, 2010 at 12:23 pm |

          False. Purdue does not have permanent lights.

    • CraigD | October 18, 2010 at 12:42 pm |

      Ohio State does have lighting already installed. They were there since before I went to school there in ’88. They also bring in lights to supplement for night games. The installed lights would never cut it for a true night game, but does the trick for late afternoon games in the fall.

      • Andy | October 18, 2010 at 2:06 pm |

        I just did some searching for info and images, and the consensus I’ve found is that there is no permanent lighting at Ohio Stadium. Temporary lights are brought in for all night games, as you said, but all descriptions I’m finding say there is no permanent lighting system installed.

        Michigan Stadium does not have lights, either. I don’t know if they have ever brought in lights for a night game there, but they will be doing so next year, as their home game with Notre Dame will be played at night.

        • DJ | October 18, 2010 at 3:16 pm |

          Michigan is installing permanent lights in time for the later games of the regular season (which will be afternoon starts). As stated above, their first scheduled nighttime start will be against Notre Dame next season.

    • Tim | October 18, 2010 at 12:59 pm |

      Northwestern still imports light for night games (they do have minimal lighting for afternoon games late in the season)

      This is why even though they held the first ever night game in 1935, they have only had 11 since including 9 days ago against Purdue.

    • Geeman | October 18, 2010 at 1:15 pm |

      Wake Forest has always had lights. UNC did not have permanent lights until the later 1980s, I think, because of a rule that nothing could be taller than the trees surrounding the stadium (a rule since rescinded).

      Question: Does anyone know why football games have lights burning during the day while baseball games do not? Assume all games are on TV for this question.

      • Ricko | October 18, 2010 at 1:31 pm |

        Also it eliminates any potential debate about whether they were turned at a point that gave one team an advantage. If they’re on from the beginning, it’s nature that determines how dark it gets when…not the home team or the game officials.

        —Ricko

      • timmy b | October 18, 2010 at 1:32 pm |

        Beaver Stadium got permanent lights somewhere in the late 80’s.

        While on portable lighting…Forbes Field dint get permanent lighting until – I believe – 1940. Yet, the football Pirates played their first game ever on a Wednesday night against the football Giants at Forbes Field in 1933. I wonder how they sets those babies up for football?

      • jdreyfuss | October 18, 2010 at 6:25 pm |

        It’s to prevent shadows on the field so every team in every game has the same lighting. Baseball is all about uniqueness in the ground rules. Football is about having as uniform a venue as possible.

    • Mark K | October 18, 2010 at 1:39 pm |

      Syracuse has lights.

      • Jeremy | October 18, 2010 at 2:23 pm |

        Tulane and Northern Iowa too

      • UmpLou | October 18, 2010 at 7:53 pm |

        Syracuse better – otherwise it would get awful dark in there :P

        I am pretty sure Army doesn’t have lights – all of their home games at Michie start at 12-12:30

    • Wisch | October 18, 2010 at 2:43 pm |

      I know that they recently put in permanent lighting at Camp Randall, right around 2005.

      http://www.uwbadgers...

    • Brian | October 18, 2010 at 2:49 pm |

      Wow, it never occurred to me that major colleges don’t all have lighted fields. The ones I’ve been to (Martin Stadium at Washington State, Bronco Stadium in Boise, and of course the Kibbie Dome at Idaho) all had permanent lights. It seems like most places would need them for late-afternoon starts in November anyway. I learned something today!

    • jdreyfuss | October 18, 2010 at 6:22 pm |

      It’s not a BCS school, but I believe Rice Stadium was either built with lights in 1950 or added them when the Oilers started playing there in 1965.

      • Komet17 | October 18, 2010 at 10:33 pm |

        Illinois has had lights for at least as long as I’ve lived in Urbana (2001).

    • TA | October 18, 2010 at 11:47 pm |

      Cal installed “permanent” lights for the first time last year. I use quotes because the upcoming massive stadium renovation will bring in a completely new lighting system in time for 2012. They put in the lights last year because there is an athletic training facility being constructed adjacent to the stadium, and that made the space where they put the trucked-in lights no longer accessible.

  • Tim | October 18, 2010 at 12:41 pm |

    I would just like to make a note that six weeks into the season and the Chicago Bears have yet to win a game where they wear their standard uniform.

    Week 1 – home game, road jersey – win
    Week 2 – at Dallas, home jersey – win
    Week 3 – home game, new alternate – win
    Week 4 – at NYG, road jerseys – loss
    Week 5 – at Carolina, home jerseys – win
    Week 6 – home game, home jerseys – loss

    coincidence? Obviously not. Don’t be an idiot.

    • JTH | October 18, 2010 at 12:47 pm |

      Carolina’s debatable, but they definitely were wearing their “standard” uniforms in Dallas.

      • Tim | October 18, 2010 at 12:51 pm |

        By standard, I mean home at home away at away. I guess the word “standard” isn’t the best way of putting it.

        • JTH | October 18, 2010 at 12:57 pm |

          Right. But, unless the Cowboys are wearing their alts, when you go to Dallas, you wear your dark jersey. So white would be nonstandard.

        • Tim | October 18, 2010 at 1:03 pm |

          While it’s Dallas protocol to have the opponent wear dark in Dallas, the Bears specifically note that Blue Tops and White Pants are their home jersey (Blue on Blue being an option shown once, hopefully never to be seen again) and that White Tops and Dark Pants are their roads (White on White being an alternate).

        • JTH | October 18, 2010 at 1:23 pm |

          Crap. I put that last one in the wrong spot. Sorry to duplicate, but…

          The Bears specifically note this? Where? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but if they do, then THEY are wrong since they don’t have the power to designate a road uniform because the choice is out of their hands.

          Also, when was the last time the Bears wore blue jerseys in Dallas? (Have they ever?)

          2004 is the only time I can recall them wearing anything but white and they wore orange throwbacks.

          Also, sadly, the blue-over-blue has been done twice — in 2002 and again in 2006.

        • Tim | October 18, 2010 at 2:10 pm |

          I forgot about the 2002 game! And they noted that they we’re going to be forced to wear their “road whites” as they called them before Dallas and Carolina, it’s just what they call them, you’re taking this a bit too seriously.

        • JTH | October 18, 2010 at 2:54 pm |

          I’m taking this too seriously? Yeah. Your specious claims have really derailed my otherwise good day.

          You clearly have no idea what me taking things too seriously looks like.

          Whatever. I was just pointing out that the Bears pretty much always wear blue jerseys, white pants and blue socks in Dallas and any deviation from that would be nonstandard.

        • Tim | October 18, 2010 at 6:31 pm |

          You know what I meant, you’re just playing a game of semantics and it’s obnoxious.

          They wear blue at home and white on the road and that got flipped around. You can’t argue that point. I was making, what I thought was a nice, simple observation but if really you want to be a dick about it, their alternates are home jerseys from their history so those aren’t an aberration of their uniform policy either making my entire theory null and void.

          Hell, the fact that they’ve worn white at home makes it not out of the ordinary. Now nothing I said has any validity.

          From the last sentence of my original post you could tell I was trying to have fun with it and kid around, and you had to go and suck all the fun out of it. I’m already a Bears fan, isn’t that punishment enough?

          Does it make you feel good to nit pick? You knew what I meant.

          The point was not lost on you.

          You just chose to argue it.

        • JTH | October 18, 2010 at 10:54 pm |

          Ummm…

          Obnoxious? Who’s the one calling the other guy names?

          Are you new here? It makes no difference to me but maybe you aren’t familiar with the typical conversations that take place in the comments. If you were expecting to receive an “LOL” or its equivalent, you’ve come to the wrong place.

          And hey, it could be worse. You could be a Packers or Vikings fan who has to live with the fact that this crap team is in first place and just might stumble its way to the postseason while your team is thinking about tee times.

      • JTH | October 18, 2010 at 1:22 pm |

        The Bears specifically note this? Where? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but if they do, then THEY are wrong since they don’t have the power to designate a road uniform because the choice is out of their hands.

        Also, when was the last time the Bears wore blue jerseys in Dallas? (Have they ever?)

        2004 is the only time I can recall them wearing anything but white and they wore orange throwbacks.

        Also, sadly, the blue-over-blue has been done twice — in 2002 and again in 2006.

    • Gusto44 | October 18, 2010 at 1:12 pm |

      The Bears did wear monochrome once on a Monday night game several years ago, not sure if they ever tried it again.

    • Bernard | October 18, 2010 at 1:16 pm |

      I’ll point out that through five games this season, including two road games, the Steelers have yet to wear their white road jerseys.

  • David | October 18, 2010 at 12:49 pm |

    Regarding the football team with all the Johnsons (no pun intended) (but that is pretty funny) – does anyone know what college that is? It almost looks like Tulsa, but there isn’t enough blue int he uniform.

    Anyone …. ?

    • DenverGregg | October 18, 2010 at 1:10 pm |

      Helmet looks kinda like UC Davis. See: http://www.aggiepack...

      Love the OKC 89ers (“packed”) jersey! Memories of the Denver Bears/Zephyrs decades ago at original Mile High Stadium. Seems like, more often than not, I ended up going to games against the 89ers. They were the Rangers’ AAA affiliate IIRC.

    • JTH | October 18, 2010 at 1:16 pm |

      Is that blue or purple?

      Maybe Western Carolina?

      • Geeman | October 18, 2010 at 1:29 pm |

        It is, indeed. Only Division I football team in the country nicknamed Catamounts. (Vermont has that nickname too but does not have a football team.)

        • NickV | October 18, 2010 at 5:14 pm |

          Vermont does have football again. It is I believe a club team or maybe Div. III. They are working their way back. Pretty good article in NYT last year on it, and I have seen them on other small college schedules.

    • aflfan | October 18, 2010 at 4:12 pm |

      Proving that I have ABSOLUTELY NO LIFE. I just googled Wester Carolina roster and that is Western Carolina. Besides the four Johnson’s in the 90’s they have a #5 – Michael Johnson.

  • Thom | October 18, 2010 at 1:03 pm |

    Danny Woodhead’s head is so small his helmet doesn’t provide enough space for a logo. However, it is NOT true that the Pats got the helmet from a gumball machine!

    • Ricko | October 18, 2010 at 4:00 pm |

      A small guy named Woodhead?

      His father’s name isn’t “Geppetto,” by any chance, is it?

      —Ricko

  • Steve | October 18, 2010 at 1:17 pm |

    Which is worse, Bears monochrome or Skins monochrome?

    • The Jeff | October 18, 2010 at 1:24 pm |

      The Redskins mono is worse, because the Bears have sock stripes. I’m pretty sure the Redskins wore the solid red socks when they did it.

      Personally I don’t see how the Bears going mono-navy is any different in principle from the Colts going mono-white, but what do I know.

      • Geeman | October 18, 2010 at 1:30 pm |

        There’s a big difference, if you’re not blind.

      • JTH | October 18, 2010 at 1:32 pm |

        Yeah, Skins by a mile. Plus the Bears wore their white socks to further avoid the unitard look.

        And it’s different because the Bears in blue over white looks so much better than solid blue whereas the Colts in solid white looks better than white over blue.

      • Ricko | October 18, 2010 at 1:38 pm |

        “Personally I don’t see how the Bears going mono-navy is any different in principle from the Colts going mono-white, but what do I know.”

        Because if you decide your uniform is white helmets and white pants (Colts, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Auburn, et al), it’s the rules of the game that cause you to end up mono white about half the time. There is no other rule regarding uniform color…which makes going mono dark entirely a fashion decision, independent of the rules of the game.

        —Ricko

        • Geeman | October 18, 2010 at 2:00 pm |

          Speaking of Wisconsin — what will it do when its twin, Nebraska, shows up in the league next year?

        • Ricko | October 18, 2010 at 2:08 pm |

          Guess it’ll look like an intrasquad game.
          Y’know, like it was for years when Navy played Notre Dame.
          Or, to some extent, when Arkansas played Oklahoma.

          —Ricko

        • Andy | October 18, 2010 at 2:11 pm |

          What if you’re colors are only blue and white, and you decide that your helmets and your only pair of pants are blue. When you have to wear your blue jersey, you’re going to be required to go all blue. Not necessarily a fashion statement in that situation.

        • Andy | October 18, 2010 at 2:12 pm |

          Whoops. That should be ‘your colors’ rather than ‘you’re colors.’

        • Ricko | October 18, 2010 at 2:18 pm |

          And where exactly are dark pants required in the rules?

        • The Jeff | October 18, 2010 at 2:19 pm |

          At the pro and major college level, it’s a fashion choice either way. Any team wearing all-white has made a choice to not use colored pants.

          In Ricko’s youth, a team may have only had one set of pants due to budget issues. Today… yeah, right. We have teams trotting out black jerseys seemingly at random just because they can… “we only have one set of pants” is a conscious decision.

        • Ricko | October 18, 2010 at 2:37 pm |

          Okay, let’s put it this way. Because of the rules, white mono has been exceedingly common for decades and decades. It isn’t like the look is somehow foreign to the game. It is, in fact, far, far more common than mono dark or white over dark.

          So what I’m trying to say is that pointing a finger at white over white and saying, “Ugly” is to not recognize half a century of football uni history. And it’s just as ludicrous to say teams should wear dark pants with the their white jerseys because it “looks bad” to wear all white. No, it doesn’t. Not in the historical context of the game.

          Of course, that only works if you HAVE a historical reference.
          (That’s my own “old” joke). ;)

          —Ricko

        • Geeman | October 18, 2010 at 2:41 pm |

          Almost without exception the consistently winning teams wear traditional uniforms, and that usually includes one set of pants. There is a good reason many of us think of dark pants as declasse. They generally just don’t look as good. I’m open to other views and there are exceptions — Nebraska looks great in them, for example, probably because they’ve been wearing them and winning in them for years (that tradition thing, you know).

      • RS Rogers | October 18, 2010 at 1:52 pm |

        Personally I don’t see how the Bears going mono-navy is any different in principle from the Colts going mono-white, but what do I know.

        In principle, they’re not different. But in practice, it’s the difference between this and this.

        • The Jeff | October 18, 2010 at 2:06 pm |

          I think I’d trust the guy in blue a lot more than the guy in white.

          I see all-white and all-colored on pretty much equal ground, with the all-white generally only being better because of contrasting socks. What bothers me is seeing a white jersey & pants with a dark helmet, or a mono-colored uniform with a white helmet. Both of those looks usually suck.

        • StLMarty | October 18, 2010 at 9:35 pm |

          “What bothers me is seeing a white jersey & pants with a dark helmet…”

          I got over that in 1991.

  • concealed78 | October 18, 2010 at 1:18 pm |

    Nice, a 1956 Miami Marlins jersey auction, with a great shot of the sleeve patch:

    http://www.americanm...;

  • Derek | October 18, 2010 at 1:46 pm |

    hey paul, you forgot to mention the new carolina blue pants north carolina wore against virginia on saturday!

    • Geeman | October 18, 2010 at 1:57 pm |

      And UVa. in all-orange for the first time in 20-plus years. Yikes.

    • Jim Vilk | October 18, 2010 at 2:34 pm |

      That game ALMOST made the Top 5 Sunday. Very colorful.

  • Bob from Akron | October 18, 2010 at 2:00 pm |

    That NFL hairdo slideshow reminded me of this old NFL commercial

    • Ricko | October 18, 2010 at 2:04 pm |

      Okay, so who can ID the player in the upper right just before Staubach expands to full-screen?

      HIINT: Should be an easier task for NY fans.

      —Ricko

      • Jim Vilk | October 18, 2010 at 2:38 pm |

        Gastineau.

    • Ricko | October 18, 2010 at 3:34 pm |

      David Knight, WR. Wore #82, I believe.

      Part of the last group of receivers Namath threw to. Included guys like Rich Caster and Jerome Barkum.

      —Ricko

      • Bob from Akron | October 18, 2010 at 4:11 pm |

        Here’s a David Knight football card. The card has him wearing #89, but he actually wore #82.

      • Gusto44 | October 18, 2010 at 5:33 pm |

        Wasn’t there a guy named Eddie Bell #7 in that cadre of Jets receivers from the early 70s?

        • Ricko | October 18, 2010 at 10:11 pm |

          Yup. Little guy.

  • Jim Vilk | October 18, 2010 at 2:37 pm |

    Wish the script Maryland was on the Terps’ white and red jerseys as well. Those unis are a lot better than the school’s football unis.

    Speaking of football, if that Pacific uni from the 40s came out today,
    http://lh3.ggpht.com...
    I think it would be appropriately ripped to shreds. Now HER outfit, on the other hand…

    • Geeman | October 18, 2010 at 2:44 pm |

      Hmmn — another example of how certain designs just don’t cut it. See any modern equivalent? Yet, stripes have stood the test of time. Go figure!

    • Andy | October 18, 2010 at 4:52 pm |

      See, I love the look of that Pacific uniform. The problem for modern teams when they wear designs similar to this are when they add outlines to the numbers and piping to the seams and a crazy fooking stripe to the helmet. Or, basically clutter up the uniform with a bunch of unneeded garbage. The color blocked look is fine, as long as that’s about all there is. It’s the bells and whistles that kill it.

    • Eric G. | October 19, 2010 at 12:39 am |

      As a Maryland student, I was in the house when they revealed the black uniforms on Friday, and the place went nuts.

      They’re gorgeous, and I’d love to see that script on more of their unis.

  • Jim Vilk | October 18, 2010 at 2:40 pm |

    On that Home Depot project,
    http://farm5.static....
    is that a carrot where the NFL logo should be?

    • Mike Engle | October 18, 2010 at 3:16 pm |

      That angle, and the lack of scale, made that project look like a table. “Why is your table upside-down, and why are the side panels upside-down too?”
      But now that I’ve had my coffee, I understand that it’s a stand to display a football. OK!

  • Jim Vilk | October 18, 2010 at 2:44 pm |

    The reason the Clippers were playing on the Lakers’ floor is because they were playing in the Lakers’ Staples Center Shootout, a yearly preseason two-day doubleheader.
    http://my.lakers.com...
    Yesterday they played the Nuggets on the same floor:
    http://cache.daylife...

    Never knew about this until yesterday, but this is the 11th year the Lakers have been hosting this.

    • Paul Lee | October 18, 2010 at 3:07 pm |

      You beat me to it. Also, I believe that the Clippers played the first game on both days.

  • Gusto44 | October 18, 2010 at 3:28 pm |

    The Dartmouth photo today reminded of the mid 1970s Illinois helmets, the extra wide striping is a good departure from the usual striping patterns we see on helmets. That Illinois helmet had the logo on the side of the helmet, unlike the Dartmouth player.

  • aflfan | October 18, 2010 at 4:14 pm |

    Looked through the comments and don’t think this has been posted. Rick DiPetro sporting pink pads.

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

  • Carl G | October 18, 2010 at 4:55 pm |

    Just a random thought, but given that the Jets and Giants are looking to sell naming rights to their new stadium, always thought Jetblue would be the perfect company to purchase naming rights. If going to have corporate names on the stadium, at least “Jetblue” for the name of the stadium where the Jets and Giants play would be less offensive and more fitting than any other corporate-named stadiums

    • stirpey | October 18, 2010 at 4:59 pm |

      what about green giant?

      http://www.bettycroc...

      • jdreyfuss | October 18, 2010 at 6:38 pm |

        Jetblue works better. At least for me, it makes me think of Big Blue a lot more than Green Giant makes me think of Gang Green.

        • Jim Vilk | October 18, 2010 at 7:30 pm |

          Why not take money from both of them and call it Jet Blue/Green Giant Stadium?

      • Stirpey | October 18, 2010 at 10:54 pm |

        haha touche sir!

        when he said jetblue, it just made me immediately think of green giant haha! but come to think of it…do any corporate branding’s for stadiums happen to match the occupants of the stadium…accidentally or on purpose?

        i cant think of any.

        • jdreyfuss | October 18, 2010 at 11:00 pm |

          Does Great American Ballpark count?

      • Stirpey | October 18, 2010 at 11:20 pm |

        Yeah, it could. I was thinking more something that referenced the actual team in a way. obviously college stadiums would be out of the question, but “Cowboys Stadium” would work if you wanted to do places with no sponsoring. The fact that I can not think of any probably means they are few and far between!

        • Stirpey | October 18, 2010 at 11:22 pm |

          brewers…miller park

          possibly rockies n coors field, but the team may represent the beer more than the field name relates to the team!

        • Stirpey | October 18, 2010 at 11:29 pm |

          actually, doing a quick wikipedia search on nfl, nba, nhl, and mlb I found that miller park is about it, with coors field a maybe. A lot of ‘homegrown’ companies sponsoring teams, like FedEx and Memphis, Heinz and Pittsburgh, etc. Soo…that’s about it in my book, maybe you could find more.

          It took me as long to search the four major sports as it took the Yanks to go three up and three down in the 9th.

  • Tris Wykes | October 18, 2010 at 5:52 pm |

    I could be mistaken, but best I can remember, Bob Blackman created Dartmouth’s striped football helmet design when he became head coach there, then took the same, general idea to Illinois and Cornell when he became coach at those schools. I dig it.

  • Tim | October 18, 2010 at 6:21 pm |
    • jdreyfuss | October 18, 2010 at 6:39 pm |

      How does that stay on the whole game without dissolving in sweat? Greasepaint?

      • pru | October 18, 2010 at 9:30 pm |

        Rashied Davis doesn’t exert much energy catching passes (nor doing anything else for the Bears), so he can probably keep that without needing a touchup for the entire month.

        • JTH | October 18, 2010 at 10:34 pm |

          Is he even on the offensive depth chart anymore? He’s pretty much strictly been on special teams the last few years. And he’s done a pretty damn good job there. Much better than he ever did at wide receiver, or at DB for that matter, which is where he started out.

  • CanesAlum07 | October 18, 2010 at 7:11 pm |

    Just a point of clarification, if nothing else for the sake of journalistic integrity, as a Naples resident, Island Coast High School is in Fort Myers, Florida. Its not even in the same school district as Naples.

    No big deal, just though you might like to know.

  • S. Bennett | October 18, 2010 at 9:09 pm |

    Maybe I missed this but Rick DiPietro broke out some pink goalie pads for Breast Cancer month.

    http://plixi.com/p/5...

    http://www.flickr.co...

    If only the guy found a new gimmick. Like stopping the puck.

    SB

    • LI Phil | October 18, 2010 at 9:15 pm |

      and you people wonder why i no longer watch hockey

      and DP’s contract only runs to 2031, right?

  • Patrick Butler | October 18, 2010 at 9:51 pm |

    enjoy the website, keep up the splendid work! Oh yeah; & how bout some archival Jets/Titans stuff, if u come across any. Love those early Jets unis…pb

  • jude | October 18, 2010 at 10:23 pm |

    “The Rent Is Too Damn High candidate was absolutely the funniest,” said Phil Hecken, 41, of Mineola.

    – The Daily Politics blog, New York Daily News (9:17 p.m.)

    • LI Phil | October 18, 2010 at 10:25 pm |

      goddam it

      im 44…i told the guy twice

      • LI Phil | October 18, 2010 at 10:34 pm |

        btw…i wore my pink for pink’s sake shirt just for the occasion

        • Jim Vilk | October 18, 2010 at 10:38 pm |

          The heat vision kinda distracts from the pink…

        • Jim Vilk | October 18, 2010 at 10:38 pm |

          Or are those werewolf eyes?

        • Marc from Brooklyn | October 19, 2010 at 12:19 am |

          I thought I was watching an SNL sketch. It must have been impossible to avoid laughing.

      • JTH | October 18, 2010 at 10:39 pm |

        The state of journalism is in the terlet.

        • LI Phil | October 18, 2010 at 10:44 pm |

          i wasn’t even covering this one…i told paul when i got back from the debate, there is no way that makes it into print (or the interwebs) “unless the journalist is an incredibly lazy hack.”

          and those eyes? i think paladino cast an evil spell upon the whole room

  • hoker | October 19, 2010 at 3:52 am |

    Anytime I see a new pic of the old 89ers, it seriously makes my day, maybe even my week. Granted this pic is from well before I was born, almost for certain, but I spent a lot of time at All-Sports Stadium before it was torn down and there’s very little left of the 89ers to be found. Never been a fan of the “RedHawks” name. Wish they’d go back. Thanks to whoever sent that in.

  • alaboy44 | October 19, 2010 at 7:41 am |

    what numnut got all hypersensitive resulting in a PC removal of the lead feature today? That’s too bad, it was funny, and it was something that actually happened , not photoshopped pic – too bad

  • Joe D. | October 19, 2010 at 12:28 pm |

    My first impression of the Notre Dame stretchy jerseys is that they look black. I thought for a second I had accidentally stumbled upon an Army or Purdue game on TV. And this comes after Adidas had introduced new uniforms earlier this season that had a lighter, bluer shade of navy than in previous years. What gives, Adidas?