And the New Mascots Will Be a Wizard and an Elf

10929983-standard.jpg

Let’s hear it for Rutgers and Nike, who have successfully transitioned from comic book uniforms to Dungeons & Dragons uniforms (for the Scarlet Knights, get it?). I have a hard time taking any of this stuff seriously, but here are some observations:

• The number font is very, uh, heraldic. Although it would look better if the players got to ride on horseback and/or carry a lance.

Three different helmet designs with three different facemask colors, whee! The chrome look is supposed to evoke a suit of armor or a knight’s helmet or whatever, although on closer inspection it has a burnished pattern, which I actually kinda like, I think (need to see it on the field to be sure). Should be interesting to see just how blinding the helmets are when the light hits them (ditto).

• The obsession with gray continues to confound. Seriously, gray uni numbers on all three jerseys? Or maybe it’s silver, I dunno. The press release says the numbers have “a chainmail texture,” but I don’t see that in that last photo, do you?

• What’s with the pattern across the shoulders?

• Who made those gloves? Oh wait, let me guess.

• Someone actually got paid to write lines like “The historic knights of old were more successful in battle if they had better gear” and “As a Scarlet Knight in medieval times, each soldier lived by a code of chivalry” (that last one will come in handy when the next time a player gets implicated in a sex scandal). Hey, whether it’s modern combat or medieval crusades, leave it to the Swooshkateers to find a connection between football and warfare. There are also references to the “sword pant” and the “knight’s plume.” Uh, right.

Bottom line: Not such a bad-looking uni set. But they better go easy on the knight-themed angle, because as soon as they lose a game someone’s gonna trot out all the Monty Python and the Holy Grail jokes. (More Rutgers photos here.

The other big football-related uni news yesterday was that Reebok rolled out a new line of uniforms for the CFL, with fresh looks for the Hamilton Tiger-Cats (four sleeve stripes!), Montreal Alouettes, Toronto Argonauts, and Winnipeg Blue Bombers (the remaining teams will showcase their new looks today). Most of these look pretty nice, but, well, you know.

+ + + + +

Screen shot 2012-05-01 at 9.34.10 AM.png

Permanent Record update: Lots of new developments on the PermaRec project. First, in case you missed it on Friday, I wrote a new feature-length article about the only living link to the project. Then, on Saturday, I posted a follow-up to that article on the PermaRec blog. And now I’ve added an additional blog post about an interesting gender gap that has emerged in the course of the project. Enjoy.

+ + + + +

Uni Watch News Ticker: Our friends at Pro League Authentics in Philadelphia are holding the next event in their “The Jersey as Art” series on May 10. It will feature Peter Capolino of Mitchell & Ness, who’ll be exhibiting some original flannel jerseys and will also be talking about virtually every commemorative patch ever worn by every MLB team. Full details toward the end of this page. … In addition, the Pro League Authentics folks are gearing up for an event to celebrate the release of the latest edition of Bill Henderson’s seminal Game-Worn Jerseys of the Double-Knit Era. The tentative date is July 19, and I’ll be partnering with them on this event. More details soon. … The Hungry Hungry Hipster was watching the Eagles’ 1989 highlight film and noticed several uni-notable details, including a close-up view of the black electrical tape that was used as a memorial for quarterbacks coach Doug Scovil; a good view of Randall Cunningham’s Dymo-nameplate; and Cunningham wearing a Maxit hood. “I had never heard of the Maxit brand before, so I Googled them, and it turns out they’re still in business,” says HHH. … Also from HHH: Remember the throwbacks that the Steelers wore in 1994? Looks like someone on the sideline was wearing a T-shirt version of that jersey. Anyone ever seen that T-shirt before? … Marcus Hall attended Sunday’s Orioles game and spotted a guy with a Yankees tattoo in an unusual place. … Racist team name, but that’s one gorgeous warm-up top (from Jeff Ash). … Speaking of race, lots of chatter going on regarding a Flyers fan who showed up at a game wearing a Wayne Simmonds jersey with a racially profiled NOB. If you read the whole piece, you’ll see that a Yahoo Sports staffer suggested it would be better if the NOB had read, “Token” — I like that. … Disappointing to see that Brandon Inge, who always went high-cuffed in Detroit, made his A’s debut wearing pajama pants (from Rocky Lum). … Speaking of the A’s, Andy Chalifour notes that Josh Reddick is wearing a mouthguard this season. … Lots to like in this sensational old photo of Cleveland Stadium in baseball/football mode (from Bill Kellick). … I’ve seen most of the old MLB “Say No to Drugs” wristbands at various points, but I’m not sure I’d ever seen so many of them together in one place until now (from Brady Phelps). … Here’s Todd Radom’s take on the new Nets logo. … “I flipped over my Longhorns calendar for May to find it features former guard Michael Huey,” writes Mike Klug. “He’s obviously blocking for Colt McCoy, except McCoy’s face is obscured, and uni numbers have been badly Photoshopped to show ’00’ instead of ’12.’ Is this is because they would owe the NFLPA money for featuring a current NFL player..? He was featured in the calendar the year after he left Texas, but I believe that calendar was released prior to the 2010 draft. Anyway, poor Colt can’t get a break: First the Browns draft a QB in the first round, and now his alma mater goes out of its way to disguise his time there.” … Here are the uni number assignements for the Titans’ rookie draftees (from Jimmy Morris). … Click on the photo gallery link to see how Walsh University baseball manages to poach from the Nats and the Cavs simultaneously (from Mary Lynn Delfino). … Well, that didn’t take long. … Ditto. … ran a little showcase of some of the logos the Marlins considered before settling on their current one (from Shane Rupert). … O’s pitcher Brian Matusz blacked out the swoosh on his undershirt collar last night. “For what it’s worth, he wears Under Armour cleats,” notes Brian Cheung. … The Astros will wear their shooting star throwbacks on Friday. … New kits for Real Madrid (from Aaron Moores). … “I watched the Manchester United v. Manchester City match and noticed something about the sleeves of City keeper Joe Hart,” writes Derek Linn. “It looks like he is wearing a shirt that is neither long-sleeved nor short-sleeved. Normally, keepers wear long sleeves and will sometimes pull them up and bunch them up on their upper arms. It seems that Joe wants that look without the bunching up of fabric. In the past, it looks as if he used to cut off the sleeves. Once again, that’s not the short-sleeved version of the shirt but rather a halfway point between of the long and short version.” … If you have a few minutes, check out this video that a designer put together to showcase his proposed redesign of the Pacers. No matter what you think of his designs, it’s a seriously slick piece of video (big thanks to Ben Norris):

 

242 comments to And the New Mascots Will Be a Wizard and an Elf

  • RJ | May 2, 2012 at 7:55 am |

    Speaking of Matusz, it looked like his glove said Brady Anderson last night, I didnt get a great look, & the yankeesbeisbol.com bunting behind home plate had a letter peeling off.

    • Paul Lukas | May 2, 2012 at 8:01 am |

      We’ve covered the Brady Anderson thing on his glove before. Anderson has apparently been a big mentor to him, so he wears his name on his glove.

      • Patrick | May 2, 2012 at 8:12 am |

        Has Matusz been blacking out that logo all year?

      • Keith | May 2, 2012 at 12:48 pm |

        Here’s the deal on the glove thing:

        http://www.masnsport...

  • RJ | May 2, 2012 at 7:56 am |

    Look at the Matusz photo with the de-niked colar.

  • Memal | May 2, 2012 at 8:06 am |

    Wow, those Pacers uniforms blew me away. Beautiful stuff, let me know where to send a letter to.

    • ScottyM | May 2, 2012 at 8:46 am |

      Overkill, IMO. Pacers aren’t one of the teams that need a makeover. And harkening back to the 80s/90s look doesn’t help when it’s mixed with the 70s (current stripes). Becomes a mess.

      I do like the tweak of the logo, that would pass just fine. With design, typically less is more … unless you’re Brooklyn. lol

    • GMoore | May 2, 2012 at 6:00 pm |

      Love the Pacers unis, except for the NOB font. Of course I also liked the FloJo unis.

  • Connie | May 2, 2012 at 8:10 am |

    “… The Astros will wear their shooting star throwbacks on Friday …”

    Such a wonderful look. Among the best.

    • Phil Hecken | May 2, 2012 at 8:12 am |

      ^^ that

      said it before, and i’ll say it again

      they got it right the first time, and everything they’ve worn since has been a step in the wrong direction

      • JamesP. | May 2, 2012 at 9:20 am |

        And if the rumors are true, they could very well be returning to the shooting-star jersey…. :-)

        • AnthonyTX | May 2, 2012 at 9:41 am |

          I REALLY hope the rumors are true. Shooting stars were the best look for the Astros.

          As a lifelong ‘Stros fan, I’ve gotta say that I always hated the tequila sunrise jerseys. I know they’re considered classic and interesting because they’re different or whatever, but to me they’ve always been just downright U-G-L-Y.

          Then again, I suppose some uniform identity is better than having absolutely none like they do now.

    • Mark in Shiga | May 2, 2012 at 8:23 am |

      I absolutely love those jerseys. They (and their colors) are just the right fit with the name “Astros”.

      I have one of the mid-’90s BP jerseys with just the star on the front and a number on the back; its minimalism is perfect. (Minimalism that balances that awesome shiny-gold-billed cap perfectly!)

    • CoachKing | May 2, 2012 at 10:17 am |

      Have always loved the look of the shooting star jerseys. Do these new jerseys have velcro under the placket? It seems due to the space taken by the name and the shooting stars, the normal space between in a pro style jersey was not enough and an extra button was removed.

    • JamesP. | May 2, 2012 at 1:39 pm |

      Just remembered; the Astros TV guys were all wearing the Shooting-Star jerseys last night and it was said that they were wearing jerseys that would be worn on Friday. I did not see if they were wearing player jerseys or coaches.

  • Dumb Guy | May 2, 2012 at 8:12 am |

    I hate (and by “hate” I mean LOVE) how silly shoulderpadless players look in their jerseys. The Snow White shoulders are priceless!!

    Either wear pads, or wear a “for show, not for go” jersey.

    • AnthonyTX | May 2, 2012 at 9:43 am |

      Yeah, I don’t know why they always do that. The pics show some badass with a dark visor in dramatic lighting, then they bring out linemen with no pads. It always just looks like a fat guy in ill-fitting clothing.

    • Matt Beahan | May 2, 2012 at 6:43 pm |

      Seeing that always makes me laugh – reminds me of when I was at university, and all the guys on the American Football team would wear their jerseys around campus. A bunch of skinny Brits in oversized jerseys, walking around like they were the bollocks and completely oblivious to how ridiculous they looked.

      Of course, they were the national champs, and I’m the guy who quit the basketball team so I could go chase girls at the indie disco, so what do I know…

  • Kyle Lamers | May 2, 2012 at 8:15 am |

    With those new Rutgers gloves, we are now even one step closer to people playing for their uniform provider and not their school. Sad day.

    At least Matusz gets it!

    • Rob S | May 2, 2012 at 8:45 am |

      School logo across the palms, I can almost get. Almost. This, though, is a new low.

  • Gary | May 2, 2012 at 8:20 am |

    Well, as a Rutgers fan, I don’t hate the new unis, even with all the “Nike-isms” applied to it. I actually think using the metallic helmet to evoke a knights armor is pretty cool. The “battle scars” (which I believe is what’s on the shoulders of the jerseys, as well as on the helmets)I could do without, but that will be irrelevant from a distance. My only gripe is the total monochrome for the home unis. I think they’d look much better swapping the white pants into that set.

    • Ricardo Leonor | May 2, 2012 at 9:43 am |

      I’m with you Gary. This was going to be my post, almost word for word!

      I understand why most folks will somewhat ridicule it…but as a lifelong Scarlet Knight fan, I don’t hate it! I have never liked our unis so this is a welcome change.

      Not feeling the BFBS, but I never liked in the old unis either.

    • AnthonyTX | May 2, 2012 at 9:47 am |

      I’m inclined to agree (although I’m pretty neutral on Rutgers). I could do without the Nike bluster (but we’ve come to expect it, so whatever) but I think overall the uniforms are pretty sharp. Not sure they really need a black uniform, but as we all know, this is a way to attract 17-year olds, not 33 year-olds whose football-playing days are way behind them.
      Whatever. I think Nike did a fine job with these.

    • Jim Vilk | May 2, 2012 at 12:41 pm |

      Not to nitpick, but if it’s a total monochrome uni, then the helmets would be the same color.

    • LarryB | May 2, 2012 at 4:50 pm |

      The helmets are sweet. I have always been a fan of silver helmets Even before Ohio State went to silver helmets in 1968 As a kid I painted one of my old style electric football teams with silver helmets.

      The unis are not bad and I am partial to red and silver or chrome.

    • walter | May 2, 2012 at 5:51 pm |

      I like ‘em fine, less the Nike-worship and the pre battle-scarring. Scars are something you accumulate. This is like tattooing an open wound on your skin.

  • Tom | May 2, 2012 at 8:22 am |

    If you are so offended by “racist” team names and imagery, stop putting on your site period. It doesn’t help your cause when you use words “gorgeous” to describe things that you are supposedly offended by.

    • Mark in Shiga | May 2, 2012 at 8:30 am |

      I like how the Flyers fan has another jersey underneath the potentially-offensive one, as if he’s all prepared for some officious security guard to tell him to change his shirt.

      • Rob S | May 2, 2012 at 9:07 am |

        It’s probably just a shirsey, actually. The number’s much smaller. And it looks like #20, which would make it Chris “Not Appearing In These Playoffs” Pronger.

    • timothymcn | May 2, 2012 at 8:37 am |

      Don’t be silly. One’s Aesthetic preferences need not line up with their moral code. And it isn’t the team name that’s gorgeous, anyway.

      • Kek | May 2, 2012 at 9:35 am |

        I don’t know if I necessarily agree with that. Not that I’m in the camp that any of these names be changed, but shouldn’t you be offended by the Redskins as a team name with or without imagery? On the flip side, should “INDIANS” bother you only because you find Chief Wahoo offensive?

        Do the Vince Lombardi-era ‘Skins get a pass because the helmet logo wasn’t as offensive?

        I kind of think this is an “all or nothing” proposition.

        • Paul | May 3, 2012 at 2:19 am |

          Well said kek…I agree with you…all or nothing…

  • Dumb Guy | May 2, 2012 at 8:23 am |

    Well, the Marlins definitely picked the best logo of that lot.

    • Tony C. | May 2, 2012 at 8:28 am |

      which really isn’t saying much. it’s like picking the thinnest fat girl to go home with at the end of the night

      • Dumb Guy | May 2, 2012 at 8:34 am |

        Yep. The TOP of the garbage can is still garbage.

      • Danya | May 2, 2012 at 8:35 am |

        I’m sure there are any number of other analogies you could have used there that didn’t demean women or overweight people.

        • Tony C. | May 2, 2012 at 8:49 am |

          maybe, but i am sticking with that..

    • ScottyM | May 2, 2012 at 8:42 am |

      Actually, I think the Marlins new look really pops on the field. It’s not impressive up close, but it works from a distance.

      • Tony C. | May 2, 2012 at 8:49 am |

        so.. good from a far.. but far from good?

        • Andy | May 2, 2012 at 9:48 am |

          I love the M just to the left of the actual logo.

        • Tony C. | May 2, 2012 at 10:23 am |

          @andy that looks like something that belongs on a sign of the Miami Airport

        • ChrisH | May 2, 2012 at 11:24 am |

          “I’d like to make her look a little more attractive, how far can you pull back?”

          “How do you feel about Cleveland?”

        • Chris K | May 2, 2012 at 6:18 pm |

          Love that Tootsie reference Chris. Reminded me of this scene: http://www.youtube.c...

      • Jim Vilk | May 2, 2012 at 12:47 pm |

        Actually, I think the Marlins new look really pops on the field.

        What would make it pop even more? Oh, I dunno…maybe an orange hat?

        For those who don’t read the late-night comments, here’s last night’s installment of
        Orange Hats Held Hostage: Game 23
        http://cache.daylife...
        You’re playing *another* orange and black team with black hats…is there a better time than now to free the lids?

    • concealed78 | May 2, 2012 at 12:36 pm |

      I kind of like the duel-marlin logo 2nd from the left (tho it needs a better color scheme). 3rd from left looks too much like “Hn” or the old Twins cap logo, center has Trident-M tendencies & one looks like “MCI”.

      The original is still vastly superior. If only it was aqua with more orange & zero black or silver on the unis.

      • walter | May 2, 2012 at 4:46 pm |

        The thing I notice about the two on the right is that they can be broken apart into a little alphabet to spell “Miami”. The one with the two fish seems to emphasize a “V”, makes no sense. I really like the second from the left though it has obvious shortcomings, perhaps because the shape echoes a traditional baseball script.

    • Douglas King | May 3, 2012 at 12:17 am |

      I disagree the first 3 all look better to me than what was ultimately chosen. All 3 balance the odd color combination much better (of course the one that was chosen works better if the middle part is white as opposed to black). My biggest issue with the chose is how washed out the orange always looks and it is exasperated by the use of the black.

      The first two would need some tweaking, but the 3rd is perfect. If you are so gun-hoe about using black don’t make it look like it was forced into the logo (which is why I so despise the black-heavy Marlins logo, it works with the white but they clearly just switched the white with the black for that logo and that simply doesn’t work). Take the 2nd logo and make the steps less dramatic and you get a logo that uses black naturally.

  • Tony C. | May 2, 2012 at 8:24 am |

    i like the new Rutgers helmets.. the unis are okay too

    those MLB “say no to drugs” wristbands are uber creepy

  • Coleman | May 2, 2012 at 8:26 am |

    Checking my daily sites this morning and TheChive had a post with some UW-worthy photos. Babe Ruth with a rifle, nuns playing baseball, and to top it off, Robin Williams in a cheerleading outfit!

    http://thechive.com/...

  • Mark in Shiga | May 2, 2012 at 8:28 am |

    As a Rutgers alum, I can’t say I like those silver numbers on all the jerseys. They look particularly bad on the white ones, and I wouldn’t be surprised if red gets substituted in for the white after one season (or even mid-season).

    When I was there in the late ’90s, Rutgers had some of the best uniforms in college football history. The numbers had drop shadows on them but there were no other adornments to clutter things up. They had one season with curved numbers and then they went to what was a dead ringer for the ’49ers 1994 throwbacks.

    Photos are hard to find, but here’s Mike McMahon at home and on the road.

    They posted some terrible W-L records but they sure did look good doing it.

    • Gary | May 2, 2012 at 9:13 am |

      The unis remind me of the similar 49ers jerseys, and even though I love the helmet logo, I think the block R is just a better way to go… I agree the silver on white doesn’t look all that great, but its still nice to see old RU getting a makeover like the big boys…

    • Ricardo Leonor | May 2, 2012 at 9:47 am |

      I went to Rutgers during this time…. ( class of 94 ) and I was definitely NOT a fan of the unis. I prefer the block
      “R” although, I wouldn’t mind if they used the secondary KNIGHT logo instead.

      This is a huge upgrade IMO from the curved numbers….

      • Mark in Shiga | May 2, 2012 at 10:37 am |

        Ricardo, if you graduated in ’94, I think you would have missed the golden age of RU football uniforms.

        They still had iron-on/painted-on numbers and NOBs up until ’96 when they went back to sewn-on digits and removed the NOBs at home. (The white roads had single-layer red NOBs.)

        Then in ’97 they kept everything the same except that the curved digits were replaced by a block font that was a little different from what the 49ers had (and I liked the Niners’ version more; it was a little more consistent).

        They kept this look until aronud 2002 or so before going back to non-shadow block digits, NOBs, black alternates, etc., and then back to the non-sewn style that they still use now.

        I’ve never been able to find a sample of this curved number font on the internet, but it’s pretty common. The Cubs used it on their 1911-12 throwback jerseys that they wore for their first interleague series with the White Sox in 1997. Maybe I should just draw the digits on paper and post that!

    • HHH | May 2, 2012 at 12:50 pm |

      “Rutgers had some of the best uniforms in college football history.”

      That is an EXTREMELY bold statement.

      • Mark in Shiga | May 3, 2012 at 5:13 am |

        Bold, yes. But also true.

  • TC Lofton | May 2, 2012 at 8:32 am |

    Ben Phillipe used to work with me back in the day. Incredibly creative guy… glad to see his talents getting some attention! (And I’m all for that Pacers redesign.)

  • Steve | May 2, 2012 at 8:33 am |

    Paul from yesterday’s Brooklyn Nets logo column..
    “The typography feels so wan, so generic — come on, make that “B” a bit thicker, a bit bolder! And I think a bit of gray or silver trim would help a lot”

    Paul from today..
    “The obsession with gray continues to confound”

    Which is it?

    • Paul Lukas | May 2, 2012 at 8:40 am |

      Gray has its place. If you’re using a black-and-white color scheme, gray makes a nice accent.

      But Nike and Adidas are using gray as an accent to everything. That’s what I don’t get.

      • The Jeff | May 2, 2012 at 8:44 am |

        Of course gray as an accent to everything is “traditional” in baseball, so it’s cool then, right?

        /sorry

        • Paul Lukas | May 2, 2012 at 8:46 am |

          Gray in baseball is not an accent; it’s a ground color. And it’s not an aesthetic choice — it’s a required element, specified in MLB’s regulations.

        • The Jeff | May 2, 2012 at 8:54 am |

          Technicality.

          Orange & blue NCAA team wearing a gray uniform = stupid.
          Orange & blue MLB team wearing a gray uniform = required by rule? O.o
          That rule = stupid.

          Exactly when did that become a rule, anyway? We’ve had yellow and powder blue used in place of gray before, are those actually not allowed now?

        • Mike V. | May 2, 2012 at 9:05 am |

          Comparing how gray is used in the MLB to traditionally designate the road team and how it being used in new designs (i.e. forced for no reason at all) is apples and oranges.

        • The Jeff | May 2, 2012 at 9:30 am |

          If it’s such a great tradition, why does the MLB need a rule to ensure that it happens?

          I think forced for no reason at all works pretty well to describe both NCAA and MLB gray.

        • Neeko | May 2, 2012 at 9:41 am |

          Are we making up rules?

        • Ricardo Leonor | May 2, 2012 at 9:49 am |

          Has GFGS already been coined??

      • Mark in Shiga | May 2, 2012 at 10:45 am |

        A *required element*? Or is it just that all 30 teams happen to have at least one road uniform that’s gray?

        I’d love to see a team ditch gray entirely. As recently as the 1990s we still had all-powder-blue uniforms like the Royals and Expos, and plenty of teams wore coclored jerseys with white pants. In the Japanese leagues, this is still more popular than all-gray.

        As a fan of a team (the Chicago Cubs) who have had plenty of great-looking blue-based uniforms in all shades, I hate seeing blanket statements that “road uniforms = gray”. There’s no reason things should be that way, and that goes double if your team’s main color is blue, which makes for a fine ground color.

        Down with gray!

        • Neeko | May 2, 2012 at 10:52 am |

          What about the Padres a few years back?

        • Marc | May 2, 2012 at 1:09 pm |

          Back in the 80s at least half of MLB teams had no grey unis—either powder blue or solid top with white pants on the road. Since when has grey been “required by MLB”? I’d like to know.

      • LarryB | May 2, 2012 at 4:57 pm |

        I do not get all the use of gray now either. My favorite team’s colors are scarlet and gray. The use of gray by so many other schools now is irritating.

    • ScottyM | May 2, 2012 at 8:43 am |

      Gray is the new black.

      • Brinke | May 2, 2012 at 8:59 pm |

        you mean the new PURPLE.

    • Coleman | May 2, 2012 at 8:45 am |

      Gray as a trim or accent color is nowhere near the same thing as an entirely gray uniform for a school with no gray in the school colors.

      Quit hatin’.

    • Marc | May 2, 2012 at 1:06 pm |

      Since when has a grey uniform been a regulation in MLB?

  • timothymcn | May 2, 2012 at 8:35 am |

    That video is awesomely and hilariously serious.

    • walter | May 2, 2012 at 9:11 am |

      “IN A WORLD… where teams fabricate and then chuck away identities every five years…”

      • Bryan | May 2, 2012 at 9:25 am |

        Classic B&C

    • Luther Mahoney | May 2, 2012 at 9:13 am |

      It looks like something from Parks & Recreation.

  • Darren Walton | May 2, 2012 at 8:41 am |

    Mario Williams signed with the Bills 6 weeks ago and still does not have a number. Chris Kelsay wears 90 and it appears he’s unwilling to give it up, not that he’s been asked. I would like to see the number 78 come out of unassignment.
    http://www.buffalone...

  • WFY | May 2, 2012 at 8:42 am |

    Were there any seats in Municipal Stadium that were actually good for football? Everything seems so far away. From a TV perspective, it was great though — old, always overcast, usually snow falling, mud, etc. I’m not trying to badmouth it and I’m sure Browns fans had some of the happiest days of their lives there.

    I always liked that one of the goal posts stuck out of the pitchers mound too. Did they shorten the padding around the post to accommodate the rise and not throw off the visual?

    • elgato11x | May 2, 2012 at 12:27 pm |

      I’m guessing there weren’t too many. My dad has told me that when he went to Browns games in the 1970’s, in certain areas of the stadium they could not see the ball in the air when it was punted or on a kickoff.

  • dwight | May 2, 2012 at 8:46 am |

    LOVE the pacers re-design…wouldn’t change a thing. Outstanding work.

    • walter | May 2, 2012 at 9:12 am |

      Absolutely! In spite of the fatuous video, that is one primo design!

      • HHH | May 2, 2012 at 10:36 am |

        The video is way over-the-top, especially with the “Morgan Freeman” voice-over. However, I like the idea of the state outline inside the “D”, but it kinda looks too rough and out of place compared with the rest of the wordmark.

        Also, the lettering across the chest and the NOBs are all crooked on the jerseys. I’m sure they’re like that in order to follow the angle of the striping, but just a slight tweak to the striping will allow the lettering and NOBs to be adjusted so they’re perfectly horizontal. Right now the angle is slight enough that it looks like a design flaw and not an intentional choice.

        • Rex | May 2, 2012 at 12:33 pm |

          Seriously, that guys voice is horrible. He tried so hard to sound tough that I couldn’t pay attention to what he was presenting.

    • Jeremiah | May 2, 2012 at 10:23 am |

      I like the design of the Pacers unis in that video too.

    • Jim Vilk | May 2, 2012 at 1:54 pm |

      I’d wear that.

    • Matt Beahan | May 2, 2012 at 6:48 pm |

      Combined my 2 favourite Pacers unis into one pretty good set.

      In fact, I’d say that the Pacers haven’t really had a uniform misstep – they’ve almost always looked good. I wasn’t a huge fan of the late-90’s pinstripes, and they wore some generic-looking stuff in the early 80’s, but other than that they’ve consistently looked sharp, a rarity for such a “new” team.

    • ryan | May 3, 2012 at 9:51 pm |

      can we seriously stop giving people credit for ‘designing’ ‘new’ uniforms when they just remix/update old ones? please!

  • ScottyM | May 2, 2012 at 8:48 am |

    Funny that Reebok can figure out how to get full shoulder stripes on its CFL jerseys, but couldn’t be bothered with it on its NFL jerseys.

    • Eriq Jaffe | May 2, 2012 at 9:59 am |

      No kidding.

      But those Argos and Tiger-Cats uniforms are beautiful, aren’t they? The Alouettes are pretty much the same, and The Blue Bombers just make me think of the Rams.

      • Lloyd Davis | May 2, 2012 at 10:27 am |

        “’I love the fact that we have now have the word ALOUETTES on the front,’ revealed Jamel Richardson while sporting the new look uniform at a recent photo shoot. ‘The name is in your face and everybody in the league is going to see who is coming after them for a full 60 minutes.’”

        I know, I know, they’re a great team, but I couldn’t help but laugh at this. Because nothing will strike fear into the hearts of teams with names like Blue Bombers, Tiger-Cats, Lions, Stampeders and Roughriders quite like the name of the horned lark. (A bird whose claim to fame is a folk song enumerating the many ways the singer plans to pluck it.) In capital letters, yet!

        • Connie | May 2, 2012 at 1:11 pm |

          “… A bird whose claim to fame is a folk song enumerating the many ways the singer plans to pluck it…”

          Precisely. Great song.

      • Terry Proctor | May 2, 2012 at 1:48 pm |

        You’re right, great looks for both the Double Blue and the Tabbies. I’m a little disappointed with the Blue Bombers. Their jerseys from the late-’70s (made right there in ‘Peg by Harv-Al Sportswear. We were a Harv-Al dealer in Rochester. Great unis at great prices.) through the mid-’80s were classically beautiful.

        But good job Reebok. In fact the whole look of these four Eastern teams is so good it makes you wonder if the CFL told Reebok to make the jerseys in a more traditional football cut, not those whacked-out sleeveless monstrosities that have been worn for the past several years.

        • Terry Proctor | May 2, 2012 at 2:14 pm |

          Just went to the official CFL website http://www.cfl.ca and read this about the new on-field jerseys. “The technology. Moisture wicking technology incorporated into fabric. New stretch mesh in the body of the jersey (lighter, has lycra which makes fit tighter. Allows better motion)
          -New stretch dazzle in the cowl of the jersey (lighter, has mechanical stretch for better fit over pads)
          -Name and numbers are stretch twill”

          Which makes you wonder why the swooshies can’t do this for their football clients.

    • Milton Sports Guy | May 2, 2012 at 12:46 pm |

      I was thinking that too — how come Reebok can return sleeves and stripes to football jerseys while Nike seems hell-bent on eliminating them altogether? The new CFL jerseys are simply gorgeous in comparison to the new NFL ones.

      Love the new Argos/Ti-Cats jerseys – I’ve been hoping the Ti-Cats would go back to the multiple sleeve stripes — gold helmets should be next!

      Here’s hoping the Eskimos and Stamps (when revealed today) go back to their 70’s-80’s looks with multiple sleeve stripes – green/gold in the case of Edmonton and red/grey for Calgary.

      Nice work Reebok/CFL.

      (Oh, and re: the Alouette comment below, um, their previous uni’s had the name ‘Alouettes’ splashed across the front of the jersey as well – for several years now – so it’s not a ‘new’ thing).

      • SRP91 | May 2, 2012 at 6:11 pm |

        The new Stampeders jerseys are almost bad as their last ones! Why do they have to force the black on us with massive black panels on the sides? And I was hopeful they’d get rid of the stupid red shoulders on the away jersey. What happened to the good old days when they had a red jersey at home and a white jersey on the road?

        And the numbers look like they were cut by an alcoholic with a case of the morning shakes.

        Get rid of Reebok!!!

        http://www.calgaryhe...

    • Douglas King | May 3, 2012 at 12:33 am |

      None of them have Shoulder Stripes… If you meant Sleeve Stripes, I’ll refer you to the Packers non-reebok techfit unis, as well as Steeler players wearing traditional cut jerseys (ones where sleeve stripes are possible, players could select to have the old full sleeve jerseys but they are increasingly opting for the ones where they will not wrap around because there is not enough material), throw the Browns in there as well, select Cowboys and others.

  • Mike V. | May 2, 2012 at 9:00 am |

    I’m not a fan of these new unis, or new college football unis in general. Especially those created by Nike and the Pro Combat bullshit. This is just my opinion, but they all just look sloppy. Look at the first linked picture (link below). The unis are too tight, they look too short, and the gap between the top of the socks and the bottom of the pants bugs the hell out of me. Don’t know why, it just looks sloppy to me. I understand why they make them tight and fitted in the way that they do, but most football players look terrible in unis cut like that. All three pictured below look ill-fitted for their body types. Once again, I understand the function of tailoring the unis like this, but damn they look bad on the majority of the players. Also, I hate the use of the same color for the pants and jersey. Looks like a unitard. Not good. Then when you throw all the different patterns and layers on top of everything else, it’s like throwing gasoline on the fire. The other thing that burns my ass is all the logo creep. Looking at the second pic on the linked page, I can easily spot 4-5 references to Nike on the unis (shoes, socks, gloves, jerseys, etc.) and only 2 to the actual school (helmet, jersey). I know this is a dead horse topic and that’s “just how it is” blah blah blah, but fuck!

  • Aaron | May 2, 2012 at 9:21 am |

    Are the black Rutgers uniforms supposed to me more intimidating because they are black and do not say Rutgers on them?

    Either way, I am intimdated!

    • SWC Susan | May 2, 2012 at 12:52 pm |

      No, but more identifiable as Nike.

      Not to mention I just realized the collar logo design guarantees that the Nike logo is bigger than the school’s logo… I can hear it now, “But knights don’t have their name stamped on their chest”… douchebaggery genius

  • JerryB | May 2, 2012 at 9:27 am |

    The Rutgers uni’s are pretty weak. I am not a fan and the helmets are terrible.
    The say no to drug wristbands are pretty cool.
    The idea that lots of high schools “borrow” logos and uni designs from pro sports/college teams seems to has gained steam in recent years but it is nothing new. I played high school sports back in the 1980s and I recall a number of teams(mine included) with pro sports logos ripoffs. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

    • Paul Lukas | May 2, 2012 at 9:30 am |

      Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

      Nope. Just the lamest form of laziness.

      • The Jeff | May 2, 2012 at 9:37 am |

        No, the lamest form of laziness is not bothering to have a logo at all. “Borrowing” a logo still requires some effort. What it really is, is a complete lack of creativity.

        • Cort | May 2, 2012 at 9:46 am |

          Don’t you think logo borrowing at the high school level contributes to derivative, unimaginative, and boring designs further down the line?

          The Jeff is right: there’s a lack of creativity at work here. Every high school in the country should have a logo designed by a high school kid. Most of them will be garbage, but who cares? A few of them will be innovative and brilliant. And the kids who come up with those designs will go on to create other, better designs as they grow into adulthood.

          We are missing a great teaching opportunity by simply ripping off the crappy logo of some NFL team.

        • Andy P. | May 2, 2012 at 12:57 pm |

          Its a high school football players dream to play in the pros. If having a professional team’s logo on a high school helmet is the closest thing to them being in the pros, let them have it. No harm intended.

    • DenverGregg | May 2, 2012 at 9:33 am |

      In the late 70s/early 80s Denver area it was more common for high schools to borrow from NCAA looks than from pro logos – but almost always with significant color differences. I remember plenty of knockoffs of Air Force, CU, CSU and even some schools from the east coast like Florida State.

      • Keith S. | May 2, 2012 at 4:08 pm |

        True. Seems like through the late 80s and into the 90s, many of those teams re-branded. I still think the Chatfield logo is one of the most creative I’ve ever seen.

  • Roberto | May 2, 2012 at 9:28 am |

    I am a pretty big Pacers fan and I liked a lot of what the video showed but a few things got me. The “P” logo should have either the hand or the stripes, having both seems a little too much. The jersey is FANTASTIC, but I think the name could match a little better, there are too many type and number fonts going on. Finally, I initally thought the “D” was wearing out before I realized it was the state in there.

  • Cort | May 2, 2012 at 9:40 am |

    Umbro (currently a division of Nike) is a Manchester-based company. They are very, very proud of their connection to City, and of their ties to the English National team, and of their role as an iconic English band They do some sort of interesting things on their Web site, like showcasing English bands, primarily groups from greater Manchester. In the Sixties and Seventies, they outfitted both United and City.

    Anyway, they make a big deal of responding to the needs and wishes of the players. I’m sure someone noticed that Joe Hart liked to cut off his sleeves, and they created a specialized shirt to accommodate him.

    650 million people watched this week’s Manchester Derby. That’s treble the number that watched the last Super Bowl.

    • Cort | May 2, 2012 at 9:52 am |

      Iconic English brand.

      Umbro’s done a beautiful job of restoring City’s kit to a classic look over the last three seasons (with the exception of the monochrome shirt and pants set for this season: City is traditionally sky blue shirt, white shorts; Coventry City is associated with the blue on blue arrangement). Unfortunately, the leaked photos of the 2012-13 kit show the introduction of a lot of black, a color that’s never been associated with City’s home kit.

    • JTH | May 2, 2012 at 10:46 am |

      I dunno if I’d heap praises on Umbro for that. It’s entirely possible that someone with the team just decided that the Bill Belichick look was unbecoming so they hemmed one of the cut-off jerseys to make their goalie look respectable.

      • Cort | May 2, 2012 at 11:00 am |

        You might be right. Chappie, the club equipment manager, is sort of a legend (he’s the guy who created Mario Balotelli’s “Why Always Me?” t-shirt). Maybe he did it.

        It’s just weird, after years of City toiling in obscurity, to see them everywhere. You get a little giddy.

    • Shane | May 2, 2012 at 12:19 pm |

      I remember about 8 years ago, there were a few players that were wearing three-quarter length jerseys as well. Javier Zanetti was one, I think Diego Forlan was doing it as well when he played for United.

  • teenchy | May 2, 2012 at 9:43 am |

    Stupid question unrelated to uni aesthetics: Why did Rutgers unveil those unis in New York? Why not, oh say, on campus in New Brunswick?

    • Tony Burke | May 2, 2012 at 10:30 am |

      While they did showcase them at Rutgers Stadium, it makes no sense to parade the State University of New Jersey around NYC landmarks (Times Square, Radio City, and with NYPD).

      • HPNJRUfan | May 2, 2012 at 2:25 pm |

        Rutgers is a 30 minute train ride into the city, and is the closest D-1A program to the city. The Empire State Building has been lit red for big games at Rutgers. http://a.espncdn.com...

        Let me guess, your a butt hurt Sarah-lose fan who needs ads on taxis to proclaim that you are “NY’s team” when in reality your 200 miles away in the “frozen tundra” that is the toilet bowl of Syracuse.

        • teenchy | May 2, 2012 at 7:12 pm |

          I don’t know who the hell you are but I have no connections to Rutgers or Syracuse. Go insult someone else.

        • Tony Burke | May 2, 2012 at 10:07 pm |

          No, I’m actually a New Jersey resident who believes that the State University should reflect that fact. A private university I can understand, but this seems like shunning your own state in order to pander to a bigger market (whether for your own purposes or Nike’s).

  • royce | May 2, 2012 at 9:45 am |

    why the hell is rutgers unveiling their new unis in NYC? keep that crap on your side of the hudson.

    i hate new jersey.

  • Bernard | May 2, 2012 at 9:45 am |

    I’ll say the same thing about the Rutgers uniforms that I said about the new Seahawks duds. There is simply TOO MUCH going on. Give me the chrome helmet, or the shoulder treatment, or the chain mail numbers (which I kinda see), or the silly number font. Or MAYBE two of them. Once again, they’ve insisted on incorporating every idea on the table.

    One thing I REALLY don’t like: The “battle scar” treatment on the helmet and shoulders is borderline embarrassing.

    • Andy | May 2, 2012 at 2:41 pm |

      Spot on.

    • quiet seattle | May 2, 2012 at 7:48 pm |

      That’s the truth, Bernard.

      That’s why, when I look at that new Nets logo, I can’t believe the restraint employed, given the tendencies of most designs these days.

  • Tony C. | May 2, 2012 at 10:03 am |

    i know a lot of sports apparel sites photo shop logos on tees and hats.. but man this is terrible

    http://nfl.imageg.ne...

    • HHH | May 2, 2012 at 1:06 pm |

      I think I’m speechless on how bad that looks.

      Obviously whoever ‘shopped that has no idea where graphics on the front of a t-shirt belong. But even without that knowledge, anyone in their right mind can see that “BROWNS” shouldn’t be that high.

      I think we had a non-artist at the Photoshop wheel that day.

  • rpm | May 2, 2012 at 10:14 am |

    matusz deserves no credit for blacking the beast. if anything he is an uber crap-bag for marking it out for the wrong reason. the first time one of these shitbirds covers a sponsor that he also wears on his feet will be something worth noting, until then his covering of the mark is in reality just another mark and we shouldn’t even pretend that he has a principle beyond that.

    on an unrelated note…
    i can’t believe the president of the united states had the time to watch an eagles game from 1989.

    • JTH | May 2, 2012 at 10:43 am |

      No shit. Shouldn’t he be reviewing federal death panel appointees or something?

    • Phil Hecken | May 2, 2012 at 10:59 am |

      “matusz deserves no credit for blacking the beast. if anything he is an uber crap-bag for marking it out for the wrong reason. the first time one of these shitbirds covers a sponsor that he also wears on his feet will be something worth noting, until then his covering of the mark is in reality just another mark and we shouldn’t even pretend that he has a principle beyond that.”

      ~~~

      how do you really feel?

      on another note, you bring up something i hadn’t much thought aboot until just now…

      if you deface the mlb-approved (and i believe required, though i could be wrong) undershirt by defacing the makers’ mark, how about it you did that to majestic’s mountain? after all, matusz is defacing the swoosh because he’s sponsored by UA…but he’s not sponsored by majestic either, so what if he were to deface that logo?

      we can decry (or approve) guys doing “swooshectomies” until we’re blue in the face, but are they defacing mlb approved equipment?

      cleats and shoes, on the other hand, are individually contracted pieces of equipment — like gloves/mitts and batting gloves…

      lets see someone under contract deface THOSE pieces of equipment (shoes, gloves, batting gloves)…they won’t be under contract for much longer…unless of course, said equipment has undergone some surgery…

      (cue todd helton)

      • rpm | May 2, 2012 at 12:02 pm |

        was i harsh? i thought i was calling a spade a spade really simple and soft like. shit man, he ain’t no hero just because he covered what i hate because i hate why he did it. it’s all swooshcenomics skipper, aaaaaaall swooshcenomics. i once bought a polo shirt at a thrift in 1989 or 90 because i liked the patten, but i tore every horse riding thread out of that crap. it isn’t enough you sold the shirt? you want me to billboard? or you expect me to want your brand for status? flog both those things. i won’t even wear the brand of shit i like for the love of corn. what’s that penguin brand? i am sure they have a name, and i love that lil penguin, he’s such a lil cutie, but i would never wear it. eeeeeeer , if i did i would tear that little creep off my chest too. brand identity, screw that. i should shut it before i go off.

        thank you, henny youngman is up next.

        • Phil Hecken | May 2, 2012 at 12:15 pm |

          listen wreck, i was pretty much agreeing with you

          my point is that he’s not blacking out the swoosh because he refuses to advertise for them (even if that is the case) or because he doesn’t like logos on his uni — he’s blacking it oot because he’s under UA contract (which you mentioned)

          but that’s similar to, if not exactly, the same thing, as defacing the majestic mountain — since swooshie is the approved undershirt supplier of the mlb…technically what he is doing is the same as if he were ripping the majestic mountain off his uni

          granted, it’s probably not the same, exact thing, but tis close

          and i agree, he aint no hero at all — if he were really a hero he wouldn’t have a shoe contract and he’d buy shoes from dicks…er, from an independent shoe store, or have them custom-made, and without any makers marks…his gloves and batting gloves would be blank

          and, for good measure, he’d rip the swoosh off his undershirt and the mountain off his jersey and black it out on his pants

          THEN, and only then, would he be a hero, right?

        • rpm | May 2, 2012 at 12:44 pm |

          all that would be nice, and i blacked out my nike cleats in the 80’s, but not only because i hated branding, it was as much because i wanted an all black cleat look from years past. and i was far from, um, conservative for lack of a better term when it came to style at the time. shit as much as things change they stay the same. see jeff’s of the world, not every “kid” needs neon day glo bullshit, some things are classic cool no mater how you slice it.

          i would cut the mountain out, or more then likely roll my sleeve to obscure it julio franco style, but that’s me. i don’t expect that from players, i am a freak. but i sure as corn am not going to give any ass-clown credit for covering the beast because he “works” for beast jr. whatever happened to pride? whatever happened to integrity? a big club 6 figure minimum contract isn’t enough? you need whatever minimal pay for shoes? it can’t be that much for most players, and those who do get a lot don’t need it anyway. the whole thing makes me sick. it is no wonder why the nba wants to put adds on the jersey, they see the individual making the shoe contract, the league making the uni contract and say heeey man, where is my crap-bag dollar grab? it isn’t going to save ticket prices. i am sick, officially sick today thinking about all this.

        • rpm | May 2, 2012 at 12:57 pm |

          matuszafuss is the same as that james cat on may day of all days talking about how he chose a college because of the company that backed the uni’s, they are both a worthless shill. http://www.youtube.c...

        • Teebz | May 2, 2012 at 1:34 pm |

          If it makes you both happy, the light blue stirrups make their season debut tonight as we open the softball season as the home team. As an aside, I’ll be wearing the Rays’ stirrups when we appear as the road team this season.

          After last practice, the team has penciled me in at the four-hole to start the season. I officially have let them know that the power of the Stirrup Revolution will carry this team to great heights this season. I serve the Revolution with pride.

          Comrade Teebz

        • rpm | May 2, 2012 at 2:53 pm |

          why does everybody want the gosh dang cardinal pattern? unless you do it like the oaks it is the worst. as much as i loved the raysgoing stripes it could have been much better. i am going design a slump buster for ozzie and see if i can’t get that on the field.

        • Teebz | May 2, 2012 at 3:17 pm |

          The Cardinals look might be the most traditional that the MLBers will accept in the sense that they show stripes. I mean, you get the full stripes of varying colors regardless of where your socks meet your pants.

          Also, it could be the easiest to produce for TCK since it is a fairly common template.

          Personally, I like the stripes that go down past the ankle, but beggars can’t be choosers, I’ve been told. ;o)

        • Phil Hecken | May 2, 2012 at 3:20 pm |

          “why does everybody want the gosh dang cardinal pattern?”

          ~~~

          c’mon man, it’s the cards, man

          best fans in the nation

          11 RINGS YO!

        • quiet seattle | May 2, 2012 at 7:53 pm |

          rpm: ” it isn’t enough you sold the shirt? you want me to billboard? ”

          BINGO!!!!!

      • Brinke | May 2, 2012 at 9:02 pm |

        never knew that was a mountain.
        how long before they lose their MLB deal, anyway?

  • TC Lofton | May 2, 2012 at 10:23 am |

    Looks like Ben has a facebook page up and going for his Pacers redesign campaign. He’s posted that the Pacers have given him a chance to make a 30-min. “pitch” this offseason:

    https://www.facebook...

    Whether or not anything comes of it, I like that the team is giving him the time of day. Looks like Roy Hibbert is backing him, too.

    https://twitter.com/...

    • Andy | May 2, 2012 at 2:45 pm |

      That Pacers identity suffers from the same lack of polish that the Nets’ does. If you’re going to combine two old things to create something new, it’s no longer authentic, and all the charming throwback touches need to be ‘fixed’ so to speak. The Indiana and Pacers type is a good starting point, but it needs to be cleaned up, and the state outline doesn’t fit in that wordmark, which is very clean and streamlined in feel. The hand needs to be cleaned up as well if you’re combining it with the modern logo.

    • Bromotrifluoromethane | May 2, 2012 at 6:46 pm |

      I’m not a fan of the current look for the Pacers but they’re a lot better than those pinstriped things they had. Fr some reason I’ve always liked the Reggie Miller era look the best for them. I’d love to see them come back but with the pinstriped era wordmarks instead of the Miller era ones. Never happen because they’re not the trendy “let’s go back to the ABA look” everybody loves but I always liked that look.

      • quiet seattle | May 2, 2012 at 7:56 pm |

        We “go back to the ABA” because the stuff looks good, or is at least interesting to look at, I think.

        • Bromotrifluoromethane | May 2, 2012 at 10:40 pm |

          But to my born in the 70’s eyes I don’t care for that ABA look. Of any of the teams from that era. To me those look awful. Then again except for some rare exceptions I’m not a fan of retro at all so I’d rather see them move forward with a completely new look instead of going back to something from the past or going the fauxback route.

  • JTH | May 2, 2012 at 10:40 am |

    <rant mode>
    Once again, we have photos of a new kit that show nothing of the sort.

    My personal disdain for using the word “kit” instead of “uniform” aside, this is a jersey or a shirt or a top or whatever you want to call it. But it most certainly is not a kit.
    </rant mode>

    • rpm | May 2, 2012 at 3:12 pm |

      if i can quickly reference the cuuters….kit? kit?! kiiiiiiiit?! end reference. fargin farg the fagers who kit. how bout a voice of reason?!!!!<

      • rpm | May 2, 2012 at 3:18 pm |

        by the way, while i am at it, um no logo on their stupid rollerball jersey. can you imagine that now? even in something as stupid as rollerball? miserable movie, but best ever just because the people that made it never thought of logo creep as a reality.
        james caaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!!!!

  • Bob | May 2, 2012 at 10:42 am |

    The Rutgers uniforms suck. They may not be as obnoxious as the abominations that other schools have trotted out in recent years, but let’s call a spade a spade here. It’s sad testament to the state of the grand tradition of college football when you anxiously grind your teeth because you know Nike or Under Armour are getting around to fucking with your school’s uniforms and then breathe a sigh of relief when they don’t fuck it up *too* badly. “Oh well, I’ll have to live with the burden of hepatitis but I sure am glad it’s not AIDS….” How about actively avoiding both in the first place?

    Their old duds were pure class – simple, but elegant and bold. They evoked old-school college football and the school’s tradition as one of the originators of the game. These new things are crap. They’re not even imaginative; when I saw the home uniforms I thought it was an old picture of Georgia’s ridiculous Buck Rogers costumes from last year’s game against Boise State. The black ones are your standard BFBS Nike abortion. The white ones are probably the least offensive, but still a tremendous step down from what they were wearing on the road last year. The “burnished” look and the “battle scar” are idiotic, as are all of these contrived gimmicks Nike feels compelled to smack on their “visionary” works of abstract art.

    These are awful. Not being as bad as the horror shows Oregon and Maryland crap out doesn’t make them any better. If the XFL still existed these would be appropriate for that league, although most of the uniforms worn there were sadly more understated and coherent than half the crap Nike designs, and those were cooked up by the minds that brought you pro wrestling.

    I had hope for college football after watching Michigan/Notre Dame and Army/Navy. Maybe the big sweatshop companies actually can rein themselves in and create designs that are both relevant to the modern era while also respecting tradition, I thought. And then this. Oh well.

    • HPNJRUfan | May 2, 2012 at 2:19 pm |

      The helmets have two layers, a matte black underneath the brushed chrome. And unlike a normal helmet, these won’t be repainted after every game, so with more and more physical play, there will be more and more “battle scars” on the helmet. A cooler version of a “helmet sticker” (ala OSU or UGA) if you ask me.

      Geez, my fellow RU fans will b!tch about anything and everything…

      • Andy | May 2, 2012 at 2:50 pm |

        If true, that could be interesting, but it just looks like one of those hydro dip patterns at first glance. Do you have a source for the two layer thing?

        • HPNJRUfan | May 2, 2012 at 10:02 pm |

          Its mentioned in the video where they reveal the uniforms to some of the Rutgers players currently in the NFL:

          http://www.scarletkn...

  • JEDI54 | May 2, 2012 at 10:52 am |

    I guess I am the only one who LOVES those Rutgers unis. Can’t wait to see how they mix and match the combos.

  • Graham Jaunts | May 2, 2012 at 11:04 am |

    Just a head’s up that the Red Sox and A’s will be wearing 1939 throwbacks tonight!

  • Ryan L | May 2, 2012 at 11:41 am |

    Since when did the Rams move to Winnipeg?

    • Teebz | May 2, 2012 at 1:29 pm |

      Well, they haven’t shown up in St. Louis for the last few years. I’m glad someone located the team! LOL

  • Joseph Gerard | May 2, 2012 at 11:58 am |

    Hey do yinz remember the WBL, the short-lived basketball league from the late 80’s-early 90’s? Well, now you can buy a throwback tee for one of the league’s winningest teams, the Youngstown Pride, who won two league championships during the WBL’s five-year existence. Having worked in the YSU athletic department for a year as the manager of the women’s basketball team, I can tell you at least eight years ago (and probably still the case today), the YSU men’s and women’s basketball teams still use some of the Pride’s equipment, since both teams shared the Beeghly Center.

    As far as the company that makes the tees? Rusty Waters Apparel was founded by Kate Butler in 2005 to have regional-themed tees for Youngstown and its two neighboring major-metropolitan cities: Cleveland and Pittsburgh. She’s a native of Youngstown, and attended college in Pittsburgh; the exact opposite of me, a Pittsburgh-area native who attended college in Youngstown. (Not sure how Cleveland fits into this besides geography.) I met her in 2010 when she came to speak at my Urban Sociology class at YSU just before I graduated, even though she’s only like a year older than me. She showed us the Youngstown-themed shirts and then mentioned that there was a jello wrestling contest on Pittsburgh’s South Side benefiting a local women’s rugby club later that month. I ended up being the only one who attended that event out of that class, but I got to talk to Kate a little more. Haven’t had a chance to buy any of her shirts in that time due to monetary issues (I am finally going to be buying some within the next couple of weeks), but they do have other sports-related shirts, like this and, if you’re a Browns fan, this COULD be sports-related. Not sports related, but this one is one of my favorites, featuring a certain well-known Youngstown native.

    • Jim Vilk | May 2, 2012 at 1:00 pm |

      Never saw a game, but I’m familiar with the WBL. I used to work with the radio voice of the Pride. I bet he’d wear that shirt.

      • Joseph Gerard | May 2, 2012 at 2:24 pm |

        Yeah the WBL would probably still be in business if it weren’t for the fact that it was largely backed by Youngstown’s own Mickey Monus of Phar-Mor fame. (Which probably explains the Pride’s success.) But yeah I remember when I was at YSU and worked with the basketball teams, I saw some of the basketball equipment having the Pride logo on it. With the Mahoning Valley Scrappers and the Youngstown Phantoms, I’m not sure if there would be room for a minor-league basketball team in Youngstown today.

    • LarryB | May 2, 2012 at 5:01 pm |

      I went to several Pride games at the YSU gym. That was a fun league while it lasted.

      I had a nice Pride tshirt with the logo on a white shirt. Too bad I bulked up over the years. The shirt does not fit me. I actually am not sure where it is.

      Nice find Joseph.

      • Joseph Gerard | May 2, 2012 at 11:49 pm |

        Well you should order the one on Rusty Waters Apparel’s website and support the Ursuline grad. Probably won’t find any other shirt like it on the ‘net.

  • pflava | May 2, 2012 at 12:03 pm |

    More than any other silly rebranding I can recall, the new Rutgers look falls squarely in the category of “costume” – the chrome helmet elements, burnish pattern, silly number font with the supposed chain mail pattern, and whatever that is on the shoulders? They’re playing dress up. I’m kind of surprised they didn’t carry shields during the unveiling.

    • DenverGregg | May 2, 2012 at 12:23 pm |

      It wouldn’t be that difficult to fix these: (1) clean up the mess from the shoulders; (2) dump the black set; (3) use only the middle helmet here; and (4) use white pants with red jerseys and vice versa (or go to white pants exclusively).

    • diz | May 2, 2012 at 6:56 pm |

      hmmm, that seems a good summing up. Cosplay for Cosplay’s sake anyone?

  • Kevin | May 2, 2012 at 12:03 pm |

    I saw something interesting on Oregon’s game-worn auction site. If you look at the second picture in this series, it appears that they just put a raised “O” on an already existing (allbeit green) nose bumper. I always just assumed it was a custom bumper. I also don’t know that I’ve seen a colored bumper by Riddell. Just white or black.

    http://oregonauthent...

    • Kevin | May 2, 2012 at 12:06 pm |

      Looking closer, it may be a real thin green translucent vinyl cover over a black bumper, maybe?

  • Shane | May 2, 2012 at 12:05 pm |

    New BFBS away kit for Celtic FC:

    http://celticsuperst...

    • superfly | May 2, 2012 at 12:37 pm |

      Interesting that they are selling them both with and without sponsor.

      • Shane | May 2, 2012 at 3:57 pm |

        They’ve done that since Tennant’s came on as a sponsor. I know they sell all their youth shirts without sponsors, since it’s a beer and all.

    • JTH | May 2, 2012 at 2:11 pm |

      DAMMIT!

      Oh, wait.

      Shirts…

      Shorts…

      Socks…

      That actually is a kit!

    • diz | May 2, 2012 at 6:57 pm |

      BFBS? Black’s been used on and off as part of the away strips for decades. First one was a nice black and green striped effort in the early 70s

  • Kyle Allebach | May 2, 2012 at 12:07 pm |

    My initinal thoughts on this shirt in the ticker is that it could be a Black Flag t-shirt or some other variant of that logo, since it’s been reused so many times.

    • Shane | May 2, 2012 at 12:17 pm |

      Guilty. I have a Frank Turner t-shirt done up to look like a Black Flag shirt.

  • Oakville Endive | May 2, 2012 at 12:27 pm |

    “Most of these look pretty nice, but, well, you know.” – that it’s a far more exciting brand of football – that doesn’t take 3 hours and 15 minutes to play, that looks retro without even trying.

    As a completely separate point, the one thing the NFL has going for it is the 16 game schedule – essentially over two (now three) days a week. If they ever had to play a 82 games schedule – like the NHL or NBA, I think people would realize what a brutal product the sport from a pure entertainment stand point the sport has become

  • Will S | May 2, 2012 at 12:31 pm |

    Not sure if this is why Inge did it, but I played on a team with white cleats one summer in high school, and many guys who normally went with high socks went with their pants down because they thought our blue socks looked goofy with the white cleats. I still wore my up on principle, but I did feel a little bit off with the socks being darker than the spikes.

  • DenverGregg | May 2, 2012 at 12:34 pm |

    Highlaire faux “pro combat” concept for another red-clad gridiron squad: here.

  • T.J. | May 2, 2012 at 12:50 pm |

    I can get behind the new Rutgers gear. Sometimes sports teams should take things literally. The warfare angle actually works here: they are the Scarlet Knights after all, and it’s not as ignorant/ stupid/ heavy-handed as some of the other illusions Nike has made.

    Sports are supposed to be fun, and we’re so far removed from medieval times that the mythology can be played into without being disrespectful to human beings currently in the military.

    Paul, do you have any thoughts on the Sarah Phillips debacle that’s unraveling? It’s still developing, obviously, and I don’t want to get you in trouble with the Worldwide Leader, but I’m curious. It’d be interesting to get some perspective from another Page 2/ Playbook contributor.

  • unionjack | May 2, 2012 at 1:06 pm |

    As a Rutgers alumni and booster, I’ll put this as diplomatically as I can:

    Black is NOT a Rutgers color; the black uniform is SHIT and must go. Likewise the black striping on the helmet and any other black features. IT IS SHIT.

    The gloves are also shit, and must go. These young men play for Rutgers, not Ni-fucking-ke.

    What the hell is that shit on their collars and shoulders? Lose it.

    The Scarlet Knights wear Scarlet and White; a little silver as an accent is acceptable. NO BLACK.

    If this doesn’t change, my days of financially supporting Rutgers athletics is over.
    (I’ll be sending my thoughts on to the athletic department, as well)

    • Ricardo Leonor | May 2, 2012 at 1:29 pm |

      Fellow Alumni…while I do not hate the new unis as much as you do….I agree 100% and completely dropping the black!!

      • JTH | May 2, 2012 at 2:14 pm |

        Why do you two alumnuses feel that silver is an acceptable trim color but black is not? Is silver a Rutgers color? I thought Rutgers’ colors are scarlet and… scarlet.

        • Ricardo Leonor | May 2, 2012 at 5:51 pm |

          I would be ok with black ( or grey or silver or gold ) as an accent color….but not as a jersey color. In particular when your team is called the SCARLET KNIGHTS!!

        • diz | May 2, 2012 at 7:01 pm |

          So teams with colours in their names take precedence when it comes to choice of jerseys? What do you do if, say, Rutgers play Alabama? Scarlet v Crimson?

        • JTH | May 2, 2012 at 8:08 pm |

          OK, I see. Black as a trim color is OK, just not as a dominant color. That makes sense. I thought you were proposing a ban on all black but giving silver a pass.

    • HPNJRUfan | May 2, 2012 at 2:16 pm |

      Haha what a joke. This will cause you to stop supporting Rutgers? Some “loyal son” you are.

      This isn’t the exact link I was looking for (go checkout the forum at rutgers.rivals.com, its there somewhere), but, from the “Rutgers Visual Identity Manual”:
      “The primary colors for the Rutgers visual identity system are Pantone 186, Pantone Cool Gray 9, and black.”
      http://identity.rutg...

  • Tim E. O'B | May 2, 2012 at 1:19 pm |

    Any truth to the rumor that the New Orleans Saints’ players and staff will be wearing this patch this season? http://img.photobuck...

  • Ricardo Leonor | May 2, 2012 at 1:27 pm |

    Speaking of Rutgers…classy move by Schiano and the Bucs in “signing” Eric LeGrand. He can’t get paid any $, but at least he can say he was signed by an NFL Team…

  • Chris | May 2, 2012 at 2:20 pm |

    That video is the funniest thing I’ve seen in a while. He sounds like Ron Burgundy doing his best Darth Vader impression. “And, so it was that on the first day I created a new logo…and, I saw that it was good.”

    • Dumb Guy | May 2, 2012 at 3:36 pm |

      I hear a little Iron Chef Chairman voiceover (the Japanes IC) in some of his lines too.

  • Joseph Gerard | May 2, 2012 at 2:28 pm |

    RIP Junior Seau

    http://www.ctnow.com...

    • BKLYN Solly | May 2, 2012 at 2:52 pm |

      Look for black “55” patches on San Diego and USC maybe New England.

      • ChrisH | May 2, 2012 at 2:57 pm |

        Black electrical tape through the Chargers’ helmet bolts?

        • Mike Engle | May 2, 2012 at 5:06 pm |

          I’d vote for black 55’s as helmet numbers, as if everybody were wearing a throwback helmet. But maybe just on one side.

        • Bill | May 2, 2012 at 5:16 pm |

          Or – make the lightning bolts black for the season.

    • Dumb Guy | May 2, 2012 at 3:39 pm |

      Jeez-o-flip. That’s crazy.

    • Oakville Endive | May 2, 2012 at 5:41 pm |

      Obviously premature to say this, but if suicide, it won’t be long before Seau’s apparent suicide gets linked to concussions.

      • JTH | May 2, 2012 at 5:57 pm |

        See Duerson, Dave.

  • ChrisH | May 2, 2012 at 3:15 pm |

    “Dem Bums” made a return trip to NY for May Day:

    http://www.latimes.c...

  • Greg B | May 2, 2012 at 6:59 pm |

    BREAKING: Paul Lukas doesn’t like Nike.

  • Trevor | May 2, 2012 at 7:01 pm |

    Those Pacers jerseys are genius. Just keep the arm out of the logo. It looks like it’s trying to catch the ball – that is supposed to invoke the speed from a pacer car – from behind.

  • Graham Jaunts | May 2, 2012 at 7:05 pm |

    The Red Sox throwbacks tonight are barely noticeable. I’m unclear as to why they’re throwing back to that particular year (1936? 39?), and why against the A’s?

    • Graham Jaunts | May 2, 2012 at 7:07 pm |

      Barely noticeable other than the awesome socks, that is.

      • Ryan Brister | May 2, 2012 at 7:14 pm |

        It seems like the whole team is wearing their pants up high, which is awesome.

        • Matt | May 2, 2012 at 7:20 pm |

          They did that for the 100 year anniversary game against the Yankees as well. Can’t tell if this was a collective player decision, a Bobby V. decision, or a management decision. But it’s AWESOME.

          Gotta love Papi going high-cuffed!

        • random_reader | May 2, 2012 at 9:57 pm |

          Everyone may be wearing the pants high because the pants were made with a much-shorter length. Various game-used Cubs pants worn during that turn-back-the-clock game at Fenway last year were shown to look like capris when the pant legs aren’t bloused/pulled up.

    • Matt | May 2, 2012 at 7:18 pm |

      Throwing back to the mid or late 1930s for Jimmie Foxx night. They are playing the Athletics (who are also throwing back) which was the team that sold him to the Sox.

      As for the unis, it doesn’t always have to be about the obvious details… the Sox font on the front looks bigger and/or slightly different design, and there is much more piping than the Sox current unis. I will say they should have gone with a classic cream color. Also don’t forget the beautiful hats and socks!

      • Graham Jaunts | May 2, 2012 at 7:23 pm |

        Oh they totally look awesome. Love the socks (never was a fan of the new ownership’s all red socks), and the front font definitely is a little different. I was just surprised to see that they were throwing back to a uniform so similar to their current ones.

        Also, I didn’t even think of the Foxx connection. Good call.

        Impressed to see that the A’s got helmets to match the throwbacks.

      • Greg B. | May 2, 2012 at 8:12 pm |

        This is the other Greg B. posting, not the guy who posted above.

        I am impressed with both sets. The Sox hat has the letter B without the white outline, and the Red Sox font is different, maybe better. I am actually more taken with the A’s road grays, which are really sweet-looking. Just a beautifully clean design, very classy. That would be a great look for them to adopt on the road full-time.

    • Wheels | May 2, 2012 at 8:06 pm |
      • Phil Hecken | May 2, 2012 at 9:02 pm |

        the a’s still wearing their white shoes, especially ones with green colorways really adds to the authenticity too

        • Tim E. O'B | May 2, 2012 at 9:11 pm |

          The more solid white shoes look awesome with those socks. Authenticity aside, that is a really cool look.

        • Wheels | May 2, 2012 at 9:21 pm |
        • Phil Hecken | May 2, 2012 at 9:51 pm |

          “that is a really cool look”

          ~~~

          if you’re 17…or 23

        • random_reader | May 2, 2012 at 10:05 pm |

          Josh Reddick appears to be wearing stirrups; I assumed the A’s were wearing socks since the bottoms are white.

          http://cache.daylife...

        • Jim Vilk | May 2, 2012 at 11:09 pm |

          Points off for historic inaccuracy, but I’d still wear that.

        • Mark in Shiga | May 4, 2012 at 10:47 am |

          http://cache.daylife...

          Wheels, you said it. No one should ever be wearing a number like 64 in the regular season.

          (What?)

      • Phil Hecken | May 2, 2012 at 10:29 pm |

        looks like the sawks are wearing blue sanis

        nice!

        • boo | May 2, 2012 at 10:47 pm |

          nope, unfortunately that is just the tongue of his shoe. it would be cool if guys that go high cuffed wear these socks though.

      • Matt | May 3, 2012 at 8:09 am |

        Shouldn’t the Red Sox be wearing navy sleeves instead of red?

  • Bromotrifluoromethane | May 2, 2012 at 7:24 pm |

    I don’t mind the look for Rutgers. The old was rather blah. I like the helmets but having 1 would work. Don’t really need 2 different versions of the R and multiple color facemasks, keep with a red facemask and it’s fine. The helmet stripes could be scrapped as well and improve the look.
    I like the new number font but it needs TV numbers. Also not a fan of the gray (silver?) numbers on the white jersey. Doesn’t look like it’ll be very easy to see from a distance sort of like UCF’s gold numbers. And we got to see a white, a red, and a black look but with the way they talked up the historic knight imagery I’m shocked there isn’t an all gray (silver?) look yet to represent a full suit of armor ready for battle… Oh for the love of all that is holy and Sweet Baby Ray I hope I didn’t just give them an idea!!!

  • Bromotrifluoromethane | May 2, 2012 at 7:28 pm |

    Oh and BTW, Paul. When these daily posts hit facebook the descriptions have recently started to post as just gibberish… Here is how it looked today:

    (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1″; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’)); !functi

  • Oakville Endive | May 2, 2012 at 9:22 pm |

    In regard to the Indiana Pacers video, nice job, but obviously the dude has (keeping with the 1970’s – 1980’s theme)

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

    8 members of the 1994 AFC Championship San Diego Chargers team are dead (per Sportsnet) – hmmm.

    • Jim Vilk | May 2, 2012 at 11:08 pm |

      8 members of the 1994 AFC Championship San Diego Chargers team are dead (per Sportsnet) – hmmm.

      Besides three heart-related deaths, there’s a surprising variety of reasons: gunshot, drugs, lightning, plane crash, car crash.
      http://www.washingto...
      Wow.

  • Patrick_in_MI | May 2, 2012 at 9:47 pm |

    So this is racist http://www.sheboygan...
    yet Paul still owns a Lane Tech jacket with the giant Indian head? Makes sense.

    • Phil Hecken | May 2, 2012 at 10:04 pm |

      i won’t speak for paul, but there is a difference between a team (still) having a racist name [present day washington football team], and a historical artifact, whether considered racist at the time or not

      i would not think anyone would, for example, dress a modern team in these sweaters, but it’s foolish to deny their existence (especially since, in 1910, the nazi’s hadn’t appropriated the symbol, or even existed as a political party)

      i don’t think anyone today would call for segregated baseball, (with the ever-so-fucked-up name of “black crackers” lol), but that doesn’t mean we wouldn’t or shouldn’t acknowledge its existence today…in fact, past as prologue is often the best history lesson we can get

      do you know whether or not paul still even owns this sweater anymore?

      • JTH | May 3, 2012 at 12:35 am |

        Was wondering the same thing (whether Paul hung onto the sweater).

        At any rate, they’re not the Lane Tech Redskins. It was the team name that was called out as racist.

    • Bromotrifluoromethane | May 2, 2012 at 10:44 pm |

      I still want a Fightin’ Whities shirt.

  • random_reader | May 2, 2012 at 9:54 pm |

    An additional note semi related to the Brian Matusz pic:

    Under Armour also has logo-branded undershirts. Not all of their baseball players wear them—I think the only player I have seen wearing them may be Rick Ankiel.

    The logo is larger than the swoosh and in order for it to be visible, Ankiel cleverly leaves the top two buttons undone on his jersey:

    http://cache.daylife...

  • Jim Vilk | May 2, 2012 at 11:18 pm |

    Orange Hats Held Hostage: Game 24
    http://www.daylife.c...
    Jeff Loria and Ozzie Guillen are the Henry Fords of MLB: “You can wear any color hat you want, as long as it’s black.”

    • Phil Hecken | May 2, 2012 at 11:21 pm |

      dude, no one cares

      • traxel | May 2, 2012 at 11:27 pm |

        Free the orange hat!

    • Wheels | May 2, 2012 at 11:40 pm |

      Does anyone actually like the Marlins’ redesign at this point? They’re awful.

      • no one | May 2, 2012 at 11:48 pm |

        I don’t mind the design so much, just the execution. They’re one of three black/orange teams now…whereas they could have been an orange/black team and had a look all their own.

        Free the orange hat!

        • Wheels | May 3, 2012 at 12:07 am |

          I’m curious to see the orange hat in a real game. I don’t know if you remember, but they wore them in an exhibition game a few days before the regular season started:
          http://cdn0.sbnation...
          http://www3.pictures...

        • Phil Hecken | May 3, 2012 at 12:11 am |

          as i told movi in a privatish email, i would love to see them too…im just not holding my breath

          not as long as loria owns the team and ozzie is the manager

          it’s like “black is macho…orange is for baltimorons or san fran fags” or some other garbage

          and i think the ONLY way we might see them (and which is the only way the black top is palatable) is with the black tops, like in the yankee preseason game

          i actually don’t mind that look, as long as it’s paired with orange sleeves and rups

        • no one | May 3, 2012 at 12:23 am |

          And I would reluctantly settle for that.

          Same thing when they went from a teal alt to a black alt…if they kept the teal hats I would have been *OK* with it.

        • Rob H. | May 3, 2012 at 3:18 pm |

          Maybe they’re just saving them for a special occasion. Like a whole month going by without their manager offending the whole Cuban population of their region — or them not being in last place in the NL East.

          It’s okay Phil, I just wouldn’t go around holding your breath for too long, you never know, it might happen. But how come the only way to wear orange is with black — I like the creamsicle orange of the old Bucs, and that was macho. Heck, you had to be macho to have Zorro the Gay Blade on the side of your helmet. (And that’s not a homophobic remark, it’s the name of a movie)

      • rhdii | May 3, 2012 at 5:32 pm |

        I dig the redesigned unis and the new stadium. I wouldn’t if they were my team (Texas), but I give the Marlins great credit for looking like a south Florida team only in the league a relatively short period of time.

        I love the orange. How many teams do we need wearing navy blue or black? I’m not a big fan of the softball tops but I dig the orange cap with the black jersey. Now, if they’d actually wear those orange socks, holy hell. When I was a kid one of the teams I created were the Miami Orange Sox.

  • no one | May 2, 2012 at 11:23 pm |

    Looks as if I have a new name, then.

    • Phil Hecken | May 2, 2012 at 11:27 pm |

      no one but you, movi

  • StLMarty | May 3, 2012 at 1:51 am |
  • Capital Z | May 3, 2012 at 2:13 pm |

    The Marlins could have had a little more realistic looking marlin. Now they have Marslug.