Sins of the Fathers

UTI1617716_r620x349.jpg

Uniforms don’t exist in a vacuum. They fit into many contexts, not the least of which is the history and heritage of the teams they represent. So even though I’m generally a traditionalist, sometimes a traditional design just doesn’t make sense for a given team. Case in point: the new Padres set, which was unveiled yesterday. Let’s take a look, one element at a time:

• The new home uniform: Unobjectionable but unremarkable. I’m generally a fan of collar/placket piping, but for this team? Nuh-uh. Doesn’t fit. Ditto for the block numbers on the back. C’mon, if any team deserves to have a custom font, it’s this one. And I love the Swinging Friar, but reducing him to a one-color design robs him of all his oomph (plus I’m not too fond of the team script appearing on the end of his bat). And besides, the Friar is playful, just like the Pads’ uniforms used to be — and like this one is definitely not. So is it good or is it stupid? Stupid.

• The new road uniform: Third road uniform in three years for the Padres, and clearly the most snooze-inducing of the bunch. Give me an accent color here, or some piping on the belt tunnels, or something to remind me that this team once had an imaginative design program. The new sleeve patch helps, but it’s too little, too late. Stupid.

• The new softball alternate: Sure, why not? I never particularly liked the old one. Good.

The new block numbering on the digi-camo jersey: Nobody cares.

• The new logos: I like that secondary mark. But come on — a one-color circular “Baseball Club” design for your primary? Jeez, why not go NNOB and get it over with? Stupid.

Bottom line: It’s take more than some placket piping and a bulls-eye logo to make everyone forget these. And the thing is, the Padres shouldn’t want us to forget those old looks. They should be able to embrace their quirky heritage. That’s part of what makes them the Padres! If they want to update their look, fine. Nobody’s saying they have to stick with brown, or stick with lowercase letters. But they should definitely stick to something unconventional, because that’s what they’re about. They don’t play in some old-school northeastern city, and they shouldn’t try to dress as though they do.

Some of you might be saying, with some justification, “Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.” And it’s true that the Padres’ urine-colored road uniforms were an innovation — just one that that I didn’t happen to care for. Ditto for the camouflage (remember, the Pads pioneered that now-ubiquitous trend). But a road uni that consists of nothing but gray, blue, and a really boring type treatment? This team can do better than that.

(Special thanks to Brady Phelps, who compiled most of the above-linked images on this page.)

+ + + + +

Party reminder: Remember, Uni Watch party this Saturday, 2pm, at Sheep Station. See you there.

College hoops update: So many new college basketball uniforms have come to my attention in the past 48 hours that Tuesday’s ESPN column is already out of date. So I have an update posted on ESPN today.

+ + + + +

Uni Watch News Ticker: The NFL’s pink-out even extended to the concourse signage at Giants Stadium (from Dan Pesce). … The Islanders will finally unveil that really ugly third jersey on the evening of Nov. 16. … And it looks like the Blue Jays will be unveiling their new look two days after that. … Toledo’s massive NOB lettering poses problems for lineman Mike VanDerMeulen (big thanks to Brian Thompson). … Quite a uniform Charlie Sheen was searing for his latest movie. Someone needs to teach him proper blousing protocol, though (from Zane Tuck). … The Leicester Tigers have a new kit for the Heineken Cup (from Josh Jacobs). … Perth Glory are celebrating their 15th anniversary this weekend and they’ve released a photo of some of their more famous players wearing some of the club’s different kits from over the years (from Michael Orr). … Also from Michael: “On Tuesday a Seattle photographer posted this photo of a shoot he was doing with Seattle Sounders winger Steve Zakuani. Didn’t take long for the image to come down, as it appears to be the Sounders’ new 3rd kit for the 2012 season, but I got a screen shot before they took it down.” … Here’s an article about a football recruit who’s committed to Syracuse. Key quote, from the kid’s high school coach: “[Syracuse is] getting someone that truly wants to become a football player, not one who wants to go Division I and get all of the Pro Combat Nike uniforms and all of that. This is a kid that wants to learn and excel in a sport” (from Rick DiRubbo). … New style guide for Central Connecticut State. … The football team at Lakeridge High in Oregon uses a helmet design poached from the old Boston/N.Orelans/Portland Breakers of the USFL — or at least that’s how it seems at first glance. But according to the last graf on this page, the Breakers actually donated their gear to the Lakeridge High after the team went belly-up. No poaching needed! (Great story from Jason Urick.) … It now turns out that the UK soccer teams will be permitted to wear poppies after all. … A big politics web site claims that another politics web site has ripped off its logo. … The Sabres will wear camouflage warm-ups on Friday (from Timothy Tryjankowski). … But hey, the Sharks already wore camo warm-ups last Saturday (from Andrew Gegenheimer). … Very interesting note from Samuel Lam who covers the Niners: “Apparently since last week, Nike has sent in jerseys for the players to try on for next season. The players are supposed to wear their pads before trying them on. The jerseys used were blank, white, generic jerseys but are very tight-looking (almost no sleeves really).” … Niners coach Jim Harbaugh has already established a signature style (thanks Brinke). … If you go to this page and search on the word “teal,” you’ll find news about the Mariners adding a green-brimmed cap for 2012 (from Daniel Moraine).

 

213 comments to Sins of the Fathers

  • The Jeff | November 10, 2011 at 7:22 am |

    Damn… how often do Paul and I actually agree on a new uniform?

    • Arr Scott | November 10, 2011 at 8:07 am |

      For me, it’s a perfectly fine set. B-minus. But a downgrade in almost every way from their 2011 unis, and a huuuuge downgrade from their 2010 set. In two years, they’ve gone from one of my favorite uniforms in baseball to merely serviceable. These are safe unis, in that there’s basically nothing wrong with any element, but there’s also nothing particularly good or even interesting anywhere in the set.

      The one real demerit for me is the block lettering. The Padres have an excellent custom number font, and the new road script and the cap logo still match it, so why not keep using it? Did the Padres get a deal on a pallette of block numbers at Filene’s going-out-of-business sale or something?

    • Lloyd Davis | November 10, 2011 at 10:29 am |

      It’s like they’ve been Yzermanned! I mean, they’re not bad uniforms, but just don’t seem to fit the context. I agree, if there’s a franchise that is duty-bound to be (at least a bit) gaudy, it’s the Padres.

      This is a uniform set worthy of a sober, northeastern or Midwestern club that made its pro debut in 1869, not 1969.

      • Tim E. O'B | November 10, 2011 at 6:28 pm |

        YES! Yzermanned needs to be used more often. Keep spreading this word.

    • Ben Fortney | November 10, 2011 at 10:47 am |

      Why all the two-color? (and this is coming from a guy who like “simple” design)

      Mustard, orange, sand… they’ve got creative options and yet they went boring.

    • Graf Zeppelin | November 10, 2011 at 10:53 am |

      I dunno, I kind of like the new road grays. Then again, I think I just generally like road grays. The rest? Meh.

    • Josh | November 10, 2011 at 4:07 pm |

      I guess Jeff Moorad’s style is to go take over a team, introduce crappy uniforms, and have Josh Byrnes follow him around like a puppy.
      What a joke that guy is.

    • Besty | November 10, 2011 at 7:36 pm |

      The Padres should have a “Whale’s Vagina” alt. I have no skills or I would shop one.

      • Ronnie | November 11, 2011 at 12:38 am |

        You stay classy, San Diego.

  • Silver Creek Doug | November 10, 2011 at 7:26 am |

    Small correction on the poppy controversy Paul.

    This is an international weekend, so no club matches. It is the England national team that wants to wear the poppies; FIFA said no, citing their policy of no adornments on a national team jersey except a black armband. They ended up compromising and allowing England to wear poppies on the black armband.

    • Connie | November 10, 2011 at 7:48 am |

      And Wales and Scotland.

    • George Chilvers | November 10, 2011 at 9:36 am |

      Paul was correct – the “UK soccer teams” – England, Wales, and (provided Cyprus as home team agree)Scotland.

  • Spartan | November 10, 2011 at 7:26 am |

    I was hoping someone out there could help me understand what Adidas and Michigan are doing with their road jerseys. Michigan has only played three away games and one of which, they wore the throw back inspired alternatives. That leaves only two games where they wore their normal away jerseys.

    I know it was mentioned in the Ticker already, however when they played at Northwestern, the team started by wearing the new Adidas jerseys and throughout the course of the game some players (including Denard Robinson), switched to last year’s design. See photo #8 for the before, 50-52 for the after: http://www.mgoblue.c...

    This past weekend vs. Iowa, the entire team switched back to the old format. Almost. If you look at the game photos, there are at least two players (#50 and #39) wearing the new Adidas jerseys. See photos #7 and 8: http://www.mgoblue.c...

    To make it even more odd, the old jersey is the one marketed as “authentic”: http://www.mden.com/...

    And while we’re at it, has this been discussed? U of M is memorializing Desmond Howard by always adorning the #21 jersey with a patch: http://annarbor.com/...

    • Paul Lukas | November 10, 2011 at 7:35 am |

      And while we’re at it, has this been discussed? U of M is memorializing Desmond Howard by always adorning the #21 jersey with a patch: http://annarbor.com/

      Not “memorializing” — honoring. Memorializing is only when someone’s dead.

  • Fight | November 10, 2011 at 7:39 am |

    Two words for Charlie Sheen’s uni, Bingo Long. While not an exact replica, the similarities are there: http://www.thelmagaz...

    • Graf Zeppelin | November 10, 2011 at 10:55 am |

      I was thinking the same thing but couldn’t remember the full name of the Bingo Long Traveling All-Stars and Motor Kings. One of their jerseys is on display at the HoF in Cooperstown.

  • Graham Jaunts | November 10, 2011 at 7:39 am |

    Nondescript, boring baseball team stays nondescript and boring.

    I do think that these new unis look better than their old ones, for the most part. Piping at least adds something, even if it’s not much.

    However, they’re still terribly dull and drab. Why is that the look they’re trying to cultivate? What are they going for? Seems like a team with a severe identity crisis.

    • pushbutton | November 10, 2011 at 9:30 am |

      Just more “Let’s look like other teams” with the headspoon.

      BUT….render the same design in brown and you’ve got a winner.

  • Simply Moono | November 10, 2011 at 7:40 am |

    Couple of things:

    1) Looking at the new Padres primary. Doesn’t it remind you of another blue-wearing team that sterilized their identity this year?

    2) Check out the “Breakers'” opponent. That looks like the team featured on the Nike Uniform Builder homepage.

    • Fred | November 10, 2011 at 9:11 am |

      Actually, I don’t think Tampa Bay “sterilized” their look. The new logo is absolutely gorgeous. It’s classy, simple and exactly what a bolt on a hockey jersey should look like. The Padres logo, however is just drab. Just an opinion, of course and I don’t know why these two are so different to me. Maybe it’s because the TB bolt was so dysfunctional in the years past.

    • Lloyd Davis | November 10, 2011 at 10:31 am |

      @Simply Moono: Ah, ya beat me to it! (See my comment above, written before I’d got this far down the crawl. Note to self: must read ahead.)

    • Graf Zeppelin | November 10, 2011 at 10:56 am |

      Reminds me a little more of the Rays than the Lightning.

  • Craig D | November 10, 2011 at 7:47 am |

    Padres couldn’t be more generic if they had “Team” on their jerseys. I don’t know what the average San Diegan feels about the team’s uni history, but they have to at least embrace the fun side this team showed once upon a time.

    • Arr Scott | November 10, 2011 at 7:57 am |

      Embrace the fun, absolutely. Or even what about honor the troops? The team advertised quite loudly that the khaki-navy uniform set was meant as a tribute to the uniforms of the Navy and Marine Corps, which have such a huge presence in San Diego. By moving away from uniforms that deliberately echo those of our sailors and marines, aren’t the Padres saying that they no longer honor the troops? You can’t pat yourself on the back about honoring the troops in the first instance and then abandon the move in the second without implying that you no longer honor them. It’s the ratchet effect.

      Besides, blue and brown is a great color combo, and one basically unused elsewhere. Navy and tan is great, but so would be brown and sky blue. If the Padres are going to shake things up, that’s the direction they should have gone.

      • Pierre | November 10, 2011 at 8:08 am |

        I would like to personally beat the crap out of the guy who invented the camo jersey.

        • The Jeff | November 10, 2011 at 8:19 am |

          Seconded.

          It’s possible to honor the troops without dressing up like clowns.

          (Assuming of course that our troops actually need to be honored at a sporting event, but that’s an argument best had somewhere else.)

    • Craig D | November 10, 2011 at 8:39 am |

      They have had blue, orange, brown, yellow and sand in their history. Take any TWO of those (well except blue and sand, the most recent combo) and this would be 10 times better. Blue and orange? Good. Orange and brown? Fantastic. Yellow and Blue? Sure why not? Go for it!!! Don’t be a wallflower San Diego. My personal color choice would be blue and brown. It is a combo that can work as long as the blue isn’t a deep shade. Friars wore brown right? Blue and brown with a hint of orange or yellow to provide pop.

      • Geeman | November 10, 2011 at 8:44 am |

        Yes, the Pads missed an opportunity to have a great (not just good) uniform by leaving out some of the colors of their past — orange or gold. Navy blue and gold are the colors of the military service that dominates San Diego, and no one else in baseball has those colors. Add a splash of gold or orange and the uniforms would be great.

        Keep in mind that the Chargers have missed an opportunity to have the best uniform in football too.

        • jdreyfuss | November 10, 2011 at 9:29 am |

          The Brewers are pretty damn close to navy and gold. I know it’s not exact, but it’s very close.

        • Geeman | November 10, 2011 at 9:34 am |

          True, and good point. Maybe that’s why you add orange. The blue and orange uniforms the Padres wore during their last World Series appearance in 1998 were great. Add a splash of bright gold to that and it’s even more distinctive, like the trim on Oklahoma City’s basketball uniforms.

        • Lloyd Davis | November 10, 2011 at 10:34 am |

          Blue and orange. I mean, just blue and orange. That’d make a hell of an attractive colour scheme. Wonder if these guys are listening.

        • Ben Fortney | November 10, 2011 at 10:50 am |

          Said the same thing above… Mustard, sand, orange, anything.

      • Rob H. | November 10, 2011 at 12:55 pm |

        Yeah, every if it was 90% navy-blue themed, with a hint of brown trim, that’d be better than no brown at all.

  • Arr Scott | November 10, 2011 at 7:47 am |

    Introducing your San Diego Rays.

    And to anyone who thinks the Friars old khaki roads were “urine-colored,” it’s time to visit the urologist!

    • Connie | November 10, 2011 at 7:51 am |

      “Introducing your San Diego Rays…”

      Perfect.

      • Craig D | November 10, 2011 at 8:41 am |

        San Diego v Tampa inter league games will be the Notre Dame v Navy of MLB. It’ll look like a spring training intra squad game.

    • Simply Moono | November 10, 2011 at 7:55 am |

      “And to anyone who thinks the Friars old khaki roads were “urine-colored,” it’s time to visit the urologist!”

      Exactly. You want to talk about urine-colored

      • jdreyfuss | November 10, 2011 at 9:29 am |

        I think you may be dehydrated, Moono.

  • Shane | November 10, 2011 at 8:18 am |

    Finally, I can watch Sounders games without being worried that they’ll wear that eye-searing monstrosity of a third kit.

  • Randy Rollyson | November 10, 2011 at 8:20 am |

    Paul,

    Did you happen to see the stripes on the Miami of Ohio uniforms last night, vs. Temple? For me, those stripes are football pant perfection.

    Randy

    • Geeman | November 10, 2011 at 8:46 am |

      Yes, they’re great, and just like Alabama’s too.

  • Mister Ouch | November 10, 2011 at 8:21 am |

    Leggo my Sandy Eggo, Padre!!

    (boring)

    • Paul Lukas | November 10, 2011 at 8:46 am |

      Sandy Eggo, isn’t he the Mets’ GM?

  • NE | November 10, 2011 at 8:22 am |

    What gets me is the use of the sand color. So it’s just in one part of the overall uni/logo? That being in the home script outline, what’s the point?

  • Phil Hecken | November 10, 2011 at 8:26 am |

    meh

    there’s three things wrong with those new jerseys…commerce, education and uh…

    i like the interlocking SD on the alt…but they don’t need either of the alts…they fixed what wasn’t broken on the home (no need for placket piping — they need to fix that awful script), and they took the one good thing, the mixed height “SanDiegO” on the roads and made it an incredibly generic block font

    went from a B- to a C+ without even trying

  • ben_g | November 10, 2011 at 8:48 am |

    Aside from being bland and uninspiring, the Padres continue to violate one of my biggest pet peeves in sports – when the team’s look (be it unis, logo, or just overall visual identity) clashes with the name. They’re the PADRES. Say what you will about the 70s-80s unis, but at least they were trying to make you think of a monk or a friar with the emphasis on the brown. This doesn’t make me think of Padres, and it really doesn’t scream San Diego either. (I get that it’s supposed to be surf or ocean or whatever. Fine. Then change your name to the San Diego Waves or the Surf or something like that.) There has to be a way to take the idea of their identity and make it more visually appealing than the mustard and browns, but without losing that identity.
    One day I’m going to sit down and do an article about this, because there are other teams (looking at you, Astros) and other levels of this phenomenon. Just one of those things that maybe only bugs me, but I think it would be fun to lay it all out.

    • Chris Holder | November 10, 2011 at 10:00 am |

      Agree completely. Same with teams that have a color in their name, wearing a jersey that’s black. It’s just stupid. These changes for the Padres were absolutely pointless. Why even go to the trouble?

    • Arr Scott | November 10, 2011 at 11:15 am |

      I agree on the level of personal preference, but I disagree that there’s a general principle here. You ever seen a red-and-royal bear cub? A blue-and-orange tiger? A black white sock? Color literalism is neither necessary nor, usually, desirable. Though if someone were starting a new team called the Cubs, I actually would hold it against them that their colors in no way resemble that of any bear, but I know that my own inclination toward literalism is a fault.

      Besides which, the Astros are space colored. Know what color space is? Hint: It’s not blue, and it’s not orange, and it’s not any kind of yellowy rainbow. It’s black. As for colors besides black, in declining order of appropriateness to a team named for NASA’s presence, they would be:

      0. More black (seriously, it’s dark up there)
      1. White (starlight)
      2. Light gray (lunar surface)
      3. Brick red (Martian surface)
      4. Tan/gold (just about everything else up there)

      So unless we’re proposing that the Astros should be black and white, or black and gray, their current scheme of black, Martian red, and Venus/Saturn/most-Jovian-satellites tan is much more apt to the name than most of what they’ve ever previously worn. Their problem is the pinstripes – there’s nothing interplanetary about pinstripes.

      • George Chilvers | November 10, 2011 at 11:36 am |

        Actually – the Universe is beige

        http://www.telegraph...

      • ben_g | November 10, 2011 at 9:14 pm |

        I was going to mention that I’d read somewhere that the universe is latte colored, but someone beat me too it.

        I readily admit that it’s a matter of personal taste or aesthetic. It’s just some part of my brain that doesn’t like certain inconsistencies. Blue and Silver aren’t very evocative of lions, but Detroit has a lion on the helmet, so I get it and it works for me. And of course there are some teams like the Packers or Dodgers where there’s almost no way to visually reflect those names, and you have to just create a generic identity that hopefully people will identify with. There’s an apocryphal story about Stan Lee criticizing some of the newer X-Men designs, basically saying that their costumes should be such that, given only their names, you could immediately tell who was who. Cyclops, Iceman, Angel are easy. Storm and Gambit much less so. I guess the Padres are Gambit for me.
        But I digress…
        As for the Astros, the colors don’t bug me. It’s the pinstripes and the script. The cursive almost looks like it’s trying to be rope, or a lasso. Like they’re trying to out Texas the Rangers. If you look at their home page, where it says We Are Your Astros, I kind of wish they’d use that font, and even the sort of red to black gradient. Too me, that has a space kind of feel to it. (Of course, what I’d really love is if they could somehow make a logo out of the Columbia memorial patch they wore in ’03. To me, that’s the perfect identity for a team called the Astros.
        I think way too much about this stuff. And none of these are even “my” teams. I’ll shut up now.

  • PuckBoy | November 10, 2011 at 8:57 am |

    BREAKING . . .

    PHILADELPHIA FLYERS WINTER CLASSIC JERSEY REVEALED?

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

    • PuckBoy | November 10, 2011 at 9:05 am |

      PAUL: do you agree that the bottom hem stripes look terrible? There should be an additional black stripe on the bottom of the jersey to balance out the sleeve striping. Keep in mind that this is a a “semi-pro” (read: not a shirt tail Edge hem) jersey, so maybe the game jerseys will have an extra black stripe on the bottom?

      • Paul Lukas | November 10, 2011 at 9:58 am |

        How do we know this is any more legit than all the other designs that have been floated?

        Anyway: Yes, I agree that the lower striping looks poor.

        • jdreyfuss | November 10, 2011 at 10:12 am |

          It seems less legit to me, since it’s not an edge construction sweater.

        • Lloyd Davis | November 10, 2011 at 10:40 am |

          Re the legitimacy, I’d just offer this observation: I doubt that Reebok would really print the text inside the collar in a typeface as commonplace as Times Bold.

          The design also reminds me of the version of the Flyers sweater that used to be sold through the Sears Christmas Wish Book in the ’70s.

        • Mike V. | November 10, 2011 at 1:17 pm |

          It looks like that WC patch was just thrown on there. Prob a ripoff from China

        • (Name withheld) | November 10, 2011 at 2:23 pm |

          Funnily enough, this one actually is legit.

  • CTRefJay | November 10, 2011 at 9:04 am |

    Am I the only one who has a flag for holding in the picture of the Lakeridge High (OR) wearing the Breakers’ helmets? The defender’s jersey is getting ripped off at the collar!

  • BCD | November 10, 2011 at 9:19 am |

    This blog has progressively gone downhill.

    • teenchy | November 10, 2011 at 9:48 am |

      How so? Please elaborate.

      • jdreyfuss | November 10, 2011 at 10:11 am |

        Hit-and-run troll. Ignore him.

        • BCD | November 10, 2011 at 10:50 am |

          The commentary has gotten worse and worse. I know it’s a personal blog so it comes with the territory. It’d be nice if it were presented in a manner without all the terribly jabs here and there. Also there’s a reason Paul still has all those leftover Meats shirts, no one wants them. Half the time the updates on this site are to shill his own wares or try to get you to go visit his pointless other projects. Stick to the task at hand.

        • JimWa | November 10, 2011 at 11:50 am |

          I appreciate your coming back and elaborating. For that, I applaud you.

          That said, I don’t get your point. Back before Uniwatchblog.com opened for business, I and many others waited and waited and waited for new nuggets from Paul on ESPN. It seemed like forever between helpings of uni-goodness. Then, a daily format came. With it came less “hard news” (from a U-W point of view) and more editorial comment. Like it or not, there’s only so much you can put out there on a daily basis.

          If you’re upset about more editorial comment of late, turn on Sportscenter and tell me if you don’t see the same trend. Football comes to us once a week, baseball is out of season, basketball is on a little break, and the most intriguing US-pro sports nightly highlights are now coming to us from the NHL. It’s a dead period for sports (the last 24 hours not withstanding, but even that has no U-W-worthy perspective). The pipes haven’t gone dry, but the flow of water has consistently slowed.

          Of course, if it’s not your thing, rumor has it there’s 2 or 3 other websites on the web you could visit.

        • BCD | November 10, 2011 at 12:47 pm |

          I still visit here daily (minus the weekends b/c I don’t like the content that’s posted), but the majority of my time is spent on the Creamer board now. I’m aware you can’t make content for the sake of making content, but at the same time I’m not interested in seeing information about his Permanent Record or Butcher Blog.

          Thanks for your response. I’m a big fan of the site still and an original Uni Watch paying member, but honestly this site has regressed.

        • Rob H. | November 10, 2011 at 1:02 pm |

          (minus the weekends b/c I don’t like the content that’s posted)

          Boy, first you slam Paul, and then you slam Phil, too.

        • Andy | November 10, 2011 at 2:28 pm |

          It’s not a slam. He doesn’t like the weekend content. Big deal. Certain people don’t like certain things. Get over it. He wasn’t malicious in the way he went about saying anything. Sometimes, I don’t like the voice and style and lot of the little jabs that Paul puts into his writing. So what. Why should Paul change his personality because I don’t like it?

  • Rob S | November 10, 2011 at 9:28 am |

    Okay… so let me get this straight… the Padres have put an image of their home ballpark… on their road jerseys?

    • The Jeff | November 10, 2011 at 9:42 am |

      What’s so wrong with that? It follows the same general “rule” of putting the team name on the home and the city name on the road. You’re telling the other team essentially “this is where we’re from”, right? You don’t need your home stadium on your home uniform, do you? (Ok, you don’t really need a stadium patch at all, but if you’re gonna have one…)

      • Rob S | November 10, 2011 at 11:16 am |

        Ok, you don’t really need a stadium patch at all

        That really says it all right there. The only time a patch should be worn representing a venue is in the event of closing one that is historical, or opening a new one (and, preferably, last/first games only, not full seasons or even large chunks thereof).

        Then again, we’ve got “TEXAS” on the Rangers’ home unis and “DALLAS” on the Stars’ home unis…

  • interlockingtc | November 10, 2011 at 9:36 am |

    I support the Padres move to block numbers, but that’s it.

    Look at their original uniform:

    http://www.americanm...

    It is relatively plain, yes, but so full of character compared to the one introduced yesterday.

    • pushbutton | November 10, 2011 at 4:10 pm |

      WHY…..why, why, why…..

      couldn’t they go BACK to that?!

      • Connie | November 10, 2011 at 6:21 pm |

        Yessir. That first year was very good.

  • Tom V. | November 10, 2011 at 9:41 am |

    I despise any logo or anything that says “(Team name here)baseball club” (or any sport) or using the sport with team name on the patch, i.e. “Orioles Baseball”.

    Do I not know what sport I am watching or what the Padres are? Or am I more a fan of Padres Hockey?

    Lower minor leagues it’s ok, because it’s more of a club atmosphere, but the major league? No way.

    • The Jeff | November 10, 2011 at 10:38 am |

      Yeah, that bothers me too. The only time it ever makes sense is when you’ve got 2 teams in the same city that share a name. And even then, I don’t know that you’d really need to put it on the uniform.

      • Lloyd Davis | November 10, 2011 at 10:47 am |

        I can see it as a feature on the company letterhead or to display at the top of a web page, because it could be part of the organization’s corporate identity (i.e., “Toronto Maple Leaf Hockey Club”). But yeah, a logo that includes something like “hockey club” or “baseball club” doesn’t belong on a uniform. Reminds me of the sort of stuff you see in off-brand discount stores — jackets with slogans like “All-American A-1 Baseball Team” or “Super Fierce Elite Hockey Club.”

        • Tom V. | November 10, 2011 at 10:59 am |

          Why do you need it on letterhead or the website for a professional sports team? New York Yankees Baseball Club? Sounds terrible and ameteurish.

        • Shane | November 10, 2011 at 1:33 pm |

          IIRC, the address provided on Red Sox tickets starts off “Boston American League Baseball Club, 4 Yawkey Way”.

          Might’ve changed in the past few years, though.

    • Arr Scott | November 10, 2011 at 11:20 am |

      Or am I more a fan of Padres Hockey?

      I would root for that team.

      As for letterhead, absolutely that makes sense. It may seem redundant, but it’s also very common practice for companies to include a description of what they do in the name. We don’t say, “United Parcel Service? What, you were worried I would come to you to buy pastries instead of delivering packages?” But the full corporate name doesn’t belong on the unis, even in patch form.

    • Rob H. | November 10, 2011 at 1:05 pm |

      But isn’t that how the European soccer football clubs do it? Barcelona F.C., etc.

      • Tom V. | November 10, 2011 at 1:49 pm |

        Don’t follow soccer so FC Barcelona and all that doesn’t interest me. They can do what they want.

        I do however think the US/MLS teams going the FC/United way is unoriginal. The worst offender is close to home here, a team in the lower MLS leagues called “Orlando City Lions”. In 10 years I’ve never seen “Orlando City” written or said anywhere. It’s always “The City of Orlando”. Orlando City sounds forced and made up. And Orlando has nothing to do with lions. There may be some lions at Disney but thats it. Just terribly forced and unoriginal.

      • Ben | November 10, 2011 at 2:23 pm |

        Barcelona does that because they have many different sports that fall under the same club name/colours.

        It actually makes a ton of sense for them to do it.

        Roller Hockey

        Basketball

        • Matt | November 10, 2011 at 9:33 pm |

          But it’s hardly just Barcelona. From what I can tell, it seems like pretty much every European team has FC (or AC, AS, etc.) in its name. Many of them incorporate it into their logo as well.

        • BurghFan | November 10, 2011 at 10:28 pm |

          If you’re in Barcelona, you need something more than the city name to refer to the futbol team.

          “Wanna go see Barcelona?”
          “Uh, we’re IN Barcelona.”

    • Jim Vilk | November 10, 2011 at 1:40 pm |

      This reminds me of an idea I had when rumors started about the Vikings moving to LA: if that were to happen, and if the Sacramento Kings end up having to move, why not drop the “Vi” and call them the LA Kings? Then the Kings basketball team could move to LA (contract the Clippers…even *I* don’t care about them) and the hockey Kings could revert to their original colors.

      The only problem with that is the Lakers already have purple and French’s Mustard as their colors. I doubt they’d let the LA basketball Kings get away with sharing that look (although it would make changing the Staples Center floor a lot easier).

      • Tom V. | November 10, 2011 at 1:53 pm |

        It could be a nice crossover for the gangs in the area too…Call one of the teams the LA Tin Kings or something?

  • Tom V. | November 10, 2011 at 9:47 am |

    As for the pink making it to the Giants stadium section signs, if we’re against the players wearing pink and mucking up the field with it, that is where the pink belongs, signs, banners, bunting, etc.

    • Phil Hecken | November 10, 2011 at 9:56 am |

      why does the pink belong ANYWHERE?

      • The Jeff | November 10, 2011 at 10:01 am |

        It doesn’t.

        But he’s right, it’s better to be on signs than on the players. Of course, being on both makes it even worse.

        • jdreyfuss | November 10, 2011 at 10:09 am |

          They put pink on the signs and I said nothing. Then they put pink on the field and I said nothing. Then they put pink on the players and I still said nothing. But when they came to put pink on me, there was no one left to stop them.

      • Tom V. | November 10, 2011 at 10:56 am |

        Well Phil, you raise an excellent point. Lets look at the alternatives.

        1. Pink on field, players, etc. (Current) Some of us don’t like it.
        2. Pink on signs, bunting, not players, not field, etc. Better, classier I think, presence but not overwhelming.
        3. No Pink. Breast cancer awareness rents a sign in the stadium like anyone else if they want, no special treatment, breast cancer awareness is just as important to the NFL as is UTZ chips.
        4. No breast cancer (or any advertising at all) in the stadium, just the way some of the old curmudgeons on this site want it. God forbid I have to look at a budweiser advertisement at a ball game.

        • Phil Hecken | November 10, 2011 at 11:06 am |

          what, exactly, makes breast cancer any more important than any other cancer, or any other disease (say, AIDS, for example, or autism)?

          you act like if i don’t want to see any pink shit in the stadium, somehow i want every woman (and some men) in america to be stricken with breast cancer

          if susan g. komen (who does quite well, financially speaking, by the way) wants to purchase space in the stadium, i have no problem with it…in fact, i don’t really have a problem with the NFL supporting the b/c initiative FOR ONE WEEKEND…MLB seems to get it right with pink stuff for mom’s day, and prostate (light blue) stuff for dad’s day…ONE DAY out of a 162 game season

          but what i do resent is the fact that there are plenty of other cancers/diseases/causes which in many people’s minds may be as, if not more important than b/c, yet they seem to get short shrift…

          i’ll support the pink crap when we’ve cured every other disease and cancer in the world…until then, it’s just pink noise

        • Tom V. | November 10, 2011 at 12:06 pm |

          Phil I agree its over done for 5 games a season. I also agree that if were going to pay attention to breast cancer then we should be pay attention to other or all types of cancer, and it would help if it was done with a ribbon or uniformly on everyone. I think the point that gets missed though on posts like yours is that it comes across that you don’t think pink (or cancer awareness) should be anywhere which doesn’t seem to be what you’re getting at.

          And I beleive there are two Komen websites, one of them is for donating to breast cancer research, awareness, the other is for nothing other than to make money.

        • Arr Scott | November 10, 2011 at 1:01 pm |

          “Pink noise.” Great turn of phrase. That may be even better than komenkitsch.

        • Kyle Allebach | November 10, 2011 at 3:09 pm |

          I agree with Phil. The only time I’ll support pink on the field if it is a color in the uniforms.

          Where is Childhood Cancer Awareness Month for the NFL (September)? Or Lung Cancer Awareness Month (November)? Why don’t we also wear purple in October for Rett Syndrome Awareness? All of those aren’t “in vogue” like Breast Cancer is. That would explain why my high school donned pink football jerseys during homecoming, but no gold jerseys for the first September game.

    • Jeremy | November 10, 2011 at 11:06 am |

      Couldn’t disagree more. The whole idea of the “pink” promotion is to raise money for breast cancer research and awareness (at least ostensibly). They do this by auctioning off game-worn pink stuff and selling pink merch, then putting part of the proceeds towards a charity. When they are putting the pink on signage or other things that aren’t being sold, it’s completely pointless and annoying.

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

        Oh bullshit. You’re telling me they couldn’t auction off normal, un-fucked-up uniforms and give the money to cancer research?

        • Andy | November 10, 2011 at 2:32 pm |

          Bingo. Why does the shit have to be pink for it to be sold?

        • Desmond Jones | November 10, 2011 at 3:32 pm |

          The game worn uniforms from October that they auction off won’t have pink on them anyways, The Jeff. It’s only the accessories, for now. But my observation is that the NFL players are simply a springing point for this…
          Remember that this all started with some pink tape, as well. The tape was being sold to(or supplied to) players during the awareness month, and they wore it to honor it, while the money spent on the tape was given to the foundation. Then, seeing the success of the pink, corporate giants started experimenting with the actual equipment, giving up now a share to the foundation. They can’t seriously be making an extensive amount of money from auctioning gloves, cleats, socks, and all of the other wacky accessories that the players wore already.
          They(BCA folks) are making money from the high school kids that see their favorite NFL players(and colleges) wearing it on TV and going out to Dick’s Sporting Goods and break the bank on everything pink so they can look like their favorite players. I know us young people like the shiny things, but you wouldn’t catch any 17 year old’s in bizarre colored cleats cuffing their socks a certain way or with socks on their wrists if their favorite pro’s or colleges weren’t doing it first.
          It’s all monkey see, monkey do. NFL players buy(or are supplied, not sure) pink accessories to support BCA, college players follow suit, wanting to be like their favorite pros, high school kids go crazy, and we’re all wearing pink. Then companies like Nike see that high school kids would like to be the most bold, and next thing you know, Pink jersey numbers.

        • Jeremy | November 10, 2011 at 5:54 pm |

          Thanks for not reading what I wrote, Jeffrey. I wasn’t saying at all that I agree with the whole Pink thing or what it does. If I HAD to choose between pink signage, as the person I was replying to would do, or pink stuff that could OSTENSIBLY be sold for whatever cause, I would choose the one that could arguably do some sort of good over the one that doesn’t.

          But nice job swearing to get your “point” across. Well done.

      • Kyle Allebach | November 10, 2011 at 3:16 pm |

        You do realize that Susan G. Komen Foundation is the largest and best funded cancer awareness organization in America, right? Is it 100% necessary for the NFL to pinkwash for an already popular organization?

        If it was for one game, alright. It’s a one-off. But four/five games? A little ridiculous. Why can’t the NFL just do Cancer Awareness Month in October?

        Spread the love, NFL.

  • JimWa | November 10, 2011 at 9:51 am |

    I like the Padres logo, and I like piping on baseball jerseys. I like salsa, and I like fruity pebbles. Not all good things are meant to be combined.

  • BrianC | November 10, 2011 at 10:24 am |

    The Padres old road uniform script looked like it was shot through a funhouse mirror. Big improvement. Other than that they’re no worse, which is all you can hope for these days.

    • Paul Lukas | November 10, 2011 at 10:33 am |

      I *loved* the old road insignia (although I think I’m in the minority on that). Miss it already.

      • Phil Hecken | November 10, 2011 at 10:40 am |

        “I *loved* the old road insignia”

        ~~~

        yep

        that was the best thing about the old roads…now it looks like they just bought some iron on letters in a dime store

      • NE | November 10, 2011 at 11:16 am |

        I actually liked the sand/khaki roads (I’m in the minority on that)

        • Arr Scott | November 10, 2011 at 11:21 am |

          I loved the khaki roads, and I loved the bowtie road script. But I think I might have been the only one.

        • scott | November 10, 2011 at 11:41 am |

          The bowtie script on the road uniforms was very nice.

        • Mike Engle | November 10, 2011 at 11:58 am |

          My take on the old sand roadies: not particularly good, but much closer to “good” than “stupid.” The bowtie wordmark? Much more stupid.

        • Jim Vilk | November 11, 2011 at 1:58 am |

          Loved the sand, did NOT love the bowtie wordmark.

  • ScottyM | November 10, 2011 at 10:27 am |

    Wow, those Padres uniforms could not get any more boring.

    Seems people really like the vintage Taco Bell and earlier threads … I simply don’t understand why there isn’t some homage to that era in their lineup.

    Big mistake. Bland blue reigns supreme once again.

  • The Jeff | November 10, 2011 at 10:42 am |

    Really nice catch of the day, btw.

    /but you need to kill it, it’s too easy to forget to check and miss something cool.

    • Paul Lukas | November 10, 2011 at 11:20 am |

      it’s too easy to forget to check and miss something cool.

      You know what else is easy? Clicking on it once a day. Simple as that!

      • Ry Co 40 | November 10, 2011 at 11:43 am |

        i’m still not in the habit of clicking on the catch of the day… must burn it into my brain.

    • Matthew Radican | November 10, 2011 at 12:39 pm |

      Very cool Catch of the Day. I had no idea that NFL teams played CFL teams in exhibition games.

      I usually just click on the Catch of the Day first – especially if the lead topic doesn’t necessarily interest me.

      • Johnny O | November 10, 2011 at 7:44 pm |

        Excuse my ignorance, but what/where can I locate the Catch of the Day? I tried reading the article when it was started a week or so ago, and it still doesn’t make sense to me. I appreciate the help in advance.

        • BurghFan | November 10, 2011 at 10:35 pm |

          Click on the photo of Dwight Clark making “The Catach” near the top of the page.

  • Rich | November 10, 2011 at 10:43 am |

    I just wish teams would ditch the pajama pants look.

    • pushbutton | November 10, 2011 at 11:06 am |

      They wanna look faux-retro in every way…..except that. Stirrups could only help that snoozer of a uni.

  • Ben Fortney | November 10, 2011 at 11:00 am |

    I’d also like to publicly state my love for brand/ID standard manuals. They’re like graphic design porn. Anyone know of a site that compiles these?

  • Joey Guns | November 10, 2011 at 11:02 am |

    Think PSU would ever wear a logo on their helmet this weekend? On twitter, people are saying they should wear a child abuse sticker on their helmets….. I don’t see it happening.

    • Chris Holder | November 10, 2011 at 12:00 pm |

      Wouldn’t it be something if the next coach comes in and decides the entire football program needs a makeover? Would the students riot about that, too? I mean… I’m fine with their unis the way they are. But this may be the first legitimate chance in 46 years that PSU will really do something different with them.

      (And again, I’m not suggesting they even should. Just wonder if they will.)

    • Arr Scott | November 10, 2011 at 1:13 pm |

      On twitter, people are saying they should wear a child abuse sticker on their helmets…

      From a crisis-communications standpoint, that would be such an enormously stupid move that I can totally see the brain trust at PSU doing it.

  • Graf Zeppelin | November 10, 2011 at 11:04 am |

    Off-topic, and apologies if I’ve missed a related announcement:

    Does anyone know if No Mas/Naming Wrongs will be restocking the gray I’m Calling It Shea t-shirt in size XL? I’ve been trying to get one for months.

  • Paul Lukas | November 10, 2011 at 11:04 am |

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

    • Jim Vilk | November 11, 2011 at 2:05 am |

      St. Bonaventure looks better, but “St. Bona”? Meh. Spell it out, Bonnies.

      Temple’s red alternate shouldn’t be an alternate…it should be their regular. Ditch the black!

      Towson is indeed looking better.

  • pushbutton | November 10, 2011 at 11:08 am |

    Am I wrong or was the Padres’ script depicted on the barrel of the friar’s bat from 1969 onward? I could swear that’s not new.

  • Ted Machnik | November 10, 2011 at 11:12 am |

    Not a fan of the new SD Padres’ unis. Nothing wrong with their original 1969 set (with the Swingin’ Friar)…simple, classic, and elegant.

  • Anthony | November 10, 2011 at 11:30 am |

    Isn’t Georgia Tech supposed to be wearing black helmets tonight against Virginia Tech?

    I’ve long wanted to see GT incorporate black into its uniform – they are yellowjackets. A black helmet, white jersey (without all of the weird pipeing), gold pants and black shoes could look pretty good.

    • CD | November 10, 2011 at 2:19 pm |

      Normally I hate BFBS, but I agree with you that Georgia Tech is one team that could benefit from it.

    • Pierre | November 10, 2011 at 5:37 pm |

      I thought Georgia Tech’s colors were dark navy and gold…not black.

  • Wheels | November 10, 2011 at 11:39 am |

    Maybe it’s time for a Design-a-new-Padres-Uni contest?

    • Kyle Allebach | November 10, 2011 at 3:20 pm |

      “Fix the Friar’s” Contest

      • Komet17 | November 10, 2011 at 6:45 pm |

        No need to “fix a Friar”, is there? Aren’t they supposed to be celibate anyway?

  • Eric Bangeman | November 10, 2011 at 11:48 am |

    The Leicester Tigers’ jerseys are iconic enough that they shouldn’t be messing around with special Heineken Cup kit. It would be like the Yankees dropping their pinstripes for home games during interleague play.

  • Matt Beahan | November 10, 2011 at 11:58 am |

    There’s a bit of an outcry over here at the news that Newcastle United’s historic St. James’ Park ground is being renamed: http://www.bbc.co.uk...

    This seems to be an unfortunate trend – Arsenal & Manchester City have already gone the corporate name route. Could be a good opportunity for some more “Naming Wrongs” shirts…

    • DK1247 | November 10, 2011 at 4:17 pm |

      In Arsenal’s case it was a new stadium. Not that it makes it ok, but if they had renamed Highbury heads would’ve rolled. City is doing it to flout the financial fair play rules, imo. Plus Wigan and Bolton have already had corporate named stadiums. And Newcastle is changing it to help get a stadium sponsor in the future. Just another reason that Mike Ashley (owner) is an idiot. I am not a Newcastle fan, but whenever I hear St. James I instantly think of Newcastle.

      • George Chilvers | November 10, 2011 at 5:49 pm |

        “whenever I hear St. James I instantly think of Newcastle.”

        Or Exeter City :)

      • George Chilvers | November 10, 2011 at 5:54 pm |

        Sorry – but to add a bit more.

        Both Wigan and Bolton had new stadia too with corporate naming as part of the build process. Wigan have changed their name, but that was from one corporate name to another. There would have been an outcry even here if Springfield Park had been renamed.

        Similarly City have a new stadium, although when built it was the City of Manchester Stadium, built for the Commonwealth Games. The name of Maine Road would have remained sacrosanct.

        It could not really be envisaged that Old Trafford, Anfield, Goodison Park, White Hart Lane etc would be renamed, although there are reports that Stamford Bridge will be.

        The main thing though is that everyone will still call NUFC’s home “St James’ Park”, no matter what Mike Ashley thinks.

  • unionjack | November 10, 2011 at 12:16 pm |

    “[Syracuse is] getting someone that truly wants to become a football player, not one who wants to go Division I and get all of the Pro Combat Nike uniforms and all of that. This is a kid that wants to learn and excel in a sport”

    Too bad he doesn’t want to learn and excel and get a college education.

    • The Jeff | November 10, 2011 at 12:35 pm |

      You know, I’m failing to see much of a difference. Look at the schools that get special Pro Combat uniforms. They aren’t exactly slouches in the world of college football. If you want to be good at football, picking a Nike school isn’t exactly a bad idea, is it?

      • Desmond Jones | November 10, 2011 at 3:44 pm |

        Syracuse is a Nike school. And, also, their jerseys are the Pro Combat model. They just aren’t a school that has done the System of Dress(yet.)

        • jdreyfuss | November 10, 2011 at 4:07 pm |

          I think the statement was that he didn’t care one way or the other, or that it had no bearing on his decision. He wanted to go to Syracuse, because he wanted to go to Syracuse, not because of its uniform design or because it might have special uniforms occasionally. He was saying that not all 17-year-olds are distracted by shiny things.

  • Jim K | November 10, 2011 at 12:33 pm |

    I like the Padres new uniforms. True that are rather bland, but to me that have a crisp clean traditional look. I would like the Padres to go back to the brown though. The blue alts I can do without. I don’t like any color alts regardless.

  • concealed78 | November 10, 2011 at 12:38 pm |

    My only question: where in the hell is the Padre brown?!

    So close, yet so far.

  • Roger | November 10, 2011 at 1:26 pm |

    blah di da.

    Outside of Uni Watch reader types and Padre fans, would the majority of baseball fans even notice these changes?

    On a seperate but related note …

    IMO. Design no longer matters, for baseball uniforms. They all look like crap, as long as players continue to wear semi-tucked jerseys and pajama pants. They look un-tailored. Even better … they look like the way Dopey was drawn.

    http://cdn.crushable...

    Socks = Intregal baseball uniform element.

    • Paul Lukas | November 10, 2011 at 1:56 pm |

      Outside of Uni Watch reader types and Padre fans, would the majority of baseball fans even notice these changes?

      Translation: “Nobody cares — except for the people who care.” Reductive argument. Goes nowhere, means nothing.

      Now, about the tailoring and the socks, you’re right on the money there.

  • Sean | November 10, 2011 at 1:31 pm |

    Everything Nike, especially college football, is too much for you and now a new simple MLB set is too boring for you? Will you quit contradicting yourself and make up your damn mind on what you like and what you don’t? Go simple and color full but not TOO simple or TOO colorful and make sure you have stripes on those socks! Sigh. Seriously Paul come on. Can we get a guide of uni’s Paul like and doesn’t like. I assume the likes will have about three unis and the doesn’t like will have about three hundred.

    • Paul Lukas | November 10, 2011 at 1:50 pm |

      I assume the likes will have about three unis and the doesn’t like will have about three hundred.

      Probably, because there’s more bad design — and bad EVERYTHING — in the world than there is good stuff. That’s part of why good stuff is special.

      Anyway, if you think my tastes are too contradictory, or too negative, or too whatever, that’s fine. That’s why they’re MY tastes, not yours. Diff’rent strokes and all that.

    • Desmond Jones | November 10, 2011 at 3:58 pm |

      You’re talking about two different sports, Sean… There are several elements to a football uniform, where it is easy to go overboard. With helmets, jerseys, pants, numbers, fonts, socks, cleats, gloves, base layer, and all of the subcategories in that, a college football team only has to fuck up one of the above elements to end up doing too much.
      Baseball, on the other hand, doesn’t have as many elements to the uniform, making it easier to be too simple, or boring. No need to go more specific than that, it’s that simple. They’re two vastly different sports uniforms!

  • Jim Vilk | November 10, 2011 at 1:50 pm |

    Nobody’s saying they have to stick with brown

    Well, call me Nobody.

    Brown hats, at least. They could bring back the sand road unis and I’d be very happy. Maybe a top to bottom brown alternate? Sure, Phil’s mind would go right to the terlet, but most of us would probably think of, say, a friar? Or at least a UPS driver.

    “Nobody’s saying they have to stick with orange or mustard” might be more appropriate. I, for one, would love to see the Taco Bell unis return, but I’m open to other uni designs. Just embrace the brown or sand.

    • Phil Hecken | November 10, 2011 at 2:16 pm |

      i think very few people would like an all brown uniform, excepting, perhaps, a few UPS employees

      that being said…you know what stuck out more than anyting about this?

      how bad, boring and generic this looks

      seriously, except for a couple pin-striped teams, those could be the pants legs of a large majority of all MLB teams

      without rups, or at least socks, those four sets of legs could belong to almost ANY team

      now, if they were all wearing brown (or gold) pants, we would at least know they belonged to the padres (or whomever chose them)…but the problem isn’t really with the non-descript uniform itself — it’s the way the players today wear the uni…

      i’m 100% in favor of a team or three going to a monochrome UNIFORM (not softball top), but what would really add some uniqueness without much effort would simply to be a return to socks or stirrups…at least then we’d get some color on the bottom of the uniform, and each team could, in theory, provide an unique identifier to their club

      no, i wouldn’t want the pods to go all brown, but i surely wouldn’t mind them going with something like this, this or this

      but whatever, they need rups/socks more than anything

      • Arr Scott | November 10, 2011 at 2:42 pm |

        i think very few people would like an all brown uniform

        I wish someone had told the early 1980s Padres this. I spent a couple of years of youth ball wearing dark-brown Padres jerseys. (Like this.) It was like playing baseball inside a Weber Kettle compared to any of the lighter colored or white jerseys all the other teams wore. Made the humiliation of having to switch to Astros rainbow stripes the next couple of years slightly easier to bear. Yes, we were boys sent out to play sports in rainbow uniforms, but at least our flesh wasn’t literally cooking beneath our shirts.

      • Paul Lukas | November 10, 2011 at 4:08 pm |

        i think very few people would like an all brown uniform, excepting, perhaps, a few UPS employees

        True story: UPS’s main color was originally supposed to be yellow. I learned that while researching a story about UPS’s history about nine years ago. The article I ended up writing isn’t available on the web at the moment, but here’s the key passage:

        “What can Yellow do for you?”

        That slogan might now be saturating the advertising landscape if United Parcel Service co-founder James Casey had gotten his way in 1915. The fledgling Seattle-based company, then known as Merchants Parcel Delivery, had grown its delivery fleet to four cars and five motorcycles — big enough to merit a consistent color scheme. Casey, citing the advice of a local advertising man, advocated yellow. But one of his partners, Charlie Soderstom, protested that yellow vehicles would be impossible to keep clean, and noted that the Pullman railroad company had used brown for precisely that reason.

        Soderstrom won the argument, and nearly nine decades later, brown is now synonymous with UPS. But if Casey was wrong about yellow, he was right about virtually everything else while running UPS, a half-century span during which he turned a neighborhood messenger service into the world’s foremost delivery company.

        • Ricko | November 10, 2011 at 5:01 pm |

          And DHL ripped off the idea?

          :)

        • George Chilvers | November 10, 2011 at 5:58 pm |

          Coventry City FC change strip in the 1970s – just the sort of kit to wear if you have red hair!

          http://homepage.ntlw...

    • concealed78 | November 10, 2011 at 5:10 pm |

      I would had been happy with just brown & white. Brown & metallic gold or sand would had been nice as well; brown plus Athletic gold and/or orange would had been gravy. But with this latest Padres update, instead of truffles we get more bland imitation gruel.

      But another version of navy with a bland look? What’s the point.

  • David Johnson | November 10, 2011 at 2:27 pm |

    I’d like the Padres new uniforms if they changed all the blue to brown and had the swinging friar on the sleeve of all the uniforms. Maybe add orange as an outline.

    And ditch the camo.

  • El Jefe | November 10, 2011 at 2:43 pm |

    How can the swinging friar not even be the secondary logo? It should be the primary. If one of the photoshop wizards could change the navy to dark brown, it would be a hellava set.

  • Arr Scott | November 10, 2011 at 2:48 pm |

    Important minor detail for the Padres, and one that significantly elevates my opinion of their new unis: They’ve brought back to big-league ball the double-headspoon. Used to be a common style, now probably best remembered for the New York Knights of The Natural. The blue undershirts make it hard to see, but the Padres store confirms that they really are using internal piping around the neck in addition to the normal headspoon.

    This has been on my list of things I wish someone would bring back for a while, so kudos Padres. And wish this checked off, maybe someone will bring back racing stripes or pillbox caps?

  • Keepin' It Teal | November 10, 2011 at 3:05 pm |

    Padres set is gets a “meh” from me. Not really a downgrade, but not an upgrade either. I was really hoping they’d go back to the brown/gold look from the 70s/80s. Such a unique color scheme and modernized it could look really fabulous.

    One thing is for sure though, the Padres will have the best unveiling in the MLB this week. The White Sox unis with the shorts from the 70s will look like the Yankee pinstripes compared to the nonsense the Marlins trot out on Friday :(

    • Real Leo Nunez | November 10, 2011 at 3:13 pm |

      Yeah, not sure what they’re thinking of with these on the table: http://blogs.miamine...

      • jdreyfuss | November 10, 2011 at 4:30 pm |

        I like the idea of Ozzie Guillen wearing a leisure suit with teal pinstripes in the dugout.

  • Gary | November 10, 2011 at 3:14 pm |

    Padres had a chance for a big uniform hit, but in a continuation of their 2011 campaign grounded out. These redefine jejune.

  • Tom Seeley | November 10, 2011 at 5:00 pm |

    Good thing Rays won’t be visiting in 2012 …

  • JimWa | November 10, 2011 at 5:02 pm |

    Thanks to Arr Scott’s post above, I now 100% support the Padre’s new road uniforms! It wasn’t until seeing the close-ups on the link provided that I realized the font for the away jersey is an arched version of the font used for the SD logo. Excellent move that has changed my opinion completely.

  • Kyle Allebach | November 10, 2011 at 5:06 pm |

    Personally, when I think of Sandy Eggo’s, I think of powder blue. I would have loved to see the Padre’s in a powder blue setup with the navy and sand combo. A little bit of disappointment is being permeated fromy iPod seeing that getup. It’s wayyyy to bland for a city that’s German for ‘A Whales Vagina’.

  • =bg= | November 10, 2011 at 5:11 pm |

    all I know is, I had Jury Duty today. Sit there in a big room for 3 hrs, ‘go home.’ Boom. Outta there.

    PS you know what h*ll really is? Some loud mouth lady decided SHE wanted to watch “The View.” You know that show?
    Wow..I would rather gargle ground glass than see that again.
    the lady next to me said,’can we turn that off?’ Loud lady, who let everyone know ‘she was a realtor,’ said ‘buy some ear plugs.’

    Gotta come down offa that.

  • DCA | November 10, 2011 at 5:38 pm |

    is there any truth to this?
    http://twitter.com/#...

    • DCA | November 10, 2011 at 5:40 pm |

      I found the source
      http://metspolice.co...

      Does PL have any inside info? Confirm/deny Rubin’s statements?

      • Paul Lukas | November 10, 2011 at 6:28 pm |

        We’ve all pretty much known this for a while now. A very poorly kept secret.

    • John In Athens | November 10, 2011 at 6:22 pm |

      (My post below was meant to be a reply to yours).

  • John In Athens | November 10, 2011 at 6:22 pm |

    MetsBlog http://www.metsblog....

    from http://espn.go.com/s...

    “Joe (VA)
    Hey Adam, any news of changes in the 2012 uniforms?

    Adam Rubin
    (12:07 PM)
    Actually, there are rumblings that what I wrote back in August (http://espn.go.com/b...)regarding changes is dead on and will be announced in the not-too-distant future. The Mets are going to borrow significantly, I hear, from the early 1960s uniforms. You can see a picture of that era of uniform in the picture at that link. I hear the black drop shadow is going away, so it will just be the orange and blue lettering … script Mets for the home lettering, block letters NEW YORK for road. Even the bright white home uniforms (without the pinstripes) should drop the black. … There’s going to be a patch on a sleeve I hear, too, with the city skyline and “50th anniversary” on it. … I even hear banner day may be making a comeback.”

    VICTORY!!!

    • Paul Lukas | November 10, 2011 at 6:29 pm |

      VICTORY!!!

      The key is not to get complacent. It’s great that they’re doing this, but it’s important that it not be a one-year thing for the 50th-anniversary season. Ditch the black PERMANENTLY.

      • John In Athens | November 10, 2011 at 7:33 pm |

        Right on!

    • Phil Hecken | November 10, 2011 at 6:48 pm |

      YES!!!!

      the mets will have better unis than the padres!!!!

  • Anthony | November 10, 2011 at 7:20 pm |

    Georgia Tech’s school colors are gold and white. Dark navy blue isn’t a school color, but is used for trim and what not (which is why you see GA Texh wearing gold road jerseys more often then not in both football and basketball). I don’t mind navy but I think GA tech should use black sort of like how ND uses green – as an occasional accent color. There should never be a black jersey, though

  • Tim E. O'B | November 10, 2011 at 7:36 pm |

    Are we intentionally not talking about the Terps bringing back their flag unis and I missed it, or has the news not hit here?

    I know Paul thinks they’re pretty detestable, but I haven’t even seen a comment on them…

    • Paul Lukas | November 10, 2011 at 7:48 pm |

      1) I only learned this morning that they’d be wearing them this weekend (although it was apparently reported yesterday — I was slow on the uptake). I’ll be mentioning it tomorrow.

      2) I have never said I detested them. Not once.

      • Tim E. O'B | November 10, 2011 at 7:55 pm |

        I don’t mind if you detest them, and yeah you never said you did, but you seemed to detest – my word not yours – the whole PR stunt/shiny object aspects of the whole uni the first time ’round.

        Maybe you didn’t, maybe I read into your comments wrong. Either way you feel, they’re pretty fuckin ugly IMO. Gunna be another train-wreck of a game on Sat.

        • Phil Hecken | November 10, 2011 at 7:59 pm |

          what are the chances of them breaking out this?

        • Tim E. O'B | November 10, 2011 at 8:03 pm |

          112%

          If they do do that (hehe, doodoo), I might have to buy an O’Brien jersey (there’s so few of us O’Briens who are athletes).

        • Paul Lukas | November 10, 2011 at 8:04 pm |

          Aside from saying (on ESPN, not here) that the uniform doesn’t properly reflect the flag design (see Phil’s link above), I have never said one thing about the design, because its design aspects have always been incidental. It was intended to be a business maneuver, and I have treated it as such.

        • Tim E. O'B | November 10, 2011 at 8:13 pm |

          That’s what I should’ve said, you didn’t like the business maneuver part of the Terps unis. Didn’t mean to twist words or say you said something you didn’t.

          But yeah, I know it didn’t reflect the flag, I’m the one who did the design Phil linked to, haha.

        • Phil Hecken | November 10, 2011 at 8:18 pm |

          that would have actually gone from horrid to awesome in 26 seconds

          how could they not see how actually mimicking the flag wouldn’t have been the shit?

        • StLMarty | November 10, 2011 at 11:56 pm |

          They should have quarter paneled each side of the helmet. That’s how I drew it up when I was 14.

  • Lord Al | November 10, 2011 at 8:21 pm |

    Love it that the mets are going back to there 1962 home and road uniforms

  • Wheels | November 10, 2011 at 8:23 pm |

    The San Diego Chargers should go back to their late ’70s – early ’80 Fouts era unis.

    • Kyle Allebach | November 10, 2011 at 8:34 pm |

      They should go back to this.

      • Simply Moono | November 10, 2011 at 8:35 pm |

        +1 for Kyle.

    • Phil Hecken | November 10, 2011 at 8:37 pm |

      you guys are both wrong

      THIS is what they need to go back to

      • Wheels | November 10, 2011 at 8:40 pm |

        Gold pants are essential

      • Kyle Allebach | November 10, 2011 at 8:41 pm |

        You could just add yellow pants to the throwback uniform, then BOOM, best of both worlds.

    • Wheels | November 10, 2011 at 9:33 pm |

      1.21 gigawatts! http://imagecache6.a...

      • Phil Hecken | November 10, 2011 at 9:57 pm |

        fuckin’ soulja!

        • Komet17 | November 10, 2011 at 10:16 pm |

          The Chargers will never go away from navy blue as their primary uniform color as long as the Spanos family owns the team.

        • Wheels | November 10, 2011 at 10:29 pm |

          amateur pacifism http://youtu.be/3X60...

  • BoBellis | November 10, 2011 at 9:05 pm |

    The Padres’ COO Tom Garfinkel thinks that the brown faction is a “vocal minority”. Regardless of my stance (brown is rad and it’s a pretty vocal majority), they could have gone many different directions with the blue that would have been better than this. The Tucson Padres http://tinyurl.com/8... look could have gone a long way, with a few upgrades. It’s hard to see any of that tradition and homage to the past that he keeps preaching. If anything, he paid homage to the terribly boring 2000 uniforms and nothing else. Just another half-assed effort from the man responsible for re-branding the franchise – big fail.

  • anythinglogos | November 10, 2011 at 9:12 pm |

    Interesting article on the fashion of baseball managers on grantland
    http://www.grantland...

  • tosaman | November 10, 2011 at 9:27 pm |

    re: Central Connecticut’s style manual: my favorite part of any graphics style manual is the ‘unacceptable uses’ page. I often think, ‘Hey! That looks so much cooler than the authorized images.’

    • Paul Lukas | November 10, 2011 at 9:53 pm |

      The “unacceptable uses” section is always the most interesting part of *any* style guide, for sure!

  • Michael Wing | November 10, 2011 at 9:32 pm |

    About those Lakeridge/USFL Breakers helmets: An interesting side-story has to do with the team’s former coach, Tom Smythe. He was there when they went to those helmets, and me must have liked them … for when he moved to McNary HS (outside of Salem), he put the Celtics into a VERY similar helmet:

    http://photos.oregon...

    • Jason Urick | November 11, 2011 at 3:42 pm |

      I had actually also submitted this photo as well:

      http://storage1.ihig...

      It shows Lakeridge playing McNary in a Breakers v Breakers matchup!

      Interesting to know that both schools were coached by the same guy. It’s always been one of my favorite helmet designs!

  • Rob Hinkle | November 10, 2011 at 11:50 pm |

    The Philadelphia Union (MLS) plan to announce their new 2012 kits when they reach 92,012 likes on facebook.

  • StLMarty | November 10, 2011 at 11:59 pm |

    Velvet Underground, T Rex, and kitties!

  • Simply Moono | November 11, 2011 at 12:15 am |

    So tomorrow (I’m on Central Time), these events will commence:

    -Veteran’s Day
    -National Metal Day
    -Droid RAZR comes out
    -And (assuming I have the right date) the Florida Marlins will officially become the Miami Marlins.

    Should be a decent day.

    • Jim Vilk | November 11, 2011 at 2:09 am |

      And there’s basketball on an aircraft carrier. So we’ve got that going for us, which is nice.

  • Kevin | November 11, 2011 at 4:06 am |

    My thoughts on the Padres uniforms:

    I don’t mind the changes. They could be worse, and honestly I couldn’t care less about any proposed brown color scheme. As much as I would like them to bring back the sand road uniform, at least the road gray doesn’t look like a Yankees ripoff anymore, so that’s a huge plus. I love the alternate. It’s a huge improvement. As for the camouflage uniform, I don’t get the hate for them. I’ve always thought they looked good and while I understand the disagreement people have with the concept, I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree.

  • Jay Shelton | November 11, 2011 at 9:16 am |

    I was really looking forward to Thursday’s new Padres uniform announcement. I guess after following the team since 1974, my expectations were too high, especially since I was teased early in the year with the new AAA Tucson Padres utilizing the old Padres wordmark (used on the jerseys from 1978-84 and as the “official” font since 1969). Alas, gravely disappointed in this new look. Knowing that the sand would be pretty much gone (Moorad is on the record as not liking it at all), as per the change on the road unis from sand to gray last year, we are now stuck with….boring navy and gray (or grey if you also spell checks as “cheques”). Guess I will have to eventually buy the team myself to see the Padres return to brown and yellow. Those colors are the Padres. Heck, I showed a non-baseball fan the pics today, and he said, “boring, why aren’t they brown and gold…that’s the Padres.” Rest my case.

  • Aurelio Espinoza | November 12, 2011 at 1:37 pm |

    Fully agree with shelton everyone here in san diego wants to bring back the brown , i mean look at how much fun we have at the ballgame on throwback thursdays…..if we dont go back to the brown at least introduce a combination that stands out such as the 90’s team http://cdn.bleacherr...

    heck bring back the pinstripes http://www.jerseys-b...
    or http://4.bp.blogspot...

    as a san diego native i want to embrace those colors, those championship runs but Apparently Mr.Moorad those not share the city’s thoughts………