Light Sabre Not Included

Screen shot 2011-09-21 at 9.50.38 AM.png

.
Under Armour is once again promoting the Wounded Warrior Project this year, and yesterday they unveiled South Carolina’s WWP design, which they’ll be wearing on Oct. 1 (click on it for a larger version; further info here).

WWP is actually a good cause, so it’s a shame Under Armour has to resort to same old superhero clichés: the comic book backdrop, the clenched fists, and the faux-badass dark visor to make the player look like a cyborg. Boys with toys. Maybe they’ll take a more dignified approach when presenting the USF and Texas Tech WWP designs next month, but somehow I doubt it.

Meanwhile: New ESPN column today, focusing on the uniform that was worn during a very famous sports moment that is approaching a milestone anniversary. Enjoy.

+ + + + +

Sticker reminder: In case you missed it yesterday, Uni Watch Membership Program enrollees can now order stickers based on their membership card designs. Full details here.

+ + + + +

Screen shot 2011-09-21 at 7.59.52 PM.png

I’ll be discussing the Permanent Record Project today on Minnesota Public Radio’s Midmorning Show, from about 11:40am-noon Eastern. You can access the live feed here.

I’ll also be talking about Permanent Record on the radio here in New York, on WNYC’s “Brian Lehrer Show,” next Tuesday, 11:40am-noon Eastern. (Yes, I appear to be specializing in that time slot.)

And speaking of Permanent Record, the fourth installment in this week’s series is up now on Slate.

+ + + + +

Screen shot 2011-09-22 at 8.27.39 AM.png

Uni Watch News Ticker: I’ve confirmed that that new Marlins logo from yesterday is legit. Not the wordmark — just the logo. Reaction in Miami has been largely negative, at least judging by the comments posted here. … And now the latest item to leak, as you can see at right, is that the Blue Jays are going back to basics (although it’s not a straight throwback). I’ve confirmed that this logo, like the Marlins mark, is the real deal. … The Astros will reportedly unveil a 50th-anniversary logo prior to tonight’s game against the Rockies. … Another Wisconsin police department has started wearing Packers-themed badges (from Philip Caldwell). … The Dayton Gems will be wearing 1960s throwbacks for their home opener on Nov. 5. … No photo, but Virginia Tech will wear a helmet decal this weekend to commemorate the victims of the 1970 Marshall plane crash, which included two VaTech grads (from Jim Maino). … A town in Missouri wants the U. of Kansas to scrap its mascot. Why? Oh, just because of the Civil War, that’s all (from Tom Mulgrew). … Bruce Menard wonders if the White Sox’s pajama-era cap logo might have been based on the 1925 Baltimore Black Sox from the Negro Leagues. Seems more like a coincidence to me, but others may feel differently. … What team is that on the right? None other than the Green Bay Blue Jays, which was an Indians farm club in the late 1940s (big thanks to Jeff Ash). … Nats call-up Steve Lombardozzi has some serious radial arching (big thanks to Andrew Hoenig). … Susan Freeman has added to the body of research on Longhorns logo history. … Here’s a shot of the C being sewn onto Mark Streit’s jersey before the official announcement of his captaincy yesterday (big thanks to John Muir). … New goalie gear for both of the Jets’ netminders — Ondrej Pavelec and Chris Mason (from Chris Hernandez). … Word through the grapevine is that the Saints will be wearing throwbacks this Sunday. … Cardinals beat writer Joe Strauss did a live chat yesterday. If you search on the word “uniform,” you’ll find that he had a few choice words on the subject (from Steve Strohl). … Interesting note from Brian Smith, who writes: “Right now, the Phillies have two people in their dugout assigned No. 23: catcher Brian Schneider and Ryne Sandberg, who was the Phils’ triple-A manager and joined the major league coaching staff after his team was eliminated from the playoffs. I was at a game earlier this week and Schneider and Sandberg were practically standing side by side, but I was too far away to get a picture. They usually let the triple-A manager come up every September, but he gets a number like 92 or something.
” Hmmm. That shouldn’t happen, I see that Sandberg isn’t listed on the Phils’ official coaching roster (although Brian says he is listed in the scorecard roster), so maybe they’re just giving him his old number as a courtesy. … The new form of Reebok logo creep on NHL jerseys looks particularly awful on the Rangers (screen shot by Adrian Acosta). … Sure, go ahead and snicker, but it takes guts to show up at a Royals game at all dressed like this (from Brady Graham). … “I was watching a rebroadcast of the Nebraska-Arizona State game from September 21, 1996, when ASU snapped the Cornhuskers’ 26 game winning streak,” writes Shaun Kuter. “I noticed that some of the Nebraska players had an Adidas wordmark on their jerseys, while some had the three-stripe logo. You can sort of see it in this crappy photo I took.” … Brave New World of Advertising Dept.: The plastic sheeting that the Yankees used to protect their clubhouse during last night’s Champagne celebration was plastered with Budweiser ads. Pretty understandable, since the Yankees don’t have many revenue stream, right? (From Nicole Haas.)

 

220 comments to Light Sabre Not Included

  • BigMe | September 22, 2011 at 7:47 am |

    Re: the leaked Jays logo.

    You say your understanding is that the analysis is correct. Is it also your understanding that this logo is legit?

    Most Jays fans seem to be praying this is for real.

    • Paul Lukas | September 22, 2011 at 7:51 am |

      That’s my understanding, yes. I can’t say it’s fully confirmed — i.e., I wouldn’t write something for ESPN and say it’s totally legit — but I believe it is.

      • Paul Lukas | September 22, 2011 at 9:01 am |

        Now confirmed. It’s legit.

        • BigBirdie | September 22, 2011 at 9:43 am |

          Wow. A team actually updated a “heritage” logo and didn’t destroy it in the process! The most impressive thing, IMHO, is that the Blue Jays resisted the urge to make the bird “fierce” or “angry” as seems to be the norm nowadays. Oh, and no “possessed-by-satan” green glowing eyes, either. Today is a good day to be a fan of baseball in Toronto.

        • Dave | September 22, 2011 at 12:05 pm |

          It does appear to be a bit more angular and therefore a little less “kind” than the orig. But, yes, glad it doesn’t have clenched teeth or anything!

        • Jim Vilk | September 22, 2011 at 2:25 pm |

          Very well put, Dave and Birdie. And very very well done, Blue Jays! Hope the new uni is as good as the logo.

        • Pretty Boy Paulie | September 22, 2011 at 3:28 pm |

          Looks like the logo they used in the late 90’s, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it! But I’m very happy they’re going back to a classy bird instead of the Angry Bird….and no longer being the Black Jays.

        • Teamo | September 22, 2011 at 4:05 pm |

          Is it ornithologically correct like the ever changing O’s logo claims to be?

        • Casey | September 22, 2011 at 4:18 pm |

          The more I look at the new bird, the angrier it gets. The “squinted” elliptical eye, the more pointed contour of the glint in the eyeball, the furrowed brow, the frowning needle-like beak.

        • Chris A. | September 22, 2011 at 6:17 pm |

          As a Jays’ fan, I really like the new logo. But I’m unsure if I love it on its own merits, or if it is so good in comparison to the crap they’ve been using since 1999, or if I’m just happy to see the Jays emphasize blue colours again.
          And as far as a new font, even though the split letter font screamed tacky 1970’s design, it was also a part of the team’s identity and made the team unique, and I’d love to see a return to something similar. When you saw that font you knew it was the Blue Jays without any doubt. I always liked it, but not sure that I ever loved it.

    • Chico | September 22, 2011 at 5:29 pm |

      The new bird is way better than the current J. I just hope they don’t also return to the old number font. It was dated from the moment they launched it. And current nameplates are about 50% too big. I don’t think there’s enough twill in Toronto if they traded for Salty.

  • Joe D | September 22, 2011 at 7:51 am |

    Last night, Lightning goalie Jaroslav Janus was wearing last year’s pants. I wonder if the new uniform’s goalie pants haven’t come in yet.

    http://scores.espn.g...

    • Joe D | September 22, 2011 at 8:44 am |

      Here’s a pic from Tuesday’s game with the same pants:

      http://3.cdn.nhle.co...

    • Jeff P | September 22, 2011 at 10:52 am |

      #32 had the right ones in one of the same games, so it’s not that. Perhaps #31 didn’t want to break in new pants?

    • Teebz | September 22, 2011 at 11:02 am |

      Since it’s the preseason and I doubt that Janus will make the club’s opening day roster, giving him an old pair of breezers is the best way to use them up.

      If he does make the roster, expect him to have the new breezers for the first game.

  • Pierre | September 22, 2011 at 7:58 am |

    Is Under Armour totally incapable of designing a decent football uniform?

    Nevermind…dumb question.

    • Ron I | September 22, 2011 at 8:04 am |

      Is it possible that the models wear tinted visors b/c the corps/unis don’t want an individual’s identity associated with the photos?

      The pants look like he’s wearing a big ribbon on his butt, maybe some asphalt skids on the side.

    • Phil Hecken | September 22, 2011 at 8:26 am |

      “Is Under Armour totally incapable of designing a decent football uniform coming up with a uniform presentation that doesn’t ripoff nike?”

      ~~~

      (fixed)

    • Kyle | September 22, 2011 at 9:57 am |

      Absolutely AU is. Remember they are the ones that do the Faux flannel baseball uniforms.

    • Jim Vilk | September 22, 2011 at 2:29 pm |

      The best uniform in the NCAA is an Under Armour product:
      http://cache.daylife...

      • Corey | September 22, 2011 at 4:11 pm |

        Under Armour didn’t design it though
        http://www.sportsage...

      • jdreyfuss | September 22, 2011 at 5:53 pm |

        It’s an Under Armour product, but is it an Under Armour design? I didn’t chime in with Auburn as being a decent design for the same reason.

        I do have to agree with Kyle about the faux flannel baseball unis, but UA definitely has problems designing football uniforms that don’t look like comic book costumes.

  • Paul Lukas | September 22, 2011 at 8:21 am |

    Now confirmed: Jays logo is legit.

    • Dave | September 22, 2011 at 8:28 am |

      That is beyond awesome. Since ’94 it’s been shitty uni after shitty uni.

    • ben_g | September 22, 2011 at 9:24 am |

      I am beyond happy about this, happier than I probably should be as a 37 year old man. Seriously, I can’t wait to buy a new cap and jersey. That logo is pretty much everything I could have wanted and hoped for.

      • Dave | September 22, 2011 at 12:03 pm |

        I had the same thoughts (I’m 41). A new cap will definitely be in order, but I think I’m a bit old for a jersey. ;-)

        • Jerry | September 22, 2011 at 12:44 pm |

          I think I will try to get my hands on one as well.

  • Hank-SJ | September 22, 2011 at 8:31 am |

    Phillies had the same Bud(water)locker plastic on Saturday.

    • Rob S | September 22, 2011 at 9:21 am |

      I’ve yet to see a clear enough picture to see if the Tigers had the same thing. They were on the road in Oakland, though, while the Phillies and Yankees were at home when they had their respective celebrations.

      • D.Z. | September 22, 2011 at 9:36 am |

        I have no photo evidence but I do remember seeing some Miller Lite signs strategically placed in the Tigers locker room. They didn’t even bother to hang them all up! Some were on the ground leaning against the wall.

      • Hank-SJ | September 22, 2011 at 9:40 am |

        This turns out to be nothing new. Found a picture from the 2006 ALCS celebration and there is a Bud sign attached to the locker plastic wrap. http://www.flickr.co...

    • Geoff | September 22, 2011 at 9:49 am |

      Yeah, this strikes me as an MLB-wide thing and not a team-specific thing. Budweiser’s been the lead beer sponsor of MLB for years. So any time there’s alcohol or alcohol-like products around, they’ve gotta have their name/logo plastered all over the place.

      It’ll be interesting to see what plastic goes up if/when the Brewers clinch the NL Central Division title in Miller Park…

      • Jerry | September 22, 2011 at 12:46 pm |

        I’m guessing clear plastic at Miller Park, but the brew will be a certan A-B product.

        • Dave | September 22, 2011 at 4:36 pm |

          It will probably be Miller. The Tigers are sponsored by Miller and when they clinched they had Miller Lite signs on the plastic and they were drinking Miller Lite.

  • Jeffrey Lowery | September 22, 2011 at 8:37 am |

    The Nats’ Steve Lombardozzi NOB reminds of the way the great Davey Concepcion had his NOB.

    http://www.americanm...

    • Mark in Shiga | September 22, 2011 at 9:15 am |

      I really feel for these guys with long names; the fact that the Nationals use three-layer letters makes a mockery of the thing. No player should have to put up with that.

      The least they could do would be to use an extra-thin font like the one on Eric Stuckenschneider’s jersey. The Mets used to have one, and it made their long-named players look much less silly.

      (In Japan they also have extra-wide fonts for players with really short names; I dislike them. I wonder if Chin-Lung Hu would prefer this to what he got.)

      But really the best solution is not to have names on jerseys at all. We’ve got HDTV and high-def graphics for that now!

  • Fred | September 22, 2011 at 8:42 am |

    Yeah, the whole promo event is dumb. But then again when you consider the commercials that football fans watch- cars, beer, video games…it makes sense the whole promo came out like that. It’s how the younger generation football fans like it. They’re going right back to tweeting and texting after seeing this.

    UA is doing all it can to keep these fans happy. Unfortunately they make up the bulk of the market now.

  • Tim Cainglit | September 22, 2011 at 8:45 am |

    Re: Reebok Rangers and Budweiser Bombers

    Haven’t seen the new NHL sweaters with the Reebok wordmark up close, but judging from that photo I assume it’s a patch rather than direct stitching. Somebody at Reebok needs send them some red wordmark on white or white wordmark on red patches. Break the red stripe up with the red wordmark on white or continue the stripe and put the white wordmark inside it. I get Reebok wants their name to stand out, but that takes the Ree-Box to a level it doesn’t need to go.

    The Budweiser plastic wrap can be blamed on MLB, not the Yankees. Budweiser is the “official” beer of MLB and every team that makes the postseason will get the Budweiser treatment in the clubhouse when they clinch a spot. It’s been that way for a while too. I remember seeing it last year during the Giants World Series run.

    • John | September 22, 2011 at 10:09 am |

      Take into consideration the St Louis Blues. Not that the Vector logo was a joy to see, but the wrodmark is even worse in the Ree-box. It now looks like a flipped over laundry tag rather than a corporate cattle-brand. My eyes aren’t focused on who the players are, it’s like I’m straining to read the legal fine print of a car commercial.

      Vector (poor Erik Johnson) – http://www2.pictures...

      reebok (DELLA ROVERE tries valiantly to stand out) – http://scores.espn.g...

      • PuckBoy | September 22, 2011 at 10:15 am |

        Why can’t Reebok just do DIRECT EMBROIDERY of the wordmark in a contrasting color? (Like the vector on retail authentic NFL and Premier NHL jerseys)? This would eliminate the “Shadow Box Effect”

        Your thoughts, Paul Lukas?

        • Andy | September 22, 2011 at 1:43 pm |

          This would make too much sense, don’t you think?

      • John | September 22, 2011 at 10:50 am |

        The shadow-box/ree-box would probably stay if the wordmark were to become directly stitched on for the sole purpose of highlighting the company name.

        • puckboy | September 22, 2011 at 11:31 am |

          Look at the “totally rad” 80s version of the wordmark:

          http://www.ebay.com/...

          Note the subscript R and more fluid font.

      • Nosferatu | September 22, 2011 at 8:20 pm |

        Holy Toledo, is that an abomination or what?? And here I was thinking it was a travesty on the Rangers jersey.

  • JimWa | September 22, 2011 at 8:47 am |

    I couldn’t picture what the old logo creep looked like on the white Rangers jerseys, so I looked it up. From the maker’s perspective, I can see where they’d want to highlight the logo a little bit more:

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

    What I can’t help but wonder is, did the maker ask for a bigger logo, was told no, they CANNOT be larger than 1″x4″ (or whatever), so they didn’t make the logo bigger, they just drew attention to it!

    • Paul Lukas | September 22, 2011 at 8:59 am |

      From the maker’s perspective, I can see where they’d want to highlight the logo a little bit more

      Uh, I’m sure the maker’s perspective would like the team to be called the New York Reeboks.

      But why is the maker’s perspective relevant? They’re a vendor providing a service to a client. They’re the tail, not the dog. Fuck the maker’s perspective.

      • JimWa | September 22, 2011 at 9:19 am |

        Don’t get me wrong. The NHL shouldn’t allow it. I’m just saying I don’t blame Reebok for trying. The sad thing is, they’ve been given an inch, so soon they’ll be asking for a mile.

  • Lance Hall | September 22, 2011 at 8:52 am |

    I’m a follower of all things Gamecocks, so I feel compelled to comment. Obviously the “costume” uniform isn’t really worth discussion because it’s just a one week gimmick and who really cares. Does anyone know what’s the story on the “tron maze” design UA is using on all these WWP unis? Seems like digital camo would make more sense… HOWEVER, I will give credit where it is due. I really love the rooster spur on the back of the socks.

    • J.R. Clark | September 22, 2011 at 9:15 am |

      Well, I care and it is worth talking about and critiquing. I hate what UA has done to Carolina’s football uniforms. The regular uniforms are an abomination. The Wounded Warrior unis are even worse. These uniforms look like a joke and need to be ridiculed as such.

      • PuckBoy | September 22, 2011 at 10:16 am |

        Remember back in the mid 80’s when the cheerleader’s briefs had “cocks” screenprinted on the bottom? Cheeky.

    • Bernard | September 22, 2011 at 10:09 am |

      I agree 100% about those spur socks – that’s awesome.

    • puckboy | September 22, 2011 at 10:21 am |
    • Tom V. | September 22, 2011 at 10:30 am |

      Re: UA ruining the Gamecocks unis.

      If anyone can correct me if I’m wrong please do, but isn’t the the University the ones approving what UA comes up with? Isn’t the University to blame for allowing these uniforms on the field?

      Look at it this way. You’re the athletic director of the college. You hire UA to do some new uniforms for you. Do you just give them free reign to come up with whatever they want to put on the field, or do you have them come back at a first meeting with 20 schemes. Then you whittle them down to 10 and make some changes. Then 5 and mroe changes. Then they come back with actual uniforms and you whittle it down more and make more changes until finally the University has approved and worked with UA to come up with something acceptable to the University.

      How many people would give an architect a boat load of money to design a house, and you’re stuck with whatever the architect designs? Wouldn’t you like some say in what the house might look like? Or total say for that matter?

      • Jeff P | September 22, 2011 at 11:04 am |

        Isn’t the ‘give architect boatload of money and wait’ strategy how we got Fallingwater?

        Not that I disagree with your point, but just sayin’.

        • Tom V. | September 22, 2011 at 11:17 am |

          According to the wiki for what its worth “…Preliminary plans were issued to Kaufmann for approval on October 15, 1935…”

        • JTH | September 22, 2011 at 11:45 am |

          Are you really comparing the design team at UA to Frank Lloyd Wright, The?

      • J.R. Clark | September 22, 2011 at 12:14 pm |

        Unfortunately, when you take the King’s shilling, you do the King’s bidding…in this case, UA is the King.

        Carolina sold its apparel rights (and presumably, the right to say what its uniforms will look like) to UA. Yes, dignity has a price.

        At least Alabama, Penn State, Oklahoma, and Southern Cal have the guts to insist on maintaining their classic look in spite of the costume makers.

        • Tom V. | September 22, 2011 at 12:25 pm |

          Ok, I was unaware that a college would sell the rights to its uniforms to a manufacturer. I was unaware such a thing was even possible or existed, so yeah, if that is in fact the case and the University has given up rights, by all means direct your anger at UA! Disregard my comment a few replies below.

        • Andy | September 22, 2011 at 1:48 pm |

          No, it doesn’t work like that. UA is a licensee. They do not hold the power when it comes to approvals, and South Carolina has not sold the rights to the uniform to UA. That said, when the phone rings and it’s UA on the other line, it’s probably tough to not throw them a bone and hear them out when they are giving your program a boatload of money and free gear. You can’t just hang up on them. All stuff like this is developed in conjunction with the athletic department. It’s not all UA’s doing. The design language throughout the process may not stray too far from typical UA, but all the final calls are approved by the athletic department.

    • jdreyfuss | September 22, 2011 at 7:12 pm |

      If I’m not mistaken, MARPAT is proprietary so it can’t be duplicated or neutralized by enemy intelligence. The government can’t hold trademarks or copyrights, so they could reverse engineer it, but that wouldn’t really be worth UA’s time. It’s surprising they wouldn’t just make a digicamo pattern of their own though.

  • traxel | September 22, 2011 at 8:59 am |

    Nebraska’s uni numbers have looked bad for quite some time now. Always scrunchy, jerseys never seem to fit right. Could be an okay getup if it weren’t so sloppy.

    http://farm7.static....

  • J.R. Clark | September 22, 2011 at 8:59 am |

    I am a Carolina alum and I hate what UA has done to my school’s uniforms. Apparently the players and some fans like dressing up in Halloween costumes. Why can’t USC go the route of Penn State, Alabama, and Oklahoma and maintain a simple, dignified look?

    • Phil Hecken | September 22, 2011 at 9:05 am |

      “Why can’t USC go the route of Penn State, Alabama, and Oklahoma and maintain a simple, dignified look?”

      ~~~

      they pretty much have, no?

      btw…google “USC Football” and see what comes up

      /sorry, USC means “so cal” not “south carolina” in the ncaa

      • J.R. Clark | September 22, 2011 at 9:11 am |

        Sorry for confusing you. SEC fans and University of South Carolina fans and alumni would have known which school I referred to without needing clarification. Yes, I was referring to the University of South Carolina.

        • Jeff P | September 22, 2011 at 11:11 am |

          By the way, you’re also not a Carolina alum. You’re a South Carolina Alum. Carolina was claimed by the first public university in the US, and they win it by virtue of ya know, having academic standards.

          My mother likes to tell the story of her giving her (pretty good, but not outstanding) PSAT score to South Carolina, and getting an admission to the honors program a few weeks later with no further info provided. Her father maintained that she only even bothered giving them that because the guy in the booth was cute.

          Also, I suspect Phil knew what you were referring to, and that he was mocking the tendency of SC fans to use identities already taken by other teams.

      • jdreyfuss | September 22, 2011 at 7:13 pm |

        Yeah, USC more or less won that argument in court last year.

    • Tom V. | September 22, 2011 at 11:21 am |

      JR CLARK: “…I am a Carolina alum and I hate what UA has done to my school’s uniforms…”

      Actually, I think you hate what Carolina has done to its uniforms. UA is a designer and manufacturer, but they do not own the school.

  • Joseph Gerard | September 22, 2011 at 9:02 am |

    So by looking at the Browns schedule this season, there’s a realistic chance that they will become the first NFL team since the 1998 Tennessee Oilers to wear white in ALL of their games this season, and–technically–the first such year for the Browns since 1995. There might’ve been a chance of that NOT happening if the Colts would’ve worn their throwbacks on Sunday and if the Texans would wear their whites at home in Week 9, but neither will happen. The Cardinals MIGHT wear white, but haven’t done it as much since moving into University of Phoenix Stadium. The Raiders tend to reserve the white-at-home business for the Chargers, and the Bengals are an outside shot as well, while the Ravens tend to only do it for their home opener. The 49ers and Steelers aren’t going to happen.

    Schedule:
    http://en.wikipedia....

    • Ry Co 40 | September 22, 2011 at 9:59 am |

      the steelers shouldn’t even be mentioned in that comment/thought…

      • Joseph Gerard | September 22, 2011 at 10:15 am |

        The last time we wore white at home in Pittsburgh (I don’t count Super Bowls as “home” games, even if it was only in Detroit) was 1969. We went 1-13 that year. Good enough reason not to wear white at home again, though I wouldn’t mind seeing it.

        I STILL would like to know when the throwbacks are going to be worn this year. You know they’re wearing them again because they do practice in the gold helmets sometimes, and I’ve seen it hanging in their lockers on TV.

  • The Jeff | September 22, 2011 at 9:15 am |

    The Raiders tend to reserve the white-at-home business for the Chargers

    No, that was a fluke. Idiot of a coach the first time, league mandated throwback the 2nd time. That crap ain’t gonna happen ever again. The Raiders do NOT wear white at home.

    • Joseph Gerard | September 22, 2011 at 9:24 am |

      Yes, Lane Kiffin is an idiot coach.

      And the Raiders had two other home games in the AFL Legacy throwbacks that they could’ve worn white at home but decided to stick with black. If they REALLY wanted to they could’ve worn black against the Chargers.

      • Joseph Gerard | September 22, 2011 at 9:40 am |

        Speaking of the Cardinals, and I’m having a hard time trying to find it, but I remember during a Steelers-Cardinals game back in 1997, Jerome Bettis’ jersey had his last name in black letters instead of gold letters with black trim, as usually seen on the white jerseys. Anyone want to help me with this evidence?

        • Gusto44 | September 22, 2011 at 11:52 am |

          Joseph, you’re exactly right about the the 1997 black letters for player names. This was a one year experiment, and the gold letters returned for 1998. Ditto for the Jacksonville Jaguars black paneling on their jerseys and the gold paneling on the Notre Dame jerseys.

        • Joseph Gerard | September 22, 2011 at 12:41 pm |

          I just remember that particular game because Bettis scored the game-winning touchdown in overtime. I prefer the gold letters myself. That and block numbers.

  • Mark in Shiga | September 22, 2011 at 9:19 am |

    Regarding Ryne Sandberg andhis “second” #23 jersey with the Phillies: is that the number he wears as AAA manager? Because it can’t be a courtesy to his playing days as a Phillie; he wore #37 during his short stint with them in 1981, and a #24 jersey might also have been prepared for him at one point. He had #23 in spring training this year with the Phils, but it was primarily his Cubs number.

    • Hank-SJ | September 22, 2011 at 9:44 am |

      Ryno wears #23 with the Iron Pigs. http://www.bleachern...

      • Mark in Shiga | September 22, 2011 at 10:51 am |

        Thanks, Hank. I guess I’d rather see a late-season “callup” coach keep his minor-league managing number rather than get something ridiculous like some teams give out. When Mike Quade first got called up in a similar role to Ryno’s around 2003 or so, they gave him #81, right in there with bullpen catchers and the interpreters and other staff like that. It looked weird to see him out on the field celebrating after wins. This is the regular season, not spring training!

    • Geen | September 22, 2011 at 10:12 am |

      Exactly. He was traded to the Cubs for Ivan DeJesus.

      • JTH | September 22, 2011 at 11:57 am |

        Actually, Larry Bowa was traded for De Jesus. Sandberg was thrown in to sweeten the deal.

  • Connie | September 22, 2011 at 9:31 am |

    I humbly (+/-) join chorus of jubilation over new Toronto logo. Even better than the original.

    And that courageous caped KC is a man to be praised and cherished. And maybe medicated.

  • Michael M | September 22, 2011 at 9:40 am |

    I wish the Saints would wear unis from the Archie era as throwbacks. These were great:

    http://www.go4thesta...

    http://www.go4thesta...

  • Kyle Allebach @ School | September 22, 2011 at 9:50 am |

    Isn’t it “Lightsaber“, not “light sabre”?

    • Anthony | September 22, 2011 at 10:44 am |

      Hilarious – only on this blog would someone point that out.

    • Shane | September 22, 2011 at 10:45 am |

      I’ve seen it styled “lightsabre”, but that was in a Mclusky song:

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

      • StLMarty | September 22, 2011 at 11:33 pm |

        Denmark

    • JTH | September 22, 2011 at 11:58 am |

      Heh. I saw the title of today’s post and thought maybe it was related to the NHL team in Buffalo.

      • Anthony | September 22, 2011 at 12:01 pm |

        Yeah, why would you expect to get not very heavy buffalo hockey player with your football uniform anyway?

        • JTH | September 22, 2011 at 12:59 pm |

          I didn’t know the post had anything to do with football just by reading the title.

    • Fred | September 22, 2011 at 3:16 pm |

      Uh so Buffalo Sabres, the hockey team was named after the sword, the sabre? So why do they have a buffalo on their jersey? Because of the city name?

      • Teebz | September 22, 2011 at 4:59 pm |

        Yes and yes, Fred. The Knoxes, when they founded the team, wanted a name other than some variation of buffalo/bison, so they held a name-the-team contest. Sabres was ultimately chosen because Seymour Knox felt that the sabre was a weapon used by elite fighters and leaders. He put the two images together on the logo for full representation.

        As a spin-off to this, the Sabres also founded an AHL team in Cincinnati for their minor-league club. The name? The Cincinnati Swords.

      • Lloyd Davis | September 22, 2011 at 5:34 pm |

        It’s not even a buffalo. It’s a bison.

        Bison:
        http://en.wikipedia....

        Buffalo:
        http://en.wikipedia....
        http://en.wikipedia....

        • Teebz | September 22, 2011 at 6:11 pm |

          My zoo training days are coming in handy.

          If you want to be entirely correct, you’re right. However, the name that everyone uses to describe North American bison is “buffalo”. Is it wrong? Yes. Does anyone care? Not really, thanks to French European settlers who called them “les boeufs” (rhymes with “puff”). English settlers thought the two animals – bisons and buffaloes – also looked somewhat similar, and called them buffaloes despite there being a distinct break at the Genus level of the taxonomy. The term “bison” was introduced in the 1700s to divide the two species – bison and buffalo – completely.

          Incidentally, European bison are called “Wisent”, and were found in northern Europe.

          The city of Buffalo is represented by the bison on the logo regardless of the name given to the largest living land animal in North America. A rose by any other name, I suppose.

        • jdreyfuss | September 22, 2011 at 7:19 pm |

          Hey teebz, does it bother you when you see teams like the AAA squad in Buffalo that call themselves Bisons? Because it bugs the hell out of me. My high school did it and the only ones that called our teams the Bison instead were the students and the English teachers.

  • Ricko | September 22, 2011 at 9:52 am |

    What was the inspiration for those South Carolina pants, Ebby Calvin “Nuke” LaLoosh’s garterbelt?

    • Ricko | September 22, 2011 at 10:13 am |
    • Andy | September 22, 2011 at 1:51 pm |

      Lots of teams used to wear pants with stripes on the rear. Very old design element as far as football goes.

      • Ricko | September 22, 2011 at 2:36 pm |

        And the look didn’t exactly endure, did it.

        Back then those were separate fabric panels of the pants (pre-stretch fabric), and some teams and/or suppliers chose to make them a different color. They were most decidedly form following function.

        These South Carolina things are purely decorative.
        All form, no function.
        And stupid looking.

        Unless, y’know, garter belts really get you going.

        • Simply Moono | September 22, 2011 at 5:37 pm |

          “All form, no function.”

          As hideous as these new UA ass/thigh-mural pants are, I disagree with the above quote. Look here: you can see that the tribal stuff looks to be made of the same flex material used for UA’s performance gear. Here’s a closer look: It also looks like there’s a mesh insert at the inner thigh.

          This is pretty much UA’s version of the Nike Pro Combat pant (which, BTW, only looks good with plain designs). But tell me this: if UA can sublimate the friggin Taj Mahal in the back insert, why can’t they sublimate a simple supplement to the missing triangle of stripe missing from Auburn’s pants?

        • Simply Moono | September 22, 2011 at 5:38 pm |

          *friggin’*

          Forgot the apostrophe at the end…

        • Ricko | September 22, 2011 at 7:31 pm |

          I think thesedays there’s a lot of making pants in a fashion to suit an attention-getting goofball graphic treatment. Just as I think a jersey can be made to intentionally wig out the Colts shoulder striping so we’ll know for sure it’s a particular manufacturer’s jersey. I mean, if we get it right how will anyone know it’s OUR jersey?

          Either way, those South Carolina pants still look like a garter belt.

          So the thought of a college football player in a garter belt evidently gets SOMEBODY going.

      • Jim Vilk | September 22, 2011 at 2:37 pm |

        Didn’t look good then, doesn’t look good now.

      • Phil Hecken | September 22, 2011 at 4:12 pm |

        “Lots of teams used to wear pants with stripes on the rear. Very old design element as far as football goes.”

        ~~~

        there was also a time when more than 50% of the population wasn’t allowed to vote…now, they just choose not to, but that’s another story

        not everything old, design-wise especially, is good

        ass stripes and those old friction strips never looked good…then…or now

        the difference was that back then, as ricko pointed out, they were for function, not fashion

        • LarryB | September 22, 2011 at 7:50 pm |

          So cool

        • LarryB | September 22, 2011 at 7:53 pm |

          WHAT? They never looked good???????

          This coming from a guy who says the all time best looking uniform is Penn State.

          Come on Phil. Those jerseys were sweet. At least me and NickV like them.

        • LarryB | September 22, 2011 at 8:05 pm |

          Some teams in the 20’s did not wear the friction strips. They wore the kidney patches or whatever Paul calls them.

          Michigan never wore friction strips as far as I know. They did wear the oval patches on the side.

          I have said it many times and will say it again. The best period for college football uniforms was the 1930’s. Maybe not the late 30’s since numbers were required on the fronts by then.

          Phil and maybe JimVs favorite era was the early 1950’s When teams all had plain helmets with a single stripe and no numbers on the side. To go with plain jerseys and plain pants.

        • Phil Hecken | September 22, 2011 at 8:49 pm |

          “Phil and maybe JimVs favorite era was the early 1950′s When teams all had plain helmets with a single stripe and no numbers on the side. To go with plain jerseys and plain pants.”

          ~~~

          oh, lawrence, please don’t try to pigeon-hole my — after all, i like the new oregon uni-sets, don’t i?

          i wouldn’t want every team to look like paterno state or alabama, but i respect the hell out of them for telling nike, probably nicely, to fuck off…it’s nice that some teams can keep a look through the decades, instead of deciding to wear a brand new, flag-inducing pro combat amateur pacifist uniform every year

          i pretty much take each uni for what it is, not what the company behind it is pushing (although i hate the idea of one-offs), but in general i really don’t like ass stripes, weird piping and random side panel designs and pants with amorphous shit on them

          give me a classic or even modern uni that LOOKS like a uniform and not a costume and i will probably like it…even as far as one-off’s go…i like one of the two — guess which one

        • LarryB | September 22, 2011 at 9:13 pm |

          Ya I know.I like to tease you and Jim about it. The PSU uni love. But I never knew you thought those friction strip unis were ugly. Some teams had some cool variations of them. Although many were like the one shown. That is why I said the 30s for me were the best. Teams added letters or a number in the middle. In the 1910’s most teams wore brown strips.

        • LarryB | September 22, 2011 at 9:18 pm |

          And I am om record as saying the only Ohio State pro combat uni I liked was last year. Why? Because it was the most accurate “throwback” Nike did for the Buckeyes. It looked very close the actual 1942 unis.

          This years could have been a sweet 1961 throwback. But no. Ohio State let Nike “modernize” it. I will say this years still looks better than 2009. That was nothing like 1954 or nothing like Ohio State ever wore.

          I like this years color combo and am at least happy it was not an all black as some rumors told us.

        • Jim Vilk | September 22, 2011 at 10:52 pm |

          Some teams had numbers on the helmets in the 50s. And yes, it was a fantastic decade for unis.

          Not every team should have a plain helmet, but I can think of one right off the top of my head:
          http://grfx.cstv.com...

          Friction stripes were *OK*, but butt stripes never looked good.

  • Tim Cainglit | September 22, 2011 at 9:52 am |

    I would say you’ll probably still see the Budweiser signs but the players with a Miller in their hand.

  • Johnny O | September 22, 2011 at 9:56 am |

    According to my sources, the Saints throwbacks will be black, white letters on the nameplate, with white, gold, white, gold, white striping on the sleeves.

    • Johnny O | September 22, 2011 at 10:03 am |

      Or, I could post a picture from NFLshop.com

      http://www.nflshop.c...

      • Kyle Allebach @ School | September 22, 2011 at 10:04 am |

        Aww man they look sweet. Although I am worried about those shoulder stripes…

    • Joseph Gerard | September 22, 2011 at 10:23 am |

      And do you have a link for your sources?

      • Johnny O | September 22, 2011 at 11:27 am |

        My source is the official 2011 Reebok Apparel Guide that shows sideline gear and uniforms.

        Unfortunately, the same guide has the Seahawks “snot green” uniforms, and the Giants all red alts. Sooooooo… not too sure if I believe everything in it. I did get it last December, and with the exception of them not having the new Bills uniforms in the guide, it has been accurate on everything else, including sideline gear.

        • Joseph Gerard | September 22, 2011 at 12:40 pm |

          Until last season, the Cardinals pre-2005 red jerseys were also listed as their alts. I’d rather those be their alts than the BFBS uniforms.

        • Andy | September 22, 2011 at 1:54 pm |

          I’d rather see these with solid gold numerals and a solid black fleur on the helmet, but they are much better than the current uniforms. Only think I don’t love is the similarity to the Browns’ design, but I can look past it.

        • Pat | September 23, 2011 at 1:59 am |

          How did you get the apparel guide? Just curious if that was something that can easily be picked up or if it was from an inside source.

    • Simply Moono | September 22, 2011 at 5:52 pm |

      Here’s Jonathan Vilma’s uni: and here’s a row of them… aaaaaaaannnddd another.

      I am one happy Saints fan right now *ceiling-to-ceiling smile*.

      • jdreyfuss | September 22, 2011 at 7:25 pm |

        Is it a trick of the light or are the pants in that first picture more yellow than gold? Is it a nod to the fact that they didn’t match them up properly back in the day?

        • Simply Moono | September 22, 2011 at 8:47 pm |

          No illusion: those are indeed, “mustard” gold pants. My only gripe. They should be Old Gold, like the numbers. But still awesome, nonetheless! =)

      • SoCalDrew | September 22, 2011 at 10:28 pm |

        Restore the old helmet decal and you’ve got what SHOULD be their regular, not “alt” kit.

  • Kyle Allebach @ School | September 22, 2011 at 9:58 am |

    It’s cool and all that the Saints are gonna throwback, but I’d love to see those gold jerseys again, maybe with some gold or striped socks (and if the gold on the jersey matched the helmet).

    • Ricko | September 22, 2011 at 10:09 am |

      Philosphical proposition: What would an NFL team opt to look like a high school team? Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
      http://www.allstarpi...

      • Ricko | September 22, 2011 at 10:12 am |

        Yeah, I know that’s a movie, but it IS a high school look.

      • The Jeff | September 22, 2011 at 10:14 am |

        Yeah, why would an NFL team want to look like a high school team? Dammit Cleveland put a freakin logo on your helmets already!

        /sorry, I had to

        But seriously, there’s nothing inherently “high school” about gold or yellow jerseys. Sure, there’s HS teams that use them, and there’s NCAA teams that use them, and they’ve been used at the NFL level in the past. It’s a football jersey. If gold or yellow are among your team colors, why not wear it?

        • Ricko | September 22, 2011 at 10:24 am |

          Was talking about with the dark pants (ref: the Saints gold jersey photo in the link), which are easier to keep clean and therefore were, for a long, long time, the sign of a limited budget program.

          I have no problem with the gold jersey. But dark pants, because not everyone has the same frame of reference, do have a certain “low end” stigma for many.

          Same way to a lot of us black socks on teams such as Texas, Wisconsin and Nebraska look like an old man raking his lawn in Boca Raton.

        • Phil Hecken | September 22, 2011 at 10:38 am |

          “Dammit Cleveland put a freakin logo on your helmets already!”

          ~~~

          THE, what’s your complete obsession with helmets? it’s not a friggin canvas it’s a piece of equipment…if a team wants to go insane with it, fine, but not every team has to do that

          clevo’s helmet is friggin awesome just as it is…

          wouldn’t want every team in a plain helmet and gray facemask, but for a few teams, it’s just fine, TYVM

        • The Jeff | September 22, 2011 at 11:09 am |

          I dunno Phil, I’ve just *always* thought that helmets should have logos on them. Hell I remember being 5 or 6 watching football with my dad and asking why the Browns had blank helmets. It made no sense to me then, and it just bugs the hell out of me now.

          A helmet is a team’s identifier. Refusing to identify yourself is not in itself an identity. Not having a logo is just…wrong. Especially when you’re the “Browns” and your helmet is ORANGE. Penn State’s even worse with the blank white. It’s clip art. Take a Penn State helmet, stick the words “All Star” under it instead of “Penn State” and now you’ve got a $7.99 kid’s t-shirt at Wal-mart. How the hell is that an identity?

          I mean seriously, if you take someone who’s never watched football, ever, and give them a poster with the 32 NFL helmets and a sheet with the full team names and tell them to try to match them up, they can probably figure out most of them without too much trouble. Sure, they might mix up a few – swap the Colts & Broncos or the Eagles/Falcons/Seahawks… stuff like that… but the Browns? Only by process of elimination as they end up being the last team identified.

        • Ricko | September 22, 2011 at 11:26 am |

          Again, frame of reference. NFL didn’t start using the helmets as graphics for the teams until about the mid-70s. Before that, the home jersey generally was, in the context of “fandom,” the team’s identifier. College football largely later followed the same path with use of the helmet as an identifier.

          In today’s situation, then, with the helmets forefront, these are two valid observations…
          1. The Browns’ helmet could be said to stand out as arguably the NFL’s most unique. Many would call that superior branding.
          2. The use of two, or even three, helmets by a number of college teams is messing with their core image. Many would call that inconsistent branding.

        • Phil Hecken | September 22, 2011 at 11:27 am |

          “I’ve just *always* thought that helmets should have logos on them”

          ~~~

          so you were equally pissed at the 1967 broncos and the 1976 seahawks too? not to mention all those throwbacks…

        • The Jeff | September 22, 2011 at 11:41 am |

          Well I wasn’t exactly alive in 1967, but sure. I’ll be retroactively annoyed at Denver too.

        • The Jeff | September 22, 2011 at 12:59 pm |

          In today’s situation, then, with the helmets forefront, these are two valid observations…
          1. The Browns’ helmet could be said to stand out as arguably the NFL’s most unique. Many would call that superior branding.
          2. The use of two, or even three, helmets by a number of college teams is messing with their core image. Many would call that inconsistent branding.

          Well Ricko I’ll give you point 2. The number of alts in the NCAA is bordering on insane, especially when they aren’t even in team colors.

          As for point 1 though… yeah, they’re “unique” but are they good? To me, the blank helmet just screams lazy and/or stubborn. They’re unique from inaction. They did *nothing*. Everyone else came up with a logo. Cleveland said “meh, whatever” and didn’t. And again, it’s an ORANGE helmet for a team called the BROWNS. How exactly does that make any sense at all? I guess that sticks in your head… but so does HEAD ON: APPLY DIRECTLY TO YOUR FOREHEAD. HEAD ON: APPLY DIRECTLY TO YOUR FOREHEAD. HEAD ON: APPLY DIRECTLY TO YOUR FOREHEAD. Is that good?

        • Ricko | September 22, 2011 at 1:42 pm |

          And I’ll give you that. Wasn’t addressing good or bad. Only uniqueness, and to what extent that’s of value in branding.

          For example, I think the “Yellow” Trucking logo, and their trunk graphics, are both ugly. But we damn sure recognize them.

          Thass allllll I was addressin’.

          (Although, personally I like the Browns helmets, owing to such undervalued concepts as “heritage”…but I can understand how some those blank sides as a waste of orange space.)

        • Andy | September 22, 2011 at 1:58 pm |

          Also, the Browns’ nickname does not refer to a color. It’s coincidence that one of their colors is Brown. The colors were plucked from a woman’s orange and brown feathered hat seen at BGSU, and the team was named for their founder and coach, Paul Brown, not for the color Brown.

        • Teamo | September 22, 2011 at 4:24 pm |

          Phil, don’t believe the Seahawks went plain helmet in ’76. Have a number of cards from that year and they are all logo free. Card company (Topps, I believe) probably did not have license to include the logos.

        • Michael Emody | September 22, 2011 at 6:54 pm |

          So, I guess when you see the Steelers helmets, you’re only upset about half the time?

        • LarryB | September 22, 2011 at 7:56 pm |

          Agree with the Jeff about PSU’s helmet. But not the Browns. I like the Browns with no logo. Penn State did look a tad better with the numbers on the side.

        • Phil Hecken | September 22, 2011 at 9:22 pm |

          “Phil, don’t believe the Seahawks went plain helmet in ’76.”

          ~~~

          yeah, i know…sorry…kind of a running UW joke

        • Kyle Allebach | September 22, 2011 at 10:11 pm |

          I like how I was talking about how I enjoyed the gold jerseys, and we got into a discussion about Cleveland’s helmet (I love this site).

          Anyway, I kinda agree with THE here, why do the Browns have an orange helmet (well, okay, brown is just a darker orange, but still, YOU’RE THE BROWNS)? Also, why not use the CB logo? It looks pretty cool.

          Fun fact: the Browns have no logo because Art Modell thought the “Brownie the Elf” logo was lame…or so I heard. I wonder what it would look like if he ever ended up on the helmet.

        • Phil Hecken | September 22, 2011 at 10:21 pm |

          “I wonder what it would look like if he ever ended up on the helmet.”

          ~~~

          ok

          did that (and about 90 other concepts) a while back…

          actually, if they ever did have to put a logo on the helmet, this would get my vote

          but one of the reasons the helmet IS so good is because they’ve kept shit off it for so long

          why do you need a logo? because THE doesn’t like plain helmets? fuck, i don’t like flaming thumbtack and think the titans would look better with this, but i don’t obsess over it

          one blank (and it’s not even “blank” since it has a stripe) helmet out of 32…live with it

      • MPowers1634 | September 22, 2011 at 10:20 am |

        Not unless they”re trying to look like either of these HS teams:

        1.
        http://4.bp.blogspot...

        2.http://26.media.tumb...

        • jdreyfuss | September 22, 2011 at 7:31 pm |

          The Carolina Panthers would look a hell of a lot better if they used the Dillon Panthers’ uniforms. The actual Permian Panthers basically wear the Raiders’ uniforms though, so they couldn’t do that.

    • SWC Susan (aka Tex) | September 23, 2011 at 10:45 am |

      Permian looks nothing like the Raiders…??? White helmet, black stripe, black P. Black & White unis…

  • MPowers1634 | September 22, 2011 at 10:09 am |

    The Gamecocks unis are interesting however I am actually starting to see Paul’s point.

    I LOVED the Maryland flag unis, but these seem to be didfferent for the sake of being different unless the true motive is to bring attention to the actual project.

    Just not necessary in this forum.

  • Bernard | September 22, 2011 at 10:11 am |

    Love the new/old Blue Jays logo! Might we also see a return to their original wordmark/number font? Be still, my heart…

  • Paul Lukas | September 22, 2011 at 10:15 am |

    Today’s ESPN column is up:
    http://espn.go.com/e...

    • Ricko | September 22, 2011 at 10:30 am |

      Ah, the Giants’ 1951 pennant run from, what, 17 games behind? The “Miracle of Googan’s Bluff.”

      One of my all-time favorite tags for a memorable event in sports.

      Actually, three memorable such things involved in that home run. Also…
      The Shot Heard ‘Round the World.
      And Thomson was called “The Flying Scot.”

      • Phil Hecken | September 22, 2011 at 10:39 am |

        googan?

        • Ricko | September 22, 2011 at 10:41 am |

          shit. Did that last time I typed that.
          Coogan’s Bluff.

        • Paul Lukas | September 22, 2011 at 10:46 am |

          Googan’s Bluff is, I believe, a famed poker maneuver.

        • Ricko | September 22, 2011 at 10:51 am |

          Originated by Uncle Fester?
          http://www.goldensil...

          No, wait, that’s Jackie Coogan.

    • Jeff P | September 22, 2011 at 11:21 am |

      Neat to see the thing after all these years. I’m also interested by the underarm construction. What’s that gusset for? Just to reduce stress on the seams?

      • Ricko | September 22, 2011 at 11:35 am |

        When fabric isn’t stretchy the gusset allows for moment.
        If it were construced like a typical shirt, the players would have a helluva time getting their arms above their heads.

        So, yeah, stress on seams is involved, but not the essential reason.

        • Ricko | September 22, 2011 at 11:36 am |

          what’s with my typing.
          Allows for MOVEMENT.

  • Hodges14 | September 22, 2011 at 10:26 am |

    Marlins logo = logo for the stadium

    Jays logo = perfect

  • Tim Cainglit | September 22, 2011 at 10:35 am |

    The wordmark does look worse than the logo on the Blues, but both are still cleaner than what is going on with the Rangers whites. I think it is really only an issue with certain teams like Rangers or Ree-box-ers. I was at the Sharks teal & white game on Tuesday and their wordmarks are clean. White wordmark on black/teal yokes.

  • Mike 2 | September 22, 2011 at 10:49 am |

    Add to the chorus: Blue Jays logo redesign is perfect. I am full of hope that they won’t screw it up by putting it on black uniforms and caps.

    WHILE WE’RE AT IT, let’s throw back to a May, 2009 column:

    http://www.uni-watch...

    in which I said:

    “They already have their perfect uniform in their past, 1989-1996, and the logo dates back to their founding. The fans loved it, they won two World Series wearing it. I don’t see any need to change a thing”

    Phil couldn’t tell if I was serious. You owe me a Coke.

    • Phil Hecken | September 22, 2011 at 11:30 am |

      {doing best judge smails} I OWE YOU NOTHING

      • Rob H. | September 22, 2011 at 4:24 pm |

        “I want a hamburger….. I want a cheeseburger….”

        • James Craven | September 22, 2011 at 7:50 pm |

          “YOU’LL GET NOTHING AND LIKE IT!!!”

          Sorry, couldn’t resist using that line.

      • jdreyfuss | September 22, 2011 at 7:34 pm |

        We’re all gonna get laid?

  • JimWa | September 22, 2011 at 11:48 am |

    1000x kudos to the Blue Jays redesign and redesigner! Even having been told it wasn’t an exact of the original, I kept thinking that Paul didn’t realize it was used AFTER the original logo. I went searching for my proof that would make Paul look a little foolish.

    The result? I’m feeling a little foolish, but I give the credit to the re-designer. That new logo is so familiar, yet distinct enough from it’s previous versions that it just … “belongs”.

    That said, I’m not as sure about a return to the retro futuristic Blue Jays uniforms. I never liked them the first time around, as they didn’t feel like baseball uniforms to my eyes. Do they fit a forward thinking city like Toronoto? Perhaps. Do they fit in a “futuristic” looking ISCI Skydome? I suppose. They just don’t seem MLB organic enough for me. I’d suggest something closer to the last Expos uniforms for them, though I’m sure nobody else in the AL East wants to go with pinstripes any time soon.

  • Ben Fortney | September 22, 2011 at 11:56 am |

    Paul / Jeff Ash or anybody else…

    Any more background or a caption on that Green Bay Blue Jays photo? I’m trying to place the Indian’s player on the left, possibly Mickey Vernon, who was my aunt’s father.

    Lil help, anyone? (all those 40s ballplayers look the same!)

    • Paul Lukas | September 22, 2011 at 12:03 pm |

      The guy on the left is Hank Greenberg, Indians GM at the time.

      • Ben Fortney | September 22, 2011 at 12:56 pm |

        Thanks Paul… face looked familiar – just not the right guy.

        While he’s known as a Senator and batted behind Teddy Ballgame in Boston, Vernon was on Cleveland in the late 40s.

      • Valjean | September 22, 2011 at 12:58 pm |

        Huh, a GM wearing a uni. If anyone could pull it off it’d be big Hank, but still: has that ever been done much, then or since? Of course back in the day even some managers didn’t bother.

        And I thought that looked like the great Mr. Greenberg, but had no idea he was ever with the Indians (GM or no).

        • jdreyfuss | September 22, 2011 at 7:35 pm |

          He used to be a part owner of the team.

      • Chance Michaels | September 22, 2011 at 1:36 pm |

        That’s a great picture – I’m going to add it to my blog post on the Green Bay Bluejays.

        They sure had some purty uniforms.

    • Phil Hecken | September 22, 2011 at 12:30 pm |

      “all those 40s ballplayers look the same!”

      ~~~

      well, except for jackie, campy, newk, doby…

      ;)

      • Ben Fortney | September 22, 2011 at 12:57 pm |

        Seriously, the first time I met him I asked my brother: “Who’s the Ted Willliams look-alike talking to Grandpa?”

  • jason anderson | September 22, 2011 at 12:07 pm |

    here’s vt’s decal:

    http://a1.sphotos.ak...

  • Graham Hudson | September 22, 2011 at 12:21 pm |

    Seeing Lombardozzi’s name get arched like that, I have to ask:

    What are the Oilers going to do with Ryan Nugent-Hopkins’ name on their jersey?

    I didn’t get a chance to see the back of his jersey during the pre-season highlights this week, so I’m very curious.

    • Mike Engle | September 22, 2011 at 12:46 pm |

      If I had to take an educated guess, it would probably look like this:
      http://www.vancouver...
      i.e.: the whole NUGENT-HOPKINS name, straight across. No arch required, and it’ll look fine: there is no radial arching in the NHL except for the NYR heritage thirds. It’ll surely go over the seams (you only need ten letters to do that, à la Michael Cammalleri), but the Oilers’ jerseys aren’t Bettman-wacky enough for it to look bad.
      Side note: I wish there could be more uniformity. Why did Magnus Paajarvi-Svensson have to drop Svensson, or Jeff Drouin-Deslauriers drop Drouin?

  • pflava | September 22, 2011 at 1:02 pm |

    That glorious Blue Jays logo is a fantastic counter-balance to the lame thing the Marlins are going with.

  • M-N | September 22, 2011 at 1:16 pm |

    New Jay’s logo looks great! Finally blue for the Blue Jays. I always liked the solid blue caps they wore during the World Series years. Does this mean we will be seeing the Red Canada day jerseys, and Baby Blue alts?

    • Mike Edgerly | September 22, 2011 at 2:52 pm |

      I’d like to see if they have the guts to go Baby Blue full-time on the road, not as an alt…

      • M-N | September 22, 2011 at 3:07 pm |

        Would that be RETRO or THROWBACK lol…..

      • hofflalu | September 22, 2011 at 3:56 pm |

        I asked that question on the Chris Creamer board and someone in the know said they won’t bring back the powder blues.

        • M-N | September 22, 2011 at 4:02 pm |

          That’s too bad. I did not mind the pajama version of them they wore the last few seasons.

  • Ed | September 22, 2011 at 1:29 pm |

    That Ryne Sandberg a player share a number is not an issue as Sandberg is not officially a Phillies coach. The Phillies can list Sandberg in the game program, however MLB rules limit the number of coaches per team to a max of six. Some teams get around this by adding a “special assistant” to their staffs, but those assistants have limited access during games, unlike a coach.

  • Daren L | September 22, 2011 at 1:35 pm |

    The St. John’s Ice Caps of the AHL (Winnipeg Jets affiliate) have unveiled their uniforms.

    • Kyle Allebach | September 22, 2011 at 10:19 pm |

      Hmm. I’ve seen those before…

  • JamesP. | September 22, 2011 at 1:43 pm |

    Paul – Astros have released their 50th Anniversary Logo: http://mlblogsfooter...

    http://footer.mlblog...

    • SWC Susan (aka Tex) | September 22, 2011 at 2:11 pm |

      Oh my God, I love it! Almost like a Uni Watch card treatment!

      • JamesP. | September 22, 2011 at 2:32 pm |

        It does, doesn’t it. I’m reminded of the dugout jacket/sweater and the batting jersey from the early 1980s.

    • jdreyfuss | September 22, 2011 at 7:39 pm |

      That looks amazing. Someone needs to teach that as an example of how to incorporate a lot of elements into a logo without giving people headaches.

      Also, I thought Memorial Hermann was the Astros’ med sponsor. Have they changed it in the last two years?

  • JamesP. | September 22, 2011 at 1:45 pm |

    Pictures of the Saints throwbacks:

    http://a2.sphotos.ak...

    http://a3.sphotos.ak...

    • Andy | September 22, 2011 at 2:00 pm |

      That might be my favorite color. Forget Vegas Gold or Metallic Beige or whatever they like to use now. This is where it’s at. Maybe a little warmer and it would be perfect.

    • Jim BC | September 22, 2011 at 2:05 pm |

      Now those are nice!

    • Phil Hecken | September 22, 2011 at 2:07 pm |

      so are those leg warmers just sewn into the bottoms of the pant legs?

      and looks like the golds won’t be matching…my OCD doesn’t appreciate this

      • Ricko | September 22, 2011 at 2:25 pm |

        “Can you even dye my pants to match my numbers?”
        http://www.gonemovie...

      • Valjean | September 22, 2011 at 2:27 pm |

        Just curious: have the Saints’ various golds (on helmet, jersey, pants) ever matched? I can never remember the helmets being anything close to a “dark” (or whatever it’s called) gold. And the jersey number colors have, um, kind of varied over the years.

        I actually find the mismatching kind of endearingly quirky — and those throwbacks are perfectly gorgeous.

        • Chance Michaels | September 22, 2011 at 3:41 pm |

          You’re right – I don’t think they’ve ever properly matched.

          At least not since these 1967 prototypes, and the color reproduction is apparently off in that photo.

      • JamesP. | September 22, 2011 at 2:29 pm |

        Haven’t seen anything that shows those are part of the pants leg or they are the socks that are to be worn with the uniform. Personally, I think it is a nice modern verson of the 1968 uniform.

  • KT | September 22, 2011 at 2:15 pm |

    I’m going to guess (without looking it up) that Steve Lombardozzi is Steve Lombardozzi, Jr., right? Because if not, it took the shortstop from UF 27 years to make the majors. :)

  • KT | September 22, 2011 at 2:17 pm |

    Oops, I forgot that Steve, Sr. actually DID make the majors, way back when. Turns out, it is his son. Good to see.

    So, after that, I give you this: the new logo (er, “crest”) for the San Diego Sockers:

    https://www.facebook...

    • Ricko | September 22, 2011 at 2:28 pm |

      Yup, played on a W-S winner…
      http://doubleplayaca...

    • Jim Vilk | September 22, 2011 at 2:48 pm |

      When are the Sockers going back to the MISL?

    • Achowat | September 22, 2011 at 3:17 pm |

      A soccer team’s logo is most accurately a ‘badge’ not a crest

      • Chance Michaels | September 22, 2011 at 3:37 pm |

        Actually, that’s not true. At least not in England, where a crest is a crest.

        I believe that “badge” is reserved for crests embroidered on shirts, but that might just be me.

  • FPopp | September 22, 2011 at 2:21 pm |

    Saw Miami Marlins and Toronto Blue Jays identities logos since I have special access permission (for other reasons) to their site. I like both identities for completely different reasons. Great job MLB!!

  • FPopp | September 22, 2011 at 3:02 pm |

    While on the MLB Style Guide site… WHOA!!! It’s going to be a very Merry Christmas…

    • JamesP. | September 22, 2011 at 3:23 pm |

      You have a username and password?

      Anthing worth shairing?

      • NE | September 22, 2011 at 3:38 pm |

        Agreed, don’t leave me with blue-balls

    • buttonpush | September 22, 2011 at 7:32 pm |

      http://www.thesports...

      This was always a true classic too.

  • Pretty Boy Paulie | September 22, 2011 at 3:32 pm |

    Hmmm…I don’t know if anybody noticed (or have already discussed this) but it seems like a lot organizations are changing their “modern” and “marketable” uniform & logo designs back to simpler & humbler origins. Not just in baseball but in other leagues too, is it just a fad? Or have people finally come to their senses? Maybe Oregon will finally wear regular ol’ GREEN and regular ol’ yellow gold.

  • Bryan | September 22, 2011 at 4:25 pm |

    Just heard on Mets radio broadcast (Howie Rose) state that the Mets road uniforms will be different, and most notably better…..losing the black?

  • Showtime | September 22, 2011 at 4:55 pm |

    Toronto is unveiling on 11/17

  • Showtime | September 22, 2011 at 4:57 pm |

    @Bryan, they are adjusting the script on three of their uniforms.

  • Patrick_in_MI | September 22, 2011 at 6:46 pm |

    Those Dayton Gems throwbacks are outrageous! Truly, truly, truly outrageous.

  • buttonpush | September 22, 2011 at 7:25 pm |

    Mets PMS 294 Blue Balls.

  • buttonpush | September 22, 2011 at 7:28 pm |

    Birds should go back to this.
    http://i131.photobuc...

  • nobody | September 22, 2011 at 8:00 pm |

    ASU just posted this on their facebook page:
    http://www.facebook....
    Two things: 1) Even back in the 70s, sleeve stripes didnt go all the way around the sleeves and 2) this could be an indication that theyll wear the throwback decal from the ticker earlier in the week.

  • LarryB | September 22, 2011 at 9:50 pm |

    Cincinnati Bearcats in all black vs NC State in all whites

    • Simply Moono | September 22, 2011 at 10:43 pm |

      What’s black, white and red all over?

      • nobody | September 23, 2011 at 1:19 am |

        A penguin holding its breath?

  • KCRoyalman | September 23, 2011 at 1:36 pm |

    Thanks for saying it takes guts to wear my KCRoyalman Getup. Its been a fun run we will see if I can get the repairs to the costume to keep it going or not.

    Have a great day