Now Just Change the Racist Team Name and We're Good to Go

AskTH8HCMAAlSXA.jpg

What you see above is the helmet for the Redskins’ new alternate uniform, which was unveiled last night. I don’t know who’s responsible for it — the team? Nike? Riddell? — but it’s brilliant. It’s what the Packers should have used for their bulls-eye throwbacks the past few years. It’s what the Steelers should have used for their 2012 throwbacks. It’s what any team wearing a throwback or retro concept from the leatherhead era should use. Kudos to all involved.

As for the rest of the uniform, it’s fine, if unremarkable. TV spotters won’t like the lack of TV numbers, and those of us who are opposed to Indian imagery on uniforms won’t like the sleeve patches, and I wish the socks had some stripes. Could be worse, though, especially since I’d heard through the grapevine that the design would be BFBS. Glad that report turned out to be incorrect.

+ + + + +

Blue/Gray Game (or: The Lone Gray Ranger [or: Diez de Mayo]): There was a funny moment during last night’s Rangers/O’s game, as Rangers reliever Robbie Ross warmed up during the bottom of the 8th while wearing a gray jersey — which would have been fine, except that the rest of the team was wearing blue. He soon switched to the proper color. Here’s the whole sequence, as captured on video during the game:

Contrary the broadcasters’ speculation, this had nothing to do with rookie hazing. It was just a mix-up on Ross’s part. The full explanation can be found here.

I know of at least one other time when something similar took place. It was in 2005, when Octavio Dotel — then pitching with the A’s — tore off his jacket and began warming up in a green jersey, while the rest of the team was wearing gray. But here’s the freaky-deeky part: The Dotel incident took place on May 10, 2005, which was seven years to the day prior to last night’s snafu with Ross. Mark your calendars now, folks: Some weird shit’s gonna go down on 5/10/19.

+ + + + +

Uni Watch News Ticker: Yesterday I did a fun little ESPN piece about a Uni Watch reader who had an NFL-themed wedding. … The Heat have been told by the city of Miami to remove a bunch of ads on trees in front of their arena. Why? Because putting corporate advertising on trees is completely repugnant is illegal. Douchebags (from Joshua Paster). … Fun article on the design and standardization of roadway markings (big thanks to Craig Dudley). … Some guy got a pair of Chucks tattooed onto his feet (from Gordon Blau). … Paste magazine has compiled a list of the 50 best band logos (from Jack Purdy). … A Massachusetts high school has changed the name of its teams from the Redmen to the Red Hawks. Are you listening, Washington Redskins and Cleveland Indians? (From Ben Marciniak.) … Coming soon to Green Bay: a Packers Heritage Trail, complete with historical markers (from Jeff Ash). … Remember how ran some photos showing how NFL practice jerseys still had the old NFL Equipment logo patch? The Jets’ practice jerseys appear to have no NFL-related patch at all (from Brian Erni). … The Maple Leafs’ centennial is still five years away, but it looks like they’ve already registered a logo for it (from Michael A. Gargano). … Super DIY project by Jim Mellett, who made himself a pair of Steelers-themed cornhole boards. Note that he even included the little red cross above Polamalu’s NOB — a brilliant touch. Now he just needs to do a board based on this year’s throwback uni. … Chelsea, the soccer team, is now sponsoring the Sauber F1 team (from Carlos Ahmed Jalife Ruz). … Two Utah high school softball teams wore red and white uniforms, respectively, to represent red and white blood cells, for a game to raise awareness of blood cancer. They even had BCNOB — that’s blood cell names on back. Full details in this video report (from Darin Nelson). … The Pirates logo on the mound at PNC Park is now in color, which seems like a bit much (from John Muir). … Oooh, look at this great set of old NFL patches (from Pat Crosley). … Here’s a cool photo of Bears equipment manager Tony Medlin fitting rookie draftee Alshon Jeffery for his helmet (from Tim E. O’Brien). … New kit for Liverpool. “It looks very retro,” says Jon Forbes. “Even the crest is similar to the one used by the club in the 1970s and 1980s.” … Jim Mullin, who had previously ranked the 16 worst CFL uniforms of all time, has now ranked the 16 best.

 

247 comments to Now Just Change the Racist Team Name and We’re Good to Go

  • The Jeff | May 11, 2012 at 7:30 am |

    That helmet would have been great on the Packers last year. On the Redskins, it appears to be quite stupid, as according to the GUD, the Redskins used a burgundy helmet in 1937 (the year they claim this is based on), not a brown one.

    I’m rather disappointed they went back to the same general look as the ’94 throwback rather than something we hadn’t seen before.

    • Dumb Guy | May 11, 2012 at 8:09 am |

      Whose foot is in that ‘Skins helmet photo?

      • Jack Lambert | May 11, 2012 at 2:44 pm |

        Probably a quarterback…

    • Kyle Allebach | May 11, 2012 at 8:20 am |

      Nike is 0-for-2 for historical accuracy of NFL Throwback uniforms. Figures.

      • Paul Lukas | May 11, 2012 at 9:10 am |

        Misplaced argument. First of all, nobody claimed that this was a throwback. The advance word from ’Skins HQ was that it would “blend historical elements from the team’s past with a new-age look for the future.”

        Secondly, why are you assuming that the design is solely Nike’s doing? Since it’s tied to the team’s 80th anniversary, don’t you think the team had a big hand in the design?

        Save your Nike hatred for the (many) cases in which it’s warranted. This isn’t one of them.

        • MG12 | May 11, 2012 at 9:50 am |

          Not sure of the historical accuracy, but I dig the leather treatment. I would agree that it would’ve made a nice pairing with the Packers throw-backs.

          I was curious if we know who produced this treatment? Is this a Nike process, or was it the same group that produced the Oregon carbon helmets? I was trying to find that group’s website. Can anyone refresh my memory on the name of that group?

        • Andy | May 11, 2012 at 10:04 am |

          First, The Jeff, the GUD shows the Redskins wearing an old gold helmet (and pants) in 1937, not a burgundy one, a belief also shared by the man who did the research for the Heritage Sports Art uniform plaques. Second, it’s tough to be sure from looking at a black and white photo that a leather helmet is brown, burgundy or old gold, no? We’ve been through that on here before, even had a feature on it. There are educated guesses and newspaper reporter descriptions of the colors, of course, but even that does not take onto account that some people are not all that attentive to detail (especially reporters in the late 1930s, covering a sport that was by no means mainstream at the time) and that players may have had different color helmets than others on the same team. Not out of the realm of possibility for the time period. Also, we know better than to take what a uniform database says as gospel, as even the gentlemen who put together the GUD have acknowledged that some details (like these) are certainly debatable given the lack of quality research material.

          The other thing I noticed was that the sleeve logo appears to be similar to the 1938 logo, but placed in a circle like the 1937 version, which would make it a sort of hybrid according to the GUD research, but the Heritage Sports Art plaque shows it pretty similar to what’s actually on the uniform, and I know that guy did ungodly amounts of research as well before commissioning those paintings.

          If we’re really going to pick the nits, the GUD shows a thicker white trim on the numbers in 1938, which would be consistent with what was unveiled yesterday, so I’d say on the whole, the thing is actually more similar to the 1938 uniform than the 1937. They didn’t get the numbers totally correct, but I don’t know that they intended to, either, given that they prefaced it by saying it would be a historical blend with a new age look.

          Lastly, I hope the facemask is the same color as the helmet, because it looked really dark in the photos. If it looks black, I would have preferred grey. Overall, it’s a really good look, though I would have done brown or black shoes and belts.

          I really like how a neutral colored helmet and pant make the team colors on the jersey and socks stand out. Looks very professional.

        • Kyle Allebach | May 11, 2012 at 10:10 am |

          Alright. Although the offical Nike slideshow claims its from 1937, which it’s pretty accurate, except for the helmet. Which, aside from the Steelers using the wrong year (only off by one), seems to be something that Nike has overlooked.

          Unless, as you said, the team had their hand in this. Either way, it’s annoying that Nike is claiming something and is getting it wrong.

        • The Jeff | May 11, 2012 at 10:15 am |

          http://www.washingto...

          I may have to take back my complaint about the helmet. In the pic there, the helmets actually look gold rather than brown.

          /I still don’t know wtf I was looking at when I initially said burgundy helmet.

        • Kyle Allebach | May 11, 2012 at 10:18 am |

          Really? It still looks brown, even with the light reflecting off of it. If they made it look gold with a leather texture, that would have been even cooler.

        • Andy | May 11, 2012 at 10:26 am |

          To me, it’s just kind of tan in the light, darker when in the shadow, which I think is a plausible guess when looking at a black and white photo of a helmet. Could be old gold, could be tan/brown. Same with the pants. I’m not going to lose sleep over it.

        • Chance Michaels | May 11, 2012 at 11:25 am |

          I was curious if we know who produced this treatment? Is this a Nike process, or was it the same group that produced the Oregon carbon helmets? I was trying to find that group’s website. Can anyone refresh my memory on the name of that group?

          That would be Hydro Graphics, Inc. I don’t think they’ve said who did these, but it must be HGI. They’re Nike’s go-to supplier for custom finishes.

        • Chance Michaels | May 11, 2012 at 11:33 am |

          Alright. Although the offical Nike slideshow claims its from 1937, which it’s pretty accurate, except for the helmet. Which, aside from the Steelers using the wrong year (only off by one), seems to be something that Nike has overlooked.

          Unless, as you said, the team had their hand in this. Either way, it’s annoying that Nike is claiming something and is getting it wrong.

          I’m not willing to say that Nike did get it wrong.

          GUD shows 1937 helmets as painted gold to match the pants, but what’s their source for that claim? I’m skeptical. Who’s to say that Washington’s helmets weren’t just brown leather, maybe a lighter brown leather that could look gold in a BW photo?

        • Andy | May 11, 2012 at 4:19 pm |

          Exactly. There’s also been almost no discussion of how the pants are definitely default tan rather than the old gold that GUD and HSA claim, yet there’s been lots of discussion of the helmet discrepancy. I don’t think a black and white photo can confirm/deny either one.

        • Andy | May 11, 2012 at 4:20 pm |

          It should be noted that the last time Washington went with this look, in 1994, they did use the old gold pants with a de-stickered normal helmet.

        • LarryB | May 11, 2012 at 4:37 pm |

          I think gold and silver is somewhat easy to determine in a b&w picture. Same with gray and white. Black is easy too.

          Other colors especially the red and blue are hard. As we have seen in the past on here.

      • Andy P. | May 11, 2012 at 12:33 pm |

        I agree with Paul, Nike should not be blamed for these (if in fact anyone dislikes them). Nike is now a supplier to the NFL, not the ones in the driver’s seat. Teams will dictate their looks (ie. certain teams not wanting Flywire or new pants) to Nike. I believe the only time we’ll see Nike steer the direction of a uniform is if the team allows them to in a redesign (Seahawks). Otherwise, they can’t mess with the look.

    • The Jeff | May 11, 2012 at 9:33 am |

      …make that “gold” helmet, not burgundy. I must’ve been looking at ’36 or something. Burgundy helmets from ’33-’48, with ’37 being the one odd year they didn’t use them.

      In any case, it shouldn’t be dark brown leather.

    • ChrisH | May 11, 2012 at 9:36 am |

      In 2007 The Philadelphia Eagles threw back to “something we hadn’t seen before” for their 75th season:

      http://dienu.files.w...

      I hope to never see that on the field again!

    • walter | May 11, 2012 at 11:50 am |

      Loath as I am to put words in Our Fearless Leader’s mouth, may I assume his misgivings about the Indian patches arise from the fact this is a “Nostalgia-inspired” uniform, rather than a straight-up throwback? Because, unless I missed something, the latter would *require* the sleeve patches.

  • AE | May 11, 2012 at 7:33 am |

    The Skins 80th’s look pretty sharp. Hopefully they realize these colors are closer to true Burgundy and Gold, and adjust their full-time uni colors to this.

    • Kevin Hastings | May 11, 2012 at 10:25 am |

      Agreed!

  • The Jeff | May 11, 2012 at 7:41 am |

    Super DIY project by Jim Mellett, who made himself a pair of Steelers-themed cornhole boards. Now he just needs to make one based on this season’s throwback uni. Note that he even included the little red cross above Polamalu’s NOB — a brilliant touch. Now he just needs to do a board based on this year’s throwback uni.

    You must *really* want him to make one based on the throwback uniform…

    • Paul Lukas | May 11, 2012 at 7:53 am |

      Thanks. Now fixed.

      • Arr Scott | May 11, 2012 at 8:27 am |

        I liked the double emphasis in the original!

        Maybe the best cornhole deco I’ve ever seen. Genius how the hole becomes the head, and the execution is perfect. Looks better than professional: Looks like the custom prototype you show the client to get design approval.

        • Ry Co 40 | May 11, 2012 at 8:48 am |

          a bonus that it is the steelers… but THAT is the best cornhole design i’ve seen!

          the design, the simplicity, the follow-through. it all worked so perfect.

          very well done!

        • Bernard | May 11, 2012 at 9:27 am |

          I second Ry Co’s emotion.

        • Jim Mellett | May 11, 2012 at 1:43 pm |

          Thanks for all the kind words. Ryan stop over someday for a beer and a round of cornhole. I’m in the South Hills, you’re welcome anytime. We met briefly at the Pgh. Uni-Watch event a few years ago.

          Paul, the alternate jersey could be fun but I hate the tan pants. Maybe I adjust the design to ignore the awful uni pants. Also I don’t have a road version for contrast but a different uni number might be enough. I’ll think about it.

  • Jason German | May 11, 2012 at 7:41 am |

    http://www.lakemichi...

    Here’s an article that should make you happy Paul. Even though the article makes it sound that the nickname was originally going to be changed for the wrong reason, at least it got changed, right?

    • Arr Scott | May 11, 2012 at 8:35 am |

      Article gives me an idea for the Skins: Change to the Red Tails. Allows a double meaning: red-tail hawks, which we have in great numbers in the DC area (well, so does everyone else in America, really, but the low skyline here makes them more visibly present in the urban core than most places), as well as the Tuskeegee Airmen of WWII, who have no real local connection except that the military is a big presence in DC.

      • Connie | May 11, 2012 at 9:45 am |

        Good idea.

      • Kevin Hastings | May 11, 2012 at 10:27 am |

        I love that.

        The longtime rumor is that Dan Snyder owns rights to the name Washington Warriors just in case he needs/wants to use it. I like yours better – the more narrow-minded in the Washington fanbase probably would not though.

        • Arr Scott | May 11, 2012 at 12:18 pm |

          See, this is why I like a solution that keeps either the word Red or the word Skin in there. If it becomes the Washington Pigskins or the Washington Red Tails, then stuck-in-the-mud fans for whom it’s really important to their sense of self worth to keep insulting people can go on calling them the Redskins or the Skins or whatever, and it won’t be totally divorced from the team name. “Let ‘em down easy,” as President Lincoln urged his generals. A switch to a phonetically unrelated name like Warriors makes it a much harder pill for the hardcore in-your-face-you-damned-injuns crowd to swallow.

        • The Jeff | May 11, 2012 at 12:27 pm |

          Can we put Jeff Foxworthy on the helmet and call them the Rednecks?

  • JamesP. | May 11, 2012 at 7:56 am |

    Happy Stirrup Friday! http://i313.photobuc...

    • Paul Lukas | May 11, 2012 at 8:08 am |

      Not shown in use??

      • JamesP. | May 11, 2012 at 9:04 am |

        There is a story behind these and why I am not wearing them. The auction listing never indicated the size, so when I finally had them in hand it was apparent these were for Little Leaguers. So, today’s stirrups are for my kids…and since I was never able to score the Mother’s Day Stirrups from Comrad Moose, these youth stirrups are in honor of my wife.

        • JamesP. | May 11, 2012 at 9:40 am |

          And to show smart phones don’t make the user smarter, the above comment was poorly constructed.

          Since Sunday is Mother’s Day, and I never was able to get a pair of the Pink stirrups from Moose, today’s stirrups are in honor of my wife as she blessed me with my beautiful children who will be wearing these Little League stirrups when they get a little older.

      • Teebz | May 11, 2012 at 10:54 am |

        Just to add some power to the Stirrup Revolution, good things have happened on my front.

        1. My team is 2-0, and both games featured us as the home team and me in my Wilmington Blue Rocks stirrups.

        2. I have yet to be put out this season, going 7-fer-7 with no sacrifices or walks in the two games in a 14-12 win and a 6-4 win. Game One saw the “stirrupped one” hit for the cycle, while I was a homer short of the cycle in Game Two.

        3. One woman on the co-ed team has taken to long socks after going 1-fer-4 in Game One. Immediate improvement seen as she went 2-fer-3 in Game Two. I expect her to be stirrupped by midseason.

        4. Two other players have been seen wearing sanis and stirrups this season on other teams. I have yet to find out how their seasons are progressing, but I expect they are finding the same success.

        Standing tall on the Canadian battlefront in the Revolution, that is my report before I escape for a two-week hiatus to parts Chicagoian.

        Teebz

        • JamesP. | May 11, 2012 at 11:07 am |

          The power of the stirrup! Stirrups are smiled upon by the Baseball Gods. Look at a player who is in a slump; he will go high cuffed and stirruped to apease the gods and ask for their help in getting back on track.

          Viva la Stirrup Revolution!

  • Juan Grande | May 11, 2012 at 8:02 am |

    I really wish the Redskins went back to the 2002 throwbacks, their 70th anniversary uniforms with the deep maroon jerseys and the “Florida State” spear helmet.

    • Dumb Guy | May 11, 2012 at 8:27 am |

      The ‘Skins spear debuted nearly a decade *before* the FSU spear.

      • Mike Engle | May 11, 2012 at 10:28 am |

        Yes, and the Yankees were the first to use the McAuliffe number font, which is otherwise known as “Red Sox font.” Sometimes, it’s not about who did something first, but who did something more famously.

        • DJ | May 11, 2012 at 4:09 pm |

          It’s not that the Red Sox did it “more famously,” it’s that they stuck with the font after everyone else abandoned it for something else.

  • Chris Holmes | May 11, 2012 at 8:10 am |

    What’s with the raised butt patch-looking thing on the Redskins uni? Is that where they keep their wallet?

    • Tony C. | May 11, 2012 at 8:17 am |

      ever play organized football? that’s the “butt” pad. it might look odd because many players don’t use it.

    • Jimbo | May 11, 2012 at 8:22 am |

      It’s the tailbone pad. As with the thigh pads, many NFL players do not use them.

      • Chris Holmes | May 11, 2012 at 9:28 am |

        I learned something new today!

      • JamesP. | May 11, 2012 at 9:47 am |

        During my time as an Equipment Manager for my college football team, there were guys who refused to wear the tail pad (also refered to with more colorful names like the ass pad, and the maxi pad). Refs would check and if a guy was not wearing one, we would have to make sure he had one, or it was a penalty. We always kept some very slim tail pads to slip into the pants to appease the refs, but they generally would never stay in.

        Having the pads built into the compression shorts, or the paints was an idea we had back in the day, but I’m sure most EMs had the same thought at one time or another.

    • Dumb Guy | May 11, 2012 at 8:24 am |

      just another pad that no one will wear.

      • Paul Lukas | May 11, 2012 at 8:25 am |

        Except it’s built into the pants, so maybe they’ll wear it after all.

  • Dumb Guy | May 11, 2012 at 8:14 am |

    50 best band logos….

    What? no Cheap Trick???

    also, I notice that only ONE logo has the circle/R trademark thing. I bet you can guess which one.

    • Arr Scott | May 11, 2012 at 8:24 am |

      I’m not looking at the link, because I doubt that there are 50 good band logos, much less “best”, so I’ll go out on a limb and guess Rolling Stones.

      OTOH, if Black Flag, Def Leppard, and Wu Tang are in the top 5, maybe I will check out the rest of the list.

    • Kyle Allebach | May 11, 2012 at 8:25 am |

      Coheed and Cambria has a pretty awesome logo.

      /Deadmau5 isn’t a band, so…

    • Ry Co 40 | May 11, 2012 at 8:52 am |

      ironically, i was at this show last night. shame their logo didint make the “top whatever”

      http://www.google.co...

    • Matt Beahan | May 11, 2012 at 10:02 am |

      Saw this earlier – there’s a lot of logos on there that I’d never seen before, and even more I don’t agree with. Glad Pixes & Public Enemy made it, although I’d rank Black Flag as the best logo, by miles. Would have liked to have seen Husker Du on there, I always thought they have a great logo.

    • Shane | May 11, 2012 at 11:44 am |

      I’m holding out for the Comeback Kid logo that’s based on the old Winnipeg Jets design.

      • Kyle Allebach | May 11, 2012 at 12:00 pm |

        Found it! Should Uni Watch hold a favorite band logos that look like sports team logos contest?

    • umplou | May 11, 2012 at 2:34 pm |

      The Stones #2? Ramones #1???? I call BS – The Stones Tongue has been, and always will be THE iconic band logo…no words needed, you always know EXACTLY what is going on.

      And no Cheap Trick on the list secures their claim of being America’s Most Underrated Band of All Time.

    • RMB | May 11, 2012 at 2:59 pm |

      I’ve always been a bit partial to Rise Against’s heart/fist logo.

      http://img339.images...

  • WFY | May 11, 2012 at 8:31 am |

    MUTCD! Haven’t we already discussed some overlap between people who care about uniforms and traffic control stuff?

    Also, nice of Mr. Keillor to share with us his new ink.

  • Kyle Allebach | May 11, 2012 at 8:32 am |

    You know how a golf balls dimples make it move farther and faster due to less drag? Nike is putting the same idea to Russia’s track suit.

    • The Jeff | May 11, 2012 at 8:37 am |

      Nike should give those things to the lesser countries, not the top competitors.

      • Phil Hecken | May 11, 2012 at 9:06 am |

        jim vilk approves of this comment ^^^

      • Dumb Guy | May 11, 2012 at 10:42 am |

        you mean the countries where the products are made!! B^)

    • Gary | May 11, 2012 at 9:07 am |

      More Nike marketing nonsense. Unfortunately a human does not run fast enough for these materials to have any material effect on drag reduction. Variations in body position, body size and even track shoes will influence drag componets an order of magnitide more than any fabric materials.

      Too bad Nike doesn’t publish the basis for their test measurement claims. Foolish company and perhaps foolish atheletes doesn’t mean we have to buy into their silly marketing.

      • Kyle Allebach | May 11, 2012 at 10:01 am |

        In a way, it is marketing nonsense–making a big deal over 0.023 seconds. Actually, making a big deal over such a miniscule number is ridiculous. The point is that it’ll give that sprinter that much of an edge to, as the dvice article said, “it would have turned Usain Bolt’s gold medal winning 100 meter sprint at the Beijing Olympic final from a personal best, into a new world record.”

        Either way, after this Olympics it’ll get banned. Look at that baseball bat that got dimples on it like the golf ball.

        • Andy | May 11, 2012 at 10:15 am |

          Usain Bolt’s sprint at the Beijing Olympics *was* a world record (9.69), a time he has since eclipsed with a 9.58-second run, so that statement is all jacked up, but I still see the value in peeling hundredths, thousandths of seconds off your time with technology when you’re talking about the best of the best. Much like runners, it doesn’t seem like swimmers move fast enough for simple drag reduction to boost their performance much, but there’s a reason they all shave themselves smooth, no?

    • Tony C. | May 11, 2012 at 10:16 am |

      anyone else automatically think of Spider-man when looking at the 1st picture?

    • timothymcn | May 11, 2012 at 2:23 pm |

      I was also under the impression that the dimples create more drag in a sense, as it increases the effect of backspin to keep the ball in the air longer.

  • Achowat | May 11, 2012 at 8:37 am |

    Actually, Natick in Massachusetts hasn’t been the Redmen for a while (though there’s more than enough pictures of Flutie in those halls with “Redmen” across his chest).

    For at least the last 4-5 years, they’ve been the “Red and Blue”, and frankly “Redhawks” is 10,000 times better

  • Linowidge | May 11, 2012 at 8:43 am |

    This has probably been explained, but I have to ask. Why is it that all of the hate goes at the Indians & Redskins (I know the names are demeaning and all)but not at other Native American inspired teams like the Braves & Blackhawks?

    • Paul Lukas | May 11, 2012 at 9:06 am |

      Personally, I’d like to see Braves and Blackhawks changed as well. My full thoughts on the matter are here:
      http://bit.ly/GPX420

      • Will S | May 11, 2012 at 12:32 pm |

        As a white sock wearer, I find White Sox very offensive. Let’s toss that too.

        Also the Browns, because if I work hard enough, I’m sure I can create a theory that they were named not after a man, but after a race. Those assholes.

        But seriously, if “Indians” is still found in textbooks as a P.C. term, why can’t we put it on a uniform?

      • Kevin B | May 11, 2012 at 1:42 pm |

        Paul,

        I am a rabid Indians fan, but if they returned to being the Spiders or adopted the nickname ‘Municipals’ or some other moniker, I wouldn’t mind. I can sympathize with arguments made by both sides of this debate.

        I have read your full-length commentary (http://bit.ly/GPX420) and I see your response to the question regarding the Fighting Irish in which you labeled it an apples and oranges issue because the Vikings and the Irish were not a “victimized class subjected to genocide…”, etc. I wonder if you are unaware of the manner in which the Irish (particularly Irish Catholics) have been treated in many locations for centuries. You can read about it here (http://is.gd/7rkC4T).

      • concealed78 | May 11, 2012 at 5:50 pm |

        Look at this & tell me you want to ban the Blackhawks sweater:

        http://i.ebayimg.com...,!iIE-r4tzO!sBPrUrLrWQQ~~60_57.JPG

        • concealed78 | May 11, 2012 at 5:53 pm |

          Forget that link. Different link:

          http://img88.imagesh...

          Full of chain-stitched goodness.

    • ReggieDunlop | May 11, 2012 at 9:58 am |

      The vitriol against the Cleveland Indians is especially ironic as the team was actually named in honor of the first professional Native American baseball player, Louis Sockalexis. Changing the team name and uniform of the Indians could actually said to be a “racist” action. There’s a monument to Louis Sockalexis at Progressive Field, and the team name is the ultimate tribute: who would the team be honoring by becoming the Buckeyes, Rockers, or Metropolitans?

      • Paul Lukas | May 11, 2012 at 10:05 am |

        Yes, you keep saying that. Even though it isn’t true. Please stop. Thanks.

      • ChrisH | May 11, 2012 at 10:17 am |

        I’ve read that the Redskins name was also chosen as a homage:

        http://www.bloomberg...

        “The team, founded in 1932 as the Boston Braves, was renamed in 1933 the Boston Redskins in honor of its American Indian head coach, William “Lone Star” Dietz.”

        • Perry | May 11, 2012 at 10:22 am |

          If they were already the Braves, why would the presence of a Native American coach cause a change to Redskins? Makes no sense. Makes more sense that they changed because they moved their home stadium from Braves Field to Fenway Park the year they changed names. The Red Sox probably wouldn’t have appreciated having tenants named the Braves.

        • Cy | May 11, 2012 at 10:38 am |

          It was ostensibly changed to honor Lone Star, but in reality, it was to tie the football team’s name to their new baseball co-tenant (Red Sox + Red Skins).

        • Kyle Allebach | May 11, 2012 at 12:05 pm |

          He paid homage to a head coach that only was there from 1933-1934 and had a W/L/T record of 11-11-2? Oh, also, there’s a website that claims that “Lone Star” Dietz lied about his heritage. Annnnnd throw in that the George Preston Marshall was probably the most racist owner in the NFL, it doesn’t add up as neatly as that little story suggests.

        • ChrisH | May 11, 2012 at 12:56 pm |

          Kyle:
          Records are not the only measure by which individuals are honored. Let’s assume the “claim” that Deitz lied is true. In that case, Marshall is guilty not of racism but of failure to practice due diligence. Now, let’s assume that Marshall was racist (we’ll never know what was in his heart(?), but his record with regard to integration is difficult to refute). Why would he name his team after people he despised? As someone stated earlier, “makes no sense” (but then again, teams have been named for some odd reasons) and as you said “it doesn’t add up”.

        • John | May 11, 2012 at 7:39 pm |

          This PSA that the National Congress of American Indians produced a few years ago pretty much hits the nail on the head as to why Chief Wahoo and the Indian nickname need to be retired.
          http://www.angryasia...

      • Perry | May 11, 2012 at 10:17 am |

        Guess you missed it, but that Sockalexis story has been pretty thoroughly debunked by Joe Posnanski, Pete Pattakos, and others. Nobody knows for sure why they picked Indians, but it probably had to do with the fact that the Miracle Braves had just won the WS and were the cool team of the moment at the time they were forced to change from Naps due to Lajoie leaving the team.

  • traxel | May 11, 2012 at 8:43 am |

    From the Redmen to the Red Hawks? In my area the Southeast Missouri State Indians changed to the Red Hawks and the Arkansas State Indians changed to the Red Wolves. Lead to some seriously confused weekend sports guys. It still gets messed up all the time. And sidenote, Dicky Nutt has coached basketball for both teams.

    • Chris Holder | May 11, 2012 at 9:42 am |

      Dicky Nutt? Really? Props to the guy for having the nu.. guts to actually go by that name.

      Serious question, is he related to Houston Nutt?

      • traxel | May 11, 2012 at 12:53 pm |

        Brother. Current SEMO head coach.

        • Chris Holder | May 11, 2012 at 2:47 pm |

          Interesting, didn’t know that. Thanks.

  • Dre | May 11, 2012 at 8:54 am |

    Let’s just quit with changing the ‘Skins name. No one has issues with the “Vikings”. It’s a freaking football team people. Redskins FTW!

    • Paul Lukas | May 11, 2012 at 9:03 am |
    • timothymcn | May 11, 2012 at 2:27 pm |

      Do you guys ever actually read what Paul writes in the feature or just skip straight to the ticker?
      You have a lot more patience than I do, Mr. Lukas.

  • cinmolt | May 11, 2012 at 8:57 am |

    I could be wrong, but I think I saw the Brewers logo on the mound in color this week and the Reds were visiting. I remember thinking when I first saw those that I was hoping the Reds didn’t do the same thing. It used to seem it was only to tag a player’s number when they were being honored and then it became silly all star designs onto now being a nightly deal. One could only assume it will morph into a corporate tag. Does a pitcher get reprimanded if after giving up a big home run and kicks the dirt, wiping away the sponsor’s tag? Maybe the Marlins can install a fish tank behind the mound

    • quiet seattle | May 11, 2012 at 9:46 am |

      Put the logo in the on deck circle–if you must– and leave it at that.

      I even get irritated by fancy patterns cut in the outfield grass.

      Yeah, and the Spiderman 2 ads on the bases thing went over real well with me, too.

      Please, Pirates, reconsider. Keep the field clean.

    • JimWa | May 11, 2012 at 1:51 pm |

      I’ve seen team logos, I’ve seen team websites. We’re used to seeing them … once it transitions into a Pepsi “P” instead of a Pirates “P” (and explained as the only way the team could possibly ever compete for 4th place in this day and age), people will be more accepting.

      Unless they follow Uni Watch.

      While I don’t care for them (I’m still not quite sure what they’re intended to be facing … the camera? Not really … Left center? Possibly .. but why?), I do think it would be kind of cool if they’d be designed with perspective in mind so the logo looks like you’re seeing it straight on (like you often see in soccer and Canadian-based NBA games).

    • DJ | May 11, 2012 at 4:52 pm |

      You’re not mistaken; the Brewers rendered their logo in color on the pitcher’s mound last year, as well (blue “M”, gold barley sprig).

  • Ry Co 40 | May 11, 2012 at 8:59 am |

    “New kit for Liverpool. “It looks very retro,””

    it’s a fucking polo shirt, people!!! i swear soccer teams are screwing with you at this point

    save your cash… in three weeks they’ll have a new “kit” with a stripe on the collar…

    • MG12 | May 11, 2012 at 9:42 am |

      I’ve been waiting to see what these new Liverpool kits were going to look like. First it was odd to see Liverpool without the familiar Carlsberg sponsorship starting the 10-11 season, but I think it will take even longer to recognise the club without three stipes on their shoulders.

      I for one think this was a smart design by Warrior. They had to know that they would get hammered if they tried to push for some crazy new design language in the kit. They went safe with a “classic” style that will be easier for Liverpool fans to accept.

    • Patrick | May 11, 2012 at 10:09 am |

      I like the new Liverpool kit, but the clubs are only screwing you if you pony up the cash for the new kit year in and year out.

      I’m a Norwich supporter and I bought this year’s shirt because I liked it but next year’s shirt isn’t much different so I’m not spending my money on it. Simple.

      Don’t blame the clubs because supporters can’t stop opening their wallets.

    • Kevin Hastings | May 11, 2012 at 10:36 am |

      There’s a fairly valid reason for this new kit — new kit sponsor. I’m not blaming them for that, their 10 year contract with adidas expired and New England Sports Ventures went with local (to them) New Balance owned Warrior. And I think they did a pretty nice job in keeping their first kit for LFC retro and simple.

    • Forbes | May 12, 2012 at 1:34 am |

      Excuse me I’d prefer if you would not go out and insult my quote. Compared to the kits of the last few years, yes this kit does indeed look retro!
      I know it looks like a polo.
      If you don’t, you don’t know what a polo is, but please don’t go straight out and insult my opinion.

  • JerryB | May 11, 2012 at 9:04 am |

    The NFL themed wedding was awesome. A cool idea.
    The Packers heritage trail is pretty neat too.

  • D velver | May 11, 2012 at 9:12 am |

    Yeah i have really had enough with the redskins/indians talk. Get over it.

    • Paul Lukas | May 11, 2012 at 9:13 am |
    • Kevin Hastings | May 11, 2012 at 10:37 am |

      That’s probably an indication that you can’t handle the truth of the matter. I’m a lifelong Redskins fan and I’ve accepted the fact that the team name needs to change.

      • Greg | May 11, 2012 at 5:33 pm |

        Why? Do you think American Indians are so thin-skinned they can’t handle a team-name which was actually formed in their honor? What a racist.

        • StLMarty | May 11, 2012 at 5:47 pm |

          You must have gone to Hollywood Upstairs Medical School.

    • Matthew Radican | May 11, 2012 at 1:02 pm |

      There are thousands of names these organizations could adopt instead of the offensive ones they currently use. Just think of the good will the Redskins, Indians, Braves etc. could generate from fans by simply changing their names. Think of the additional revenue gained by being able to sell new merch. It would be a win-win for them.

      Also I do not think I have seen a report that any of the organizations that have changed names (St. John’s, Marquette, etc.) has been adversely affected by the name change.

  • Bernard | May 11, 2012 at 9:22 am |

    On the Redskins’ alternate jerseys, I assume the rearward-facing left shoulder patch is an intentional, historically-influenced choice, and not a mistake or instance of laziness.

  • Mitch | May 11, 2012 at 9:31 am |

    Superhero hockey jerseys: http://davesgeekyhoc...

    • T'Challa | May 11, 2012 at 9:45 am |

      awesome link, that guys stuff is pretty good. Where did you hear about this site?

      • Mitch | May 11, 2012 at 10:53 am |

        From Reddit a few months back. I bought an awesome Browncoats jersey from him so I check back periodically.

    • ChrisH | May 11, 2012 at 9:52 am |

      Dispatch “The Flash” to Tampa Bay!

    • Winter | May 11, 2012 at 11:52 am |

      I have one of his Doctor Who jerseys.

      Personally, I think a Captain Marvel jersey with Shazam! on the back would be pretty fun. Thing is, Marvel and DC are probably tighter than anyone on marketing stuff. I know that in the past they’ve tried to collect $ from people doing sketches of their characters at shows, so a jersey? They’re going to want a piece of that.

      • Matt Beahan | May 11, 2012 at 12:10 pm |

        Depends on how many he’s selling – if it’s a strictly limited run, he should be able to fly under the radar.

        I use a lot of Marvel characters in my art, but it’s all one-off stuff. The people I’ve spoken to at Marvel are cool with that kind of stuff (can’t speak for DC). It’s only when you start mass-producing that you run into problems.

  • Tim H | May 11, 2012 at 9:40 am |

    In the Nike photos, the helmet has a grey facemask but, in this photo
    http://www.washingto...
    it appears the helmets have black facemasks

    • Andy | May 11, 2012 at 10:20 am |

      That would be a disaster. Give me brown or give me grey.

    • Simply Moono | May 11, 2012 at 2:55 pm |

      They look more brown than black.

  • Chris Holder | May 11, 2012 at 9:40 am |

    Put me in the camp that really likes that Redskins uniform. Mostly because they aren’t trying to pull any stupid tricks of swoopy stripes here, or unneeded markings there. It’s just a good-looking uniform that manages to remind you of a different era. Kudos, ‘skins.

  • Connie | May 11, 2012 at 9:48 am |

    “… The Maple Leafs’ centennial is still five years away…”

    You mean the Maple Leaves’.

    • Teebz | May 11, 2012 at 11:00 am |

      No, he said it correctly.

      The Maple Leafs were named after a regiment in the Canadian military. Each, individually, is a Maple Leaf, so the Maple Leafs is entirely correct. It’s does not and should not receive an English correction at all.

      • Connie | May 11, 2012 at 12:18 pm |

        Teebz, Teebz, I was joking. Remember that stupid discussion of pluralized team names? Of course it’s Maple Leafs.

        • JTH | May 11, 2012 at 3:32 pm |

          But we all know it should be Maple Leafz.

  • Ryan M. | May 11, 2012 at 9:49 am |

    The Bills posted a pic of the helmets ready for rookie camp, and I can’t help but think those name tags have come a LONG way from the old white tape and sharpie method…

    https://www.facebook...

    • Dumb Guy | May 11, 2012 at 10:54 am |

      Cool!! Sure looks better than the “athletic tape and elMarko” treatment most rookie helmets get.

    • Ry Co 40 | May 11, 2012 at 11:00 am |

      bat knob decals, now this? what does pro sports have against a good sharpie these days?!?!

  • Patrick | May 11, 2012 at 9:55 am |

    I just don’t get the uproar over the Redskins, Indians, Braves, etc.

    I mean you don’t hear Irish-Americans arguing for Notre Dame to change its nickname which invokes a stereotype of the Irish.

    With all the things wrong in this world, I think the nicknames of sports franchises rank pretty low on the list.

    • Paul Lukas | May 11, 2012 at 9:57 am |

      Poor analogy. Covered in depth here:
      http://www.uni-watch...

      • Patrick | May 11, 2012 at 10:03 am |

        I still disagree, Paul. Love the blog, but disagree on this.

        • Paul Lukas | May 11, 2012 at 10:04 am |

          Nothing wrong with that. Not trying to re-argue the case in the comments. That’s why I’m simply linking to the previous entry where it was covered in depth.

        • Ry Co 40 | May 11, 2012 at 10:24 am |

          “Not trying to re-argue the case in the comments”

          thank you for that, by the way

    • Matt Beahan | May 11, 2012 at 10:14 am |

      I’m half-Irish, and I can’t say I’m offended by ND’s nickname (or any of the Irish themed nicknames in general). Now, if they were called the “Fighting Micks” there might be an issue, but I don’t see anything derogatory about “Fighting Irish”.

      • Patrick | May 11, 2012 at 10:16 am |

        Nor do I. I was just using it as an example.

        • Perry | May 11, 2012 at 10:27 am |

          The Fighting Irish analogy would work better if a large percentage of the Cleveland baseball team at the time of the change had been Indians.

        • Tim E. O'B | May 11, 2012 at 1:43 pm |

          And the “Fighting” in Notre Dame’s name doesn’t refer to the Irish’s (that might not be correct but fuck it…) supposed penchant for brawling. It either refers to:

          1) WWI military servicemen who went to ND
          or
          2) The “never-give-up” fighting spirit of the predominantly Irish Catholics who played on the football team.

          Either way, it has no foundation in a stereotype.

          I and HATE ND. I would tear them to pieces if I could (and have done so in the past), but here, they’re actually free of criticism.

  • Bando | May 11, 2012 at 9:58 am |

    Am I the only one who has grown tired of the constant ranting about Native American team names and logos on the blog? We get it, Paul. No need to ram it down our throats day after day after day. I know, it’s your blog, but after a while, a point is a point, and it’s been made in ample measure.

    • Paul Lukas | May 11, 2012 at 10:00 am |

      I suspect your throat is just fine. If you truly think anything in today’s entry qualifies as a “rant,” I suggest you consult a dictionary. And given how this issue has come up on the site, how exactly would you propose that I cover a new Redskins design that includes that sleeve patch? If I ignored it, someone (maybe you) would call me a hypocrite.

      You’re basically accusing me of being consistent. Guilty as charged.

      • Tim E. O'B | May 11, 2012 at 1:49 pm |

        How dare you. How dare you continually believe what you believed yesterday?! This is America, god dammit, you need to change your opinions almost daily to coddle your support base.

        But seriously, Paul bangs the drum for stirrups almost twice a week (as he should) and some might argue that that’s a lost cause (I would hope not) and while his point has been clearly made (Paul + stirrups = happy) no one ever seems to bitch about it.

        Bando, and your ilk, are the ones who are being inconsistent. Just because you don’t agree 100% or because it’s a truth you don’t want to face (perhaps your team is on the membership card blacklist…) you pick this to complain about. Fine, it’s a free country, but you’re the one who’s inconsistent.

        • Bando | May 11, 2012 at 4:21 pm |

          Apples and oranges. And I don’t think I really need to be insulted or snipped at for disagreeing with Paul.

          Again, it’s Paul’s show, he’s entitled to his opinion. And for the record, I don’t have a dog in the fight, none of my favorite teams are on the membership card no-no list, and I graduated from a university named after an animal that really doesn’t even live in our geographical area. And I don’t necessarily disagree with his position, either.

          My opposition to this continually being brought up is because every time Paul does it, he couches it in terms that seem almost tailor-made to get under your skin about the issue. This isn’t socks or a color he doesn’t like, it’s an issue that hits people in far different ways, far more personal ways. And it invariably leads to the comments section turning into more arguing about a topic for which people have extremely strong (and unchanging) opinions in both directions. It’s picking a fight for the sake of picking a fight.

          For instance, could Paul have covered the really awesome Redskins design without throwing the nickname fight into the mix? Absolutely. Instead, he had to find a way to fit it in. It was unnecessary, in my opinion. Paul might not see it that way, and that’s fine, but for me, I’d rather read about uniforms (with the occasional meaty interlude) and leave the political garbage of the team nickname debate aside, however admirable Paul’s passion on the topic might be.

          We’re all free to disagree. That’s fine. I just find this argument tiresome, and the way in which Paul continually brings it up to be unnecessarily divisive. There’s no need to be snarky about it, I just disagree with him on the level of importance this topic has on his blog, and the ways in which he brings it up.

  • James R | May 11, 2012 at 10:13 am |

    Why do we insist on team nicknames for our sports? Was it always this way? Why not just simply the Washington Football Club as in European soccer. Manchester United and Real Madrid aren’t The Manchester United Cromwells or the Real Madrid Maroons.

    • Paul Lukas | May 11, 2012 at 10:18 am |

      That’s a fascinating point. I know many team nicknames in America were coined by local newspapers, but I never really thought about how teams like Man U are just, you know, Man U. Hmmmmm.

      • Andy | May 11, 2012 at 10:23 am |

        I’ve always thought this was a classy way to name a team, and it’s also the reason I never liked monogram logos featuring a letter that stands for the team nickname. A nickname is just that, a nickname. The team is the Washington Football Club, but we like to call them the (whatever it is).

      • Perry | May 11, 2012 at 10:31 am |

        Almost every English soccer team does have a nickname, it’s just not part of the formal, official name. But sportswriters and fans use them. Arsenal are the Gunners, Man U the Red Devils, Liverpool the Reds, Everton the Toffees, Newcastle the Magpies, etc. etc. Some teams use them more officially, e.g. Bolton Wanderers, Blackburn Rovers, Queens Park Rangers. But pretty much every team has one.

        • Matt Beahan | May 11, 2012 at 10:48 am |

          Chelsea used to be the Pensioners. I can see why they abandoned that nickname…

        • Matt | May 12, 2012 at 1:40 am |

          Some American teams also have unofficial nicknames like that (Halos, Tribe, etc.).

    • The Jeff | May 11, 2012 at 10:21 am |

      It’s the American Way. The “Washington Football Club” vs the “Dallas Football Club” is lame as hell.

      • Paul Lukas | May 11, 2012 at 10:23 am |

        Who is it around here who always says arbitrary customs are arbitrary? Wait, maybe it’ll come to me….

        • The Jeff | May 11, 2012 at 10:49 am |

          Touche`

          Ok, but if we remove the team nicknames, how exactly do you deal with two teams in New York, or Los Angeles, or Chicago? In the late 80’s/early 90’s unlicensed video games, that issue was solved by simply using different cities – New York (in blue) & New Jersey (in green) or Oakland (black) and Anaheim (blue), you can’t do that in real life.

          I think that having team nicknames makes sense, and the leagues don’t have any rules that force teams to have nicknames. If the Dallas Cowboys *wanted* to become simply Dallas FC, I’m pretty sure they’d be allowed to do that. The tradition is simply strong enough that no one needs to force anyone to do anything. Teams have names. It’s just how it is. Whereas, as you’ve stated, the MLB currently forces teams to use a gray road uniform, despite having multiple examples throughout history of other colors being used. The tradition is a lie.

        • Teebz | May 11, 2012 at 11:03 am |

          I’m not sure if’ve heard of these Cincinnati Redlegs, named for their socks, or these Chicago Black Sox, or even these Boston Red Sox, Jeff.

          You have? Seems to me that their “team name” is more a way of distinguishing themselves from any other team (Boston Braves, for example).

        • JimWa | May 11, 2012 at 1:59 pm |

          “… without the expressed, written consent of the Chicago National League Ball Club is strictly prohibited”.

          I never had to question which team I was watching when I heard Steve Stone say those words.

    • Connie | May 11, 2012 at 10:25 am |

      “… Manchester United and Real Madrid aren’t The Manchester United Cromwells or the Real Madrid Maroons…”

      But how great it would be if they were! Berlin Bears; Munich Brewers; Rome Centurions; Palermo Avengers. Universities, too: Oxford Oligarchs; Sorbonne Battlin’ Existentialists.

      Anyway, Man U does have a nickname (Red Devils, right?), as do many other EPL teams (Newcastle Magpies, Arsenal Gunners, etc). It’s just that they’re not employed in the club’s name. More’s the pity.

      • Chris Holder | May 11, 2012 at 10:41 am |

        Almost makes me want to start a project to name/design logos for a lot of the European soccer teams. Ok, well… with my artistic skills they would all suck. But it might be a fun project for some of the creative types amongst us.

    • Ryan M. | May 11, 2012 at 10:27 am |

      The fact that we DO seem to demand that our sports teams have nicknames make MLS seem so awkward. Call your team “DC United” and it seems like you’re trying too hard to sound European. Call your team “Columbus Crew” and it just doesn’t sound like soccer, er football, er… soccer. Call your team “Red Bull New York” and… oh, wait, please don’t name your team Red Bull New York.

      • Ry Co 40 | May 11, 2012 at 10:53 am |

        that’s actually a really good point as well. DC United, FC Wherever-the-hell-they-are, and Real Utah, or whatever, just sound like you’re trying too hard to be European. C-Bus Crew, Quakes, Timbers, etc, just doesn’t sound soccer. Detroit Foosball Club, Soccer Club of Johnstown, sounds too plain for us yanks

        so where is the happy medium for American soccer?

        • The Jeff | May 11, 2012 at 10:56 am |

          There isn’t one. So, add ice and give them sticks. ;)

    • Michael Lindquist | May 11, 2012 at 10:40 am |

      Actually nicknames are common for English “football” clubs, in fact many of them have many nicknames. Manchester United actually have the name “Red Devils” but are more commonly known as plainly “United”. However, other teams will have more then one nickname. Manchester City are called “The Blues”, “The Sky Blues”, and “The Citizens” or more commonly “City”. It really changes based on who is playing who each week. If Manchester City is playing Stoke City or Hull City, you can’t have City v City, therefore Blues v The Potters (Stoke) or The Tigers (Hull). Most teams with more then one nickname tend to have a first nickname of “Blues”, seems to be a popular color in England. There is a nice fun little Wiki page with a whole bunch of ‘em on here…

      http://en.wikipedia....

      The reason we don’t hear about them as much is because, well, we live over here and they play over there. But think about it, when we hear a TV commerical, lets say for a Sunday Night Football game, we usually hear “Seattle vs Chicago” before “Seahawks v Bears”. But that is just my opinion on that and I might be wrong. BUT check out some articles posted from England and you’ll see more nicknames. Also other countries club teams have nicknames, I just don’t follow them as much and I don’t know them.

      • TOMtiger | May 11, 2012 at 11:10 am |

        arsenal gunners

        • Matt Beahan | May 11, 2012 at 2:23 pm |

          Yeah, but you’d never actually say “Arsenal Gunners” – you’d say either “Arsenal” or “The Gunners”. Same way you wouldn’t say “Manchester Red Devils” or “West Bromwich Baggies” (Of course, there are exceptions – my hometown team Kidderminster Harriers have a US-style name, for instance).

          Interestingly, ads for the NFL use the opposite tactic over here – you’ll rarely see an ad for, say, “Oakland vs. Minnesota”. It’ll always be “Raiders vs. Vikings”. Same with baseball and basketball – I presume it’d be the same deal with the NHL, but that’s not shown over here (for some reason, we’re getting AHL coverage instead). I guess it’s ’cause the team names mean more to us foreigners than the cities they play in.

    • Mike Engle | May 11, 2012 at 10:46 am |

      It might have something to do with the fact that European sports teams are much stronger civic institutions than here in the States. After all, Lionel Messi and Ricky Rubio didn’t just play *in* Barcelona at the same time, but they played *for* Barcelona at the same time, wearing red and blue stripes. Obviously, one played for the soccer club, and the other played for the basketball club, but it’s the same organization.
      Simply a different paradigm than here in the States, where the closest replication of that setup (and it isn’t very close, really) would be if one person happened to own multiple teams in the same city, like Mike Ilitch or Tom Benson. But in that case, it’s really just two independent outcomes. In theory, Benson could move one of his teams out of New Orleans, even though that would be a total fallacy. (Let’s be real, Benson isn’t going to move a team AWAY from his home base. Owners try to buy teams to move INTO the area.) Either way you analyze it, it’s just not the same.

      • Joe from Eagle Mills | May 11, 2012 at 11:26 am |

        I Seem To Recall that the reason the Pens changed from blue and white to black and gold was to be consistent with the Pirates and the Steelers.

        • Mike Engle | May 11, 2012 at 11:34 am |

          Absolutely true, but not the same. Pittsburgh has three completely separate teams in three completely different sporting leagues, which all happen to use a black and gold color scheme. In Europe, you essentially have ONE team that participates in all sports. Using specialized athletes for each sport’s team, of course. (Messi doesn’t play basketball, and Rubio doesn’t play soccer.)

        • Chance Michaels | May 11, 2012 at 11:42 am |

          Sometimes you do.

          Not every football club is representing a larger athletic association. Sometimes they’re just a football club.

          Those associations are largely a Spanish institution.

      • Shane | May 11, 2012 at 11:49 am |

        I’m trying to picture MLS having a team called “Detroit Tigers FC” and I really, really like this idea.

        • traxel | May 11, 2012 at 1:02 pm |

          That was the idea with the rebranding of the KC Wizards to Sporting KC. That they would at some point dive into another sport under the same organization. I knew little of this until Bayern Munich signed Ben Hansbrough (since left the team) to play basketball. Found out their soccer team is actually their bread and butter.

    • Patrick | May 11, 2012 at 11:13 am |

      Actually, British football teams do have nicknames.

      Manchester United – Red Devils
      Liverpool – Reds
      Arsenal – Gunners
      Norwich City – Canaries

      And so on..

      • Ben Fortney | May 11, 2012 at 12:16 pm |

        By far my favorite European nickname is Athletico Madrid’s – Los Colchoneros (The Mattress Makers)

        Even more interesting, I went to a match a couple years ago and the fans promote themselves as “Anti-Madristas”, in opposition to Real. Apparently Barcelona fans also consider themselves Anti-Madristas as well. Odd that they take their identity in opposition to something, even odder that varying groups of supporters use the same identity.

        • DJ | May 11, 2012 at 4:30 pm |

          “Mattress Makers” comes from the old traditional coloring of mattresses in Spain — red and white stripes — that match Atleti’s shirts.

          The rivalry between Real and Atleti is a traditional upper class (Real) vs working class (Atleti) rivalry. Oddly enough, Atleti were the initial favorites of the Franco government, until Real started to win, a lot, at home and in Europe.

          The rivalry between Real and Barça is deeply political. Real is seen as the symbol of centralized Spain, and has a right-wing tinge. Barça is a symbol of Catalan nationality and is generally more left-wing.

    • walter | May 11, 2012 at 12:02 pm |

      The thing that frosts my pastry is the lack of imagination used in coming up with new iconography. If I never see another team called “The Wildcats” again, it’ll be too soon. Why isn’t there a team called “The Piranhas”? Too many Panthers, not enough Leopard Seals.

  • Matt Beahan | May 11, 2012 at 10:49 am |

    More stupidity out of Arizona:

    http://espn.go.com/h...

    • Chance Michaels | May 11, 2012 at 11:10 am |

      Time to join the 20th century, boys…

      • ChrisH | May 11, 2012 at 11:38 am |

        Yeah…decisions based on traditional values…how quaint!

        • Chance Michaels | May 11, 2012 at 11:47 am |

          Not every “traditional value” is a value worth propogating.

          And this is hardly the worst from the Society of St. Pius X.

        • Chance Michaels | May 11, 2012 at 11:49 am |

          Ugh. “worth propagating.”

          My kingdom for an edit button.

        • Jeremiah | May 11, 2012 at 12:04 pm |

          What traditional values were they upholding, that a girl’s place is not on the field of play?

    • Phil Hecken | May 11, 2012 at 11:54 am |

      “(they believe) a girl’s place is not on a field.”

      ~~~

      right, it’s barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen

      nice “traditional” values

    • Shaftman | May 11, 2012 at 3:15 pm |

      They have a belief system and are honoring it. No where did the forfeiting team say that the girl shouldn’t play (that was the young girls mother); they stated that they just can’t play on the same field as her. The forfeiting team even said that they would have not entered the tournament if they knew the young girl would be playing (she sat out the previous 2 games so the teams could play).

      Often we pride ourselves on individual rights and then ridicule those that enforce their own without even saying “who have they hurt?”.

      I’m as liberal as it gets but that means I must accept ALL rights, not just those with which I agree with.

      • Phil Hecken | May 11, 2012 at 3:30 pm |

        “They have a belief system and are honoring it.”

        ~~~

        yes they are

        and no one is saying they shouldn’t

        (obligatory godwin insertion here)

        but the nazi’s had a belief system, and they honored it too

        obviously, this isn’t even in the same ballpark, but no one is saying a group isn’t allowed to have a belief system…and i’m all for them honoring it

        but unless the league specifically prohibits girls from playing on boys’ teams, then they’re the ones who lose out

        think about it…their belief system could say “no jews” or “no blacks” on the team…ok, fine…i don’t agree with that but i’m not about to impose my views on them…but if they wish to play in a league that has rules that may be in conflict with their belief system, they either forfeit a lot of games, or they change their beliefs … and since they’re not likely to do the latter, then they shouldn’t be in the league

        • Shaftman | May 11, 2012 at 3:41 pm |

          Phil,
          Phil,

          You bring up good points but I think the major difference here between what this group is doing versus the Nazi’s or American bigots is that they are not looking to impose their beliefs on others.

          They recognize this girls right to play and they recognize their right to not play on the field with her. Often having values means making decisions that are difficult.

          It’s a fine line but I think an important one.

          Also, in the article the school has forfeited other games (in basketball) and (again) were willing to not even play in this tournament but the girl’s team either didn’t, couldn’t or wouldn’t communicate on how they would utilize this player (as they had in the previous 2 games).

        • Shaftman | May 11, 2012 at 3:57 pm |

          Should have only been one Phil.

          Stupid Friday drinking.

        • Phil Hecken | May 11, 2012 at 4:30 pm |

          jay,
          jay,

          “Often having values means making decisions that are difficult.”

          ~~~

          im not so sure we’re in disagreement here

          but i do want to qualify…are you saying the other side lacks values?

          or does the other team merely have different values?

          because, whenever religion (of ANY kind) is brought into play, it seems we use terms like “values” and “morals” and “belief systems” (which is absolutely fine)

          but often those terms are also used in such a way as to imply that those who disagree with them somehow lack those very characteristics being used to defend decisions

          i would simply argue that others also possess values and belief systems — and simply because those values and belief systems may be more ‘progressive’ or ‘enlightened’, that doesn’t make them any less valid

  • Bchamp | May 11, 2012 at 10:55 am |

    People really need to just accept that Paul has strong opinions on the use of Native American names/imagery in sports.

    I may not agree with his stance entirely (not getting into that because that’s not the point of this post and I don’t want to contribute to leading the comments further down that path) but this is his soapbox and if he wants to let his feelings on the topic be known then that’s his prerogative. Just like it is fine for him to express his distaste for the color purple. Just like it is fine for him to write about meat and other topics that interest him that may only be tangentially uniform-related or may not be uniform-related at all.

    As for the new Redskins uniforms – they did a great job with that helmet. And that’s about the only nice thing I can say at this point. I’ll reserve final judgment until I see it on the field but the anniversary/throwback uniforms that have popped up that don’t really throwback to any specific year just don’t do it for me. Pick a specific uniform and replicate it as accurately as possible using modern materials. Or come up with a new design but don’t try to call it an anniversary/throwback jersey when it’s not something the team has worn in the past.

    • Chance Michaels | May 11, 2012 at 11:06 am |

      I’ll reserve final judgment until I see it on the field but the anniversary/throwback uniforms that have popped up that don’t really throwback to any specific year just don’t do it for me. Pick a specific uniform and replicate it as accurately as possible using modern materials. Or come up with a new design but don’t try to call it an anniversary/throwback jersey when it’s not something the team has worn in the past.

      I don’t know, I think they’ve done a pretty good job replicating the 1937 uniforms.

      • Bchamp | May 11, 2012 at 11:59 am |

        I hadn’t seen that drawing of the 1937 uniform. That is pretty spot on. I was mostly just venting about what I’ve seen some other teams do in recent years.

  • TOMtiger | May 11, 2012 at 11:02 am |

    i like washington’s alternate. goodjob nike. the helmet looks amazing. wonder if the helmet is an exclusive for the redskins or if its going to be used by all 30 teams in “throwback” unis

    • Chance Michaels | May 11, 2012 at 11:07 am |

      I sure hope the Packers adopt it when they next wear their blues.

      Kind of makes me glad they’re not wearing them this year; they’ll have time to see how good this (hopefully) looks on the field.

    • David White | May 12, 2012 at 2:33 am |

      “30 teams”?

  • TOMtiger | May 11, 2012 at 11:35 am |

    looking at the actual uniforms….its crazy how they got a motto on the inside of the jersey (reminds me of a high school team, not a professional team).

    its got a FSU feel to it.

    • TOMtiger | May 11, 2012 at 11:35 am |

      maybe the motto is part of nikes brand…like it’ll be on all the alternates

      • TOMtiger | May 11, 2012 at 11:37 am |

        “To complete the look, the helmet features a unique leather-like finish and the words “Team, Effort, Tradition” are embroidered on the inside of the neckline serving as a reminder to each athlete of what it means to be a Redskin.”

        oops maybe not.

        Why not put “Eat, Pray, Love” mottos are lame…play football

    • ChrisH | May 11, 2012 at 11:42 am |

      Do the Raiders’ collars have “Just Win, Baby” or “Commitment to Excellence” stitched into them?

      • T'Challa | May 11, 2012 at 1:53 pm |

        it would be awesome if they did, one slogan for home and one for away

  • Silver Creek Doug | May 11, 2012 at 11:55 am |

    New Man United primary kit for next season.

    https://www.facebook...

    That shirt is FUGLY. I shan’t be buying it.

    • Ben Fortney | May 11, 2012 at 12:20 pm |

      I like it a lot.

    • Shane | May 11, 2012 at 12:21 pm |

      I like plaid, and United are my favorite team, but this just isn’t..good.

    • Winter | May 11, 2012 at 12:23 pm |

      Wow. Gingham.

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

      • Paul Lukas | May 11, 2012 at 1:02 pm |

        That’s not gingham. Gingham is, technically speaking, a type of fabric, not a pattern:
        http://en.wikipedia....

        • timothymcn | May 11, 2012 at 2:34 pm |

          Is there a name for the pattern, which I missed in that Wikipedia entry? Or is Gingham inspired the best we got?

      • Winter | May 11, 2012 at 1:48 pm |

        Ah. Gingham-inspired, then?

    • Matt Beahan | May 11, 2012 at 2:28 pm |

      OK, I like that it pays tribute to Manchester’s industrial history (even though something shipping themed would have been better, what with Utd playing a stone’s throw from Salford docks), but as a football shirt, I think it looks stupid.

      Now, had City been the ones to introduce the shirt I’d be hailing it as fantastic, but you can’t expect me to be impartial going into the final weekend of the season…

  • Brian | May 11, 2012 at 11:58 am |

    The tattoo of the Chucks got me wondering if someone had a swoosh on their foot and of course:

    http://www.thisis50....

  • JTH | May 11, 2012 at 12:02 pm |

    Regarding those Jets practice jerseys without the NFL shield…

    Isn’t there an NFL rule that says if the practice jerseys have a sponsor logo, they can’t also have the NFL shield on them unless it’s an official sponsor of the league?

    Here’s a shot of the Bears from a couple years ago — no NFL shield.

  • Casey | May 11, 2012 at 12:18 pm |

    What about mascots/nicknames like the FSU Seminoles, which is fully endorsed by the Seminole tribe in Florida, and actually considers it an honor? Should that nickname be changed?

    Same goes for the Fighting Sioux of UND, the Central Michigan Chippewa, and the Utah Utes. All of these schools have had their nicknames approved or sanctioned by the tribes they represent. So who are you, a white guy from Brooklyn, to be offended for their sake?

    • Winter | May 11, 2012 at 12:32 pm |

      You don’t have to be a part of a group to be offended on their behalf. That’s what decency is all about.

    • GoTerriers | May 11, 2012 at 12:42 pm |

      Point of fact: Both Lakota Sioux tribes have NOT given permission for the UND teams to use the Sioux nickname. As a result, both the UND Men’s and Women’s Hockey team wore newly designed jerseys (sweaters?) that featured only the words “North Dakota” on the front (as opposed to the usual “SIOUX”) when they played in the NCAA Ice Hockey Tournaments. To have worn their regular uniforms would have been grounds for disqualification under the NCAAs rules against Native American imagery.

      • Douglas King | May 11, 2012 at 1:38 pm |

        To clarify, one tribe has the other has not (I think you know that, but the way you said it could come off as neither tribe has approved it).

        To the thread starter:
        FSU has full support of the Seminole people, they work with the tribe and do a lot for the community.

        I assume Central Michigan and Utah have similar approval (as they are not in the headlines as being challenged by the NCAA).

        Paul has said that he is perfectly fine with teams that have approval from the tribes. If you read the article he keeps posting in response to these posts you would see that. It’s using stereotypical portrayals or offensive names without approval from the people they portray that is bad.

    • Paul Lukas | May 11, 2012 at 1:01 pm |

      Re: FSU, that question (along with just about every other question that’s been brought up in the comments regarding this issues) was already addressed here:
      http://www.uni-watch...

  • Winter | May 11, 2012 at 12:30 pm |

    In re: the Native American mascot thing, the thing I think is the funniest/most tedious that is every time it’s mentioned, people feel the need to re-argue it again. I know this may be the first time some of the readers are seeing it, but for those of us that are regular readers, there’s rarely a new argument under the sun. Every time it’s brought up, someone will say “What about the [insert Fighting Irish, Vikings, Braves, Chiefs, Blackhawks, etc. here]?” Most of that would be solved if people would read the links provided, or at the very least read the whole post before commenting.

    I actually find the whole thing lamentable, as I actually enjoy the Redskins’ color scheme. That color of jersey is instantly identifiable, and iconic. (Can it be somewhat iconic, or is that an oxymoron like ‘somewhat unique’?)

  • Adam | May 11, 2012 at 12:45 pm |

    Sorry I missed the story on the NFL themed wedding. Reminds me of the Colts colored wedding that is in Diner. A comment is made about the original Colts colors in that movie as well as the fact that if the wedding were for a Steelers fan the wedding would have been worse.

  • kst8cats | May 11, 2012 at 1:17 pm |

    Unless I missed it somewhere in the comments…Nobody has mentioned the terrible photoshop job on the Redskins shoulder photo. (Photo #4). The swoosh has been added on and looks like a cartoon. Look at the thumbnail version of the photo and there is no swoosh there.

    • The Jeff | May 11, 2012 at 1:55 pm |

      It does look like it’s photoshopped on, but it is in the thumbnail too.

      Enlarge the page a few times (ctrl+ in firefox, not sure on other browsers), you can see it.

  • Le Cracquere | May 11, 2012 at 1:18 pm |

    Frankly, I’m torn about the whole nickname controversy. On the one hand, I have no wish to offend or hurt the feelings of any Indians or other minorities in toto. On the other hand, I relish the hurt feelings and offense they give to the preening non-Indians who get worked into a lather about such nicknames. Dilemmas, dilemmas.

    • Paul Lukas | May 11, 2012 at 1:20 pm |

      Oh, I think it’s pretty clear who’s doing the preening here.

    • Phil Hecken | May 11, 2012 at 1:22 pm |

      “I relish the hurt feelings and offense they give to the preening non-Indians who get worked into a lather about such nicknames”

      ~~~

      and who might those be?

      • Le Cracquere | May 11, 2012 at 2:29 pm |

        Infallibly establishing which they are is impossible without a Popeil conscience scanner–and pace Paul (whose debate skills are ordinarily well above the “NO U” level), I’m actually not arrogant enough to hand out case-by-case diagnoses.

        However, this site hasn’t been exactly shy about seeing discreditable motives in some (not all) of the fans who are unmoved or exasperated by its anti-nickname fervor. Am I out of line in sensing them in some (not all) opponents of the current nicknames?

  • The Jeff | May 11, 2012 at 1:37 pm |

    At risk of derailing the day… let’s say that the campaign to change names is successful and the Redskins and Indians and other Native-inspired teams all change their names…

    What do you do about teams with names like Pioneers or Buffalo Bills?

    Surely you can’t remove Indian names as offensive but leave teams that are named after people that actively fought & killed Indians, can you? That’s gotta be just as, if not more offensive to the surviving Native population.

    • Matt Beahan | May 11, 2012 at 2:31 pm |

      Simple – just have every team change their name to the “Wildcats” and colours to red, white and blue.

    • TOMtiger | May 11, 2012 at 2:49 pm |

      i just think the name redskins is bad and the logo is absolutely horrible.

      id compromise on keeping the name and changing logo. the native american male’s profile on the helmet pisses me off so much. just go to the circle R…its a much better logo anyway

      • Greg | May 11, 2012 at 5:41 pm |

        How many Native Americans actually agree with you? Very few, in my experience.

        The funny thing is, everyone above the age of 8 understands that the Redskin on the helmet is a representation of a former culture–and that Indians today don’t ride around on horses attacking White men. Well, everyone except the people who feign outrage at the site of a cartoon Indian.

  • Douglas King | May 11, 2012 at 1:47 pm |

    Right now on Fox Sports South (FSS) the ACC Softball Tourney 2nd round is being played between Georgia Tech and Florida State. Georgia Tech is the away team but they are wearing Navy jerseys with white pants, while the Home team Florida State is wearing road grays.

  • Chris | May 11, 2012 at 1:59 pm |

    That is to funny about the school changing there name. The school I graduated from change your logo and name from Redmen to Red Hawks two years ago due to the state of WI passing a bill. The School is Gale- Ettrick- Trempealeau High School in Galesville, WI..

  • Tony C. | May 11, 2012 at 2:10 pm |

    http://media.clevela...

    Browns rookies reported to camp today. Their practice unis had the old NFL Equipment shield as well

  • Shane | May 11, 2012 at 3:12 pm |

    This year, the Rangers decided to put a blue T logo behind home plate. It has bugged me all year while watching games on tv, and now that I just saw it in person it bugs me even more. Nowhere else have the Rangers ever used a blue version of their T logo, so why use it now?

    Best picture I could find: http://espn.go.com/m...

    The Texas Rangers are a confused little team.

  • Dumb Guy | May 11, 2012 at 3:22 pm |

    Redskins unis….

    One last thing:

    Is that a “fart split” in the Baugh (33) jersey??

    I’ve not seen that feature before.

  • Geoff | May 11, 2012 at 3:59 pm |

    As Paul knows, I’m a life-long Redskins fan (since the day Sonny Jurgensen autographed a photo for me when I was four) and as uniform-passionate as they come. And, my overwhelming impression of the throwback/alternate is…meh. Really? That’s it? Some plain khaki pants, no sock stripes, and a really plain jersey? The gold on the numbers doesn’t seem to match the pants (ala the Saints’ mismatching golds.) The faux-leather look of the helmet is OK, but overall I’m seriously underwhelmed. This doesn’t look much different than the throwbacks they wore in 1994. I really liked – and still do – the 70th Anniversary throwbacks (except the spear helmet.) Great colors – real Redskins colors, I might add – and well executed. I think the Redskins wasted a “golden” opportunity to make some serious waves with these. Which, unfortunately, is typical of the last 20 years of Redskins history….

  • LarryB | May 11, 2012 at 4:35 pm |

    I like the idea of a leather look to a current helmet. My question is how will it look from far off? My guess is just plain brown.

    Still a clever idea.

  • Tom | May 11, 2012 at 5:12 pm |

    i love racist team name’s. i also love how Uni Watch all of a sudden is really concerned with them.

    • Greg | May 11, 2012 at 5:38 pm |

      No kidding. I come here to escape the constant political barrage that divides the country. Instead, on page one I have to read that cherished sports traditions meant to honor a different culture are “racist.”

      • Tim E. O'B | May 11, 2012 at 5:55 pm |

        Yeah! When I tried to name my intermural team the Niggers to honor Jackie Robinson, nobody got it! I cherish African American culture, that’s why I find it so important to name my team the Niggers.

        • concealed78 | May 11, 2012 at 6:22 pm |

          Shut up, TimE.

      • Phil Hecken | May 11, 2012 at 6:53 pm |

        cherished sports traditions meant to honor a different culture are “racist.”

        ~~~

        calling the washington football team “redskins” is meant to honor native american culture?

        i guess we have a different definition of “honor”

        • Douglas King | May 11, 2012 at 11:02 pm |

          I don’t see how anyone could believe that the names were chosen to some how ridicule a culture.

          I understand why names like the Redskins and Indians are offensive, and thus should be at the very least modified (finding a name that allows them to still honor the culture without at the same time pissing off its members), but I will never understand why some people think the names were chosen as a mockery of some sort.

  • Ryan | May 11, 2012 at 6:40 pm |

    New home kit for 2012/13 for Man Utd.

    http://www.manutd.co...

    I don’t care for the gingham print a whole lot, but I suppose I do prefer it to the giant black chevron on the chest from 09/10.

  • Phil Hecken | May 11, 2012 at 7:12 pm |

    i’ll save jimmer mothervilker the effort

    marlins orange caps held hostage … game (whatever)

    black caps & tops against the mets in miama

    • Jim Vilk | May 11, 2012 at 10:48 pm |

      And Vilk comes in to clean it up…

      Game 32:
      http://scores.espn.g...

      If Miami won’t wear theirs, maybe the Mets should come up with orange caps. Hmmmm…

      • Phil Hecken | May 11, 2012 at 11:04 pm |

        you mean something like this?

        um…no

        but that would actually be preferable to a blue crown/orange bill

        which is to say…thanks, but no thanks

        the mets FINALLY got back to wearing the proper royal blue cap…lets keep it that way

        maybe you can convince the orioles or giants to wear an orange topper

        • Jim Vilk | May 11, 2012 at 11:17 pm |

          Orange crown/blue bill. *Now* we’re talkin’.

          Or…just came across this one. You gotta admit, that would be a nice alt.

  • phil garza | May 11, 2012 at 7:19 pm |

    I dig those tattooed Converse, but this guy has a tattooed jersey !!!!

    http://nowaygirl.com...

  • Wheels | May 11, 2012 at 7:19 pm |

    Felix Hernandez wears the baggiest jersey in the majors. Or the longest sleeves.

  • Mike Wissman | May 11, 2012 at 9:48 pm |

    2012 IIHF World Hockey championship on NBC Sports tonight. USA vs Kazakhstan (don’t see Borat in the stands). But I do see the US wearing advertising, not a shocker as I get they do this from time to time in these tournaments. But I’m appalled with the US ad,for some Swiss product WITH THE SWISS FLAG. So we have a country showing another countries flag on a jersey.

    Maybe the Mayan calendar quacks are onto something.

    • Douglas King | May 11, 2012 at 11:14 pm |

      That’s not a team sponsor its a tournament sponsor, I wonder if they have a choice in the matter? If they did I would much rather them wear the Nivea for Men patch. I would certainly hope that they didn’t choose that particular sponsor.

  • Patrick_in_MI | May 11, 2012 at 9:51 pm |

    Why is Dorothy Gale’s foot shown below that “leather” helmet? Seriously, I want to reach out and touch that Redskins helmet. It reminds me of grandpa’s old leather recliner, the cracked and faded leather. Alas, it’s probably smooth to the touch with no tactility at all. Love to hear how that was manufactured!

  • Nicole | May 11, 2012 at 11:17 pm |

    Super late, but Zack Greinke pinch hit last season wearing the wrong jersey. Team was in navy Brewers jerseys and Greinke was wearing a specialty Bierbrauer jersey the team was set to wear the next day.

  • Barry Moss | May 11, 2012 at 11:27 pm |

    Been out of pocket and missed a few days so don’t know if this has been discussed but did I ever tell you how much I hate going to a website to read an article and having to click on a link to “continue reading” the rest of the article? What’s up with that?

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

    If the helmet were actually covered with a thin layer of cowhide over the shell, I could go for that. But that’s really only because it would be an old style material actually being reused. Overall I just don’t like the fake leather paint over a perfectly round helmet. Doesn’t really say history or throwback or yesteryear or retro to me. The pattern they used looks quite realistic but the old leather helmets looked padded, mis-shapen, flexible. These still look hard which kinda ruins it for me. Current helmets are just too different for it to work for me.

  • David R. Jackson | May 15, 2012 at 11:27 am |

    I’m impressed by the simulated leather look given to the Redskins’ anniversary uniform helmets. This could be the beginning of the use of similar-looking helmets in future “Turn Back the Clock” promotions in both pro and college football. Overall, the Redskins’ anniversary uniform does succeed in combining design elements from throughout the 1930s.

    I do personally wish, however, that the pants had been old gold. The Redskins’ uniform supplier in 1994, Starter, did make an effort to come up with a workable “old gold” textile dye for the throwback pants at a time when old gold had already all but disappeared from football pants. (Technically, however, the old gold pants color was wrong and didn’t match the somewhat brighter “gold satin” color officially assigned to the Redskins’ 1994 season throwbacks.)

    And sometimes in 1930s football game photos you can be able to tell whether a football team’s pants are using khaki materials or a shinier fabric. Some football teams occasionally wore satin or silk pants instead of khakis in the 1930s. Most of the game photos I’ve seen of the 1937 Redskins show them wearing shiny satin or silk pants, and those shiny pants were in all likelihood gold or deep yellow.