This real money site caters to all players, with reviews on mobile games you can play, including slots, blackjack, and roulette.

Monday Morning Uni Watch

pack.png

The most visually interesting NFL game yesterday was the Packers/Browns tilt at Lambeau, where the Pack wore their Acme Packers throwbacks and the Browns wore their brown britches (lots of photos here). Aside from both teams deviating from their usual looks, this game also gave us the unusual spectacle of both teams wearing blank helmets. When’s the last time that happened? Did the Jets ever wear their Titans throwbacks against the Browns?

Anyway: I really liked Green Bay’s use of the plain yellow helmets — much better than the brown ones they’ve previously worn — but it was disappointing to see that they used their usual green facemasks, which clashed with the rest of the throwback uni. Would’ve been better if they’d gone with navy or gray.

I spent the weekend in Wisconsin, so it would have been great to watch that game in a neighborhood tavern, surrounded by Packer backers (many of whom, no doubt, would have had some priceless comments about the uniforms). Unfortunately, some annoying travel restrictions and work responsibilities forced me to fly home just as the game was starting, so I only got to see hightlights and look at photos after I got back to NYC. Dang.

In other news from around the NFL yesterday:

• The Titans wore navy jerseys for the first time since 1863 or something like that, and hey, it looked pretty good! Lots of additional photos here.

• The Jags wore their teal alts for the first time. This would actually be a serviceable design — a silly one, but serviceably silly — if not for that absurd helmet, which ruins the whole thing. Additional photos here.

• It’s surprising we don’t see more torn socks in the NFL, but it rarely happens. It did happen yesterday to Eagles quarterback Nick Foles, however.

• In the Jets/Pats game, it looked like the name of the down marker’s manufacturer had been covered up with an NFL logo and some black tape.

• Why was one of the Colts’ coaches wearing football gloves — to get a better grip on the play-calling card?

Turning to Saturday’s NCAA action, Phil and his contributors had detailed coverage in yesterday’s entry, but here are a few additional items:

• Yesterday’s entry mentioned the unusual NOB for West Virginia linebacker Russell Haughton-James. He’s listed on the WVU roster as No. 73, but on Saturday he was wearing No. 89. And it wasn’t just a one-play switcheroo for special teams or anything like that, because, as you can see, his helmet was No. 89 as well.

• Georgia Tech wore GI Joe undersleeves and socks, plus the coaches were in full-on dress-up-soldier mode.

• Eastern Michigan added a “#2” helmet decal in memory of wide receiver Demarius Reed, who was killed on Friday.

• Since I was in Wisconsin on a Friday night, of course I went to a fish fry for dinner (at the excellent Fritz’s Pub). So imagine how hard I laughed the next day when I saw this photo of two South Carolina players, which turned out to be the perfect capper to my weekend:

fish fry.png

(My thanks to all contributors, including Jeff Bowers, Andrew Cosentino, Andrew Domingo, Jason Greening, Chris Perrenot, and especially Phil.)

+ + + + +

’Skins Watch: The Oneida Nation has been running a radio advertising campaign urging Dan Snyder to change the ’Skins name, but two DC-area stations have refused to air the ads (thanks, Phil). … Neshaminy High School, outside of Philadelphia, calls its teams the Redskins. Now there’s a movement to change the name, which has inspired a counter-movement to keep the name. I learned all this from Neshami alum Brandon Andrus, who’d like to see the name changed. … If you missed College Gameday over the weekend, then you missed this jaw-dropping sequence. “Boy is that uncomfortable to watch,” says David Sonny. “But remember, it isn’t racist. In fact, I’m sure you could have done with any other race and people would giggle and love it.” … A third-generation ’Skins fan has decided that his family will no longer use the team’s name (from Tom Mulgrew). … The libertarian magazine Reason says ’Skins critics are “unhinged and divorced from reality” (from Gregory Koch).

Baseball News: “I was at a Cal baseball alumni game, and the team has a new cap based on the new Nike fonts,” says John Furstenthal. “Here’s the new on the left, old on the right.” … Pretty funny story about why Red Sox closer Koji Uehara is beardless, which isn’t for the reason you might think.

NFL News: Check out this shot of a young Andrew Luck. Unusual to see the logo on one shoulder like that, right? Not sure I’ve ever seen that format before. Anyone know of any similar examples? (From Chris Flinn.)

College Football News: Colts running back Lenny Moore of was nicknamed “Spats,” because he spatted his cleats. Now Ricko has found a photo confirming what he had long suspected but never been sure of: Moore also spatted while at Penn State, where his senior year was 1955. “That would make him one of the very, very earliest to do so,” says Ricko. “Don Clark spatted at Ohio State a bit later (you can see him and his spats in the 1958 Rose Bowl here). Other early spatters I know of were Art Baker and John Mackey at Syracuse (time of Ernie Davis).”

Grab Bag: Here’s a look at high school uniforms in the Cincinnati area (from Dwayne White). … Two of Scott M.X. Turner’s great loves — uniforms and amplified music — converge in this old amp, which makes interesting use of a wishbone-C. … Here’s more info, including some video, on the football uniforms in the upcoming Batman vs. Superman movie (from Christopher LaHaye). … Jim Vilk was watching an episode of The Fall Guy on YouTube and noticed that Lee Majors’s character was wearing an L.A. Express shirt. “He was part-owner of the team and co-producer of that episode, so there’s some early-’80s cross-promotion for you.”

+ + + + +

robert and paul.jpg

photo.JPG

Click photos to enlarge

What Paul did last night over the weekend: As I mentioned earlier, I spent the weekend in Wisconsin, primarily in the company of Comrade Robert Marshall (shown with me in the top photo), who came up from Chicago to knock around with me. Among our highlights was a meet-up with longtime Uni Watch reader and contributor Jeff Ash (the gent in the other photo), who covers the Packers for the Green Bay Press Gazette. We had originally planned to have a few beers at one of my favorite taverns on the planet, the magnificent Sessler’s Meeme House. Unfortunately, it turned out to be permanently closed (we appear to have been a year too late), so we drove off in search of another watering hole and quickly found the completely awesome Pine Grove Bar and Lanes. We didn’t bowl, but we could have, as the four lanes in the back are still fully functional (and, according to proprietor Glenn Miller, still used for leagues every night). Instead, we just sat at the bar and had a fine time knocking back beers for a few hours. Thanks for the treats, Jeff — it was a pleasure to meet you after all these years.

Afterward, Robert and I headed to Sheboygan to check out the reception for an art show by my friends/heroes Julie and Johnie. This was all way too personal and special for me to capture or expain here, except to say that I love it when life imitates art (click to enlarge):

IMG_3148.JPG

Finally, just to bring this back to uniforms, I also spent a few hours poking around a Milwaukee antiques shop. Saw this great old photo of a long-ago bowling team, which was cool. But the real prize was this beer stein showing the historical evolution of the football uniform:

I didn’t buy it — two pricey, plus the lid was way too cheesy — but I enjoyed finding it. (My thanks to Robert for rotating the stein during the video.)

 

145 comments to Monday Morning Uni Watch

  • Scott | October 21, 2013 at 7:09 am |

    Was it just me, or did the Broncos nameplate font look a little larger than normal last night?

    • Scott | October 21, 2013 at 2:42 pm |

      Guess it was just me. Carry on.

  • The Jeff | October 21, 2013 at 7:31 am |

    If you missed College Gameday over the weekend, then you missed this jaw-dropping sequence. “Boy is that uncomfortable to watch,” says David Sonny. “But remember, it isn’t racist. In fact, I’m sure you could have done with any other race and people would giggle and love it.”

    That was uncomfortable to watch, because that tackle was terribly executed.

    It also has nothing to do with race. The Seminole tribe have given their permission to be used as Florida State’s mascot. This means that not only can the team continue to be the Seminoles, but that the associated imagery can be used in the exact same way as any other team mascot, including being used as a costume by a sportscaster with a silly gimmick. You’re more than welcome to feel that it’s insensitive or whatever, but unless the tribe changes it’s stance, it’s no different than when he puts on the over-sized tiger head for an LSU game.

    It’s a mascot costume – nothing more.

    • Jon | October 21, 2013 at 8:05 am |

      Totally agree with your assessment, The Jeff. It is funny that the reaction to the sequence into he video, as well as the YouTube title for the video itself, display exactly the kind of thinking outlined in the Reason article. There is no thought to context. The YouTube video is titled “Bodyslamming a Native American,” not something more descriptive of the context, like “Gameday FSU Mascot Tackle.” I’m not saying I agree with everything in the Reason article, but I do agree that context is more important than people are willing to admit. In this case, nothing about the context, or event he action itself, is derogatory racist, or insensitive. It’s a dude tackling a mascot.

    • Rob H. | October 21, 2013 at 8:08 am |

      “I’m sorry, Lee Corso, you can’t pick FSU to win, because that would be racist. Why don’t you just pick Clemson, because it would be okay for you to dress up as a Tiger.”

    • DJ | October 21, 2013 at 9:29 am |

      Except…Florida State uses a person in a horse suit to play a character called “Cimmaron” for events such as this:

      http://tampa.cbsloca...

      As an example, on July 1, when the mascots of the 15 ACC schools went to the NASDAQ trading floor as part of a publicity campaign celebrating the additions of Notre Dame, Pitt, and Syracuse, the Florida State representative was not the young man dressed as “Chief Osceola,” but a young person dressed as “Cimmaron.”

      • Douglas King | October 21, 2013 at 12:42 pm |

        Cimmaron was created to appeal to kids, and serve as a mascot for sporting events where Chief Osceola and Renegade can’t attend (i.e. opening the NYSE).

        Chief Osceola and Renegade are still part of the pre-game football tradition, and are what people would associated with FSU football.

        Cimmaron doesn’t even appear at football games, he is strictly limited to the other sports and functions. So not only does the school not associate him with football, there is no way in hell that anyone other than FSU fans would know what the hell Corso was putting on his head if he whipped out a Cimmaron head.

        • DJ | October 21, 2013 at 2:03 pm |

          Yes, but also in places and situations where the mascot can be used in a light-hearted, comedic manner.

          I see it as analogous to Illinois’s past use of Chief Illiniwek. The university was adamant in insisting that the term “mascot” never be used to describe the Chief. He was a “symbol.” Roger Ebert, a U of I alum, used the term “homage.” You never saw the Chief on the sidelines leading cheers, or participating in a pantomime mascot fight.

          (Note that this is not a defense of the Chief as a particular symbol or whatever. Just an attempt to describe how the Chief was utilized).

    • andyharry | October 21, 2013 at 9:48 am |

      In context, sure, it’s no different, but knowing the current state of this situation (the use of Native American names and imagery in sport), one would think Mr. Corso (and ESPN, for that matter) would be smart enough to say, “You know, I think I should tone down this week’s pick due to the volatile nature of the subject right now.” and simply donned the headdress in a neutral, respectful way, or foregone the headdress and just held up the spear or something.

      Instead, we got possibly the most embarrassingly over-the-top skit in CGD history. Whether you like/dislike, agree/disagree, support/don’t support whichever side of the argument at play, there’s no denying this was a stupid, boneheaded move.

      • Douglas King | October 21, 2013 at 12:33 pm |

        “and simply donned the headdress in a neutral, respectful way, or foregone the headdress and just held up the spear or something.”

        There is no headdress to don, Chief Osceola is dressed like Corso was, he goes to midfield and plants his spear then rides off. That’s the ceremony that kicks off home games, that’s the reference point for people outside of FSU as to what Osceola does.

        What Lee Corso did was perfectly fine in terms of what he does every Saturday. The fact the the Redskins are facing controversy regarding their name (which does not have the support of an actual tribe, and is not the name any Native Americans want to be called (some don’t care, but even for those people you can bet they don’t want to be called that), is irrelevant.

        There is no controversy surrounding the Florida State Seminoles. Also ESPN isn’t the Redskins’ PR firm, they aren’t doing damage control for them. So no, it wasn’t a stupid or boneheaded move, well maybe it was, but its no worse than any other week when Corso makes his pick.

    • Rob H. | October 21, 2013 at 10:38 am |

      And this just in on the Today show, they just presumed that perhaps Bill Murray’s body-slam of Corso was due, in part, to the “on-going Redskins name controversy… or maybe it was just because Murray lives down there and he roots for Clemson.” Nice way to try to tie something into something that it may or may not be about, but hey, why not try to spin it that way just in case it was.

      • Judy A | October 21, 2013 at 12:36 pm |

        Never let the truth get in the way of a good outrage.

      • terriblehuman | October 21, 2013 at 3:51 pm |

        It’s nice to think everything happens in a cultural vacuum.

    • ChrisH | October 21, 2013 at 12:59 pm |

      I’ve read that FSU prefers the term “symbol” over mascot.
      A distinction without a difference?

    • Christopher | October 21, 2013 at 2:40 pm |

      “The Seminole tribe have given their permission to be used as Florida State’s mascot. This means that not only can the team continue to be the Seminoles, but that the associated imagery can be used in the exact same way as any other team mascot, including being used as a costume by a sportscaster with a silly gimmick.”

      Actually, the Seminole Tribe of Florida (about 2,000 members) has given their permission. The much-larger Seminole Nation of Oklahoma (roughly 20,000 members) has taken no official position, though at least some strongly object.

      And I’m not sure that the Seminole Tribe of Florida’s agreement with FSU covers Lee Corso/ESPN’s decision yesterday. The agreement between the tribe and FSU gives the university “permission to use the name, ‘Seminole,’ as well as various Seminole symbols and images, such as Chief Osceola, for educational purposes.” I guess I missed where the agreement stipulated that network broadcasters had free reign to dress up in Native American clothing and facepaint and dance around. I also apparently missed the part of Corso’s dancing around yesterday that was “educational.”

  • Brendan in Eugene | October 21, 2013 at 7:41 am |

    I’m guessing the beer stein in the last clip was ‘too pricey’ rather than ‘two pricy’.

    • Paul Lukas | October 21, 2013 at 8:06 am |

      Thanks. Now fixed.

  • Rob H. | October 21, 2013 at 8:12 am |

    The Oneida Nation has been running a radio advertising campaign urging Dan Snyder to change the ’Skins name, but two DC-area stations have refused to air the ads (thanks, Phil).

    Didn’t they refuse to air the ads because they felt that would only be presenting one side of a debate? Isn’t that an admirable quality? I mean regardless of the argument and peoples’ feelings about it, isn’t presenting both sides of an argument a good thing?

    • Paul Lukas | October 21, 2013 at 8:57 am |

      Yup, that’s exactly how broadcast advertising works: Whenever there’s an ad for Product A, they automatically run a corresponding ad for competing Product B; whenever there’s an ad for Political Candidate A, they automatically make sure there’s an ad for Candidate B; hell, when they run a promo for the NFL, they make sure to run an MLB promo too, just to balance things out.

      I’m not saying the radio station doesn’t have the right to run or not run an ad as it sees fit. But the notion of “presenting both sides” is bogus, esp. since there’s nothing preventing anyone with an opposing view from running their own ad.

      • DRR | October 21, 2013 at 9:40 am |

        But, isn’t that how it works for political ads? You have to give equal time to both sides. Or, is that not the case any more?

        • Paul Lukas | October 21, 2013 at 9:46 am |

          Um, haven’t you noticed that the candidate with the most money airs the most ads?

          Meanwhile, the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated in 1987:
          http://en.wikipedia....

        • DRR | October 21, 2013 at 10:11 am |

          No, I haven’t. I don’t really watch TV, and when I do it is all DVRed and ads skipped. I didn’t know that law was changed. Too bad, I always thought that made a lot of sense. Oh well. Far be it from things that make sense to me to remain in place.

          Thanks for clarifying.

        • terriblehuman | October 21, 2013 at 10:32 am |

          You’re probably thinking of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia... rule, the modern reincarnation of the Fairness Doctrine. But that applies to free time, i.e. a candidate appearing on a news show, not paid time like the Oneida Nation ad.

        • Jim Gregg | October 21, 2013 at 12:00 pm |

          Paul is correct. The political candidate with the most money usually gets the ad time. Local TV stations make a mint in election years because they can sell ads for more money than they can normally make especially the final weeks. Same is true with big sporting events. It is why just before kick off and just after half time Super Bowl ads tend to be the most expensive to buy.

        • terriblehuman | October 21, 2013 at 12:22 pm |

          Right – an enforced equal time rule would, for better or worse, defeat the whole purpose of fundraising.

    • Phil Hecken | October 21, 2013 at 9:27 am |

      “Didn’t they refuse to air the ads because they felt that would only be presenting one side of a debate?”

      ~~~

      Yes, because most ADS always run both sides of a debate. “We’re selling product A, but it wouldn’t be fair if we didn’t tell you about our competition. Because, you know, we wouldn’t want this here radio station to refuse to accept our money because it only presents our take.”

      As Paul said above, the station can of course refuse to take the ad money, just like you probably won’t see a Planned Parenthood commerical on FoxNews. But it has (almost) nothing to do with so-called “fairness.” Especially radio ads — they’ll pretty much air anything unless it’s blasphemous, slanderous or obscene, and even then, they still might.

      It was a conscious decision that has nothing to do with admirability or fairness. They have every right to refuse the ads, no question. But don’t think their refusal had anything to do with a concern over “only presenting one side of the debate.”

      • Rob H. | October 21, 2013 at 10:33 am |

        But if they had, on the same grounds, refused to air an ad that was from a group of Redskins fans with a sentiment of something like “Don’t let them take our nickname” I’m sure it would have be heralded around here as a moral victory: “Look at this radio station standing up for what’s right!”

        When it actuality that would have been the exact same thing.

        • Phil Hecken | October 21, 2013 at 11:10 am |

          Don’t assume anything, Rob. If you haven’t notice, Paul has pretty much run (or I’ve sent to him to run) “pro-R-skin” articles; we both feel presenting both sides of this debate is the correct position.

          No one is denying radio station(s) the right (and it is their absolute right) to accept advertising dollars from groups they may or may not disagree with. But for you to impart that they did so because of any notion of “fairness” is incorrect (these are PAID ADS, not a program they’re hosting where lack of one side WOULD be unfair). Ad money is how the media (whether it be TV, radio, interwebs, etc) survive; for them to turn it down must be driven, in part, because management disagrees with the message of the ad.

          Please don’t assume rejection of a pro-‘skin ad by any medium would have been “heralded” by anyone. Ads are ads — not positions, editorials, opinions or anything else.

          Paul may refuse to accept an ad for purple Nike hightops (I’m sure those exist somewhere) — but if the dollars were big enough, it might be hard to pass up. He certainly wouldn’t be rejecting the ad because he’s afraid it won’t give adidas/UA/keds,etc. their due.

        • Rob H. | October 21, 2013 at 11:38 am |

          we both feel presenting both sides of this debate is the correct position

          I get that, hence why I thought that was a pertinent piece of info on this item that the radio station, as was pointed out in the article, was (whether it was actually the case or not) choosing not to air that ad for that reason…

          I may be wrong, but it is my perception that to present this without mentioning that is tantamount to presenting it biasedly, and you’re right, I guess we can only guess how a pro-keep the name ad being refused by a radio station would have played here.

          I just think that we can’t assume that it wasn’t because of a desire for fairness, if that’s what they say the reason was… Just like we have to take the NFL at their word that the one-helmet thing was because of safety. We may have our doubts, but we have no proof that isn’t the case.

        • terriblehuman | October 21, 2013 at 11:50 am |

          I just think that we can’t assume that it wasn’t because of a desire for fairness

          Except ads are, by definition, never fair and always biased. If “fairness” were a criteria for accepting an ad, then the stations would cease to exist.

          Unless CBS Radio has a history of rejecting issue ads, my instinct is to call bullshit on the explanation.

        • arrScott | October 21, 2013 at 1:42 pm |

          First off, hypothetical “but if it were the other way, I’m sure everyone now saying A would be saying Z” arguments are both silly and cowardly. I get it: I often have the same thought myself. But it’s an impossible to substantiate claim that amounts to nothing more than a thin disguise for purely ad hominem attacks on other peoples’ integrity, not engagement with the issues.

          But some context is needed for those who are not familiar with DC’s local radio. Advocacy ads for or against all sorts of political/cultural issues are quite common on local radio. Often they deal with issues much more controversial and substantive – issues with much more passionate public engagement – than the Redskins nickname. Why is this more true in DC than, say, Des Moines? First, DC media reaches people across a highly populated and, in Virginia, politically persuadable region. (Plus, Virginia has elections every year, so the demand for airtime to influence voters is constant.)

          Second, DC local media reaches a lot of federal decisionmakers, whether it’s bureaucrats who have contracts to award, congressional or executive leaders who may be persuadable or at least impressionable, and donors who like to see their contributions getting results.

          Refusing to run a potentially controversial ad, or an ad that is not in some way “balanced,” is pretty rare in the DC market. It’s interesting to me that local radio stations that don’t have problems running paid ads advocating starting a war; or ads calling elected officials socialists, tyrants, or extremists; or ads advocating controversial positions on issues such as global warming, abortion, or gay marriage; do have a problem running an ad calling for the Redskins to change their name. That’s very much not business-as-usual in the local radio market.

          Given how unusual the move is, it strikes me that the publicity must be a feature, not a bug, for the stations making the decision. That is, they want their listeners to know that they’re the kind of stations that won’t let Redskins nickname opponents be heard.

        • terriblehuman | October 21, 2013 at 1:47 pm |

          …the publicity must be a feature, not a bug, for the stations making the decision. That is, they want their listeners to know that they’re the kind of stations that won’t let Redskins nickname opponents be heard.

          And it’s not all for naught for the Oneida people either – they get their word out, albeit to a much smaller audience – but they do so without having to spend on airtime.

      • Adam w | October 21, 2013 at 12:36 pm |

        Not sure if anyone mentioned, but that is exactly what has to happen in the pharmaceutical world. The advertisements on TV go something like this…however long you talk about the good is the exact amount of time you have to talk about leaky colons, explosive diarrhea and your eyes falling out of your head. I believe it’s called “fair balance” or something Ike that.

        • terriblehuman | October 21, 2013 at 12:56 pm |

          Not exactly:
          This does not mean that equal space must be given to risks and benefits in print ads, or equal time to risks and benefits in broadcast ads. The amount of time or space needed to present risk information will depend on the drug’s risks and the way that both the benefits and risks are presented.

          Anyway, FDA regulations don’t really apply to issue ads like this. As far as I’m aware, there are no deadly side effects or chemical dependencies that could result from supporting the name change.

    • mike 2 | October 21, 2013 at 1:12 pm |

      My best guess: the two stations are “broadcast partners” of the Washington football team, they rely on access to the team, maybe the some of the coaches or players regularly do shows on the station.

      In which case the LAST thing the stations are going to do is something to piss off ownership by taking an ad like this.

      • terriblehuman | October 21, 2013 at 1:44 pm |

        The stations don’t have any contractual agreement with the team. Though I imagine they wouldn’t want to piss off team sponsors, who could be buying ads on the station.

    • Tim H | October 21, 2013 at 1:14 pm |

      Word on the street around town is that the stations, primarily 106.7 The Fan, would not air the ads for fear of losing access to the team, a la the Washington Post a few years ago when The Danny cut them off during a season ticket dispute. Now Danny Radio does have their own station ESPN 980 but, The Fan also has covers the Skins. If I remember correctly, there we issues at training camp this year after some less than glowing segments about Snyder aired on The Fan.

    • Scott | October 21, 2013 at 1:21 pm |

      I know for a fact that WJFK aka 106.7 the Fan has aired that ad more than once. Most of their personalities are split on the issue but to their credit they do give a lot of air time to the debate. Some of the commentary is smart and insightful but some of it is very foolish. One such comment I heard over the weekend was something along the lines of “should Marshall change their name as to not offend buffalo who may think thundering is offensive”. In my personal opinion therein lies the problem, the name has come to represent an inaniment object or an animal and not a person. There is such disconnect that some people can’t even comprehend how it could be offensive.

  • Dumb Guy | October 21, 2013 at 8:21 am |

    What is BAP BOWLING?

  • Kyle Allebach | October 21, 2013 at 8:27 am |

    The Jags wore white pants with their teal alts, and all is right with the world.

    • Dumb Guy | October 21, 2013 at 8:31 am |

      I like that look. Still not too keen on the helmet though.

    • Chance Michaels | October 21, 2013 at 12:37 pm |

      It is certainly the least worst combination in their current set, but I don’t think I could go any further than that.

    • Douglas King | October 21, 2013 at 12:48 pm |

      I loved their teal uniforms until they went to their previous design.

      Going All-Black made sense with that design, however when they switched things up again for this season Teal once again became the color they should be wearing the majority of the time.

      They need to return the black jerseys back to alternate status and then pick a single color helmet (either black or gold, not both).

      It’s really annoying in Madden because I can do everything but fix the helmet. There is only 1 helmet with the current logo, so my options are stick with the ridiculous helmet or opt for an incorrect logo.

  • Capital Z | October 21, 2013 at 8:32 am |

    One interesting uniwatch type moment this weekend was Kurt Busch’s Wonder Bread color scheme at Talladega a la Rocky Bobby.

  • jC... | October 21, 2013 at 8:35 am |

    The teal Jaguars uniforms need white numbers. The black is too hard to read. And the helmets are just awful.

  • name redacted | October 21, 2013 at 8:52 am |

    I would bet they didnt run the ads more to not anger the team or its fans, all potential clients/customers.

  • Scott Davis | October 21, 2013 at 9:05 am |

    One thing I noticed the other night in the ALCS game, and I apologize if this was mentioned before, was that the new dugout jackets feature a revised Majestic logo.

    Here’s the new and old side by side: http://espn.go.com/m...

    • DJ | October 21, 2013 at 9:31 am |

      I had seen references to it on the Creamer message boards, but it slipped my mind until your sharp observation.

    • JimWa | October 21, 2013 at 11:06 am |

      From a distance, at least, that new logo is going to look right at home on the Marlins jerseys.

    • Ben Fortney | October 21, 2013 at 11:57 am |

      Paul had mentioned the new logo in the post on the 2014 BP jerseys.

  • based_anon | October 21, 2013 at 9:14 am |

    On the “FISH FRY” photo, notice FISH’s nameplate is cropped to his name, but the FRY nameplate spans almost the length of the jersey! I wonder why they aren’t all cropped or all uniform in length…

    • Ronnie Poore | October 21, 2013 at 9:19 am |

      the South Carolina Fish/Fry combo has been mentioned on UniWatch earlier this year (twice). they are the holder and kicker respectively. they have been cooking up points all season.

      • Scott | October 21, 2013 at 9:26 am |

        ba-dum-tss

      • umplou | October 21, 2013 at 11:35 am |

        especially when the team needs to ketchup ;)

    • Chance Michaels | October 21, 2013 at 9:40 am |

      If they aren’t out there right now scouting for a prospect named “Friday”, I will have lost a little of my faith in the universe.

  • Newt | October 21, 2013 at 9:27 am |

    Jammie McMurray won the Talladega race with the Auburn logo on the hood.

    I remember seeing pictures of his car in the grab bag last week. That’s so cool he won! War Eagle

  • Mirliton | October 21, 2013 at 9:35 am |

    When Corso came out all I could think about was reading about it on here.

  • Jason M (DC) | October 21, 2013 at 9:41 am |

    I bet the regular down marker was broken and they pulled an old out out of a storage shed somewhere. And of course, the manufacturer wasn’t current, so it had to be covered up.

    …Did Reebok provide the down markers, too? (I kid.)

  • ctr | October 21, 2013 at 9:42 am |

    re: ga tech’s gi joe unis

    you’d think paul johnson, having spent considerable time at the naval academy, would realize the difference between the football ‘warriors’ and the real ones. that’s sad.

    • Douglas King | October 21, 2013 at 1:08 pm |

      It was heroes day on the Flats: Military, First-Responders, Police, Fireman and Veterans were all honored throughout the game. Families of military and the like were given free tickets to the game as well.

      Tech does it every year, and its always about those ensuring our safety abroad and at home.

      For the past 2 years GT has been unable to fill their required # of seats for the Sun Bowl (no one wants to go to El Paso Texas for Christmas vacation, and the constant disappointing bowl games have made our fans jaded when it comes to traveling to them), so Tech has, for the past 2 years, donated the necessary seats to the Military and their families stationed near El Paso (fans could buy tickets for the purpose of donating them, with Tech picking up the tab for the rest of them).

      Paul Johnson and Georgia Tech are well aware who the real warriors are.

      • arrScott | October 21, 2013 at 1:51 pm |

        Sorry, but cops, firefighters, and EMT techs aren’t “warriors,” real or otherwise. First clue: Firefighters and EMTs don’t wear camo! Neither in most cases do cops.

        Heroes and warriors are two different words with different meanings, and neither is entirely represented by camouflage as a symbol.

        If Tech wants to “honor” servicemembers and veterans, well, dressing military-age athletes who have refused to serve their country in camo soldier dress-up is still a stupid thing to do. But it at least makes some logical sense. But wearing military camo to “honor” civilian heroes? That makes as much sense as wearing reflective yellow firefighter jackets to “honor” Army veterans.

        • Douglas King | October 22, 2013 at 12:36 am |

          “It was heroes day on the Flats: MILITARY, First-Responders, Police, Fireman and VETERANS were all honored throughout the game. Families of MILITARY and the like were given free tickets to the game as well.”

          The warriors comment was included because of the original comment, which seemed to suggest that Tech was pretending they were warriors, and calling out CPJ for not realizing that they are not actual warriors (read: military personnel like he coached at Navy).

          The ceremonies were predominantly thanking military for their services with EMT, Police and Firefighters also being recognized.

          Sorry they didn’t celebrate or honor them the way you wanted them to, but regardless of that they showed up, enjoyed a great game, and were honored. Tech has been doing this for years, and they will keep on doing it.

  • ChrisH | October 21, 2013 at 9:44 am |

    That gallery of Cincinnati area HS football uniforms was for the most part pretty standard stuff, though I was surprised to see the Anderson HS Redskins included.

  • mainspark | October 21, 2013 at 9:48 am |

    Any pictures from INSIDE the Pine Grove? Would love to get a look at the 4 lane alley.

    • Paul Lukas | October 21, 2013 at 9:51 am |

      I didn’t want to be the gawking tourist, so I didn’t take any pics. But it’s a my-t-fine establishment — I’ll be back.

  • Dumb Guy | October 21, 2013 at 10:05 am |

    Concordia College uses the “wishbone C” (a very closed one at that!) logo also.

    https://www.google.c...

  • quiet seattle | October 21, 2013 at 10:08 am |

    Too bad about Sessler’s Meeme House. But what a run!

    I wonder what happened to that exceptionally beautiful Hamm’s sign (and FooD)?

    • Paul Lukas | October 21, 2013 at 10:15 am |

      The signs are still there, and the building is for sale. But all the interior furnishings have been stripped bare.

  • Connie DC | October 21, 2013 at 10:14 am |

    Reactions to the Packers’ throwbacks? Me, I liked ’em.

    • Coleman | October 21, 2013 at 10:22 am |

      Same here. I’ll certainly take a mismatched facemask over not wearing the throwbacks at all. Maybe that little detail is ironed out by next season and we get to see them with a gray facemask.

    • Terry Proctor | October 21, 2013 at 10:52 am |

      The Pack looked fine. But as a Browns’ fan since the 1950s I’m totally disgusted with those Brown pants. Wouldn’t you think that Cleveland could have worn their White pants with the striped socks that would have given the game a real classic look? After all that is the uniform the Browns should always wear. Period. No Brown pants, no Orange pants. Always jersey-matching striped socks. Screw Nike and their frickin’ “makeovers.” If it ain’t broke…

      • Rob H. | October 21, 2013 at 10:54 am |

        I’m just glad they went with the striped socks with the brown pants, and not the dreaded mono-tard look.

    • Chance Michaels | October 21, 2013 at 1:08 pm |

      I am somewhat of two minds about them.

      On one hand, I love anything that gives us an opportunity to remember that Packers history did not begin with Lombardi’s hiring in 1959. On the other, I don’t like diluting a great identity with alternates. If they were using a modernized version of this one, I’d be happier.

      But on their own, I like the aesthetics of these. The chest target is a little big, but rules are rules. Especially with the gold shells, which brighten up the whole design. My only gripe is the facemasks – gray or even navy, please.

      • Joseph Gerard | October 21, 2013 at 1:22 pm |

        As a Steelers fan, I have to admit that we’re a lot guiltier of ignoring our own history before the 1970’s than Packers fans are of before the Lombardi era. The Rooney family has even had to go out of their own way to acknowledge that there were great players that played in the B.N. era (Before Noll) and that they had some decent years as well. Obviously, the bad years greatly outnumbered the good ones, but years like the late 1940’s and the late 1950’s-early 1960’s were rather decent times for the Steelers.

        But still, overall the Cheeseheads celebrate their history dating back to Curly Lambeau’s playing days. Steeler Nation tends to ignore everything that happened before December 23, 1972.

        • hmich176 | October 22, 2013 at 1:42 am |

          That’s because Steeler Nation was reborn on December 23, 1972.

          I was born in the mid 80s, and growing up as a Steelers fan, it seemed like all those years before didn’t really matter, because that Steelers team that finally got the win for Art was something just that different from everything that came before.

      • Chance Michaels | October 21, 2013 at 3:16 pm |

        I’m glad to hear about the Rooneys. The NFL as a whole has only recently started to shed its pre-66 myopia.

        It was only ten years ago that the Packers put inaccurate reproduction throwback unis on the cover of their own media guide.

        • hmich176 | October 22, 2013 at 1:43 am |

          I think it’s good that the NFL is moving past that. It’s a shame how the value of the pre-1966 NFL Championships are reduced, in light of the Super Bowl.

  • Graf Zeppelin | October 21, 2013 at 10:34 am |

    I think the Jags’ teal jerseys might look OK if the numerals were gold, or white, instead of black. And of course, with a decent helmet.

    Someday maybe the Jags will do the right thing and go back to their original design.

    Yeah, right.

    • Joseph Gerard | October 21, 2013 at 1:40 pm |

      I still think that the London Jaguars (what a potential marketing opportunity, huh?) need to ditch black jerseys altogether, along with any team not in Pittsburgh, Oakland, and New Orleans. (Although the Cardinals, Ravens, and to a lesser extent the Eagles don’t look bad wearing BFBS.) I wouldn’t mind seeing the Bengals wearing their orange jerseys full-time (Bengal tigers are, after all, orange.), but as a nod to the past bring back the original home uniforms with BENGALS on the helmets (compatible with the new helmet rule) as an alt. That would be the one exception I would make outside of the three cities mentioned above.

      As for Carolina and Atlanta? I’ve always thought the Panthers looked better wearing Carolina Blue. Make those their primary colored jersey, drop the black jerseys, and come out with silver as an alt. And the Falcons are better off using their 1970’s-1980’s throwbacks with red jerseys and helmets as an alt. I think those look better than the original 1966 throwbacks, which themselves are better than their current uniforms.

      Strangely enough, I think the 49ers wouldn’t look bad with a BFBS jersey.

  • Rob H. | October 21, 2013 at 10:42 am |

    …but it was disappointing to see that they used their usual green facemasks, which clashed with the rest of the throwback uni. Would’ve been better if they’d gone with navy or gray.

    Changing the facemask might have made the helmets unsafe.

  • Rob H. | October 21, 2013 at 10:48 am |

    ..oh and in our town square here, Pinktober has now made it’s way to the fountain:

    https://lh5.googleus...

    • Judy A | October 21, 2013 at 12:41 pm |

      Oh, in the name of all that is right and good, STOP MAKING EVERYTHING PINK.

  • Joseph Gerard | October 21, 2013 at 11:03 am |

    I do have to agree that the Packers throwbacks look better with the gold helmet. (BTW, my guess would have to be the 2001 Thanksgiving game between the Lions and Packers as being the last NFL game where both teams wore blank helmets.) Even before coming out with the 1929 throwbacks, I thought that the Pack should pay a tribute to their blue past by having a blue alt of the current design. Utilize white numerals but have the striping of the white jerseys.

    Speaking of Wisconsin, Paul…I like the PBR sign at the bar you were at.

    • Ben Fortney | October 21, 2013 at 11:59 am |

      Great pic. Remember watching that game… mighty fine visuals.

    • Douglas King | October 21, 2013 at 1:36 pm |

      That appaears to be the answer, The New York Titans never played the Browns, and while the Lions have worn their Turkey Day throwbacks against the Packers since that 2001 game, the Packers have not gotten in on the fun since that game.

      Additionally the Monsters of the Midway have not lined up against any blank helmets since the Bears started doing that in 2010.

      The closest we have come has been the Packers v. the Rams in 2011, but I think most people would say the horns negate the claims of it being a blank helmet. Also with a case the Browns v. Bengals matchups (but like the Horns for the Rams I think people would count the stripes against the Bengals).

  • Newt | October 21, 2013 at 11:28 am |

    the teal jags unis are better than the black. i like how the black is the last color on the sleaves on the teal unis. its a better flow w/ the helmets

  • MEMAL | October 21, 2013 at 11:44 am |

    [i]Why was one of the Colts’ coaches wearing football gloves — to get a better grip on the play-calling card?”[/i]
    They had the roof open last night at Lucas Oil Field and were showing a view of it from a blimp at one point and Al Michaels said(I’m summarizing), “They opened the roof here and I wonder if it’s because Peyton Manning always demanded they keep it closed when he played for the Colts. Right now it’s about 53 degrees outside.” Chilly night for football in Indy, so those dome coaches aren’t used to it.

    • Scott | October 21, 2013 at 11:47 am |

      So are you telling me this whole time, you had an extra pair of gloves???

    • Tom V. | October 21, 2013 at 2:04 pm |

      I would guess that they had the roof open because 1. Peyton usually wanted it closed, and 2. Peyton doesn’t have the best record in cold weather games. I would guess the cold weather was the reason for it being open.

  • Dr. Jay | October 21, 2013 at 11:50 am |

    As far as the Packers wearing green face guards, I believe the NFL passed a rule this year requiring the player’s regular helmets to be used with their throwback uniforms. They wouldn’t allow Tampa Bay to wear their throwback helmets earlier this season because they were a different color and not their regular helmet.

    • Phil Hecken | October 21, 2013 at 11:59 am |

      Yes, we are aware of the rule.

      The question is, why couldn’t they swap out green cages for blue or gray ones? Someone tweeted at me last night that facemasks are considered hardware (like the helmet) and those cannot be replaced. Seems to me cages get changed all the time, and doing so doesn’t compromise the integrity of the helmet.

      Talk about the NFL in full CYA-mode. I guess “League of Denial” (which they may or may not have seen, tipping them off the a potential PR nightmare) has scared them shitless. So not only are they demanding (without actually presenting a very valid argument) that the one-helmet per team rule be stringently enforced, they’re extending it to facemasks as well.

      It’s nice to see they’re so concerned with player safety after all these years. It’s almost like how the tobacco companies are so willing to warn us about the risks of using their product, so willing, in fact, they even put a warning on every pack.

      • Paul Lukas | October 21, 2013 at 12:13 pm |

        Lots of misinformation on this issue.

        The Bears switched to gray facemasks when wearing their throwbacks earlier this season:
        http://static.nfl.co...

        There’s no rule that prevented Green Bay from swapping out their facemasks. They just chose not to.

        • Phil Hecken | October 21, 2013 at 12:22 pm |

          “There’s no rule that prevented Green Bay from swapping out their facemasks. They just chose not to.”

          ~~~

          Thanks, Paul. I wasn’t 100% sure on that, but the tweet seemed specious. I didn’t have the time/energy to look up the actual rule, but I thought (correctly, as it turns out) that cages could be swapped.

          The NFL is still in CYA mode, but it’s good to know that there is nothing preventing the facemasks from being changed and that this one is on the Packers, and not the league.

        • Dr. Jay | October 21, 2013 at 12:36 pm |

          Thanks for the info Paul, I wasn’t aware of the whole situation. I like ths site, but only visit it once in a while. Not a troll Kevin, just someone misinformed. Thanks anyway.

        • Chance Michaels | October 21, 2013 at 1:10 pm |

          “There’s no rule that prevented Green Bay from swapping out their facemasks. They just chose not to.”

          Bad choice. But theirs.

        • Kevin Z. | October 21, 2013 at 3:16 pm |

          Dr. Jay – My apologies. Shouldn’t have thrown the accusation out there.

      • Dr. Jay | October 21, 2013 at 12:20 pm |

        I also don’t know why teams with different color throwback helmets can’t produce duplicate helmets, (with the player’s same structure and measurements as their regular helmets), for these throwback games. Perhaps the rule comming just before the season started prevented teams from producing these duplicate throwback helmet. Hopefully, by next season they will find a solution to this.

        • Paul Lukas | October 21, 2013 at 12:21 pm |

          For fuck’s sake, we’ve been thru this now dozens of times….

          Start here:
          http://espn.go.com/n...

          Then go here:
          http://espn.go.com/n...

          Then here:
          http://espn.go.com/c...

        • Kevin Z. | October 21, 2013 at 12:27 pm |

          I know not everyone reads Uni Watch daily, but Dr. Jay’s two comments read like a joke (or troll?) to those who do.

          Paul – Do you have an opinion on this Redskins name issue that seems to be gaining some steam?

      • Steve B. | October 21, 2013 at 2:54 pm |

        I just watched “League of Denial” over the weekend and I’m convinced that the one helmet rule is CYA/PR by the NFL.

        Wearing multiple helmets or just one over a season makes no difference. There is no safe helmet. Our brains are simply not made for this sort of trauma.

        When I mentioned that the NFL was in CYA mode few weeks ago, I was bashed. Now it’s OK to say that? What gives?

        • Phil Hecken | October 21, 2013 at 3:58 pm |

          “When I mentioned that the NFL was in CYA mode few weeks ago, I was bashed. Now it’s OK to say that? What gives?”

          ~~~

          Who bashed you?

          Paul and I have differing opinions on this particular issue, but I don’t think either of us (or anyone) is in the position to say that the one-helmet-rule won’t help in preventing concussions. We do agree the NFL’s messaging on this has been very poor.

          I believe (especially after seeing “League of Denial”) that the NFL is very leery of any more legal action/threats, and as such, is doing everything they can to minimize the threats. This includes the one helmet per team rule.

          I personally don’t think that makes any difference but that’s opinion and not fact. Paul prefers to deal only in facts and doesn’t want the rest of us using opinion or wild speculation to debate the merits.

          And if I’M saying the NFL is in CYA mode, that doesn’t mean Paul feels that way.

        • arrScott | October 21, 2013 at 4:25 pm |

          Steve, I think you’re probably – you’re almost certainly – right that the NFL’s helmet fatwa is pure CYA public-relations lawyering. But Paul has rightly pushed back against this conclusion, because it is based on supposition and external observation, not actual knowledge from inside the NFL’s decisionmaking process. You and I believe the NFL is engaging in substance-free ass-covering. But neither you nor I knows that the NFL is doing so. Could be that the NFL has some evidentiary reason to believe that it’s safer to minimize helmet changes. Boils down to the difference between assumptions and facts.

        • Steve B. | October 21, 2013 at 4:46 pm |

          “Who bashed you?”

          —————–

          Paul was the one that objected to my earlier CYA comments.

          But like you said, he prefers dealing with facts over our opinions or speculation to debate the merits of this rule. I commend him for taking that approach, but I also don’t see harm in commenters stating their opinions on such subjects.

          With that being said, I think the NFL will probably not lift the rule until there is inconclusive science to back it up.

        • Steve B. | October 21, 2013 at 4:54 pm |

          Steve, I think you’re probably – you’re almost certainly – right that the NFL’s helmet fatwa is pure CYA public-relations lawyering. But Paul has rightly pushed back against this conclusion, because it is based on supposition and external observation, not actual knowledge from inside the NFL’s decisionmaking process….
          ——————

          I can dig that arrScott. That was a very well articulated statement showing the other side of the argument.

          And as for getting “bashed”. That was a poor choice of words on my part. That makes it sound more severe than it was. “Objected” or “Disagreed” is more like it.

        • hmich176 | October 22, 2013 at 1:58 am |

          “[I]I commend him for taking that approach, but I also don’t see harm in commenters stating their opinions on such subjects.[/I]”

          It should be an educated and informed opinion; if you wrote a term paper for school, you couldn’t seriously draw conclusions based on external observations and expect to pass. In this day and age, too many conclusions are drawn from abstract positions without much knowledge. I think that’s damaging to the national discourse.

          The ability to say what you want is crucial, but it is a great responsibility that often goes without regard.

    • Steve B. | October 21, 2013 at 3:01 pm |

      Maybe my eyes are bad, but the Packers green masks almost seemed to match the navy jersey?

  • name redacted | October 21, 2013 at 11:58 am |

    FWIW, Corso is also an FSU alum.

  • J-Dub | October 21, 2013 at 1:17 pm |

    RE: high school uniforms in the Cincinnati area, I’m digging the helmet “stripe” here: http://media2.wcpo.c...

    • Douglas King | October 21, 2013 at 1:40 pm |

      FYI the link is taking me to a “file not found” page

    • ChrisH | October 21, 2013 at 2:08 pm |

      Are you referring to the Norwood HS Indians?:

      https://s3.amazonaws...

      The helmets also have an “N” on one side and the player # on the other.

      Too bad they didn’t carry that helmet stripe pattern onto their jerseys.

  • Kevin | October 21, 2013 at 1:20 pm |

    Noticed this while watching local news highlights this weekend. For whatever reason, one player on this team, The Oologah Mustangs as a red facemask while all the others are blue. It is not a coincidental thing or because they don’t have the cash for a blue one, but I don’t know the significance of it.

    http://www.tulsaworl...

    • Scott | October 21, 2013 at 1:23 pm |

      Maybe a captaincy designation?

      • Kevin | October 21, 2013 at 1:29 pm |

        That was my thought too.

  • Todd | October 21, 2013 at 2:15 pm |

    https://twitter.com/...

    are these a leak? Multicolored stripes?

    • terriblehuman | October 21, 2013 at 2:22 pm |

      Unless I’m missing something, that looks like a pretty decent replica of the original unis and they’re just selling throwback gear.

  • terriblehuman | October 21, 2013 at 2:18 pm |

    Apologies if this has been covered already, but in the wake of last week’s Brandon Marshall Green Shoe Shocker Kabuki, I’m wondering how tightly NFL’s shoe-color rule is enforced.

    My understanding is that each team picks one dominant color, but just looking at the Sunday night game, Colts have players wearing both black-dominated and white-dominated, and Broncos had Chris Harris and Danny Trevathan wearing orange-dominated shoes. Am I to believe the players wearing irregular shoes are getting popped $5,000 a game, or is this inconsistently enforced?

    • Paul Lukas | October 21, 2013 at 2:31 pm |

      You can now wear white, black, or team color. Been that way for a couple of years now.

      • terriblehuman | October 21, 2013 at 2:47 pm |

        Ah, I’d read the rule to mean the team picked one of the three for all players.

      • Chance Michaels | October 21, 2013 at 3:21 pm |

        Did that change when Nike took over the contract?

  • Johnny O | October 21, 2013 at 4:15 pm |

    Yesterday, the Twitter feed of “Lambeau Field” tweeted this:

    “Today’s fans donated 12,900 non-perishable food items & $13,309 for the #Packers Women’s Assoc. Food Drive. RT for hunger.”

    So wait? People donated stuff, made an actual difference, but there was no mention of pink or breast cancer? How is that possible in the month of October?

    See. A difference can be made without “look at me” tactics.

    • terriblehuman | October 21, 2013 at 4:28 pm |

      I’m going to be an asshole here.

      $13,309 raised = awesome. But 12,900 non-perishable food items? Donating canned food is as much an act of slacktivism as wearing pink crap.

      • Phil Hecken | October 21, 2013 at 6:09 pm |

        Ooooohhhh…look the Capitals (Spelled it properly for you Teebz), raised $40,000 for Leukemia & Lymphoma during the team’s hockey fights cancer night. The did it by wearing lavender on their warmup jerseys and on their sticks (couple of clubs did this).

        And they did it without wearing pink either. See, a difference can be made without “look at me” tactics, especially in hockey, where no one looks.

  • Matt B | October 21, 2013 at 4:34 pm |

    Sweet fuckin’ Jesus:

    http://blog.mysanant...

    Adidas’ ongoing quest to ruin every single NBA team’s identity continues…

    • terriblehuman | October 21, 2013 at 5:04 pm |

      Sort of ironic that they’re going “U-S-A! U-S-A!” with the most international roster in the NBA – the Spurs roster has only four players born in the 50 states (five if you include that U.S. Virgin Islander).

    • Ryan | October 21, 2013 at 10:40 pm |

      Oh, dear… first that ugly grey jersey with nothing but the spur on the chest, now camo (with sleeves!!). And to think I used to appreciate the Spurs’ simplicity in their unis.

  • Muad Dibble | October 21, 2013 at 4:34 pm |
    • James Burke | October 21, 2013 at 4:44 pm |

      The Onion continues to not help either side.

      • Ryan | October 21, 2013 at 10:38 pm |

        I disagree. It seems to me that the author is pretty blatantly making a statement that many people cringe when they see other racial slurs in print, and it’s ludicrous that “Redskin” should be deemed to be any different.

    • terriblehuman | October 21, 2013 at 4:56 pm |

      Yeah, they went there.

      • terriblehuman | October 21, 2013 at 7:14 pm |

        I don’t think the point of satire is to necessarily advance a point of view. The point is to make a joke, and if done well, to also offer a new perspective.

    • Ben Fortney | October 21, 2013 at 5:17 pm |

      Fantastic.

  • Kevin | October 21, 2013 at 5:08 pm |

    The “Businessman’s Special” Grey trousers all around…and Oregon’s chrome wings to boot…

    http://www.tulsaworl...

    • Paul Lukas | October 21, 2013 at 5:29 pm |

      Those aren’t Oregon’s wings. That’s Adidas’s stock wings graphic, which is worn by countless teams with bird-oriented team names.

    • Kevin | October 22, 2013 at 11:18 am |

      I meant the helmets, but even those are a little different than Oregon’s. I was told by a decal company that as long as you change a decal slightly, you aren’t infringing a copyright.

  • DC | October 21, 2013 at 5:13 pm |

    You had Fish Fry at Fritz’s Pub? Holy cats Paul, that’s like 2 miles west of my house!

    • Paul Lukas | October 21, 2013 at 5:28 pm |

      And a fine place it is. I’d been there before maybe five or six yrs ago. Still good!

  • Timothy D. | October 21, 2013 at 5:49 pm |

    “Aside from both teams deviating from their usual looks, this game also gave us the unusual spectacle of both teams wearing blank helmets” –

    The Cleveland Helmet is not “Blank”. Stripes should never be forgotten!

  • Richard | October 21, 2013 at 5:51 pm |

    I’ll add this one…. I saw excerpts of the Mike Alvarado fight against Provodnikov. Alvarado (from Denver) is apparently a huge Broncos fan’ wearing the colors (Blue trunks with orange trim) into the fight. It wasn’t to be for those colors since he was stopped in the 10th round, and the Broncos the next day suffered their first defeat.

  • JessF | October 21, 2013 at 5:54 pm |

    Walmart selling a “San Fran” 49ers shirt. At least they didn’t make a “Frisco” version. http://blog.sfgate.c...

  • Norm | October 21, 2013 at 6:25 pm |

    The Panthers wore their gorgeous Electric Blue alternates vs St. Louis Sunday. These should be the full time uniforms, not the Black Jerseys.

    • Ryan | October 21, 2013 at 10:32 pm |

      Agreed.

  • Jimmy Matthews | October 21, 2013 at 8:23 pm |

    Vikings wearing purple pants with purple socks, ugh, they need striped white socks like the Bears Pats and Chiefs.

  • Mirliton | October 21, 2013 at 9:07 pm |

    I liked the yellow helmets with Green Bay’s throwbacks. It made the gold on the jersey pop.

    • Mike Engle | October 21, 2013 at 9:50 pm |

      Concurring.