And Every Fan Got a Free Pack of Candy Corn

halloween.png

Fun move last night by the Knicks and Bulls, who celebrated Halloween by wearing orange and black, respectively. This was the first time the Knicks had worn their new orange unis on the court — not bad (lots of additional photos here).

I love that the NBA did this. For all their uniform problems (and they have many), they’re good at taking advantage of holiday-themed uni match-ups. A few years back they set up at least one (and maybe two..?) red-vs.-green match-ups for Christmas. Sorry, it’s past midnight as I’m typing this and I’m too tired to hunt down the specific examples, but you get the idea: If the opportunity presents itself for the uniforms to match the day, they go for it. I like that.

The Knicks and Bulls weren’t the only teams marking the holiday last night. In college football, Troy came out with new black uniforms, and so did North Texas.

The big disappointment came in Miami, where the Dolphins were hosting the Bengals. Cincy totally should have worn solid black or orange over black, but instead they wore white over white. Yeah, I realize Miami was the home team and had chosen to wear aqua, but this was a case where the league should’ve allowed the teams to go color-vs.-color. Hell, this would’ve been a good time to resurrect Miami’s orange alts!

Of course, Halloween is really a day for kids. And in that respect, no costume I saw was scarier than these two. Yikes! (My thanks to Brian Wulff for that photo.)

+ + + + +

spatting.png

Too good for the Ticker: About a year and a half ago I wrote a piece about Nike’s contract with the University of Memphis. In the course of that piece, I noted that there was a clause that prohibited spatting, except in cases of “medical expediency.”

I basically rolled my eyes at this but didn’t think about how it could put team trainers in a tough spot. But USA Today reporter Rachel Axon did. She’s written a must-read article about how trainers end up being caught between players who need their ankles and shoes taped up and apparel contracts that restrict or even forbid the practice. Typical quote: “Alabama’s contract with Nike allows for a reduction of the school’s base compensation of up to 5% per game in which five or more players who take the field are spatted before the game, or a reduction of 2% for each player who appears in a game after Nike provides written notice that he should not be spatted.”

The article is thoroughly researched, extensively reported, and compelling. I wish I’d written it myself. If you read only one link from Uni Watch today, this is the one.

(Über-thanks to Phil for tipping me off to this one.)

+ + + + +

Party reminder: Uni Watch party tomorrow, 2:30pm, at Sheep Station. See you there!

Raffle reminder: I’m currently raffling off a classic old NHL poster. Details here.

Video chat reminder: I did an ESPN video chat about college football uniforms yesterday. Pretty boilerplate stuff, but you can see part of my apartment in the background, if you’re into that kinda thing. Here’s the link.

Concussion Discussion reminder: In case you missed it yesterday, I’ve created a FAQ-style rundown of the standard talking points regarding the concussion/helmets issue. And while we’re at it, here’s my open letter to readers who are sick of ’Skins Watch.

+ + + + +

’Skins Watch: Here’s a really good overview of media coverage of the ’Skins name controversy. I’m briefly mentioned at the very end of the piece (from Ted Bloss). … Here’s a timeline of ethnic iconography used in sports. … More talk about the Indians easing Chief Wahoo out to pasture. … The DC City Council will be taking up a resolution urging the ’Skins to change their name.

Baseball News: Here’s a series of infographics on Game Six of the World Series. … Reprinted from yesterday’s comments: In June of 1977, the Royals had their uniforms stolen during a road trip to Milwaukee, so KC wore Milwaukee’s road unis, creating a Brewers vs. Brewers match-up. … Salty wears No. 39, but during the Series he was wearing knee-savers with No. 33 on them. “Was he using an old pair of Jason Varitek’s?” asks Randy Allemann.

NFL News: The Bills will be wearing white at home this Sunday (thanks, Phil). … The Saints turn 47 today. “The franchise was awarded to the city of New Orleans on Nov. 1, 1966 — All Saints’ Day,” explains Christopher Fox. … Mike Rowinski made a very nice 49ers jack-o-lantern. … Texans wearing red this Sunday. … Preston Feiler notes that Bengals C Kyle Cook’s tiger stripes on his sleeves appear to have faded.

College Football News: Peeling helmet number on the set of ESPN’s SVP and Rusillo’s radio show (from Brian Mazmanian). … Ryan Wood found a cool old team portrait of the 1897 BYU football team. … GI Joe jerseys upcoming for Southeast Missouri State (thanks, Phil). … Also from Phil: Possible new midfield logo for NC State.

Hockey News: Hockey players usually have no exposed skin except on their faces and, if they take off their gloves, on their hands. But you can see a bit of Maxim Lapirierre’s thigh here. … Odd retail find by Terry Corby, who came across a St. Louis Blues T-shirt with MLB tagging.

Basketball News: Yikes: The Bucks’ new floor already has to be resurfaced. … No photo yet, but the Thunder have announced that the team “will wear a special patch on its jerseys to commemorate the strength of Oklahomans that was on display following the devastating May storms” for the home opener on Sunday (thanks, Phil). … New sky-blue uniforms — and a JrOB — for Nevada.

Grab Bag: Want some free stadium seats? Look here (thanks, Kirsten). … How did ASU’s Sparky mascot end up on a DePaul T-shirt? (From Tim Donovan.) …

 

89 comments to And Every Fan Got a Free Pack of Candy Corn

  • Gill | November 1, 2013 at 8:02 am |

    NY Daily News uglies: http://www.nydailyne...

    • arrScott | November 1, 2013 at 8:33 am |

      Yes, how dare the Knicks wear a team color on their uniforms!

  • Ryan | November 1, 2013 at 8:05 am |

    CFB news: GI Joe jerseys for Southeast MO State; Southwest dropped its bidirectional name about 8 years ago.

  • Adam w | November 1, 2013 at 8:08 am |

    Bengals center is Kyle cook, not john.

  • Willis McJohnson | November 1, 2013 at 8:10 am |

    Not to nitpick, but that’s Kyle Cook for the Bengals…not John Cook.

    • Paul Lukas | November 1, 2013 at 8:25 am |

      Fixed.

  • James Burke | November 1, 2013 at 8:23 am |

    I doubt anyone is truly “offended” by referring to the Washington Redskins as the Washington Redskins. It’s just the media at work again. I’ve said before that I don’t like their logo, but its “offensiveness” is not the reason. It needs a little work.

    Oh, and if they change it to Redhawks/Redtails/etc, it will just be seen as a copout, and nobody wants that except the D.C. Council, as seen in the below link.

    http://www.nbcsports...

    • terriblehuman | November 1, 2013 at 8:45 am |
    • Dumb Guy | November 1, 2013 at 8:48 am |

      The council can only “urge”. They cannot mandate.

    • The Newspaper | November 1, 2013 at 9:13 am |

      James, when you state that “It’s just the media at work again,” please be specific. Don’t stereotype all media as being one in the same. There is no monthly meeting of “The Media”, where we agree on talking points. (We tried that, but The Internet refused to attend.) We’re in business to make money, not to be part of a conspiracy.

      Best regards,
      The TV
      The Radio
      The Newspaper

    • Phil Hecken | November 1, 2013 at 9:24 am |

      “I doubt anyone is truly “offended” by referring to the Washington Redskins as the Washington Redskins.”

      ~~~

      I don’t disagree. Probably because those who are offended by the use of the term no longer do so.

      However, those who are being referenced by the term, well, they may take offense.

  • James Burke | November 1, 2013 at 8:28 am |

    And a “stunning counter” to the Redskins name debate. Yes, our problems can all be solved through satire.

    http://www.sportsone...

    • arrScott | November 1, 2013 at 8:36 am |

      Thing is, the satire only works if it’s assumed that the Redskins ought to change their name. It’s subtle, but I regard that as progress for the forces of decency: Writers are writing on other topics with the assumption that everyone sort of knows that the Redskins ought to change their name, even if the Redskins refuse to do so.

  • Karim | November 1, 2013 at 8:33 am |

    Paul, have you come across the twitter handle @MLBcathedrals? As the name hints, its some guy who posts (I think) rare photos of old MLB stadiums, including some that don’t exist anymore. Though not exactly uni related, I think it’s tangentially related to many thinks on this site.

    https://twitter.com/...

    • Paul Lukas | November 1, 2013 at 9:02 am |

      Good stuff — thanks.

  • Oakville Endive | November 1, 2013 at 8:33 am |

    Dumb question, but I assume it wasn’t a coincidence that the NFL had the Bengals playing last night?

  • Charlie | November 1, 2013 at 8:55 am |

    SouthWEST Missouri State hasn’t existed for nearly ten years. They are now just Missouri State. SouthEAST Missouri State(SEMO to the locals), is pictured in the link.

    • Paul Lukas | November 1, 2013 at 9:02 am |

      Thanks. Fixed.

  • terriblehuman | November 1, 2013 at 8:59 am |

    Sorry, it’s past midnight as I’m typing this and I’m too tired to hunt down the specific examples

    Here’s Bulls vs Knicks from Christmas 2010.

    • terriblehuman | November 1, 2013 at 9:12 am |
    • Phil Hecken | November 1, 2013 at 9:26 am |

      Don’t have time to hunt down now, but I gotta think the Celtics (in green) would have played one of the red-jersey’ed teams at some point.

      • terriblehuman | November 1, 2013 at 9:38 am |

        If I’m not mistaken, the Celtics have worn their road greens the last five Christmas Days. But their opponents have all worn white, except last year, when Boston and Brooklyn wore their green and black “Big Color” alternates.

        I haven’t gone back past 2007, though.

  • terriblehuman | November 1, 2013 at 9:04 am |

    The Roma item is from July, and I think it’s been covered here before – it’s their current home shirt that’s unmarked. Their next home shirt will likely be branded.

    • Paul Lukas | November 1, 2013 at 9:08 am |

      Gotcha. Will remove.

      • terriblehuman | November 1, 2013 at 9:10 am |

        Though I now see that Chad mentions the club’s forthcoming contract with Nike, so I could do a better job of reading, obviously.

        • DJ | November 1, 2013 at 9:14 am |

          Well, you did notice the reference to Roma’s “next” shirt, which shows that the piece was written well before the current season.

  • mainspark | November 1, 2013 at 9:15 am |

    Paul –
    I thought the same thing when I turned on the Bengals/Dolphins game. I wish the Bengals would have applied and/or the league agreed to the Bengals wearing their alt orange jersey. Nevertheless, I thought it was a good-looking game. The two color schemes matched up well.

    http://www.bengals.c...

  • Benton | November 1, 2013 at 9:21 am |

    One of the christmas games from a few years ago (2008) was Dallas Mavericks vs. Portland Trail Blazers. I know the Mavs uniform was an alternate, not sure about Portland.

    http://images.cbsspo...

    • terriblehuman | November 1, 2013 at 9:45 am |

      Obviously Photoshopped. It’s an action shot of Greg Oden.

  • Brian | November 1, 2013 at 9:37 am |

    If a school feels like they “must” enter such a restrictive contract with their manufacturer, the manufacturer should supply stick-on manufacturer’s marks that can be applied to spats or other medical equipment.

    • Chris Hamilton | November 1, 2013 at 9:44 am |

      Wouldn’t want to put the health of the athletes ahead of the contract. After all the athletes are a cheap and plentiful commodity–you don’t even have to pay them. But the shoe contract…

    • Dan | November 1, 2013 at 9:45 am |

      Actually, Nike makes a product called the STR8 jacket in a variety of colors (yes, even Pinktober)

      http://www.eastbay.c...

      • terriblehuman | November 1, 2013 at 10:14 am |

        I can’t imagine you could get the same level of support from a nylon wrap that you’d get with a properly trained trainer doing it with tape.

        If they’re so concerned about spats covering the Swoosh, couldn’t they just make Nike-branded tape?

    • Mike 2 | November 1, 2013 at 11:27 am |

      Many years ago, while filming Rumble in the Bronx (obviously filmed in Vancouver), Jackie Chan broke his ankle while doing a stunt. He had a cast put on, and a sock that went over the cast that looked like his shoe, so he could keep filming.

      http://youtu.be/rtA_...

      Now that would be a reasonable solution.

  • pedro | November 1, 2013 at 9:45 am |

    A few years ago the Celtics played at the Bulls on St. Patrick’s Day. The Bulls wore a green alternate forcing the Celtics to wear their home white unis. Not only were the Bulls green alts ugly, but it was extremely confusing.

    Pic: http://www.nba.com/m...

  • David | November 1, 2013 at 9:45 am |

    Matching up team colors to specific holidays? Cutesy, but I don’t think we should act disappointed when a team doesn’t play along.

    It’s bad enough when they add non-team colors to uniforms to commemorate Hallmark holidays. If I managed a team, I wouldn’t want to have to make uniform choices around whether we had chosen the correct 11th alternate to wear because it’s Grandparents Day or Take Your Daughter to Work Day.

    I don’t believe it to be the case, but I’d have preferred the idea that the orange vs black was coincidental rather than contrived. It just smacks of another cheap marketing ploy that will get some team to say, “We want to be in an extra national TV game… we need a BFBS uniform”.

    • Paul Lukas | November 1, 2013 at 9:53 am |

      It’s Halloween — the whole point is to dress up in costume.

      I wouldn’t want to see teams come up with new uniforms in non-team colors just for Halloween. But if you already have those uniforms in your closet, I say go for it!

      • Winter | November 1, 2013 at 2:07 pm |

        So the Houston Cougars pumpkin helmets of last night would fit into that, I assume?

    • A Student | November 1, 2013 at 9:55 am |

      Entirely correct. I certainly wouldn’t want my favorite NFL team dressed in a clown costume just because it’s “insert minor holiday here.” If the team wants to do it, let them. Just don’t force them.

    • terriblehuman | November 1, 2013 at 10:01 am |

      I wouldn’t want to have to make uniform choices around whether we had chosen the correct 11th alternate to wear because it’s Grandparents Day or Take Your Daughter to Work Day.

      I’m pretty sure that slope isn’t as slippery as you’re making it out to be. I mean, unless they somehow work a military angle to Administrative Professionals’ Day. Then, it’ll be all American flag and/or camouflage everywhere.

      • David | November 1, 2013 at 1:16 pm |

        re: Paul… probably coloring my opinion is the fact that I hate Halloween. I’m just not a “look at me” personality.

        terriblehuman: Slope made slipperier for effect, but you’re kind of making my point by bringing in the military holidays. I support my troops as much as the next guy, but do we have to roll out the patriotic kits for Memorial Day, Veterans Day, July 4th? Somewhere there’s someone upset that their team didn’t roll out the flag unis for Armed Forces Day, V-E Day or National POW/MIA Day.

        • terriblehuman | November 1, 2013 at 1:56 pm |

          But that’s different – they’re coopting existing celebrations to pander to the military appreciation lobby. It’s not about celebrating every little holiday.

          And official or not, Halloween is A Big Deal in this country, while Hallmark holidays are not. And like Paul points out, dressing up is an integral part of Halloween.

    • Rob H. | November 1, 2013 at 11:00 am |

      This is what last night’s Halloween Bengals-Dolphins game should have looked like:

      http://www.gridiron-...

      • The Jeff | November 1, 2013 at 11:04 am |

        Ugh… no Rob, the Dolphins shouldn’t wear mono-orange, ever. The Dolphins regular uniforms vs the Bengals in orange jerseys & black pants would have been enough.

        • Dumb Guy | November 1, 2013 at 12:04 pm |

          The Dolphins need more orange…. but not THAT much!

        • ChrisH | November 1, 2013 at 2:26 pm |

          When the Miami NFL team first unveiled their redesign, I too thought that the entire set needed more orange (and I really liked the switch to a white facemask).
          After seeing them on the field I no longer think so.
          I do hope they give the aqua pants a place in the sun before the season is over.

  • daveclt | November 1, 2013 at 9:55 am |

    It will be interesting to see how the (inevitable) Redskins name change plays out. I can’t see Dan Snyder caving in, at least publicly. So I think there may be some backroom deal where the NFL “forces” them to make the change.

    Also, while the name is offensive, the logo in my opinion is respectful. So do they switch tangentially to the original Braves name (or something of that nature), so Mr. Snyder can save a little face? Or do they move completely away so they never have to deal with the issue again?

    • Dumb Guy | November 1, 2013 at 10:09 am |

      I too have thought the helmet logo to be fine. Nothing degrading to it in my book.

      I guess the ultimate disrepective mash-up would be if the ‘Skins used a Chief Wahoo-like logo.

      • Connie | November 1, 2013 at 10:51 am |

        Keep the logo. Call the team Washington “Americans” in same font as now used for Washington “Redskins.” Not my idea by any means – saw it here earlier, and Paul or Phil can attribute correctly – but it’s the clear leader in my book.

    • ChrisH | November 1, 2013 at 11:07 am |

      I disagree that a name change for the Washington Redskins is inevitable and that the proper noun Redskins, when confined to refer to the goings-on of the Washington DC NFL team, is an offensive term.
      However, if a name change does occur I think the helmet logo goes as well.
      If there’s were any “backroom deal” Snyder would still own the Redskins trademark(s), and would be wise to also stipulate that he does not need to share revenues from sales of old Redskins and new (insert team name here…the Atlanta Braves may have something to say in court about using their brand?) merchandise for a good long time…80 years ought to be sufficient.

      • Phil Hecken | November 1, 2013 at 11:53 am |

        “I disagree that a name change for the Washington Redskins is inevitable and that the proper noun Redskins, when confined to refer to the goings-on of the Washington DC NFL team, is an offensive term.”

        ~~~

        So…it’s not offensive “when confined to refer to the goings-on of the Washington DC NFL team” but it’s offensive is every other use?

        I don’t want to put words into your mouth, but that sounds like what you’re saying.

        Either the term is offensive or it’s not (and if you don’t think it is, that’s absolutely fine). If there were a team called the “Harlem Niggers” that had been so-named for 80 years, and you felt the “n-word” was offensive, wouldn’t you find it offensive if used as a team name as well?

        • The Jeff | November 1, 2013 at 12:07 pm |

          That’s sorta the whole issue isn’t it? The fact that the term has been used as a franchise name for 80 years really dilutes it’s ability to also stand as a racial slur. Eighty years of Redskins football means that the vast majority of people don’t view it in any kind of negative light. In a parallel universe, 80 years of the Harlem Niggers franchise would have the same effect – most people not viewing it as a slur. How long does it take for common usage to override a dictionary definition?

        • ChrisH | November 1, 2013 at 1:30 pm |

          “Confined” was perhaps not the best word choice.
          “Redskin(s)” is a suitable/appropriate term which can be and is used in a number of instances, including but not limited to the dealings of the Washington Redskins.
          “Redskin(s)” is not being employed as a slur by Dan Snyder, those representing him and the team, and/or individuals discussing the operation and history of the franchise he owns.

        • Komet17 | November 1, 2013 at 1:30 pm |

          I think part of the dynamic of why “N****s” is universally seen as offensive, while “Redskins” is not universally seen as offensive is that, frankly, the plight of Native Americans is essentially unnoticed today in America.

          For the most part, the horrible conditions on reservations are unknown (or ignored) by most Americans and the Native Americans who have “assimilated” into mainstream culture are probably not viewed as “Indian” by others unless they specifically identify themselves as such.

          By contrast, African-Americans do not live on remote reservations and, in fact, are highly visible, especially in urban areas and in the media. Also, the African-American community is much more visible in the political circles of our nation, and have a series of highly visible leaders and organizations since the days of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The same cannot be said, unfortunately, for Native Americans.

          So: perhaps the heightened awareness / sensitivity / relucance to use “N—–s” is related to the above factors, which are not nearly as pronounced for Native Americans, specifically in relationship to the term “Redskins.”

        • Winter | November 1, 2013 at 2:10 pm |

          ““Redskin(s)” is a suitable/appropriate term which can be and is used in a number of instances, including but not limited to the dealings of the Washington Redskins.”

          I think that’s the crux of the disagreement there. I don’t think many people hold that statement to be true.

        • Phil Hecken | November 1, 2013 at 3:53 pm |

          “The fact that the term has been used as a franchise name for 80 years really dilutes it’s ability to also stand as a racial slur.”

          ~~~

          Unfortunately, there’s more than a grain of truth in that nugget, but that’s no defense for it to remain the name today.

          The fact that the term is a racial slur should in and of itself be more than grounds for its relegation to the dust bin of history.

          Here’s the thing. It’s not like anyone is ever going to forget the team or its previous name (despite the protestations of some). Dan Snyder can find himself on the right side of history or he can forever be remembered as a modern-day George Wallace. It’s no sign of weakness for him to change the name, but rather, strength. It’s a battle he’s going to lose, one way or another.

        • Richard | November 1, 2013 at 5:30 pm |

          “Either the term is offensive or it’s not”

          While I consider the “N” word always offensive, I thought it has been established somewhere around here that there is usage of the “N” word that is NOT offensive.

      • walter | November 1, 2013 at 1:48 pm |

        As long as I can buy a shirt that says “I’m Still Calling it The Jake/Shea/Comiskey”, I think the Washington fans will have the ultimate say. If what they replace “Redskins” with isn’t any good, you can’t make them use it.

        • scott | November 1, 2013 at 6:06 pm |

          Monday is also an offensive term, if used in a certain way.

      • Rob H. | November 1, 2013 at 4:51 pm |

        when confined to refer to the goings-on of the Washington DC NFL team, is an offensive term.

        Actually, I only find it offensive when it’s used as a racial slur toward Native Americans. As a football team nickname, not so much…

  • Joseph Gerard | November 1, 2013 at 10:00 am |

    I think the “Brewers vs. Brewers” matchup has been covered in the past, but it’s still unique. Too bad that equipment contracts today pretty much make it impossible for it to happen again, since they could always get replicas of the teams’ away uniforms at a sports shop nearby.

  • Eric C | November 1, 2013 at 10:08 am |

    New Arkansas Razorbacks hoops unis. Comes in three colors (white, cardinal, ‘anthracite’) and features the same lettering/wordmarkings as the football jerseys. They haven’t released any high quality still shots yet but here’s the unveiling video. http://www.youtube.c...

  • Mirliton | November 1, 2013 at 10:33 am |

    Happy birthday, Saints ! http://www.nytimes.c...

  • Eric | November 1, 2013 at 10:34 am |

    Seems the Blues have a hard time tagging their apparel correctly. I visited StL in 2012 and found this:

    http://farm8.staticf...

    • mild bill | November 1, 2013 at 12:24 pm |

      Should blame be attributed to the Blues organization or to child/slave labor practices of the garment industry?

  • John Q | November 1, 2013 at 11:17 am |

    It’s amazing that the Royals had to wear Brewers away uniforms in that clip. And that’s a clip a clip from 1977 not 1937. It’s inconceivable now that a team would ever have to do something like that.

    I’m still amazed watching these clips from 1970’s baseball just how cheap and low budget everything looked with the multi-purpose astro-turf parks to the run-down in dis-repair pre-1960’s parks to the sans-a-belt pull over polyester uniforms. There are hundreds of minor league teams/parks/uniforms in 2013 that look 10 times better and more professional than 1977 major league baseball.

    Even jewels like Fenway and Wrigley looked like crap in 1977.

    Although, the one thing that’s nice about 1977 baseball is that advertisements aren’t plastered all over every nook and cranny of the ballparks.

    The renovated Yankee Stadium looked outstanding in 1977.

  • Andy White | November 1, 2013 at 11:41 am |

    A 30 second Google couldn’t find an example, but I know for a fact that Duke also used “Sparky” for a while as a secondary logo in the ’70’s.

  • PG-13 | November 1, 2013 at 12:14 pm |

    In regards to spatting, what was Walter Payton wearing here?

    http://www.bronxbant...

    It has the Roos logo on it. In several places, it seems.

    • YPC | November 1, 2013 at 1:20 pm |

      I believe some teams/manufacturers had/have “stamps” that they could literally apply on top of spat and other tape jobs. I feel like Notre Dame used to do this in the early 90s when they were still with Champion, but I can’t be sure. As most shoe companies usually have pretty simple logos, it seems to me like an easy solution.

      • DJ | November 1, 2013 at 2:46 pm |

        But Notre Dame never wore Champion shoes; it was only uniforms.

        Your main point is well taken; enterprising equipment personnel/athletes would often stencil the appropriate logos over spatted shoes. Surely Memphis State could create a stencil for a quick paint job over the tape.

  • Dan | November 1, 2013 at 12:29 pm |

    I think Salty wearing Varitek’s knee-savers has been brought up before today. It’s pretty clear after looking at this picture that they are, in fact, Varitek’s old ones.

    http://marinerds.com...

    • Randy | November 1, 2013 at 1:04 pm |

      Thanks for posting the pic of Varitek. I would agree, they must be the same ones.

      • Sully | November 1, 2013 at 1:51 pm |

        Against Detroit he had a different pair on.
        http://www.cadillacn...

        • Randy | November 1, 2013 at 5:17 pm |

          Very interesting. Maybe the #33 knee savers are only for the World Series.

  • Valjean | November 1, 2013 at 12:36 pm |

    I’m nearly positive this has been covered at some point, so forgive my ignorance: how long have the Bulls had the city name (“Chicago”) on their alt blacks? Or is it just a road jersey that they typically don’t wear at home?

    It was a little funky (to me) to see two city name jerseys matched up last night — kind of a nice change, actually. And count me as a fan of the orange/black schtick. At least the NBA shows it can have a little fun at times.

    • DJ | November 1, 2013 at 2:49 pm |

      The first black alt for the Bulls didn’t have “Chicago” on it (black, red pinstripes, simpler striping), but subsequent ones have (when they basically took the Bulls standard uniform and made it black). I’m sorry that I don’t know the exact year.

      I’d put “Chicago” on the Bulls away reds, and return to white letters and numbers trimmed in black.

    • terriblehuman | November 1, 2013 at 2:54 pm |

      Since 1999, apparently. You have to go back to the Michael Jordan era for black jerseys that say “BULLS”.

      Though sometimes they confuse things by wearing their throwback alts with red pinstripes.

      • Valjean | November 1, 2013 at 3:10 pm |

        Thanks. Sheesh — only been 14 years. I’m *sure* I was confusing them with the pins version — yeah, yeah, that’s it …

        Anyway, wearing road jerseys at home looks kind of cool sometimes, imho. But I’m the softest touch for color-on-color.

  • Phantom Dreamer Otis | November 1, 2013 at 2:12 pm |

    Loved that Royals/Brewers game! The look of youth, athleticism and vitality. The dynamism of a proper tailored uniform, pullover jersey + sansabelt knickers is unmatched. That’s real athletic wear. Looking at baseball today is gross. Looking at baseball back in the day, the 1980s specifically, always brings a smile to my face. I only wish low cut stirrups were worn instead of the ribbon stirrups that were worn then.

  • Mark | November 1, 2013 at 3:57 pm |

    Another point regarding the spatting issue: Doesn’t that clause also put a kind of ‘target’ on the guys who are spatting, as it shows they definitely have a real medical issue rather than a desire for additional support? I know if I was an opposing coach I’d be looking to test the lateral movement of any player who had their ankles taped on a team where it was prohibited aside from a medical issue.

  • David Firestone | November 1, 2013 at 5:00 pm |

    As a DePaul alumni, I’m in love with that shirt! That logo is better than anything we have or had worn up to that point…

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

  • MM10 | November 1, 2013 at 6:00 pm |

    Oh no, how will we be able to tell which company supplies a school’s uniforms if they cover the shoe logo with tape? It’s not like we could find the same logo on the socks, pants, jersey, gloves, wristbands, shirts, hats, polos, towels…

  • scott | November 1, 2013 at 6:09 pm |

    Rochester Red Wings unveiled revised logos today. Anyone thinking the new “R” looks a bit like the old “P” that the defunct Nashua Pride used in its logo? I suppose embedding a “1” as the stem of an “R” or a “P” isn’t that radical a concept…

  • Adam Betz | November 1, 2013 at 9:49 pm |

    Ummm, why are the Nets wearing black at home?

    • Coleman | November 1, 2013 at 10:40 pm |

      Because, Jay-Z.

  • Bromotrifluoromethane | November 2, 2013 at 12:22 am |

    This was done on Friday. It’s already begun. UGH!!!

    https://www.facebook...

    At least it’s not PINK I guess.

  • dakotafrost | November 2, 2013 at 1:03 pm |

    Game photo, Cubs at Cardinals, is August 12, 1941.

    http://www.baseball-...

    Dressed to the Nines shows cubs wore that Uniform in 1941 and 1942 only.

    Phillies Pitcher on scoreboard is listed as number 11.

    Number 11 is Lefty Hoerst, 1941. Baseball Reference .com shows 1941 Phillies Schedule vs. Braves (Boston) at Boston

    http://www.baseball-...

    The August 12, 1941 game is a 2-1 loss to the braves in boston in 13 innings. Cubs-Cardinals from the same day matches scoring on scoreboard.

  • dakotafrost | November 2, 2013 at 1:13 pm |

    Bonus scoreboard is Sept. 16, 2013.

    http://www.baseball-...