Monday Morning Uni Watch

giants.png

I’ve been saying for years that the Giants’ gray pants look a bit too blah and that they should switch them to white. Yesterday they finally did just that, breaking out the white alternate pants that they had unveiled during the off-season. Personally, I thought it looked great — the pants really popped, and everything on the field looked a bit brighter. The Giants will wear these pants again in two weeks against the Cowboys, and I for one can’t wait.

Speaking of the Giants: See that design on Mathias Kiwanuka’s visor tab? That was the team’s stadium/passer logo, which equipment director Joe Skiba added to the team’s visor tabs for yesterday’s game.

In other developments from around the league yesterday:

• Lots of strong, contrasting colors in the Bengals/Ravens game (lots of additional photos here). While I wouldn’t call this a good-looking game, there’s no denying that it was an interesting-looking game.

• The Cardinals wore their black alts.

• The Titans went mono-navy.

• The Saints wore their black unitards.

• Back in Week 7, Bears quarterback Jay Cutler was wearing a Schutt Air XP helmet. Yesterday he had switched to a Rawlings model. So much for the NFL’s “one shell per player” rule, eh? (Bears backup QB Josh McCown appears to have made a similar switcheroo: Schutt in Week 7, Rawlings in Week 9.)

• You’ve heard of concussion sensors in helmets, but did you know a sensor could also be applied directly to a player’s head? That’s a Falcons player from yesterday. Further details and explanation in this thread.

• As you can see in a lot of the game photos from yesterday, GI Joevember is continuing apace. The idiocy reached new heights — or maybe depths — in Atlanta, where the Falcons’ cheerleaders played their own version of dress-up soldier. What a beautifully dignified gesture for Veterans Day.

• Just in case anyone was missing the point, the NFL put together a subtle message. This same stunt, which looks like a parody scene out of The Simpsons, was repeated at stadiums around the league. Stay classy, NFL.

Turning to Saturday’s college action, Phil and his contributors had good coverage in yesterday’s post, so start there. But here are a few additional items:

• Have I mentioned lately that football entails repeated head impacts? That’s Fresno State backup quarterback Brian Burrell, who lost some part of his decal and some underlying paint while scoring a touchdown.

• Speaking of helmet decals, Wyoming defensive end Richie Yarborough lost part of his.

• Arizona State cornerback Damarious Randall suffered a small tear in his pants, so he removed his pants on the sidelines and stood around in his base-layer tights until they found new pants for him.

(My thanks to all contributors, including John Enriquez, Peter Evans, Trent Knaphus, Stan Olechowski, Rich Paloma, and of course Phil.)

+ + + + +

Another turn of the ratchet: The pull of GI Joevember is apparently so strong that it can even affect sports that aren’t currently being played. That became apparent on Saturday, as the Mets announced (although sotto voce, buried within this hodgepodge of news bulletins) that they’ll be wearing camouflage jerseys for Monday-night home games in 2014. (Update: Here’s how it will look. Note that they used Gil Hodges’s retired number, 14. They never use his number for promotions — but they did here.)

The Mets, like many MLB teams, haven’t yet listed their game times for the 2014 season, but their schedule calls for eight Monday home games. At least five of them will almost certainly be night games (the other three include Memorial Day and two wraparound/getaway games at the conclusion of four-game series, any or all of which could possibly end up as day games). On the other hand, there are lots of Monday off-days, some of which will likely be used to make up rainouts. Add it all up and I’d say it’s reasonable to assume that the Mets will end up with seven or eight Monday-night games in 2014. That means they’ll be wearing camouflage for about 10 percent of their home schedule.

The Padres introduced camouflage jerseys to MLB in 2000. Since then, a handful of other MLB teams have worn camouflage jerseys, including the Reds, White Sox, and Pirates. There were also those camouflage-lettered jerseys that everyone wore last season on Memorial Day.

But all of those non-Padres examples were worn only once or twice, while the Mets will be wearing their camouflage design multiple times throughout the season. The only precedent for this is the Padres, and their excuse has always been that San Diego is a “military town” with a “strong military culture.” Even if you accept that as a good reason to wear camo (which I most assuredly do not, for reasons I’ve explained many times and won’t bother repeating here), what exactly is the Mets’ excuse? Does New York have a “strong military culture” that I’ve been overlooking during the quarter-century I’ve been living here? Or are the Mets just pandering, because that’s what everyone does now with these GI Joe-isms?

I think we all know the answer to that question. While I haven’t exactly been in love with all the other GI Joe nonsense that’s infected the uni-verse up until now, at least I’ve had the comfort of knowing that none of my favorite teams had engaged in it (except as part of a league-wide thing). Now that the Mets are doing it, I find it difficult to express how angry it makes me. Like, very angry.

On the plus side, at least now I know in advance that I can make other plans on Monday nights next year.

+ + + + +

Gift Guide reminder: If you have suggestions for uni- or logo-related products or services for me to include in the annual Uni Watch Holiday Gift Guide, let’s hear whatcha got.

+ + + + +

’Skins Watch: The Orange County Register has become the latest newspaper to stop referring to the ’Skins by name. … Washington Post columnist Colbert King thinks Dan Snyder is at risk of going down in history as the next George Preston Marshall (from Tommy Turner). … NFL execs met on Friday with an Oneida Indian who supports keeping the ’Skins name unchanged (from Tommy Dodson). … Jim Vance, who anchors the NBC local news in DC, has described the ’Skins name as “vulgar,”, but that didn’t stop him from wearing a garish ’Skins jacket for the team’s recent game in Minnesota. … The University of Utah is allowed to use the Ute name and the drum/feather logo because it has permission to do so from the Ute Tribe. Now the tribe, dissatisfied with how the university is holding up its end of the agreement, has requested a meeting with university officials to discuss the arrangement. The tribe has apparently been mulling this request for some time.

Baseball News: My buddy Ken Davidoff did an interview with Cardinals third base coach Jose Oquendo and, to his credit, asked Oquendo about his hoodie protocol during the World Series. See, that’s why Ken’s my buddy — he Gets It™. … Dennis Hasty sent along a bunch of photos from the Reds Hall of Fame & Museum. “You’ll never see so many old Reds unis together like this!” he says.

NFL News: Spirit Airlines has come out with the most tasteless ad of the year. Okay, so we all understand why they couldn’t put a Dolphins logo on the helmet. But if they’re gonna use the current striping, shouldn’t they have also used the current facemask color? (From Yusuke Toyoda.)

College Football News: This Thursday marks the anniversary of the 1970 Marshall football team plane crash that claimed 75 lives. It’s the first time since the crash that the team will be playing a road game on the exact anniversary of the tragedy, so they’ve decided to wear a memorial helmet for the occasion. I think that’s going to be a tense and emotional plane ride on the way to that game (from Coleman Mullins). … UCLA going BFBS this Friday. … Excellent interview with CMU’s equipment/branding supervisor (from Jason Axel).

Hockey News: The Ducks went GI Joevember for pregame warm-ups last night. … Lots of CHL teams wore Rembembrance Day jerseys yesterday — some with poppies, others with military imagery. You can see a bunch of them here (thanks, Phil).

Soccer News: Remembrance Day poppies were everywhere in the EPL this past weekend. … There was a bit of controversy about Wigan winger James McClean, who didn’t play in Sunday’s match. Some observers thought maybe he was benched for not wearing a poppy (he’s refused to wear one in the past), but it turns out he was injured. … Sporting Kansas City’s Benny Feilhaber didn’t get the memo about Pinktober being over (all of the preceding from Yusuke Toyoda). … Red Hot Chili Peppers drummer Chad Smith has received death threats after pretending to wipe his ass with a Brazil jersey (from Chris Flinn).

NBA News: Ladies and gents, your Knicks Xmas Day jersey (major thanks to Micah Joselow). … Looks like the real Xmas jerseys — as opposed to the retail replicas — won’t have Adidas logo creep. … The 76ers have added a black memorial band for longtime equipment manager Jeff Millman, who passed away on Tuesday. They’ll wear the band for the rest of this month, which is an interesting time frame. We’ve all seen season-long memorials, along with the occasional one-game memorial, but “for the rest of this month” is a new one, at least to me (from James Ashby). … In case you missed it in yesterday’s Ticker, it looks like the first of the nickNOB games will be in January.

College Hoops News: Check out the jersey lettering used by Duquesne in the early 1980s. … Virginia Tech forward Cadarian Raines was wearing some very cool socks on Saturday (big thanks to Andrew Cosentino).

Grab Bag: Jimmie Johnson wore an odd looking visor on his helmet at Phoenix yesterday (from David Firestone). … Cool infographic showing how almost everything you buy is produced by 10 corporations (from Jim Walaitis). … This is pretty bizarre: The CFL’s Saskatchewan Roughriders have some sort of little thingies on their goalposts. “They are pyrotechnic canisters that are set off when the ’Riders score,” says Seth Moorman.

 

168 comments to Monday Morning Uni Watch

  • Unknown | November 11, 2013 at 8:32 am |

    Making a joke about the Marshall plane crash…and the NFL are the “classy” ones.

    • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2013 at 8:45 am |

      What joke? I was (and am) completely serious: I *do* think it’s going to be a tense and emotional plane ride.

    • Randy Rollyson | November 11, 2013 at 9:32 am |

      As a native of Huntington and one who remembers the Marshall crash as a 9 year old boy who had friends whose parents died on that fateful day, that comment kinda hit me the wrong way, too. You may not have meant anything by the comment but it didn’t come out right.

    • Greta Faber | November 11, 2013 at 9:53 am |

      Good mention of the Marshall plane crash, poor commentary.

      • Bernard | November 11, 2013 at 10:11 am |

        Yep.

      • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2013 at 10:12 am |

        Can you please explain how it’s poor commentary? I’m not throwing down a challenge — I honestly want to know what you mean.

        If *I* were a member of that team, and if I knew we were flying on the anniversary of the crash, you can bet it would be emotional and tense for me. You too, I bet. What exactly is wrong with stating that?

        • terriblehuman | November 11, 2013 at 10:28 am |

          I’m guessing the “eh?” communicated more levity than you intended.

        • Bernard | November 11, 2013 at 10:33 am |

          It came off a little flip to me, personally. Substitute “amirite?” for “eh?” and that’s prety much how it sounded in my head. That said, I’m sure no disrespect was meant.

        • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2013 at 10:37 am |

          Substitute “amirite?” for “eh?” and that’s prety much how it sounded in my head.

          You can substitute lots of things for lots of things, but I only wrote what I wrote. Honestly, it was a straightforward statement — it’s going to a tense and emotional flight.

        • Bernard | November 11, 2013 at 10:50 am |

          terriblehuman said it better than I did.

        • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2013 at 10:57 am |

          OK — I’ll remove the “eh.” Done!

        • Coleman | November 11, 2013 at 12:26 pm |

          Removing the “‘eh” really did change the vibe of that statement. I wasn’t offended, I sent the link and knew your tone, but I can understandd what others saw.

          More importantly, what do people think of the helmet?

  • hodges14 | November 11, 2013 at 8:36 am |

    PL, there is the USS Intrepid, not to mention the US military academy in New York, That being said, I’m not exactly looking forward to seeing the Mets go GI Joe either. Don’t they have enough alternates as it is?

    • arrScott | November 11, 2013 at 9:57 am |

      Ah, yes, US Military Academy at West Point. Legendary as the home of the Long Camo Line at the heart of American military leadership.

      Oh, wait, no, West Point is the home of the Long Gray Line, because the distinctive uniform of USMA cadets is gray, not camo.

      Maybe the Mets are honoring Fleet Week, where US Navy sailors take shore leave by dressing up in US Army camo uniforms to take in the Big Apple. Oh, wait, no, sailors wear white for Fleet Week.

      Plus, Fleet Week was cancelled in 2013 due to federal sequestration cuts, and those cuts are currently scheduled to increase in 2014, so planning to celebrate Fleet Week is a bad bet right now.

      That’s my biggest problem with the camo thing: Not that it’s low-grade stolen valor, or that it’s the cheapest form of sunshine patriotism, but that most cases it’s simply so poorly thought out. The Padres pretty much got it right (though they got it even more right back when their regular, non-camo uniforms mirrored the white and khaki uniforms of the Navy). But New York isn’t San Diego, so if the Mets want to do something like this, something other than camo is called for. Why not a special gray home jersey to honor West Point? Why not a uniform inspired by the uniforms of WWII, Korea, or Vietnam military installation baseball teams? Surely the naval airship station at Lakehurst, NJ had a base team.

      Camo is just a sign that a team doesn’t care enough about honoring veterans or the troops to spend even an hour of staff time thinking about how to do it.

    • teenchy | November 11, 2013 at 1:42 pm |

      There’s a service academy in New York that’s closer to Citi Field than West Point. Its students and alumni are occasionally honored by the Mets.

      • timdub70 | November 11, 2013 at 5:15 pm |

        And the Merchant Marine Academy produced at least one NFL football player, former Denver Bronco linebacker Joe Rizzo (’73), who played in the late 1970s.

  • BurghFan | November 11, 2013 at 8:38 am |

    The Falcons cheerleaders link gets me a 404.

  • Matt Malinoski | November 11, 2013 at 8:45 am |

    According to sportslogos.net, there is an updated (and now outdated) version of the Jints’ stadium/passer logo, but Skiba wisely chose the original and superior Yankee Stadium one.

  • Matt D (the other one) | November 11, 2013 at 8:49 am |

    It’s presumptive on the NFL’s part to think that the ticket-purchasing public wants to be part of these “appreciation” events. Thank you military for allowing us the freedom to coerce people into participation!

    That said, each person had the opportunity to opt out. I wish more had.

    But that said, this shouldn’t be an opt out thing. Sports are escape. That’s the whole point. I shouldn’t have to answer to some drunk dude three seats over when I decide not to hold up my piece of cardboard (or whatever it is).

    This whole “celebrate the military” movement is institutionalized bullying. Telling how the NFL (and other major sports groups) only “sponsor” perfectly safe groups and movements. Wake me up when a player (or a club) actually takes a stand on an issue.

    • Phil P | November 11, 2013 at 9:30 am |

      I agree with the institutionalized bullying sentiment. Since 9/11 in particular, we’ve found a way to equate supporting the military with efforts against terrorism, since they’re “protecting our freedom.” I imagine you’re old enough to recall how those who opposed the Iraq actions were seen as unpatriotic and not “supporting the troops.” Now, thanks to the efforts of these wonderful politicians, we’ve got a lot of folks who need a lot of supporting from a system not quite equipped to handle the volume.

      I’ve never seen any mention of this, but does anyone think Fox plays a role in playing up the military angle? I thought the World Series coverage was a little military-centric, I don’t know if the leagues are entirely to blame or if the networks contribute to the spectacle.

      • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2013 at 10:07 am |

        This didn’t start on 9/11. It started decades, even generations ago. For example, we take it for granted that we’re supposed to stand and remove our caps for the national anthem before a game (another coercive exercise), but that wasn’t always the case.

        As late as the mid-1960s, the Cubs only played the anthem on special holidays like Memorial Day and the Fourth of July, because team owner P.K. Wrigley felt that playing the song at each game effectively trivialized it. And Royals owner Ewing Kaufman cited a similar rationale in 1972, when he ordered that the anthem only be played “on Sundays and special occasions,” because it “was not receiving the respect it deserved.” Public reaction, however, was highly negative, and Kaufman quickly relented.

        • Phil P | November 11, 2013 at 10:32 am |

          I agree, and I suspect the modern notion of “supporting our troops” came after the treatment Vietnam troops received. I remember Gulf War 1, and I think the yellow ribbon thing started then? I don’t know the history behind it, I ought to look into it.

          Anyway, although this didn’t begin after 9/11, I think 9/11 was a major evolution in this whole military/patriotism dynamic we have now.

        • arrScott | November 11, 2013 at 11:51 am |

          The “treatment of Vietnam troops” thing is indeed cited as a reason for more assertive “support” for troops and veterans today. But the thing is, the idea that Vietnam vets were badly treated by the public is a myth. The old saw about returning troops being spit on? There is not one single contemporary account of that ever happening. Vietnam vets were badly treated by their government, yes, just as many post-9/11 vets are criminally mistreated by the DoD and the VA, but the public gave Vietnam vets pretty much the same greeting Korean vets and even most WWII vets received: Indifference. And that’s not a 20th century phenomenon: It’s an American phenomenon. Going back to the War of Independence, American veterans have generally encountered not a hero’s welcome and special treatment, but indifference. That’s why every generation of veterans has felt the need to establish membership organizations to celebrate their own service. (Such as the Order of the Cincinnati, the Grand Army of the Republic, the VFW, etc.)

          There were evolutionary changes before 9/11, but 9/11 really does mark a revolution in American expressions of public “support” for the military. Which is natural, I suppose, when the sum total of the government’s program for civilians to participate in the war effort was to go shopping and vote Republican. Of course we as a people looked for other ways to participate! But with the government refusing to undertake traditional wartime programs of actual involvement in supporting the two war efforts, we were left with symbolism, and that was easily coopted by commercial interests like sports leagues.

      • Matt D (the other one) | November 11, 2013 at 11:01 am |

        I’ve thought about the television angle in regard to the playing of “God Bless America.” Some stadiums don’t play the song for every game, but playing it seems to be a requirement for playoff games. And, obviously, it must be televised as well, because not to play it, or to play it and not televise it, would be unpatriotic.

      • Matt D (the other one) | November 11, 2013 at 11:14 am |

        Phil, I was part of anti-war demonstrations in 2003-2004 that came under those very attacks — that opposing the war was tantamount to opposing, or even undermining, those who served.

        Those memories always stir in me when I hear the empty idea that the military is responsible for all the freedoms we have. Sure seems like circular logic to me. I’m supposed to be thankful for the freedoms I have thanks to the military as long as one of those freedoms is not opposing military action.

        There’s also the equally empty phrase — “Thanks for all you do” which gets used in relation to the military. Such a phrase assumes we all agree on what the military does and agree that what they do is always good.

    • Eltee of DC | November 11, 2013 at 10:10 am |

      Matt D,

      I do not believe that sports teams participate in institutionalized bullying of fans, bullying being (the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively to impose domination over others. – wikipedia).

      What they are doing is applying modern American Advertising marketing to their product, (Circa-post WWI ) generating an emotional response to their message. One of the most powerful and overused methods used in marketing is to wrap the product in the American flag, patriotism, et al. to make a mythic and emotional connection with the fans that the entertainment being presented is as American as can be.

      What we seem to be gnashing our teeth over is the ridiculously “over the top” this presentation of military appreciation – the illusion of the message – if we (you, me, institutions) wear military style clothing we recognize the one percent who serve.

      Mr. Lukas has in past blogs, shown how earlier generations of fans, players, teams, participated in honoring selected events. Much more tasteful if you ask me – (er…pay no attention to pics of players marching with bats at “shoulder arms” position in WW I support).

      But as a whole much more supportive than enterprising. Therein is the elephant in the room. That capitalism and patriotism can be manipulated for fun and profit. (see every American election cycle since… oh since General Washington ran without a party preference – he didn’t need one – he was George freakin’ Washington, but I digress).

      What we are seeing in todays “Golden Age” of uni-design… is the application of this old marketing paradigm – it’s presentation in all it’s pure revenue stream creating vulgarity on display. There is no conspiracy, in my opinion, just very tacky and crass marketing.

      As for the bullying of players… that is an entirely different matter.

      Eltee

      • Matt D (the other one) | November 11, 2013 at 11:10 am |

        Oh I agree with everything you’ve written, but I’d argue that a pervasive ideology can be a form of bullying, given the possible repercussions for anyone who does not implicitly, willingly, or grudgingly acquiesce to the ideology.

  • David Pealing | November 11, 2013 at 8:55 am |

    I wonder whereabouts memorial bands will go on the sleeved basketball jerseys. Well, I can guess…

  • LI Matt | November 11, 2013 at 9:00 am |

    I went to the Rangers-Panthers game last night. Not much to say about the teams themselves, so here are some observations about the jerseys the fans were wearing:

    The standard blue and standard white were predominant, of course, but there was a good selection of the various alts the Rangers have worn over the years. I even spotted one person in the rare “white Liberty” shirt that was worn for one season 15 years ago.

    Henrik Lundqvist was the runaway leader among jerseys worn by women. On the men, Hank and Ryan Callahan were about even.

    One trend I noticed was current jerseys with classic NOBs. People had the current alt or the Midwinter Classic one with “GRETZKY 99″ or “LEETCH 2″ on the back.

    Random jerseys are a big thing at soccer games in this country. At this game I only saw two random hockey jerseys, one from Boston College and one from a Croatian team that I couldn’t read.

  • EddieAtari | November 11, 2013 at 9:21 am |

    I prefer gray pants on the Jints. IMO, The white pants wash everything out, and the numbers ‘pop-out’ less as a result. Here brighter equals flatter. Now if they ever decide to pull the reverse and gowhite over blue, I’m all for it!

    • BC | November 11, 2013 at 9:29 am |

      I preferred the white pants vs. the standard gray. I think it is a brighter look and made the blue stand out more.

      It made me realize how much I would like to see the Giants wear their late 1980′s uniforms for at least one game.

      • EddieAtari | November 11, 2013 at 11:46 am |

        I too would rather see a full L.T./Simms-era throwback, the red trim and all Although they cannot bring back the original dark navy helmet due to the new rules, they could pull off having “GIANTS” on the original helmets…

      • J | November 12, 2013 at 11:16 am |

        I’d like to see the Giants go back to their latter 60s – early 70s years, when they wore white pants with the ny on the helmet (as they currently do). The white pants they wore Sunday at least to a good degree reflected that great look during the Fran Tarkenton/ Homer Jones/Spider Lockhart years.

      • Bill | November 13, 2013 at 9:18 pm |

        I’ve been in mourning since they regressed to the dated, boring uniforms from the 60′s: grey pants, no red highlights on the home jerseys, the lower-case logo and grey facemasks. When I see photos or video of the 80′s-90′s teams I can’t help but think those are great uni’s: the colors really jump out at you, and the all-caps, block letter “GIANTS” fits better than ‘ny’.
        I’m a big fan of classic uniforms (Bears, Steelers, Packers) but to me, the team took a big step back when they made the changes – - It looks like they’re in a time warp.

    • Kyle Allebach | November 11, 2013 at 11:59 am |

      I would like to see it. It would balanced out the blue/red ratio, even though I like the blue home, red away motif.

    • Thomas J | November 11, 2013 at 12:02 pm |

      Notice that the Giants also switched to white cleats for this game, further completing the ’80s look.

    • Skycat | November 11, 2013 at 12:33 pm |

      I, too, prefer the gray pants to the white because it is a more distinctive look. If I had to make one change, though, I would opt for a shinier fabric. The matte look is a bit drab.

  • walter | November 11, 2013 at 9:22 am |

    At least this gives me an opportunity to shout in mock-indignation at my Yankee-fan mom, “Why don’t the Yankees love America?”

  • Dumb Guy | November 11, 2013 at 9:23 am |

    Spirit airlines is, unfortunately, gaining noteriety for its (in their minds I guess) clever, and provacative ads. Call me a prude and a wuss, but most of them are juvenile, boorish and/or just plain lame IMHO.

    • The Jeff | November 11, 2013 at 9:34 am |

      Too bad they messed it up… it would have been perfect if the deal was for 68.

  • Chris Hamilton | November 11, 2013 at 9:30 am |

    I’m of a different thought about tbe Padres because SD does have the military culture. The Mets, not so much. But the Wilpons need the extra money to keep the lights on at Citifield.

  • Surly Duff | November 11, 2013 at 9:31 am |

    The Mets will be wearing the camo unis on FIVE “Military Mondays” this season.

    http://espn.go.com/b...

    FIVE home games; that is, 6.1% of the home schedule.

    But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good rant?

    • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2013 at 10:25 am |

      If you read the NY Post piece on which the ESPN piece is based, you’ll see that they will have five “Military Monday” promotions but will wear camo for ALL Monday-night games. And if you read my analysis of their schedule, you’ll see that there are likely to be seven or eight Monday-night games in 2014.

      But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good rant?

  • Andrew | November 11, 2013 at 9:31 am |

    Although the NFL’s idea of honoring the military seems to be a bit over the top, I would hardly call it a classless move.

    • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2013 at 9:42 am |

      If you have no problem with self-parodying jingoism that makes a mockery of genuine patriotism by turning it into a loathsome cartoon, that’s your prerogative. But some of us view it differently.

  • Coach Batt | November 11, 2013 at 9:35 am |

    Attending the Giants game yesterday it was interesting to eavesdrop on the non-uniwatch fanbase comment on the pants… The hypotheses regarding why they were being worn, when white was worn last, when they were going to wear them with the road jerseys (stated not to happen) was amusing.,.

    my thoughts… not impressed. I agree with he earlier post from Eddieatari and feel that the uniform lost its uniqueness.

    The worst part of the ensemble were the hideous white/red cleats. ugghh… from the stands they looked orange and resembled soccer cleats.

    I was banking on only having to put up with them one more time this year, unfortunately I watched the video clip on the giants website where Joe Skiba intimated that they will not only be back next season, BUT will also be more frequent at home (read, will soon supplant the home greys eventually).

    Its a shame.

    I know Skiba said the white cleats were a nod to the ’80′s and the white-pant look, but the white cleats looked like garbage then (with a terribly drab unifom) as well as yesterday. I am willing to give the white pants a chance paired with BLACK cleats (not the ridiculous team-colored Nike joke cleat or yesterday’s soccer look)…

    For the record, the buzz in the stands was supportive. I chalk that up to the novelty of look and not having seen it in 14 seasons.

    • Matt Malinoski | November 11, 2013 at 11:12 am |

      I’m not terribly fond of the white pants; at least there’s some gray in them. The white cleats are awful.

  • Johnny O | November 11, 2013 at 9:38 am |

    As bad as all the card stunts were yesterday, none were as bad as the Packers going full camo. Brutal.
    http://prod.images.p...

  • matt | November 11, 2013 at 9:43 am |

    Can we call it Christmas and not Xmas?

    • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2013 at 9:48 am |

      When it has to do with anything even vaguely religious, I call it Christmas.

      When it has to do with selling jerseys and other silliness, I call it Xmas.

      In reality, though, the term “Xmas” has a deep religious heritage dating back nearly half a millenium, so I don’t see why you’d find it obectionable:
      http://en.wikipedia....

      • matt | November 11, 2013 at 9:58 am |

        had that one in your pocket, eh? I don’t even want Christmas used for religious reasons, I just think it’s lazy to use xmas over Christmas.

        • The Jeff | November 11, 2013 at 10:02 am |

          Considering what the holiday has become, we ought to call it $mas.

        • Phil Hecken | November 11, 2013 at 10:32 am |

          close:

          X-ma$

        • timdub70 | November 11, 2013 at 5:20 pm |

          Stan Freberg’s Green Chri$tma$-Christmas has two s’s and they’re both dollar signs.

    • arrScott | November 11, 2013 at 10:08 am |

      Two important things most of my fellow Christians seem not to know about Christmas:

      1) The use of X for Christ dates to early manuscripts of the New Testament in the second century AD; and

      2) Christmas is not in the Bible. Neither Jesus nor the early Church celebrated Christmas.

      • terriblehuman | November 11, 2013 at 10:18 am |

        I think Jesus called it “Two to three weeks before my birthday”.

        • Valjean | November 11, 2013 at 9:56 pm |

          LOL! ^This!^

          Of course, Mithras might have had a different take. And a few hundred other solstice gods.

    • terriblehuman | November 11, 2013 at 10:12 am |

      What’s wrong with Xmas? It’s not a neologism by any reasonable standard (the particular abbreviation goes back to the 1500s at least), and I don’t see it as particularly disrespectful.

      Oh should we just avoid any contractions or abbreviations? “Soccer” is lazy – from now on, it’s “association football”. But hold on, there’s a Federal Express delivery man at the door with a package from International Business Machines.

      • hmich176 | November 11, 2013 at 11:45 am |

        Because, as some people say, it takes the “Christ” out of “Christ”mas.

        Of course, I would say the same thing about Hanukkah, since we’re taking the “C” out of “C”hanukkah.

        • terriblehuman | November 11, 2013 at 12:20 pm |

          Of course, the “X” is also supposed to signify the cross. So in a sense, we’re adding more Christ into Christmas by abbreviating.

        • DJ | November 11, 2013 at 2:20 pm |

          No, the “X” doesn’t symbolize the Cross. The “X” comes from the Greek letter Chi, which is the first letter of the Greek word Χριστός (christos) which comes into English as “Christ”.

        • hmich176 | November 12, 2013 at 2:24 am |

          X is a Christogram representing Christ not the Cross. It became a Christogram because it’s the first letter in the Greek name for Christ. Another example of a Christogram is the well known Chi Rho. (Link: http://en.wikipedia....)

  • Les | November 11, 2013 at 9:53 am |

    It’s the continuing Milatiasation of America ,I can’t help thinking if a Team from the Old USSR or North Korea came out in Military style uniforms we would be mocking them as propaganda puppets of a corrupt Regieme , I’m not saying America is anything like that but it’s a slippery slope the Military is there to serve of our freely elected governments and by extension us ,and paid to do that job ,while I’m thankful for that esp since my grandfather was a WW2 vet having spent 3 years of it in a Nazi POW Camp ,this continuing show of Militarism is becoming disturbing at worst Overkill, sports is there to take us away from the reality of life and give us Sanctury!!

  • Chris Hamilton | November 11, 2013 at 10:17 am |

    It ha$ very little to do with militari$ation or honoring tho$e who have $erved.

  • scottrj | November 11, 2013 at 10:19 am |

    Never thought I’d find myself defending Daniel Snyder, but as both a lifelong MD-DC resident and Washington Post reader I’m compelled to note that WP columnist Colbert King is congenitally incapable of viewing ANYTHING outside the prism of race, and intellectually dishonest to boot. To wit, within four paragraphs in that very column he goes from saying Daniel Snyder “doesn’t deserve to be called racist” to saying he “doesn’t rival George Preston Marshall as [one].” And as proof of that offers nothing but a recitation of Marshall’s bad acts to conclude that Snyder’s “legacy” will be comparable if he doesn’t change the team name. Oh, and pat himself on the back along the way for having mentioned the issue 20 years ago.

    A couple of weeks ago a Pat Buchanan op-ed was linked to for purposes of ridicule & mockery, and deservedly so. This column merits similar treatment AFAIC.

    A couple of weeks ago If you’re gonna mock Pat Buchanan for his

  • Dave | November 11, 2013 at 10:20 am |

    Paul,

    I respect your opinions and enjoy reading the site every day. But I think it’s kind of weak to boycott a game just because of a jersey the team is wearing that day. In the rare chances I get to see the Mets, I don’t care what the players are wearing.

    I do think there is a not-so-subtle anti-military vibe running through today’s column. It’s Veterans Day. We’re still at war. Our soldiers are still in harm’s way. You could have waited a day.

    • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2013 at 10:29 am |

      I think it’s kind of weak to boycott a game just because of a jersey the team is wearing that day. In the rare chances I get to see the Mets, I don’t care what the players are wearing.

      Could you please explain how my position is “weak,” and how yours is (I’m assuming) “strong”?

      • Dave | November 11, 2013 at 10:44 am |

        I’m a fan of my team. I want to see it play. (And it’s rare that I do, given where I live.) I’m not going to say, “Let’s go to see the Mets today, but let me first check what jersey they’re wearing.” It’s not like they’re asking you to buy one as a condition of entering the ballpark.

        If the team really is allowing active and retired vets — and three of their friends — to enter the park for free on those days, it seems like a nice gesture.

        • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2013 at 10:55 am |

          I’m a fan of my team. I want to see it play.

          Nothing wrong with that. But it seems odd to come to a site devoted to uniforms and say that it doesn’t matter what the team wears. It seems even odder to claim that that’s “weak” (still waiting for an explanation for that one, by the way).

          Letting military personnel in for free is indeed a nice gesture, although it would be nice if other “heroes,” like teachers, Peace Corps members, firefighters, and garbagemen were given the same treatment. In any case, that gesture is completely distinct from the camouflage uniforms.

        • Dave | November 11, 2013 at 11:28 am |

          You misunderstood. I LOVE discussing uniforms and their details. But I’m not going to boycott a particular game because of a jersey the team is wearing that particular night.

          I put the military in a different category than you do. That’s fine. We’ve had different life experiences.

          But I do think the Mets have done more to honor police and firefighters than most teams.

          We can agree to disagree. Do I wish you’d ease up on the GI Joe and “flag desecration” lines? Sure. But it’s not my column. I enjoy the blog and come back each day.

        • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2013 at 11:42 am |

          Thanks, Dave.

          For the record, I’d love to ease up on the GI Joe and flag-desecration lines. And as soon as the teams, leagues, and manufacturers stop injecting those elements into the uni-verse, I’ll do just that. Until then, I have little choice but to respond to the stuff that’s out there.

    • Chance Michaels | November 11, 2013 at 11:13 am |

      I do think there is a not-so-subtle anti-military vibe running through today’s column.

      It is hardly “anti-military” to criticize how a for-profit corporation exploits the services to pad its own bottom line. Quite the opposite, actually.

      • hugh.c.mcbride | November 11, 2013 at 2:30 pm |

        What Chance said.

    • Lee | November 11, 2013 at 12:22 pm |

      See, you think of it as an anti-military vibe. I see what the NFL (and other leagues/teams) doing as a gaudy & disingenuous display, that actually is the opposite of respectful.

      Hmmm…

      Lee

  • Mark in Shiga | November 11, 2013 at 10:24 am |

    The thing that bugs me about a lot of these Veterans’ Day things is that the day itself makrs the end of a war. The Armistice. There are other times to be thanking active soldiers; this isn’t one of them. It’s for the ones who served in past wars which, along with their service, are now over.

    Incidentally, this is (I think) the second Veterans’ Day in which there are no living veterans of WWI left to celebrate. All those soldiers who breathed a giant sigh of relief when that document was signed in that train car at the eleventh hour on the eleventh day of the eleventh month, 1918, have left us.

    • Phil Hecken | November 11, 2013 at 10:45 am |

      “The thing that bugs me about a lot of these Veterans’ Day things is that the day itself makrs the end of a war. The Armistice.”

      ~~~

      ^^^THIS^^^

      For many years the “holiday” was “Armistice Day” or in other countries it still is “Remembrance Day”. It was, like Mark said, the celebration of the day we ENDED the Great War — the ‘War to End all Wars’.

      It is not and should not ever become a day to celebrate our active military; it should be a day to remember and be thankful for the END of a terrible, horrible war, the likes of which, at the time, the world thought would never ever be seen again. Wishful thinking.

      The following was (and still is) one of the more popular poems ever written, in 1915 (three years before the end of the Great War) and is one of the reasons poppies are worn in the States and elsewhere on Memorial Day and Armistice Day:

      In Flanders fields the poppies grow
      Between the crosses, row on row,
      That mark our place; and in the sky
      The larks, still bravely singing, fly
      Scarce heard amid the guns below.

      We are the Dead. Short days ago
      We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
      Loved and were loved, and now we lie
      In Flanders fields.

      Take up our quarrel with the foe:
      To you from failing hands we throw
      The torch; be yours to hold it high.
      If ye break faith with us who die
      We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
      In Flanders fields.

      • Thomas J | November 11, 2013 at 12:06 pm |

        From Wilfred Owen who was killed one week before the armistice.

        Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
        Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
        Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
        And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
        Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
        But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
        Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
        Of disappointed shells that dropped behind.

        GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!– An ecstasy of fumbling,
        Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
        But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
        And floundering like a man in fire or lime.–
        Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light
        As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

        In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
        He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

        If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
        Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
        And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
        His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
        If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
        Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
        Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
        Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,–
        My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
        To children ardent for some desperate glory,
        The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
        Pro patria mori.

        • hugh.c.mcbride | November 11, 2013 at 2:40 pm |

          IMHO, the best war poem I have ever read. Thanks, Thomas J., for posting it here.

      • arrScott | November 11, 2013 at 4:55 pm |

        Walt Whitman would no doubt approve of the Mets camo jerseys:

        First, O songs, for a prelude,
        Lightly strike on the stretch’d tympanum, pride and joy in my city,
        How she led the rest to arms—how she gave the cue,
        How at once with lithe limbs, unwaiting a moment, she sprang;
        (O superb! O Manhattan, my own, my peerless!
        O strongest you in the hour of danger, in crisis! O truer than steel!)
        How you sprang! how you threw off the costumes of peace with indifferent hand;
        How your soft opera-music changed, and the drum and fife were heard in their stead;
        How you led to the war, (that shall serve for our prelude, songs of soldiers,)
        How Manhattan drum-taps led.

        Why, in reading Walt’s verses celebrating New Yorkers donning the costumes of battle, the mind almost spontaneously calls forth this manly image.

      • timdub70 | November 11, 2013 at 5:32 pm |

        Only problem was, the ending of that war started the machinations that would become World War II. A certain German Corporal was in a hospital on 11/11/18 and was furious over that treaty. That corporal’s name was Adolf Hitler.

  • Karim | November 11, 2013 at 10:35 am |

    Why is the NBA the only one of the four major sports that doesn’t allow logo creep on their uniforms?

    • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2013 at 10:39 am |

      Commish David Stern, to his credit, has always believed in the sanctity of the team brands.

      Stern will be retiring in February, and Adidas has been pushing to get its logo on the uniforms, so there’s a good chance this will change next season.

  • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2013 at 10:47 am |

    And here is the Mets’ camo jersey:
    http://metspolice.co...

    Note that they used No. 14, which is retired for Gil Hodges. The Mets *never* use 14 for anything promotional — but they used it here. Yes, Hodges did serve in the military during WWII.

    • Phil Hecken | November 11, 2013 at 10:48 am |

      Classy!

    • Keith | November 11, 2013 at 11:14 am |

      I doubt that much thought went into the use of 14. I’d be more inclined to think that it references 2014.

      • Phil Hecken | November 11, 2013 at 11:17 am |

        “I doubt that much thought went into the use of 14″

        ~~~

        That’s precisely the point.

  • Nick | November 11, 2013 at 10:49 am |

    Because it’s not classy to support the military? We get it, you’re not a fan of the November tributes/uniforms. Stay classy, Uni-Watch.

    • Lee | November 11, 2013 at 11:06 am |

      I will leave it to others whether or not its classy to support the military, but the manner in which the NFL supports the military doesn’t seem very “classy” to me. More like “crass”.

      Lee

      • Le Cracquere | November 11, 2013 at 1:23 pm |

        Part of the problem is that football–whether college or NFL–seems to have crassness written into its very DNA. I suspect that most of the team owners, front offices, and fans have genuinely good intentions … but that they’re not the sort of people who seem capable of expressing a sentiment any other way than through a metaphorical bullhorn.

        I wonder if we’re asking largely well-intentioned folks for a subtlety & gracefulness in expressing those intentions that they simply don’t have it in them to give. A moment’s totally unscientific thought about the football fans I’ve known suggests it, anyway.

    • Graf Zeppelin | November 11, 2013 at 11:28 am |

      So anything and everything that anyone might do to “support the military” is, by definition and without exception, “classy”?

      What if I burn down every house in town, to “support the military”?

      Sure, that’s a ridiculous example, because there’s no logical connection between burning houses down and “support[ing] the military.” But who gets to decide whether a gesture can reasonably be taken to “support the military” or not?

      To answer your question, no, it’s “not classy to support the military” if the particular thing you do to “support the military” is not classy.

      Why is it so difficult to separate or distinguish the actual means from the abstract purpose? Why do so many of us try so hard not to make, or see, that distinction?

      • terriblehuman | November 11, 2013 at 12:25 pm |

        It’s always classy when you express support for the troops. Why, I took advantage of the day off and went to a strip joint this morning. At 11:11, Cindy came out on the main stage in a camouflage gown and stripped down to “Proud to Be an American” and dedicated the dance to the troops. Classy.

  • Les | November 11, 2013 at 10:55 am |

    The Mets need to be clear where the profits from this camo jersey are going ,unless all profits after manufacturing etc etc go to Help Vets then this jersey is a disgrace ,the Mets should NOT make any money out of selling this jersey

    Les

    • Phil Hecken | November 11, 2013 at 11:04 am |

      So…if 100% of the profits (hahahahaha) go to “Help Vets” then it’s OK?

      If the Mets want to let Vets into the ballpark for free on Mondays this year, I’m cool with that. But they don’t need to scream “LOOK AT ME” by wearing another alternate, and a horribly ugly one at that.

      But what’s the point of giving out free tickets to vets if you can’t bust out a camo top?

  • Lee | November 11, 2013 at 11:03 am |

    I like the idea of the Giants white pants, however I don’t like the actual execution.
    I’d like to see the striping to be blue-red-blue pro-style. Get rid of the gray, and the thin stripes.

    Lee

    • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2013 at 11:08 am |

      I agree — I would prefer it without the gray infill. But I can live with that.

    • Graf Zeppelin | November 11, 2013 at 11:29 am |

      Yea, I agree. I’d also like to see them slide the TV numbers down to the sleeves, but that’s nitpicky.

  • Rydell | November 11, 2013 at 11:15 am |

    The sweaters the coaches wore yesterday had a US flag patch on the right arm, to me the flag patch was backwards because on the players’ helmets the stars were on the left side of the flag and the opposite for the sweaters.

  • Eduardo | November 11, 2013 at 11:22 am |

    Jay Cutler has white cleats…? I thought the Bears were a bona fide black shoe team. The state of footwear in the NFL – in terms of UNIFORMITY – is an absolute mess. And to think the NFL is outfitted by Nike, a SHOE company at it’s heart. This is bad “show” in my opinion and looks like cr*p. Now take a college team like Alabama who actually have a uniform appearance. Like them or not, they look sharp and look like champs. Why is this so difficult for the NFL?

  • Shane Barnes | November 11, 2013 at 11:24 am |

    I love how the EPL teams honoured Rememberence Day very tastefully in England. I wish Canadian based NHL teams could do the same thing.

    • terriblehuman | November 11, 2013 at 1:29 pm |

      Yeah, it’s not perfect (i.e. the panic that follows anytime someone dares to step outside without a poppy patch), but it’s somber, respectful and specific to the day that it represents.

  • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2013 at 11:37 am |

    Mets PR man Jay Horwitz “honoring” the troops:
    https://pbs.twimg.co...

  • Johnny O | November 11, 2013 at 11:47 am |

    I’m curious. Do other countries have these “Military appreciation” acts during their professional sporting contests? Does the Japanese baseball league have soldiers march out before the game starts? What about soccer matches over in Europe? Cricket tests?

    • terriblehuman | November 11, 2013 at 1:26 pm |

      Check the Remembrance Day link in the soccer ticker.

      As for Japan, not really. Because of the military rule and World War II, overt celebrations of the military and nationalism are considered distasteful by most (ultra right wing and the LDP being exceptions). Even raising the flag and singing the national anthem in schools are controversial.

      • Mark in Shiga | November 11, 2013 at 11:57 pm |

        Terriblehuman, have you seen what the Japanese league did in 1944, at the height of their war hysteria? They changed most of the team names to militaristic words like “Troop” (instead of “Giants”), took the numbers off the players’ backs, and played in full olive green military uniforms. There were grenade throwing contests before games.

        These days there are more and more war-hawk politicians who want to tear up Article 9 of the post-WWII Constitution and let Japan have a full-on offense-capable military again, but fortunately they’re still in the minority.

    • mike 2 | November 11, 2013 at 1:27 pm |

      Canada = yes

      I used to think we were less militaristic, but lately I’m not so sure.

  • BvK1126 | November 11, 2013 at 11:48 am |

    “Sporting Kansas City’s Benny Feilhaber didn’t get the memo about Pinktober being over”

    BYU wide receiver Cody Hoffman also missed the memo about Pinktober being over. That’s a photo from the Cougars’ game this past Saturday against Wisconsin. I mentioned it in yesterday’s comments, but perhaps too late for anyone to take notice.

    • terriblehuman | November 11, 2013 at 1:49 pm |

      Very subtle – surprised you caught that.

      I’m also surprised that Feilhaber’s mustache isn’t for Movember. He actually likes it like that.

      • BvK1126 | November 11, 2013 at 2:57 pm |

        “Very subtle – surprised you caught that.”

        I actually noticed it during the five minutes or so that I watched the game. I wasn’t in a place where I could get a screen grab, so I went looking for photos online. Thankfully, Catherine Ryan had already found the best photo of it available and linked to it in her Five and One column yesterday, so I recycled it for my purposes. (By the way, great job on this weekend’s Five and One, Catherine!)

        “I’m also surprised that Feilhaber’s mustache isn’t for Movember. He actually likes it like that.”

        Feilhaber’s relationship with his mustache sounds fairly complicated:

        “I remember last year, I grew a mustache and then all of a sudden I was on a run where I scored like six games in a row, so I thought I couldn’t shave it off. By the fourth game I was just hoping I didn’t score, so I could get rid of it.”

  • Kyle Allebach | November 11, 2013 at 11:58 am |

    Happy Veterans’ Day, everybody!

    My problem with the white pants is the gray striping in between the triple stripes. Ginda gaudy and looks like someone forgot to remove in on a uni-tweaked version of the mockup. Oh well.

    I always liked the Jints gray pants, and the varying home/away pants striping–a cool little detail. The pants do make the home uniform pop more, and I’m curious how it’ll look for the away set.

    • Lee | November 11, 2013 at 12:18 pm |

      I’m the opposite… I find it pointless that they have two pairs of gray pants.

      I wouldn’t mind seeing white pants with their blue tops, and gray pants with their white tops.
      Otherwise, just go with one pair of gray pants.

      Lee

  • Alex | November 11, 2013 at 12:04 pm |

    As a Mets fan of a younger generation whose first memories of the team were of when they wore black, I had been really satisfied with the gradual uniform changes they made over the last couple of years (except for the blue road uniforms, those are all sorts of stupid). And then the Mets pull this stunt. I shouldn’t be this mad about a uniform the team will be wearing, but dammit I am. It’s this kind of move that makes the Mets look like a minor league club, a second class organization. It’s great to help veterans, but jumping on the camo marketing bandwagon to up jersey sales is disingenuous. It’s one thing to look from afar as a school like Northwestern does it, but seeing my own team do it (and not only for one game BUT AN ENTIRE SEASON) is a punch in the face. Also, at least when the Padres did it, there was a consistency in the look with the jersey letter and the hat. Orange and blue lettering on camo? Extremely ugly. Just an all around stupid move by the Mets, but the Wilpon’s will be laughing all the way to the bank.

    • scott | November 11, 2013 at 2:13 pm |

      Apt comparison to the minor leagues, where teams seem to have a different combination of uniform every day of the week. Which is why I’ve always opposed alternate uniforms of every kind… give them an inch, they’ll take a mile.

  • quiet seattle | November 11, 2013 at 12:06 pm |

    What ever happened to the notion of a simple, respectful, quiet moment to recognize those who have served the country?

    http://farm4.static....

    • Lee | November 11, 2013 at 12:19 pm |

      Because simple, respectful & quiet moments isn’t what we do!

      Lee

    • BvK1126 | November 11, 2013 at 12:44 pm |

      Because simple, respectful & quiet moments don’t generate profits!

  • Brinke | November 11, 2013 at 12:06 pm |

    Turner Field- Braves moved in in 97. And now they’re gone? What IS it about Atlanta and their stadiums?

    http://tracking.si.c...

    Man, both the Braves and Falcs have 90s stadiums, and now they’re not good enough.

    • JimWa | November 11, 2013 at 1:13 pm |

      I need to hit the refresh button more often. :)

  • Matt B | November 11, 2013 at 12:07 pm |

    Paul, the 80s Duquesne unis are a pale imitation of what they wore in the 70s:
    http://www.both-team...

    And check out the number & NOB!
    http://www.both-team...

    • quiet seattle | November 11, 2013 at 12:39 pm |

      In 2007, the Duquesne team honored the 1977 NCCA Tourney team by wearing these for a game….

      http://4.bp.blogspot...

      I like them!

  • JimWa | November 11, 2013 at 12:08 pm |

    So much for the Home of the Braves …

    http://www.ajc.com/n...

    After just 17 years, no less!

    • quiet seattle | November 11, 2013 at 12:26 pm |

      What a world……..

      • Turtle12 | November 11, 2013 at 12:49 pm |

        It has less to do with the stadium itself than it does with location. There’s no easy way to get in or out of the place, the parking is not great, and the neighborhood isn’t exactly a great place to be hanging out. Those like me with young children would love to be able to take them to a professional sports stadium in a safer environment.

        • Le Cracquere | November 11, 2013 at 1:44 pm |

          But that was all by design TO #$@%&* BEGIN WITH! [Calming down; counting to ten.] I was there. The Braves intentionally built Turner Field in an inconvenient spot, at a remove from mass-transit lines, because they wanted bigger parking revenues. And they built it in the middle of a economically depressed urban wasteland because they didn’t want patrons to spend their money at nearby competing locations that weren’t the ballpark. This was common knowledge at the time. And now all this is their ostensible reason for leaving?

          Well, at least now they can have a SUBURBAN congested, ugly, transit-unfriendly location, and can give the new place a corporately sponsored name. A ballpark ought to reflect its hometown, and Turner Field is moderately attractive, fun to attend, has an urban location, and bears the name of a person rather than a marketing firm’s coinage such as “uHeXCoInnovate2Valu.” What could be less Atlanta than all that?

          Every day, I thank the merciful Lord that I don’t live there anymore. The reasons keep piling up.

    • BvK1126 | November 11, 2013 at 1:12 pm |

      What’s with teams moving to the suburbs? I thought that trend died in the 90s, when teams scambled to abandon undwieldy multi-purpose stadiums next to open fields and industrial parks and move to retro-chic single-sport palaces in the hearts of their central business districts. Now teams like the Braves, the A’s, and the 49ers are all making plans to head back to the outskirts of their respective metro areas. On the bright side, at least there will be plenty of Burger Kings and Applebee’s nearby for fine dining after the game.

      • terriblehuman | November 11, 2013 at 1:40 pm |

        Maybe now that rich people live in city centers, teams can’t make the “This stadium will totally revitalize your downtown!” pitch any more? And perhaps that same pitch is better received in suburbs?

        Plus, can you imagine getting AT&T Park built right now? That waterfront real estate might just be too expensive now. And DC United’s stadium is mostly approved, but it requires some complicated land swaps, and it’s not even a nice part of DC.

        Then again, it might not be a trend. I have no idea.

      • TA | November 11, 2013 at 2:25 pm |

        The A’s are desiring to move to a downtown location in the largest city of their metro area.

        • BvK1126 | November 11, 2013 at 2:59 pm |

          “The A’s are desiring to move to a downtown location in the largest city of their metro area.”

          No matter how big San Jose gets, it will always be a suburb.

      • Mike Edgerly | November 11, 2013 at 2:58 pm |

        To quote Deadspin this explains everything: http://www.ajc.com/n...

    • mike 2 | November 12, 2013 at 12:09 am |

      From ESPN:

      “Furthermore, the Braves do not have control over the development of our immediate surroundings. … The stadium will be part of a 60-acre development near Cobb Galleria mall.”

      Its all about anchoring a big development that the Braves control. I thought that was the flavour du jour 20 years ago, but with real estate in a long tailspin, how does that make sense in 2013?

  • BvK1126 | November 11, 2013 at 12:32 pm |

    “Dennis Hasty sent along a bunch of photos from the Reds Hall of Fame & Museum.”

    This photo from the Reds Hall of Fame slideshow struck me as odd. It’s cool to see that reunition of all those great players from the Big Red Machine. However, I swear I remember hearing that Pete Rose was prohibited from wearing MLB-licensed uniforms as part of his lifetime ban.

    I did some quick searching around the internet, which didn’t turn up much. This 1991 story from the Baltimore Sun mentions Rose not being allowed to wear a replica Detroit Tigers uniform when he played Ty Cobb in a made-for-television movie about Babe Ruth. I also found an article on NPR’s website mentioning that players on MLB’s banned list aren’t included in MLB-licensed merchandise, but that’s not quite the same thing as not being allowed to wear parts of the uniform.

    Does anyone else remember the uniform prohibition being a condition of Rose’s ban? I’d love to hear others’ insights if they have more information.

    • BvK1126 | November 11, 2013 at 4:00 pm |

      After a little more digging, I found this AP news article from 1989. It says, in relevant part:

      “Rose now may not appear at old-timers’ games, cannot wear a major league uniform or work in any capacity for a big league club. He can’t even step onto a field.”

      So how is it that Pete Rose is wearing a Reds jersey and cap in a photo on display at the Reds’ Hall of Fame and nobobdy from MLB is compaining?

      • mike 2 | November 12, 2013 at 12:05 am |

        Unless Actual Pete Rose is sitting in a glass cabinet, I think he’s in the clear. A photo of Pete Rose in a display is not Pete Rose.

        Source: Rene Magritte

        • BvK1126 | November 12, 2013 at 9:50 am |

          Did you look at the photo? It’s recent – easily within the last five years.

          The problem is not that the Reds have a photo of Pete Rose in uniform on display. I’m sure they have plenty of photos of Rose from his playing days. The problem is that the photo is evidence of Rose wearing a Major League Baseball uniform, in direct violation of the prohibition on him doing so.

  • Will S | November 11, 2013 at 12:34 pm |

    Gary Leeman having a bit of fun with sparklers attached to skates at the HHOF Classic game yesterday.

    http://sports.yahoo....

    Also, Roughriders news in wrong section – NCAA (College Hoops)???
    They wore their retro jerseys yet again for a playoff game; don’t know why they don’t just switch to these as their main uniform (even knowing it would even better if the stripes went all the way around the arms).

    • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2013 at 12:46 pm |

      Oops — sorry about the wrong section. Now fixed!

    • mike 2 | November 11, 2013 at 1:32 pm |

      The Roughriders wore their retro jerseys and helmets for the game, but they wore them with green pants, which I don’t think they ever wore with that jersey.

      http://cfl.ca/photo_...

  • JenInChicago | November 11, 2013 at 12:47 pm |

    The first photo on the site shows a Giants player wearing the required knee-pads, with very short (or pulled up) pants. How long until the NFL makes them wear the pads/pants properly?

  • MB | November 11, 2013 at 12:55 pm |

    Troy Polamalu will be cutting his hair for veterans today, which is nice until you realize that someone is going to pay money to buy the man’s hair. But on the uni-front, does this mean he’ll actually take the cross of his jersey?

    • Phil Hecken | November 11, 2013 at 1:07 pm |

      How much of it is he cutting?

      And on a much more important note — does this mean Head & Shoulders will have to pull all those commercials now?

      • Judy A | November 11, 2013 at 7:02 pm |

        Please let it be so – although the Troy Polamalu Head & Shoulders commercials are infinitely less annoying than the Aaron Rodgers State Farm commercials.

  • Wheels | November 11, 2013 at 1:25 pm |

    Shades of the Playboy bunnies scene in Apocalypse Now with the Falcons cheerleaders done up in camo. Pure absurdity.

  • Judy A | November 11, 2013 at 2:38 pm |

    Didn’t see this in the Skins Watch or baseball ticker:

    http://extramustard....

    The quote is from the Atlanta Constitution-Journal and seems purely speculative, but interesting to note.

  • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2013 at 2:43 pm |

    I just emailed the Mets to find out if proceeds from the camo jersey sales would be donated to charity.

    Their response: “The Mets donate and will continue to donate to numerous Veterans charities.”

    Draw your own (obvious) conclusions.

    • arrScott | November 11, 2013 at 4:37 pm |

      You know what veterans need? Not too-small-to-even-brag-about-to-the-press donations to “veterans charities.” What veterans need from private businesses like the Mets is jobs.

      So, a better question for the camo-wearing Mets: Describe your program for recruiting post-9/11 veterans for job openings or soliciting contracts from vendors owned by or employing post-9/11 veterans.

      • BvK1126 | November 11, 2013 at 5:01 pm |

        They’re letting veterans in the park for free on Mondays! What more do you want?! (By the way, that will be $259.99 for the Cool BaseTM camo jersey, please. Thanks!)

  • Thomas J | November 11, 2013 at 3:02 pm |

    Perhaps the Jonathan Martin situation is bringing this sentiment out but it is important to remember that our soldiers and veterans are not all blustering macho folks. Most of them are seemingly ordinary people who save for their uniform are virtually indistinguishable from every one else. Yet many of them have endured unspeakable horrors which would leave us weeping in despair. It is through the simple resolve of such mild mannered persons that we are able to strut about unmolested with such swagger and flair.

    • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2013 at 3:08 pm |

      it is important to remember that our soldiers and veterans are not all blustering macho folks.

      Um, who said they were?

      • Thomas J | November 11, 2013 at 3:11 pm |

        No one, I’m seeking to contrast the humble nature of most service members with the over the top way that the NFL and NCAA show their appreciation.

    • Phil Hecken | November 11, 2013 at 3:15 pm |

      “it is important to remember that our soldiers and veterans are not all blustering macho folks.”

      ~~~

      Exactly.

      Wait, what?

      • Rob H. | November 11, 2013 at 5:51 pm |

        He was pesudo-macho.

        • Rob H. | November 11, 2013 at 5:52 pm |

          I meant “pseudo-” of course, but on the off chance that pesudo is some sort of Spanish profanity, I’ll consider that a fortunate typo.

  • Kyle Beaudoin | November 11, 2013 at 5:00 pm |

    Long time reader. I have a few comments I feel compelled to make:

    -I long for the days when the most heated debates between contributors and readers (or reader vs reader) centered around which ’90s NBA uniform was the worst/best (looking at you Grizzlies) and not so politically charged. I know we are being challenged to “think harder” but I really enjoy talking about logo’s, uniforms, etc. without the burden of having to consider the real “intent” of each design decision (it is always money). Perhaps it is because I am a graphic designer and the biggest allure to me with uniforms has and always will be the aesthetic aspect. I am certain that I am in the minority here and that the ongoing “Redskin” and “Armed Forces” debate is more engaging to the majority. I would also guess (not assume, guess) that said debates generate more traffic to this site so I would guess (not assume) that is why the site has evolved to be more of a social commentary on corporate/government/religious influences in athletic marketing/branding than the “Obsessive Study of Athletic Aesthetics”. Though one could assume that this would fall under “obsessive” I think a tag line re-wording may be in order.
    -Reading through the comment section there is a definite hostility between those who are on opposite sides of each debate. I believe this to be the biggest “turn off” or “unwelcomed” development the last year or so. There is far too much cynicism amongst the peanut gallery. Naturally this is because of the strong feelings that people have on both sides of the issue. Makes total sense. However these debates over shadow the other discussions which seem to be lost in the shuffle. Uni Watch (to me at least) always seemed like a bunch of Uni “Nerds” shooting the shit. Dissecting the nuances of the most minute details and exchanging info on strange promotions (MLB Futures Unis anyone?). Sure its still there but you have to sort through all the “back and forth” to get to it. I know I can just ignore it, but that doesn’t change that its there.
    -Ultimately this site is a reflection of Paul and his evolution as a writer and human being. In a way I feel like the guy who never moved out of his town after high school who stays in touch with his buddy who moved away/went to Europe/got married/etc. I still want to hang out and exchange baseball cards while my Buddy is more interested in discussing socio economics.
    -Be Respectful. No matter what your stance is on a subject understand that the other person deserves your respect…unless they don’t. They will make that decision for you.

    • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2013 at 5:33 pm |

      I long for the days when the most heated debates between contributors and readers (or reader vs reader) centered around which ’90s NBA uniform was the worst/best (looking at you Grizzlies) and not so politically charged.

      I hear ya.

      Ya know what *I* long for? When the uniforms weren’t so politically charged.

      See that’s the thing: Repeatedly wrapping oneself in the flag is an inherently political act; repeatedly celebrating the military to the near-exclusion of all other sectors of society is an inherently political act. When I critique these uniforms, I’m not injecting politics into the discussion. I’m just responding to the political gestures that OTHERS (teams, leagues, manufacturers) have injected.

      Believe me, there’s nothing I’d like more than to stop having these discussions. If only the teams, leagues, and manufacturers would stop using uniforms to push political messaging, I could stop responding to it.

    • Judy A | November 11, 2013 at 7:05 pm |

      Kyle, you are not the only one who feels that the comments have gotten more hostile. I’ve found it particularly the case when one falls on the “wrong” side of the Skins or flag-desecration debates.

      • Phil Hecken | November 11, 2013 at 7:46 pm |

        The “wrong” side?

        Didn’t know there was a correct side.

        Or do you mean they seem hostile when the side with which you agree doesn’t line up perfectly with the author? I seem to recall comments getting pretty heated over things besides ‘skins or patriotism.

        I will agree that those two things do happen to inspire strong debate, and both of those topics have been very much part of the uni news recently. And, not coincidentally, those happen to be two issues over which one’s political and social views may cloud how one views uniforms.

  • Patrick | November 11, 2013 at 5:47 pm |

    Small one about the RHCP drummer–it was a Flamengo jersey, a club team that plays in Brazil, not a Brazil (national team) jersey.

  • Nick | November 11, 2013 at 6:09 pm |

    So pro-military comments are now being deleted?

    • Paul Lukas | November 11, 2013 at 6:11 pm |

      Nope. Just abusive comments.

  • Jasmine | November 11, 2013 at 7:22 pm |

    A single red stripe down the sides of white pants for the Giants unis would be tops.

  • The Jeff | November 11, 2013 at 9:14 pm |

    I just noticed the dumbest thing… the Buccaneers logo on the helmet has a silver sword, but the sword is pewter on the field art.

  • Steve D | November 11, 2013 at 10:35 pm |

    Other aspects of the Mets’ camo uniform have been well debated. It appears to me that someone put number 14 on the unveiled jersey to signify the 2014 season…basically a marketing ploy. They have done so in years past. However, that number is retired for Gil Hodges and it bugs me that it is being used this way. Is it really going to sell less jerseys if they don’t use 14 for 2014 out of respect for team history?

  • Kyle | November 11, 2013 at 10:38 pm |

    Couldn’t agree with you more Paul. My biggest gripe with Pinktober, Flag-Desecration, etc. is the marketing disguised as charity. This is particularly disturbing when I get emails from NFL Shop to show my support for our Vets by buying a $85 Nike sweatshirt. I find it disgusting. But yet despite all this I can still view the designs in a vacuum. As much as I may not agree with the use of the flag as a marketing tool I can appreciate the creativity in the designs themselves (Mets not withstanding…lazy design). I think you do a good job of this as well. Unfortunately I do not think these type of promotions will end anytime soon given the popularity amongst casual fans. From a pure “Uni Nerd” perspective I both love it and hate it. I love seeing new ways textures and paints are being used to create uniforms (particularly in college football) that stretch the imagination. I hate it because the sheer number of these alternate designs has watered down the novelty of it all. I would look forward to seeing Dallas wear their Thanksgiving Alts each year because it was actually special. Now it seems there’s a new cause/holiday/event every week that requires a new uniform. But I guess kids always want something shiny and new.

  • mtjaws | November 11, 2013 at 11:09 pm |

    Been awhile since I’ve commented, or even read the site, but it’s always interesting place to visit.

    I was watching the Bengals vs Ravens yesterday, and noticed how everyone was wearing black pants and socks. I wish the Bengals would add an orange stripe or something to break it up. And I think the Ravens should wear purple socks instead. That would make it match the jerseys.

    But the one thing that bothered me the most was that every referee/official now wears the black pants during every game. Originally it was just supposed to be cold weather games only, but somehow it became the standard. I miss the old white knickers with striped socks. Those had style and tradition. I’m ok with the new stripe pattern, but the black pants must go.

    http://i.huffpost.co...

    • The Jeff | November 12, 2013 at 1:41 am |

      The sad thing is the Bengals *have* orange socks, they just never wear them with the black pants for some reason. They’ve worn them with the white pants a couple times this season.