London Calling

Screen shot 2012-04-16 at 3.36.21 PM.png

Don’t look now, but the London Olympics are right around the corner, and you know what that means: sportsmanship athletic excellence more jokes about how the logo looks like Lisa Simpson giving a blowjob exhuming Keith Moon some major corporate branding shenanigans.

That’s the takeaway from this story that ran in the Guardian last Friday, which spells out the incredible measures that the Olympics’ organizers are taking to protect their sponsors’ brand integrity. Here’s my favorite part: “[A] crack team of branding ‘police’ … will be checking every bathroom in every Olympic venue, with the power to remove or tape over manufacturers’ logos even on soap dispensers, wash basins, and toilets.”

Ah, yes — logo-policing the loo. Now there’s a great exemplar of the Olympic spirit.

Joking aside, the branding culture at the Olympics is serious stuff — not just from a business standpoint but from a governmental standpoint. Did you know any country hosting the games is required to pass special legislation designed to protect the event’s sponsors? I didn’t, until I read this portion of the Guardian article:

Britain already has a range of legal protections for brands and copyright holders, but the Olympic Games demand their own rules. Since the Sydney Games in 2000, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has required bidding governments to commit to introducing bespoke legislation to offer a further layer of legal sanction.

In 2006, accordingly, Parliament passed the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act, which, together with the Olympic Symbol (Protection) Act of 1995, offers a special level of protection to the Games and their sponsors over and above that already promised by existing copyright or contract law. A breach of these acts will not only give rise to a civil grievance, but is a criminal offence.

“It is certainly very tough legislation,” says Paul Jordan, a partner and marketing specialist at law firm Bristows, which is advising both official sponsors and non-sponsoring businesses on the new laws. “Every major brand in the world would give their eye teeth to have [a piece of legislation] like this. One can imagine something like a Google or a Microsoft would be delighted to have some very special recognition of their brand in the way that clearly the IOC has.”

Now, we all know that companies ask for certain favors when being wooed by municipalities. “Want us to build a plant in your city? Give us a tax break” or “Float us a bond” or whatever. But that’s kiddie stuff compared to the IOC demanding that a country pass special legislation in return for the “privilege” of hosting an event that’s often a net financial loss. Amazing.

One small item in that article is of particular note to us here at Uni Watch: A survey of UK Twitter users found that the sponsor they most associate with the upcoming London games is Nike — which is funny, because Nike isn’t an official sponsor of these games (Adidas is, to the tune of £100 million). I’m not sure if this is a testament to Nike’s ubiquity or to the stupidity of Twitter users. Either way, it’s interesting.

(Kudos to Harry Shearer’s excellent radio program Le Show, which is where I first heard about the Guardian article.)

+ + + + +

9637159-man-s-suit.jpg

A different kind of uniform: I haven’t worked in an office since 1996. And even then, I wore jeans to work most of the time. In other words: I haven’t had much need for a suit. The last one I bought was in 1991, and it’s served me just fine over the past 21 years. I typically need to wear it only once or twice a year. Sometimes not even that often.

The old suit still fits me, but not as well as it once did. And last year a moth hole showed up on the jacket (in a rather inconspicuous spot, but still). I tried to ignore these signals, but recently I admitted to myself that it was finally time to get a new suit. At first I thought I’d get a vintage model, but I wasn’t able to find anything I liked, so I figured I’d go to a menswear shop. But then I saw an ad for one of those Hong Kong tailors who set up shop in a hotel suite and take your measurements and let you pick your own fabric and all that. Hmmmm, I thought — if this next suit lasts as long as the previous one did, it’ll basically take me through the rest of my suit-wearing life. So why not do it right? Why not indeed.

So last week I found myself taking an elevator up to the 43rd floor of the Marriott Marquis in midtown, where three gentlemen from Empire Tailors were waiting for me. We exchanged pleasantries, they explained a few things to me, and then they set me loose on a few dozen fabric swatch books so I could find the fabric I wanted.

I had a rough idea of what I wanted — an olive-ish mini-check pattern with some sort of overlaid windowpane, in a mid-weight fabric — and spent the better part of an hour poring over fabric swatches in search of it. The swatches were wonderful. So many variations, so many intricate patterns, and really nice to the touch. It would’ve been easy to spend the whole day looking through them, but I eventually focused on the task at hand and narrowed my choices down to four options, then two, and then one. The winner was pretty much what I’d had in mind — olive-ish with a nice overlaid pattern.

(I don’t know why, but I completely neglected to take any photos. Stupid! I later called the tailor and asked if he could take a photo of my swatch and e-mail it to me. Unfortunately, the photo he sent kinda sucks — trust me, the real thing looks nicer than that. But at least it provides a rough idea of what I chose.)

Although I don’t wear a suit very often, I have pretty specific ideas about menswear (I like three-button jackets, fairly high button placement, narrow-ish lapels, and fairly narrow pant legs with cuffs), so it was fun to spell out exactly what I wanted to the tailor. Asked him lots of questions, too: Do I get to choose the buttons? What about the lining? Can we make the jacket a little shorter? Can I specify how many buttons there are on the sleeves? At one point he said, “Oh, you must wear suits quite a bit, yes?” “Almost never,” I replied, which he seemed to find perplexing.

As we were wrapping up, I thought of something: Suit pants almost always have button-through back pockets. I hate those buttons — they get in the way when I’m reaching for my wallet. Why are those buttons even there? If the pocket is buttoned, you can’t use it; if you leave it unbuttoned, it looks like shit (the pocket equivalent of having your fly open). So I said, “Oh, one more thing: No buttons on the back pockets.”

The tailor looked aghast. “Are you sure?” he said. Yes, I told him, I’m sure. It was a small but very satisfying moment.

The finished suit won’t arrive until June or so. Let’s hope my old suit doesn’t get any more moth holes between now and then.

+ + + +

guthrie.png

Collector’s Corner

By Brinke Guthrie

Nice artwork on this 1968 Dodge AFL promo magazine, but look at the artwork for the then-“fledgling” Bengals. Was the artist just guessing as to what their look would be? Other companies like Campbell’s Soup were capitalizing on the NFL/AFL rivalry around that same time, though. By 1969, artists had the Bengals look down, as this stylized game program shows. [That Campbell's thingie is one of the greatest items ever featured in Collector's Corner! — PL]

That “AFL Pictorial” game program style must have been a league-wide look for 1969, because here it is again for this Denver/Boston game. And shifting over to the senior circuit, these 1967 Vikings programs (with killer artwork!) were published under the name NFL Illustrated, which looks like the forerunner to the PRO! program we all know.

Other finds from this week:

• Love the clean (albeit dated) look to this 1970/71 ESSO NHL hockey schedule.

• Never seen a vintage NFL mini-helmet sold on an NFL shield blister card before.

• Holy mackerel, will ya lookit this set of totally cool NFL Technigraph helmet plaques. Here’s another auction with a Vikings plaque — still in the box!

• Gatorade NFL caps alert! The whole 1971 set is right here.

• Huge lot of 1970s NFL bobbleheads here.

• Here’s a nice retro 1970s California Angels Starter jacket, and note the huge state logo on the back.

• I love this early-1970s Texas Rangers jacket from Sand Knit. Not a real game jacket, despite what the ad text says — logo is way off. But it still brings back memories of Arlington Stadium for me.

• Dodgers fans will love this 1965 Union 76 thermal cup set, which featured all-timers Sandy Koufax and Don Drysdale. Eleven cups total! Artwork by the great Nicholas Volpe, of course. Pair ’em with these Volpe prints.

Seen something on eBay or Etsy (or anywhere else) that you think would make good Collector’s Corner fodder? Send your submissions here.

+ + + + +

playbook-logo.png

Out with the old…: Playbook, the new ESPN.com section that’s replacing Page 2, is now up and running. As I explained on Friday, Playbook consists of seven sections, one of which is called Fandom — that’s where my work will appear. I had two entries posted yesterday: one about how hard it be to keep uni-related secrets and one that’s basically my version of Brinke’s “Collector’s Corner” (I’m gonna do that for Fandom on a semi-regular basis). As I said on Friday, my ESPN work will probably get shorter and more frequent — i.e., more blog-ish — under the Playbook/Fandom format, but everything here at this site should remain pretty much the same. OK? OK.

+ + + + +

Uni Watch News Ticker: The Steelers will unveil their throwback design today at 4:30pm, with live coverage on Steelers.com. All I can say is prepare to either love it or hate it. I’m pretty sure there will be no middle ground. … Small NFL change that I’m able to share with you: New road socks (which I guess are also the home socks) for the Browns. I say “road socks” euphemistically, of course, since the Browns wore white at home last year. No change to the brown-topped socks that are worn with the brown jerseys, although who knows when they’ll wear that design again. Meanwhile, no word on what all of this will mean for Joshua Cribbs and his arm warmers. … With all the chatter about how new Hornets owner Tom Benson may change the team name, lots of you have been submitting new team names and uni designs. Please hold your fire for another day or two — I’ll run an ESPN contest on this topic later this week. … Meanwhile, since the Hornets name may be scrapped in New Orleans, a fan group in North Carolina wants to bring it back to Charlotte. … Uni advertising is coming to basketball after all — in the D-League, at least for the postseason. Eh, whatever, like anyone really cares about the D-League. … The Braves are retiring John Smoltz’s number. … The Syracuse Chiefs wore Negro Leagues-inspired uniforms for Jackie Day (from Rick DiRubbo). … The original century-old blueprints for Ebbets Field were recently discovered in a basement and are about to be put on display. … Johns Hopkins lacrosse wore 1970s throwbacks on Saturday. “While the jersey and shorts represent a solid retro motif (and also happen to be gorgeous), the real treats are the helmets and gloves,” says James Dougherty. “The helmets, apparently through decaling, were made to look like the old style panel helmets (aka bucket helmets) that prevailed in until the mid-1990’s when they were replaced with the Cascade-style helmets. The attention to detail on the throwbacks was astonishing, including faux stitching around the visor and faux laces on the back (yes, lacrosse helmets had laces into the 1990s). As for the gloves, they were rendered in tan. Prior to the late ’70s, all gloves were tan, whether made of leather or nylon-coated.” … Oooh, check out these old football “scrimmage aprons” from 1941 (nice find by Bart Miller). … Northwestern will be getting new Under Armour uniforms this fall, at least judging by this video clip. … “I was at the Nationals/Reds game on Friday and noticed Mark DeRosa didn’t have an MLB logo on the back of his cap,” writes Doug Erwin. “Another player who was in the dugout the whole game (I think it was Ross Detweiler, the fifth starter) also didn’t have a logo, but I couldn’t get a picture of him.” Man, DeRosa looks soooo much better than his teammates without the logo badge. Hope he doesn’t wear out that cap too soon. … A very obsessed Phillies fan has DIY’d himself a jersey from 3000 beverage can tabs (thanks, Brinke). … “I attended a breakfast on Monday morning at which Todd Graham, ASU’s new football coach, was the speaker,” says Marc Altieri. “He said he requires all the players to wear exactly the same uniform for games. He doesn’t allow any of the players to differentiate themselves from the team. All players wear the same shoes and socks and he doesn’t allow them to wear any special wristbands or other personal items.” … Several readers sent me these photos of new Ole Miss helmets yesterday. I have no idea how legit they are. … New kits for the U.S. men’s and women’s soccer teams (from Kenn Tomasch). … New football uniforms for Eastern Michigan. “They’re Adidas tech-fit, so I’m sure they’ll fit like shit,” says Jacob Kubuske. … “He definitely needs some work on the blousing, but I have to say I was one proud dad when my son went out on the field looking like this,” says Mike Raymer. “The best part: He did it totally on his own.” … “Last year in Brazil’s Men’s Superliga volleyball league playoffs, Volei Futuro player Michael Pinto dos Santos was outed by an opposing team’s fans during a playoff series,” says Jeremy Brahm. “This happened in the first match of a best-of-three series. In the second match, the libero wore this rainbow jersey. ‘Contra O Preconceito’ means ‘without bias’ in Portuguese.” … Also from Jeremy: Ever since I was a young boy, I played the silver ball. The story there is that the MLS champions gets to use a silver soccer ball for all their home matches. … Novak Djokovic is Nike-bound (thanks, Brinke). … We’ve all seen examples of umpires who had to wear makeshift gear when their luggage got lost. But I’d never seen this one, with the home plate ump wearing an Astros dugout jacket! That comes from this video clip (major thanks to Mike Nessen). … Odd that the Broncos would send Peyton Manning out to meet in the media in Reebok gear yesterday (good spot by Brandon Schwartz). … “Barry Zito is no longer wearing his striped socks,” notes Jeff La Haie. “He was the only player who consistently wore them since they were introduced two years ago. Sergio Romo is still wearing them, but he has alternated his stock stylings quite a bit in the past and presumably might do so again. The bigger change is that the batboys, who had worn the striped socks, are back to wearing the all black socks. Not sure if this change is organization-wide, but I am sad to see it nonetheless.” … College fishing is a club sport, not NCAA-sanctioned, which I guess explains the potpurri of jersey sponsorships. “It appears they all used the same template,” notes Sean Kautzman. “I really hate how the Plano logo is encroaching on the VT school logo. Most companies and institutions frown on this, and like to keep a ‘no-fly zone’ around their logo.” … Kevin Cunningham ordered himself a customized Giants road jersey, which for some reason arrived with NFL tagging.

 

305 comments to London Calling

  • Ben | April 17, 2012 at 8:00 am |

    Nike is doing a lot of advertising here in London so I guess that’s why people might think it’s an official sponsor.

    But Adidas has done plenty as well, plus it is the supplier for Team GB.

    Also, the sponsor protection will be in force in other UK cities (ones hosting Olympic football) http://www.bbc.co.uk...

  • Adam R. W. | April 17, 2012 at 8:12 am |

    Uni ads have been in the D-League for a few years now… Check out Jeremy Lin with the Erie Bayhawks earlier this season:
    http://images.huffin...

    • Adam R. W. | April 17, 2012 at 8:19 am |

      Other D-League teams with uni ads:

      Texas Legends
      http://assets.bizjou...

      Rio Grande Valley Vipers:
      http://viewfinder.th...

    • The Jeff | April 17, 2012 at 9:07 am |

      Ads on D-league uniforms… that’s sort of pointless isn’t it? I mean, as a semi-evil corporation, you want people to see your advertisements, right? Who actually watches the NBA D-league? Seriously, are those games even televised? Seems like a waste of corporate money.

      • Adam R. W. | April 17, 2012 at 9:22 am |

        Yes, because the only way to see a game is on tv. No one goes to games, or sees team advertisements, or sees the team out in community events. It’s 100% television viewership. And yes, games are televised, on NBATV, local stations, and they used to be on Versus (now NBC sports).

      • Tom V. | April 17, 2012 at 9:26 am |

        We get it, you don’t like D-League basketball so why would anyone else? Diversity is a wonderful thing.

      • Corey | April 17, 2012 at 9:45 am |

        Well, we all just looked at the photos, and it’s probably making the mainstream news too, so the first ones to do it get that bonus.

  • Phil Hecken | April 17, 2012 at 8:14 am |

    “Oh, you must wear suits quite a bit, yes?”

    ~~~

    heh…at least that was probably a legit question…most of these suit jockeys will do anything to seal a sale…i remember trying on a suit 100 years ago (ok, it was probably 1988) after having it altered, and the salesman said, “that suit looks very good on you Mr. Hecker” (which soon became a running joke between me and a buddy

    granted, i don’t have the most common last name, but if you’re trying to blow smoke somewhere, at least get my name correct

    ~~~

    enjoy the suit — pattern/color look great!

    • Arr Scott | April 17, 2012 at 8:39 am |

      I’m impressed, but not surprised, that Paul so precisely requested exactly the right suit for someone who only has the one suit. Esquire should take notes. Dark, earthy, patterned: sounds like a suit in which a person could credibly minister a funeral or take in the ponies, or anything in-between.

      • Connie | April 17, 2012 at 9:57 am |

        What Scott says. Great fabric choice, Paul.

        I might add that I am a convert to suits, and have evolved from an attitude of “Shit, better put on a suit for that stupid meeting” to “Thank God I don’t have to think about what to wear today I’ll just put on a suit.” I look better in a suit than I do in a T-shirt, though it grieves me to admit it. 85% of you would also look better in a suit, but I agree that that doesn’t matter all that much, especially if the women in your life don’t look so great, either. I was just looking at this morning’s Retronaut, featuring Man Ray’s 1920s photos of the Coolest People in the World, Surrealism/Dada Department, and the coolest of the coolest guys wore fabulously conventional suits.

        • HowlinLobo | April 17, 2012 at 10:14 am |

          I wonder if the Coolest Guys in the world from the 1920’s had wives that “don’t look so great, either”. I doubt it, probably would have traded them in for another model if that was the case.

    • Roger | April 17, 2012 at 8:59 am |

      Tailoring used to be a skilled trade. Unfortunately, big retail has lowered the standard (for a number of reasons.) Finding a good tailor is like finding a good barber. Once you’ve got one, hold onto him until he retires.

      • Chance Michaels | April 17, 2012 at 10:10 am |

        Damn. I might have to give them a call.

        I used to love wearing suits, then I briefly had a job which required them, and when I quit I had lost my taste. Now I’m starting to wish that I had more than the couple still remaining in my closet.

    • Andy | April 17, 2012 at 9:19 am |

      Sounds like a good suit, Paul, except for the three-button front. I’ll take the classic two-button any day.

    • concealed78 | April 17, 2012 at 12:08 pm |

      You got that right, Mr. Heckler!

      Never worn a suit, never hope to, tho if I do, you bet it will be brown. Or some gaudy pattern or Tweed.

  • Dumb Guy | April 17, 2012 at 8:14 am |

    college fishing link isn’t working. :^(

    • Paul Lukas | April 17, 2012 at 8:22 am |

      Now fixed.

  • Dumb Guy | April 17, 2012 at 8:15 am |

    “That Campbell’s thingie is one of the greatest thing ever featured in Collector’s Corner!”

    Agreed!!

  • scott | April 17, 2012 at 8:16 am |

    Some Richmond Flying Squirrels players have been wearing the striped socks, so they still exist down on the Giants’ farm.

  • The Jeff | April 17, 2012 at 8:25 am |

    Small NFL change that I’m able to share with you: New road socks (which I guess are also the home socks) for the Browns.

    …and they made the uniform worse. Way to go Cleveland.

    • Andy | April 17, 2012 at 9:20 am |

      Not a fan of them. Why mess with something that fits the identity perfectly? The only change the Browns should have made is to add striped socks to the brown jersey setup.

  • BurghFan | April 17, 2012 at 8:28 am |

    I got to yesterday’s comments late, so some leftovers:

    -Alex Smith wasn’t the first player to get an NOB jersey from an NNOB team. I was at fenway when the Red Sox had Ray Allen throw out a first pitch after the Celtics acquired him, and his jersey had an ugly-looking name on the back.

    -Instead of just honoring Jackie Robinson, or even Larry Doby, baseball should have gone farther and had each of the original 16 teams retire the number of their first black player. Some (like Robinson and Doby) are remembered anyway, but others are just trivia answers.

    -I think the proliferation of sleeve patches on baseball jerseys serves the same function as team names on NFL jerseys. They’re for the retail market.

  • Scott Davis | April 17, 2012 at 8:29 am |

    Not sure if its a bad link or just a temporary thing, but the ESPN link requires a password.

    • Scott Davis | April 17, 2012 at 8:47 am |

      Temporary.

  • Dumb Guy | April 17, 2012 at 8:32 am |

    “hate how the Plano logo is encroaching on the VT school logo”

    VT is the only school I see with a Plano logo. Definitely seems like an afterthought, or the VT folks put them on themselves (without regard to aethetics).

    They can design a space shuttle but not a fishing shirt!!

  • teenchy | April 17, 2012 at 8:37 am |

    The Playbook font reminds me of the cover of They Might Be Giants’ Miscellaneous T. Coincidence?

    • talkendo | April 17, 2012 at 5:11 pm |

      Probably. It looks more Soviet Constructivist to me. Wish they’d feature it up top, instead of adhering to the corporate theme.

  • Nathan R | April 17, 2012 at 8:44 am |

    In the Collectors Corner, the first link for the NFL Technigraph helmet plaques is not working.

    • Paul Lukas | April 17, 2012 at 10:23 am |

      Thanks. Now fixed.

    • mick | April 17, 2012 at 9:45 pm |

      Also in the CC, the 1968 Dodge Dealer AFL All Stars Catalog features an Orange Bengals Uni with Black numbers. I’ve seen this illustration before but never an actual prototype. Are there any?

      • Mick | April 18, 2012 at 4:01 pm |

        I typed this before reading that it was the artist’s guess. Still, it’s a pretty good look, no?

  • Daniel Fontenot | April 17, 2012 at 8:44 am |

    Any word on if the Giants will have throwbacks ? I would love to see them in one of the designs from the 1930s.

    • Rob S | April 17, 2012 at 9:52 am |

      New York Football Giants, or San Francisco Baseball Giants?

  • ChrisH | April 17, 2012 at 8:46 am |

    “Kevin Cunningham ordered himself a customized Giants road jersey, which for some reason arrived with NFL tagging.”

    Maybe he bought it off of Joe Biden?

    http://sports.yahoo....

  • Arr Scott | April 17, 2012 at 8:48 am |

    The horizontal red/white stripes over blue shorts is a great look for USA soccer. But so is blue with a white sash and a minimum of read. The point isn’t to have the best possible look, it’s to have a look that stays consistent enough over time so that fans see it and instantly recognize it as USA soccer.

    Since international soccer is so subjectively officiated, with recognized powerhouses getting the benefit of calls most of the time, this isn’t just an aesthetic issue. Team USA now plays at an elite level, but still gets treated by FIFA, other teams, and ref crews as if this were the 1970s and American soccer was a joke. Wildly changing uniforms from international season to international season feeds into the disrespect Team USA struggles against.

    • Andy | April 17, 2012 at 9:22 am |

      Agreed. They can be the team with red hoops because no one else has made it famous. All they have to do is stick with it, and ditch the stupid ghost sash.

      • Connie | April 17, 2012 at 10:00 am |

        Agree with Andy, who agrees with Scott.

        • Chance Michaels | April 17, 2012 at 10:12 am |

          An I agree with Conn, who agrees with Andy, who agrees with Scott.

          Except for the ghost sash; I like that as the one element that runs through all US shirts.

        • Shane | April 17, 2012 at 10:35 am |

          Disagree with Chance about the ghost sash. There’s just way too much going on with the sash and the hoops.

          Also, it’s just a little too FC Dallas for a national team kit. It’d be like if Scotland started wearing green and white hoops.

        • Connie | April 17, 2012 at 10:51 am |

          Agree with Shane and hence disagree partially with Chance.

      • Lucas R | April 17, 2012 at 12:18 pm |

        If the USMNT is going to have a consistent look, I’d prefer the sash to the hoops; looks too much like rugby for my taste… and that ghost sash has got to go.

        Overall I don’t hate them, but much prefer the previous version.

        What we need to be talking about is a crest re-design. That thing screams “THE 90s!” with the in flight football. Blech.

    • Phil Hecken | April 17, 2012 at 10:46 am |

      what is the difference between hoops and stripes?

      or is that asking what the difference is between a kit and a uniform

      • Ricko | April 17, 2012 at 11:13 am |

        In the vernacular, I’d guess that stripes can go any direction, but hoops must go only ’round and ’round.

        • DJ | April 17, 2012 at 11:34 am |

          Hoops are horizontal, and are more often used in rugby (Celtic being a notable exception). Stripes are vertical, and are almost never used in rugby, but very common in soccer.

        • KT | April 17, 2012 at 11:41 am |

          Which, oddly, enough, these hoops do not do, as there’s a big ol’ white space on the back.

          Nike has constantly changed up the USA’s look over the years (wonder why they’d do that? Huh. Racking my brain.) to the point where we’ve never really even had a consistent base look from which to make evolutionary tweaks. Blue shirts, red shirts, white shirts with a slash, hoops, pinstripes, denim (which I actually liked), charcoal (oy). It never ends with us

        • DJ | April 17, 2012 at 12:10 pm |

          The space on the back is for the name and number. The technical rules that FIFA have for their competitions require that a striped jersey and its numbers must clearly contrast. In practice, you’ll see Argentina with a fully-light blue striped shirt and black numbers; Paraguay’s red-striped shirt has a back of white or red (blue numbers on red and white stripes apparently don’t pass the eyesight test).

        • Chance Michaels | April 17, 2012 at 1:20 pm |

          And FWIW, you can order the shirt without the white spaces if you don’t want a player’s name and number.

        • KT | April 17, 2012 at 2:21 pm |

          “The space on the back is for the name and number.”

          Thanks, Mr. Obvious, I never made the connection.

          Only pointing out that these are not hoops per se, as they don’t go “round and round.” Not because someone decided they shouldn’t, but because numbers and (if they’re there) NOB look bad on stripes.

        • DJ | April 17, 2012 at 2:59 pm |

          Thanks, Mr. Obvious, I never made the connection.

          Does being an asshole come naturally to you, or do you need to practice? Had you continued to read the comment (or more likely, had the person reading it to you continued to do so), you’d have gotten the point of the comment; the requirement of contrasting numbers, and how some shirts are allowed without a “box” like the USA’s shirt will have.

      • George Chilvers | April 17, 2012 at 2:21 pm |

        Just agreeing with waht has been said previously, Phil:

        Hoops are horizontal (QPR, Celtic), stripes are vertical (Newcastle, Sheffield United)

    • George Chilvers | April 17, 2012 at 2:19 pm |

      To the world this is the classic USA soccer kit:
      http://www.flickr.co...

      • KT | April 17, 2012 at 2:23 pm |

        Yeah, had a conversation with someone about this last night. Time to leave Belo Horizonte out of future discussions and plans, given (a) it was a fluke and ( b) we’ve gone out and actually done some other things in recent years.

        I am skeptical, though, that “the world” knows what kit the US wore in 1950.

      • Ryan | April 17, 2012 at 5:35 pm |

        And yet Nike flubbed the kit for the previous World Cup by using the (very light, almost indiscernible) silver sash on the white shirt. I like that the home kit has red in it, and the red hoops are evocative of the American flag, but not too much.

        http://images.sporti...

  • Michael Churchill | April 17, 2012 at 8:50 am |

    Paul, regarding the Olympics…

    I know that their bid came in a distant fourth place after the stadium fiasco, but remember, these up-coming Games could have been in New York.

    • Chance Michaels | April 17, 2012 at 10:20 am |

      Don’t remind me.

      Fucking Dolans.

      • The Jeff | April 17, 2012 at 10:26 am |

        It’s better this way. The Olympics are supposed to be a global event, the US shouldn’t be hosting them every other time.

        • ChrisH | April 17, 2012 at 1:12 pm |

          Maybe its’ time the Olympics find a permanent home, like in Greece?

        • Chance Michaels | April 17, 2012 at 1:21 pm |

          I wasn’t so upset about the Olympics, but it really burned me that the Dolans were able to kill the West Side Stadium with a very sleazy ad campaign.

        • BF | April 17, 2012 at 10:09 pm |

          Every other time? The last time was 1996 in Atlanta.

          2000-Sydney (not U.S.)
          2004-Athens (not U.S.)
          2008-Beijing (not U.S.)
          2012-London (not U.S.)
          2016-Rio de Janiero (not U.S.)

          If it’s supposed to be a global event, shouldn’t it be in North America more than once every six games (at least South America is finally getting a games)? Before that, it was 1984, so yes, there wasn’t that much of a lag, but no other city other than Los Angeles bidded on the games.

      • Paul Lukas | April 17, 2012 at 10:27 am |

        During his first term, Mayor Bloomberg was oddly fixated on getting the Olympix here. I say “oddly” because he’s usually a fairly sensible person — I don’t always agree with him, but I don’t think he’s a nut job or anything. He was a total nut job about the Olympix, though.

        Thank the lordy that never happened. I can’t imagine a bigger hell than having the Olympix here in NYC.

        • David Gratt | April 17, 2012 at 2:46 pm |

          I don’t think that Olympics would have been a big deal; most people wouldn’t have even noticed. This is a city where you can have 250,000 people in Coney Island for a parade in the middle of summer and people at the end of the beach, (or four blocks away) aren’t aware of the crowds.

          Originally, I was super excited about the possibility of the bid, but the NYOC went out of their way to antagonize and talk down to all of the local politicians and community groups that they would have had to work with or around in order to get facilities built and move people around. Doctoroff and Jay Kreigel could not have been more patronizing. Bad form and really bad manners.

          So ultimately, I was not that upset that NYC did not win the bid. I do think that the city *could* have ended up with some fantastic facilities (and with the population density, could probably have used them well). But it would have engendered a *lot* of bad feelings.

          Of course, there’s also the fact that many of us would not have been able to afford tickets, but that’s another story.

    • concealed78 | April 17, 2012 at 1:13 pm |

      Or Chicago in 2016, which fortunately Mayor Daley’s bid failed miserably. SO not worth the investment or hassle. Let some other sucker host the games.

      The Olympics, Presidential election & Leap Day, all in the same brutal prick year.

    • Michael Churchill | April 17, 2012 at 2:47 pm |

      I may be in the minority, but I’m a big Olympics fan, a member of the International Society of Olympic Historians, and I’m REALLY looking forward to the Games (101 days and counting). In the mad dash for tickets, I managed to get two, one for Tennis at Wimbledon and one for Athletics.

      I was in New York in April 2005, just before the vote for these Olympics and I don’t remember a lot of publicity except for logo stickers on the subway trains.

  • timothymcn | April 17, 2012 at 8:54 am |

    And there goes my favorite NFL uni.

    • Buddy Walker | April 17, 2012 at 5:33 pm |

      Browns definitely look worse now. Loved how all the striping matched throughout the uniform.

  • The Jeff | April 17, 2012 at 8:56 am |

    So, looking at the Steelers uniform history on GUD, knowing that the new throwback is different from 1994 and not the Batman uniform… it pretty much has to be either the horizontally striped 1933 uniform or a monochrome yellow uniform from the early 40’s. Anything else wouldn’t be different enough for a “love it or hate it” reaction.

    • Ry Co 40 | April 17, 2012 at 9:27 am |

      do you mean horizontally striped 1934 uniform? the ’33 (and ’94 throwback) uni was vertically striped.

      if it IS the 1934 uniform, i’m spending $200+ for a polyester shirt :-)

      • The Jeff | April 17, 2012 at 9:31 am |
        • Ry Co 40 | April 17, 2012 at 9:40 am |

          wow, didn’t realize we wore both of those unis in ’33…

          still though, can’t wait to see the “new” jersey

        • ChrisH | April 17, 2012 at 12:23 pm |

          Those Pittsburgh teams from the ’30s played as bad as they looked!
          Will they go with the mostly-mustard uni with those rear stripes and black lids from 1942 (their 1st winning season)…

          http://img710.images...

          or is that not grotesque enough?

        • Ry Co 40 | April 17, 2012 at 4:40 pm |

          ’34

      • Ricko | April 17, 2012 at 11:07 am |

        In case you have to direct traffic some time? ;)

  • walter | April 17, 2012 at 9:13 am |

    Count me in for renaming the Charlotte Bobcats the Hornets, because I lurve me those Alexander Julian-designed uniforms from back in the day. In 99% of cases, purple and teal are tools of Satan, but in that instance it seemed to work.

    • Matt Beahan | April 17, 2012 at 11:13 am |

      I’m really conflicted about this. I’ve been a Hornets fan for more than 20 years, I don’t want the name changed but at this point it’s inevitable. I don’t know how I’d cope with seeing a whole different team with the identity I’ve loved so much over the years whilst I follow the New Orleans To Be Named Laters…

      I dunno. They should have changed the damned name when they moved in the first place.

    • walter | April 17, 2012 at 11:47 am |

      Plus, it’s hard to say “New Orleans Hornets” without sounding like David Brenner. I’ve been going with “Hornets of New Orleans”.

  • scott | April 17, 2012 at 9:15 am |
    • scott | April 17, 2012 at 9:15 am |

      motorola ends headset sponsorship with NFL

  • Mike V. | April 17, 2012 at 9:18 am |

    Two things every man should do at least once.

    1. Get properly fitted for a suit.

    2. Get an old-fashioned shave from a barber.

    • Ricko | April 17, 2012 at 10:30 am |

      Having done both somewhere along this long line of mine, I can say you are absolutely correct.

      • Phil Hecken | April 17, 2012 at 10:49 am |

        add one more to that…

        get a professional shoe shine at least once

        • Ricko | April 17, 2012 at 11:40 am |

          I’ll add a couple.
          Get a manicure. Sounds wussy but, hey, Hines Ward got one before every game.
          Have a couple dress shirts custom made. If you wear them, man, is that a great feeling.

      • David Gratt | April 17, 2012 at 2:57 pm |

        After the barber shave and the custom tailoring, one should celebrate with a nice glass of bourbon, neat. No matter what time of day it is.

        • Ricko | April 17, 2012 at 4:25 pm |

          Or possibly a great single malt.
          Or an equally great Irish.

          In a leather chair.

        • Ricko | April 17, 2012 at 4:26 pm |

          Not, y’know, the barber chair…

  • Matthew Toy | April 17, 2012 at 9:20 am |

    Paul said on twitter that the new Steelers throwback is a “doozy”. So I’m going to guess it’s those 1934 prisoner jerseys. Yikes……..

  • Joel M. | April 17, 2012 at 9:21 am |

    I had a small conniption when I saw that blue Ole Miss helmet; I hope it’s real.

    • Michael M | April 17, 2012 at 9:59 am |

      Many won’t understand the powder blue for a team whose colors are crimson and navy (officially), but there’s tradition behind it. I like it, too.

      Actually, I prefer that every team has one uniform and sticks to it, but that’s not the world we live in any longer. If we’re going to join the parade, I like the powder blues.

      Hotty Toddy!

      • Ricko | April 17, 2012 at 10:39 am |

        It’s more what some call “Air Force Blue” (between powder and royal; not as light as the Houston Oilers or North Carolina), but it does indeed have a history. Long one, in fact.

        It’s what Archie, for one, wore (here with College Footall’s 100th anniversary decal), and goes back to at least the mid 1950s…
        http://i.cdn.turner....

      • Chris Holder | April 17, 2012 at 12:05 pm |

        What about the helmet on the left? Is it a matte navy, and the lighting is playing tricks? Or is it a matte gray… damn it, anthracite? The Rebels broke out those gray jerseys a few years ago against Auburn (I think?), so are they planning a redo of that, and using this new helmet?

        FWIW, I like the Rebs better in that lighter blue. That’s how I remember seeing them growing up in the 80s.

  • @arin5000 | April 17, 2012 at 9:26 am |

    Paul, what’s the approximate cost of an Empire suit? Wondering how it compares to other custom tailors and the department stores.

    • Paul Lukas | April 17, 2012 at 10:31 am |

      Depends on which fabric you choose (there are four or five different price levels) and how many suits you buy (the more you buy, the less you pay per suit).

      I think the cheapest one-suit price is about $500. I ended up paying more than that.

      • Teebz | April 17, 2012 at 12:22 pm |

        Not that I’m comparing, but if you can get one in the three-digit range, consider it a deal.

        I dropped four-digits on a suit with tailoring near Christmas. Best investment I’ve made in a while I’ll have it for years, but it’s a major up-front cost. And use the BOGO deals that suit places offer – two for one certainly minimizes the impact on your pocketbook!

        • Richard Gadsden | April 17, 2012 at 6:49 pm |

          If you’re planning on wearing the suit a lot, consider getting two pairs of pants rather than just one.

          The number of suit jackets that I’ve ended up giving to charity shops in spite of being in really good condition because the pants wore out is ridiculous.

        • Phil Hecken | April 17, 2012 at 9:48 pm |

          “I dropped four-digits on a suit with tailoring near Christmas.”

          ~~~

          yeah, but you used about 3 times as much material as paul needed, so i’d say it’s a wash ;)

        • Phil Hecken | April 17, 2012 at 9:49 pm |

          plus, paul paid with american money

        • Teebz | April 17, 2012 at 11:16 pm |

          I’m glad he paid in American bucks. Considering the Canadian dollar is worth more, that would have been pricey! ;o)

          And who washes a suit? Dry-cleaning prices are the same whether it’s a Baby Gap suit or a Big&Tall. I suppose that would make it a wash!

        • Phil Hecken | April 17, 2012 at 11:24 pm |

          “the Canadian dollar is worth more”

          ~~~

          not in this country

          what are you doing up this late? isn’t it like 2am there?

  • Eethy | April 17, 2012 at 9:31 am |

    Now I know the Marriot Marquis is a lovely hotel. But I get this horrible image of going into a seedy motel room. Filled with smoke. Several guys player poker in a corner. And as you walk in you get bopped on the head. You wake up 6 hours later with one less kidney.

  • Matthew Radican | April 17, 2012 at 9:34 am |

    I’ve always felt that the back pocket buttons are meant to thwart pickpockets.

    I like the look of the new US Soccer jersey. However I received an email from the US Soccer Federation touting the jerseys as “laser cooled perfection”. Typical Nike BS language.

  • Mike Engle | April 17, 2012 at 9:46 am |

    Paul, can’t wait for you to receive your final product! If for no other reason, I would trust your testimonial (or lack thereof) for those custom haberdashers. As a 41L coat and 32×34 pant size, it truly is a bitch to find a good suit for me! I usually have to settle for a 42 that doesn’t look too bad, or else luck out with a “big” 40. What’s the fun in that?

    • Connie | April 17, 2012 at 10:02 am |

      I’m impressed with that 32″ waist. You asshole.

      • Mike Engle | April 17, 2012 at 10:29 am |

        I’m only 23, so I have plenty of time for my metabolism to slow down. (Knock on wood.)

      • Ricko | April 17, 2012 at 10:33 am |

        Old (and true) saying…

        One of the things a man gives up when he becomes a father is a 32″ waist.

      • Phil Hecken | April 17, 2012 at 10:52 am |

        im impressed with the 34 inch inseam…

        those numbers will flip soon enough

    • mike 2 | April 17, 2012 at 11:16 am |

      Being a smaller guy as well (size 38 jacket), its hell buying anything off the rack. If you buy suits off the rack, a mens store will have acres of 46 and above for the “modern” physique and one or two that fit me.

      Finding a 15″ shirt is also hell. Acres of 18 inch necks.

  • Luther Mahoney | April 17, 2012 at 9:47 am |

    The Mark DeRosa cap could be a Senators throwback that New Era made before the Nationals
    came into existence in 2005. The cap looks exactly like the current Nationals’ cap except for the
    green underbill and the lack of a MLB logo.

  • Joe D | April 17, 2012 at 9:51 am |

    Just watched the Under Armour Northwestern video. I’m VERY glad to notice the end of the vid had a graphic including Northwestern stripes. When I heard UA would be outfitting the Wildcats, I was worried they might ditch Northwestern Stripes at Northwestern after they just got them back a few years ago. The graphic gives me high hopes.

    • Tim E. O'B | April 17, 2012 at 12:04 pm |

      SOOOOOO PUMPED!

      I was worried they would forsake the Northwester stripes for something more akin to Maryland, but that is about all the evidence I need to get very excited for Northwestern stripped unis.

  • Daniel Fontenot | April 17, 2012 at 9:58 am |

    Football Giants.

  • Jerry | April 17, 2012 at 10:06 am |

    Pretty cool story about the Ebbets FIeld blueprints. They belong in Brooklyn. I hope they stay there.

  • Dan R. | April 17, 2012 at 10:14 am |

    It’s no wonder the Broncos sent out Manning in a Reebok sweatshirt… they probably don’t want to pay these new ridiculous Nike prices. Yesterday I went to look on NFL.com and they upped prices for the shit-quality screen printed uniforms from $85 to $100. I can’t even imagine the profits they’re picking up…

    • Adam R. W. | April 17, 2012 at 10:29 am |

      What’s disappointing to em is that there are only 2 options, the one with the screen printed numbers (at a ridiculous $100) and the water repellant exactly like on the field version for $250. I was planning on getting a nice jersey with the tackle twill numbers, but there’s no way I’m paying $250 for that. Nike needs to take a page out of Reebok’s book and offer a medium option.

      • Ry Co 40 | April 17, 2012 at 11:25 am |

        there’s actually 3 options:

        game jersey: screen printed ($100)

        limited jersey: twill numbers, probably better quality sleeves than the game jersey ($125)

        elite jersey: they will tell you these are the same as the players wear ($250)… but i’ll believe it when i see it.

        which reminds me… i guess Ripon won’t be making the jerseys and slapping a Nike logo on the sleeves? will Nike actually be making these jerseys, Paul?

        my thoughts on buying a $250 polyester shirt with a niketie? i’m gonna wear it for about the next 8-10+ seasons, seriously. so i want something that will hold up. i still have my black Polamalu chineese knockoff authentic that is “weathered” but still going strong after about 5 season. but if this throwback is legit, i’m treating myself… however, if the throwback is shite, the black Polamalu jersey still gets top billing. no biggie

        • Chance Michaels | April 17, 2012 at 1:26 pm |

          I have been told that Ripon will continue to make the on-field jerseys for several teams, specifically the Packers, but I haven’t confirmed that.

          If true, I’m certain that would include the Raiders, who wanted to include that in their Nike deal. I can only speculate that the others would include the remaining three teams that foolishly turned down Nike’s performance-enhancing technological innovations.

        • Andy | April 17, 2012 at 2:10 pm |

          I believe Powers is Nike’s preferred manufacturer. Nike itself doesn’t really make things. They contract the production of their goods out and have their logo applied to them.

        • Bernard | April 17, 2012 at 2:40 pm |
        • Tony C. | April 17, 2012 at 9:24 pm |

          the nice thing about the Nike elite uni is unlike the Reebok authentic unis is they have one standard price point. Reebok’s authentic price point was all over the place

      • Ryan B | April 17, 2012 at 12:05 pm |

        They are, for $150. The mid-level stuff just isn’t available yet.

  • Shane | April 17, 2012 at 10:16 am |

    Worth noting Paul, your mention of JR Day falling on Patriots Day next year, in yesterday’s post meant our team won pub trivia last night.

  • HowlinLobo | April 17, 2012 at 10:17 am |

    Paul, just a side note, you could have easily had the moth hole in your suit repaired – as any skilled tailor could have corrected that. Unless of course it was so large that it couldn’t have been mended without being very noticeable. Of course you dig the past – mending a suit is very old school. Just sayin’

    • Paul Lukas | April 17, 2012 at 10:34 am |

      Oh, I know — I’ve had that suit repaired before. I actually love going to a reweaver, it’s a fun experience. But I saw this latest moth hole as more of a signal. Like, “It’s time.”

      • HowlinLobo | April 18, 2012 at 10:33 am |

        Ahhh – got ya. Well cool, getting new duds is always fun.

  • BrianC | April 17, 2012 at 10:24 am |

    Hey, the Keith Moon appearance is not that far fetched. Check out the sidebar story on Tupac appearing as a hologram at a concert. Kind of creepy…

    • CCB | April 17, 2012 at 12:16 pm |

      I love Keith Moon, I hope they can go through with bringing him back some way.

  • walter | April 17, 2012 at 10:35 am |

    Good on Michael Pinto dos Santos! He’s my new favorite player.

  • mike 2 | April 17, 2012 at 10:57 am |

    It might be too late now, but my biggest piece of advice on buying a suit is to buy two pairs of pants with it.

    When you’re wearing the suit, you wear the pants all day and the jacket is frequently hung up. So the pants wear out way quicker than the jacket. A year or two later, you’ve got a worn out pair of pants and a great looking jacket and you’re wishing you had another pair of pants.

    • Ricko | April 17, 2012 at 11:05 am |

      Long time ago, many suits came with two pair of pants.

      Was seen as a suit for “everyman”. Sharp dressers didn’t bother. They didn’t keep a suit that long, staying ever so fashionable.

      Hence the lyric in GUYS AND DOLLS, when Sarah the mission doll is fantasizing about her ideal straight-laced man, and gambler Sky Masterson replies,
      “…and you’ll know at a glance by the two pair of pants.”

    • mike 2 | April 17, 2012 at 11:11 am |

      A sharp dresser also didn’t bother because he never took off his jacket.

      • Ricko | April 17, 2012 at 11:15 am |

        Tis true. And generally he knew enough to unbutton it before sitting down, instead of sitting there looking a stuffed sausage with his stomach pushing out from under the bottom button.

      • Ricko | April 17, 2012 at 11:21 am |

        And, with a tie, he wore a shirt with a collar that..
        a) Wasn’t an inch and half too big and..
        b) Didn’t stick out like the Flying Nun’s hat.

        Another rule of thumb. NEVER put anything your back pants pockets when wearing a suit. Ruins the line and makes your ass bulge. Get a money clip and/or a breast pocket wallet.

        Shoot, I knew guys who’d have their suits made with NO back pockets.

        • mike 2 | April 17, 2012 at 11:25 am |

          Yes. The back pocket is for decoration, just like the hip pockets on the jacket. I’ve never unbuttoned my pants buttons.

        • Ricko | April 17, 2012 at 11:29 am |

          One more thing, lol.
          Oftentimes the side pockets on a good sportcoat or suit jacket will be “tacked” shut when you get it.

          Leave them that way, Keeps you from putting anything in there.

        • Phil Hecken | April 17, 2012 at 1:28 pm |

          “Oftentimes”

          ~~~

          try “always” although the tailor will always remove those before you complete your purchase unless you specifically ask them NOT to

          contrary to what you guys may think, some people actually do use the pockets on their jackets/pants as intended — ya know, for wallets, keys, butts, sunglasses, combs, etc.

          if you buy a lot of suits (as, unfortunately, i do), you frequently try them on AS YOU WOULD WEAR THEM, which means whatever you normally keep in your pocket, have them tailor the suit with those items in — which is often difficult when they’re stitched shut…and sometimes requires two separate fittings

          ideally, yeah, you don’t wear anything in your pockets, but then you probably are carrying a man purse with you

          pockets are there for a reason, lads…use them

        • mike 2 | April 17, 2012 at 1:57 pm |

          Phil, I think this is the suit jacket you’re looking for

          http://www.mullarkey...

        • Phil Hecken | April 17, 2012 at 2:24 pm |

          “NEVER put anything your back pants pockets when wearing a suit. Ruins the line and makes your ass bulge.”

          see above…it also supposedly fucks up your posture and can cause subluxation of the back, or so my chiropractor told me

          but i aint stickin’ my wallet in my coat…and the buttons an the pockets? those are so you don’t get pickpocketed

          styczen…that’s a good one, but not too far off

          but as a practical question for you or anyone who wears a suit on a daily basis — what exactly do you do with things like your wallet, keys, (for some of us, butts), phone, comb, glasses/shades? do you leave them somewhere or not carry them? do you use a man purse or european carry-all?

          serious question — cuz i don’t like to leave my shit anywhere so i figured there were 27 pockets in my coat/pants for a reason, might as well use some of them

        • Ricko | April 17, 2012 at 2:31 pm |
        • Connie | April 17, 2012 at 3:48 pm |

          Being a sharp dresser is not particularly desirable in certain American subcultures, old WASP Brahmins being one of them. The richest man I ever knew, a Yankee multi-millionaire, always wore wool suits that tended to a rumpled look, along with voluminous old Brooks Brothers shirts with frayed collars. So, to answer Phil’s question, I put lots of stuff in my side suitcoat pockets: pens, glasses, candy, dog biscuits, tabloids. Wallet goes inside chest pocket.

        • Ricko | April 17, 2012 at 3:56 pm |

          “but i aint stickin’ my wallet in my coat”

          Then minimize what’s in your wallet to keep it as thin as possible…and put your foldin’ money in a money clip. In your front pants pocket. Nobody needs more than their drivers license and maybe, at most, half a dozen bits of essential plastic in their wallet.

          Me, I have a great black leather TUMI laptop bag I sometimes carry. Sometimes it has my laptop in it, and sometimes it’s just serving as a briefcase.

        • Arr Scott | April 17, 2012 at 4:26 pm |

          what exactly do you do with things like your wallet, keys, (for some of us, butts), phone, comb, glasses/shades?

          When wearing a suit, I usually have to have the following items at hand:

          Wallet
          Car keys
          House keys with office bathroom-entry electronic key dongle thingy
          Cell phone
          3×5 jotter with office keypass in the back pocket
          Earbuds for cell phone
          Pen

          I do a bit of triage. First, car keys can go in whatever bag I’m carting around that day, either a medium Saddleback Leather satchel, or a laptop bag. But everything else needs to be on my person, or I’ll get locked out of the bathroom, or the office, or I’ll miss an important email. Or, and this has happened, I’ll find myself locked in the space between the office entry and the bathroom with no phone during the receptionist’s lunch hour, and my only recourse is to take the elevator down to the lobby and call up to have someone let me in.

          Wallet, I’m bad and put in my back pocket. But I’ve converted from fat leather buttbusters to Tyvek Mighty Wallets, which are insanely thin. Fully loaded, it’s still slimmer than any money clip I own. I could and should use it as a front-pocket wallet; I just haven’t relearned the wallet-reach muscle memory yet.

          3×5 jotter and pen, inside suit pocket.

          House/bathroom keys, front pants pocket.

          Cell phone and coiled earbuds, right outside jacket pocket. Because dropping my phone in there folds the pocket flap in, I fold the other pocket flap in too for symmetry.

          I’ve noticed that off-the-rack suits are being designed with better pockets these days, as overabundant gadgetry is returning us to the time when men actually needed all those pockets. You can find suitcoats that keep a decent line, and even hold position unbuttoned, with a smartphone thrown into one of the side pockets.

        • mike 2 | April 17, 2012 at 4:28 pm |

          Another vote for the Tumi – I have a shoulder bag that goes everywhere. I prefer tan to black but I guess that’s a matter of taste.

        • Ricko | April 17, 2012 at 5:29 pm |

          Have three different ones. Only the black one’s a TUMI. the others are a saddle brown leather and a heavy-fabric olive, neither of which carried such a hefty price tag.

  • mike 2 | April 17, 2012 at 11:21 am |

    As long as we’re having old-school day at UW, I’ll make my pitch for one other thing that I’ve taken up lately: single blade wet shaving

    http://www.fendrihan...

    After spending years hacking my face up and spending big $$ on eleven-blade razors, I went back to single-blade last year. A good handle feels perfect in the hand, and a nice German steel blade lasts forever and slices whiskers off like a knife through hot butter. Changed my morning routine completely.

  • Piping Mike | April 17, 2012 at 11:25 am |

    I can’t help but wonder if this custom tailoring thing will be the start of something new for Paul. Maybe not another suit necessarily, but perhaps one or more sport coats that could be worn with an many different pant and shirt combos.

    • Paul Lukas | April 17, 2012 at 11:33 am |

      I already have more jackets, ties, and dress shirts than I’ll ever need. What I didn’t have was suit I felt good about. Now I do (or I will when it’s finished in a few months).

    • Ricko | April 17, 2012 at 11:33 am |

      Yup. Next move would be a black suit.
      Can wear the jacket separately, even with jeans.

      And, trust me, there are times (and I don’t mean just funerals) when a black suit is indispensable. Except for full-on formal occasions, it’s good anytime.

      • Phil Hecken | April 17, 2012 at 11:41 am |

        especially nowadays

        20 years ago, the ONLY time you wore a black suit was for a funeral…now, it’s the go-to suit for almost all occasions

        im old school in one regard — you NEVER wear a suit jacket with pants that aren’t the bottoms to that suit…that’s why its a SUIT

        sport coats and blazers are made for that reason

        • Ricko | April 17, 2012 at 11:45 am |

          Generally, that’s true, and I practice that.

          The way sport coats are styled these days, many of them could easily be suit jackets. So I guess people have a bit more latitude than in the past.

          (That “AND it’s versatile” was the former clothing salesman in me slipping out, I think).

        • Paul Lukas | April 17, 2012 at 11:47 am |

          Actually, the suit I bought back in 1991 — the one that still fits, but just barely — is charcoal. Not quite black, but close. It’s served me well. But I’m looking forward to the olive pattern.

        • Ricko | April 17, 2012 at 11:54 am |

          Over the weekend, caught a bit of RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. Was looking at Indy’s vested suit in the scene where he’s giving government agents background on the Ark.

          Reminded me of an olive wool vested herringbone suit I had way, way back.

          (My way of saying, “Good choice.”)

        • slow boy from flyover country | April 17, 2012 at 1:23 pm |

          Actually, the suit I bought back in 1991 — the one that still fits, but just barely — is charcoal. Not quite black, but close.

          I’m calling it “anthracite.”

        • Phil Hecken | April 17, 2012 at 2:26 pm |

          oh good lord vilk

  • DJ | April 17, 2012 at 11:40 am |

    It’s always using to see the umpires in borrowed home team gear. But wouldn’t it make sense for Majestic to have some spare umpire caps, shirts and jackets sent to every ball park just for that emergency?

    • Paul Lukas | April 17, 2012 at 11:48 am |

      Maybe they do now. But things weren’t always so organized back in the day.

      Also, more umps had, shall we say, challenging physiques a generation ago. So even if you left a few different sizes of gear for them, it still might not fit.

      • DJ | April 17, 2012 at 12:03 pm |

        All true. That’s why I was thinking jackets (windbreakers, not the blazers), as they’re more one-size-fits-several. A couple of larges, couple XLs, one XXL should do the trick. Adjustable caps. Dark gray warmup pants (like a track suit) instead of the tailored slacks.

        That being said, how often do the airlines lose the umpires’ bags during the year? Three or four times in the entire season of some 2,300 games? If that many? In the end, the expense wouldn’t be worth it, I guess.

      • scott | April 17, 2012 at 12:30 pm |

        Do we know what the date of that Braves-Astros game was? From looking at online newspaper archives, it appears it may have been taken place in September 1986 only a couple of weeks after umpires had to wear Blue Jays fan gear during a game in Toronto.

        • pushbutton | April 17, 2012 at 2:01 pm |

          It was the 9th game of 1982, a year they started 13-0.

      • Mike N. | April 17, 2012 at 2:18 pm |

        Thanks for the mention in the ticker today, Paul! I can’t take all the credit since Dale Murphy (@DaleMurphy3) is posting all of these great videos from the 1982 season 30 years to the day right here…

        http://twitter.com/#...

        I’ll keep my eye out for any more gems! :)

  • KT | April 17, 2012 at 11:44 am |

    As for the Todd Graham “Everybody looks the same” thing: sounds like more Tom Coughlin-esque martinet control freak nonsense. Football coaches spend so much time worrying about shit that don’t matter.

    • Chris Holder | April 17, 2012 at 12:17 pm |

      I read this weekend where Nick Saban said something similar.

      Hmm. Nick Saban, Tom Coughlin…

      I’d say whatever those guys are worrying about, it ain’t keeping them from being successful.

    • elgato11x | April 17, 2012 at 1:13 pm |

      It’s about teaching discipline and emphasizing the fact that this is a TEAM and not a group of individuals. I like his approach.

      • KT | April 17, 2012 at 2:25 pm |

        Then ASU should go 10-2 this year, not 6-6 like Pitt did, right?

  • Valjean | April 17, 2012 at 12:22 pm |

    Paul, thanks for publicizing that legal “arrangement” that the IOC throws at governments hosting the games; I, for one, had no idea. I absolutely agree it’s “amazing” — and would throw in corrupt and perfectly horrific to boot. Next time the games come to the US this issue might be pretty interesting — or at least I hope it would be.

    Speaking of: Years ago when I was hanging around UCLA during the ’84 summer games a classmate was trying to market a T-shirt: olive drab-colored, with the Olympic rings and a simulated hand-scrawled “Official Terrorist 1984″ emblazoned on the front. (He had an overdeveloped sense of irony — but it was the ’80s.) He sold a few — but I can scarcely imagine what the colluding powers-that-be would do with such a thing now …

  • royce | April 17, 2012 at 12:37 pm |

    you should specify that it’s only odd to recieve a Giants’ jersey with NFL tagging when it is a San Francisco Giants’ jersey

  • Marc | April 17, 2012 at 12:52 pm |

    Was it mentioned who made the Dodgers Brooklyn caps they wore on Sunday? I noticed they didn’t have the MLB logo on the back and had green underbills.

    • Chance Michaels | April 17, 2012 at 2:04 pm |

      That’s gotta be New Era. The “Bakersfield Dodgers” logo is a dead giveaway; nobody else uses that.

      Not unheard of for them to have green underbills on throwback hats.

  • Neil | April 17, 2012 at 1:16 pm |

    A three button suit and cuffs on the pants? Well, I suppose if you keep this one for 20 years it will at some point be in style.

    • Chance Michaels | April 17, 2012 at 1:33 pm |

      I always, ALWAYS cuff suit pants. Yes, even plain-fronted ones). The extra weight pulls down the material and accentuates the line of the pant.

      Anything south of a tuxedo should have them, in my opinion.

      • Paul Lukas | April 17, 2012 at 1:42 pm |

        My thoughts exactly.

      • Mike V. | April 17, 2012 at 2:03 pm |

        Gotta go cuffed, no doubt. Looks unfinished without it in my opinion.

    • Andy | April 17, 2012 at 2:17 pm |

      I like cuffed as well. I can accept no cuffs on a super lightweight cotton or linen summer getup, in which case they would be hemmed a bit higher to show more ankle, but I like the extra weight of the cuffs, especially helpful since slim-fit pants tend to crawl up my knobby knees.

    • ChrisH | April 17, 2012 at 3:10 pm |

      If you want to make a new suit look really out-dated, get pleated pants. You might as well ‘suit up’ in a pastel polyester dress shirt with a contrasting collar and a string bean leather tie (with a piano keys on it?) or just ‘don’ a t-shirt under that unstructured jacket.

    • Arr Scott | April 17, 2012 at 4:34 pm |

      Three-button suits never go out of style. Not everyone should wear them, but if you can work the line, and you don’t completely blow your collar and tie choices, the three-button suit rocks a much more classic look than a two-button. It’s like, sure, if a guy walks in right now wearing a Norfolk jacket, he’s going to look a little not-of-this-time. But he’ll also look awesome, and unless it’s a wedding, he’ll be the best-dressed person in the room.

      And pants cuffs are never wrong. Personally, they’re not my thing, but unless you wear sneakers, pants cuffs are a timeless element.

      Just because something becomes briefly trendy doesn’t mean it’s not stylish the rest of the time. There’s a world of difference between bell bottoms and the three-button jacket. On bell bottoms, see Mad Men-inspired skinny lapels, too-short collars, and stringy ties. Anyone with a closet full of that is going to feel foolish in a year or two; not the guy with the bespoke three-button suit.

  • rpm | April 17, 2012 at 1:25 pm |

    gosh darn it, i love this blog, and more importantly i love paul lukas. best entry ever? i think so.

    • rpm | April 17, 2012 at 1:46 pm |

      …and then i got to the ticker and saw that bit about the brownies changing their hosiery, and my day took a dramatic turn for the worse. why man, why? it must have gone something like this…
      “we have the best striping pattern ever”
      “that’s true, nobody else looks as awesome as we do”
      “maybe we look to perfect, we should ditch something”
      “sounds like a plan. we are to perfect, i always thought that to el jay”
      “how ’bout this, does this suck enough for the people?”
      “yeah, that’s pretty bad alright, you’re a (in their best french canadian)gin-uze”
      “so let it be written, so let it be done” *gavel*

      such depressing news

      • rpm | April 17, 2012 at 3:02 pm |

        not one but 3?????!!!!!!! to not too’s? that has to be some sort of inept rambling record. i let it sit there, let’s see what the skippery-do will say, and 4 or 5 years ago the long island sloop skip would have shipwrecked me for that. he’s gone soft, soft i tells ya, soft as a kitten in the sun.

        • Phil Hecken | April 17, 2012 at 3:10 pm |

          i actually thought you did it on purpose

        • rpm | April 17, 2012 at 4:39 pm |

          sadly…

  • HHH | April 17, 2012 at 1:43 pm |

    I wouldn’t call a teenager stupid for not knowing the Titanic film was based on a true story.

    Thinking 1 + 1 = 3 is stupid. Not knowing about the Titanic is just not being aware of a moment in history.

    There is a difference between stupidity and ignorance.

    • KT | April 17, 2012 at 2:27 pm |

      Which reminds me of a story from when I worked in TV.

      Apollo 13 (the film) had just come out.

      Discussion of said film commenced in newsroom. News anchor said “Don’t tell me how it ends, I haven’t seen it yet.”

    • concealed78 | April 17, 2012 at 2:37 pm |

      Either way, they need to stay off my lawn.

      Sad that kids think some words like Titanic are adjectives rather than historical points.

      • Arr Scott | April 17, 2012 at 4:53 pm |

        “Titanic” is an adjective. The word predates the ship by, if you follow back to Greek roots, maybe 3,000 years.

        Much as I’m enjoying reading Lord’s A Night to Remember right now, the sinking of RMS Titanic isn’t actually all that historically significant an event. The 1875 Andean earthquake (up to 14,000 dead) was as far in the past when I was a kid as Titanic‘s sinking is for kids today. Is anyone born in the 1970s stupid for knowing about the more-recent Titanic sinking but not the Andean earthquake?

        • concealed78 | April 17, 2012 at 7:25 pm |

          “titanic”, yes. “Titanic”, no – isn’t that a proper noun?

          I couldn’t tell you where or how I knew about the Titanic before the ever-annoying 1997 film came out but I did, maybe I heard about the 1875 Andean earthquake, I don’t know. Maybe it’s a Northern Hemisphere thing.

    • George Chilvers | April 17, 2012 at 2:49 pm |

      Is it true that the film of the life of King George III was called “The Madness of King George” because if it had been called “The Madness of King George III” we would have had Americans asking what happened to the earlier two films in the series? That’s what we’ve been told.

      • Connie | April 17, 2012 at 4:01 pm |

        Tommyrot. The name was changed for US audiences because it was believed (probably correctly) that one of the few British monarchs with wide name recognition among Americans was George III, what with his nasty ogre role in the fairy tale version of the American Revolution. Victoria and Richard Lionheart are probably #2 & #3, the latter primarily because of the Ivanhoe and Robin Hood movies.

        Quick, George, who were Stephen and Matilda? Who or what was it that Ethelred The Unready was unprepared for? And, extra credit, who was the leader of the Norman invasion of Ireland in the 12th Century, and what does he have to do with my surname?

    • Tom V. | April 17, 2012 at 2:59 pm |

      I was born in the 70’s, I have zero reason to know about the titanic as well. But I think just from paying attention to life you kind of pick up on it.

    • Phil Hecken | April 17, 2012 at 3:09 pm |

      “I wouldn’t call a teenager stupid for not knowing the Titanic film was based on a true story.”

      ~~~

      i would

      • Ricko | April 17, 2012 at 4:16 pm |

        A real knothead is the guy who named that minor league the London Rippers, with a Jack the Ripper-inspired logo.

        Betcha he was a grown adult and his defense would be, “He’s REAL? I thought he was fictional, like Frankenstein or the Wolfman or, y’know, those villains on Scooby Doo.”

      • Arr Scott | April 17, 2012 at 5:04 pm |

        I wouldn’t. First, because the sinking of Titanic isn’t actually a historically important event. Second, because the movie is not based on a true story. It is a fictional story about fictional people set amid real events. Big difference.

        Quick: Was Rob Roy based on a true story? Was Gladiator? By the same standard that says that Titanic is “based on a true story,” so were Rob Roy and Gladiator. Heck, so are War and Peace and Dick.

        • Arr Scott | April 17, 2012 at 5:41 pm |

          Though I bet we can agree that anyone who doesn’t know that the Red Sox won the 1912 Series, and that Wilson beat President Taft and Teddy Roosevelt in the 1912 presidential election absolutely is an idiot.

        • concealed78 | April 17, 2012 at 7:35 pm |

          Maybe so, but that doesn’t make them teenagers any less annoying.

        • The Slammer | April 17, 2012 at 9:57 pm |

          @ Arr…Ask 100 people those three questions. I bet 90% percent get the titanic question right, the red sox, maybe 25% right, president? maybe 5%. Whether or not the titanic was historic makes no difference, they are pretty dumb (and quite enrolled in their own little world) if they don’t know it was real. Even the people who posted that admitted it.

  • ScottyM | April 17, 2012 at 1:43 pm |

    Answer to the back pocket button question:

    –Helps defray pick-pockets.
    –Also helps to keep wallet from popping out (when getting up from a seat, etc., especially if the tailoring is such that the pockets aren’t deep).

  • Yeeg | April 17, 2012 at 1:55 pm |

    re: new US Soccer Jersey ….

    1) Good to see both genders will wear the same design, for once.

    2) Also good to see no anthracite, gold, pink, or black.

    3) They are also throwbacks to 1983 when the U.S. national team was actually part of the North American Soccer League as Team America. (F. yeah!)

  • pushbutton | April 17, 2012 at 2:09 pm |

    HEY! I knew I’d seen that bitchin’ Angels jacket somewhere….it was in the 1972 edition of the Illustrated Digest Of Baseball.

    I seriously doubt that a cooler-looking jacket has seen actual game action. Or that anyone else has the 1972 Illustrated Digest Of Baseball on their reference shelf.

    • concealed78 | April 17, 2012 at 2:33 pm |

      Sure wish the Angels would go back to “California Angels”. “Anaheim Angels” was fine, but “Los Angeles of…” is so dumb.

      • chuck | April 17, 2012 at 4:14 pm |

        I will never understand why they dumped the California name way back! The LA Angels of Anaheim is dumb! Go back to California Angels already!

        • Ricko | April 17, 2012 at 4:32 pm |

          I may be off on this, but aren’t there other major league baseball teams in California?

        • Connie | April 17, 2012 at 4:40 pm |

          How about “Los Angeles de Los Angeles, en la Proximidad de Anaheim?”

        • pushbutton | April 17, 2012 at 5:09 pm |

          I’d be fine with ‘Los Angeles Angels’.

          ‘Anaheim Angels’ sounds to me like ‘Schaumburg Cubs’ or something.

        • concealed78 | April 17, 2012 at 7:04 pm |

          “I may be off on this, but aren’t there other major league baseball teams in California?”

          Yeah, so? Did “Florida Marlins”, or “Colorado Rockies”, “Minnesota Twins”, “Arizona Diamondbacks”, or “Texas Rangers” bother you? I just liked the logo opportunities that “California Angels” leads itself to plus it sounds better.

        • concealed78 | April 17, 2012 at 7:13 pm |

          “I will never understand why they dumped the California name way back!”

          City of Anaheim & a lease negotiation after The Big A got a renovation. $30 million they paid.

        • Phil Hecken | April 17, 2012 at 10:44 pm |

          “aren’t there other major league baseball teams in California?”

          ~~~

          there are, i believe other baseball teams in florida and texas as well…in fact i believe the HOUSTON team actually was there before the arlington one

          i blame the twins for all this

      • [name redacted] | April 17, 2012 at 5:08 pm |

        Wasn’t the weird name part of a contract with the city of Anaheim? IN that, they weren’t allowed to just call themselves the LA Angels.

  • hornontherange | April 17, 2012 at 2:18 pm |

    I have a question that maybe Paul or somebody else could help me with. When Nike does these show-and-tells with new football uniforms (for example T.C.U.); who makes the football helmets that go with the new-look uniform, is Nike in constant contact with that helmet manufacturer as the new duds are being designed, does Nike just deal with a certain manufacturer, and does Nike put their logo on a helmet they don’t make (like they do for some college baseball jerseys). Too many questions, I know, but I’m holding myself hostage until I get some answers.

    • LarryB | April 17, 2012 at 5:33 pm |

      Good question.

  • pushbutton | April 17, 2012 at 2:20 pm |

    I haven’t seen a better looking MLB game in a long time than last night’s Orioles @ White Sox….Sox in white, Orioles in grey w/ the all-black crowned cartoon bird hat.

    • concealed78 | April 17, 2012 at 2:30 pm |

      The Orioles look a LOT better on the road. Home, not so much. Also been wondering, since the ornithologically-correct bird has been phased out on the uniforms & caps, it’s still on the primary logo & shop gear? It’s like they’re trying to appease two generations of Orioles fans.

    • Ryan L | April 17, 2012 at 8:55 pm |

      ChiSox broke out the black tops tonight..thanks alot ya jinx!

  • Rick - no o | April 17, 2012 at 3:00 pm |

    Matt Weiter’s cathers helmet has the “old” style white panel.
    http://www.flickr.co...

    While Ronny Paulino’s helmet has the “new” white panel and also with the unfinished orange brim.
    http://www.flickr.co...

    • ChrisH | April 17, 2012 at 3:21 pm |

      Too bad MLB doesn’t let anybody go “Rick Dempsey” anymore(?)

      http://sportplax.com...

  • Ricko | April 17, 2012 at 4:13 pm |

    BISCUITS SIGHTING!!!

    Just saw a brief, but close-up, shot of the Montgomery Biscuits’ cheddar-crowned hat on MLB Network. Was in a report on B.J. Upton’s minor league rehab assignment.

    • slow boy from flyover country | April 17, 2012 at 7:15 pm |

      They need to play a team called the Gravy. What a rivalry that would be.

  • Matt D. | April 17, 2012 at 4:18 pm |

    Count me among those who think the Steelers’ throwback is going to be the horizontally-striped ’34 design. As a Steelers’ fan, I’m really not sure what I think of that…

    • Tim E. O'B | April 17, 2012 at 4:33 pm |

      He says it’s these http://img109.images...

      • Tim E. O'B | April 17, 2012 at 4:36 pm |

        They got the year wrong – http://img713.images...

        Far right.

      • JJD | April 17, 2012 at 4:37 pm |

        Nope, but holy crap they are striperriffic. Black and white photo of the jerseys they modeled here: http://www.ebay.com/...

        • Tim E. O'B | April 17, 2012 at 4:40 pm |

          That looks like a hockey team outside.

      • Matt D. | April 17, 2012 at 4:40 pm |

        Nope. It’s these:

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

        Couple of problems though…

        In the jersey the Steelers unveiled, the number panels are white, not yellow. Also, it includes solid black side panels that go from the bottom of the armpit to the bottom of the jersey — in other words, the stripes don’t go all the way around the torso. There’s also a nameplate, which obviously wouldn’t have existed in 1934…but I guess you can’t get around that.

        • David T | April 17, 2012 at 4:41 pm |

          They look like they should be playing in a prison yard.

        • Jennifer Hayden | April 17, 2012 at 4:52 pm |

          Ugh

  • Ken | April 17, 2012 at 4:37 pm |

    WOW.

    I don’t know about the boxed numerals, but it’s definitely out there. I do LOVE IT

    • Ryan da Bearfan | April 17, 2012 at 4:39 pm |

      Not the prettiest uniforms, but hey, their historic.

  • Tim E. O'B | April 17, 2012 at 4:39 pm |

    Wow. https://yfrog.com/Hi...

    Those wont be missed.

    • Tim E. O'B | April 17, 2012 at 4:40 pm |
      • Andy | April 17, 2012 at 4:43 pm |

        That mesh fabric looks like it’s from 1994. A throwback to the year they wore the other throwback from the year that this throwback represents.

        • timothymcn | April 17, 2012 at 4:59 pm |

          +1
          Why the hell did they go with that mesh?

        • Tim E. O'B | April 17, 2012 at 5:05 pm |

          It doesn’t look like it’ll make it on the field
          http://img.photobuck...
          http://img.photobuck...

          The version on Redman looked pretty normal from a distance.

  • Andy | April 17, 2012 at 4:41 pm |

    Aren’t the ‘boxes’ supposed to be yellow as well?

    • Tim E. O'B | April 17, 2012 at 4:43 pm |

      They say they have an actual jersey, so I’ll tend to believe they got the colors right.

      • Matt D. | April 17, 2012 at 4:44 pm |

        That isn’t necessarily true. They might have an original, but Rooney didn’t say it was an exact copy. I can guarantee you those stupid all-black side panels weren’t on the original.

        • Andy | April 17, 2012 at 4:49 pm |

          Lots of jerseys has weird side panels and things back then. Need a better photo, preferably action shot, to disprove the side panels. Obviously there aren’t any color photos, but either the blocks were white or the NFL made them use white for contrast.

        • Tim E. O'B | April 17, 2012 at 4:50 pm |

          That’s why I said, “I’ll tend to agree”.

          I don’t know what color they were, but until i see a color photo of the original, I will assume they got it right. It’s 50-50 in my mind.

        • Tim E. O'B | April 17, 2012 at 4:54 pm |

          http://farm4.static....

          There seem to be black side panels there but the image is inconclusive.

        • Tim E. O'B | April 17, 2012 at 4:56 pm |

          In that photo, i see evidence of a black side panel on players #44 #37 and the no number guy to the right of #37

    • Andy | April 17, 2012 at 4:43 pm |

      Nice. Someone should notify the GUD, if that’s the case.

      • Rob H. | April 17, 2012 at 5:10 pm |

        Gridiron Uniform Database’s initial response:

        http://bit.ly/I0kRv1

        More to come, I’m sure…

        • LarryB | April 17, 2012 at 5:32 pm |

          Rob, I posted that on my Facebook.

  • Gusto44 | April 17, 2012 at 4:44 pm |

    Steelers should have put the city crest on a black helmet to complete the look. Looks weird with the modern helmet.

    • Tim E. O'B | April 17, 2012 at 4:46 pm |

      Agreed, surprised there’s no attempt to throwback the helmet. Go brown like the Packers of just go with the Yellow from their most recent throwbacks.

      • Ryan da Bearfan | April 17, 2012 at 5:07 pm |

        The Steelers black or yellow helmets both work. When the Chicago Bears wore their 1920’s orange striped/gold pants uniforms in 1994, they just left their helmet blue. No need to replicate a leather helmet like the Packers did in 2010, lol.

        • Tim E. O'B | April 17, 2012 at 5:13 pm |

          I’d rather have a plain brown lid than the current helmet with throwback jersey, pants and socks.

          Looks incomplete.

  • Tim E. O'B | April 17, 2012 at 4:48 pm |

    Full steelers photo gallery http://www.steelers....

    • Ricko | April 17, 2012 at 4:57 pm |
      • Ricko | April 17, 2012 at 5:04 pm |

        Longing for the Batman jerseys?…

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

      • LarryB | April 17, 2012 at 6:26 pm |

        Loved the Stooges football films. The other one was colorized and done very well.

    • Tim E. O'B | April 17, 2012 at 5:08 pm |

      http://prod.images.s... I’d buy those…

      • Tim E. O'B | April 17, 2012 at 5:09 pm |

        dead link. Fix: http://img.photobuck...

      • Tim E. O'B | April 17, 2012 at 5:10 pm |
      • Tim E. O'B | April 17, 2012 at 6:07 pm |

        “• If anyone at Nike is reading this, please make those socks available for retail sale. They’re awesome.”

        HELL YEAH PAUL! All game socks should be sold, I’d buy the Bears’ home and road and maybe a few other…

    • Wheels | April 17, 2012 at 5:11 pm |

      That is the most ridiculous football uniform I have seen in my life.

    • Mike V. | April 17, 2012 at 5:25 pm |

      aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand I hate them. Nothing is going right with Pittsburgh sports right now.

    • ChrisH | April 17, 2012 at 7:52 pm |

      What a great way to de-emphasize a terrific looking anniversary patch! I sure hope the Pirates, err…Steelers are not wearing these when they are the nationally televised AFC game of the week!

    • Dane | April 17, 2012 at 11:04 pm |

      I don’t like them. I don’t hate them. I _appreciate_ these ’34 throwbacks.

  • Winter | April 17, 2012 at 4:51 pm |

    Just had an interesting discussion with a co-worker.

    He said that the Browns were the “Penn State” of the NFL in that they had what he considered a bare bones uniform. For the NBA, he cited the Celtics and/or the Bulls. (Your call on whether he was correct or not)

    Got me wondering, what are the most basic and complicated team uniforms in each major sport?

    • LarryB | April 17, 2012 at 5:20 pm |

      The Browns are barebones for NFL but much sharper than generic PSU. The Browns at least have sleeve stripes and pants stripes and use orange helmet not boring white.

    • Krystal | April 17, 2012 at 6:28 pm |

      Basic:
      NFL – Raiders, total of 3 strips for the whole uniform.
      NBA – Celtics
      MLB – Tigers because they only have the whites and grays, but the A’s have the most basic design.

      Complicated:
      NFL – Bengals, Tiger stripes everywhere, nuff said
      NBA – Don’t watch a lot of basketball, but Memphis seems like they have a lot going on.
      MLB – Rockies, with all the different tops and pinstripes and vests. There’s just a lot going on there.

  • Ray Barrington | April 17, 2012 at 5:02 pm |

    Didn’t one of Al McGuire’s Marquette teams wear that Steelers throwback?

  • Christopher F. | April 17, 2012 at 5:08 pm |

    I’m digging the Steelers throwbacks… but why mesh?

  • Ryan da Bearfan | April 17, 2012 at 5:14 pm |

    Just checking out the Nike NFL jerseys on the NFL shop, these El Salvador made beauties have plastic NFL shields on all three jersey models. The $100 Game jersey has a” TPU shield at V-neck”, while the Elite jersey has a “TPU metallic-effect shield at V-neck”. I wonder what kind of upgrade the TPU NFL shield gets on the middle style of jersey?, lol

  • Kyle Allebach | April 17, 2012 at 5:16 pm |

    I’m liking those Steeler’s throwbacks. I’m really liking them. I just don’t know if it’s too soon to know if Nike deserves a complement for a decent throwback uniform or not.

    • Tim E. O'B | April 17, 2012 at 5:20 pm |

      I have to see them on the field, they’re just so ugly, not necessarily bad, just possibly fun-ugly.

      • Ricko | April 17, 2012 at 5:31 pm |

        Probably were back then, too.
        That’s kinda the point.

    • Wheels | April 17, 2012 at 5:24 pm |

      Nike deserves a flaming bag of dog shit at their front door for designing those.

      • Paul Lukas | April 17, 2012 at 5:26 pm |

        Nike had nothing to do with this. The Steelers decided what they wanted and told their uniform supplier to execute it. So they did.

        Would’ve looked exactly the same if Reebok had done it.

        • Wheels | April 17, 2012 at 6:12 pm |

          It was still a funny thought.

      • Phil Hecken | April 17, 2012 at 7:56 pm |

        “Nike deserves a flaming bag of dog shit at their front door for designing those getting the NFL deal and NOT getting the MLB deal”

        ~~~

        (fixed)

  • LarryB | April 17, 2012 at 5:21 pm |

    I wanted to thank Brian for collectors corner. I enjoy it when it is posted.

    What color is the Eastern Michigan helmet? Not the white one.

    • Phil Hecken | April 17, 2012 at 8:01 pm |

      brian?

  • Craig Ackers | April 17, 2012 at 5:22 pm |

    Hi guys, not post here in ages but a couple of things I’ve noticed recently. Sorry if they have been mentioned before.

    firstly in cycling the Giro (Tour Of Italy) 3 week grand tour stage race starting on 5th May I think has just released images of its new leaders jerseys.

    Link here. http://www.cyclingwe...

    Secondly, on the official NFL UK shop they are still selling Reebok merchandise. I know they will have stock to sell and aren’t going to sell it for pennies but a look at their front page http://shop.nfluk.co... says “NEW STOCK JUST IN” over a picture of old Reebok t shirts. Cheeky at best. Douchebaggery maybe at worst

    Finally, and this follows on from the discussion on NBA jersey sponsorship and this may upset some people but did not the NFL and the USA start jersey sponsorship not Europe and soccer?

    I’ve been reading an old NFL book (from the 1990 so not that old) but there is a picture of the Packers from the 1920s (which I have now found online) which shows players with “ACME PACKERS” on the front of the jerseys.

    http://purplepenquin...

    I know that the Acme Packing Co funded the team so is this not jersey sponsorship?

    http://purplepenquin...

    If Green Bay wore throwbacks from the 1920s with the “ACME PACKERS” wording could we really complain about jersey sponsorship? They would be authentic.

    By reference the 1920s Packers it also may be allows the NFL or whoever to say look ads on shirts are part of our heritage. Green Bay would arguably not exist today with the jersey sponsorship from Acme Packing Co.

    Just a thought anyway.

    All the best.

    Craig

    • Paul Lukas | April 17, 2012 at 5:32 pm |

      The term “sponsor” gets tossed around too easily around here.

      A local business supporting a ragtag team that might otherwise not exist is a sponsor; a multinational corporation putting its logo on the jersey of a high-visibility NBA jersey is an advertiser.

      “Sponsor” suggests a helper, a mentor, someone who helps you navigate thru tough waters. That’s why I hate the term “jersey sponsor,” because there’s nothing sponsor-y about it. It’s just two greedy entities turning their gazillions into mega-gazillions. It’s not sponsorship; it’s advertising.

  • Tim E. O'B | April 17, 2012 at 5:33 pm |

    I’d pay good money to see this: http://3.bp.blogspot...
    vs. this: http://a.espncdn.com...

  • LarryB | April 17, 2012 at 5:35 pm |

    And I have been looking for Clash songs on Sirius radio lately and hearing some. The Clash were great. London Calling was great song.

  • HHH | April 17, 2012 at 5:39 pm |

    The reaction to the new throwbacks from Steelers fans on Facebook is overwhelmingly negative.

    Many fans want the throwbacks “thrown back”, LOL! Others say they look like prison uniforms or bumblebees.

    Personally I think they look pretty cool. It’s kind of odd to see them paired with the current helmet, but maybe this is the result of the NFL wanting to preserve it’s teams’ identities/brands. But then again, throwbacks won’t be worn during primetime/nationally televised games anymore, so I don’t think an all-brown or blank black helmet would’ve been a bad thing.

    • ChrisH | April 17, 2012 at 8:03 pm |

      I had to check and re-check, but today is NOT April 1st.

  • Craig Ackers | April 17, 2012 at 5:42 pm |

    The problem is where to draw the line. Can only clubs where they do not a high profile and therefore compete financially with the already big teams be allowed to get sponsors on their Jerseys? And what happens if a “sponsored” team then becomes successful and beats a big team on a routine basis.

    Image the Burger King sponsoring the Kansas City Royals to say 5 consecutive Worlds Series. Would the Yankees, Red Soxs etc not say we want a piece of that financial pie too arguing they can’t win without it? They probably would.

    I do not agree with ads on major Americas sports jerseys. They are too cluttered already with corporate/team identity and lets be honest numbers for ads to be squeezed in.

    But I can easily see small market owners using the Acme Packers example to try and remove the argument there is no history of this and try and squeeze ads on.

  • Craig Ackers | April 17, 2012 at 5:48 pm |

    The new Steelers hoops remind me of rugby and Aussie rules kits which have a tendency for yellow and black hoops.

    Wasps Rugby Union in England http://www.wasps.co....

    Wests Tigers in Australia http://resources0.ne...

    spring to mind.

  • Tim E. O'B | April 17, 2012 at 6:00 pm |

    Two more things about the Northwestern uniforms video:

    1) This is the clip they use of Dave Eanet calling the Victory Right. I was watching that game live (on TV) and nearly shit a brick I was so happy (sorry Ricko…) http://www.youtube.c... What a great season.

    2) I love that just after the catch is made you can hear the WGN buzzer signalling that it’s a new hour (probably 3pm) and they couldn’t edit it out of the hype video (you can hear it at 12 seconds in).

    • Ricko | April 17, 2012 at 7:13 pm |

      “Sorry”? Are you kidding?
      Those were the years when Gopher football teams unceasingly found new and inventive ways to lose games.

      It was a magic time. No lead was safe.

      “Leave? Why would we leave? The Gophers are still ahead.”

      Now they just go out and get the tartar beat out of them by Northern South Dakota Dental College.

  • StLMarty | April 17, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
  • Matt | April 17, 2012 at 7:38 pm |

    I don’t know if anyone is watching the Devils-Panthers game tonight, but the Devils are using the horn from their old arena instead of the one they used all season

  • CrazyAnna | April 17, 2012 at 7:45 pm |

    I wonder if those Browns brown socks are a hint that their brown pants will also have these 2 orange stripes.

    • Paul Lukas | April 17, 2012 at 8:36 pm |

      To my knowledge, the Browns will not have brown pants this season.

      I could be wrong. But I’ve seen nothing to indicate that brown pants are in the mix.

      • WaitTilNextYear | April 17, 2012 at 9:48 pm |

        Tony Grossi – “Early renditions of proposed Browns uniform changes by Nike included all kind of combinations. I’m almost ashamed to admit I liked the white top/brown pants look, and there is a version in the Nike collection. I would expect a major change in Browns apparel in 2012.”

        • WaitTilNextYear | April 17, 2012 at 9:49 pm |
        • chuck | April 17, 2012 at 10:35 pm |

          Bite your tongue Grossi!

  • Rob H. | April 17, 2012 at 7:50 pm |

    After consulting with Tim & Bill, the Gridiron Uniform Database‘s final verdict on the 1934 Steeler throwback:

    There you have it. For now we’ll stand by our assertions that the Steelers are mistaken. The jersey unveiled today was not worn by the Steelers in 1934. If any further research uncovers anything to the contrary, we at the Gridiron Uniform Database will update it accordingly.

    Complete story here:

    http://bit.ly/I0kRv1

    • Tim E. O'B | April 17, 2012 at 7:52 pm |

      Way to get it right, unlike the Stillers.

  • Phil Hecken | April 17, 2012 at 7:59 pm |

    all i know is i want a pair of those stiller socks, sans the nike padded shit

  • Ricko | April 17, 2012 at 8:04 pm |

    Anyone ever wondered what the Yankees would look like if they wore white shoes?

    Check out C.C. and Swisher tonight. Gives you a pretty good idea.

    • Wheels | April 17, 2012 at 9:00 pm |

      The Twins road greys are pretty darn nice I’ve decided.

  • Donnie | April 17, 2012 at 8:40 pm |

    I couldn’t get past all the legal mumbo jumbo in the linked article, did they ever mention what sport that little person plays? They showed the picture, it’s like they blue balled you

  • Alex35332 | April 17, 2012 at 8:52 pm |

    So Redskins play the Cowboys on Thanksgiving, last time this happened was 2002, a rare color vs color game, and maybe one of the best looking football games ever played.

  • christian | April 17, 2012 at 8:56 pm |

    If anything, the Hornets should switch names with the Jazz. I know that the Jazz used to be in New Orleans, but it makes more sense for the Hornets to be the Jazz and the Jazz to be the Hornets.

  • Ryan L | April 17, 2012 at 8:56 pm |

    10 games in and we see the dreaded black tops for the ChiSox.

  • Billy V | April 17, 2012 at 8:58 pm |

    The Magic is Back

    Dont know if this has ever been linked…….opening day at Shea Stadium in 1980

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

  • Jeff | April 17, 2012 at 9:41 pm |

    On the bottom of the first page of a 6-page “Dope Sheet” that accompanied their schedule release, the Packers quietly announced: “In 2012, the Packers will forego using their historic third jersey.”

  • Douglas King | April 17, 2012 at 10:14 pm |

    While looking at the new US jerseys I noticed something weird about the socks. its the same way on the home socks as well, I’m guessing this is some “revolutionary” sock construction that prevents chaffing. From a distance the foot part looks almost argyle.

    http://www.ussoccers...

  • Kub | April 17, 2012 at 10:48 pm |

    heres the better link for the actual EMU uniforms
    http://no2minutewarn...
    alot of gray…

  • MediaFire Games | April 17, 2012 at 11:48 pm |

    I couldn’t get past all the legal mumbo jumbo in the linked article, did they ever mention what sport that little person plays? They showed the picture, it’s like they blue balled you

  • Matthew Toy | April 18, 2012 at 1:47 am |

    I really really wish I was wrong about the Steelers throwbacks. Whether the # boxes are supposed to be white or yellow is irrelevant. They’re just plain ugly. I seriously can’t imagine anyone wearing one of these. Which means I’ll see them everywhere until my eyes escape from my head and move to Baltimore.

  • ted | April 18, 2012 at 6:11 pm |

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

    I’m selling these