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

On the Second Day of Christmas, My True Love Gave to Me Two Shoes a-Spatting

Most of America had shifted out of Christmas mode by last night, but the Saints apparently didn’t get the memo. As you can see above, half a dozen New Orleans players — Lance Moore, Devery Henderson, Marques Colston, Pierre Thomas, Robert Meachem, and Tracy Porter — wore red and green spatting tape and/or arm tape. Yes, it looked silly (my eyes kinda popped out of my head, cartoon-style, when I first noticed it while watching the game), but at least it provided some welcome chromatic relief from the black hole of the Saints’ solid-ebony uniforms.

Someone at the NFL must have blown a gasket over this (or else just pointed out that yesterday was the 26th, not the 25th), because the Christmas-themed tape had disappeared when the players came out for the second half. That supposition was confirmed by Andrew Lopez, who was covering the game for the New Orleans Times-Picayune and sent me the following note at about 2am:

Talked to Henderson after the game and he told me that someone called down and told the players that if they didn’t remove the tape at halftime, none of them would be allowed to retake the field. Thus, none of the players had any red or green on to start the second half.

Okay, but if the NFL really cares about this stuff, why wasn’t that directive issued before the game started? Halftime tantrums ultimatums notwithstanding, this incident is just the latest in a long string of evidence indicating that the league has completely lost control of the lower-leg region — an impression that was reinforced last night by the many Saints who had solid-black socks (no whites) and by Falcons linebacker Sean Witherspoon, who wore solid whites. Like I’ve been saying all along, some sort of reckoning is bound to happen soon, because everything south of the knee has become a freestyle zone.

Also, as you’ve probably heard by now, Pierre Thomas pulled a Terrell Owens move after scoring a touchdown by producing a gold bow, sticking it on the football, and handing it to a fan. My favorite part of this story is that Thomas kept the bow hidden in his hand-warmer pouch, which should have been a tip-off that some monkey business was afoot, since the game was played indoors.

Also-also, for the second straight game, Jonathan Vilma didn’t have the fleur de lis on his sleeves.

Meanwhile, we have a lot of NFL stuff dating back to Saturday to catch up on:

• Mathias Kiwanuka of the Giants had some helmet decal issues.

• Nike made a pair of Skittles-themed shoes for Marshawn Lynch, who loves Skittles. Gee, ya think they made the Nike wordmark big enough?

• You probably noticed that the little Fox score bug was decked out with little Christmas lights. What I didn’t initially realize, however, is that the lights were illuminated to indicate how many timeouts each team had.

• Nice to see that the Lions have finally gotten it together this year. Well, mostly.

• Let’s hear it for Frank Walker of the Cowboys, who used a blue arm sleeve and some white wristbands to create the hoop-striped effect of my dreams:


• In uni-notable NBA action from Christmas Day, the Mavs celebrated their championship by wearing gold outlining on their chest insignia and NOB lettering, along with the O’Brien Trophy patch. All of that was a one-game thing — they won’t be doing it for the rest of the season.

• All the other teams playing on Sunday wore the snowflake-patterned NBA logo on their jerseys. But Jason Richardson of Orlando must have changed jerseys at some point during the Magic/Thunder game. He started out wearing the snowflake, but then it disappeared.

(My thanks to all contributors, including Brinke Guthrie, Marcus Hall, Rob Holecko, Chris LaHaye, Adam Sgriccia, Kevin Vaugh, and Neil Vendetti.)

+ + + + +

guthrie.png

Collector’s Corner

By Brinke Guthrie

Leading off with the 49ers this week because, well, I love ’em and they’re having an incredible season. After many years in the dumper, they’re 12-3 and looking really tough. So let’s check out this 49ers Starter pullover. The listing says 1980s, but that’s wrong — this is mid-1990s issue. And here’s a Niners bonus: a photo of Y.A. Tittle’s “kitchen sink” facemask, famous for its appearance on the cover of Sports Illustrated.

In other eBay finds this week:

• Can you imagine any current NBA player wearing shorts this short?

Reader Aaron Duncan submitted this mid-1970s Winnipeg Jets hockey puck. And here’s a great 1970s promotional Pittsburgh Penguins puck to go with it.

• These 1966 Goodyear NFL stickers sure look a lot like the Chiquita NFL stickers that would follow four years later, don’t they?

• A lot of terrifically cool helmet goodness on the cover of this 1970 Vikings/Browns game program. And hey, how’d that Browns “CB” logo sneak onto this program?

• Speaking of helmets, will ya look at this huge set of 1969 NFL/AFL mini-helmets.

• From reader Tom Farley, check out this 1961 LP of Steelers wide receiver Buddy Dial singing religious songs.

Seen something on eBay that you think would make good Collector’s Corner fodder? Send your submissions here.

+ + + + +

Uni Watch News Ticker: Oregon’s Rose Bowl uni design will be unveiled this morning has been bestowed upon a breathless world. … Neglected to mention on Saturday that the Heat have unveiled their Floridians throwback. … Ghana’s soccer team is having trouble getting its uniforms out of customs (from Michael Volkovitsch). … I’m sure this wasn’t intentional, but the typography on the cover of Sunday’s New York Times Magazine looked a lot like the new Marlins logo. … New uniforms for the Japanese men’s and women’s soccer teams (from Jeremy Brahm and Kenny Loo). … Ooooh, check out this amazing shot of the Mets’ 1964 usherettes (major find by Jon Helfenstein).

 

130 comments to On the Second Day of Christmas, My True Love Gave to Me Two Shoes a-Spatting

  • BurghFan | December 27, 2011 at 8:26 am |

    The Penguins puck was a giveaway during 1971-72; mine may be packed away somewhere. Duquesne beer, which had been discontinued decades ago, was recently revived as a contract brew.

  • Arr Scott | December 27, 2011 at 8:26 am |

    Before the whole “[any given sans-serif type treatment] sure does look a lot like the new Marlins script” thing gets completely out of hand – and in Paul’s defense, he has identified the one actual instance to date of something looking like the Marlins script and not just being sans-serif with sharp angles on the M – I suggest that the NYTimes mag cover looks a lot like 1958. It’s a very particular midcentury aesthetic, and it seems also to be what the Marlins were trying to dredge up for their new look. If we’re going to have a period of retro nostalgia, that’s a pretty good era to draw on for design.

    The neat trick of the Times cover is that the dark bits of the letters are not black, but sort of purply brown, and represent the overlap of the colors. I wonder if the Marlins were trying to mimic that effect deliberately, or if a sort of out-of-control throw-everything-at-the-outline desire to squeeze more color in sort of accidentally produced the effect. The NYTimes mag cover illustrates nicely how much better the Marlins script would look if they’d applied the effect to all the letters and not just the M.

  • Simply Moono | December 27, 2011 at 8:27 am |

    No photo, but Jonathan Vilma’s jersey sleeves didn’t have the Fleur-de-Lis patches on them for the second straight week last night.

    • Paul Lukas | December 27, 2011 at 8:28 am |

      Oh, right — meant to include that. I’ll add it to the text now.

  • Pierre | December 27, 2011 at 8:33 am |

    One drastic solution to the NFL’s problem is to make all accessories white. Everything below the end of the pants leg except the shoes…? White. Wrist bands…? White. Arm sleeves and undershirts…? White.

    The NFL already disctates white chinstraps. Just make every accessory white. I know it might look like crap and take some getting used to…but I think they might start looking like football players again.

    Or the NFL could mandate colored compression tights beneath their game pants and require players to wear officially licensed NFL white socks that were only 8 inches high over them. But what about wearing those tights in hot weather…?

    As dumb as these solutions sound, the NFL has to either take full control or no control. And if the NFL gives up you can imagine how some NFL players will personalize their uniforms.

    BTW, does it come as no surprise that the main Saints’ culprits were wide receivers?

    • The Jeff | December 27, 2011 at 8:46 am |

      Everything being white would be bad.

      The NFL just needs to actually enforce the rules they already have, and for all games, not just the nationally televised ones.

      • Ricko | December 27, 2011 at 9:56 am |

        There was a time when about the only color available in athletic socks, wrist bands, elbow pads, knee pads, shiver pads, et al–even training tape–WAS white.

        Look at football images from the 50s, 60s and most of the 70s.

        It didn’t look bad. No one noticed them because it’s the way it was, and it was the same for everyone.

        Of course, all Fords used to be black, too. I understand that availability changes things, and it probably should. I’m just saying the 60s and 70s NFL didn’t look so awful when all such things were white. And, of course, by rule white is a de facto color for everyone, owing to every team required to wear a white jersey theoretically half the time.

        • The Jeff | December 27, 2011 at 10:07 am |

          Fair enough, but still… there’s a big difference in my mind between a player on a black & gold team looking stupid wearing red & green tape and making *all* accessories white.

          There’s no reason that a Chiefs player shouldn’t be able to wear red accessories.

        • Ricko | December 27, 2011 at 10:25 am |

          re: Chiefs example. Of course they should.

          You’d think staying inside the team’s color scheme would be obvious, but as we discussed yesterday with regard to the marketing of special shoes in the NBA, that simple bit of logic seems to escape everyone these days.

          And I wasn’t supporting mandatory white. Just saying at least it played as neutral or universal when white was about the only option.

        • Ricko | December 27, 2011 at 10:29 am |

          To some extent, the NFL created this mindset.

          “Hey, if we can look all mismatched wearing magenta stuff (it isn’t prototypical Pink Panther pink, y’know) for a cause for a month, why can’t we wear wear red and green for one day?”

      • AnthonyTX | December 27, 2011 at 11:48 am |

        I think the NFL does enforce the rules, but with paltry fines that most players can afford and forget. The fact that they wouldn’t have allowed the Saints players back on the field is far more effective. Why not have people at every game, checking the players to make sure they’re in uniform? Sure, that person would be hated by the players, but who cares? I’d take that job. You’re working for the NFL! You get to deal with uniforms every week! Perfect job!

        • AnthonyTX | December 27, 2011 at 11:49 am |

          And Ricko, I think you’re right. If it’s okay to wear tons of ridiculous pink the name of breast cancer awareness* then it should be okay to accessorize at will. They’re sending a mixed message to the players, which is something the NFL has gotten really good at.

          *Are we all aware of breast cancer? Good. Let’s stop that pink nonsense.

        • Rob H. | December 27, 2011 at 11:53 am |

          I thought they had people at every game. I remember that NFL Films special on the ‘Birth of the Bucs’ and that’s what QB Parnell Dickinson does now.

        • Rob H. | December 27, 2011 at 12:00 pm |

          http://img812.images...

          in this clip, he’s telling the referee before a Rams-Bucs MNF game:

          “32..pants above his knee, 86 got low whites, 92 socks down, and 99, that’s every week…” (I assume that’s Warren Sapp he’s talking about there) Then they show him telling Rams assistant coach what adjustments players need to make.

          I guess if they don’t make adjustments that’s when thefines come in to play. But you’re right, not letting them take the field would be more effective. As long as they keep giving out fines that players keep paying, the problem isn’t going to go away.

        • Rob H. | December 27, 2011 at 12:02 pm |

          referee side judge

          The SJ on his shirt should have clued me in.

  • kevin | December 27, 2011 at 8:49 am |

    Thanks for the heads up on the Xmas lights around the fox scoreboard. I noticed one was burned out in steelers game and thought it was off.

    • Rob S | December 27, 2011 at 8:54 am |

      They did that last year too, and possibly earlier (I can’t say how far back the current iteration of the Fox Box goes).

    • Dumb Guy | December 27, 2011 at 10:43 am |

      Good thing that if one goes out, they don’t ALL go out!!

    • Will Wayne | December 27, 2011 at 11:31 am |

      Are you referring to the lights they used to indicate remaining timeouts?

  • Andrew | December 27, 2011 at 9:14 am |

    So what time will Nike do their unveiling announcement for “the new look of speed”?

  • zep | December 27, 2011 at 9:16 am |

    Oregon Rose Bowl Unis….sewn on numbers!

    http://www.nikeblog....

    • zep | December 27, 2011 at 9:17 am |

      And if you ask me, the Oregon uni’s are a little Black Swan-esque

    • Ricko | December 27, 2011 at 9:39 am |

      Ah, the “new dress for the prom” trend dances on.
      And on.

    • Tony C. | December 27, 2011 at 10:02 am |

      for an Oregon jersey.. those aren’t too bad. i kinda like the helmet

      • zep | December 27, 2011 at 10:08 am |

        I think I’ve gotten a little numb to the iterations of Oregon’s unis. That being said I like the addition of the sewn on numbers (and swoosh…gasp). And the new feather pattern seems like a natural progression for them. I wish they would have the uni’s in natural light so you could actually see more detail not just what they want you to see. Are the helmets Black and Chrome? The facemasks look either chrome or clear??

        • The Jeff | December 27, 2011 at 10:12 am |

          Facemask looks like it’s black & silver, in much the same way that Georgia’s pro combat mask was red & black.

        • Paul Lukas | December 27, 2011 at 10:31 am |

          Also: TV NUMBERS! First Oregon design in ages to include them.

          I had the exact same thought about the Black Swan, incidentally. I just used that metaphor in a quick ESPN piece I just whipped up. I’ll provide a link when it goes live.

        • Matthew Robins | December 27, 2011 at 2:15 pm |

          Paul – I thought they wore TV numbers on the undershirt sleeves last year, in the BCS Title Game? http://www3.pictures...

        • Paul Lukas | December 27, 2011 at 3:10 pm |

          Right. But it’s the first time in ages that they’ve been part of the jersey.

        • Simply Moono | December 27, 2011 at 7:56 pm |

          @zep: Actually, Oregon’s normal uniforms have sewn-on numbers as well. They use something called printed lightweight stretch twill, which is why they look like the dreaded screenprint at times. These Rose Bowl unis have ’em too. I like the mallard fade effect that they have. I just wish that the helmet was green with the mallard effect and “Lightning Yellow” (their official shade of gold/yellow) wings on the helmet. Lightning Yellow wings on the shoulders would’ve helped too, to make the wings more visible.

          Overall? Not perfect, but very cool, and a little better than what they have now. Hopefully, they use this template with the rest of their uniforms next year. I think I have an idea on what Movi’s reaction to the new non-Bellotti Bold number font was:

          (http://www.youtube.c...)

      • Simply Moono | December 27, 2011 at 7:46 pm |

        “for an Oregon jersey uniform.. those aren’t too bad. i kinda like the helmet”

        (Fixed)

        No shade, but there’s more to a uniform than just a jersey ;)

    • JEDI54 | December 27, 2011 at 10:26 am |

      Greatness!!!!!!!

    • Bernard | December 27, 2011 at 11:42 am |

      Kinda like the new winged shoulders (though I prefer the old ones), not a fan of the helmet. Hopefully that’s a one-time thing. Lateral move at best.

    • LarryB | December 27, 2011 at 2:09 pm |

      Not bad. We know Oregon is going to keep changing. The helmets sure are different.

    • Andy P. | December 27, 2011 at 3:56 pm |

      Lets give them credit for sticking to the school colors… they are green and yellow. I’m sure the green will pop more in the sun of LA like their normal jerseys do.

      Helmets are unique, could be pretty cool in action, can’t really tell from the staged photos.

      Interesting that there are no photos of footwear…

    • Pat | December 27, 2011 at 6:04 pm |

      Has anyone noticed that it’s not Belotti Bold!?

      • Jim Vilk | December 27, 2011 at 7:49 pm |

        Ooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhh, yeah. Scroll down a bit.

        Too giddy to say much right now, but once I see the entire set of numbers, there may be celebration of epic proportions.

    • Payton | December 27, 2011 at 6:39 pm |

      The helmets look like the head of a Xenomorph.

  • Ferdinand Cesarano | December 27, 2011 at 9:26 am |

    Sorry no screenshot; but the Nets’ broadcast on YES used the old Washington Wizards “DC” logo, not the new Bullets-style one with the hand going up to tip the basketball. This was the Wizards’ first game with that logo.

    Ian Eagle made several mentions of the new Bullets-style unis early in the telecast, giving them his stamp of approval. I agree overall; even though the non-traditional number font doesn’t look quite right with the classic design. (Same flaw as the Sacramento Kings’ alt jersey.)

  • Snackpit | December 27, 2011 at 9:54 am |

    RE: NFL players not being let on the field unless they change/fix their unis. Honestly how are they going to be prevented? If it comes down to some fat security mook in one of those yellow SECURITY jackets and an NFL player in full uni and pads, everyone knows who wins that one.
    And as to the obvious, what possible penalty could be called on a team or player? Delay of game? Can’t se it. Anyone have an answer for these questions?

    • Paul Lukas | December 27, 2011 at 10:04 am |

      Each game has a “uniform policeman” (usually a former player) assigned by the league. He’s empowered to keep people off the field if he feels a uni violation is sufficiently egregious.

    • Ricko | December 27, 2011 at 10:18 am |

      You think it would be a fistfight?
      Seriously?
      The players likely would be treated as disqualified, just as if they’d been thrown out of the game. Because someone with the authority to do so declared them to be.
      An ejected player gets to duke it out with security guards to see if can stay in the game?
      You think Sean Payton would have said, “Screw you, I’m letting them play”?

      Please.

    • Arr Scott | December 27, 2011 at 10:23 am |

      I don’t understand the seeming contradiction here. I think Paul is generally right about below-the-knee becoming a non-uniform area as far as the league is concerned. But if that’s the case, then why do we see the NFL enforcing the rule against colored-tape spats but not mandating matching white or black socks? It’s analagous to fining baseball players for wearing colored shoelaces but letting them get away with wearing neon green socks instead of whatever color the team actually wears. Makes no sense to enforce the rule they’re enforcing while permitting the much larger individualization they’re permitting.

      • Ricko | December 27, 2011 at 10:36 am |

        Key words, I think, were “sufficiently egregious”.

        Going so drastically outside the team color scheme likely was seen as falling into that category.

        The offenses you mention do draw fines, but mostly they’re for dorking around with team issue gear, which is generally in team colors or “univeral” white, and sometimes black. The red and green taping was deemed to be outside that sphere, I’m sure. Because it was.

      • Paul Lukas | December 27, 2011 at 10:37 am |

        I think it’s a case of the league being overwhelmed by all of this stuff. The shoe companies push custom designs on the players (who, obviously, want to wear them), the players find custom-colored shoelaces (which supposedly aren’t allowed, but you NEVER see that one enforced anymore), equipment managers keep finding new hosiery/tape combinations, players keep spatting (sometimes for fashion, sometimes for function), etc. It’s all too much, and the basic rule that’s supposed to be enforced — a one-piece sock that’s white from the ankle to mid-shin and team-colored from mid-shin to the knee — is badly obsolete, because almost nobody wears a one-piece sock anyway. It’s like, “Okay, a whole herd of horses is out of barn, but let’s at least try to round up a few of them.”

    • Ray Barrington | December 27, 2011 at 12:05 pm |

      Probably the same way they keep players who have been in a fight and been ejected off the field. If they can keep a honked-off Suh off the field, stopping a puny safety is easy.

  • Connie | December 27, 2011 at 9:57 am |

    Last two ticker items: 1) It’s not that the new Japan national soccer kits are awful, but a blue uni for a country with one of the world’s greatest red-and-white flag designs is inherently disappointing; and 2) The picture of Casey “instructing” the Mets usherettes is sublime.

    • Paul Lukas | December 27, 2011 at 10:05 am |

      Casey knew where the real talent was on the ’64 squad.

      • Steve D | December 27, 2011 at 11:55 am |

        Why two different usherette styles? Hmmmm….

    • DK1247 | December 27, 2011 at 10:35 am |

      The Japanese teams have worn blue during their most successful (i.e. recent) years. Yes the kit is awful but its not like they just switched to blue. Then again national colors don’t make sense for quite a few countries like Italy, The Netherlands, and Australia to name a few

      • Jeremy Brahm | December 27, 2011 at 11:37 am |

        Orange is the historic national colour of the Netherlands, originating from the coat of arms of the Dutch founding father William of Orange-Nassau.

        • damian | December 27, 2011 at 11:48 am |

          Same with Italy – it’s the old colour of the royal family

        • Arr Scott | December 27, 2011 at 2:21 pm |

          Exactly. Orange is the national color of the Netherlands. It’s the national flag that doesn’t match the national color, not the national team uni. The story everyone told in Holland is that when the Prince of Orange led the revolt against the Spanish monarchy back in the day, his standard was horizontal stripes of orange, white, and blue, but that over time people increasingly substituted red for orange on the flag until the flag became standardized with red. If so, it would make the Dutch flag sort of the equivalent of the maroon-era Phillies.

        • George Chilvers | December 27, 2011 at 3:03 pm |

          Useless fact of the day: Do you know that carrots are actually naturally purple or white and that the orange colour was bred into them from a mutation by growers in the Netherlands in the 17th century as a tribute to William of Orange to such an extent that orang ebeing the de facto colour of carrots, and purple carrots have become an oddity. I’ll bet you didn’t know that.

        • Mike Engle | December 27, 2011 at 5:48 pm |

          I knew that orange carrots are a popular modification, but i didn’t know they are/were naturally purple!
          Meanwhile, that sound you heard was Paul booking a flight to Amsterdam to thank the farmers for taking a stand against purple. “Success!” (Even though nature is the least offensive medium for purple in Paul’s mind…)

  • zep | December 27, 2011 at 10:14 am |

    More Oregon details:

    DESIGN

    The uniform wouldn’t be complete without combining these innovations with a nod to the Duck’s rich heritage. Design elements include:

    • A completely re-designed number system boasting an iridescent sheen similar to that on a mallard’s feathers. The larger, bolder numbers shift in color as they move.

    • An armored wing design resting on new material engineered for maximum strength along the shoulder area

    • A new look for the helmet featuring bright wings atop a mirrored appearance using a LiquidMetal black finish never before seen on the field. Though the wings are featured on the side, the iconic Oregon “O” still appears on the helmet located in a unique top-center placement.

    • The Jeff | December 27, 2011 at 10:24 am |

      I think they’re trying too hard.

      The wings on the helmet are fine in theory, but if they’re a mirrored silver on an ultra glossy black, in action the helmet might as well just be blank chrome. We’ll see nothing but glare.

      • Paul Lukas | December 27, 2011 at 10:50 am |

        I think they’re trying too hard.

        That’s what most of us thought, y’know, about six years ago…

      • Ricko | December 27, 2011 at 11:23 am |

        Well, see, that seems to be issue.
        Not whether it works, or looks good (see “golden golf balls, Notre Dame”), just that they did it and it was “different”.

        Hey, most music videos don’t leave a shot up for more than a second (if that long), how can players be expected to wear the same uniforms for a whole season? Jeez, making them do that is just…I dunno, forcing them to attempt an attention span that is beyond human capability. And certainly not properly entertaining them.

        As I’ve said, I really hope a lot of these players and fans who get all amped up over such things end up being UPS drivers.

        • Paul Lukas | December 27, 2011 at 11:25 am |

          Well, see, that seems to be issue.
          Not whether it works, or looks good (see “golden golf balls, Notre Dame”), just that they did it and it was “different”.

          In other words: Is it good, or is it stupid?

          It’s amazing how well that simple paradigm works.

        • Kyle B | December 27, 2011 at 12:37 pm |

          Seems like kind of a harsh thing to wish upon someone for having their own taste in uniform style, don’tcha think?

        • Ricko | December 27, 2011 at 4:38 pm |

          You read that as being about taste in unis?

          Read again.

          Was about those with a short attention seeming to think it’s up to world to keep them from being bored…or, better yet, they should never have to endure anything they perceive as “boring.”

        • Kyle B | December 27, 2011 at 6:29 pm |

          That still doesn’t make it any less harsh. Now I’m reading it as that you hope those who have short attention spans or attention deficits become UPS drivers. I go to a college that has had the same helmet and colors for decades, but I have to admit that I fully enjoy seeing what new uniforms teams come out with, and yeah I get a little amped up seeing Oregon’s new uniforms. But having Attention Deficit Disorder myself, I really don’t see the correlation between the two, and certainly don’t see why you would hope for a person like me to be an UPS driver.

        • Ricko | December 27, 2011 at 10:45 pm |

          Oh, for crissakes. The point was that sometimes a uniform is a uniform. It comes with the territory and you have to live with it, that’s all.

          Lighten up.

          Besides, check out what a good, longtime UPS driver makes. They have more applicants than they know what to do with these days.

        • Phil Hecken | December 27, 2011 at 11:54 pm |

          kids today

          back in my day we didn’t have ADD…we were just lazy/immature/easily distracted

  • Fran | December 27, 2011 at 10:27 am |

    The Yankees have not officially announced it but it looks like they will be wearing 1912 throwbacks at Fenway next season.

    Yankees to wear 1912 throwbacks for Fenway Park’s 100th anniversary

    • The Jeff | December 27, 2011 at 10:30 am |

      The Yankees are going to wear an alternate uniform? Dammit the world really is going to end in 2012 isn’t it?

      • Arr Scott | December 27, 2011 at 2:23 pm |

        Road alts. Still no alteration of what they wear in the Bronx, which is the key point. Armageddon still on hold.

        But the rarity of the change does point up what a generous gesture it is for the Yanks to play along with the Red Sox on this one.

        • Mike Engle | December 27, 2011 at 5:51 pm |

          If those “battleship grays” with the tacky sleeve stripes take a day off, that clearly won’t be the end of the world. (Provided it’s still a gray baseball uniform and not a stupid softball top.)

  • Kyle Allebach | December 27, 2011 at 11:06 am |

    Does anyone know of a place where I can find white tackle twill?

  • Alan | December 27, 2011 at 11:37 am |

    I’m happy the Yanks are going the throwback route..hopefully they will do it right. The 1912 uniform has some very nice socks..red and blue. Granderson is going look awesome in these babies.

    • SoCalDrew | December 27, 2011 at 12:54 pm |

      Hmm, what if it’s CC Sabathia’s turn in the rotation?

  • Tim E. O'B | December 27, 2011 at 11:38 am |

    No more belotti bold… I’d like to see the oregon unis in – what is it called – light, though.

    • Phil Hecken | December 27, 2011 at 12:44 pm |

      jim vilk almost came

      if they ditch the outlines, that might make a 5 & 1 next year…if there is a 5 & 1 next year

      • Jim Vilk | December 27, 2011 at 1:33 pm |

        A completely re-designed number system

        Now…I can die in peace.

        (although I want to see how the 5 looks, first)

        • Tim E. O'B | December 27, 2011 at 2:01 pm |

          The 5 looks just like the 7.

          (this is a joke)

  • Michael Romero | December 27, 2011 at 12:02 pm |

    If you paid close attention to the Fox Box score bug, there was also snow falling above the main area that showed the score, downs, time remaining, etc. They’ve done variations on this a few times in the past. They definitely did it last year as they used the same style score bug. I’m not sure about years before since last year was the first year of the new style bug.

  • Michael Romero | December 27, 2011 at 12:06 pm |

    Also, the Giants announced via Twitter a few minutes ago that they are wearing their standard blue uniforms this weekend for their game vs the Cowboys. They weren’t allowed to do otherwise by the league it sounds like. Guess they were going to force the curse of the ‘Boys blue uniforms.

    Src: https://twitter.com/...

    • The Jeff | December 27, 2011 at 12:16 pm |

      That’s another rule the NFL needs to tweak. Obviously a team can’t just decide on the morning of the game that they’re gonna wear white instead of dark… but planning for the entire season before it even starts doesn’t seem necessary to me. Surely they could get by with maybe a 2 week notice.

      • Ricko | December 27, 2011 at 12:40 pm |

        When the NFL first went away from “dark at home” (’63?) pretty sure teams had to state their preference of “white or dark at home” before the season, and stay with it all season. That does seem to make more sense.

        Of course, despite the policy, there was the “both teams in white” game between the Viking and Lions…because someone with the Lions wasn’t paying attention.

  • Ray Barrington | December 27, 2011 at 12:07 pm |

    One thought about that 1965 championship game program – it could be the NFL sent blank program covers for the teams to use before the season, when the CB helmet was still under consideration. The Packers chose the one with all the helmets for championship game use, and nobody realized it had the helmet.

  • DenverGregg | December 27, 2011 at 12:31 pm |

    A modest proposal about NFL socks and related uniform elements, sure to prompt disagreement from most everyone:

    Pants may not extend more than three inches below nor less than one inch above the lower end of the knee. Each team must submit one or more sock designs comprised of at least two colors to the league. Only approved socks may be worn during a game. A team may have multiple sock designs for any given season, however only one design is to be worn by the team during any given game. All players on a team are to wear socks in a manner consistent with the applicable approved design. If the sock is a simple two-color sock, the break between the two colors should occur at the widest part of the calf. Team-themed stripes on socks may occur on an portion of the sock, however all players are to wear the socks in a consistent manner. If the team’s pants are solid color with no stripes, the top portion of the sock must be a color other than that of the pants.

    Each player’s arms are to be covered to the elbow. If undersleeves are used, they should match the color of the jersey as closely as possible. Undersleeves may have decorative elements such as stripes or team logos. If the sleeves contain decorative elements, all players on the team should wear the sleeves in a consistent manner.

    If a player has any tattoos on his arms, hands or neck, all such tattoos must be covered by clothing or tape. If a player has any tattoos on his face, all such tattoos must be covered by tape or cosmetics.

    Each player’s first uniform violation during the season or post-season will result in a fine and a warning. Each subsequent violation (including subsequent violations during the same game as the first violation) shall result in both a fine and a 15-yard personal foul assessed on that player’s first play from scrimmage during which no other personal foul penalty has been enforced against his team. Any player who incurs five uniform violations in any sequence of seven or fewer consecutive games shall be suspended without pay for the next game for which he is eligible, inclusive of post-season games.

    • The Jeff | December 27, 2011 at 12:42 pm |

      I’ll disagree about forcing the socks to be 2 colored, and on the covering of tattoos. If a team wants to go with solid socks (see the old Lions throwbacks), that should be perfectly fine. The player’s skin is not part of the uniform, so tattoos are also fine. Other than that… we’re good.

    • Paul Lukas | December 27, 2011 at 12:44 pm |

      What exactly is the rationale for disallowing tattoos (other than “I don’t like tattoos”)? What about birthmarks, moles, scars?

      • DenverGregg | December 27, 2011 at 12:49 pm |

        It’s about consistency in appearance. Shockey, for instance, always looks starkly different from his teammates because of the big multi-color flags and assorted other stuff on his arms. Diehl too. Sure, moles, scars and birthmarks could cause some discrepancies in appearance, but (IMO) players aren’t likely to try to acquire or exploit those to set themselves apart from their teammates.

        • The Jeff | December 27, 2011 at 12:55 pm |

          So do you want the black players to wear light-skin colored arm sleeves too? They’re not robots, man. You’ve got to let them have *a little bit* of individuality.

        • Phil Hecken | December 27, 2011 at 2:57 pm |

          couldn’t they just wear flesh colored bandages?

      • DenverGregg | December 27, 2011 at 12:51 pm |

        And I nearly forgot — the same idea behind the MLB prohibition on trademark tats. I fully expect somebody to start paying athletes to wear their logo as a tat. This gets away from making a prohibition on logo tats turn into a “you’re taking money out of my pocket” issue.

    • Phil Hecken | December 27, 2011 at 12:46 pm |

      rather swiftian, gregg…guessing not many will get it™

  • duker | December 27, 2011 at 12:47 pm |

    The Ravens went purple-over-black on Saturday: http://www.baltimore...

    • The Jeff | December 27, 2011 at 12:50 pm |

      …as God intended.

      • duker | December 27, 2011 at 12:56 pm |

        Agreed. I was worried they wouldn’t go back to this look after the loss to Pittsburgh last year. Maybe they broke it out against the Browns so they could get some good karma back.

    • JEDI54 | December 27, 2011 at 1:25 pm |

      I loved it. They should ditch the white britches all together and just have the black britches all the time. Would not mind seeing some purple socks when the wear the purple shirts.

  • JSS | December 27, 2011 at 1:14 pm |

    The Oregon helmets looks strangely familiar to the Chief’s helmet that Dick Enberg and Bill Walsh had on a NFL telecast a long while ago.

    • JSS | December 27, 2011 at 2:12 pm |

      Actually, Paul brought this to our attention a little less than a year ago.

      http://sports.espn.g...

  • Mako M. | December 27, 2011 at 1:22 pm |

    “Falcons linebacker Sean Witherspoon, who wore solid whites”

    John Abraham, too (at least le last two weeks)

    • Mako M. | December 27, 2011 at 1:45 pm |
      • Ricko | December 27, 2011 at 4:42 pm |

        Perennial late-in-season NFL soxual frustration.

        Nothing new. Happens every year. Combination of boredom and cold weather, I imagine (uni cops get a little more lenient when players are trying to keep warm; not real relevant in the Superdome, though).

        If you haven’t noticed it before, you will. Every year starting from now.

  • interlockingtc | December 27, 2011 at 1:22 pm |

    Brinke, the Goodyear stickers feature team emblems and the Chiquita stickers helmet logos. Both look teriffic and both were collected!

    Also, Brinke, given your time in Cincy and your current residence in SF (which I gather from your contributions), if the two teams should meet for a third time in the Super Bowl (long shot, I know), who do you root for?

    • =bg= | December 27, 2011 at 3:17 pm |

      ah, lived in Dallas too.

      NO question, tho——-Niners.

  • Jim Greenfield | December 27, 2011 at 1:29 pm |

    The inability for MLB and now the NFL to emforce uniform codes below the knees is rediculas. Since when is “below the knees” an area of personal choice? Why is it any differant than the standardized above the knee codes? Personally I won’t watch baseball untill every player wears the stripped socks and mid calf pants. The players were right to make a stand to wear their hair as they chose because that belongs to them. How the team socks became part of their freedom of expression I don’t know.

    • Ricko | December 27, 2011 at 1:35 pm |

      “Since when is ‘below the knees’ an area of personal choice?”

      In MLB for 50 years now, since about 1961, when Frank Robinson, Vada Pinson, Willie Mays and other started pulling their stirrups up high, or adding extenders.

    • Paul Lukas | December 27, 2011 at 1:37 pm |

      MLB doesn’t have an “inability” to enforce uniform codes below the knee; MLB *doesn’t have* any uniform codes below the knee.

      That’s the problem.

      • Jim Greenfield | December 27, 2011 at 1:48 pm |

        If that was the only problem it could easily be remedied by creating a set of regulations. But can you imagine the fit the player’s union would have? Besides, I’m not sure MLB officials care or have even noticed the long pants. They’re more into money than fashion.

  • umplou | December 27, 2011 at 1:40 pm |

    I’m wondering about that pic with Casey and the ‘usherettes’. Unless there’s a caption, I think this fine group of ladies might be something else. The Ushers Union was very strong back in the mid 60’s.

    Sports NY, the Mets cable network, occasionally shows the old highlight films the Mets used to make and send to clubs, schools, whatever, selling tickets for the NEXT season. Well, in the 1966 season film, since there were very few Met highlights, one of the things they showed was a ticket selling caravan they had put together using the Long Island Rail Road. They brought along a couple of Met ‘stars’…such as Les Rohr, and a group of ladies dressed very similarly to these ladies, and the narration called them the Lady Mets – essentially a club sponsored booster club! The Mets marketing department was much better than the team they were promoting in those days!

    • Steve D | December 27, 2011 at 10:16 pm |

      I was wondering the same thing earlier…notice the two different style of uniforms also. I will try to do some more digging, but the group sitting in the more formal blazers could be Diamond Club Hostesses…the ohers some kind of booster club.

  • VB06Hokie | December 27, 2011 at 2:03 pm |

    http://www.the700lev...

    Here’s an article showing what the Philadelphia Flyers’ goalie pads will look like for the Winter Classic. Interesting that Ilya Bryzgalov had 3 sets of gloves and blockers made.

    • Shane | December 27, 2011 at 6:39 pm |

      There was a video on Puck Daddy last week about Bernie Parent having three masks made for the Alumni game and raffling them off for charity afterwards.

      I’m guessing the Bryz is going to be doing the same with his pads. Hopefully they get huMANgous big dollars.

    • Kyle Allebach | December 27, 2011 at 11:31 pm |

      Those throwback pads look awesome.

  • inkracer | December 27, 2011 at 2:13 pm |

    We can add another one to the “I’m still calling it…” file.

    Conseco Fieldhouse has now become Bankers Life Fieldhouse.

    http://www.wnba.com/...

    • Tim E. O'B | December 27, 2011 at 2:14 pm |

      I don’t know, it was already named after a faceless company, it’s not like Shea, Comiskey or Giants’…

      • DenverGregg | December 27, 2011 at 2:40 pm |

        In southern Colorado there’s a subdivision developer named “Shea Homes” and so the a local high school and rec field is named, what else, Shea Stadium.

  • Matthew Robins | December 27, 2011 at 4:21 pm |

    “Oregon’s Darth Vader Rose Bowl Uniforms [Photos]” Well done, MTV… http://clutch.mtv.co...

  • =bg= | December 27, 2011 at 4:48 pm |

    For the Giants, it’s been PacBell, SBC, and AT&T Park- I still call it PacBell. Never minded that name at all. For purist baseball fans, it should be named “Willie Mays Field,” but that would mean no corp $ coming in to pay that big home run hitter we just signed for our pitiful offense.

    Wait. We didn’t sign one. Never mind.

  • Dootie Bubble | December 27, 2011 at 5:46 pm |

    http://tracking.si.c...

    Shoe contracts put nix on potential trade or uninformed speculation?

    • Pat | December 27, 2011 at 6:24 pm |

      This is just downright stupid and absolutely true that Adidas would think that, which makes it even more stupid. I don’t think LeBron and Wade have a problem selling Nike sneakers in or outside of Miami.

      • Mike Engle | December 27, 2011 at 7:59 pm |

        Ah, well D-Wade is with Converse, which is an official acquired sub-brand to Nike. (Insert eyeroll and general queasiness here. Until I realize I can just divert my energy towards the NHL and be happy.)

        • Simply Moono | December 27, 2011 at 10:05 pm |

          Actually, as of last year (and maybe the year before that), D-Wade is with Jordan Brand. Still a sub-div of Nike, but still…

  • Patrick_in_MI | December 27, 2011 at 9:29 pm |

    Jesus H. Christ Nikegon! Just tell us what colors the Ducks unis will be for the Rose Bowl. I don’t give a good goddamn about all the extraneous bullshit. Performance innovation? Thermoregulation?! No one gives a ducks balls about your fuckin’ buzzwords, just show us the craptastic unis and lose the game already.

    /deep breath
    //need to up my meds

    • Simply Moono | December 27, 2011 at 9:38 pm |
    • Bill | December 28, 2011 at 2:25 pm |

      Wow, dude, I am 100% on board with you! You have a way with rage!

  • Wheels | December 27, 2011 at 10:09 pm |

    The style of shorts the Boston Celtics wear do not translate well to the l-o-n-g length of today’s cut. That style was designed for a much shorter length, and was designed accordingly. Just a thought.

    • traxel | December 28, 2011 at 12:48 am |

      Agreed. But I’ll take today’s shorts length over yesteryear’s any day. Don’t particularly care for things like even the slightest glimpse of Walton’s jewels hanging out on the cover of a major magazine.

      http://sportingnews....

      • Wheels | December 28, 2011 at 1:12 am |

        H-o-r-r-ible!

  • Kyle Allebach | December 27, 2011 at 11:30 pm |

    I was gonna comment on how the Duck’s uni’s looked, but I couldn’t see a damn thing in those photos. I did some green on the numbers, and a highlighter outline…that’s it.

    • Simply Moono | December 28, 2011 at 4:35 am |

      “I was gonna comment on how the Duck’s uni’s looked, but I couldn’t see a damn thing in those photos. I did some green on the numbers, and a highlighter outline…that’s it.then I took an arrow in the knee.”

      [Fixed ;)]

  • jason | December 28, 2011 at 8:25 am |

    Please get rid of the black on black look for the Saints. They look like a lower level FCS or high school team. The black pants look like ballerina tights. The Saints had one of the best uni combos in the NFL with the gold pants. Now they look terrible.

    But in the spirit of the golds not matching on the Saints’ unis, it appears the blacks don’t match on the pants and jerseys. I don’t know, something just looks off about it.

    • Bill | December 28, 2011 at 2:30 pm |

      Agree with you completely! Why in the world do they wear solid black pants at all? The gold with black stripe looks great with either the home black or road white jersey. The fans don’t buy football pants, so you don’t need them to market more merchandise…

      I’m not a Saints fan, but love the standard uniform. Someone tell team leadership to stop messing around.