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

Bills Bring Back Beautiful

New Bills

By Phil Hecken

So, this is what happens when you let the players and the fans design the unis, not some “professional” with a powerful computer and a *vision.*

Ladies and gentlemen, your 2011 Buffalo Bills uniforms.

In one of the oddest uniform unveilings in memory, due to the NFL lockout, no current players were able to model the new digs. But there was plenty of fanfare, with a live band and fireworks accompanying the fashion show, which took place inside Ralph Wilson Stadium yesterday afternoon.

How’d they do?

Well, all the models (military guys) wore number 11 (an obvious reference to the 2011 season, so it was difficult to get a true feel for the uniforms with different numbers. But based on the locker-shots, they look great.

The home jersey is royal blue, with two red and white “shoulder” stripes, and white numbers with a red outline. Both uniforms (home and road) were shown with white pants, containing a blue-red-blue stripe. It’s difficult to make out, but there appear to be both home and road socks — the homes are blue, with two red-white-red stripes, while the roads are blue topped, with a white section featuring two red-blue-red stripes, and white bottoms. No blue pants were shown at the unveiling, although they are rumored to have a set. If you’re confused, take a look at this mockup, which shows the blue pants (and the two sets of socks).

The road jersey is white, with blue numbers outlined in red, with red-blue-red “shoulder” stripes. But take a closer look at the numbers — they have a thin navy line surrounding the red outlines. We’ll get back to that little feature in a second.

The helmet is white, with a gray facemask, and sports the “charging buffalo” and blue-red-blue center stripe that is a throwback to the helmet worn from 1974-1983. In 1974 & 1975 the facemask was gray, according to The Gridiron Uniform Database. The sleeves and socks fairly closely resemble those worn during 1975 through 1980.

Looks great, right? Not so fast — were the fashion show jerseys exactly what the players will be wearing? Turns out, not quite. If you look closely at the jerseys worn by former Bills greats, they appear a bit different than the “11’s”. You see, those jerseys will have a navy outline. Okay. Why?

According to the Bills official website:

The white numbers on the blue jersey and the blue numbers on the white jersey have always been outlined in red and that continues with the current edition, but there is also a thin navy blue outline outside the red outline. The purpose is to make the jersey numbers stand out more prominently on television.

I’m not complaining, but it doesn’t appear that narrow. But why would they trot out (and release photos of) a jersey that their actual team won’t be wearing? And, why no blue pants? I would be very pleased if they never wear the blue pants, but then why are there two different pairs of socks? It just seems to be somewhat disingenuous to have a uniform unveiling where the team doesn’t actually break out the uniforms they’ll be wearing this fall (that is, if there is football this fall).

I love the new uniforms, but maybe that’s because what they wore for the past nine seasons was so bad. Outline or no outline around the numbers, they’re still classic, yet fresh. Just a couple of interesting quirks about these new uniforms. Both the home and the road have a two color collar — a red & blue on the road, and a white and red on the home. Not a big fan, but no real complaint either. But here’s a weird one — the rear of the jersey features the charging buffalo above the NOB. Interesting.

~~~

Obviously, with the success of the past few years’ throwbacks, both the homes and the roads, coupled with the fact that since 2002 the Bills have worn the worst uniform in the NFL, clearly it was time for a change.

But the Bills, who haven’t been known for doing too much right for the past decade or so, went about their uniform upgrade in a smart manner. They took a year and a half and they listened to their fans, seeking their input. “We listened to our fans,” said Bills CEO Russ Brandon. “We have done a lot of research on this is a long process to go through. We just wanted to get back to our storied tradition while we still highlight our brand.” Good for them.

Now, this doesn’t make the Bills new uniforms the best in the league, or even in the top 10 (although I’d say they’re close, in my opinion), but in terms of an upgrade, this is one of the best. Of course, there was nowhere to go but up.

I won’t put these to the “good or stupid” test (that’s Paul’s territory), but if I were to — you could put me down firmly on the side of good. Check back Monday when our fearless leader weighs in with his own thoughts. But for now…the floor is yours. How’d they do?

~~~~~~~~~~

And those Preds?

The Nashville Predators, who kinda-sorta had their new jersey’s leaked on Thursday, had some fans in attendance at the NHL draft last night, confirming what we already knew. Or are they? Someone with more free time than I apparently checked with the Predators, who relayed that those are not what the Preds will wear:

“UPDATE: My contact with the team is saying those aren’t the sweaters, but that could mean many things. These could be preliminary versions to be used at Development Camp, or other prototypes. But it’s telling that the logo and coloring match what was unveiled yesterday, so I’d say it’s likely these are pretty close to what we’ll see this fall.”

So, what’s the deal? Maybe they’re “road testing” the new sweaters much like the Tampa Bay Lightning did with theirs? Letting the fans check them out and then, possibly, making adjustments? Who knows. Paul fairly trashed the sweaters in yesterday’s column, and I have to say, I pretty much agree with everything he had to say.

~~~~~~~~~~

NHL/WINNIPEGWhen you’re a Jet

And in other hockey news, in case you didn’t hear about it yesterday, the Atlanta Thrashers, who confirmed a short while ago they would be moving to Winnipeg, were officially renamed the Winnipeg Jets, taking the name of the former franchise which departed for Phoenix (and became the Coyotes) in 1996. This is yet another interesting development.

The team has not announced logos or uniforms yet, but if I were a betting man, I’d be placing bets on red, white and blue. I doubt they’ll completely copy the former uniforms and logo, but I wouldn’t be too surprised if they are both similar. But about that name…

Certainly “Jets,” or more appropriately, “Winnipeg Jets” has great cache, both in the NHL and in Canada. There had been talk of making sure the team would be named the “Manitoba ______” (whether that be “Moose,” “Jets,” “Falcons” or “Owls,” or something entirely different). Naming the team after the Province, rather than the city, would have been done to generate a greater regional interest. The Manitoba Moose, who will now be leaving so the new Jets can move in, attempted to gain a wider appeal, and were very successful in so doing.

So the renaming of the Thrashers to the Jets, and returning Winnipeg instead of Manitoba, is a situation we haven’t really seen before, at least recently. Franchises move all the time — sometimes keeping their old names, sometimes changing their names — but this is the first time in recent history where a franchise has moved from one city (Winnipeg) to another (Phoenix) and an existing franchise has relocated and appropriated the former franchise’s name. The Cleveland Browns did take over the name and colors of a vacated franchise — but that was a completely different situation, where the colors, name, and records were all retained by the City of Cleveland after a lawsuit with Art Modell. I can’t think of anything in recent memory that approaches what’s happening here. Did the Baltimore Colts in the late 40’s/1953 or Dallas Texans, back in 1952/1960, do something similar? (Both the original Dallas Texans and the original Baltimore Colts had new teams takeover old names at later dates).

Like the Bills new uniforms, I believe the return of the name “Jets” was fan-driven. That’s great. Nothing will get your paying customers on board faster than listening to them. But what of the former Jets franchise, which is still in existence, in the desert? The Thrashers’ franchise, which has absolutely NO connection to the former Jets franchise will now be called by the former franchise’s name. Very strange. Again, this isn’t the same situation as the Browns, but it almost feels like it.

I’m not sure whether I love the idea or hate it. I don’t think anyone wanted the name “Thrashers” (and the complete lack of history, wins and good uniforms) to start up in Winnipeg. But I was pretty certain they’d want to start completely fresh (even if they appropriated the name “Moose” or “Falcons” — both of which have historical precedent in Winnipeg) — but “Jets”? Wow. Didn’t see that one coming. Are we seeing the “future” of franchise location or is this an anomaly?

~~~~~~~~~~

65310853And still MORE hockey uni news

Last evening’s draft produced even MORE uniform surprises…to wit:

* Here’s what the Winnipeg Jets supplied to their draft picks

* The Florida Panthers have a new red third sweater. (Here is another look and one more)…

* The new L.A. Kings uni looks pretty good…

* How ’bout dem Oilers? Sweet! Here’s another look. Kind of a weird collar tho, no?

* Looks like the Isles will have a 40th Anniversary patch…

* It’s amazing how much the Lightning now resemble the Leafs. Seriously…check it oot.

~~~~~~~~~~

Benchies HeaderBenchies

by Rick Pearson

~~~

What’s that old truism about discretion?…

6-25-11 d-fight

And, of course, the full-size.

~~~~~~~~~~

all sport uni tweaksUni Tweaks

We have another new set of tweaks today.

If you have a tweak, change or concept for any sport, send them my way.

Remember, if possible, try to keep your descriptions to ~50 words (give or take) per tweak. You guys have been great at keeping to that, and it’s much appreciated!

And so, lets begin:

~~~

We start with Chris Giorgio, who has a nice new look for the Phightins…

This design goes back to a slenderer script for the Phillies similar to their past and added in light blue accents and darkened the red to more of a cherry red.

Chris Giorgio

~~~

Up next is Rob Saunders, who takes on 3 MLB teams:

Phil,

First, I re-imagined the Cardinal’s roadies. It kills me when teams don’t use the city name on their away jerseys. This fixes that. The more I look at this the more I wonder why St. Louis hasn’t jumped on the idea already.

I did the same with the Tampa Bay. As much as I dislike that stupid little sunburst thing, I figure if the Rays WERE going to put Tampa Bay on their road unis they’d work it in there somehow.

Finally, Arizona’s “D-backs” unis are awful. In my baseball world they’d spell it out.

Rob Saunders

~~~

And last up today is Glenn Simpkins, who also has multiple MLB concepts:

Phil,

In these kits, sock colors can be interpreted as stirrup colors to be paired with white sannies.

Arizona: Should revert to 01-06 home, sans NOB, and go to this for the roadie; a mix of their 01-06 state wordmark, the sleve trim from their 98-06 black alts, an added number below the left front (always looks good paired with a cascade up wordmark). I also made this “what if” with their current scheme, taking the “db” snake head logo and putting it on the left breast.

Colorado: A while back, I submitted this. The idea: “Times” font cap monogram logo is fine, purple and radially arched “Times” jersey lettering are NOT: Here are the perfections of the idea: Home and Road. Replaced times with classic block letters and Rox purple with pine green.

Padres: The best way to revive the old: Take a cap with the 1969-73 colors and the monogram from 1985 to 2003, add to that a crisp white jersey featuring the 1978 lettering and numbering (sans that on the front), trim it in brown and yellow and you get this nice home jersey.

Giants: inspired by these 1993 baseball cards I had depicting ca. 1942 throwbacks the Giants had apparently worn in the ’92 season, I put together these that would be a better fit with those chagrining-to-UniWatch “MLB Stars and Stripes” days, provided that, as noted, they use a blue cap and the blue in the uni matches the cap.

Thanks for reading, I’ve many more tweaks to share, but they need polished before sharing.

Glenn

~~~

Great stuff lads. Back with more tomorrow.

~~~~~~~~~~

And now, a message from Phil & Paul

We are both prouder to be New York State residents this morning than we were yesterday morning. Kudos to the State Legislature for finally doing the right thing.

~~~~~~~~~~

That’s all for today folks. What a wild & crazy week this has been (on a number of fronts). Everyone have a great Saturday.

~~~

“The new Preds’ jersey looks more like a soccer uni for some reason. Navy blue would work much better for a home kit, without all of that ridiculous piping of course, and the city name written like a Wikipedia ‘citation needed’ superscript.” — ‘Capital Z’

 

168 comments to Bills Bring Back Beautiful

  • Simply Moono | June 25, 2011 at 7:33 am |

    I think the socks have those half-tops to give the illusion of players wearing their pants below their knees. It would make sense if they switched the designation of the socks. This way, the stripes match those on the jerseys.

  • The Jeff | June 25, 2011 at 7:38 am |

    …and now, what you’ve all been waiting for…

    The Jeff’s take on the Bills new uniforms:

    I give them a solid C+. At a glance it looks pretty good, but they seem to have done too many little things wrong.

    Yes, they’re better than what they’ve been using, but what wouldn’t be? In typical Buffalo fashion, I think they got close, but ended up missing wide right.

    The good:
    – bringing back the royal blue – There’s far too much navy in sports. It’s refreshing to see someone going away from it.
    – the overall design – it’s a much less cluttered look than the previous version. There’s nothing blatantly out of place (like the old royal blue numbers were on the old ones) or horribly mismatched.

    The not so good:
    – gray facemasks. Retro for retro sake. The new uniforms are based heavily on what they used from ’74 to ’83. That’s 2 seasons of gray masks, the rest in blue. If there’s an “iconic” or “classic” white charging buffalo helmet, it has a blue facemask
    – navy trim. Why? Like Ricko argues for another team: why would you continue to use a color that you know the fans don’t like? On top of that, it’s so damn thin that’s almost invisible anyway. So… it’s stupid on 2 levels. If you’re going to have a trim color, shouldn’t it be visible?
    – the sleeve stripe placement. I think those sleeve stripes almost do a better job of being shoulder loops than the teams that actually are supposed to have shoulder loops. I’d be tempted to call it a plus if these were Colts jerseys.

    The Meh:
    – the apparent lack of blue pants. Yes, the solid white looks good enough, but if the uniform is supposed to be historically inspired, I don’t know how you can ignore those.
    – white helmets. Maybe it’s just me, but aren’t there enough white helmets already? With this change, we now have 7 teams using white helmets. That’s nearly 1/4th of the league. Ok, so it doesn’t look bad, but it doesn’t stand out either.

    Personally I think if they were going to revert back to a previous look (with or without the pointless navy trim) they should have went with the early 90’s uniforms instead.

    (I’m also really hoping that Madden keeps the blue pants as an option even if the team doesn’t wear them. If we can have yellow Packers jerseys, we can have blue Bills pants)

  • Paul Barrett | June 25, 2011 at 7:41 am |

    Montreal Expos to Washington Nationals in 2005?

    • FormerDirtDart | June 25, 2011 at 9:28 am |

      I was thinking the same thing.
      Hell, the whole new team taking old team name is a Washington tradition.(Senators)

    • Tank | June 25, 2011 at 9:39 am |

      This was the first that came to my mind. It’s a little different, because the original Nationals had morphed into the Senators, but it certainly “approaches” the Jets/Coyotes/Thrashers/Jets situation.

      Another I’ll add is the St. Louis Browns becoming the latest incarnation of the Baltimore Orioles.

    • NinerEd | June 25, 2011 at 12:41 pm |

      Also, the Milwaukee Brewers:

      – Original Brewers (1901) > St. Louis Browns (1902)
      – Seattle Pilots (1969) > Brewers (1970)

    • Walking E | June 25, 2011 at 2:25 pm |

      What about the Washington Senators? The original Senators moved to Minnesota and became the Twins. Then, a second Washington Senators expansion team was created (though they eventually moved to Texas). Still, it’s a case where the original team name was retained even though the old team still existed, albeit as the Minnesota Twins at that point.

  • Paul | June 25, 2011 at 7:42 am |

    The Rockies tweaks make them look just like the Marlins uniforms. In the case of the Rockies, I don’t think the purple is the problem, I think it is the black and silver. Why not have a simple white and purple color scheme? A purple hat with a nice, block, white “C” would look great. Sort of like the U. of California baseball team’s hats, but in purpe and white. Maybe I need to do some tweaking…

    • Keith S | June 25, 2011 at 10:11 pm |

      The Rockies chose purple for a specific reason (Purple mountain majesty).

      I am a Denver resident and Rockies fan, and I have always liked the team colors. I see so many people suggesting a change in color. Just makes no sense to me.

      I’ve always thought the logo needed to be simplified, and a “C” on the hat would be a nice change.

      • Corey | June 26, 2011 at 5:07 pm |

        The owner of the site doesn’t like purple (as a personal preference). So people think that they’re more likely to get published if they change things away from purple.

  • Bobby Fenton | June 25, 2011 at 7:54 am |

    Reports have actually hinted at Winnipeg going with a different logo and colors to go with the name Jets. Also, I don’t think Winnipeg going right back to the name “Jets” is odd in the least. To me, a franchise is defined by its city, to me. The city makes it. I don’t think of the hockey team in Phoenix as “the old Jets”. It’s just Phoenix’s hockey team, almost like an expansion team without having an expansion draft. And now that Atlanta is gone, Winnipeg goes right back to having their team, which was and is the Jets.

    It still bugs me that when the Oilers left Houston, Tennessee kind oif kept the color scheme, and then when Houston got a team back we were left with the generic Texans. I wish Tennessee had just done their own thing, and then that Houston had gone back to the Oilers with those sharp as all hell uni’s.

    • The Jeff | June 25, 2011 at 8:47 am |

      Yeah but it makes the history look all convoluted. Imagine if, instead of moving to Tennessee, the Oilers had moved to Cleveland and took the Browns name. You don’t think that’d be kinda messed up?

      • Gusto44 | June 25, 2011 at 9:06 am |

        It is a strange situation to be sure, but I have to agree with Bobby. A franchise is defined by its city, very well said. Memories and accomplishments are always linked to where they took place, and the moment the original Jets left Winnipeg and became the Phoenix Coyotes, that automatically changed the identity of that franchise. What makes this situation easier and somewhat unique is the nondescript nature of the old Atlanta Thrashers, and the soon to be relocated Phoenix Coyotes. That is a big difference than say, the Oilers moving to Cleveland and taking the Browns name. In a perfect world, teams would leave the history and logo behind frequently.

        Let’s look at this situation from both the Winnipeg and Atlanta perspectives for a moment. I seriously doubt any rabid Winnipeg fan really cares at all where the new team came, and the moment they skate with the new Jets jerseys, it will seem like the mid 90s again. If you’re a Thrashers
        fan, there is sadness to be sure, but that area has now failed twice in modern NHL history to support a franchise. In the future, the Thrashers are destined to be regarded like the Kansas City Scouts.

        • Alec | June 25, 2011 at 9:21 am |

          The city hasn’t failed twice. The Flames left because Calgary offered a staggering amount of money to get the team. The Flames at the time were a better draw at the Omni than the Hawks were and won a few playoff series against the Rangers.

          This go around the litigation involving the ownership situation meant the team got no promotion and not enough love, so it withered on the vine. The fact that Don Waddell couldn’t really draft didn’t help things either.

          Atlanta still is the worst sorts city in America.

        • Gusto44 | June 25, 2011 at 9:46 am |

          No offense to the city of Atlanta intended. When I say fail, it means the overall support necessary to keep a franchise in town, not just attendance.

        • Bobby Fenton | June 25, 2011 at 10:02 am |

          There is precedent for this too. The NFL records for the Baltimore Ravens extend back only so far as that team has been in Baltimore. Meanwhile, the Browns records encompass all the things that have happened to the “Cleveland Browns” – both the team from before the move as well as the team that picked it back up. There is simply a break in the records where there was no team. I think it works perfectly, though. Cleveland has one football team, the Cleveland Browns, and records reflect this.

        • Jim Hayden | June 25, 2011 at 10:53 am |

          Just as well – can you imagine the Ravens “All Time Leading Rusher” being listed as Jim Brown?

        • The Jeff | June 25, 2011 at 11:20 am |

          Just as well – can you imagine the Ravens “All Time Leading Rusher” being listed as Jim Brown?
          ____

          Why not? Marcus Allen is still the Raiders leading rusher despite never playing in Oakland. Warren Moon is officially listed as the Titans all-time leading passer and he never played a down as a “Titan” or even as part of the “Tennessee Oilers”.

          A player plays for the franchise. Franchise moves, records go with them. Cleveland was given extra special treatment because they whined a lot. Now everyone else wants to consider that crap to be normal.

        • LI Phil | June 25, 2011 at 11:23 am |

          “can you imagine the Ravens “All Time Leading Rusher” being listed as Jim Brown”

          ~~~

          no, i can’t

          but the browns should have retained that name when they moved — becoming the Baltimore Browns…and jim brown would then, rightfully, still be the BROWNS leading rusher

          this is one area where ricko, THE and i are in agreement…probably the only one

        • Lloyd Davis | June 26, 2011 at 1:07 pm |

          @Alec: The Flames lost $1.7 million in 1978-79 and $2.8 million in 1979-80. Those were staggering sums of money in those days, when the value of a heritage team like the Detroit Red Wings was being pegged in the Sporting News at around $16 million.

          Comparing Flames attendance with the NBA Hawks doesn’t illuminate much. You need to place the Flames in the context of the NHL. In that regard, Atlanta (average 10,016) was 19th of 21 teams in 1979-80. Two teams were worse: Colorado and Hartford.

          Colorado (9,787) was two years away from a move to New Jersey. And Hartford (9,833) played their first 22 games in an American Hockey League arena (Springfield, capacity about 7,500) because the roof of the Hartford Civic Center was still being rebuilt after it collapsed in the winter of 1977-78.

          The Whale played to 88 percent capacity, and their average for the 18 games played in Hartford (12,579) would’ve ranked them 12th in the league, ahead of Boston!

          The Flames’ playoff record is also overstated. They never won a playoff series. In fact, in eight years they played 17 games and only won two. They missed in 1973, were swept four straight by Philly in 1974, missed again in ’75. Then the NHL brought in the preliminary round, and they lost every year from 1976 through ’80.

          Playoff success might’ve stimulated the box office. So by any business measure, the Atlanta Flames were a failure as an NHL franchise. It’s a shame, because they had an outstanding front office and players often say they loved playing there.

          I figured the Thrashers were done for once Turner made his deal with TimeWarner. Hell, just about all of the Turner businesses went in the crapper after that sale. But especially the Thrashers. And that leadership void is why Waddell managed to keep his job for so long. (Only thing worse would’ve been if they’d hired a Sutter as coach or GM. Of course, having said that I may have trouble renewing my Canadian passport.)

          There are “non-traditional” NHL markets that will support a winner – look at Tampa Bay. And there are established cities, like Detroit in the ’70s, where you couldn’t give the tickets away. The problem has always been how to maintain interest when the team isn’t winning. And selling every franchise to Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment obviously isn’t an option, even if they do have the money!

  • Eric | June 25, 2011 at 7:56 am |

    If I were an city that wanted to get an NHL franchise, I would seek out the Manitoba Moose. Second time (at least) that they’ve had to move to be replaced by an NHL team. Last time was for the Minnesota Wild.

    • JTH | June 25, 2011 at 8:49 am |

      The Moose have moved to St. John’s — not exactly a prime NHL relocation destination.

      • Alec | June 25, 2011 at 9:27 am |

        It won’t be the St. John’s Moose, they’re a road hazard there. They’ve got a handful of weeks to come up with an entire design; I got a feeling that it’s gonna be uninspired.

        It’d be sweet if they were called the St. John’s Newfies, that way you could recycle the Gorton’s Fisherman.

        • JTH | June 25, 2011 at 9:39 am |

          Newfies? Oh, yeah! Lots of logo fodder there.

        • Teebz | June 25, 2011 at 9:59 am |

          The favored name in St. John’s is “Capitals” which used to be an old AHL team. Apparently, the new owners of the Moose AHL franchise are considering other names, but they are heavily-favoring “Capitals”.

        • Alec | June 25, 2011 at 11:11 am |

          I think Washington might have something to say about the use of Capitals in a hockey environment.

          The only team they had in the A was the baby leafs. it’s been a tough town to keep teams because of travel costs and a limited population base, hopefully the oil money will help make it work.

        • Rob S | June 25, 2011 at 9:05 pm |

          Looks like you can’t link the images directly from Creamer’s… FYI, here’s the Gorton’s-esque logo for those who forgot.

          (Although, technically, the actual Gorton’s fisherman has a bright yellow slicker… but whatever. “We Want Fish Sticks!”)

        • StLMarty | June 25, 2011 at 10:18 pm |

          I’d go with the St. John’s Trevor and Cory’s.

        • NickV | June 26, 2011 at 4:39 am |

          How about the “Newfoundland Newfs” ? A homage to George Plimpton and his fictitious CFL team prior to ging to training camp with the Lions in “Paper Lion” ….

        • Lloyd Davis | June 26, 2011 at 1:30 pm |

          How about the Screech?

          http://www.screechru...

  • Diggerjohn111 | June 25, 2011 at 7:58 am |

    I hear talk that the Jets are going to have gold in their uniforms this time around. gold is a traditional Manitoba colour, i.e the Winnipeg Blue Bombers and the U. of Manitoba Bisons.

    • Teebz | June 25, 2011 at 10:00 am |

      I’ve heard this rumour, but I already know the main colour of the home jersey. And it’s not the traditional blue.

      • nosferatu | June 25, 2011 at 1:52 pm |

        Hmm. A different shade of blue?

        If they’re changing up the colors entirely, I’d guess they’ll go with green and gold. Or maybe that’s just wishful thinking.

    • Alec | June 25, 2011 at 12:10 pm |

      I went to the Predators website and the background would suggest that the Preds are indeed going with mustard as their primary color with the navy as the accent. It also would suggest that the material is going to be similar to the mustard third of a few years back, that modified sand-knit.

    • Lloyd Davis | June 26, 2011 at 1:31 pm |

      Blue and gold feature prominently on the Winnipeg city flag.
      http://upload.wikime...

  • Not Jon | June 25, 2011 at 8:24 am |

    Mets, Nets, Jets and Jets. That’s one rhymer from each of the big 4 leagues.

    :^)

    • -Monty- | June 27, 2011 at 10:25 am |

      And their team tennis entry was the Sets.

      • -Monty- | June 27, 2011 at 10:26 am |

        …meaning New York, back in the ’70’s…

  • Terry Proctor | June 25, 2011 at 8:53 am |

    Living right in the heart of Bills Country the Rochester media often cares more about the Bills and Sabres than they do our own pro teams. And anyone who is not a Buffalo fan around here is always ridiculed for “not supporting OUR local teams.” To which I always reply, “I was rooting for the Browns and Leafs years before either Buffalo team was a gleam in either Ralph Wilson’s or the Knox brothers’ eyes.” All of which means is that I am not now or never will be a Buffalo fan. Period.

    Having said all that I am nonetheless pleased with the Bills’ re-do of their unis. I much prefer the White pants for both sets. To me the White jersey/Royal pants look of the ’70s made the team look too ‘amatuerish.” Plus there’s a certain “elegance” about the all-White look.

    I noticed the darker numeral outline before I read about it in Phil’s descriptions. It’s not something that I would do but I can see where it might make the numbers stand out more on TV. Also the sleeve stripes look good and don’t appear to be truncated. From their angle on the sleeves they could almost pass for a UCLA insert.

    Overall I would rate the Bills’ changes a B+.

    As to the Winnipeg Jets. I’m glad the owners finally listened to their fan base. Often these marketing geniuses come up with the singular kookie-cutsie team names that the fans just hate. You all know the old saying, “You don’t sh*t where you eat.” In other words don’t p o the fans by using a team name that no one likes. The new Jets got it right. Let’s hope they continue to listen to their fan base and keep the Blue, White & Red colors with a tasteful update of the old Jets logo. It’s the right thing to do. You’ve got it right so far. Don’t screw it up now with a horrid uniform, logo or colors. Welcome back, ‘Peg! We’ve missed you!

    • JTH | June 25, 2011 at 9:15 am |

      To me the White jersey/Royal pants look of the ’70s made the team look too ‘amatuerish.” Plus there’s a certain “elegance” about the all-White look.

      I agree. I really dislike the white helmet/white jersey/dark pants look on pretty much any team so I’m pretty happy that the Bills have no blue pants with this set (yet).

      Will the Chargers ever come to their senses and see how much better this looks than this does?

      • Ricko | June 25, 2011 at 9:41 am |

        Obvious by now, isn’t it, that the concept of “elegance” is pretty much lost on most teams. It doesn’t play well in Madden, apparently, and that seems to to be a primary consideration.

        I mean, seriously, isn’t an intriguing question, “Just who exactly was it that gave the final approval to that last Bills hodge podge of a uni, anyway? They catch Ralph on one of less lucid days?”

        I mean, even the team now admits they were ugly.

        • The Jeff | June 25, 2011 at 10:02 am |

          Well who knows what the Bills were thinking, but with San Diego, maybe it’s a deliberate attempt to keep some continuity between uniforms. In a way they did the same thing in the 60’s & 70’s. Switched to yellow pants with the white helmet, then kept the yellow pants when they darkened the blue and changed helmet colors. Then they did it again in the mid 80’s, switching back to white pants for a couple seasons before going to the darker navy & white bolts.

  • eethy | June 25, 2011 at 9:01 am |

    For one year at least until the Nets move to Brooklyn.

  • Taste | June 25, 2011 at 9:07 am |

    Thank goodness design firms create team jerseys! If left to fans and players we’d see the awful designs Uniwatchers and Creamerites litter these posting boards with. Designers create dozens of uni options and the OWNER selects the logo and jerseys/kits. Always been that way always will be that way. Follow the money!

    • Andy | June 25, 2011 at 2:58 pm |

      This is a little on the harsh side as far as what he’s trying to say, but read the first line of the intro:

      “So, this is what happens when you let the players and the fans design the unis, not some “professional” with a powerful computer and a *vision.*”

      When the outcome is a disaster, all the blame is put on Reebok (or Nike, or adidas, or whomever). When the outcome is favorable, however, Reebok gets no credit whatsoever. The team and the fans are the geniuses behind everything. This identity was created by the same people, using the same design process, that all the other Reebok NFL identities were created. Even the ones that are universally hated.

      • Keith S | June 25, 2011 at 10:22 pm |

        When designers (in collaboration with the owners/team management) LISTEN to what the fans say, then great uniforms can be the product.

        And just as the post above says, thank goodness designers DO create the uniforms, given what kind of “concepts” are littered across the internet.

  • Kyle Allebach | June 25, 2011 at 9:08 am |

    I’m gonna miss the Bills red helmet, but I do enjoy the new uniforms. Also, I enjoyed the yellow Pred’s jersey, but sans guitar stripes and piano key collar. I love that shade of yellow on a Jersey.

    However, seeing the Thrashers becoming the Jets isn’t a shock to me. I think it’s the right way of doing thing. Personally, I think the Houston Texans should have become the Oilers again but a certain someone “retired” that name.

    Also, kudos to New York. I’ll just wait twenty years for PA to join the bandwagon.

  • John in KY | June 25, 2011 at 9:21 am |

    I do like the new Bills uniforms; the only thing I would have done differently would be to use a blue facemask. Since these are based on the 1975 (not 1974) through 1983 uniforms a grey facemask was only worn for 1 year of the “2-stripe sleeves” uniforms. Now the helmet with the charging buffalo was only worn for 2 seasons (1974 and 1975) with the grey facemask, but in 1974 the jerseys/pants were the same as 1973 (including the use of red striping with blue feathering on the white jersey instead of the 60s-style blue stripes with red feathering).

    I believe the former Bills players were all wearing the fan/replica jerseys which is hopefully why their jerseys had the much thicker navy outlines. I can see a very thin navy outline on the “11” white jerseys, but I don’t have enough resolution to see if there is the same very thin outline on the “11” blue jerseys. It could just be the outline of the stripe tape, but it appears to me there is a very thin navy outline on the helmet stripes as well.

  • Coleman | June 25, 2011 at 9:21 am |

    About today’s Benchies: I always thought Mick would be the guy who would pull a flying elbow on top of the pile if ever there was a fight. Perhaps the reason for choosing a yellow uniform? I kid, I kid.

    Great job as always Ricko!

    • Ricko | June 25, 2011 at 10:16 am |

      Well, Mick does have to protect his looks, y’know.

      In fact, because he looks so young for his age he once considered have his face dropped.

      Mike volunteered to do it for him.

      • Coleman | June 25, 2011 at 11:21 am |

        Indeed he does. After all, what does a celebrity like Mick have if not his good looks!

  • dutchterp7 | June 25, 2011 at 9:31 am |

    Phil: “The Cleveland Browns did take over the name and colors of a vacated franchise —”

    Similar situation when the original Senators moved to Minnesota and the expansion team (now the Rangers) took the name?

    • Ricko | June 25, 2011 at 9:55 am |

      All depends if the team that has vamoosed surrenders them. They are corporate property; don’t belong to the community by any stretch of the imagination whatsoever. Not even, unless a prior arrangement is in place, to the league (someone said that may have been the case with “Jets” and the NHL).

      Special circumstances in the Twins-Senators name game, too, which most here aren’t old enough to remember, or versed enough in baseball’s legal history to ponder. Baseball was scared shitless they’d piss off congress, and maybe get their anti-trust status re-examined, if baseball deserted Washington. Hence, Griffith willingly left the name, et al, behind…so that the immediately granted “Senators” franchise and MLB would continue in D.C. without missing a beat. Keeping “Senators” was first and foremost about placating Congress. Everything else was way, way down on the list.

      • Ricko | June 25, 2011 at 10:12 am |

        Not that it was any particular largesse on Griffith’s part. “Senators” likely wasn’t going to get used in Minnesota, anyway.

        Hard to explain, but it was like there was never a doubt by anyone that the new team in town was gonna be called anything but the “Twins”.

        The issue for discussion was what the geographic name would be. “Minneapolis” alone slighted St. Paul. “Minneapolis-St. Paul” was too long. “Bloomington?” Oh, yeah, THAT was gonna happen. And “Twin Cities Twins” was just too damned cute. “Minnesota” worked best, almost by happenstance, but it certainly served them well on virtually every level. At it made sense. Not like California Angels, which was SUCH a contrivance.

        • Ricko | June 25, 2011 at 10:30 am |

          One more bit of quirky history about 1961.

          Prior to that season, the wire services agreed that for the first half of the season they would dateline their stories, “MINNEAPOLIS-ST.PAUL–“. For the second half, would be “ST. PAUL-MINNEAPOLIS–“.

          Most of the time in the years that followed, though, it became, “BLOOMINGTON, MM–”

          Which leads to a great trivia question: Name the two northernmost cities to a host a World Series.

          Bloomington (’65) and Minneapolis (’87 and ’91).

          A couple degrees farther north than Toronto (saving anyone a map check)

      • Gusto44 | June 25, 2011 at 11:26 am |

        Couldn’t agree more in the general sense that sports franchises are corporate property, like a department store.

        Of course, the unique difference is the fact department stores don’t have the same attachment to the community that sports franchises have. So while a piece of paper may accurately say the franchise belongs to the team owner, the memories and bond accrued during the time played in that city, certainly does belong to those fans. You won’t find t-shirts in Houston promoting the Target stores in that area.

        It’s this special bond which allowed the building of stadiums, and the preventing, in some cases of that franchise leaving. Had the Twins been like the Atlanta Thrashers, with no tradition, it’s very likely that franchise would have been relocated by now.

    • LI Phil | June 25, 2011 at 10:28 am |

      Similar situation when the original Senators moved to Minnesota and the expansion team (now the Rangers) took the name?

      ~~~

      no.

      the team that moved into warshington was an expansion franchise, not a team relocating to the capital from another city, like the thrashers are doing now

      fair point about the “name” being left behind, but different in that the “new” senators were an expansion team, not an existing team

      as far as the expos becoming the natinals….i’d say that’s more similar (more similar?) except that the washington team had been known as the senators, not the nationals, at least formally…and even when that washington team was known as the nationals, it had been decades prior…

      as far as the baltimore orioles — yup, i guess that would work (browns [existing] moving and taking the name of a former franchise); the milwaukee brewers did take the name of a former major league club as well (having moved from seattle after one ill-fated year)

      ~~~

      not saying the jets situation is unprecedented…just saying it’s rare and almost unique

      • Joseph Gerard | June 25, 2011 at 10:53 am |

        Some of the early baseball teams later reused nicknames, like White Sox, Red Sox, Orioles, Brewers, Browns, etc…

        Also, don’t forget the Ottawa Senators.

        • RDVA | June 25, 2011 at 4:49 pm |

          When the AL formed in 1901, several teams took on former names of NL clubs from the same cities, as Joseph mentioned: the Cardinals had previously been the Browns, the current Cubs had been the White Stockings, the current Braves had been the Red Stockings (although the Sox didn’t adopt that name until 1908), and the Orioles had been an NL team. Not sure if this would technically be different since the two leagues weren’t part of the same entity at the time. Also, the Nationals was the Washington AL club’s official name for much of its history.

  • JTH | June 25, 2011 at 9:35 am |

    I believe that this is actually the Panthers’ new primary home sweater, not the new third.

    • Alec | June 25, 2011 at 9:42 am |

      No hem stripes still? -1

      • nosferatu | June 25, 2011 at 1:57 pm |

        Meh. I’ve never really loved the logo or color scheme, and these uniforms don’t inspire much excitement. I like hem stripes usually, so that’s a negative. And here we go with more cut-off half stripes on the sleeves. Never a good look.

  • JamesBN3 | June 25, 2011 at 9:53 am |

    An existing franchise relocating and and adopting the name of a team that has since moved on? It’s happened a couple of time in MLB. 2 of the original AL teams in 1901 were the Baltimore Orioles and the Milwaukee Brewers.

    After the 1902 season, the Orioles relocated toNew York, where they ultimately became known as the Yankees.

    Following the 1901 season, the Brewers became the St. Louis Browns. They remained in St Louis for the next 51 years, before moving to Baltimore where they revived the Oriole name.

    The Milwaukee Brewers name returned to MLB when the expansion Seattle Pilots moved to beer and cheese country after their one and only season (1969) in the Pacific Northwest.

    • Gusto44 | June 25, 2011 at 11:14 am |

      Good research, and I think the lack of significance of those
      relocated franchises help pave the way for a smooth transition. The St. Louis Browns were second fiddle in their own city with very little success, and the Seattle Pilots were a forgettable team.

  • johnj | June 25, 2011 at 9:58 am |

    WOW, well i cant be the only one who THOUGHT they picked up on a photoshop faux pas in this picture:

    http://farm6.static....

    anybody else?

    Now im going to assume this is an injured soldier (God bless him), but his stance still has me suspicious

    • johnj | June 25, 2011 at 9:59 am |

      ahh yes, upon further inspection, I believe I see a prosthetic

  • Mike Engle | June 25, 2011 at 9:59 am |

    Thoughts on the new NHL sweaters.
    Oilers’ white: As perfect as it gets in the RBK EDGE universe. The collar is funky, but at least it matches the royal one. Blame the obligatory NHL shield on every neck line. A well-deserved “A.”
    Kings’ white: Exceeding my expectations. Generally, hockey jerseys must choose between “traditional” sleeve stripes and the longitudinal neck-to-sleeve stripes; these ones have BOTH and do it well. I need to see it on the ice though, as the silver may get lost in all the black and white. I’ll give it a “B+” on the kid, making it a very good fan’s jersey, but it might be more like a “B” on the players.
    Panthers’ red: So much to be desired. Too bad. Kudos for going to red and for removing the Bettman strings. But if you have longitudinal sleeves, you really need another stripe. (Colorado: same problem.) Instead, they look like Wal-Mart budget jerseys. A definite pass, but a disappointing “B-/C+” for apparently failing to study.
    Jets’ black: Just kidding. But I like the plain hat. I’d wear that!

    • Mike Engle | June 25, 2011 at 10:04 am |

      And oh yes, right, the Predators and Lightning. Pretty much ditto what everybody says.
      Preds: Just too much shit on the wall, very little sticks. Get a blank white jersey, buy the new logo patches on eBay, and DIY the rest. C-
      Lightning: A good jersey, but feels a bit cold and controlled. Just doesn’t look like the Lightning. I guess it’s prettier than bland, so I’ll just give it a “B.”

    • Chris from Carver | June 25, 2011 at 10:37 am |

      With that collar design, they were able to avoid the weird tapering the stripes receive now on most collars, e.g., the Canadiens and Blackhawks.

    • John | June 25, 2011 at 10:40 am |

      The thing with the Panthers’ new home red is that it feels half-assed. Ditch the Bettman Apron-Strings, put the logo on a color that makes it really pop out….but keep the “practice jersey” elbow-pit stripes?

      Good was just sucker-punched by Stupid.

    • Joseph Gerard | June 25, 2011 at 10:56 am |

      I’d like to see the Penguins retire all of the current unis and bring back the 1980-1992 uniforms, with the 1977-1980 blue jersey serving as an alternate. It’s all the same design so it would work.

      • nosferatu | June 25, 2011 at 1:59 pm |

        To me, it’s all about having the fat Penguin around. They could do just about anything to their jerseys and if he’s still waddling around, I’m happy.

  • wautel | June 25, 2011 at 10:01 am |

    When the Colts moved from Baltimore to Indy, they kept everything. When the Browns moved from Cleveland to Baltimore, the name stayed. However, Irsay told the City of Baltimore and the team that if they wanted the Colts name back, he would be more than happy to sell it to them. Of course, the amount was ridiculous, and the team decided to go another route and choose the Ravens name.

    The Coyotes are currently owned by the NHL. Since the Jets name is technically property of that franchise, the NHL owns the franchise. Since the NHL has been losing money on this wonderful idea from Bettman, I’m sure that they would be more than willing to provide the Winnipeg Jets with the naming rights back – for a hefty fee, of course.

    • Teebz | June 25, 2011 at 10:08 am |

      The NHL offered the name and rights to “Jets” for very little from what I was told. I guess when you squeeze $60 million out of new owners for a “relocation fee”, you don’t have to worry about charging a few million more.

      • D-Web | June 25, 2011 at 11:30 am |

        Actually Phoenix never owned the rights to the Jets name; those reverted to the league when the team moved (unlike the Thrashers identity, which is still owned by Atlanta Spirit and was never considered for Winnipeg). The NHL offered the Jets name to Winnipeg free of charge if they wanted it.

    • Flip | June 25, 2011 at 2:15 pm |

      Robert Irsay defined douche bag. Nothing to add.

      • Ricko | June 25, 2011 at 3:29 pm |

        You forgot “drunken” before “douchebag”.

  • Teebz | June 25, 2011 at 10:06 am |

    The people in Winnipeg last night let out a thunderous cheer when they announced the name. Good for us, I suppose. They got what they wanted despite not being able to let go of a team name that was synonymous with one-and-done… except for one year.

    I can tell you that the colour “red” will be used by Winnipeg. Be prepared for a predominantly red Southeast Division this year: Capitals, Panthers, Hurricanes, and Jets.

    • Teebz | June 25, 2011 at 10:11 am |

      Just to put an asterisk on the “red” info: this is second-hand info, mind you. The guys in the press box yesterday had no images or proof that the Jets will wear red, only what they’ve seen and heard.

      • Andy | June 25, 2011 at 3:01 pm |

        They will not wear red.

        • Teebz | June 25, 2011 at 6:06 pm |

          Can you provide proof of this, Andy?

        • Teebz | June 25, 2011 at 6:06 pm |

          Can you provide proof of this, Andy?

        • Teebz | June 25, 2011 at 6:10 pm |

          … minus the duplicate comment. How did that happen?

      • Beats In Buffalo | June 25, 2011 at 3:16 pm |

        Although I’m not in favor of the name since they will officially be the Winnipeg Jets I would love to see the concept submitted to Paul by the two pro designers with the stylized Maple Leaf and fighter jets forming a W. Done right it could be the best modern logo in the NHL.

    • JTH | June 25, 2011 at 10:18 am |

      Awesome. So that’s, what, 13 teams now with some sort of red as the dominant color for their home jersey?

      Way to be original, True North.

    • Ricko | June 25, 2011 at 10:19 am |

      Hey, I’m still trying to get my head around Winnipeg in the Southeast.

      And we wonder why kids get geography screwed up.

      • JTH | June 25, 2011 at 10:29 am |

        Maybe the NHL is looking to the NFL for inspiration.

        Baltimore in the North, Indy in the South, Dallas in the East, St. Louis in the West…

        • StLMarty | June 25, 2011 at 10:29 pm |

          Oakland in California…

      • Joseph Gerard | June 25, 2011 at 10:59 am |

        The NHL is planning on doing a realignment in 2012. It was too late to do it this year. Besides, they want to see one of two things:

        1. If the Red Wings, Blue Jackets, or Predators would be the best fit to go east. (My vote is on the Predators AND the Blue Jackets, & move the Maple Leafs west.)

        2. If the Coyotes do end up moving, if they end up east, such as Quebec City.

        • Chris from Carver | June 25, 2011 at 11:26 am |

          Move the Predators the Eastern Conference and put them in the Southeast. Have the Wild take the Preds’ spot in the Central and then have the Jets take the Wild’s spot in the Northwest. And that’s how simple it is.

        • D-Web | June 25, 2011 at 11:32 am |

          Agree, but put Dallas in the Central; keep Minnesota in the Northwest. Makes more sense for TV scheduling. Avs to the Pacific.

        • Gusto44 | June 25, 2011 at 12:24 pm |

          The dicey aspect to realignment would be the uncertain futures of teams like Florida and Columbus, along with Phoenix.

        • Rob H. | June 25, 2011 at 1:28 pm |

          so if the Coyotes move to Quebec, do they become the Nordiques? Why not just save all the trouble and move ’em to Atlanta and they can become the Thrashers.

        • Terry Proctor | June 25, 2011 at 4:20 pm |

          No way Jose(ph)! The Leafs are not going to move back to the West after finally getting out of there a few years ago. I know staing in the East precludes a Toronto-Montreal finals like what should have occurred in ’93 (thanks Kerry Fraser and US TV!) but the Leafs are going to stay put. They are after all a CHARTER MEMBER OF THE N.H.L. They’re not going to be pushed around by another so-called hockey city from Red Neck Country that is forced to relocate back to the Great White North.

        • Lloyd Davis | June 26, 2011 at 1:46 pm |

          Red Wings appear to be lobbying hard for a move to the East. That way, they can reignite their smouldering rivalries with such longtime foes as Tampa Bay, Ottawa, the Islanders and Florida.

          Also paving the way for such potential final matchups as Detroit-Edmonton, Detroit-Columbus, and Detroit-Minnesota that the fans have been clamouring for!

          And I know there’s a hardcore element in Detroit that has been pissed off at Buffalo ever since the trade of Mike Foligno and Dale McCourt for Jim Schoenfeld and Derek Smith in 1981. Revenge time, Motor City Maniacs!

  • BrianC | June 25, 2011 at 10:33 am |

    I think that “wordmarks” and rear neck logos on any uniforms are unnecessary and clutter up what could be a clean look. Can you say “logo creep”?

    Also, a lot of teams have ditched the Reebok harlequin costumes, but not enough, judging by the draft. NO apron strings, NO random stripes of patches and ALWAYS waist striping.

    • Mark in Shiga | June 25, 2011 at 2:45 pm |

      I agree totally. They look cluttery, and what’s more, they cause other elements on the jersey to move just slightly enough so that it becomes annoying. That silly logo on the back collar pushes the NOB and number down; so does the NFL shield and tiny “BILLS” logo on the front.

      Dump this garbage!

      • Ricko | June 25, 2011 at 3:09 pm |

        Especially in football, and to a great extent in hockey, those wordmarks are there for retail purposes, almost solely. Make the jerseys “official/authentic” so they can commamd the top-dollar licensing fees.

        Before they were added it was relatively easy to make a jersey right out of a sporting goods catalog look “just like the real thing.”

        Come of think of, that’s also the reason for odd panels, piping, crazy number fonts and other crap. Those who pony up to produce and market the jerseys are assured the gear can’t be easily imitated or approximated. To show their true colors, fans have to fork over the cash for the real deal.

        • Rob S | June 25, 2011 at 9:32 pm |

          Reebok’s pissed me off totally.

          I got a good look at a bunch of different teams’ Premier jerseys (the “official” replicas), and they’re CRAP! The crests are barely comparable in quality to the old CCM 550 semi-pro jerseys, shoulder patches are screen-printed appliques instead of being embroidered, and the materials just feel wrong. Not to mention the stupid-ass jock tag and the split on the sides of that idiotic hemline. Oh, and these things are way overpriced for a substandard replica.

  • RMB | June 25, 2011 at 10:48 am |

    A tip of the hat to the Bills for doing a solid job on their redesign. Now if the Vikings could just do pretty much the exact same I’d be as happy.

    • The Jeff | June 25, 2011 at 10:54 am |

      But the Vikings haven’t added any extra colors to their palette to use as pointless trim…

      • LI Phil | June 25, 2011 at 10:56 am |

        no…they just added pointless madden/cfl bumperstickers

  • Jim Hayden | June 25, 2011 at 11:04 am |

    The closest to the situation I can think of is the ex-AAFC Baltimore Colts going belly-up and being replaced a year later by the Dallas Texans (ex-Dayton Trangles by way of various and confusing combinations of NFL and AAFC New York, Boston and Brooklyn franchises – who had less than a season at the Cotton Bowl before becoming a “road team” based in Hershey, PA).

    Of course the CFL placed a team in Baltimore they wanted to be called the Colts, but got sued by the NFL and had to be the Stallions – before the ex-Browns/Ravens moved-in and they had to re-locate and became the Montreal Alouettes – replacing a former, un-related, team by THAT name!

    • Gusto44 | June 25, 2011 at 11:32 am |

      Yes, I think the old Alouettes were transferred to new ownership and renamed the Concordes, and then that franchise died. So when that 2 or three year old Baltimore Stallion team moved to Montreal, it just became the Al’s again. A another weird situation, but the best for Montreal.

      • Ricko | June 25, 2011 at 6:12 pm |

        Alouettes folded. That’s why the name was available.
        Not sure, but the league may have operated the Concordes.

      • Lloyd Davis | June 26, 2011 at 2:12 pm |

        The Alouettes were sold to Nelson Skalbania in 1981. He then blew his financial brains out, signing Vince Ferragamo, Billy “White Shoes” Johnson and David Overstreet. After a year, he needed to unload the team. Reached an agreement in principle with George Allen, the former coach of the Redskins and Rams.

        But that fell through, so the owner of the Expos, Charles Bronfman, stepped in to buy the Alouettes’ CFL franchise, but launched a new company, the Montreal Football Club. I expect the Als’ name and trademarks were encumbered by Skalbania’s money trouble, so it was easier just to take on the Concordes name.

        But in 1986, they were renamed the Alouettes. They played the 1986 season under the old name. Early in ’87, they were sold to Norm Kimball, who had been the GM in Edmonton but who had come over to Montreal in 1986 as team president.

        The club lost between $3 million and $4 million in ’86, and with only 4,000 season tickets sold for 1987, the losses projected to be about the same. So, literally on the eve of the season, they folded. The league must’ve been prepared, though, because in no time flat they had an eight-team schedule drawn up, with Winnipeg Blue Bombers in the East Division. The Als folded on June 24, and the regular season started on the 25th.

  • johnj | June 25, 2011 at 11:04 am |

    does anybody else feel like the bills helmet logo (at top) on the new helmet gives the illusion that the Buffalo has an erect tail… anybody?

    • The Jeff | June 25, 2011 at 11:10 am |

      oy… poorly positioned vent hole is positioned poorly

    • Simply Moono | June 25, 2011 at 11:11 am |

      That’s just a by-product of the Riddell Revo-Speed helmet. The ventilation hole gives the illusion of a tail.

  • Glenn | June 25, 2011 at 11:11 am |

    I really like what the Bills did with their new uniforms. The ONLY thing I’d like to see, and it’s already been mentioned, is the stripes on the sleeves (or lack thereof), but that’s more an issue of how the jerseys are now with lack of actual sleeves.

    I’m actually really enjoying the gray facemasks though, although I know some people seem to be less than pleased with them. I really don’t care that they may have only gone with this look for 2 years in the past. It’s a good look, and something a few more teams can pull off if they wanted to. Personally, if I wanted it MY way, I’d fix the sleeves, and go with a white helmet (nothing ever wrong with a white helmet either) with the red standing buffalo. White pants for both road & and home are fine too. The team did very well with this design though, for the most part.

    Most importantly, sometimes less is more, and just because you can color the shit out things doesn’t mean you NEED to. Sometimes white pants are fine, and sometimes a gray facemask can just be a gray facemask too.

    • LI Phil | June 25, 2011 at 11:14 am |

      “just because you can color the shit out things doesn’t mean you NEED to.”

      ~~~

      THANK YOU glenn

      the gray facemask is the most underrated GOOD element there is…since cleats will never be a solid color anymore, at least keep that one piece of equipment restrained and classic

      • Ricko | June 25, 2011 at 11:30 am |

        Never understand why the grumping about gray facemasks doesn’t carry over to complaining about why teams would wear generic black shoes.

        We all know, say, purple is possible for the Vikings. Or red for the Angels, for that matter. And what about all the black skates in the NHL?

        So, honestly then, isn’t the decision to go with a generic facemask just as valid as going with generic cleats?

        You might not agree with it, but it hardly is horrific. Again, sometimes there’s a distinction between what’s the uniform and what’s equipment. There are (no pun intended) some gray areas in there that are interpreted differently from team to team., that’s all.

        • LI Phil | June 25, 2011 at 11:38 am |

          i would love it if all teams wore solid colored (even if in a team color) cleats, but the players aren’t paid to wear brightly colored facemasks…but they do have shoe contracts

          so it’s not quite a valid comparison — it’s an excellent point — but complaining about the shoes is a different animal, since the players themselves have a vested monetary interest in them, unlike facemasks, which are left entirely up to the team

          and you’re entirely correct — the shoes are equipment, whereas the facemasks are the uniform

          be great if the could make the shoes part of the uniform too, but that horse left the barn 100 years ago

      • The Jeff | June 25, 2011 at 11:36 am |

        (begin ranting)

        Yeah, whatever. Get all 32 teams to use gray masks and I’ll shut up about it, because then it would actually be neutral. Otherwise, no. They can match and they intentionally don’t, therefore it’s stupid. If it was black instead of gray you wouldn’t be so fond of it. And yes, black is a “neutral” color in the same way that gray is.

        There’s 2 ways for a color to be neutral – having no hue, and being used in some way by every single team. White passes both of those. Gray and black only pass the first one. If black shouldn’t be used as neutral because “some teams use black in their color scheme” (and, considering how anti-BFBS you are, obviously this is the case), then neither should gray, for the same reason – just look at the Giants pants.

        (end ranting)

        • Ricko | June 25, 2011 at 12:13 pm |

          You’re taking about color definitions. I’m talking about uni history. And maybe “generic” would have been a better word.

          Historically, facemasks DID come only in generic, neutral, universal colors, as did shoes. So they belonged to no one, and to everyone…because they were regarded as standard equipment, not part of the uniform per se.

          Do we think they immediately appeared in team colors? Absolutely not.

          Advancing technology has allowed both facemasks and shoes to now be made in team colors…so shouldn’t plain ol’ black shoes on a team with no black among its colors engender the same ire?

          Progress creates options. But one of those options remains a once generic color. And, while it may not be “modern”, it isn’t “wrong”. Not historically. Not in the context of the sport.

          Y’know, the decision to be less flashy, less gaudy, is an entirely valid one.

        • The Jeff | June 25, 2011 at 12:38 pm |

          Well Ricko, if it ever came up I probably would be complaining about the shoes too. I think black shoes look great on teams with black jerseys. They look kinda dumb on the Colts or Seahawks. But then you also get the Ochocincos wearing whatever the hell they want and it’s not worth ranting about.

          You know how I am about tradition. Yes, I know facemasks were once only available in gray. Now they’re available in any color you can imagine. The option is there, use it. I can almost give a pass to the Cardinals, since they’ve never made the switch, but everyone else (minus the silver helmet teams – gray is non-metallic silver, I can accept it) has at some point. The Colts (and the Bills) have used both white and blue, only to switch back to be “retro”. It’s god damn stupid. Once you stop using gray, there’s no reason to go back to it full time. The freakin Jets got it right. They went back to an old uniform style, but the mask is now green, not gray. The Bills have 3 different colors they could use that wouldn’t bother me – instead, they used gray.

        • Ricko | June 25, 2011 at 2:49 pm |

          I guess it simply comes down to a design concept.

          The gray, being historically generic in this instance, sort of de-emphasizes the facemask, returning it to its original status as equipment rather than a uniform element…and letting the color in other places on the helmet dominate the visual effect.

          Again, that’s the designer’s valid choice and, granted, you don’t have to agree with it. But the fact is that the availability of team colors doesn’t make it the mandatory choice. Or the automatic correct one.

  • Anthony S | June 25, 2011 at 11:16 am |

    Washington Nationals

  • johnj | June 25, 2011 at 11:22 am |

    Take a look at :21 sec into this video about NCAA Football 12:

    http://youtu.be/VFoE...

    Oregon State undershirt FAIL…. I understand the issues that come with rendering that detail but jeeze, that was my favorite part of the uni

  • Samuel | June 25, 2011 at 11:30 am |

    There is a dark navy outline on the home jerseys modeled by the military. It’s very thin but it’s there. But apparently it’s thicker on the alumni…

  • Attila Szendrodi | June 25, 2011 at 11:39 am |

    Im actually REALLY liking this tweak

    http://i190.photobuc...

    Clean and simple and the black really seems to work.

    • Gusto44 | June 25, 2011 at 3:33 pm |

      It’s great, and I also like Glenn’s Padres concept. The Diamondbacks should use that logo immediately, and the snakes around the jersey idea would be the alternate. I would add copper to the Arizona color scheme as well.

  • Dane | June 25, 2011 at 11:51 am |

    From ESPN.com:

    The name is the same, but the look of the jerseys will be completely different.

    “I would tell you that it will be a very, very different look than when the team left back in ’96,” (Winnipeg owner Mark) Chipman said.

    • Donny | June 25, 2011 at 7:22 pm |

      That’s good to know. I’ve never been able to unsee this in their last logo: http://blogs.smarter...

  • Peter | June 25, 2011 at 12:13 pm |

    Doesn the new panthers red kind of look like this cheap knock off of the 90’s jersey?

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

  • interlockingtc | June 25, 2011 at 12:36 pm |

    I really like that spare, minimalist Tamp Bay Lightning crest. The shoulder patches, however, are completely superfluous and wreck that sweater. A plain white yolk would’ve been the best choice.

    Meanwhile, despite the obvious improvements in the Bills set, my eyes went straight to the stupid navy blue outline on the numbers. Ugh.

  • Martyn | June 25, 2011 at 12:56 pm |

    Looks like the Jays have started selling replica and authentic 2011 Canada Day jerseys.

    http://jaysshop.stor...

    The 2011 Jersey is pretty much identical to the 2009 jersey, with the addition of white underarms.

    This is the 9th time the Jays have worn Canada Day jersey

    1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002 (June 30th), 2006, 2009 and 2011

  • IowaAnt | June 25, 2011 at 1:27 pm |

    The new Panthers Red Jersey is not their 3rd, it’s going to be the primary.

  • john | June 25, 2011 at 2:03 pm |

    wait… are phil & paul gay?

    not that it matters.

    • Tim E. O'B | June 25, 2011 at 3:06 pm |

      Only for uniforms

      • StLMarty | June 25, 2011 at 11:46 pm |

        Uniforms are male?

    • LI Phil | June 25, 2011 at 7:22 pm |

      i really shouldn’t even dignify your comment with a response, but it’s typical neanderthal attitudes like this that are precisely WHY im glad new york passed the marriage equality bill

      neither paul nor i am gay, but, like you say, what does it matter if either of us were? exactly…it doesn’t…and yet you still thought it was funny or whatever

      as paul wrote in the UW F.A.Q.:

      You’re really nit-picky and you write about clothes — so, like, you must be gay, right?

      Nope. But what if I were? What if the guy sitting next to you is? What if YOU are? What difference does it make? Stupid question about a non-issue.

      • Ricko | June 25, 2011 at 11:37 pm |

        Now that Larry the Cable Guy, there’s what a real man is.
        Everyone knows that.

      • 1vox | June 26, 2011 at 5:23 am |

        no offense, and you can call me a neanderthal also if that makes you feel better, but the way it was worded sounds very much like people who fought long and hard for this and finally saw victory…

        “We are both prouder to be New York State residents this morning than we were yesterday morning. Kudos to the State Legislature for finally doing the right thing.”

        if you really didn’t want someone thinking you were gay by the way you spoke about being “prouder” (no doubt a poor choice of expression since the gay community uses the word “pride” quite often), perhaps saying something like this might have been a bit more apropos…

        “We were glad to see the NY legislature pass a bill offering equal rights with regard to marriage for those who wish to live their life with a same sex partner. We both feel this was the right thing to do, and it makes us happy to know that state of NY does not consider a person’s sexual orientation/lifestyle any less relevant simply because it is not the majority view, and therefore are not showing prejudice against some New Yorkers simply for their choice to live their lives that way. It makes us proud to know our state recognizes all New Yorkers as human beings.”

        that leaves no doubt that you are supportive of people who are part of that community, without any misunderstanding of your own sexual orientation…

        take a moment to think about how what you post sounds before you post it if you don’t want comments like the one you’re replying to, then you won’t have to resort to calling someone a “neanderthal” (for leaving a comment that obviously rubbed you the wrong way) because he/she misunderstood a confusing and poorly worded sentence…

        just a thought…

        • Lloyd Davis | June 26, 2011 at 2:28 pm |

          [quote]…the way it was worded sounds very much like people who fought long and hard for this and finally saw victory…

          “We are both prouder to be New York State residents this morning than we were yesterday morning. Kudos to the State Legislature for finally doing the right thing.”[/quote]

          You don’t have to be materially impacted by an enlightened decision in order to be proud of your elected representatives for having made it, and to feel better about your citizenship.

          From one of North America’s gayest cities, I also applaud the decision, and am prouder than ever that New York is a neighbour of Ontario. (I have always considered it a point of personal pride that I live just a two-hour drive from the epicurean delight that is beef on Weck.)

          Now, if only Toronto’s douchebag mayor would attend our pride parade (as every other mayor has done, and I would suggest proudly, since 1998). He is threatening not to. He has no problem making time for the St. Patrick’s Day parade, the Bollywood film festival, et cetera, et cetera, so the only conclusion I can draw is that the idea of being around the LGBT community gives him great discomfort, as if he is afraid of coming down with a case of what Rachel Maddow refers to as The Gay.

          Thus, sadly, I am *less proud* to be a citizen of Toronto at the moment.

      • LI Phil | June 26, 2011 at 9:30 am |

        “the way it was worded sounds very much like people who fought long and hard for this and finally saw victory…”

        ~~~

        why should it matter how it was worded?

        and what does my or paul’s sexual orientation matter in this? your third to last graf is perhaps a “better” way of wording our sentiments, but regardless, the point is that i am glad (oh wait, i guess that’s a “loaded” word too), make that happy…no pleased New York remains at the forefront of social justice and forward thought

        and when you say “not the majority view”? i don’t believe that’s the case either; in fact, the last poll i saw that was legitimate (i.e., not commissioned by either “side”), a gallup poll, placed support for same sex marriage by new yorkers at 58%

        i certainly won’t call you a neanderthal, but you have absolutely no idea why either paul or i support same sex marriage, nor did the person who made the original comment, yet you (or he) assumed it was because either or both of us were gay (or you thought that because of how a statement was worded, one could “infer” that)

        100 years ago, if i said “i support a woman’s right to vote” would you infer i was a female or a female sympathizer? if 50 years ago i said “separate but equal is bullshit” would you infer i was black or a communist?

        and if i were, or weren’t, what difference would it make?

  • Pat | June 25, 2011 at 2:24 pm |

    So the Bills new unis are light years better than the old ones, but I’m not backing down from my stance that the shoulder stripes look funny. I will say this though. I have an excel spreadsheet with all of my rankings of the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL and MLS unis. It’s totally my preference when it comes to those rankings, but Buffalo moved itself up from no. 30 to no. 9 in my rankings. I had Arizona and Carolina ranked lower than them. I hate Carolina’s unis! Now the only teams I have ranked higher than them are the ‘Skins, Niners, Chargers, Jets, Broncos, Lions, Packers and Bears. The Colts round out my top 10 just after the Bills at 9. Before I get any response about the Broncos this is my reasoning. I never really liked the design of their old unis, however I do prefer them in orange. The new uni design came out in the late 90’s when I was in middle school/high school and that’s when they were winning titles so that sort of becomes ingrained in my psyche and I actually like the design that they have. Just looking old school for old school’s sake doesn’t mean you have good unis. Also like I said it’s personal taste. Some of you would have the Cowboys(silvers and blues don’t match), Steelers(logo on one side of the helmet, really?), Saints(golds don’t match), Raiders(too plain) and Giants(too plain and gray pants) ranked higher than you would but I have my reasons for dropping them lower in my rankings.

  • Frank | June 25, 2011 at 2:48 pm |

    I give the Bills a B on the Uni change. Love ditching the Navy blue, but I would have kept the red helmets minus the powder blue stripes.
    It may be an illusion, but the white outline of the charging buffalo on the red helmets made the buffalo look larger. Because the charging buffalo appeared smaller (to me, anyway) on the white helmets, I always thought the white helmets had more of a toy-like, ‘little league’ quality to them. When the buffalo appeared larger on the red helmets, it gave it more of a ‘big-league’ look, one I took more seriously.

  • Tim E. O'B | June 25, 2011 at 3:05 pm |

    Sure looks like they’re real https://twitter.com/...

  • Andy | June 25, 2011 at 3:08 pm |

    All the elements, on-field and retail have that navy blue outline you see on the alumni, but it’s much less noticeable on the on-field equipment. The helmet stripe, pant stripes, numerals, and even the sleeve stripes have navy blue bands incorporated into them.

    That said, this identity would be damn near erfect if they had done 2 things:

    1. Completely eliminate the navy blue instead of just minimizing it as much as possible.

    2. Gone with a more traditional sock design. I find it strange that the sock is white, but the top of it (only above the stripes, is blue, and vice versa. normally, the entire top half of the sock From the calf midline to the top, enveloping the stripes, would be colored. I’m still confused what exactly happened to these socks, but whatever is going on there, it seems like there was a little too much though put into it, and it ended up looking overly complex.

    • Ricko | June 25, 2011 at 3:18 pm |

      I think the white socks are a harkback to this (white crew socks over striped white stirrups)…
      http://www.flickr.co...

      And also they’ll work better if they do incorporate royal pants with the white jerseys, get away from the royal leotard look.

  • Bernard | June 25, 2011 at 3:11 pm |

    I give the Bills’ new uniform set a big fat A. Definitely among the league’s 10 best in my opinion. Love it, love it, love it.

  • Ricko | June 25, 2011 at 3:24 pm |

    Whoa! For those who miss full UCLA shoulder loops, I got your loops right here…
    http://www.flickr.co...

    • Ricko | June 25, 2011 at 3:25 pm |

      Okay, before someone says, “That’s not UCLA”…
      UCLA-“style” shoulder loops.

  • Tenz | June 25, 2011 at 3:29 pm |

    Congrats to the Bills on what I think is one of the best uniform moves in the NFL in decades.

    I’d love it if they never brought back the blue pants, to me, the Bills looked best in their all-white road uniforms of the 1960s.

    Love the gray face masks. I’ve always felt gray is the perfect color for face masks, keeps them looking neutral and unobtrusive, keeps the focus on the helmet and its colors and markings, where it should be.

    I do wish they’d skipped the navy trim, which to me is unnecessary clutter, but thank goodness it’s as thin and subtle as it is. The jersey stripes would work better further down the sleeve, as one commenter said, these look a lot like Colts stripes.

    And if it were up to me, they’d just have gone back to the best of the lot, the mid ’60s set in its original form, complete with the standing red buffalo. But this is a fantastic improvement and this team makes it into my current top 10 for sure.

  • Tenz | June 25, 2011 at 3:46 pm |

    I salute the Thrashers franchise for reviving the Jets nickname. I myself don’t understand those who see good in a philosophical approach to sports the create hurdles to the real-world positive of reviving traditional ties.

    To me, having the Jets back is far more important than exactly how we slice and dice historical statistics by franchise. I was a big fan of the old Washington Senators and when they moved to Texas, there was nothing left for me to be loyal to. New name, uniforms, stadium, owners and, within a few years, virtually completely different personnel. The Rangers are in no way my old Senators. So I was thrilled when Washington got back a team that feels very much like the old Senators. It became one of my favorite teams (I’m a Phillies fan first and foremost), and the fact that they used to be the Expos isn’t a factor.

    Loved the Senators, don’t care for the Texas Rangers. Loved the Quebec Nordiques, don’t like the Colorado Avalanche. Liked the Hartford Whalers, am apathetic about the Carolina Hurricanes, etc. Liked the Houston Oilers, don’t care for the Titans. And was crushed that they named the new Houston team the Texans instead of reviving the Oilers name.

    Keeping track of records by franchise is an interesting sideline for people who are into that (as I am to a degree), but it surprises me that some want considerations in that realm to stop the resumption of a strong sports tradition.

    I think they got it right with the Browns. The Ravens should be the Colts and Indianapolis should come up with a new name. The St. Louis Rams should be the Cardinals (unless Chicago gets a second team) and Phoenix should come up with a new name. The Rams should be reserved for a second team in Cleveland or for the return of the NFL to L.A. The energy and tradition of an entire community rooting over decades for a team and its colors and emblems is to me vastly more important than the bookkeeping task of deciding which old records get assigned to which franchise.

    • Ricko | June 25, 2011 at 4:20 pm |

      Eminent Domain doesn’t apply, and can’t be applied, to team nicknames and stats. Absent some quirk like the negoiated Browns Anomaly, that is. Or the Jets/Winnipeg situation.

      I suppose it’s emotion vs. logic, subjective vs. objective…but the reality is they’re part of a franchise, and franchises move and stay in business elsewhere. Such things are, technically, marketing and branding materials and are private, not civic, property…no matter how intensely anyone believes they shouldn’t be, or wishes and wishes and wishes they weren’t. Or how much the team was loved before it moved.

      Last time I looked this was, supposedly, a nation of laws. And those laws apply in this discussion.

  • Matt | June 25, 2011 at 4:40 pm |

    Alright, a few things I feel the need to point out:

    1. It has been confirmed by TNSE that the new Jets will NOT use the old logo, or anything even close to it. Totally new.

    2. It has also been confirmed– again by TNSE– that they will be using a SIMILAR, but not EXACT, color scheme for the new team. I’m guessing that means navy blue, maybe silver.

    3. It seems that TNSE actually has a logo and uniform set picked out… They just didn’t unveil them at the Draft because they didn’t want the market to flood with illegal knock-off before they could get legit ones on sale.

    4. That red Panthers sweater is their new home jersey. They’ve been promoting their “See Red” campaign for months now. I’m not sure if the old navy home will be a third or be retired completely… I know the “Jet Blue” alt is gone, though.

    5. I think the Detroit Maple Lightning jersey didn’t have the black accents it’s supposed to. I’ll have to check again.

    Yeah, just my input.

  • Ram | June 25, 2011 at 4:50 pm |

    I keep thinking that the new Bills jersey looks exactly like the Colts’, but with red outlines and different number positioning on the sleeves.

  • Nick B. | June 25, 2011 at 5:58 pm |

    The jerseys on the models gets a solid B, but the jerseys on the Bills legends look incredibly chintzy.

    They immediately remind me of arena football jerseys, or worse:

    http://www.panhistor...

    I hope those aren’t the real Bills jerseys otherwise the Bills get an F

  • Ken S | June 25, 2011 at 7:10 pm |

    A’s are going “gold on road” again tonight! Ray Fosse said, “I don’t care what anyone says, the gold and gray look great together!”

  • matt | June 25, 2011 at 8:30 pm |

    Everything is great….except the big outlined numbers are awful

  • Tenz | June 25, 2011 at 8:34 pm |

    Regarding keeping the Browns in Cleveland, the Colts in Baltimore, etc., we’re talking about what should be, we’re not advocating lawlessness. Further, it would be no great feat for people to sit down and hash it out and make what should happen for the good of the sport a reality. I can imagine multiple scenarios where the Irsays or whoever could be convinced the sport is better off if they agree to do something that honors the tradition of the sport. If the fans spoke with a fairly unified voice I think it could happen. For example, the Bills could have kept the team in their ugly uniforms forever, they had every right to do so, but enough fans voiced their preference consistently enough and the Bills chose to listen. We can give up and passively accept whatever the owners give us or we can advocate for what we think is best for the sport. I’m sure many don’t share my POV about exactly what’s best, but I think the sport benefits when the fans speak up.

    • Ricko | June 25, 2011 at 11:15 pm |

      “I can imagine multiple scenarios where the Irsays or whoever could be convinced the sport is better off if they agree to do something that honors the tradition of the sport.”

      Sure, we can IMAGINE all sorts of things, but they virtually never happen because someone spent a lot of money to build a brand (including owning the stats by dint of paying the people who amassed them), and it’s ludicrous to suggest, “Now you should just walk away from it all and surrender it to be a good guy.”

      Besides, there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that established leagues—or subsequent new franchises in towns that previously had been vacated–suffer from teams moving away and taking what’s theirs with them when they go.

      In fact, if we’re going to talk subjective things, some might argue that northern Ohio might have been better off to forego the Cleveland Anomaly and let the dubious recent history of the Browns (NFL Network ranked them the #1 “snakebit” franchise in the NFL) trundle off to Baltimore along with the franchise. Maybe that bad juju is still hovering over Lake Erie, when it could be haunting Chesapeake Bay instead. Let the Baltimore Browns carry around The Drive and The Fumble and INT Brian Sipe threw.

  • Dr. Logo | June 25, 2011 at 8:39 pm |

    Bills new unis. A-. Would be A+ without the navy blue number-trim. JUST GIVE UP THE NAVY BLUE ALREADY BUFFALO!! What’s the obsession with a color you never won with? Less is more.

    And, as we observe the recent uni-changes we see a theme of ditching the fad-color of the late 90’s…NAVY for Royal…good move…

    Preds new color scheme. C
    At least they ditched the silver. The yellow is too much though. Another ditch of the navy.

    EDM Oilers new away. A+ Now they finally look like they are supposed to look. Royal and Orange. Another team wises up and ditches the navy.

    LA Kings new away: A-
    Return to the silver/black. They won in these colors. Logical. NWA can’t be far behind. Snoop-Dog will sport this in his next video.

    Florida red. C
    Meh. They could do far more with this.

  • LarryB | June 25, 2011 at 8:50 pm |

    Very pleased with the Bills uniforms and helmets. At least in that they are much better than what the Bills have worn for a while.

    My preference for the helmet would have been the standing red buffalo and single red stripe. But these are much better than the red helmets and those mid stripes.

  • Connie | June 25, 2011 at 10:09 pm |

    Record number of comments on a Saturday?

    • LI Phil | June 25, 2011 at 10:17 pm |

      not even close

  • Tim E. O'B | June 25, 2011 at 10:48 pm |

    Mexico’s beating the US because of their intimidating black uniforms.

    …and they actually care about soccer.

    • traxel | June 25, 2011 at 11:12 pm |

      The Galaxy and Earthquakes tied zero to zero tonight….how exciting.

      Actually, I’m a soccer newby, but have really gotten into it the past year. Went to the KC opening game with the kids and we all had a GREAT time. EXCEPT for the 0-0 score. I like everything about soccer, but the lack of scoring. Didn’t the NASL do some things to add more shots on goal? I understand matching the world game, but maybe the world might want to listen to us on this one and do something to add scoring. Hockey scores just the right amount. Changing offsides in the box may help….hell, anything….I’m here, on the cusp of being a fan…..throw us Americans a bone!

      • LI Phil | June 25, 2011 at 11:21 pm |

        i think the nasl outlawed the goalie for a season or two

        predictably scoring increased

      • Ricko | June 25, 2011 at 11:30 pm |

        Make the pitch smaller, for one thing. Too many long passes that amount to nothing, too many rushes that end lamely and then we wait for things to regroup.

        At least that’s what strikes me.

        Yeah, I know. Could say the same of baseball and fooball, but at least there is a constant point of attack we return to every time. I mean, we know were the line of scrimmage is gonna be to start the next play, and the ball will ultimately end up with the pitcher.

        Hockey, while similar generally to soccer, both happens faster and happens in a smaller space.

        Soccer, so many times, is a sort of a “slow floating scuttle.” Like watching the patterns change in gasoline on still water.

        • traxel | June 25, 2011 at 11:52 pm |

          I want to be a fan, I really do. I actually like all the little specialties that I’m just now learning about. But 0-0 settles nothing, when something needs to be settled after 90 or 120 minutes. Hockey averages a shot a minute. Baseball ERAs are 4.5 per 9 innings. MLS games are WAY to often 0-0.

          I was wondering about the penalty kick. It seems so easy while it is so hard to get a goal in real time. An accident can cause the lesser team to win over the dominating team. Just too reliant on randomness. More scoring would expose who is more dominate.

          We Americans don’t give ourselves enough credit. I believe we are the most athletic event savvy countryin the world just based on the number of world dominate leagues we have to follow. There are reasons some sports are more popular in various areas of the world. Well, here we have access to everything, and rarely choose soccer. Could it be due to the flaws of the soccer rules that we’ve chosen the other sports? I say it’s a big part of it.

        • LI Phil | June 25, 2011 at 11:56 pm |

          a lot of it has to do with facilities and expense

          for soccer, all you need is a ball and an open field…that’s pretty much it

          for many countries, you’re lucky if you get that

          plus, the rules are pretty simple…imagine trying to teach american football or even baseball to someone who’s never seen/heard of it? but tell someone you kick a ball into a big square at the end of the field/pitch?

          pretty much everyone gets that

          obviously, soccer in it’s highest form isn’t that simple…but when you break it down, it really is … and that is part of its appeal

        • Tim E. O'B | June 26, 2011 at 2:26 am |

          Personally, i agree with Chuck Klosterman:

          “It’s not necessary to wholly outlaw soccer as a living entity. I concede that it has a right to exist. All I ask is that I never have to see it on television, that it’s never played in public (or supported with public funding), and that nobody — and I mean nobody — ever utters the phrase “Soccer is the sport of the future” for the next forty thousand years.”

          couple of hilarious paragraphs more from CK here – http://www.theatlant...

          But really, I love international soccer, but the MLS doesn’t do ANYTHING for me.

  • Adios el-Kabong | June 27, 2011 at 12:39 pm |

    Re Winnipeg Jets – still no uniwatch recognition of another unusual fact (also shared w/Browns, as well as the Indians) – it’s the rare franchise that was named after a *player*, in this case the Golden Jet, Bobby Hull, whose defection to the WHA was critical in establishing it as a major league. So perhaps gold can be one of the uni colors….or they can bring back The Golden Brett for one game.

  • Tim | June 27, 2011 at 3:45 pm |

    All these comments and nobody mentioned that in 1941 Art Rooney sold the Steelers, bought half the Eagles, moved the Eagles to Pittsburgh and renamed them the Steelers, while the Steelers were moved to Philadelphia and renamed the Eagles.

    http://www.behindthe...

    Instead a bunch of silly comments about homophobia.