Auction Action

Interesting thing about that San Diego Rockets jersey…the 3-D shading goes up and to the right, for all characters and numbers.

That would have been nice for your article the other day.

Nice article yesterday. I had to do a double take when I saw my Louisiana Tech Bulldogs represented in the image that was on the front of Page 2. Yeah, I have no idea WTF they were thinking when they went with the round nameplate…and I was under the impression that the shoulder stripes would have continued from pit to pit. I’m just glad they didn’t add a stripe the the helmet like it was hinted the new head coach was wanting.

I’ve noticed over the last few years that lighter shades of blue are being phased out for darker shades, and the new NFL logo is just another example.

Of course now that I actually need to cite some examples, I can’t think of any.

Am I first? If so, wow. Either way, love the article today. Two other great places for basketball research can be found link and link.

why would Havlicek’s jockstrap have a big safety pin attached? seems dangerous to say the least.

The new NFL logo is TERRIBLE and UNNECESSARY. The great thing about the old was its classic look and awesome lettering. The NFL needs to learn that it has the major things down pat and should only be tweaking with things like hi-def instant replay.

Anyone have photos of the new Sharks uniforms?

Why would you need to write “Bellamy” on the inside of a jersey that has his uniform number and his name on the back of the jersey?

[quote comment=”138908″]Great update by the NFL.

Sure, I’ll miss the old “L”… who won’t? But look at the improvements.
– Football replaced from hamburger to Lombardi Trophy ball. Way better.
– Meaningless 25 stars replaced with 8 to represent the divisions. Awesome.

Overall it’s a step in the right direction.

And the MLB will ever change their logo… ever.[/quote]

Is your “N” key not working, or am I missing a point you’re making?

[quote comment=”138906″]Wait. I thought of some.

link link

link link

link link[/quote]
No pictures, but I know the Mavs, Nets and Pacers to some degree have gone to a darker blue over the years. Lets not forget the Chargers, although thats been a while.

[quote comment=”138912″]You’re right, I meant the MLB will never change their logo.
I had written “I doubt the MLB will ever change their logo” but I decided to be more definitive.[/quote]
What makes you so sure that the Selig Braintrust wouldn’t do something like that?

[quote comment=”138906″]Wait. I thought of some.

link link

link link

link link[/quote]

link, link

[quote comment=”138914″]C’mon, how cool does link look?[/quote]
They have to use that. I knew that would look good.

and a happy Labor Day weekend to you too, Paul. Hope you find something to pick you up after that awful 4-game sweep by the Phillies (ugh!)

New NFL logo’s not bad, could’ve been worse I suppose.

[quote comment=”138913″][quote comment=”138912″]You’re right, I meant the MLB will never change their logo.
I had written “I doubt the MLB will ever change their logo” but I decided to be more definitive.[/quote]
What makes you so sure that the Selig Braintrust wouldn’t do something like that?[/quote]

Because that logo is baseball. It’s defined the back of baseball caps for many years now. It’s versatile in its colour scheme, and the batter can be a righty or lefty which appeals to everyone. It’s a great logo, and I don’t think it can or ever will be changed.

• Last but not least, if you’re dying to own John Havlicek’s jockstrap, here’s your chance.

hahahaha

I actually have Cal Ripken’s compression undies from 1999, so I guess it’s not that wierd.

[quote comment=”138915″][quote comment=”138906″]Wait. I thought of some.

link link

link link

link link[/quote]

link, link[/quote]
Good call. They’re probably the best example of what I’m getting at. They pretty much kept the same style, but just updated it from a regular blue to a darker, more stylish navy.

I’m really amused by those who think the new NFL logo is “terrible” or “horrible” or whatever. You might think it’s an unnecessary to change it, or that it’s not as good, but that doesn’t mean it’s terrible. I can’t see how somebody could love the old one and hate the new one, they aren’t that different.

[quote comment=”138921″][quote comment=”138913″][quote comment=”138912″]You’re right, I meant the MLB will never change their logo.
I had written “I doubt the MLB will ever change their logo” but I decided to be more definitive.[/quote]
What makes you so sure that the Selig Braintrust wouldn’t do something like that?[/quote]

Because that logo is baseball. It’s defined the back of baseball caps for many years now. It’s versatile in its colour scheme, and the batter can be a righty or lefty which appeals to everyone. It’s a great logo, and I don’t think it can or ever will be changed.[/quote]
What I’m saying is that if the NFL and NHL can change their logos for no particular reason, there’s nothing to prevent MLB from doing the same. The fact that it has been on the back of baseball caps for around 17 years really doesn’t make much of a difference as they can just have New Era slap a new logo on the back.

I’m not arguing for a new logo, mind you. I just don’t think one can say with certainty that it will never change.

My thoughts on the new NFL logo – It looks good, but, as mentioned before, the old one was so classic it’s hard to change. I like the bolder blue and the updated football, but I love the old font and the gagle of stars. The new version’s stars look like they were simply plaed there because they had to be. The old version they look like they might actualy represent something, say each team (not sure on the history behind it so if you do, please share) as they’re dissappearing behind the ball.

Again, I like it, but I like the old one too.

Watching last night’s Cubs game, Jason Kendall came to bat with his all white batting gloves. The Cubs TV announcers posed the question of is it OK for Kendall to wear the all white gloves after Monday. They went a step further questioning is the A’s are breaking any rules wearing their all white shoes too. My wife said the two needed to get a life and talk about baseball nto fashion, but she doesn’t get it.

[quote comment=”138933″]My thoughts on the new NFL logo – It looks good, but, as mentioned before, the old one was so classic it’s hard to change. I like the bolder blue and the updated football, but I love the old font and the gagle of stars. The new version’s stars look like they were simply plaed there because they had to be. The old version they look like they might actualy represent something, say each team (not sure on the history behind it so if you do, please share) as they’re dissappearing behind the ball.

Again, I like it, but I like the old one too.

Watching last night’s Cubs game, Jason Kendall came to bat with his all white batting gloves. The Cubs TV announcers posed the question of is it OK for Kendall to wear the all white gloves after Monday. They went a step further questioning is the A’s are breaking any rules wearing their all white shoes too. My wife said the two needed to get a life and talk about baseball nto fashion, but she doesn’t get it.[/quote]

The article Paul linked to says that there was no signifigance to the previous number of stars.

[quote comment=”138926″][quote comment=”138915″][quote comment=”138906″]Wait. I thought of some.

link link

link link

link link[/quote]

link, link[/quote]
Good call. They’re probably the best example of what I’m getting at. They pretty much kept the same style, but just updated it from a regular blue to a darker, more stylish navy.[/quote]

The Eagles jumped on this in the mid 90s, switching from link to what they call link. I don’t like that teams darken iconic colors to look a little meaner. Maybe that’s why link are so refreshing.

[quote comment=”138928″]I’m really amused by those who think the new NFL logo is “terrible” or “horrible” or whatever. You might think it’s an unnecessary to change it, or that it’s not as good, but that doesn’t mean it’s terrible. I can’t see how somebody could love the old one and hate the new one, they aren’t that different.[/quote]

Not that different, no. But one has character and the other is just sterile.

Imagine if the Red Wings cleaned up their logo…took some of the feathers out of the wing, fewer spokes on the tire, to make it more streamlined and modern. There would be rioting and fires! (Of course, that’s not really that uncommon in Detroit, huh?)

Just an un-necessary change.

Changing the subject a little, did anyone see the Santoro-Blake match from last night? link wore the best alligator polo I’ve ever seen. I thought Santoro was playing a character from Miami Vice.

[quote comment=”138933″]My thoughts on the new NFL logo – It looks good, but, as mentioned before, the old one was so classic it’s hard to change. I like the bolder blue and the updated football, but I love the old font and the gagle of stars. The new version’s stars look like they were simply plaed there because they had to be. The old version they look like they might actualy represent something, say each team (not sure on the history behind it so if you do, please share) as they’re dissappearing behind the ball.

Again, I like it, but I like the old one too.

Watching last night’s Cubs game, Jason Kendall came to bat with his all white batting gloves. The Cubs TV announcers posed the question of is it OK for Kendall to wear the all white gloves after Monday. They went a step further questioning is the A’s are breaking any rules wearing their all white shoes too. My wife said the two needed to get a life and talk about baseball nto fashion, but she doesn’t get it.[/quote]
Bob Brenly the color guy for the Cubs often talks about uni related issues (I’m the one who wrote Paul about him commenting on wearing a cup when he managed and coached). I believe Bob is somewhat obsessed with uniforms and he may be a uniwatch blog reader…..he fits the bill.

(Comment #47, continued)

…and of course, this is something I never would have noticed prior to the Aug. 24 entry. It amazes me how many subtle uni details I now notice which I never would have paid attention to before.

Regarding that pic of the O’s on the orange nightmares made by Brooks Robinson’s company: didja notice that ol’ Brooks himself was too smart to be pictured wearing those evil things?

my objection to the new NFL shield font is the F more so than the L.

The bottom curve of the F doesn’t match the curve of the shield like the old F did.

Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but has anyone posted a link to the LSU sailor cap logo? I was reading Paul’s comments on the new college jerseys and was reminded about that discussion.

[quote comment=”138965″][quote comment=”138914″]C’mon, how cool does link look?[/quote]

Honestly, I have mixed feelings. No doubt in my mind the logo meld seen above on it’s own merits is definitely a more “comfortable” and familiar look.

That said … Look at the old lettering, and JUST the old lettering (ignore the shield and other distractions). Do the curly letters REALLY scream football? Ballet, yeah. Ice Skating? Sure. But football? No way. I’ve always felt this way, but this may be the only time to mention it without being lynched by the Unimob.

Am I alone on this?[/quote]

My thoughts exactly.

[quote comment=”138970″]The new NFL logo font, I believe, is meant to fit in with some larger branding initiative, meaning it’s not designed to fit into the shield or be aesthetically airtight on its own. The font and design just look familiar to me, like it refreshed my mental picture of something I saw on the NFL Network. (Yes, I actually have the NFL Network.)

It’s days like today when I wish I was good with Photoshop — I’d design an updated MLB logo with the batting helmet shape “modernized” to include a crust of filth and pine tar, and a bunch of braids flowing out of the bottom of it.

And the new NBA logo, instead of the silhouette of Jerry West dribbling, would be Dwyane Wade shooting an off-balance leaner while crashing to the floor to try to draw a foul. (Or perhaps the silhouette of a referee with a whistle in his mouth…)[/quote]

And a wad of cash in his back pocket!

[quote comment=”138965″][quote comment=”138914″]C’mon, how cool does link look?[/quote]

Honestly, I have mixed feelings. No doubt in my mind the logo meld seen above on it’s own merits is definitely a more “comfortable” and familiar look.

That said … Look at the old lettering, and JUST the old lettering (ignore the shield and other distractions). Do the curly letters REALLY scream football? Ballet, yeah. Ice Skating? Sure. But football? No way. I’ve always felt this way, but this may be the only time to mention it without being lynched by the Unimob.

Am I alone on this?[/quote]

That’s precisely the reason I loved the old logo. It was the last thing that wasn’t “toughened up” by the NFL. I loved the fact that they were able to use such a distinct representation of their league. Just because football is thought of as a rough and tough manly sport doesn’t mean the shield has to be dumbed down so that people will know that the NFL is a rough and tough league.

It had an older more vintage feel to it. Now, it’s the same as everything else. It’s no different to me than any other logo that comes out these days. Instead of having character and individuality it has become the generic corporate marketing campaign of the 21st century.

[quote comment=”138914″]C’mon, how cool does link look?[/quote]
is there another source for the new NFL logo? cause I can’t seem to open the existing usatoday page, my work computer boots me out and I’m really interested in seeing this thing. Also espn has nothing on it.

[quote comment=”138974″]That’s precisely the reason I loved the old logo. It was the last thing that wasn’t “toughened up” by the NFL. I loved the fact that they were able to use such a distinct representation of their league. Just because football is thought of as a rough and tough manly sport doesn’t mean the shield has to be dumbed down so that people will know that the NFL is a rough and tough league.

It had an older more vintage feel to it. Now, it’s the same as everything else. It’s no different to me than any other logo that comes out these days. Instead of having character and individuality it has become the generic corporate marketing campaign of the 21st century.[/quote]

That is very well put. Couldn’t have said it better.

[quote comment=”138975″][quote comment=”138962″]On Wednesday, there was a lot of chatter in the comments about what font the Canucks were using for their numbers on the back. I believe someone chimed in and actually identified the font by name, but now I can’t find that comment. Anyone..?[/quote]

link

Canadian Olympic 2006 font?[/quote]

Nope, self, it’s Agency Bold. Not patient enough this morning with Firefox search.

link

While I don’t agree with change in the font, I must say the other improvements are just that. Some relevance in the stars instead of just ploppin’ 25 stars in there for no apparent reason. The new football is great. Having said all that, the new logo is not going to stop me from enjoying Sunday football.

Plus the “L” is top notch

New NFL logo: As mentioned above, what bothers me most is that the baseline of the letters don’t flow parallel with the border of the sheild, and the loss of the “curly-q’ is a loss of something unique. And although the new ‘NFL’ does say ‘football’ moreso than the old, the older one does say ‘heritage’ better.

Insofar as the stars are concerned, not only are there fewer stars, but they are larger as well, making scalability for print and other applications easier.

[quote comment=”138983″]RE: the change in the font of the NFL Logo. Does the phrase “putting a square peg into a round hole” apply here? It just looks like the straight lines of the new font are crammed into the curved lines of the shield.[/quote]

Brilliant

[quote comment=”138922″]With Seattle (and their BP jerseys) in town to play Blue Jays tonight, it got me wondering if Toronto has ever worn BP jerseys in a game before?

They had the same BP jersey for a decade in the 80’s, but I don’t recall ever seeing it in a game.

Was such a thing common/taboo in decades past?[/quote]

What do you mean by “decades past”? There were no such things as “BP jerseys” until fairly recently. I don’t remember when the concept started. I’d have said the 90s, but you say you remember the Jays having them in the 80s. I didn’t think it was team-by-team, either, rather an MLB-wide thing. Anyone know the history of the special BP jersey?

[quote comment=”138937″][quote comment=”138926″][quote comment=”138915″][quote comment=”138906″]Wait. I thought of some.

link link

link link

link link[/quote]

link, link[/quote]
Good call. They’re probably the best example of what I’m getting at. They pretty much kept the same style, but just updated it from a regular blue to a darker, more stylish navy.[/quote]

The Eagles jumped on this in the mid 90s, switching from link to what they call link. I don’t like that teams darken iconic colors to look a little meaner. Maybe that’s why link are so refreshing.[/quote]
I keep having to fight the urge to yell out the line form Slap Shot where they take a sledgehammer to the bus – “Makin’ it look mean!!”

[quote comment=”138989″][quote comment=”138922″]With Seattle (and their BP jerseys) in town to play Blue Jays tonight, it got me wondering if Toronto has ever worn BP jerseys in a game before?

They had the same BP jersey for a decade in the 80’s, but I don’t recall ever seeing it in a game.

Was such a thing common/taboo in decades past?[/quote]

What do you mean by “decades past”? There were no such things as “BP jerseys” until fairly recently. I don’t remember when the concept started. I’d have said the 90s, but you say you remember the Jays having them in the 80s. I didn’t think it was team-by-team, either, rather an MLB-wide thing. Anyone know the history of the special BP jersey?[/quote]
I think they’ve only been in service since the late 70’s-early 80’s. Even then, they’re rarely, rarely seen in games. The Orioles wore a hideous orange jersey (no orange pants this time) in the ’79 World Series (the mort retina-burning series of all time, bar none), but I think that was just an alternate. The Mets had their Blue jersey as a road alternate in ’83 and ’84. My only clear memory of those was Mike Torrez destroying Dickie Thon’s face.

[quote comment=”138992″][quote comment=”138962″]On Wednesday, there was a lot of chatter in the comments about what font the Canucks were using for their numbers on the back. I believe someone chimed in and actually identified the font by name, but now I can’t find that comment. Anyone..?[/quote]

Well – I think I know what this is about (good service to work so quickly on my request!). The font is not the Canadian Olympic Team font (which looks like a thin Arial) – According to the Canucks message board – the font they used is “link“[/quote]

And I see CJ beat me too it. I salute you.

As a side note – all good women UniWatchers – and the men who support them – should rise up against link…

[quote comment=”138925″]NFL changing it’s logo. Bullshit.

The new font is terrible. The old font was classic, very unique to the NFL. There was no other American professional league that had such a lavish font in their leagues logo. It seemed to make the logo flow. You didn’t look at it as a static logo because of that font.

Now when I look at it it’s just going to be this static image. One that has a very generic looking, clunky font. Taking away the finishing “swirl” on the L is really ruining the balance of the space inside the shield. Now it looks heavy on the left side with this big white space on the right where the extra “oompf” on the L came in handy.

The letters also just don’t seem big enough for the space they are sitting in. The serifs of the N and F used to flow nicely with the shape of the shield now they are just straight lines that really have no motion to them.

I don’t have a huge problem with the update in the football with the stars section. It just seems like a way to modernize it, which in this case doesn’t make all that much difference. Although, I really liked the fact that they had so many stars in the previous one and I always found something great about the fact that they had that one star at the top, in the middle point. It always stood out to me for some reason. So it’s not a huge downgrade like the wordmark, but it’s not helping it at all.

I always thought the NFL had the best logo of all the major sports (with the NBA a close second). I can’t think of one adjective to describe it’s classic feel. It had a lot of vintage charm. Now it seems like they are trying to toughen it up by taking away the fluidity.

Not that many fans will notice but this is something that will always bug me.

For me to get this upset about something football when the entire post was about basketball, which hardly ever gets time here but is by far my favorite, means the NFL must be screwing up.[/quote]

Agreed 110% on the font. It was perfect. Just perfect.

However, I do think the 8 stars and the new little football look much better. The old football which was slapped over a field of stars was awkward.

But, man, that old NFL font treatment was georgous and timeless.

[quote comment=”138970″]It’s days like today when I wish I was good with Photoshop — I’d design an updated MLB logo with the batting helmet shape “modernized” to include a crust of filth and pine tar, and a bunch of braids flowing out of the bottom of it.

And the new NBA logo, instead of the silhouette of Jerry West dribbling, would be Dwyane Wade shooting an off-balance leaner while crashing to the floor to try to draw a foul. (Or perhaps the silhouette of a referee with a whistle in his mouth…)[/quote]

That’s hilarious. Despite your lack of photoshop skills, you have painted the picture clearly.
[quote comment=”138989″][quote comment=”138922″]With Seattle (and their BP jerseys) in town to play Blue Jays tonight, it got me wondering if Toronto has ever worn BP jerseys in a game before?

They had the same BP jersey for a decade in the 80’s, but I don’t recall ever seeing it in a game.

Was such a thing common/taboo in decades past?[/quote]

What do you mean by “decades past”? There were no such things as “BP jerseys” until fairly recently. I don’t remember when the concept started. I’d have said the 90s, but you say you remember the Jays having them in the 80s. I didn’t think it was team-by-team, either, rather an MLB-wide thing. Anyone know the history of the special BP jersey?[/quote]

I don’t know about the ’70s, but in the 1980s a lot of teams began wearing BP jerseys. I own one that was worn by John Franco when he was with the Reds. He was such a smaller guy in those days; the jersey is tiny.

[quote comment=”138985″]Re: yesterday’s comment about Francona and the blood thinning medication he takes. The comment says he wears the MLB pullover for warmth.

Does anyone know what Francona did when he managed the Phillies from 1996-2000? I don’t remember the manager pullover being as popular then. Did he always wear a bullpen jacket maybe?[/quote]

Peter Gammons was on Mike and Mike this morning and the three of them lambasted whomever it was that went into the dugout to check on his jersey. They found it to be highly inappropriate.

[quote comment=”138971″][quote comment=”138970″]The new NFL logo font, I believe, is meant to fit in with some larger branding initiative, meaning it’s not designed to fit into the shield or be aesthetically airtight on its own. The font and design just look familiar to me, like it refreshed my mental picture of something I saw on the NFL Network. (Yes, I actually have the NFL Network.)

It’s days like today when I wish I was good with Photoshop — I’d design an updated MLB logo with the batting helmet shape “modernized” to include a crust of filth and pine tar, and a bunch of braids flowing out of the bottom of it.

And the new NBA logo, instead of the silhouette of Jerry West dribbling, would be Dwyane Wade shooting an off-balance leaner while crashing to the floor to try to draw a foul. (Or perhaps the silhouette of a referee with a whistle in his mouth…)[/quote]

And a wad of cash in his back pocket![/quote]

Something like this, perhaps? ^_^
link

Regarding Vancouver’s new duds, I don’t mind them but link.

[quote comment=”139009″]Regarding Vancouver’s new duds, I don’t mind them but link.[/quote]

So keep the crappy logo, but revert back to the ugly colors that never made any sense to begin with? Um, no.

[quote comment=”139013″][quote comment=”138989″]

What do you mean by “decades past”? There were no such things as “BP jerseys” until fairly recently. I don’t remember when the concept started. I’d have said the 90s, but you say you remember the Jays having them in the 80s. I didn’t think it was team-by-team, either, rather an MLB-wide thing. Anyone know the history of the special BP jersey?[/quote]

Actually it was team-by-team. They first appeared in 1979 worn by a couple of MLB teams, I forget which. This issue is dealt with in William F. Henderson’s CD-ROM.[/quote]

The White Sox had red ones in 1983 (or so). And I believe they had one in 1981 that accompanied their butterfly collar unis.

[quote comment=”139014″][quote comment=”139013″][quote comment=”138989″]

What do you mean by “decades past”? There were no such things as “BP jerseys” until fairly recently. I don’t remember when the concept started. I’d have said the 90s, but you say you remember the Jays having them in the 80s. I didn’t think it was team-by-team, either, rather an MLB-wide thing. Anyone know the history of the special BP jersey?[/quote]

Actually it was team-by-team. They first appeared in 1979 worn by a couple of MLB teams, I forget which. This issue is dealt with in William F. Henderson’s CD-ROM.[/quote]

The White Sox had red ones in 1983 (or so). And I believe they had one in 1981 that accompanied their butterfly collar unis.[/quote]

Scratch that… the CD actually documents a White Sox BP jersey from 1972!

I didn’t look at each team, but it apparently started at least 35 years ago.

Saints wore all black again last night against Miami. But at least the Dolphins look like they’ve decided to keep the aqua pants out of circulation.

[quote comment=”139021″]
I agree with you. I generally agree with the popular consensus on this site, but a lot of times it seems people only want to see uniforms or logos that are classic or resemble classic. If it changes, how dare it change to look a bit modern. While the old font was very identifiable, the new logo keeps what was identifiable and pleasant about the old logo, while modernizing it a bit for the current times. In my opinion a solid upgrade.[/quote]

I fully agree. People complain that the old one was “vintage” and “classic” and the new one isn’t. Well, the NFL doesn’t want to be “vintage” and “classic”, so of course they’re going to get rid of a logo that makes them look old-fashioned. Sometimes it seems like some people here never want anything to change, ever.

The Packers wore their home green jerseys yesterday in Tennessee. Did I miss the memo on something, or are the Titans one of those teams who wear white at home?

link

Another link number.

[quote comment=”139025″][quote comment=”139021″]
I agree with you. I generally agree with the popular consensus on this site, but a lot of times it seems people only want to see uniforms or logos that are classic or resemble classic. If it changes, how dare it change to look a bit modern. While the old font was very identifiable, the new logo keeps what was identifiable and pleasant about the old logo, while modernizing it a bit for the current times. In my opinion a solid upgrade.[/quote]

I fully agree. People complain that the old one was “vintage” and “classic” and the new one isn’t. Well, the NFL doesn’t want to be “vintage” and “classic”, so of course they’re going to get rid of a logo that makes them look old-fashioned. Sometimes it seems like some people here never want anything to change, ever.[/quote]

We’re all for crappy old things changing. But great “vintage” or “old” things…no. If it aint f*cking broke, leave it the h*ll alone!

Paul – You should have polls on your blog every once in a while. Today’s could have been about the NFL logo.
Maybe set it up so that you vote and have the option of explaining the reason for your vote.
This way, we can easily see how many like it, how many dislike it, and why.

On a related note, how come you don’t sell Uni Watch stickers?

OK, a little help. I just bought an authentic Eagles jersey. It is white ( link). My question is what color should I wear under it. I don’t support the use of black. I dislike the “midnight green” and it is hard to match (I want to say that the Eagles trademarked the color). If I wear white, the only option left, will it be too much white? Ahhh… The important problems one is faced with as summer turns to fall.

More on Terry Francona and the link

[quote comment=”139043″]OK, a little help. I just bought an authentic Eagles jersey. It is white ( link). My question is what color should I wear under it. I don’t support the use of black. I dislike the “midnight green” and it is hard to match (I want to say that the Eagles trademarked the color). If I wear white, the only option left, will it be too much white?

Ahhh…

The important problems one is faced with as summer turns to fall.[/quote]

Gray.

[quote comment=”139004″]Ok, I just posted this photo of Francona when he was with the Phils… and I looked again and can’t identify the hat he and Schilling are wearing:

link

Anyone? BP hat? Something else?

Its a Phillies hat with the P in blue and some stars next to it?[/quote]

Yes. The Phils dot their I’s with stars. So the two stars are the same as on the uniform. This is an older BP hat.

[quote comment=”139042″][quote comment=”139037″][quote comment=”139025″][quote comment=”139021″]
I agree with you. I generally agree with the popular consensus on this site, but a lot of times it seems people only want to see uniforms or logos that are classic or resemble classic. If it changes, how dare it change to look a bit modern. While the old font was very identifiable, the new logo keeps what was identifiable and pleasant about the old logo, while modernizing it a bit for the current times. In my opinion a solid upgrade.[/quote]

I fully agree. People complain that the old one was “vintage” and “classic” and the new one isn’t. Well, the NFL doesn’t want to be “vintage” and “classic”, so of course they’re going to get rid of a logo that makes them look old-fashioned. Sometimes it seems like some people here never want anything to change, ever.[/quote]

We’re all for crappy old things changing. But great “vintage” or “old” things…no. If it aint f*cking broke, leave it the h*ll alone![/quote]

So out of curiosity, what’s a “crappy old thing” that has changed for the better recently or needs to be changed for the better?[/quote]

I think that The Broncos changed for the better (especially the helmet) which is a WILDLY unpopular concept round these parts.

I think the Chargers update of their unis is great. They made the old-school happy by incorporating the white helmet and powder blue trim…but went with a very sharp, clean and modern look to the bolts. I like it.

I didn’t hate the Bills newer duds…I just hated the dark on dark combo that they decided to go with…

And I think the new Seahawks unis are VASTLY better than the Largent-era ones. Again…I just wish they’d wear the white pants with the dark jersey.

I don’t think the Falcons improved, nor the Cardinals, with their updates…and the Vikings just missed the mark so badly, they should have their own category of suckage.

I was flipping through a few of the college football games last night, and found some inconsistencies with nameplates. LSU’s jerseys had some nameplates that extended into the truncated shoulder stripes, and Oregon State had some that didn’t line up with the sports-bra thingie on the back.

I also noticed that there’s not much room between the shoulder stripes on LSU’s jerseys, and many names had to be switched to a compressed font (like Perilloux’s).

Two unrelated comments:

On last night’s game it appeared that Tulsa was using nameplates with rounded edges.

This weeks’s Sports Illustrated has a Corona ad with a football helmet that has lemon wedge pride stickers. I thought it was a clever ad for the NFL preview issue, even though the league doesn’t permit pride stickers.

I think there is a general consensus here that, regarding the new NFL logo:

1. The darker blue is good
2. The 8 stars are great
3. The new football is great
4. The new lettering is an egregious unecessary bow to recentism, and will ironically send the NFL brand backwards rather than forwards.

Anyone have contact information for the NFL (PR dept, perhaps)? There is still time to stop this. Let them know that fans do *NOT* think it is tougher, but stupider.

[quote comment=”138995″][quote comment=”138992″][quote comment=”138962″]On Wednesday, there was a lot of chatter in the comments about what font the Canucks were using for their numbers on the back. I believe someone chimed in and actually identified the font by name, but now I can’t find that comment. Anyone..?[/quote]

Well – I think I know what this is about (good service to work so quickly on my request!). The font is not the Canadian Olympic Team font (which looks like a thin Arial) – According to the Canucks message board – the font they used is “link“[/quote]

And I see CJ beat me too it. I salute you.[/quote]

I’m searched for the font using this engine:
link
which is correct 99.9% of the time, and it didnt ring
up anything close for the ‘Nucks font so I figured it
was especially made for them.

[quote comment=”139048″][quote comment=”139012″][quote comment=”139009″]Regarding Vancouver’s new duds, I don’t mind them but link.[/quote]

So keep the crappy logo, but revert back to the ugly colors that never made any sense to begin with? Um, no.[/quote]
hey buddy, it’s a mockup relax[/quote]

Understood that it’s a mock up. I don’t think anyone was under the impression that the Canucks would be changing their design 2 days after unveiling. I was just pointing out that the mock up itself would be a bad, bad idea. Although the work itself is very nicely rendered.

[quote comment=”139059″]I think there is a general consensus here that, regarding the new NFL logo:

1. The darker blue is good
2. The 8 stars are great
3. The new football is great
4. The new lettering is an egregious unecessary bow to recentism, and will ironically send the NFL brand backwards rather than forwards.

Anyone have contact information for the NFL (PR dept, perhaps)? There is still time to stop this. Let them know that fans do *NOT* think it is tougher, but stupider.[/quote]

I highly, highly, highly doubt that the NFL would care in the slightest that most people here (which is a very small sample size, and which in no way is representative of the general population) doesn’t like the new font. This is especially true because the REASON that you all like the old font so much is a large part of the reason they probably want to change it. No offense to anyone here, but the NFL doesn’t care if 30 and 40 and 50 year olds like the logo. I’m sure they’re going for young people, and as a semi-young 26 year old, I think the new font is much less old-fashioned looking, which is a positive thing.

[quote comment=”139004″]Ok, I just posted this photo of Francona when he was with the Phils… and I looked again and can’t identify the hat he and Schilling are wearing:

link

Anyone? BP hat? Something else?

Its a Phillies hat with the P in blue and some stars next to it?[/quote]

I’ve seen those hats before. They may have been a Sunday hat in the mid-90s. Variations of this design are still sold:
link

The Suns had link but not the back of the unis they wore from 1992-2000

I just want to clear up my problem with the NFL logo update.

My problem isn’t with the NFL’s intention with the redesign, which I fully understand. They are trying to bring themselves a more streamlined, modern design. That’s all fine and dandy. My problem with it is that it is VERY poorly designed. Well, what I should say is that the font choice or treatment of the individual letters is what bothers me, as a graphic designer.

First of all, as has been pointed out, they don’t fit in the shield. Whoever said square peg in a round hole is the winner of best way to describe the lettering.

Second of all, the letters are too static. The just seem to be, there. The old font used to invite you to read through the letters, the baseline moved in the same curving shape as the shield. The new letters seem to form a V shape on the bottom, not allowing the shape of the shield to affect the shape of the letters at all. Almost like they are completely separate from each other.

Third, the play between the F and L in the old logo was close to brilliant. It kind of looked like they might lock together at the top with the treatment of the serifs.

If they were to keep the same font but give the baseline a little more curve or at least match the angles of the diagonals a little more to the angles in the shield it might work a little better. As it is now, the baseline of the N and F kind of leads you out of the shield. The angle of the line doesn’t lead anywhere near the bottom point. it’s creating a larger gap between the blue line and the letters in different areas where the shield curves away from the letters. Same deal with the L.

Again, I don’t have any problem with where the NFL is going with this. I loved the old logo and would rather see it stick around because it’s give the NFL something unique to hang it’s hat on. I do think the top of the shield with the new football and 8 stars is an upgrade, even though I thought different before (it grew on me the more I looked at it).

I just wish they would get the “stupid” out of it before they unveil it for real. Fix the treatment of the letters.

I’m not enough of an artiste to illustrate what the Nucks shoulda done with their new jerseys, except to offer this as a hint to what I’m thinkin’.

LMAO

I’m not enough of an artiste to illustrate what the Nucks shoulda done with their new jerseys, except to offer link as a hint to what I’m thinkin’.

LMAO

Oh, and I found this link that mimics the St. Louis Blues diagonal-ish numbers.

This whole NFL shield update is a bad idea. In the USA Today article the NFL is saying that the new shield will, “pop better” on TV. Of course it will, the new shield is a cartoon. It looks like something off a Saturday morning kids show. Everyone already knows the NFL shield there is no reason to try to update it. When I look at the NFL shield on my Bears jersey, I don’t just see a marketing logo. I get images of Butkus and Sayers, Bart Starr and Paul Hornung, Tom Landry and Roger Staubauch. It connects the current players to a long proud and glorious tradition. Message to Roger Goodell please in the name of Vince Lombardi do not go through with this.

A good recap of all the linkthat have been made public thus far.

[quote comment=”139088″]This whole NFL shield update is a bad idea. In the USA Today article the NFL is saying that the new shield will, “pop better” on TV. Of course it will, the new shield is a cartoon. It looks like something off a Saturday morning kids show. Everyone already knows the NFL shield there is no reason to try to update it. When I look at the NFL shield on my Bears jersey, I don’t just see a marketing logo. I get images of Butkus and Sayers, Bart Starr and Paul Hornung, Tom Landry and Roger Staubauch. It connects the current players to a long proud and glorious tradition. Message to Roger Goodell please in the name of Vince Lombardi do not go through with this.[/quote]

The NFL changed to the current logo in either 1980 (according to the USA Today article) or 1970 (according to the sportslogos site). In either case, most of those people spent most of their careers under a DIFFERENT logo.

People just hate change. In a decade, people will feel attached to the new logo and think the old one looks horribly outdated.

[quote comment=”139100″]
They only removed some stripes and thickened the font a little in 70 or 80 whichever it is. The font was still basically the same as it is now. So they have had essentially the same font for 48 years.[/quote]

Are you really trying to say the difference between the 60s version and the current version is smaller than the difference between the current version and the 2008 version? I couldn’t disagree more. The stripes alone are, IMO, a much bigger and more noticable change than anything being changed this time.

[quote comment=”139025″][quote comment=”139021″]
I agree with you. I generally agree with the popular consensus on this site, but a lot of times it seems people only want to see uniforms or logos that are classic or resemble classic. If it changes, how dare it change to look a bit modern. While the old font was very identifiable, the new logo keeps what was identifiable and pleasant about the old logo, while modernizing it a bit for the current times. In my opinion a solid upgrade.[/quote]

I fully agree. People complain that the old one was “vintage” and “classic” and the new one isn’t. Well, the NFL doesn’t want to be “vintage” and “classic”, so of course they’re going to get rid of a logo that makes them look old-fashioned. Sometimes it seems like some people here never want anything to change, ever.[/quote]

I’ve been visiting this site everyday for nearly a year, and I have to agree with the sentiments expressed above. The consensus opinion here seems to be a knee jerk reaction to anything new or modern. Uniforms and logos seem to be judged based only on one criterion: how closely they match things from the early 20th century. Does it look exactly like things looked in the 1920s or 30s or 40s? Yes–then it’s amazing. No–then it’s hideous. That’s an awfully narrow-minded approach to design. Truth be told, there were just as many crappy designs back then as there are now. Just because it’s old doesn’t mean it’s good. And the ironic thing is that what people here consider “vintage” and “classy” their grandfathers considered “radical” and “innovative.” It’s all a matter of perspective.

[quote comment=”139064″][quote comment=”139059″]I think there is a general consensus here that, regarding the new NFL logo:

1. The darker blue is good
2. The 8 stars are great
3. The new football is great
4. The new lettering is an egregious unecessary bow to recentism, and will ironically send the NFL brand backwards rather than forwards.

Anyone have contact information for the NFL (PR dept, perhaps)? There is still time to stop this. Let them know that fans do *NOT* think it is tougher, but stupider.[/quote]

National Football League, Inc.
280 Park Ave.
New York, NY 10017

And I’m guessing address it ATTN: Public Relations or just straight to Commissioner Goodell[/quote]
I think the Commish has bigger things on his plate.

I think this jersey link Now that’s a wildleak.

[quote comment=”139111″]I think this jersey link Now that’s a wildleak.[/quote]

If that is real…oh man…daddy like

[quote comment=”139108″][quote comment=”139090″]A good recap of all the linkthat have been made public thus far.[/quote]

And RBK forced an ugly looking league on us. (minus Boston and Detroit) UUUUUUUUUgley[/quote]

to qualify this statement i must say that looking at them all at once on that page makes them all look ugly

[quote comment=”139108″][quote comment=”139090″]A good recap of all the linkthat have been made public thus far.[/quote]

And RBK forced an ugly looking league on us. (minus Boston and Detroit) UUUUUUUUUgley[/quote]
$250?!?! I got an authentic personalized CCM for $150. Ridiculous. At least we should know the Original 6 will remain the same. And I expect good things from my Blues

[quote comment=”139048″][quote comment=”139012″][quote comment=”139009″]Regarding Vancouver’s new duds, I don’t mind them but link.[/quote]

So keep the crappy logo, but revert back to the ugly colors that never made any sense to begin with? Um, no.[/quote]
hey buddy, it’s a mockup relax[/quote]
The people on this blog are often WAY to sensitive. Relax? For expressing an opinion with a little emphasis?

[quote comment=”139111″]I think this jersey link Now that’s a wildleak.[/quote]

THAT is very nice.

[quote comment=”139111″]I think this jersey link Now that’s a wildleak.[/quote]

if real, i like what i see, sad about the bottom stripe, which obviously disappeared due to the rbk cape draping off the back.

[quote comment=”139109″][quote comment=”139064″][quote comment=”139059″]I think there is a general consensus here that, regarding the new NFL logo:

1. The darker blue is good
2. The 8 stars are great
3. The new football is great
4. The new lettering is an egregious unecessary bow to recentism, and will ironically send the NFL brand backwards rather than forwards.

Anyone have contact information for the NFL (PR dept, perhaps)? There is still time to stop this. Let them know that fans do *NOT* think it is tougher, but stupider.[/quote]

National Football League, Inc.
280 Park Ave.
New York, NY 10017

And I’m guessing address it ATTN: Public Relations or just straight to Commissioner Goodell[/quote]
I think the Commish has bigger things on his plate.[/quote]
You know, I’ve been thinking. As soon as Michael Vick, Tank Johnson and Pacman Jones got into hot water they all cut their dreadlocks/braids. That being said, how long before the commish imposes a leaguewide personal grooming policy?

[quote comment=”139118″]I actually find link to be an improvement on both. If you tweaked it a little bit and sharpened it up: evened out the stars at the top, made the stripes thicker, more evenly spaced and a light shade of gray.

[/quote]

Are you trying to say that the NFL is full of a bunch of law-breakers. Because that would be the implication with the stripes in the shield (They look like cell bars”)

[quote comment=”139052″][quote comment=”139042″][quote comment=”139037″][quote comment=”139025″][quote comment=”139021″]
I agree with you. I generally agree with the popular consensus on this site, but a lot of times it seems people only want to see uniforms or logos that are classic or resemble classic. If it changes, how dare it change to look a bit modern. While the old font was very identifiable, the new logo keeps what was identifiable and pleasant about the old logo, while modernizing it a bit for the current times. In my opinion a solid upgrade.[/quote]

I fully agree. People complain that the old one was “vintage” and “classic” and the new one isn’t. Well, the NFL doesn’t want to be “vintage” and “classic”, so of course they’re going to get rid of a logo that makes them look old-fashioned. Sometimes it seems like some people here never want anything to change, ever.[/quote]

We’re all for crappy old things changing. But great “vintage” or “old” things…no. If it aint f*cking broke, leave it the h*ll alone![/quote]

So out of curiosity, what’s a “crappy old thing” that has changed for the better recently or needs to be changed for the better?[/quote]

I think that The Broncos changed for the better (especially the helmet) which is a WILDLY unpopular concept round these parts.

I think the Chargers update of their unis is great. They made the old-school happy by incorporating the white helmet and powder blue trim…but went with a very sharp, clean and modern look to the bolts. I like it.

I didn’t hate the Bills newer duds…I just hated the dark on dark combo that they decided to go with…

And I think the new Seahawks unis are VASTLY better than the Largent-era ones. Again…I just wish they’d wear the white pants with the dark jersey.

I don’t think the Falcons improved, nor the Cardinals, with their updates…and the Vikings just missed the mark so badly, they should have their own category of suckage.[/quote]

With your first 4 remarks, you lost ALL credibility. You can’t be serious about the Bills and Seahwaks looking better! Chargers and Broncos, I could see being open to debate, but still – a hands down regression.

[quote comment=”139140″][quote comment=”139118″]I actually find link to be an improvement on both. If you tweaked it a little bit and sharpened it up: evened out the stars at the top, made the stripes thicker, more evenly spaced and a light shade of gray.

[/quote]

Are you trying to say that the NFL is full of a bunch of law-breakers. Because that would be the implication with the stripes in the shield (They look like cell bars”)[/quote]

Wow, reading a bit too far into things aren’t we? Or maybe that’s just the way our brains are supposed to work now that the only NFL players you ever hear about are the ones causing trouble and that damn Peyton Manning.

Look at it this way, which is the first thing I thought of. All sorts of football traditionalists, cheesy sportscasters and even some fans refer to football as the gridiron. Therefore……………..

That’s the first thing I thought of.

[quote comment=”139143″]With the new NFL logo, I’ll take the bad with the good. I never did like the curly-L. However, maybe they should have found a more rounded font to match the curves of the shield. But, maybe it’s somehow cheaper to use the font they have now than the previous one. It’s always about the money, you know (which is why it was dropped to 8 stars as well.)[/quote]

You gotta be kidding me. They chose crappy design over spending an extra $200 on a new/better font. Plus the fact that the font they had is easily changed to curve with the shield in any vector graphic application. Adobe Illustrator, the former Macromedia Fireworks.

[quote comment=”139144″]
Wow, reading a bit too far into things aren’t we? Or maybe that’s just the way our brains are supposed to work now that the only NFL players you ever hear about are the ones causing trouble and that damn Peyton Manning.

Look at it this way, which is the first thing I thought of. All sorts of football traditionalists, cheesy sportscasters and even some fans refer to football as the gridiron. Therefore……………..

That’s the first thing I thought of.[/quote]

But, you have to look at the general audience. What have they seen and heard about in regards to the NFL recently? Michael Vick, PacMan Jones, Chris Henry, Tank Johnson, Lance Briggs, etc. It doesn’t take the average fan much “reading into” to look at that particular logo and the first thing you think of is cell bars.

[quote]The [quote comment=”139006″][quote comment=”138997″]In an unrelated story (and pardon me if this was mentioned yesterday), the biggest problem with the new style of Nike and Under Armour uniforms is that the futuristic piping and striping doesn’t match the traditional striping of the helmets. See link, link, link, South Carolina (new UAs) and now, sadly, my Tar Heels with their stupid new pants. If you don’t have the guts to change the helmet, don’t change the whole theme of the uniform.[/quote]

The Maryland unis that you show there are their old Nike duds. They have different unis now. There’s only so much you can do with a helmet (unless you run a big ugly frat-boy-tattoo spear down the middle of it).[/quote]
Maryland unis that you show there are their old Nike duds. They have different unis now. There’s only so much you can do with a helmet (unless you run a big ugly frat-boy-tattoo spear down the middle of it).[/quote]

Point is not whether the unis are Nike or Under Armour (both are 00s-era space-age models with lots of piping and whatnot), but that the helmet striping does not match the theme of the uni. Would have been very easy to take the stripes off altogether. If the helmet is too iconic to change, then the basic concept of the unis should probably stay too (which, in most cases, is the way to go). Oh, and link is another example. If you’re gonna wear a clown suit, go ahead and put on the wig.

P.S.
I like use of the adjective “frat-boy-tattoo” in front of the word spear.

One thing I just noticed about the new Rbk Edge jerseys — it’s easier to distinguish a replica from an authentic than it was before. Only the authentics have the “shirt tails” — in other words, they look worse than the replicas.

[quote comment=”139170″]One thing I just noticed about the new Rbk Edge jerseys — it’s easier to distinguish a replica from an authentic than it was before. Only the authentics have the “shirt tails” — in other words, they look worse than the replicas.[/quote]

not to mention the replicas have that terrible patch on the front, because the other 3 reebok logos arent enough.

Little late but link is some interesting commentary on the ‘Nuckleheads new jerseys.

Paul,
For what its worth one of my good friends is in tight with the guy that runs Grey Flannel.

And MS Auctions

Phil Hughes continues to wear the 06 wool hats. On an August night in NY there is only one question-WHY?

UW – Cuse game is HIDEOUS. The syracuse unis are burning my retinas, not to mention that their helmet logo is obnoxiously big.

As someone who spent many an evening and afternoon in Louisville watching the Colonels as a teenager in the 70’s, it was sweet but also sad to go to that auction site and see Gene Rhodes’ championship ring up for sale…

Regarding the font on the Colonels jersey, all I can say is that it was cutting edge in 1972…

Washington looks good. There is nothing wrong with purple in a uniform.

never noticed the NY on the back of the ‘cuse helmet before…anyone have the story there?

[quote comment=”139254″]never noticed the NY on the back of the ‘cuse helmet before…anyone have the story there?[/quote]

It’s in the notes from yesterday, I think. If not, check the Uni Watch article from Page 2 on espn.com.

The Syracuse jerseys are a hate crime perpetrated upon the eyeballs of decent people.

Watching the Navy-Temple game reminded me how much I love Navy’s unis. Simple, clean and classic.

BRING BACK THE ORANGE JERSEYS AND PANTS (not at same time though)!

I just now got home and turned on ESPN. I’m so ashamed to be from the ‘Cuse right now.

ALSO HERE: link

[quote comment=”139280″]I’m a Gators fan, in case you haven’t figured that out yet.

Championships
B-Ball:
2(06,07)
Football:
2(96,07)

2006-2007: The Year of the Gators![/quote]

well, it’s over.

New sharks?

Follow this link

home
link

away
link

[quote comment=”139304″]Everyone is complaining about the orange Syracuse wore. It seems you all dislike orange more than purple…[/quote]

Not that I dislike Orange.. I actually like it but for the longest time they had a simplicity that matched PSU and Bama(at least in my book). Now it just seem like an abomination to say the least. Still Not as bad as Nike U though

I don’t know if its been stated, but you said that it seemed erroneous detail that they put a uni number on the tag. But it seems to make sense since Brooks Robinson’s uni number was #5. Maybe you meant it was erroneous for some other reason. But it makes sense to me.

“Actually, there’s no Ticker today, because I was on the road all day yesterday, didn’t get home until 2 a.m., and was too pooped to deal with the 100+ e-mails that had piled up.”
Yoda says, excuses make you not.

[quote comment=”139226″]UW – Cuse game is HIDEOUS. The syracuse unis are burning my retinas, not to mention that their helmet logo is obnoxiously big.[/quote]

My idea for SU is that they switch to kakhi colored pants to fully embrace the “creamsicle” look.

I love this site and this is the first time I have posted. Reading all of the SU comments i felt i needed to comment. I am from Syracuse and I could not agree with you guys more about the Orange uniforms. Ever since we got our new athletic director from USC he has done his best to ruin our uniforms. The classic navy blue uniforms with the orange pants and helmet were just classic! He was slowly been trying to transform the Orangemen into the Trojans for the last few years. I wish he would leave so we could just go back to the old unis.

[quote comment=”139442″][quote comment=”139408″][quote comment=”139273″]Ok, my eyes have recovered.
The only team in college football that should be able to wear orange jerseys and helmets is the Florida Gators.
link[/quote]

University of Tennessee fans might disagree…[/quote]
Probably too late for anyone to read this but, um, Tennessee wears white helmets dude.[/quote]

Nah, I read it…dude.

I misread the intent of the statement I quoted- he meant solid orange helmets together with orange jerseys. My bad.

Regarding the “weird ass font” used by the Colonels, I don’t know the specific name of the typeface (it may be custom), but it is in the Bauhaus style.