Messing With Tradition: Behind the Scenes of the Nebraska Football Alternate

adi-1039_ncaa_nebraska_gloves

By Phil Hecken

I’m back today with Tim Newcomb, who you may remember graced the Uni Watch pages a short while ago with his look at the making of an Olympic Soccer Boot. Once the “special” one-off uniforms for the Nebraska Cornhuskers (in their rivalry game against Wisconsin) were announced, Tim wanted to do a rundown of the unis, complete with an interview with Michael Stephens, Nebraska’s assistant athletic director in charge of apparel — I couldn’t turn that down, so I told Tim to go for it. And now it’s ready for prime time. You’re sure to enjoy this one folks, so here’s Mr. Newcomb and his take on…

. . . . .

Messing With Tradition: Behind the Scenes of the Nebraska Football Alternate
By Tim Newcomb

You’ll be quickly forgiven if you weren’t aware that Nebraska’s first-ever new-concept alternate jersey—you know, the one with the black helmet and the giant black “N” on the chest of the all-red uniform—is actually a nod to the past. Everything new has to have an element of tieback these days, right?

As the Huskers unveiled their red-based, black-highlighted uniform it will wear just once, at Homecoming on Sept. 29 against Wisconsin (the Badgers will also wear an alternate that contest), tradition-loving Nebraska fans cried foul. And loudly, with the word “ugly” in constant use on message boards. But, hey, at least the red “N” on the helmet didn’t go anywhere, a move that was never even on the table during design meetings.

Michael Stephens, Nebraska’s assistant athletic director in charge of apparel, tells Uni Watch that messing with the red “N” was simply not an option. “I’d say that’s a big deal,” he says. “It is a branding piece we wanted to keep the same.”

With the helmet’s “N” locked down, Nebraska certainly provided a different look with the remainder of the alternate for Cornhusker fans accustomed to a simple white helmet with basic red or white shirts over the opposite color pants (white tops with red bottoms for the road and red tops with white bottoms at home). Now they’ve got all the red they can handle and a bit more than a splash of black.

For Nebraska fans unhappy that their beloved Huskers broke from tradition with the red-black uniform, blame Adidas. “Adidas had come to us with some concepts six months ago with what they wanted to do,” Stephens says. “Once we got into talking about doing something for one game, doing one major national event made sense.”

Nebraska didn’t just take all that Adidas had to offer, instead starting a discussion full of revisions (Stephens says he can’t even remember the original concept) to get to the Homecoming uniform. During that process, Stephens knew that Husker tradition rivals corn itself as the most important ingredient in a happy Nebraska fan, so the school was careful to not “overstep the bounds.”

Once word leaked this summer that Nebraska was working on an alternate, questions quickly arose over how much black would get included. With scarlet and cream the official colors, you can’t get too funky—and alternates are all about funky, right?—without mixing in another color. Cue the black, a highlight the Huskers have played with in the past. Add in some tradition—remember, that concept plays well in corn country—and black really has a foothold, as Nebraska’s storied defense has long been known as the “black shirts.” The nickname has gone so far that defensive players are rewarded with actual black shirts in practice once coaches feel they’ve earned them.

So, was Nebraska to moving the black from defensive lore to a game jersey? “There was some discussion on that,” Stephen says. “It didn’t get a lot of traction. Black is an accent color and has never been one of our primary colors, so we didn’t go down that road very far.” That left scarlet as king. But black still had reason to join the party. “I wouldn’t say black as a theme was a given,” Stephens says. “It was something (Adidas) thought looked good on a jersey and as we moved along, we agreed with them. It was never a given that way, but we felt that black added quite a bit to the uniform and thought (fans) would enjoy it.”

In keeping with the marketing-first theme of alternates—the new looks not only create high interest at the shops selling the threads, but also in the young players and recruits, as chronicled in my Sports Illustrated article — Nebraska “thought touches of black on the entire outfit would be something our current student-athletes would enjoy wearing.” Plus, as Stephens is quick to point out, this is only for one game and in no way sets a new Nebraska precedent.

But back to tradition. With a stark shiny black helmet giving the traditional scarlet “N” and stripe down the middle a slightly modernized feel, the “N” went even more modern by harkening back to 1929. The scarlet shirt, with two black stripes on the sleeves replacing white (almost shocking that Adidas couldn’t talk them into three stripes) is punctuated by a giant block black “N” on the chest, with the uniform number relegated to a chest patch. The front-loaded “N” is actually the look from the 1929 jersey. “It makes it different and for one game I think it’s a good idea,” Stephens says.

The scarlet pants fall in line with the jersey, with two black stripes down the side, giving Nebraska a red-over-red look for the first time since 1986. A black base layer under the shirt provides more black and offers a tonal “N” on the sleeves. If players opt for the gloves, the insides contain the “N” logo, as is trendy these days. The socks and shoes even go black, with a bit of red for some flare. The fit of the jersey will look slightly different than normal Nebraska wear, as the Cornhuskers will opt with the new Adidas Techfit uniform for the alternate, which includes new fabrics, a different stitching pattern and a slimmer cut.

Since this new alternate was inspired by apparel company-marketing (Adidas is really playing up that both schools will wear alternates on the same night with cheesy slogans and such), don’t expect the one-off looks to keep rolling out for Nebraska, especially as traditionalists get in line to bemoan the caving in of the school to a corporation. Stephens says Nebraska certainly isn’t committed to something each year.

And if Nebraska ever does tinker with an alternate again, rest assured that scarlet “N” on the side of the helmet isn’t going anywhere. Tradition won’t allow it.

. . . . .

Tim Newcomb is a regular contributor with Time, Sports Illustrated and other publications. You can follow him on Twitter at @tdnewcomb.

~~~

Thanks Tim — nice job and great interview. Readers? What say you?

~~~~~~~~~~

NUA_Logo_5#NoUniAds Campaign…Day 27

This will be a regular feature on Uni Watch until the NBA rescinds its incredibly offensive and stupid proposal to place corporate advertising on uniforms.

And now, a personal note from Paul:

It’s important that we keep making our voices heard: Call the NBA’s publicly listed phone number (212-407-8000), ask for Adam Silver’s and/or David Stern’s office), e-mail deputy commissioner Adam Silver at his his publicly listed address (asilver@nba.com), and tweet to @NBA with the hashtag #NoUniAds. Do it now.

~~~

More of your letters to the NBA:

Kevin Callahan:

I have been a fan since the early ’70′s and have witnessed some of the greatest moments in NBA history. I have to say that the decision to place ads on team uniforms is a terrible one. Until now, the only place to escape the incessant advertising in NBA arenas was by watching the action on the court and you are now taking that away.

My kids love NBA basketball, too, but I can safely say that I will never purchase an NBA jersey for them that is festooned with ads.

Jerry Shea, Jr.

I am a 39 year old NBA fan. I grew up in Boston during the height of the Celtics/Lakers rivalry and from there through the Jordan era I was a passionate, diehard fan of your sport. For several years, I lost interest when I felt like the fundamentals of the game were being lost. However, players like LeBron James have renewed my interest in the sport.

Last year, I attended my first NBA game in 6 years. It was the first NBA game ever for my wife and daughter. We had an amazing experience and attended two more Sacramento Kings games (I now live in Northern California) before the season was over. Please don’t allow the incompetent Maloof brothers to move the franchise, but that’s another matter!

When I read that the NBA is planning to have Corporate Sponsorship (i.e. ad space sold) on jerseys, my wife and I were both furious. Is there nothing sacred in sports anymore? One of the things I’ve always respected about the NBA is the lack of ads all over the place. Other than the scorer’s table and the goal post, there is very little advertising that one sees when watching a game on TV. You see the sport itself, which is beautiful. So, to go from that to the extreme of having an ad on the jerseys is hard to fathom. Besides, the ads on jerseys will not lead to fewer commercials or cheaper tickets will they? We both know the answer to that.

Please look at the other sports of the “Big 4″ of American Sports. Football, Hockey and Baseball, which do not plan to put ads on jerseys at this time. Don’t compare yourself to less popular leagues like NASCAR, where teams have no “home” stadium, ratings have been declining for years and they look ridiculousor MLS, WNBA, D-League or Minor League Hockey. These sports need the additional revenue and are not nearly as relevant (if at all) in American life.

If you decide to go the ad on jerseys route, I can assure you that you have just lost 3 fans and I am sure there are many, many more who feel the same way. Please reconsider this awful idea. Whatever revenue you stand to gain will be equal to the revenue and respect you will lose from fans like us. How can you put a price tag on respect and class? Thank you for your time.

Thanks for keeping the faith readers! We can stop the NBA if we can keep up the pressure.

#NoUniAds!

Thanks to Tim E. O’Brien and Chris Giorgio for the image in the upper right of this section!

~~~~~~~~~~

Screen Shot 2012-06-24 at 10.32.36 PM

“Benchies” first appeared at U-W in 2008, and has been a Saturday & Sunday feature here for the past two years.

. . . . .

Okay, okay, so maybe they’re more like “outfits”…

8-15-12 d-frisbee unis

Click to enlarge

~~~~~~~~~~

ticker 2Uni Watch News Ticker: Looks like Cards have a white piping along the black piping. Is this stitching? asks Mario Murillo. … Ah, the “backwards” swoosh. Jeff Shirley asks, “I thought the swoosh logos looked a little weird, especially on the right shoulders, where they appear to be backwards. Now, I’ve heard they wanted the logo to appear as it does on both sides of the shoes, but why didn’t they do this back when they originally supplied NFL uniforms in the late 90′s and early 2000′s?” I have to admit, this has annoyed me (the new, ‘backwards’ swoosh) since the unis were unveiled last spring. But the “backwards” swooshie on the right sleeve is only moderately annoying compared to this totally fucked-up backwards swooshie, spotted by Jerry Kulig (and also shown in yesterday’s comments by John Zajac). … Yesterday, we saw the helmet that goes along with the new Army football uniforms, but David Harville brings us plenty of good shots of the jerseys from media day at Danny Wild’s site. … Normally, we bitch about sleeves disappearing on NFL jerseys, but Stephen Peters feels “Romo’s sleeves are the biggest gaffe I’ve seen lately. Why so much white sleeve under the stripes? I know in years past, QBs had long(er) sleeves, but never—to my recollection—with so much white under the stripes.” … Now that the Olympics are finally over, George Chilvers brings us 10 ways to fill the void. … Skott Daltonic comes through with an awesome “wrestlers in baseball jerseys” (via The Loaded Glove tumblr page): Randy Savage, CM Punk, Jerry Lawler, Knuckleball Schwartz, Edge, Steve Austin, John Cena, Hulk Hogan. … Every year during NCAAFB season, someone inevitably asks, “What’s that sticker on Iowa’s helmets?” And we know it’s the America Needs Farmers sticker. But, a lot of us don’t know why it’s there. Now we do, thanks to Lost Lettermen (and Chris Mahr). Also from Chris, more on the wretched VT camo unis and a report on Idaho’s shiny new black helmets with flecks of gold in them. Yes, really. … Does Duke have a BFBS helmet? If not, they do now — Joe Sewash says, “Here’s a website I think you’ll like: Duke Now: Cutcliffe unveils new helmets for Duke.” … A gentleman who goes by the handle, “oldguyzac” was wandering through the UTSA digital archives and found some great photos. Here’s another, and another (“Wish we could see what the sign says and more of the shoulder patch”), and another (“Love the diagramming board”), and (“Here’s my favorite of the lot and the last one I’ll pass along”) one more. Says Zac, “Thanks for the website. It has become a regular part of my day.” … George Chilvers informs us the Rams won’t be playing at Wembly: “Don’t know if this has been publicised there. But could someone explain what the heck ‘In an effort to focus on the Edward Jones Dome First Tier Process with the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission…’ means :S” … Ryan Dowgin is the “proud owner of two of the nicer hockey jerseys ever made. Nicer is the word I am looking for, right? The first is a Craig Mills Phoenix Coyotes jersey that was worn during training camp in 2000-01 according to the letter accompanying it (even though inside the jersey it says 2002-03 Game Issued). The second is the famous Cleveland Lumberjacks warmup jersey which I picked up for a cool $25 from the latest MEARS Online Auction.” … Marc Bauche sent along this article on an absolutely dreadful hockey promotion, in which “The Adelaide Adrenaline of the Australian Ice Hockey League donned “BrasON” jerseys during Sunday’s warmups as part of a nationwide campaign to raise money for breast cancer research.” Really? I’m all for breast health, and breast cancer research and such, but really. … Nile Smith reports Liverpool has changed their soccer goal nets to Red. Back of the goals were red from the 60s to mid 90s. New manager Brendan Rodgers wanted the red goals back. … Here’s a short video taken from KJ Wright’s helmet camera before the Seahawks/Titans pre-season game (thanks to Kyle Hanks). Good god do those Seabirds unis suck. … “New Toledo Helmet” says Ryan Lindemann (even though it was seen in the ticker a couple days ago) — “Love the color! It’ll be interesting to see it paired with the uni set.” … “WarBlogle” sends in his idea for Auburn to wear throwbacks, including paintings of every uniform they’ve ever worn (up to like, 1946 or something). But–how sweet would this be as a throwback? … Dan Graham noticed the Raiders were in black cleats for the first time that he can remember in my lifetime watching football (32 years, since he was 5) against the Cowboys. … It’s not quite the great buffalo migration, but Eli Swanson was witness to Prince and The Great Squatchee Migration as seen in the top of the 6th inning on August 13th vs. the Twins. … Alex Carlson writes, “I was on vacation and was at Sunday’s Indians-Red Sox game for Gaylord Perry bobblehead day and the bobblehead included schmutz on his hat to “aid” his pitching performance. A nice touch.” Indeed.

~~~~~~~~~~

Shockingly — that’s all for today. I know, right? Anyway, thanks to Tim Newcomb for that great article and Ricko for the next installment of his Frisbee Chronicles, plus the NBA #NoUniAds protesters! Keep those letters coming. See ya on the morrow.

~~~

“The mention of the U.S. women’s soccer team today reminds me of how happy I am to see the success of American women in sports. Even though our country is not without its faults their medal count in the Olympics (as well as previous Olympics, World Cups, etc.) shows that one thing we’ve been doing right is being more acceptable of women playing sports. At least more acceptable than other industrialized countries. We could be better on gender issues, but I feel this shows that we’ve been heading in the right direction. The eye candy element doesn’t hurt either.”
– James Ashby

 

178 comments to Messing With Tradition: Behind the Scenes of the Nebraska Football Alternate

  • The Jeff | August 15, 2012 at 7:18 am |

    So… Nebraska has a minor amount of “tradition” to blame for the N on the jersey… what’s Adidas’ excuse for putting Wisconsin in a white version of the SAME EXACT UNIFORM? The whole point of either of those teams wearing an alternate when they play each other should be so that they don’t look so much alike. Having them in alternates that still look like the same team is just… stupid.

    • NickV | August 15, 2012 at 8:33 am |

      Nebraska would improve the alternate 500% by doing the following:

      1.) Add Black pants with Red Striping, and

      2.) use the 1929 “N” with the rounded trimming.

      The current Adidas-inspired alternate looks like crapola. The Wisconsin alternate is perhaps even worse.

      The upcoming Nebraska/Wisconsin game looks like an Adidas Prototype Intrasquad Game from Hell.

      • Chance Michaels | August 15, 2012 at 10:02 am |

        I think they’ll look much less alike on that day than they usually do.

        One team in white and red, the other in red and black? That’s a pretty sufficient contrast.

        And it doesn’t hurt that I’m a huge fan of the Badgers uniforms. Swap the helmet colors and the size/position of the number and letter on the front, and this is one alum who would be very happy.

      • LarryB | August 15, 2012 at 2:28 pm |

        Nebraska would have been so much better off with the actual throwback from late 20′s to early 30′s. The pictures I had seen makes it look like the N was white. So I had colorized it white. Phil shared it a week or so here. Point is the real throwback would have been a better looking and also historical uni.

        http://img.photobuck...

        http://img.photobuck...

        • NickV | August 15, 2012 at 7:00 pm |

          LarryB,

          I have seen a number of photos of Nebraska from that Late 1920s era and my impression of looking at the B&W photos from that era had the team wearing Dark Khaki pants, not Red/Maroon/Etc pants. I certainly could be wrong on that, but that’s the feel I got from many photos.

          I certainly agree that Nebraska would have done better here wearing a Throwback or even an approximation “Fauxback” instead of this “C minus” crap they are fixing to roll out with against Wisconsin.

          Side Note: I was in Omaha, Nebraska for about a week ending last week. Huge Husker presence in Omaha – about one hour away from Lincoln. As it happened, the Huskers had their Fan Day/Media day and it was extensively covered in Omaha by local Tv and paper. The Adidas Alternative “N” unis were featured at Fan Day/Media Day, with the reporters highlighting certain star players wearing their Alternate jerseys for fan photos, and a mannequin set up wearing the Alt Uniform in the middle of it all. Comments in the media from fans were 100% positive on the Alt Unis.

          Later in the week, I went out of my way to ask fans, cab drivers, hotel, etc. about their thoughts on the Altrnat Unis, and everybody – and I mean EVERYBODY – knew about them, and it was 100% positive in favor of the Alt Unis. Everybody liked them.

          Can you imagine how they would have felt if the alt Unis actually looked good?

        • LarryB | August 15, 2012 at 8:28 pm |

          Nick. Could be right about the pants. I am not sure when teams began wearing colored pants. I sort of went by educated guessing.And maybe based mine of that guys Nebraska figurine.

    • JEDI54 | August 15, 2012 at 11:54 am |

      A reason to like Nebraska. This will be the only time though.

  • FatMagz | August 15, 2012 at 7:22 am |

    With all the talk about Nebraskas alternate I am curious what my Hawkeyes Pro Combat uniform will look like. Black is already a primary color so that shouldn’t be too big of a shock. I just hope they don’t go all gold.

    • The Jeff | August 15, 2012 at 7:28 am |

      Since they already use black, the Pro Combat uniform will be matte gray, duh.

      • Tony Miller | August 15, 2012 at 9:19 am |

        Black and gold is a fine color scheme, which means of course that it will not be used on the amateur riflery unis. I just pray that Iowa does not become the Reynolds Wrap Hawkeyes.

        • Arr Scott | August 15, 2012 at 9:47 am |

          I’m going to go out on a limb and say that your prayers will not be answered. The Hawkeyes will have a lot of shiny metallic silver or gray. If we’re lucky. Because the only plausible alternative – neon-y vivid greenish yellow – would be even worse.

        • Tony Miller | August 15, 2012 at 11:00 am |

          Good point. While I don’t like either option, I would rather see the Hawkeyes look like giant spoons than like the Seahawks’ alts mated with Baylor’s.

    • Glen | August 15, 2012 at 12:17 pm |

      Prepare to see feathers, as all bird teams by Nike must have feathers on their jerseys.

    • LarryB | August 15, 2012 at 2:31 pm |

      We know Iowa is already going to wear throwbacks. And those are cool or close to being accurate for 1921 era.

      I give Iowa credit since they have worn actual throwbacks in the past. Wisconsin did too. So did Nebraska.

  • Ben D | August 15, 2012 at 7:27 am |

    (In Cliff Clavin voice) It’s a little known fact that the “N” on Nebraska’s helmet does not stand for the state in which this fine university resides. It actually stands for Nowledge.

    • Ricko | August 15, 2012 at 7:59 am |

      This is going to cause confusion.

      When fans see a tackled Cornhusker lying on the ground, aren’t they apt to wonder why there’s a big “Z” on his uniform?

      • Mike Engle | August 15, 2012 at 8:31 am |

        The G is for greatness

      • Arr Scott | August 15, 2012 at 10:17 am |

        The Z stands for maize.

        • Ben D | August 15, 2012 at 11:05 am |

          I’m still calling it corn.

    • Robert Eden | August 15, 2012 at 1:45 pm |

      That joke was hilarious when it was first told . . . in 1971. By 1972, it was a little old. Now? Good grief, get some new material.

  • Mirliton | August 15, 2012 at 7:48 am |

    One of these days Nebraska football will actually wear cream.

    • C | August 15, 2012 at 1:15 pm |

      Creamed Maize

  • Bailey R | August 15, 2012 at 8:06 am |

    Romo’s sleeves have always been that long. The difference is it appears that Reebok just threw the stripes at the bottom of the sleeve no matter the length of the sleeve, while Nike keeps the striping placement consistently an inch or so under the swoosh, no matter the sleeve length.

    • Ricko | August 15, 2012 at 8:18 am |

      Um…yah. I don’t see the issue, either.
      http://images2.fanpo...

      Now, the Chiefs’ bottom stripe not being right at the end of the sleeve is a different discussion altogether…
      http://www.netbrawl....

      • Craig D | August 15, 2012 at 10:49 am |

        Now, the Chiefs’ bottom stripe not being right at the end of the sleeve is a different discussion

        (Sorry…had to be done)

        • Ricko | August 15, 2012 at 12:18 pm |

          Sorry. Was being intentionally colloquial, not writing for Miss Glendenning (my 11th grade English teacher).

        • The Jeff | August 15, 2012 at 12:34 pm |

          *sigh* Ricko: http://www.youtube.c... last 10 seconds.

        • Ricko | August 15, 2012 at 12:39 pm |

          Ah, yes, forgot about that scene.

          Apologies for my thin-skinnedness.

    • brendan | August 15, 2012 at 2:31 pm |

      Reebok had the stripes just right. Sleeve stripes should never be ABOVE the front uni numbers, regardless of what position you play.

  • JR Clark | August 15, 2012 at 8:19 am |

    The Army uniforms are UGLY. AS. FUCK.

    Why does Army even play FBS football anyway? What a waste of money on a college football program that hasn’t been relevant since Ike was president.

    • NickV | August 15, 2012 at 8:40 am |

      Totally agree. Those new Army unis unis stink. 99% of the problem is the horrible, weak, pasty, light, deadlooking color Gold that Nike has foisted upon this team.

      e The new Nike version of “Vegas (?) Gold” is weak, pasty and horrible. The NFL Saints now suffer from the same vein of douchebaggery – corporate Nike dictating the shade of “Gold” by limiting the availability of that color to this. And to think that less than ten years ago Army Football still wore true Old Gold -and had resisted the transformation/abomination of their traditions by keeping Old Gold where 590 other programs had succumbed to Vegas Gold (actually, the pitiable the color of weak Cat Piss).

      Who knew that Nike could so F%%$$%$%ck up the color Gold so badly that we would now pine for the wonderful, weak Cat Piss Vegas Gold of the then-despised, now not-so-bad Faust/Holtz/Finks/UCF/Vandy/Navy pre-2012 era?

      Those were the days (compared to now) ….

      • David | August 15, 2012 at 11:20 am |

        NickV, you mean when Army’s helmet and pants were completely different shades of “gold”?

        http://militarytimes...

      • LarryB | August 15, 2012 at 2:34 pm |

        I agree Nick. I had always liked the old Army gold helmet with simple black stripe and the unis. The helmet shown is goofy.

    • Seth H | August 15, 2012 at 8:49 am |

      You are right. What value is there in having the future leaders of our ground forces participate in an activity that requires teamwork, strategic and tactical planning and thinking, thinking on the fly, individual initiative, and physical fitness?

      • Geeman | August 15, 2012 at 10:17 am |

        Yes, I’m not sure why Army should give up football when Navy and Air Force are so successful. Army will get it together one day, just like their sister services.

    • Arr Scott | August 15, 2012 at 11:16 am |

      I wouldn’t go so far as to say “ugly as fuck,” but the weak gold is pretty bad. Needs to be much more saturated and offer clear contrast with the white in the Northwestern stripe on the undersleeves. Or the uni needs to dispense with white entirely.

    • Le Cracquere | August 15, 2012 at 11:52 am |

      They’re kids who are playing a game and enjoying themselves. More to the point, these are self-evidently kids who are enrolled at an institution FOR THE ACTUAL REASONS THAT INSTITUTION EXISTS. This is why, though I usually loathe college sports, I’m always happy to watch the Army-Navy game and the Ivy League at play.

  • Steve V. | August 15, 2012 at 8:20 am |

    —-Don’t compare yourself to less popular leagues like NASCAR, where teams have no “home” stadium, ratings have been declining for years and they look ridiculousor MLS, WNBA, D-League or Minor League Hockey. These sports need the additional revenue and are not nearly as relevant (if at all) in American life.

    Why would Stern and Silver would take someone who makes such stupid statements seriously? Nearly as relevant? What to you? Tool!

    • Tom V. | August 15, 2012 at 10:03 am |

      Couldn’t have said it better myself. There are so many things wrong with the passage you cited, this is the kind of arrogance and attitude that will get sponsers on uniforms without the NBA thinking twice.

    • Ben D | August 15, 2012 at 11:15 am |

      Can’t use NASCAR as a good example. NASCAR teams have to have sponsors to operate. They receive no revenue from ticket sales (which go to the track) or TV revenue (which goes directly to NASCAR). NASCAR is not a league. Teams only source of revenue IS sponsorship and race winnings. The argument that NASCAR teams are sponsored, so therefore we should be, is totally off base.

    • iLO | August 15, 2012 at 1:59 pm |

      MLS is looking a lot more relevant than the NHL these days, Steve. Why isn’t the NHL on your list?

  • Gary | August 15, 2012 at 8:45 am |

    As a one off jersey, I don’t hate the Nebraska unis. They’re definitely different. It would have looked better in Nebraska’s actual colors with the big N on the front, but like they said, black sells in the stores and to recruits… I’m not a Huskers fan, so it won’t bother me too much, but I still hope they don’t make a habit out of wearing it.

  • Danya | August 15, 2012 at 8:48 am |

    “We could be better on gender issues, but I feel this shows that we’ve been heading in the right direction. The eye candy element doesn’t hurt either.”

    I’m not sure who James Ashby is, but I think it’s pretty ridiculous to make a statement about how we’re heading in the right direction on gender issues and literally in the next sentence say he sees female athletes as “eye candy.” How can one say that “doesn’t hurt”?

    • Teebz | August 15, 2012 at 9:13 am |

      Gotta agree with you, Danya.

      I’ll further this by saying not only is the comment off-base in its statement, but the added jab at the end completely sours the entire misguided point he was trying to make.

      How is the USA making women’s inclusion in sports “more acceptable than other industrialized countries”? Are you saying that Canada, Germany, France, England, or a swath of other industrialized countries aren’t as progressive as the USA? That statement alone is entirely ridiculous.

      But I guess if one just wants eye candy, continue to trumpet the achievements of women breaking down barriers. After all, it’s the one barrier that continually keeps being put up by the male demographic watching sports that the women have the hardest time breaking as women are seen as sex symbols first and athletes second.

      • Ryan | August 15, 2012 at 9:32 am |

        I think his conclusion was that, since American women took home a higher proportion of medals in sports they contested than did American men, our acceptance and treatment of female athletes is superior to that of every other country. It’s one thing to note how Title IX has possibly spurred a more rapid development of female athletes in this country as compared to others, but to suggest the US is more progressive is absolutely ludicrous.

        Also, I loved (and by “loved,” I mean “groaned at”) the comment which Danya point out. Quite an incongruous statement if I’ve ever seen one.

      • Arr Scott | August 15, 2012 at 10:07 am |

        No, in fact, it is not ridiculous to say that the United States is more progressive than most industrial nations – hell, most nations generally – with regard to women’s sports. This is simply a true fact. Yes, in soccer, the rest of the world is finally beginning to catch up to USA in terms of supporting women playing the game. Which is great! Nice to finally have worthy opponents to play! But it also puts most of the world – Canada, China, Germany, and Scandinavia excepted – about 20 years behind the US. And this is the major sport where the rest of the world is closest to the United States in terms of mainstream acceptance and support for women’s athletics.

        Put it in perspective: Japan flew its women’s soccer team, the reigning World Cup champions, to London coach class. Japan’s men, ninth-place finishers at the last World Cup, were flown business class. And Japan is actually more progressive than most with regard to women’s soccer.

        And the eye-candy thing can either be read as the statement of a lout that completely contradicts the rest of his comment, or it can be read as a bit of ironical self-depreciation. Is it really so hard to give it the more generous reading?

        • Teebz | August 15, 2012 at 11:08 am |

          Do you really think that American women’s sports is better supported than all others based on the number of medals won at the Olympics? C’mon, are we really that short-sighted?

          Name me the last time you saw the American women play soccer outside of a televised World Cup or Olympic game. How about a televised English Premier League game? Or a televised MLS game? It’s all about advertising dollars, and people don’t get jacked for an America-Bermuda women’s soccer game like they do for a LA Galaxy-New York Red Bulls game.

          Don’t get me wrong in understanding how to sell fringe sports, though. Sex appeal will make anyone a star – Jennie Finch, for example – but it’s not like there weren’t teams as good or better than the Americans in softball. After all, Japan won gold in 2008 by beating the Americans. And there were comments made on the day that Phil posted the field hockey rundown about how more field hockey should be posted in the future. The fact is that when Phil and I discussed it, the choice was made to feature the women’s event BECAUSE OF the UW crowd. Eye candy at its finest, people, right?

          The Russians and Chinese pump a ton of money into their sports, and they regularly win in sports like gymnastics, trampoline, weightlifting, badminton, and table tennis. In the winter, the Canadian and American women routinely go battle in women’s ice hockey, and Sweden and Finland are proving their worth as well. Money gets spent on sports in other countries that North Americans may see as “fringe”.

          Therefore, I fail to see how the proportion of medals relates in any way to how much support these athletes receive from the general public – you and I – when the comment was “more acceptable than other industrialized countries”, which includes you and I. Just because America doesn’t produce top-flight table tennis players or weightlifters doesn’t mean that China, Japan, or Mongolia are any less supporting of their athletes. They may not pump as much money into the “traditional American” sports’ training programs, but that’s a decision they’ve made. It has nothing to do with Title IX unless you think they should fund men’s gymnastics more.

          And as for sponsors? They absolutely help the athletes make the podium by making up for their monetary shortfalls. But Misty May-Traynor and Kerri Walsh Jennings are not household names outside of a few weeks every four years. And you’d be lucky to find any sponsor willing to spend millions on an athlete in a fringe sport. The support for mainstream, “sexy” sports is there, but name me one sponsor for the women’s K-2 rowing team. I bet you can’t.

          That’s why teams like Croatia dominate in men’s water polo or the Netherlands in women’s field hockey – they play in front of full houses over there because people love the sport and they make amateur athletes into stars in their own countries. That, to me, is the definition of “support”.

          Honestly, what do you think of the Saudi Arabian women participating in the Olympics? They are doing more for women’s rights in that country – something Title IX is all about – than anything done before this Olympiad. Yet we’d probably say that due to their dress, they aren’t really eye candy. So do you support their involvement to help women in their country? Answer that honestly.

        • Arr Scott | August 15, 2012 at 12:02 pm |

          Teebz, were you replying to me there? Because I said or implied nothing about medal counts as a measurement of or validation for social or cultural acceptance of women’s sports. Hard to tell what your point is there, honestly, but if I’m reading you right, I think we agree about that issue.

          It’s just a fact that women’s sports are more accepted, more supported, more normal in the United States than most places in the world, including most similarly democratic and prosperous nations. Not everywhere, and not in all sports, but the acceptance and normalization of women’s athletics in America really is generally more advanced than in most of the world. To say so is not to claim that England or Japan or Nederlands is a medieval bastion of patriarchal tyranny, or that the United States is a feminist utopia. But at the most basic level, it’s simply the case that it is much easier for girls to participate in well-supported competitive sports in America than in most countries.

          As to the Saudi women, of course I support their involvement! What does that have to do with anything? You’re not suggesting that Saudi Arabia is now a peer of the United States with regard to progressive attitudes toward women in sport, right? I didn’t make the “eye candy” remark, but I do maintain that it’s possible to read it as something other than incontrovertible proof that the author is a sexist a-hole. It reads to me as a self-depreciating joke. But even if we read it as a totally earnest expression of the author’s true feelings, even then it still doesn’t say that eye-candy-ness is a necessary or even primary value to women’s sports.

        • Teebz | August 15, 2012 at 12:19 pm |

          No, not entirely Arr (I feel like I’m addressing a pirate when I write that). LOL

          But I do think that we, Canada, are quite forward in allowing women to participate in anything they like. We have women playing major junior hockey with men, for example.

          There are levels at which both countries lag behind one another, but the vast majority of the industrialized world is quite advanced when it comes to allowing women to play sports.

          America certainly funds its amateur sports better than Canada does and I cannot deny that, but the vast majority of the industrialized world already has some pretty good women’s sports programs that they have chosen to fund at the highest level.

        • Chris K | August 15, 2012 at 1:51 pm |

          “but name me one sponsor for the women’s K-2 rowing team. I bet you can’t.”
          A wild guess post race interview: “I’d like to thank our coaches for preparing us, our families for their support, and everyone back home. I’d also like to thank the Epic team for preparing this USA boat and Croker for the great oars. And thanks to the EZ Dock team for all their support too. Have I forgotten anyone?” And Teebz, I cheated and looked it up, so your point was made.

    • Ricko | August 15, 2012 at 10:06 am |

      Oh, please. How ’bout a little reality here?

      If an athlete–male OR female–is attractive it’s a huge plus (speaking from a promotional point of view).

      We’re human. We respond to attractive people. Know what surveys show people say is the number one thing that makes a long airline flight better? If the person they end up seated next to is good looking.

      Think, for example, that Lee Mazzilli being a handsome guy didn’t help the Mets back in the day? (We could make a LONG list of such players).

      Do we honestly believe people would be so attentive to athletes such as Tiger Woods or Tim Tebow if they looked like Rondo Hatton?
      http://www.teddwebb....

      So, while “eye candy” might not be the best way to say it, the point is entirely valid.

      • todd krevanchi | August 15, 2012 at 10:46 am |

        I somewhat agree. It works both ways. Ricko is right in that as humans, physical attraction gets our attention, and performance gets us to stay… in ANY venue. Sports, cars, houses, clothing, who we choose as our significant other, etc.
        I wonder how many women followed the Phillies because of Pat Burrell’s appearance? Or the Patriots because of Tom Brady’s appearance? Or the Heat because of Dwyane Wade’s? Or any number of David Beckham’s teams because of his appearance?
        It’s the pretty ones that gain our attention to a team, then we become fans of the team or sport in general, and then we stay.
        I’ve been a fan of Sue Bird since she was at UConn. Yes, to me she is physically attractive, and I’d watch her games in college and at the Pro level initially to see her, but in the interim, I’ve developed an appreciation for Women’s basketball. An appearance got me to pay attention, the performance got me to stay.

        • Ricko | August 15, 2012 at 10:55 am |

          Exactly.

        • Teebz | August 15, 2012 at 11:24 am |

          How do people become enamored with NASCAR then? The cars just look more attractive than others? ;o)

          I do see your point, Todd, and I’m not debating that attraction can lead to appreciation. In fact, I salute you for finding and supporting women’s basketball when everyone craps on the WNBA. That, to me, is true support that came from an appreciation of Sue Bird’s form.

          But I do have a problem with someone commenting on how great it is that women are being given a fair shake in the world of sports, and then reducing them to sex appeal. The athletic achievements are all but washed away at that point.

        • Arr Scott | August 15, 2012 at 12:17 pm |

          See, right there in your penultimate sentence is where you err, Teebz. The statement in question reads,

          The eye candy element doesn’t hurt either.

          Nothing in this “reduces” women’s athletics to sex appeal. It just doesn’t. Reading it as though it does is simply bad reading. The phrase “doesn’t hurt” is a common English idiom for describing minor or secondary traits of a thing. (It’s also most commonly used to signal the ironic inclusion of the item so named.) I’m quite sure you’d read it as such in any other context! If I said, “Soccer is a beautiful sport of grace, endurance, and mental toughness – and the fact that it’s played on grass and green is my favorite color doesn’t hurt either,” I’m quite certain that you would never conclude that I was “reducing” soccer to a superficial preference for the color green.

          Thus here. The very word choice, even as the author raises the true fact that many men find women to be aesthetically pleasing, expresses the unimportance of that relative to the other considerations raised. Rather than reducing women athletes to sex objects, the actual words used reduce the sex appeal of women athletes to a negligible issue, even a joke, compared with the substantive matters of quality of performance and social equity.

      • Ricko | August 15, 2012 at 11:36 am |

        So if a writer mentions that David Beckham or Tom Brady has “movie star/GQ cover boy good looks” that washes way all their athletic accomplishments?

        I’m saying that if there’s TRUE equality, someone should be able to note that Gabby Douglas is “really cute” or Alex Morgan is “really sexy” without being accused of being sexiest. It’s just an observation. And likely both true, at that.

        • Teebz | August 15, 2012 at 11:46 am |

          You’re arguing two different points. The comment was about how far women’s athletics have come, and then about how women are eye candy. That term indicates that you’re there for the latter reason, and not the former.

          Yours is about men who have never once had their good looks put ahead of their athletic achievements. HUGE difference there, Rick. Saying “Alex Morgan is a great soccer player, and she’s darn cute” has an entirely different connotation than “Rosa Parks has done wonders for women’s rights. The eye candy element doesn’t hurt either.” It’s how it’s framed, and we both know that.

        • todd krevanchi | August 15, 2012 at 12:02 pm |

          Apparently I have made a comment that must have been so over-the-top ludicrous that it is “awaiting moderation”.

        • Teebz | August 15, 2012 at 12:04 pm |

          If it included “I love the WNBA”, it may be stuck forever, Todd. ;oP

        • Ricko | August 15, 2012 at 12:11 pm |

          As Scott said, maybe recognize that the comment was simply being honest enough to note their looks certainly aren’t going to IMPEDE the growth of the sport.

          Because if that’s the way it was intended, it’s spot on.

          Granted (as I noted), using “eye candy” may not have been the best phrase to employ to express the thought, but I suppose that also depends on whether we see “eye candy” as skeevy or as a phase that is becoming rather mainstream.

      • todd krevanchi | August 15, 2012 at 11:46 am |

        Teebz, I know you were kidding, but NASCAR is the same way. Its not the uniform or in this case the vehicle, its the operator of it. NASCAR had a boom of female fans when Jeff Gordon came on the scene. An ex-girlfriend of mine (who to this day is a major NASCAR fan) got into it because of Kasey Kahne. Same with Jimmy Johnson, Carl Edwards, etc. Its the appearance of the individual. We can thank the media for drawing attention to athletes physical attributes outside of their abilities within their sport (ie, GQ, ESPN The Magazine Body Issue, etc.)
        We sort of look away and laugh when a female (who we know has had little or no interest in sports ever) says she likes a team because the players are attractive. Why? Maybe its because it was the only way that the game was able to stay on TV, or it was a way it brought you as a couple closer together. It could be myriad reasons.
        But like many other issues in everyday life, if the tables are turned, and essentially the same thing is said, but by the male, it causes debate.

        • todd krevanchi | August 15, 2012 at 12:08 pm |

          …and now it seems I’m locked out.

        • todd krevanchi | August 15, 2012 at 12:36 pm |

          Hey! It worked! It must have passed the strict requirements of uni watch police!
          I know your comment was in jest Teebz, but youre right, it may not go over with this blog’s readership that I do like the WNBA and other high level women’s basketball (most of my opinions here are viewed with criticism or as incorrect, but I dont care).
          I like it simply for the reason that they play a game that most of us who played in high school, intramural or lower level college and summer leagues are familiar with… under the basket. They run organized offenses, and HEAVILY rely on the fundamentals for success.
          Yes, many bad mouth the WNBA, yet I’d say the majority of those who do, play the exact same style of game as these women. And I’d challenge these gentlemen to put a team together to take on any major college team or WNBA team and try to beat them.

        • ChrisH | August 15, 2012 at 12:44 pm |

          Has NASCAR seen another increase in female fans since Danica Patrick’s been running? Methinks not.

      • Teebz | August 15, 2012 at 12:27 pm |

        Arr, you’re comparing your favorite color to gender equality.

        The term “eye candy”, to me (and this may be where I differ as Rick points out below), is a superficial yet non-substantial highlight whereby external attractiveness is used to draw attention rather than the substance. I happen to think the athletic achievements should be given the spotlight when you consider what these women have done, including trailblazing paths for the next generation.

        Maybe my definition is wrong, but I see “eye candy” as more of a derogatory term.

        • Teebz | August 15, 2012 at 12:28 pm |

          Or above. Somehow, I have that comment way out of place. LOL

        • Ricko | August 15, 2012 at 12:56 pm |

          I said it wasn’t the best term to use.

          I mean, upon hearing the news that Elvis had died, a famous entertainment industry executive said, “Good career move.”

          Flip. Apparently insensitive. Entirely accurate.

        • Cort McMurray | August 15, 2012 at 1:31 pm |

          This has become a pretty hot topic of conversation all over the place. Did you see NBC’s “Tribute to the Female Athlete” video, with the slow motion shots of spandexed competitors, casually tossing their long blonde hair, to a bass heavy, lite jazz, “Boom-chick-a-wow-wow” soundtrack? Creepy.

          The thing is – and maybe this is a sad thing to consider – but you will eventually reach the age when you watch a beautiful, talented, articulate young woman like Allyson Felix, and your first thought, your honest-to-goodness first thought is, “Now why can’t my son bring home a girl like that?”

          Also, you’ll have to get up to pee about 400 times a night, but that’s another story.

    • Lee | August 15, 2012 at 11:41 am |

      Thank you. I thought the same thing… why go through saying all of that if you are going to simply negate it all with that last sentence? Weird.

      Lee

    • James A | August 15, 2012 at 5:23 pm |

      Obviously, some clarification seems in order to the quote from me that was posted today. I am supportive of our American female athletes and that support is not contingent on the appearances of those athletes. The womens events that I watched during the Olympics had more to do with my interest in the sports themselves rather than the looks of the athletes. Did I take notice if a woman in one of those sports was attractive? I’d be lying if I said I didn’t, but that didn’t drive my support of the U.S. women. And it won’t. The last sentence was meant in a more light-hearted and (as noted earlier) honest admission, but it was not taken that way by all. I’ll take responibility for not expressing my thoughts and feelings in a more specific way that takes away that misundestanding.

      • Teebz | August 15, 2012 at 5:46 pm |

        I’m not raking you over the coals, James. In the entire interest of clarity, I knew what you meant (being that I’m a guy), but there is a good percentage of the population (>50%, if I recall correctly) that don’t get a guy’s perspective.

        Sometimes, the actual meaning of what you’re saying gets eaten up by the InterwebBeast. I know there have been many times where I’ve typed something innocently only to have it misread or misunderstood. All good here, sir!

  • Bernard | August 15, 2012 at 8:53 am |

    I’m a huge fan of this Nebraska alternate uni. Based strictly on aesthetics, I think it looks great. The only change I’d make would be to make the pants white. Anyone with Photoshop skills want to mock that up?

    • Chris Holder | August 15, 2012 at 9:19 am |

      White? Really? I think the pants should be black. I’m not sure I can think of a single team where a tri-color approach (different color for the helmet/jersey/pants) has been a good look. But hey, I know that’s a subjective thing.

      I like the uniform too, and my favorite team’s look is as traditional as Nebraska’s. Our fans also get just as upset at the idea of a one-off alternate. But I can’t say I hate the idea if they are only used once a year. Most schools are playing 13 or 14 games now.

      • Bernard | August 15, 2012 at 9:54 am |

        Off the top of my head, I’d say it is (was) a good look for the Jaguars. But yeah, subjective.

      • Bernard | August 15, 2012 at 10:43 am |

        Falcons are another.

        • Bernard | August 15, 2012 at 10:44 am |

          The throwback, that is.

        • Chris Holder | August 15, 2012 at 11:53 am |

          Ok… that I can agree with. I think the red/black/white combination actually does lend itself to that idea better than other color combos, for whatever reason.

    • The Jeff | August 15, 2012 at 9:51 am |

      Here ya go, white pants: http://img849.images...

      • Bernard | August 15, 2012 at 9:54 am |

        Yes. Thanks, Jeff!

      • Arr Scott | August 15, 2012 at 10:24 am |

        Why are these uniforms never photographed on football fields, or with the wearers doing football things? Half the time, like this Nebraska photo, they’re just doing the Superman-breaking-chains-with-his-chest pose:

        http://www.supermanh...

        Which has exactly zero resemblance to anything that any football player ever has to do.

        • The Jeff | August 15, 2012 at 11:23 am |

          they’re just doing the Superman-breaking-chains-with-his-chest pose which has exactly zero resemblance to anything that any football player ever has to do.

          You obviously aren’t watching enough football. They do that all the time: when they celebrate after a sack… or a big hit… or a small shove out of bounds… or an incomplete pass they had nothing to do with… or…

          ;)

        • Arr Scott | August 15, 2012 at 12:26 pm |

          Has to do. I maintain that the chest-puffing is entirely elective. ;-)

          “I just spent eight seconds running a very short distance! Now we’ll have a committee meeting, and then I’ll probably go sit down for ten minutes! I’m an AAAAATH-LEEEEET!” [strikes Superman breaking-chain pose]

          Only in America, right?

      • Craig D | August 15, 2012 at 10:53 am |

        Yeeesh…Looks like he was half dipped in an industrial sized vat of bleach. The mono red isn’t great, but white sure wouldn’t have been a better choice.

        • The Jeff | August 15, 2012 at 11:13 am |

          For comparison, here’s with black pants: http://img4.imagesha...

        • Bernard | August 15, 2012 at 11:45 am |

          I like the black pants too, but I still prefer the white. I don’t think it would look as bleached out if you could see the pants stripes better.

        • Bernard | August 15, 2012 at 11:48 am |

          Care to white-pants this one, Jeff?

        • The Jeff | August 15, 2012 at 12:12 pm |

          White pants, side view: http://img443.images...

        • Bernard | August 15, 2012 at 1:32 pm |

          Perfect, man. THAT is a good looking uniform.

      • tom | August 15, 2012 at 1:04 pm |

        whoa. good skills. looks good

    • Glen | August 15, 2012 at 12:22 pm |

      Florida Gators.

      • Ricko | August 15, 2012 at 12:45 pm |

        Orange Crush Broncos.
        Cleveland Browns.
        Alworth-era Chargers.
        ’50s-’60s and Singletary-era Baylor.

        • Ricko | August 15, 2012 at 1:10 pm |

          Fouts-Winlsow-Chandler-Joiner era Chargers (who wore white at home)

  • marc | August 15, 2012 at 8:55 am |

    I haven’t been paying attention at all lately, so could someone please tell me what the hell is going on with this?

    http://photos.clevel...

    http://photos.clevel...

    How long has this been happening?

    • The Jeff | August 15, 2012 at 8:59 am |

      I think the Ford for Cleveland is new for this year, but they’ve had ads on NFL practice jerseys for a few years now.

      Yeah, it’s lame and looks like shit, but as long as they stay on just the practice jerseys, it’s not worth protesting.

  • RJ | August 15, 2012 at 9:05 am |

    as far as NBA uni-ads, the only way I would be on board with this is if somehow, ticket prices went down, and the NBA full court TV package became a basic cable service. Give the advertising money back to the fans. I wouldn’t like the look at all, but would enjoy the lower gate prices and TV viewing.

    I really think all sports should sell and advert on the on screen score board.

    • Arr Scott | August 15, 2012 at 10:14 am |

      As a matter of basic microeconomics, this is impossible. New revenue can be used to increase profits, to increase capital investment, or to increase labor investment. Since NBA teams effectively have no capital to invest in – local governments, not teams, generally build, own, and operate their arenas – new revenue will either be pocketed as profits (or applied as general revenue to offset current operating losses) or it will be spent on higher player salaries. And while a generous team owner could do the profit-pocketing thing and then take that money back out of his pocket and cut ticket prices, all it will take is one or two owners using the new revenue to bid up player salaries and every team will be forced to compete for talent at the new, higher market price.

      So it’s basically inevitable that new revenue will mostly be consumed by a burst of player salary inflation after 2013. Until the NBA figures out how to convince players to work for free like the NCAA, uni ad revenue will not be reducing ticket prices.

    • Tom V. | August 15, 2012 at 10:36 am |

      As well, using the $100M max number that the teams will get half of, that boils down to $1.6M per team. Figure 15,000 fans per game at 41 home games works out to 615,000 seats sold. That works out to less than $3 per ticket if the money goes toward ticket prices. Seems highly unlikely an owner would do that.

      • RJ | August 15, 2012 at 12:45 pm |

        I am under no illusion that it uni-ads will impact ticket or cable package pricing, but that would be the 1 thing that would make it ok for me.

        • Arr Scott | August 15, 2012 at 1:04 pm |

          I hear you, and I kind of agree, but it’s important to understand that it’s not even theoretically possible for new ad revenue to lead to reduced ticket prices. Not only is it the case that uni ads will not reduce ticket prices, it is also the case that uni add cannot reduce ticket prices.

          On the contrary: Uni ad revenue will put rapid upward pressure on labor costs, and the revenue will also be distributed in a way that increases rather than decreases revenue disparities among teams. So with costs rising for everyone but revenue from this source increasing only a little for many teams, we’re almost certain to see teams looking to increase revenue from other sources to make up the difference. In other words, uni ads, as the NBA says it’s going to do them, are likely to cause ticket prices to rise after 2013, at least for teams outside NYC, LA, Chicago, Miami, and Dallas.

        • RJ | August 15, 2012 at 1:20 pm |

          As CPA I understand the difficulty in a attempting a dollar for dollar match in revenue & ticket price decrease,they could do other things, the could give away the cable package, the league could demand $25 a ticket cut that the league would pay each team. They could do something, but they won’t. Those ads are only worth something if people watch the games.

    • Mike Engle | August 15, 2012 at 2:44 pm |

      I won’t even pretend that this is an area of expertise of mine, because it isn’t. But if somebody more capable than myself can answer…
      I would have to assume that in the interest of parity, every team would have a jersey ad, and all available ad space would cost the same amount of money, whether it’s the LA Lakers or the Charlotte Bobcats. What about national TV schedules? We all know that it is currently on a “max the ratings” system, so it’s more or less a meritocracy. If jersey ads cost the same, wouldn’t advertisers demand equal exposure, and wouldn’t that shoot ratings in the foot? I mean, who wants to watch the post-Dwight Howard Magic take on the Bobcats just to make sure that sponsorship visibility is a little more balanced?
      Discuss, and enlighten me.

  • Tony Miller | August 15, 2012 at 9:17 am |

    Two thoughts on the Nebraska uni:

    1) Is Nebraska cream the same as IU cream? Is Nebraska scarlet the same as Ohio State scarlet?

    2) The alts here look like, to borrow from Vin Scully, blanking fertilizer — there’s no way around that. But I applaud Adidas for sticking with colors that Nebraska has a tradition of, y’know, actually using (take note, Baylor/Oregon).

  • Feit Can Write | August 15, 2012 at 9:49 am |

    These stupid Nebraska alts have taken me on a roller-coaster ride.

    As a Nebraska native, fan, and alumnus, I definitely fall into the “traditionalist” camp, so I have viewed these alts with a mix of acceptance and dread: http://feitcanwrite....

    When the design was revealed, my thoughts were a mix of “ugh” and “it could be worse”: http://feitcanwrite.... but I started to accept them.

    But then, adidas released the Wisconsin version, which is taken from the same template as Nebraska’s (as others have mentioned – if NU and UW look so similar normally, why dress them alike for the Adidas Slogan Bowl?)http://feitcanwrite.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/even-more-about-nebraskas-alternate-uniform/

  • Gregory Koch | August 15, 2012 at 9:54 am |

    Happy 41st Deathday to Paul Lukas! Not our Paul Lukas, he’s still alive, but the Hungarian Actor, who passed away today in 1971.

    • LarryB | August 15, 2012 at 2:36 pm |

      I think of UW Paul when I see a TCM movie with the actor Paul

  • tom | August 15, 2012 at 9:56 am |

    Just imagine, if Nebraska was sponsored by Nike they could have an alternate helmet with an ear of CORN (ala VT turkey feet)

    • Feit Can Write | August 15, 2012 at 10:17 am |

      Done correctly, I think a corn helmet could be pretty cool. (A respectable effort can be found here: http://trepanddoc.fi...)

      However, I don’t know if Nebraska would go for it. In the last 15-20 years Nebraska has somewhat distanced themselves from “Cornhuskers”, preferring to market themselves as the “Huskers”. Former A.D. Bill Byrne started the change saying that people in non-ag states didn’t want to buy gear with “corn” on it.

      • walter | August 15, 2012 at 11:21 am |

        Note to Bill Byrne: This New Yorker thinks corn is just fine, thank you.

    • Arr Scott | August 15, 2012 at 11:21 am |

      I’m going to be evil and hope that someone from Nike is paying attention when I suggest this as the basis for a future Nebraska helmet finish:

      http://www.flo-thru....

    • tom | August 15, 2012 at 1:11 pm |

      When Green Bay gets a “cheese” theme uniform, then we all know Nike has taken over

  • tom | August 15, 2012 at 10:02 am |

    Nebraska and Wisconsin have nearly identical football uniforms.

    • tom | August 15, 2012 at 10:03 am |

      regular uniforms (not talking about the gimmicks)

    • walter | August 15, 2012 at 11:29 am |

      Now that more and more football powerhouses are playing conference hopscotch, you’re going to see repetition of this kind. Didn’t NU have curvy, serifed numerals in the 1960s? That would be a simple way to stand out.

      • tom | August 15, 2012 at 1:09 pm |

        Wisconsin should keep the ADIDAS designed helmets and jersey font. The “W” looks a lot better than their real logo in my opinion

    • tom | August 15, 2012 at 1:12 pm |

      WORST COLLEGE UNIFORMS OF ALL TIME

      http://bloximages.ch...

  • Arr Scott | August 15, 2012 at 10:16 am |

    If the Nebraska N were just plain white (or even cream), no outline, I’d both buy the “heritage” spin and actually like it as a football uniform.

    • Ricko | August 15, 2012 at 10:41 am |

      There ya go.

      I mean, how do you create a uni out of thin air, one that has never been worn by the team at any time, and call it a salute to their history? Yes, it may contain historical elements, but that doesn’t make it history.

      If someone wears a coonskin cap with a Hawaiian shirt and cargo shorts it would be a little ludicrous for him to say, “Bet the first thing you thought of was Davy Crockett, huh.”

  • Feit Can Write | August 15, 2012 at 10:35 am |

    Two minor quibbles with Mr. Newcomb’s fine article:

    1. Aside from shoes, undershirts, and a Blackshirts helmet sticker, Nebraska has not worn black on their football uniforms. Many of NU’s other sports teams do have black highlights or BFBS uniforms.

    2. The “Blackshirts” tradition started with defensive players wearing black jerseys in practice, not the other way around. The legend has it that a assistant under Devaney was sent to a local sporting goods story to get pull over jerseys to distinguish the offense from defense. The coach had a choice between black and yellow (two colors that weren’t selling) and picked black. And a tradition was born. http://www.huskers.c...

  • BrianC | August 15, 2012 at 10:51 am |

    “proud owner of two of the nicer hockey jerseys ever made. Nicer is the word I am looking for, right?”

    For that warm up I think “hideous” is the word you’re looking for.

    • quiet seattle | August 15, 2012 at 11:16 am |

      There can be no denying: that Coyotes jersey induces nausea. Just awful.

      BUT…that alt logo is still one of my all-time favorites in sports….

      http://blog.rogersbr...

    • walter | August 15, 2012 at 11:24 am |

      A friend of mine used to say those uniforms reminded him of the 30 oz. soft drink cup at Taco Bell.

  • todd krevanchi | August 15, 2012 at 11:21 am |

    They should rename the Nebraska v Wisconsin “Unrivaled” game as the “Compass Rose” game.

  • concealed78 | August 15, 2012 at 11:30 am |

    10 ways to fill the Olympics void

    What, no cribbage?

    • Arr Scott | August 15, 2012 at 12:20 pm |

      Or snooker? With all of the lame crap BBC America airs to fill its daily schedule, surely it could show a couple of snooker tourneys a year.

  • ChrisH | August 15, 2012 at 11:36 am |

    After reading this:

    http://hosted.ap.org...

    …and considering the ‘law’ of unintended consequences, I mioght need to rethink my position on the whole NBA uni-ads issue.

  • brinke | August 15, 2012 at 11:50 am |

    Red Sox doing a Pesky patch.
    http://news.sportslo...

    • Shane | August 15, 2012 at 12:04 pm |

      I was hoping they’d do a patch for the home jersey.

  • Shane | August 15, 2012 at 12:05 pm |

    Side note about the pictures of wrestlers in baseball jerseys, the one of Randy Savage was actually before his days in the ring. He was drafted by the Cards way, way back, OOOH YEAH,

    /Your mustache is crooked

  • ColinSTL | August 15, 2012 at 12:10 pm |

    Regarding George’s questions about the Rams and the “first tier process:” A clause in the Rams’ lease with the Convention and Visitors Commission (the owners of the Edward Jones Dome) says that the Ed (as we call it here) has to remain in the top level of NFL stadiums throughout the terms of the lease, and it’s reviewed in 10-year increments. Both the Rams and the CVC have made proposals for improvements to the stadium in order to satisfy this clause, and the process is currently in negotiations between the parties. If the stadium doesn’t remain in the “top tier” of NFL stadiums by 2014, the Rams can break the lease and are free to move to another city if Stan Kroenke (sp?) chooses to.

    Sorry that this sounds long-winded, but I wanted to put in as many details as possible. Any questions? Please ask–thanks!

    • Cort McMurray | August 15, 2012 at 1:37 pm |

      The PR blurb says the NFL is playing games in “historic Wembley Stadium.” This prompts a couple of questions:

      Wasn’t one of the intended post-Olympic plans for Olympic Park Stadium that it would become the London home for the NFL?

      If you tear down an historic edifice, and build a new edifice that looks completely different than the original, but it has the same name, can the new place still be called historic? If I tear down Westminster Cathedral, and build a glass and steel sanctuary in its place, can I call it “Historic Westminster Cathedral”?

      • ColinSTL | August 15, 2012 at 2:10 pm |

        Not sure about the NFL at Olympic Stadium, but I do know that it’ll become the home of West Ham United FC in time for the 2013-14 soccer season. In trying to answer your second question, it’s still the same site of the original, although I do understand your point about the rebuilding of Wembley itself. I’m thinking there were the same questions when Yankee Stadium was remodeled in the mid 70s.

        • George Chilvers | August 15, 2012 at 3:18 pm |

          Still not 100% certain that “The ‘Ammers” will have the Olympic Stadium – there have been a few legal challenges and the situation is still not firmly resolved:

          http://www.independe...

        • Cort McMurray | August 15, 2012 at 3:48 pm |

          George, why can’t Spurs and West Ham share the facility, the way San Siro is shared?

        • Silver Creek Doug | August 15, 2012 at 4:02 pm |

          There’s very little tradition in England of ground-sharing. It happens mostly when one club is renovating their own ground. Last one I recall is Fulham sharing Vicarage Road with Watford while Craven Cottage was redone.

        • George Chilvers | August 15, 2012 at 4:07 pm |

          Tradition. I know it’s done elsewhere but the idea would be unthinkable, no matter how economically sound it may appear. The clubs are separate identities and would not dream of sharing.

          Liverpool and Everton are a few hundred yards apart – and both need new stadiums. It was mooted a few years ago by someone that maybe they could build a shared stadium in the park that separates them.

          You would have thought someone had suggested that they abadon football and play cricket instead. It just was not going to happen.

          Even in Wigan we (Wigan Athletic “soccer”) share our stadiun with Wigan Warriors rugby. We dislike them with a vengeance and call them “the lodgers”.

        • Cort McMurray | August 15, 2012 at 4:42 pm |

          That’s really interesting.

          When you look at a map, it’s amazing how close together many of the stadiums are. The closest thing we have ever had in the States is Yankee Stadium and the Polo Gorunds, which were a stone’s throw apart.

        • George Chilvers | August 15, 2012 at 6:00 pm |

          Dundee United (top) and Dundee
          http://mbalbert0513....

          Liverpool (top) and Everton
          http://mbalbert0513....

          Notts County (top) and Nottingham Forest
          http://mbalbert0513....

        • George Chilvers | August 15, 2012 at 6:05 pm |

          Just to add a challenge – which football ground is nearest the River Mersey?

        • George Chilvers | August 15, 2012 at 6:12 pm |

          If you’re interested the answer is here (I won’t provide a spoiler)
          http://www.btinterne...

        • NickV | August 15, 2012 at 7:21 pm |

          I happened to be listening to British SportTalk radio last night on Sirius. Lots of talk and calls taken regarding the idea of West Ham moving into the Olympic Stadium.

          First, the radio host continually ridiculed the idea, stating that the Olympic Stadium would seat at least 60,000 after the conversion, and that West Ham had no history of ever nearing that kind of attendance. some of the calls were absolutely hilarious, with fans ripping on West Ham. Then the West Ham fans called, accusing other Premier League teams of not drawing fans, specifically calling out the average attendance of PL teams with less than West Ham, and ntagonizing the hosts and other callers. Accused many PL teams of having traveling fans that could all fit into one taxi! Pure radio gold that can only happen unrehearsed.

          Second, the radio hosts seemed to indicate that there was some thought to NOT converting the Olympic Stadium to soccer, as it would foreclose future usage of the stadium for Commonewealth Games and other non-soccer activities. England spent a great deal on money on these Olympics, and seem to want to grow in Olympic events by attracting athletes to these sports, and hope to use the new stadium to showcase the events. The hosts posit that properly converting the stadium to football will riun it for that other purpose …

  • Johnny O | August 15, 2012 at 12:11 pm |

    I was at Lambeau Field the other day, and noticed this fantastic wool throwback hat. I did not purchase it, and now kind of regret it. You just don’t see a lot of stuff with this particular logo anymore. I know Chance is gonna love this:

    http://www.packerspr...

    • Tim E. O'B | August 15, 2012 at 1:22 pm |

      If the G stands for greatness, what does the B stand for?

      • Ricko | August 15, 2012 at 1:32 pm |

        Beer.

        • Ricko | August 15, 2012 at 1:32 pm |

          or Bratwurst, maybe?

      • Coleman | August 15, 2012 at 2:26 pm |

        Needs a comma… Greatness, Bitches. Heh heh. Also, nice hat. I just looked throught the proshop offerings a few days ago and loved that one too.

    • walter | August 15, 2012 at 6:00 pm |

      The NFL could use more of those.

  • Paul | August 15, 2012 at 1:23 pm |

    “(almost shocking that Adidas couldn’t talk them into three stripes)”

    Apparently they did for the practice jerseys:
    http://journalstar.c...

  • LarryB | August 15, 2012 at 2:40 pm |

    Very nice work by the Auburn blogger. A couple nice pics in it. good color shot of Tigers in the 40s. Bench shot.

    I had never seen the 1929 Tiger on front in a picture until today. Interesting that their does not seem to be a really good frontal view of it though.

    Auburn does have some nice looking unis.

  • tom | August 15, 2012 at 3:01 pm |

    for the Auburn throw-backs- sorry man not seeing it. the only thing i’d like to see auburn do is maybe go with orange facemasks or an orange jersey for the UGA game. maybe go with numbers on the helmets against alabama.

  • Coleman | August 15, 2012 at 6:03 pm |

    WOW. King Felix….

  • Paul Stave | August 15, 2012 at 6:43 pm |

    Why does Nebraska have two fonts for the N? One for the helmet. One other for everything else? Somebody in marketing fucked up

  • JD | August 15, 2012 at 7:27 pm |

    The Uproar right Now is How Nobody has Ever like the all reds.
    The Pants Need To Match The Helmet ! ! !
    Please
    Please
    Please
    GET THIS FIXED !
    I repeat the uniforms need to be
    The Black red accent helmets
    The red jersey with Black N
    The Black pants with Red stripes

    Please help in getting this message to whoever needs to get it tk make the change.

    • NickV | August 15, 2012 at 7:31 pm |

      Exactly. Wasn’t he etire point of these alternate unis to avoid the IntraSquad Game look of Wisconsin @ Nebraska in their regular unis? The Huskers wearing Black pants with the helmet would help greatly in the Contrast Department ….

  • JD | August 15, 2012 at 7:36 pm |

    It sure shows how moe advanced nike is than adidas.
    Dont get me wrong,i prefer adidas over nike,but My goodness ,look at the uniforms that nike rills out and then look at the adidas .
    I dont see Nebraska EVER being allowed to do something crazy cool like That but…
    Anyway
    like i said
    Add the Black pants to this and it should look pretty cool.
    Thanks
    any questions if this is the right move to make. Give a picture of both to the players and let them decide. End Of Discussion

  • Tim E. O'B | August 15, 2012 at 7:38 pm |

    If you are on the fence about soccer, watch ESPN 2 tonight. This could get real chippy.

    • Coleman | August 15, 2012 at 8:10 pm |

      *floppy

      I’m an absloutely huge soccer fan, I’m just going to be realistic. Just TRY to count how many flops the boys in green will attempt this evening. I hate what flopping is doing to the beautiful game.

      /rant

      GO USA!

      • Tim E. O'B | August 15, 2012 at 8:13 pm |

        US looks great tonight in red and white striped shirts and their blue shorts. Should be their go-to look.

        Even Howard looks great in the powder blue. Accents his olive skin nicely (yeah, I said it…).

        • Coleman | August 15, 2012 at 8:19 pm |

          Yep. Love USA in this kit.

          One thing that bothers me is the empty white box they use to emphasize or single out they jersey numbers. I get the idean I just think it could be done better.

          Powder blue? Man, one of our screens is off. I see white…

        • Tim E. O'B | August 15, 2012 at 8:23 pm |

          I think it might be both. There’s definitely some blue in there though.

        • Coleman | August 15, 2012 at 8:48 pm |

          Good call. Moved TVs and can see that different color on the front. Sleeves and back are white. I can sleep better now that we’ve nailed it down.

          Now, where do we bury this horse?

      • Coleman | August 15, 2012 at 8:53 pm |

        Theeere it was. Did you see that pathetic dive by chicharito? Its making the game ugly. Man the fuck up.

    • Coleman | August 15, 2012 at 9:54 pm |

      USA! USA! USA! 10 more minutes boys!!!

      • Tim E. O'B | August 15, 2012 at 10:01 pm |

        Howard is a god.

        • Coleman | August 15, 2012 at 10:14 pm |

          No argument from me. That second save? Cats are jealous of those reflexes.

      • Coleman | August 15, 2012 at 10:08 pm |

        ‘Merica. FUCK YEA!

        First win in Mexico in 75 years of play!!!!

        • Tim E. O'B | August 15, 2012 at 10:10 pm |

          WOW! That was fucking awesome.

        • Coleman | August 15, 2012 at 10:16 pm |

          Glad to have witness it “with” ya, Tim E.
          Let’s go get a beer.

        • Tim E. O'B | August 15, 2012 at 11:03 pm |

          SOLD. (Truth be told, after the game, I immediately went to my fridge hoping for a Budweiser. Unfortunately I’ll have to settle for Bud Light.)

  • Wheels | August 15, 2012 at 7:42 pm |

    In the Mets-Reds game, the umps just made R.A. Dickey cut off his bracelet. Fascists. I’ve seen way worse stuff on players.

  • Dan T. | August 15, 2012 at 9:03 pm |

    Anybody remember the old joke that the “N” on Nebraska’s helmet was supposed to stand for “knowledge”?

  • Coleman | August 15, 2012 at 9:15 pm |

    Read through todays comments. It was mentioned.

    • Coleman | August 15, 2012 at 9:19 pm |

      That was supposed to be a reply to your comment, Dan T.

  • Jeff | August 15, 2012 at 11:07 pm |

    Enjoyed the archive photos from UTSA. Especially liked the Diagramming board with the cheerleaders (?) as my dad went to Brackenridge ad my mom went to Jefferson.

  • Robert | August 16, 2012 at 11:12 am |

    Messing with Nebraska tradition is right! Someone should be fired over this! What bonehead decision! Ugly, ugly, ugly, ugly, ugly! But, anything for money right? Idiots!

  • Barry | August 16, 2012 at 1:19 pm |

    I love the alternates. It’s about time. We’ve been in this box long enough. Been a Husker for 52 years. I appreciate the tradition, but this is a new time. I love the change. Do it more than once.