In Which ‘Collector’s Corner’ Gets Pride of Place

Collector’s Corner

By Brinke Guthrie

Got a special edition of CC today, kids. The stuff I feature every week is mostly clothing and memorabilia from the 1970s, and in particular the NFL. If you asked me to name my favorite stuff from the period, I would definitely include Music From NFL Films.

As one iTunes reviewer wrote, “Better than a Delorean, this album takes you back to when This Week in Pro Football had guys dressed in fabric used to cover sofas. What MTV did for our kids, NFL Films music did for us.”

With the season kicking off Thursday night, here’s a little selection of that music for ya. Just click here to download the sound clips and you’re back in 1972. (And if you weren’t born yet in ’72, well, believe me, this was what the NFL sounded like.)

Now on to other items!

• Did I say NFL 1970s? I believe so! Had one of these — a laminated fiberboard Bengals plaque, made by Kentucky Art Plaques.

• This late-1960s Bengals pennant reminds me of what has to be the cheesiest team fight song in history. Spent many a cold fall/winter Sunday in the red Loge boxes at Riverfront listening to that. But anyone who’s grown up in Cincinnati knows it word for word. Frank Bitzer, am I right or am I right?

• Here’s a nice 1974 New York Stars (WFL) poster, from Mike Princip.

• Classic-looking Vikings Starter jacket from back in the day. And this Vikes zip-front sweater is absolutely a Sears classic — had the same style for the Bengals. Dig the groovy pull ring, man. Pair that with a white turtleneck and you be stylin’!

• Here’s a cool 1970s NBA magnetic standings board set.

• I do not recall Fleer doing Big Signs for the NFL. I’ve seen this in poster form, but as a Big Sign, don’t remember seeing these. Well, they say the memory is the first thing to go.

• Apex always had cool designs and made nice heavy-duty cotton shirts. The template for this Cowboys polo shirt was called “The Dart.” Here’s the same style for the Patriots. This Dolphins design was called “The Border,” I think.

• This 1954 Baseball Soap + Glove Soap Dish looks to be in near-mint condition-and it’s closing in on 60 years old!

• And we conclude with a tennis item, since the U.S. Open is into week two: I had the privilege to do the stadium PA announcing for the ATP Championships for four years (one time I got the Stare of Death from Boris Becker, but that’s another story). One of the great deals was that you could buy official Adidas ATP tour stuff for really cheap — like 80% off. Had this sweatshirt and this T-shirt.

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

+ + + + +

Or, well, maybe not: It has apparently become fashionable in certain circles to refer to those of us who oppose of the use of the ’Skins name — and especially those of us who have stopped using it in our writing and discourse — as “Orwellian.”

I’m not sure where this started, but it appears to have become a talking point for those on the pro-’Skins side of the debate. It showed up in the Uni Watch comments section on Saturday (hi, Brendan!), and I’ve also seen it on Twitter and a few other places.

Let’s nip this in the bud, shall we?

1. When one invokes the term “Orwellian,” one is obviously referring to the novel 1984.

2. 1984 is about the oppressive power of a totalitarian state, personified by the entity known as Big Brother, which exerts a coercive control over all facets of civilian life.

3. Those of us who oppose the use of the ’Skins name neither possess nor claim to possess any governmental authority. We don’t have the power to make Daniel Snyder change the team’s name — or, for that matter, to make anyone do anything. We are simply making what we hope is a persuasive argument, in an attempt to change hearts and minds.

4. If this situation were truly “Orwellian,” the decision regarding the team’s name would be made for us by some higher governmental authority. Nobody has the power to do that (well, except maybe Roger Goodell). Indeed, the fact that we are debating this issue in a free and open discourse is, if anything, anti-Orwellian, because such discourse could never take place in the world of 1984.

Think harder, people.

+ + + + +

Baseball News: The Astros will wear NFL jerseys on their next road trip (from Chris Flinn). … Jason Kubel of the Indians still has a D-backs bat knob decal (good spot by Moulden). … Recently acquired Cardinals reliever John Axford tweeted that he was wearing Injured closer Jason Motte’s pants (from Ryan Raymond). … As you know, Justin Morneau was just traded to the Pirates, where he’s wearing No. 36. But he made his Pittsburgh debut in a No. 66 batting helmet. “What’s even weirder is that there is no 66 currently on the Pirates roster,” says Brian Jud. But there will be soon, says Hugh McBride — and it’ll be Morneau: “According to the Pirates’ announcers, Morneau will eventually wear 66 for the Bucs. The number he’s worn throughout his career, 33, is retired by the Pirates in honor of Honus Wagner, so Morneau will be doubling it for his Pirate uni. No reason given yet for why the 66 jersey isn’t ready yet. … Hugh says the Pirates’ broadcasters also mentioned the “fact” that the MLB logo is based on Harmon Killebrew, a myth that I debunked nearly five years ago. … Still more from the Buccos’ broadcasters: “On Monday’s Pirates broadcast, they said Frank Gifford was the model for the smiling Pirate in the 1970s logo,” says Dave Feigenbaum. “Now that I look at it, it seems plausible. Have you ever heard that before?” Nope. Anyone else? … A’s outfielder Josh Reddick warmed up in a Georgia football helmet and cycling jersey the other day (thanks, Brinke). … Someone in the Orioles’ dugout yesterday was wearing a sweatshirt with the team’s old logo (from Joseph Hiley). … Also from Joseph: Derek Holland of the Rangers wears (or at least chews on) a mouthguard. … Check out this great photo of baseball’s first professional female umpire. “Love that ‘Umps’ jersey!” says Leo Strawn, and so do I. … Cross-dressing alert! If you look closely at these photos, apparently taken just a split second apart, you can see that Rays outfielder Sam Fuld was wearing NBA socks back on Aug. 15. Never seen that before! (Great spot by Myles Klein.) … Never seen this spectacular Roberto Clemente photo before. Found it on David Lucas’s new uni-focused site. … Andrew McCutchen answered a bunch of questions on Twitter, including queries about his uni number and going high-cuffed (from Jerry Wolper). … Urban Outfitters has turned old sets of MLB team logo bedsheets into shirts (from Jared Peterson).

NFL News: New uni number assignments for the ’Skins (from Tommy Turner). … Last week I asked why Dave Hanner of the Packers would be wearing a Rams visor. The answer comes from Paul Hirsch: “I was a Rams fan growing up in the 1960s. The Packers used to end the season with a road trip to San Francisco and Los Angeles, so they always played at the Coliseum in December. Late in the year the sun would set in the visiting team’s eyes during the second half of the games. The Rams would issue visors to the visiting coaches and players with the Rams logo on it. It was a simpler time.” … What’s this? It’s Philip Rivers as a charger, of course. You can see the other NFL starting quarterbacks depicted as their team names here. … Good question from John Gogarty, who asks, “Do NFL players get to keep their gear after they’re cut? T-shirts, shorts, game jerseys, that kind of stuff?” I’m pretty sure they don’t get to keep game jerseys, but I don’t know about the other stuff. Anyone know more?

College Football News: In a move that caught me by surprise, Pitt now has a center helmet stripe (from Brad Susany and Ham). … Some schools are trying out concussion-sensing headwear (from John Dankosky). … Penn State DB Stephen Obeng-Agyapong’s nameplate came off in the second half of Saturday’s game. “He wears No. 7, and so does a wide receiver, and then the WR caught a touchdown pass and the ABC graphics department mistakenly identified Obeng-Agyapong as the one who caught the pass,” says Chris Flinn. … Wait, check that — he didn’t lose his nameplate. He had to switch to a replacement jersey, which didn’t have his name, because he had sweat through his regular jersey (from William Yurasko). … Terry Corby notes that Florida A&M’s helmets looked pink, instead of orange, the other day. Maybe they were going for a pink grapefruit effect..? … Boston College is now wearing striped socks. I like, natch (from Chris Eidt). … No photo, but Ryan Bertapelle says Arizona LB Sir Thomas Jackson (yes, that is apparently his real name) wears “Sir T Jackson” as his NOB. “Arizona also has a Johnny Jackson on their roster, but no other S. or T. Jackson,” says Ryan. … “The big story at the SMU game was the whole whiteout thing they were supposed to do for the fifth straight year didn’t happen, because Nike didn’t get their jerseys ready in time. SMU wore red instead. What it resulted in was the SMU fans wearing all white in ‘support’ of Texas Tech, which wore all white.” … Not sure why a college football team would need its own “travel shoe,” but here’s Notre Dame’s (from Warren Junium). … Speaking of Notre Dame, Anthony Nuccio was at the Irish/Temple game and spotted this history of the “ND” logo. … Despite near-100º temperatures at kickoff, Bret Bielema maintained his superstition of always wearing long sleeves during his first game at Arkansas. “Also, his windbreaker was free of any maker’s marks,” notes Seth Shaw. … Good story about a day in the life of the Mississippi State equipment staff (from Dustin Semore). … ECU will go BFBS this Thursday (from Rick Baietti). … Rutgers will roll out a new white helmet on Saturday, because, you know, they can (thanks, Phil).

Soccer News: New away kit for Bayern Munich. “It is based off of traditional Bavarian lederhosen,” says Pat West. “Pretty awesome in that sense, even if it does create a funky aesthetic for a soccer kit.”

Grab Bag: Here are some pretty cool minimalistic soccer club logos (thanks, Brinke). … Also from Brinke: a critique of some of the more questionable looks at the U.S. Open. … Manatee High School in Florida has some pretty absurd football uniforms. “Not to sure if this is a one-off deal or their full time uni,” says Colby Brock. If you’re wondering where to assign blame, the uniforms were made by Under Armour. … Matt Weisenfluh notes that the America’s Cup Oracle boat that capsized a while back had an SF Giants logo at the base of the mast. “I watch the sailing and haven’t seen that before,” he says. … Not uni-related but still fascinating (and shameful): Marvin Miller, arguably the single most important baseball figure of the past half-century, was extensively investigated by the FBI for possibly being “anti-American.” … This is pretty awesome: The Canadian Football Hall of Fame has a stained glass window that shows the evolution of the football uniform (from HHH). … Australian cricket player Fawad Ahmed, who’s a Muslim, asked to not wear the logo of his team’s sponsor — an Aussie beer — due to his religious beliefs. The request was granted (from Murray Conallin). … For reasons that aren’t clear, at least to me, a United Nations food-distribution truck in Syria was emblazoned with the mark of the beast (from Brian Schulz).

 

117 comments to In Which ‘Collector’s Corner’ Gets Pride of Place

  • Lee Wilds | September 3, 2013 at 8:00 am |

    Wonderful commentary on the misuse & abuse of the term “Orwellian”.

  • Ben Neureuther | September 3, 2013 at 8:07 am |

    Bielema’s supersition was to always wear a RED windbreaker….something he broke when Wisconsin played Nebraska in the B1G Championship Game in 2012-proving he knew he was leaving for Arkansas before coaching UW in that game.

    Have fun playing @Florida, @Alabama, and @LSU!!! Ohio States in the other division now!

  • The Jeff | September 3, 2013 at 8:12 am |

    Isn’t saying “the ‘Skins” just as bad as saying Redskins? It still clearly invokes the name. If you aren’t going to use the *ahem* dreaded R-word, then shouldn’t you just say “Washington”?

    As far as “Orwellian” goes… this: http://espn.go.com/n... seems pretty close. We haven’t had a law passed to force a change yet, but the idea is certainly out there.

    • Paul Lukas | September 3, 2013 at 8:45 am |

      Isn’t saying “the ‘Skins” just as bad as saying Redskins? It still clearly invokes the name. If you aren’t going to use the *ahem* dreaded R-word, then shouldn’t you just say “Washington”?

      I like ’Skins, because it plays into the DC City Paper’s move to rename the team as the Pigskins.

      We haven’t had a law passed to force a change yet, but the idea is certainly out there.

      Oh really? Can you find me a single legislator has seriously proposed such a law? Can you give me a good layman’s argument for how such a law would be constitutional? The fact is that no such law will ever be introduced, nor would it pass constitutional muster. Snyder’s defenders like to raise the specter of legislative action as some sort of scary bogeyman, but it’ll never happen (nor should it).

      • The Jeff | September 3, 2013 at 9:06 am |

        Technicality. Sure, they can’t pass a law that says “You cannot call a team the Redskins”, but they can certainly make it much more difficult for the team to continue using the name. Stripping away trademark/copyright protection may not be truly be forcing anything, but the end result would most likely be the same.

        • Paul Lukas | September 3, 2013 at 9:26 am |

          Jeff, concepts like, um, THE LAW are not “technicalities.”

          As I noted in another comment, trademark protection is not a right; it is a privilege — one that must be applied for and then granted (or not) based on existing trademark law. One of the stipulations of trademark law is that trademark protection will not be granted to vulgar or defamatory marks. We can disagree on whether the ’Skins name falls into that category, but the basic legal concept behind it is not a “technicality.” It’s straightforward U.S. law. (Of course, if you don’t like that law, you can urge your elected representatives to change it.)

          Moreover, even if Snyder loses his trademark protection, that will not force him to change the team’s name. He’ll simply lose certain financial advantages that currently accrue from that name. Again, those advantages are not rights; they are privileges.

          Would the loss of those privileges exert financial pressure on him to change the name? Sure. But there’s no inherent right to do business without the pressure exerted by the lawful revocation of trademark protection. That’s not a “technicality” and it’s not “Orwellian.” It’s just simple legalities falling where they may.

        • Paul Lukas | September 3, 2013 at 9:58 am |

          Replying to myself here…. Let’s take a different example: Let’s say Congress decides to revoke the NFL’s antitrust exemption unless Snyder changes the team’s name, which in turn leads Roger Goodell and the other owners to put pressure on Snyder.

          That’s not a “technicality” (or “Orwellian”) either, because the NFL has no inherent right to an antitrust exemption. The threat of removing such an exemption is simple bargaining and leveraging.

          There’s no inherent right to preserve the status quo. And the fact that certain maneuvering might change the status quo does not make that maneuvering sinister. It depends on what the maneuvering is. And in the case of the ’Skins name, all of the maneuvering currently underway is perfectly legit.

  • Deric | September 3, 2013 at 8:15 am |

    Aren’t these super fancy Nike uniforms supposed to prevent things such as sweating through a jersey? I thought they wisped all sweat away while providing the lightest, coolest, most stretchy fabrics known to man

  • Brendan the Aspie | September 3, 2013 at 8:19 am |

    The ironic thing about the Redskins’ name is that they were all white-skins for 40% of their history.

  • Kyle Allebach | September 3, 2013 at 8:20 am |

    For that QB’s as their team name, I died seeing RG3 as Mulan.

    • Ben D | September 3, 2013 at 9:25 am |

      I think you meant Pocahontas…

      • A. Bunker | September 3, 2013 at 1:58 pm |

        Yeah, they’re Injuns not Chinamen.

    • Coleman | September 3, 2013 at 9:53 am |

      *facepalm*

  • Roger | September 3, 2013 at 8:24 am |

    The Manatee high uniforms are ones they where once a year in games sponsored by Under Armour. The uniforms are suppose to help raise money for the Wounded Warrior Project. Their normal uniforms are a lot more basic.

  • Patchy | September 3, 2013 at 8:28 am |

    We are discussing the Redskins name openly here and elsewhere but that doesn’t mean others aren’t ALREADY pursuing the usual avenues of government coercion to ban and/or punish those who use the name. Congressional resolutions (non-binding at present but all bets are off with that crowd), lawsuits (Trademark Trial and Appeal Board), etc.

    Can the anti-Redskins faction pledge that they won’t join, support, endorse or otherwise condone any individual or group using the power of the state to banish the nickname? After all, you wouldn’t want to lose your anti-Orwellian credentials.

    • Paul Lukas | September 3, 2013 at 8:36 am |

      Congress: As you said yourself, nothing binding has been introduced, nor am I aware of any plans for same. Any such legislation would almost certainly be unconstitutional.

      Trademark: (1) Trademark protection is not a right; it is a privilege, based on existing law. (2) The current trademark lawsuit would not force the team to change its name. It would only remove certain financial advantages that currently accrue from that name. Again, those advantages are not rights; they are privileges.

      I myself have never been in favor of a legislative solution. I fully support Daniel Snyder’s right to name his team whatever he likes. But he does not have the right to be free of critique. That critique will continue, at least from me.

  • Frank Bitzer | September 3, 2013 at 8:33 am |

    Brinke-You sir, are correct! I sing that wretched little ditty every Sunday during the football season!

    “Hear that Bengal growling, mean and an-ga-ry! Here he comes a prowlin’ lean and hun-ga-ry! An offensive brute! Run pass or boot! And defensively he’s rough! Tough!Cincinnati Bengals! That’s the team we’re gonna cheer to victory! TOUCHDOWN Bengals! Put some points up on that board and win the game for Cincinnati!”

    • mainspark | September 3, 2013 at 8:53 am |

      Who Dey! Who Dey! Who Dey think gonna beat them Bengals . . .NOBODY!

  • Randy | September 3, 2013 at 8:46 am |

    You misspelled John Axford’s name in the ticker. John not Jon.

  • Chris Holmes | September 3, 2013 at 9:15 am |

    Thanks for the NFL Films clips. For those who don’t already have it, the Autumn Thunder CD set that came out several years ago is a must have for fans of NFL music. One piece I wish it had, however, is the slightly rockish tune from the Super Bowl XIV highlights.

  • Jonathan | September 3, 2013 at 9:24 am |

    I think the Seattle Pilots’ 1969 fight song was cheesier…

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

    • umplou | September 3, 2013 at 10:30 pm |

      “Go go the Pilots”

      And they went, went to Milwaukee

  • Kevin | September 3, 2013 at 9:24 am |

    Re: Frank Gifford as the model for the old Pirate logo. Meh. Dandy Don Meredith, yes, but not Frank. (Turn out the lights, the party’s over.)

    • Dumb Guy | September 3, 2013 at 9:36 am |

      I see Meredith too.

      (or maybe Mel Gibson)

      • DarkAudit | September 3, 2013 at 10:10 am |

        I always assumed Danny Murtaugh. According to the Pirates PR department, it is not modeled after anyone in particular.

    • Chris Hamilton | September 3, 2013 at 12:18 pm |

      Looks like Pernell Roberts to me.

  • Matt B | September 3, 2013 at 9:30 am |

    That NBA magnetic standings board in CC is NOT from the 70s – the giveaways are the Cavs logo (introduced in 1983) and the LA Clippers logo (introduced in ’84). Based on the fact that the Kings were still in Kansas City, it has to come from the 1984-85 season…

  • Jeff Katz | September 3, 2013 at 9:34 am |

    I call you Orwellian because of your outspoken advocacy of strapping a cage full of rats to Daniel Snyder’s face.

    • BrianC | September 3, 2013 at 10:41 am |

      Works for me.

  • James P. | September 3, 2013 at 9:42 am |

    Truely an awesome shot of Clemente! Only way that could be taken was from the catwalk of the Astrodome. The Catcher is also of note. That’s Dave Adlesh who only wore #4 for part of the 1967 season after starting as #27.

  • name redacted | September 3, 2013 at 9:51 am |

    Maybe Orwellian refers to Animal Farm and not 1984. pigs and all that. :)

    Everton debuted their third kit todsy with debut of new transfer deadline acquisitions.

  • Dan | September 3, 2013 at 9:51 am |

    Morneau is going to wear 66 because as a Canadian, he is a hockey fanatic and 66 is the number of Penguins great Mario Lemieux.

    • Thom | September 3, 2013 at 10:44 am |

      doesn’t it make sense that if you can wear 66 in Pittsburgh as a Canadian you kinda have to? i mean you have to try & get that # if you can. i mean it’s not retired city wide, for all the teams.

      • Teebz | September 3, 2013 at 1:02 pm |

        If you are a true fan and want a fantastic jersey cameo with a twist, your Morneau Pirates jersey should be this. He wore that over the weekend.

        As for taking #66, it is his old number doubled as well. His honouring of Lemieux is a nice tough.

        • Teebz | September 3, 2013 at 1:26 pm |

          touch*

          Apparently typing is tougher after the long weekend. LOL

  • Publius | September 3, 2013 at 10:41 am |

    You are correct Paul – Orwellian is the wrong term here.

    If willing to have an intellectually honest conversation about this topic – you must be willing to set aside your prejudices – namely your refusal to recognize the reality of “politically correctness” and its manifestation through both implicit and explicit speech codes. Some of which eventually become state-sponsored censorship(Orwellian).

    But this is nothing new or debatable.

    “Politically correct language is the product and formulation of a militant minority which remains mysteriously unlocatable … Disadvantaged groups, such as the deaf, the blind, or the crippled (to use traditional vocabulary), do not speak for themselves, but are championed by other influential public voices.”

    Hughes, Geoffrey. (2010) Political correctness a history of semantics and culture Chichester, U.K. ; Wiley-Blackwell.

    • Paul Lukas | September 3, 2013 at 10:51 am |

      As I’ve said all along, the problem with “political correctness” is that it’s a form of name-calling. In this case, the insult is “militant minority.”

      I have never accused Daniel Snyder or his defenders of being racists, bigots, or anything else. I simply think the team’s name is in poor taste (just like other ethnic slurs) and that the use of Native American imagery by sports teams is a form of cultural misappropriation. Those are all intellectual arguments, which you can agree with or disagree with — but there’s nothing personal in any of it, and I’m not accusing anyone of anything.

      “Political correctness,” by contrast, is a term used to marginalize an argument, and the people making it, without actually engaging with the argument. Oh, they’re a “militant minority” — so much easier than actually dealing with what they’re saying.

      If you want to defend the ’Skins name, do so on the merits, not by name-calling.

      Meanwhile, suggesting that the thoughts of a “militant minority” will inevitably lead to “language codes” and “state-sponsored censorship” is patently absurd. Offensive, too.

      Tell me: Do you call Italian-Americans “wops” or “dagos”? I suspect not. Why? Because almost nobody uses those terms anymore. Why? Because we, as a society, have decided that those terms are in unforgivably poor taste. Is that “Orwellian”? Is it “censorship”? Is it the “politically correct” code of a “militant minority”? No. It’s an example of evolving social standards of taste and decency.

      We can disagree as to whether the term “Redskins” is as offensive as “dagos” or “wops.” But don’t try to paint a public debate as a slippery slope down the road to censorship.

      • Connie DC | September 3, 2013 at 11:17 am |

        Excellent summary of your argument, Paul, to which many of us here concur. Really well done. Especially in response to a guy with the chutzpah to use a pen name from the Federalist Papers.

        Now a stupid design-related question. Is that 1984 paperback cover a product of Push Pin Studios (Glaswer, Chwast, et al)? What a great graphic.

        • Connie DC | September 3, 2013 at 11:18 am |

          That’s “Glaser,” as in Milton.

        • Paul Lukas | September 3, 2013 at 11:47 am |

          YOu know, when I looked for a graphic to use for that section, there were so many great 1984 cover designs to choose from. I ultimately chose that one because it’s the one I know from high school.

          I don’t know who did the design (no longer have that copy of the book), but I agree that it’s very Push Pin-ish.

          For those who have no idea what Conn and I are talking about:
          http://en.wikipedia....

        • Publius | September 3, 2013 at 12:16 pm |

          Ad hominem…but you know this term from your debate school days.

        • Chance Michaels | September 3, 2013 at 1:59 pm |

          Funny – that’s the copy I had in school too. That book has had many great covers, but that’ll always be the one I imagine when I think of it.

      • Publius | September 3, 2013 at 12:10 pm |

        Paul – your argument isn’t with me, but with the countless number of academics who are capable of recognizing political correctness and defining it objectively through the lens of history. I would suggest that you are offering a pejorative opinion of political correctness, which projects your attempt to marginalize my argument. The irony.

        I don’t use terms like wop, but I certainly wouldn’t preclude the right to use these words, notwithstanding there potential to offend. I also don’t care about the “N” word and its incessant use in rap music. I choose not to listen as I presume you don’t either as this highly offensive word has yet to be crusaded here at UniWatch as it should be according to your logic with “wops” and “dagos”.

        But let me ask you about your social standards and sense of decency. Do you use potentially offensive terms: mailman, policeman, fireman, chairman, ombudsman, waiter, elderly, aged, oriental, Hispanic,…?

        • Paul Lukas | September 3, 2013 at 12:23 pm |

          I don’t use terms like wop, but I certainly wouldn’t preclude the right to use these words…

          Neither would I.

          And as I have stated many times (including multiple times in today’s comments section), I fully support Daniel Snyder’s right to call his team whatever he likes. But that right does not include the right to be free of critique.

          You are also free to use the term “politically correct” to your heart’s content — but not on my website. I feel it is a nonsense term and a form of name-calling that does nothing to advance a discussion, so I prefer that it not be used here. That’s one of the many house rules here at Uni Watch. (Others include the following: The first commenter of the day can’t say, “First!”; nobody can say that a uniform made him “throw up in [his] mouth a little”; nobody can refer to anything as “this bad boy”; nobody can make gratuitously sexual comments in response to a photo of a female athlete; and so on. And while I”ve never felt the need to spell this out, I wouldn’t allow the use of “wop” or “dago” either.) If you disagree with this house rule, no problem — you’re free to play at someone else’s house. Or your *own* house.

          And no, that’s not Orwellian and it’s not censorship. Just my standards for my house.

    • Chance Michaels | September 3, 2013 at 1:56 pm |

      If willing to have an intellectually honest conversation about this topic

      I saw what you did there. But nice try.

  • Rick Deemer | September 3, 2013 at 10:42 am |

    The Pitt helmet stripe is a welcomed change and along with their pant stripe, evokes a bit more of the glory years of the 1970 – 80 era. Bring back the script!!

    In the pregame ceremonies, Pitt had the student body presidents from each of the ACC schools walk out individually while hoisting a flag of the university. This gesture because it is the first season in the ACC for Pitt. While most schools were met with boos, the overwhelming loudest noise was made when Duke and Notre Dame came out.

    Also the woman that sported the Syracuse flag had on a #44 Syracuse football jersey.

    Love the Burgh slant on the site today.

  • David | September 3, 2013 at 10:53 am |

    My two least favorite things to spot in a uni-watch column.
    1) “Okay? okay.”
    2) “Think harder”

    I don’t care either way about your stance on the Redskins issue, but when I read either of these at the end of a rant, diatribe, musing, etc. It comes across as condescending, and maybe a little pedantic.

    • Paul Lukas | September 3, 2013 at 10:57 am |

      I lean too heavily on “Okay? Okay.” I’ll try to ease off on that. Thanks for pointing it out.

      As for “Think Harder”: Did you also object to Apple’s “Think Different” campaign? Just askin’.

      • David | September 3, 2013 at 11:27 am |

        It’s about context. I generally buy Android products, because I was never a fan of Apple’s “We know better than you” design/product philosophy. that said, I don’t know that I understand the Think Differently campaign well enough to tell you if I object. I do like the old silhouette ads for iPods… especially when they feature Cake’s “Long Skirt and a Short Jacket”

        My issue with your use of “Think Harder” is it follows a well thought out point of view on a subject. You don’t need to punctuate it with a line that’s shorthand for “How stupid can you be not to have thought about this exactly as I have.”

        I’m not disagreeing with your point that use of Orwellian here is wrong. I’m saying that when I read it, for myself, I feel like I’m being talked down to.

        I realize it can be hard to communicate tone in web-text, and to some degree it’s all an element of your style. You HAVE to take an expert opinion or your column has no purpose. But there’s a thin line where authoritative can cross into condescending, and these particular terms get me there.

        Doesn’t stop me from reading, but if others felt similarly I thought you ought to know.

        • Paul Lukas | September 3, 2013 at 11:35 am |

          Well-stated, and fair.

          Interestingly, just last week a reader suggested that I make and sell “Think Harder” T-shirts, because he likes the phrase so much. I have no plans to do this. But it’s interesting to see how different people can receive things in different ways.

        • mainspark | September 3, 2013 at 11:58 am |

          Paul’s definition of “Orwellian” is certainly correct and I’m glad to see him set forth, in detail, his postion regarding any governmental compulsion of speech notwithstanding his own postion regarding the use of the term “redskins.” That type of thinking should be commended. That being said, I too have always found the phrase “think harder” at the end of some posts condecending, whether intentional or not.

        • Judy A | September 3, 2013 at 1:04 pm |

          For whatever it’s worth, I found the “think harder” comment to be a little condescending as well. Your point about whether the debate over the name is Orwellian or not stands on its own merits without you have to beat your readers over the head with one final shot about how wrong they are. And yes, I appreciate that it wasn’t your intention.

        • Coleman | September 3, 2013 at 6:42 pm |

          “Think harder” has always rubbed me the wrong way as well, but it’s Paul’s site so I just grumble under my breath a bit and then move on.

          I very much a agree with the point that it almost always follows a point or thought stated well enough already that condescending someone, which it seems to do most of the time for me, is totally unnecessary. I can’t put it any better than David did, so I’ll just put a “+1″.

  • Mike | September 3, 2013 at 11:12 am |

    I was at PNC a few weeks ago for the “Fans take the field” promotion. They have season tiket holders out to hit in te batting cage, throw the ball around the outfield and shag flyballs in right field. That 66 helmet was one of the ones that was laying on the ground for people to use (they also had a Freddy Sanchez bat, and a bunch of other players who are not there anymore). I remember the 66 because I made a joke about it being Mario Lemieux’s helmet…

  • Paul Lukas | September 3, 2013 at 11:14 am |

    UCLA football will be unveiling a new uniform today at noon Eastern. Keep an eye on my Twitter feed for details.

  • Pittsburgh Contrarian | September 3, 2013 at 11:16 am |

    The only number retired by two pro teams in Pittsburgh is #21. Clemente, and Michele Briere.

  • Thresh8 | September 3, 2013 at 11:27 am |

    I’m surprised that nobody on eBay is selling a set of “all-NFL team typeface” bedsheets. Showed up in the Sears Wishbook catalog every year. (Kids, ask your parents about mail-order. And printed catalogs. And “Sears”, too.)

    On the other hand, maybe those items were probably loved to death by the kids who got them.

    • Dumb Guy | September 3, 2013 at 12:03 pm |

      check Etsy.com

    • 1vox | September 3, 2013 at 2:58 pm |

      They do show up on occasion. Just have to check back every once in a while to find them. The curtains, the bedspreads, pillowcases, et al.

  • Ben Fortney | September 3, 2013 at 11:31 am |

    Granted I haven’t read 1984 in quite some time; but wouldn’t the act of redefining the historical definition of a word to fit a current opinion/situation actually be an “Orwellian” act?

    • Thresh8 | September 3, 2013 at 11:35 am |

      I don’t own a dictionary, but I think the def used by our host today is one valid def of “Orwellian”, as is “using a word to mean exactly the opposite of what it really does”.

      I imagine an AstroTurf (sic) group formed by “average fans” called “Freedom and Native Nicknames Ensuring Dignity” (FANNED) would fit the second bill.

      • Thresh8 | September 3, 2013 at 11:37 am |

        I don’t own a dictionary, but I think the def used by our host today is one valid def of “Orwellian”, as is “using a word to mean exactly the opposite of what it really does”.

        I imagine an AstroTurf (sic) group dedicated to keeping the Washingtons’ NFL name as is, created by Dan Snyder’s friends, and fronted by “average fans” called “Freedom and Native Nicknames Ensuring Dignity” (FANNED) would fit the second bill.

        (Edited for clarity–I mudged my comment up the first time I posted it.)

    • Paul Lukas | September 3, 2013 at 11:40 am |

      1) There’s a big difference between (a) the state officially redefining “War” as “Peace” and (b) a non-state movement to recognize that certain terms are hurtful. As I noted above in response to another reader, you probably don’t refer to Italian-Americans as “wops” or “dagos” — almost nobody does anymore, because we, as a society, have decided that those terms are unacceptable. That’s not Orwellian; that’s an example of our evolving standards of taste and decency. We can disagree as to whether “Redskins” is as offensive as “wops” and/or “dagos,” but there’s nothing Orwellian about the resulting debate, no matter how it resolves itself.

      2) The above notwithstanding, can you explain how those of who oppose the use of the ’Skins name are “redefining the historical definition of a word to fit a current opinion/situation”? I don’t think we’re “redefining” anything. Seems to me that Daniel Snyder and his defenders are the ones doing the redefining, since they’re the ones suggesting that an ethnic slur is actually an honorific.

      • Ben Fortney | September 3, 2013 at 11:48 am |

        Seems to me that Daniel Snyder and his defenders are the ones doing the redefining, since they’re the ones suggesting that an ethnic slur is actually an honorific.

        That was my point… poorly made, I guess.

        • Paul Lukas | September 3, 2013 at 12:03 pm |

          Ah — gotcha.

  • Ben Fortney | September 3, 2013 at 11:33 am |

    I’m diggin the lederhosen look for Bayern, but the real winner is the <a href="http://www.footballs...;“military” style warm-up jacket adidas whipped up.

    I’d rock that in an instant.

  • Ben Fortney | September 3, 2013 at 11:34 am |

    Well that didn’t exactly work out.

    Bayern’s new “military” style warm-up:
    http://www.footballs...

  • HHH | September 3, 2013 at 11:37 am |

    That David Lucas site is amazing! He’s got a great eye for style. I couldn’t stop looking at the pictures and ended up spending God knows how long looking at every single pic. I couldn’t stop!

  • Paul Lukas | September 3, 2013 at 12:04 pm |

    New BFBS uni for UCLA:
    https://twitter.com/...

    • The Jeff | September 3, 2013 at 12:09 pm |

      Well, those are bad.

      • Matthew Robins | September 3, 2013 at 12:45 pm |

        I may be way off, but I thought years ago that the NCAA banned that style of uniform numbering (Euro Soccer Style) http://www.naia.org/... because of visibility issues. Colorado used to wear number like that, in the mid to late 90′s. http://www.ebay.com/...

    • NickV | September 3, 2013 at 4:53 pm |

      What an absolutely HORRID uniform and helmet. UCLA would do better doing a Navy Blue/Old Gold uniform – a fauxback that actually has some type of tie to their past. The BFBS is usually a ridiculous idea, but when the team such as UCLA foregoes Light Blue, Navy Blue and Old Gold that ARE the actual team colors, and totally foregoes their past for this Arena XV “look”, sad is all one can say, or be ….

      • NickV | September 3, 2013 at 5:08 pm |

        Speaking of UCLA – LSU’s “UCLA” striping appeared to be fuller or longer than recent years – not as good as perhaps 10 years ago, but much more complete striping.

        As to the number font, MEH. Much too skinny of a font and simply looked out of place on the traditional LSU uniform.

      • Jedi54 | September 4, 2013 at 3:08 pm |

        Its purdy to me!!!

  • JimWa | September 3, 2013 at 12:14 pm |

    Slate is asking the question – What’s the worst baseball card ever? I’ve never seen (or heard of) this one before, but it sure makes a strong argument for itself!

    http://www.slate.com...

  • Dave | September 3, 2013 at 12:15 pm |

    Perhaps Morneau is also wearing #66 as an homage to fellow Canadian and Pittsburgh superstar Mario Lemieux?

  • Alec | September 3, 2013 at 12:15 pm |

    Trachten(traditional folk style clothing) has been a big thing in Bavaria for some time, starting to make a comeback throughout Germany, Austria and German speaking parts of Switzerland. Once only worn for festivals, it is increasingly accepted as formalwear in conservative circles.

    Upon 1st look the Bayern Munich away kit didn’t look like Trachtenwerk(especially compared to Munich 1860s kit from last year, but on closer inspection it’s a decent job considering Adidas can’t ever lose their 3 stripe branding, ever.

    * On the shirt placket they have a button made of bone(can’t tell if it’s real or sublimated.
    * Brown shorts to emulate lederhosen.
    * The green band on the socks are trying to emulate a particular style of 2 part socks where there’s a band covering the meaty part of the calf muscle while the booty is below the ankle.
    * the warm up jacket is based on a traditional overcoat and is the most faithful of the bunch.

  • dunderbear | September 3, 2013 at 12:24 pm |

    Small thing, but Bret Bielema’s jacket was not maker-mark free Saturday. That’s one of Nike’s new sideline jackets that a lot of teams are wearing this year.

    And speaking of coaches wearing long sleeves, Baylor’s Art Briles is notorious for wearing sleeves…ALL the time. Even at summer two-a-days in the blazing heat of Central Texas. Temps in Waco were 106 degrees pre-game this past Saturday, and Briles wore sleeves the whole game.

  • duker | September 3, 2013 at 12:26 pm |

    The someone in the Orioles dugout wearing the old logo is Chris Tillman.

    • Adam Palmer | September 3, 2013 at 2:10 pm |

      Technically, it’s not an outdated logo. Per the official 2012 Orioles brand style guide, the ornithologically correct bird perched atop the Orioles script is still the “Primary” logo despite the popularity of the cartoon bird. The cartoon bird is identified as the “Headwear” logo. The swinging bat Oriole and ornithologically correct bird are also noted as official “Miscellaneous Art”. I wonder if this has been changed in a 2013 Style Guide. Anyone seen one?

      • Bud | September 3, 2013 at 4:22 pm |

        It’s outdated because it’s the bird they used from 99-08, not the one they switched to in 2009.

  • Tim Dunigan | September 3, 2013 at 12:34 pm |

    News over the weekend that it looks like a done deal that the Angels will go back to being known as the “Los Angeles Angels” after coming to agreement with Anahiem City council. Hmmm…do we dare hope for a Road Jersey soon with Los Angeles on it instead of Angels?…stay tuned!

  • Mike 2 | September 3, 2013 at 12:59 pm |

    Great photo of the stained glass window at the Canadian football hall of fame.

    We used to go to induction weekend when I was growing up (we lived in the next town over and my dad knew a bunch of players). My two greatest memories are the cool building, which I now recognize as a Mies Van de Rohe knockoff, and the terrible statue out front

    http://henleyshamilt...

    Also, the hall with the stained glass window was apparently the inspiration for the room with the head jars on Futurama

    http://www.htcaa.ca/...

    http://farm1.staticf...

    • CortM | September 3, 2013 at 1:26 pm |

      The image strikes me less as the evolution of the uniform, as the evolution of the entire game: the first guy is holding the ball almost rugby style; the last guy is firing off a long forward pass.

      And the colors! Even without seeing the terrific photo Mike2 linked to, you just know that place was built in the Sixties.

  • Scott Davis | September 3, 2013 at 1:01 pm |

    How much piss, semen, vomit, and blood are on those Urban Outfitters shirts?

  • Mike 2 | September 3, 2013 at 1:06 pm |

    “Orwellian” is a great debating word for the lazy, like “politically correct”.

    When you disagree with something, you can call it “Orwellian” or “politically correct”. Its right up there with “socialist” as words designed to win an argument by appealing to emotion, without actually making a coherent argument yourself.

    In the hierarchy of lazy debating, its one step below referring to Hitler to make your point.

    • Paul Lukas | September 3, 2013 at 1:18 pm |

      I generally agree.

      Except for this: It’s sort of a standard talking point now that anyone who refers to Nazis or Hitler in the course of an intellectual debate is essentially pushing the nuclear button and destroying the framework of any rational discourse.

      But here’s the thing: A sound intellectual argument should be able to stand up to extreme examples, and Nazis are, you know, pretty extreme. So invoking Nazis is a good way to test the soundness of an intellectual position.

      Here’s a simple example:

      First Guy: I believe in free expression. The First Amendment guarantees that right, even if it’s for the expression of disgusting points of views.

      Second Guy: Oh yeah? Even if Nazis want to march down the street in a town full of Holocaust survivors?

      First Guy: Yup. Because the best response to offensive speech is to counter it with more speech, not to censor it.

      And the First Guy is right — and you can look it up.

      That’s a measure of how intellectually sound the First Amendment is. And sometimes the only way to measure that kind of soundness is to invoke a very extreme test for it. Nazis function very nicely in that regard.

      • Mike 2 | September 3, 2013 at 1:23 pm |

        Agreed in your context. Nazis (representing the worst of the worst) are a good proxy for testing whether someone is committed to fundamental rights. Are you in favour of free speech, or the right to a fair trial, for Nazis?

        In my context, using Nazis as a lazy way to debate:

        First Guy: I’m in favour of nutritious lunches for schoolchildren
        Second Guy: Yep, that’s how Hitler got started

        • Paul Lukas | September 3, 2013 at 1:28 pm |

          Well put!

        • Rob S | September 3, 2013 at 1:36 pm |

          Nice to see Godwin’s Law getting discussed, rather than invoked.

        • CortM | September 3, 2013 at 1:54 pm |

          Mike2 makes a great point. Lazy people will use charged words in hyperbolic ways.

          We spent Labor Day weekend in northwest Louisiana. Sunday, my wife and I decided to take the family on a tour of two plantation sites near where we were staying, which required our teenagers to pull away from their computer screens.

          Us: “We’re going to visit some plantations. One features the murals of Clementine Hunter, one of the greatest African-American folk artists of the 20th century.”

          Them: “Plantations? That’s racist!”

        • Thomas Juettner | September 3, 2013 at 3:26 pm |

          Its also interesting to look at the lack of context in those “nuclear word” scenarios. We come to know the Nazis so frequently solely as the ultimate villains and so separate them from the historical circumstances in which they lived. So to use your example of “that’s how Hitler got started,” it fails to present any real context and thus fails to actually become a meaningful metaphor.

          The same is also true of George Orwell. It’s often forgotten that 1984 was one of the last things he ever wrote and that he’d had twenty years experience as an author before completing that novel. It also divorces 1984 from the post-war context in both the Soviet Union AND the United States which Orwell feared.

    • Publius | September 3, 2013 at 3:27 pm |

      No. “Lazy” is an unwillingness to discover the etymology and origin of the term not be mentioned on this site.

      Professor Hughes’ book (the one I cited earlier) would be a good place to start. It’s held in over 400 libraries so finding a copy would not be difficult. But this is just one example.

      And one more thing.

      My argument here has not invoked the Nazi straw man referenced here. That was your decision (Paul and Mike) not mine. So, let’s be clear about this discussion. I referenced a published source – Hughes’ book – which has since been rebutted with personal opinion, ad hominem, and now the straw man.

      So when touting intellectual soundness, why not set an example by having the temerity to step outside of your own echo chamber for answers?

      • Paul Lukas | September 3, 2013 at 5:22 pm |

        You’re missing the point, and you’re intelligent enough to make me think you’re doing it willfully.

        Nobody is claiming that the term “politically correct” doesn’t exist, or that those who choose to invoke it don’t have a definition for it or an etymology for that definition.

        The claim (or at least *my* claim) is that “politically correct” doesn’t describe any actual phenomenon in any meaningful way, notwithstanding the predilection for some folks to keep invoking it. It is, instead, a diversionary tactic, a smear, a dog whistle, a proxy — or, as I keep saying, a form of name-calling. It’s a way to say, “I don’t like you or what I perceive that you stand for,” instead of actually engaging with the topic at hand.

        Unfortunately, this back-and-forth is having precisely the effect you wanted — it’s distracting us from the topic at hand. So let’s try this: For the sake of argument, let’s say that “politically correct” is a meaningful term, and let’s further say that it accurately describes me and other critics of the ’Skins name.

        So there: You get to label us with your preferred term, and those who respond to that dog whistle will now nod in approval. Now that you’ve accomplished that, can we please get back to discussing the ’Skins name? Because that’s what really matters here.

  • CortM | September 3, 2013 at 1:12 pm |

    Hey, Connie DC — You made a thoughtful reply to comments I and others had made on Friday, questioning the use of Pacific Northwest artistic styles to reimagine the Toronto Blue Jays logo.

    I planned to respond, got called away from the office, left for Labor Day weekend, and never did.

    I didn’t want you to think I was ignoring you. Sorry for being slow in responding.

    I understand that the Jays are “Canada’s Team,” and that the Tlinglit styles are very popular. I agree that the design looks really great.

    When Peter Bavasi, the original Blue Jays GM, announced the nickname, he explained that it was chosen specifically because the blue jay is native to Ontario, and that it was feisty little bird. It would be sort of great to see that “feisty little bird” the way the First Nations people who lived in Ontario saw it.

    There is an interesting question here. In our effort to respect or recognize Native traditions, do we become participants in cultural hegemony? Sure, the stuff from the Pacific Northwest looks cool, but does embracing that squeeze out artists and artwork from less well known tribes?

    We are generally pretty ignorant of Native tribal differences. As a kid, I got a royal dressing down from my friend Jeff’s mother, who was a full-blood Seneca, when I asked her if she’d ever lived in a tipi. After she yelled, she fed me corn soup, and taught me about longhouses and matrilineal societies.

    I like the Pacific Northwest design, but should I?

    • Mike 2 | September 3, 2013 at 1:34 pm |

      Good questions.

      Where I live, the plains nations were predominant – Blackfoot in particular. I see a lot of coastal art and motifs (Haida in particular) being displayed and sold to tourists.

      Frankly, coastal art is the most interesting. If you’re going to buy a sweatshirt and had to choose among coastal, Blackfoot, or Ojibwe designs, coastal is the most visually attractive.

      But that kind of thinking is fundamentally disrespectful. It treats the north american First Nations as fundamentally interchangeable, and disrespects the fact that they were (and are) many different nations with different traditions and backgrounds.

      Its like going into a cafe in Belgium and insisting on souvlaki because “you’re all Europeans, right?”

      • Connie DC | September 3, 2013 at 2:38 pm |

        Good conversation, guys. A couple of points: Whatever Peter Bavasi’s intent re Ontario-centrism (there was an MLB team in Montreal back then, after all, and Quebec and Ontario have a long history of making sure we don’t confuse one for the other), the recent-vintage Jays management has been emphasizing a national identity. The other point I tried to make in the earlier comment is that the non-BC First Nations colleagues with whom I’ve worked – not the biggest statistical universe, I’ll admit – really dug Haida art. I don’t know, Mike 2. Analogies are dangerous, I know, but if there were a single MLB franchise in Western Europe, and if it were located in (your example) Brussels, I wouldn’t feel bad if the iconography came from Periclean Athens or Renaissance Italy. I certainly wouldn’t insist on Brueghel.

        • DJ | September 3, 2013 at 2:45 pm |

          but if there were a single MLB franchise in Western Europe, and if it were located in (your example) Brussels, I wouldn’t feel bad if the iconography came from Periclean Athens or Renaissance Italy. I certainly wouldn’t insist on Brueghel.

          But their fans just might. And would think it utterly ludicrous if they wore Athenian- or Florentine-themed kit.

  • Chance Michaels | September 3, 2013 at 1:55 pm |

    Paul Hirsch, great catch on “Hawg” Hanner’s visor.

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen them wear Rams visors before, but I have seen pictures of Lombardi borrowing a UCLA visor (this when the Bruins also played in the Coliseum).

    http://www.uspresswi...

  • Brian Jud | September 3, 2013 at 2:00 pm |

    Great info about the Morneau uni number, I can’t remember another case of wearing a different number while another is on its way. That also might explain why the Pirates’ roster on their website listed Morneau’s number as “–” on Sunday even after he debuted with 36.

    • Brian Jud | September 3, 2013 at 2:02 pm |

      I should say, I can’t remember another case of switching out a “normal” number for a high number. Usually it’s the other way around (call-ups and such).

      • Mike Engle on iPad | September 3, 2013 at 2:16 pm |

        Here’s another example for you. Scott Schoeneweis was #60 for a few teams in his early career (Anaheim, Chi Sox, Toronto), but when he went to the Mets, they wanted to grant him a “real” number, 36. There is even a picture of his #36 practice jersey hanging in his locker. Schoeneweis asked for his now familiar 60, which he wore from that moment on in Orange and Blue.

  • Scott | September 3, 2013 at 2:30 pm |

    I know I’m late to the party on this question – anyone know if that horrendous template used for the VT gray jersey against Alabama is a one-and-done for that ‘special’ uniform?

    God, I hope so. That thing was terrible on so many levels. They finally fixed things going to the retro uniforms, after that 08-09 debacle, I’d figure they were just about ripe to screw it up again.

    Hopefully that’s not the case. I only want to have to worry about the bad product being put out on the field, not that AND having them look bad while doing it.

  • Jedi54 | September 3, 2013 at 3:24 pm |

    I love the new format of having the ticker sport by sport. Baylor looked good Saturday night with the all green.

  • Carter | September 3, 2013 at 4:55 pm |

    What happened to the 5&1 feature? That was one thing I always looked forward to Sunday morning or whenever the week ended.

    • Paul Lukas | September 3, 2013 at 4:57 pm |

      Phil (who normally coordinates the 5+1 coverage) had this past weekend off, plus it was a holiday weekend, so we didn’t have the full slate of features for the first weekend of the college football season.

      But things will be back to normal this coming weekend.

  • ChrisH | September 3, 2013 at 4:57 pm |

    “When one invokes the term ‘Orwellian,’ one is obviously referring to the novel 1984.”

    That’s too bad, because Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language” is perhaps more relevent to discussions pertaining to the Washington Redskins’ name and related issues?:

    http://www.orwell.ru...

  • Dumb Guy | September 3, 2013 at 4:59 pm |

    Did nobody even notice that Miley had her foam finger on the wrong hand….and backwards??

  • martyB | September 3, 2013 at 5:35 pm |

    Braves fan grabs a pic of the 3 Johnsons (and 1 Beachy):

    https://twitter.com/...

    I think it’s time to get some FiOB action around here…

  • Rydell | September 3, 2013 at 8:09 pm |

    With the World Cup next summer I’m sure Fifa will be unveiling a new ball design.
    Could we possibly use it for the ticker???
    Sorry Paul but me being a Virgo and seeing the retro out of date amateurish local newsletter soccer ball you use in an anally detailed site is just driving me nuts…!!

  • Bcstpete | September 3, 2013 at 8:55 pm |

    Fraud alert. That magnetic nba bball standings board is not from the 70s as advertised but from at least 1980 as the dallas mavericks are included in the magnet set…..wait, ive just noticed the magnet for the clippers says la and not sandiego. 84 at least. Fraud.

  • David Byrne | September 3, 2013 at 9:40 pm |

    If the owner and the fans want the name “Redskins” so badly, get them to remove all Native American imagery and let a bidding war start between Ore-Ida and Planters for rights to the team logo. You could have a built-in mascot with Mr. Peanut.

  • Rob Turning | September 5, 2013 at 4:00 pm |

    In addition to pink helmets, Florida A&M seems to have a number font similar to the 1996 Baltimore Ravens. http://www.google.co...